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
|
CMV: Infanticide is not worse than abolition
|
{'id': 'lt5cvo1', 'text': "Because, with the current stats in the western world, for every 100 000 rolls of the dice, it lands 99 985 times on 'okay or better' and 15 times on 'absolutely miserable' (judging by teen suicide rate because that's the decision of 'nah, this life isn't worth living').\n\nThose are pretty great odds.\n\nIt's very much this, as in, if your brain wasn't broken, you would find it intuitive that an infant is a person, just like pretty much everyone who doesn't have mental issues does (I mean this as an objective statement, not as an attack).", 'author': 'Eastern-Bro9173', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729591050}
|
{'id': 'lt569ql', 'text': 'Well how about this for a wrench in the works: what if I don’t think you have a sense of self or a consciousness? \n\nI think that everyone else has a consciousness, but not you. I think you act like a person, but have no will behind it. I think you are a “philosophical zombie.” How could you possibly prove me wrong? And if you can’t prove it, what chance does an infant have to assert that it also has a sense of self and a consciousness?', 'author': 'Destroyer_2_2', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729586498}
|
1g9d41w
|
CMV: Infanticide is not worse than abolition
|
This isn't an anti-abortion post. I do not really care whether it is or is not legal, I just want someone to explain to me because as is I feel everyone is being a hypocrite and have no idea why.
It is a common refrain amongst people who are pro-choice to use increased infanticide statistics against pro-life people, because this implies there are any morally meaningful difference between these two things. I genuinely do not understand why, if abortion is ok, most people are bothered by infanticide. Over course there's always going to be overdramatic Christians who hate abortion. But then, the average opinion in society seems to be that abortion is fine but infanticide is not, somehow, when all the reasons that make abortion not murder also apply to an infant.
Reasons for abortion include the baby being born with a disability - that does not stop being an issue once the thing is out of the mother.
It can't think for itself - that does not magically start the moment it is out of the mother, it is a slow process, an infant is not capable of complex thought that puts it above an animal or a thing.
It can't meaningfully communicate - also applies to infants.
It has no sense of self or being - also applies to infants
It can't fend or survive for itself - also applies to infants.
It is a parasite - an infant, while physiologically out of its mother, is a social parasite requiring other's resources and food, as much as a fetus is a physical parasite on the mother.
The mother doesn't want it, it's her choice - why can't she choose to get rid of it once it's out of her?
There's also the "once it can survive outside the womb thing", which makes no sense as a dividing line because medical sciences are rapidly advancing to the point where the date of survivability with outside care gets pushed further and further back. At the point when artificial wombs are a thing every fetus is the same as a abortion at the point of survivability, because from that point they will all be survivable.
There is of course the bodily autonomy thing, which is another convincing reason to be pro-abortion, but if that is the only reason it would still be equivalent to killing a person even if justified. The idea that abortion is equivalent to killing a person even if justified is one I do not accept and nor do most abortion supporters. Hence infanticide is fine.
Apologies if I expressed myself unclearly, I am not a natural debater.
| 1,729,585,012
|
hydrochlorodyne
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: "I can't pause it because it's multiplayer" isn't really a valid excuse.
|
{'id': 'lqpq2t8', 'text': 'I usually play full duos so my teammate would lose out. And no it’s not a huge deal in solos but unless it’s an urgent matter why would you leave?', 'author': 'East-Teacher7155', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1728266009}
|
{'id': 'lqpminb', 'text': "The table and stuff will also be there when I'm done with the match. It's rude to expect people to drop what they're doing in order to assist you in whatever.", 'author': 'tayroarsmash', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728264591}
|
1fxw2ob
|
CMV: "I can't pause it because it's multiplayer" isn't really a valid excuse.
|
I feel like we've all heard the story of a kid sobbing when being called for dinner because a mother doesn't understand that you can't pause a live game session. But imo? I've never really understood why it's such a big deal to turn off a multi-player session if something comes up. Especially for adults, I don't think it's responsible to hold up what you, or what people around you, need to do, because you might face what's usually a pretty minor penalty. Help your partner bring the groceries in, set the table for your parents, the game will still be there when you get back. Obviously this shouldn't be everytime but I feel like most gamers don't even consider it an option.
CMV?
| 1,728,263,927
|
Komosho
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Progressives being anti-electoral single issue voters because of Gaza are damaging their own interests.
|
{'id': 'lt465cl', 'text': "I agree with your first point- that is another flaw with this argument. However as long as there are some Palestinians left alive, and as long as they're still living under Israeli occupation, there's still someone that needs helping. Not to mention that the genocide in Palestine is far from the only atrocity that the US has lent its support to. As destructive as Trump may be, I don't think he would authorise a total holocaust of the Palestinian people, so there will be people left to help regardless.", 'author': 'ifitdoesntmatter', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1729565945}
|
{'id': 'lt44a3s', 'text': 'I want you to [read this new article covering IDF soldiers describing what theyve seen](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/middleeast/gaza-war-israeli-soldiers-ptsd-suicide-intl/index.html) and truly understand that there is not a single thing you can say to a \xa0progressive that would ever change their beliefs over the biden administration.\n\nYou may have written the situation off already as "too far away" / "not relevant," using coping words like "complex" to change the subject. Or these men, women, and children slaughtered have already been dehumanized in your mind; It doesnt matter, but what does matter is that kamala has truly lost the support of real progressives over her unfettered support of this massacre \xa0 and "50K down payment" on a house they cant get a morgage for anyways isnt cutting it anymore.', 'author': 'RakeLeafer', 'score': -4, 'timestamp': 1729565205}
|
1g97dnv
|
CMV: Progressives being anti-electoral single issue voters because of Gaza are damaging their own interests.
|
I'm not going to put my own politics into this post and just try to explain why I think so.
There is the tired point that everyone brings up of a democrat non-vote or third-party vote is a vote for Trump because it's a 2 party system, but Progressives say that politicians should be someone who represent our interests and if they don't, we just don't vote for the candidate, which is not a bad point in a vacuum.
For the anti-electoralists that I've seen, both Kamala and Trump are the same in terms of foreign policy and hence they don't want to vote in any of them.
What I think is that Kamala bringing in Walz was a big nod to the progressive side that their admin is willing to go for progressive domestic policies at the least, and the messaging getting more moderate towards the end of the cycle is just to appeal to fringe swing voters and is not an indication of the overall direction the admin will go.
Regardless, every left anti-electoralist also sees Trump as being worse for domestic policy from a progressive standpoint and a 'threat to democracy'.
Now,
1) I get that they think foreign policy wise they think both are the same, but realistically, one of the two wins, and pushing for both progressive domestic AND foreign policy is going to be easier with Kamala-Walz (emphasis more on Walz) in office than with Trump-Vance in office
2) There are 2 supreme court seats possibly up for grabs in the next 4 years which is incredibly important as well, so it matters who is in office
3) In case Kamala wins even if they don't vote, Because the non and third party progressive voters are so vocal about their distaste for Kamala and not voting for her, she'll see less reason to cater to and implement Progressive policies
4) In case Kamala wins and they vocally vote Kamala, while still expressing the problems with Gaza, the Kamala admin will at the least see that progressive voters helped her win and there can be a stronger push with protests and grassroots movements in the next 4 years
5) In case Trump wins, he will most likely not listen to any progressive policy push in the next 4 years.
It's clear that out of the three outcomes 3,4,5 that 4 would be the most likely to be helpful to the progressive policy cause
Hence, I don't understand the left democrat voter base that thinks not voting or voting third party is the way to go here, especially since voting federally doesn't take much effort and down ballot voting and grassroots movements are more effective regardless.
I want to hear why people still insist on not voting Kamala, especially in swing states, because the reasons I've heard so far don't seem very convincing to me. I'm happy to change my mind though.
| 1,729,563,135
|
kdestroyer1
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: furries are not usually nice people, at least, not unless you ask them if they’re nice people.
|
{'id': 'lt913ai', 'text': 'Okay! Glad to hear it. If I have changed your mind, type ! delta but without the space with a brief description of how I changed your view.', 'author': 'Ender_Octanus', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729637049}
|
{'id': 'lt8tejw', 'text': 'My point is either way can’t really be proven as “not usually” because unless you’ve met the majority of furries, it can’t be proven. Your view is an incorrect fact', 'author': 'ArtisticRiskNew1212', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729634392}
|
1g9toh8
|
CMV: furries are not usually nice people, at least, not unless you ask them if they’re nice people.
|
I know, it may sound rude and edgy, but in 90% of my encounters with them, they have either been annoying, demeaning, stuck-up, rude, or mentally draining to talk to. I have had some positive experiences recently, but only because I told them that I only ever had bad experiences. I feel like they should be nice either way, especially with how many people say that the furry community is one of the kindest and most accepting communities on the internet (this is false btw, as I have gotten permanently banned from their major subreddit for making a post asking what's up, and nothing else). I don't want to hate anyone, and I have been trying to change my opinions on them by attempting to have better experiences, however, it hasn't been going too well.
| 1,729,632,652
|
Creative-Finger5965
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: there is no reason to RTO unless your job can only be accomplished from your place of work
|
{'id': 'lt2bh2h', 'text': "Yes. Junior engineers have progressed much more quickly from home. \n\nThey've also been much more transparent when they don't understand something. I think in office there was a fear most/all had of asking a stupid question and people seeing them being stupid that's lessened when it's a direct chat on teams.\n\nFinally, it just seems easier for them. Think about your note or ignoring them: on teams they ping and then if no response schedule a meeting or ping the broader team chat; in person, they have to physically go interrupt someone that they can see is busy. If you have any social anxiety, that is extremely stressful and even if you don't, takes much more effort than a ping on teams.", 'author': 'hammertime84', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1729542538}
|
{'id': 'lt28y1j', 'text': 'There are jobs that cannot be done from home at the same level of service. I am an architect and spend a good bit of time dealing with various local jurisdictions for building permits. Pre-covid, you could walk into a the permit office to ask a question, check on a status, or argue with a plan reviewer if you don’t agree with their interpretation or the code. Post covid all you get is voice mail. When you do go into the permit office, the person you are looking for is never available. No one answers the phone. You get email responses at 1:30am, so you know they were not working during the day.\n\nThe reason for standard business hours is because it makes it much easier to conduct business. Outside of the IT bubble, WFH makes zero sense.', 'author': 'savesmorethanrapes', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729541776}
|
1g8yugw
|
CMV: there is no reason to RTO unless your job can only be accomplished from your place of work
|
As we are approaching 5 years since the Pandemic happened more and more businesses are requiring their work from home employees to return to the office. As of now many businesses are hybrid and require some mix of in office and wfh time. However there has been a big push for employees to return to the office for more time than what is currently required or for full time into the office.
I don't see any obvious benefits to force employees who don't have a required reason to be back in the office to have to go to the office.
I have several reasons why I think working from home is superior compared to working in the office.
1. You give employees several hours of their day back. When I have to go into the office I have to spend at least an hour to hour and a half driving to work which is unpaid; I know many people have worse commutes than I do so I can't complain to much. However days where I work from home I can sleep in later and make myself breakfast and coffee and still have plenty of time before my day starts. Going into the office I have to get up and get on the road asap to make it to work on time.
2. It reduces carbon emissions. Working from home means you don't have to drive to work which means less green house gases polluting the planet.
3. It allows for less distractions for employees. Often I see this touted as "collaboration" but when you want to focus and work its a lot easier to do so when you don't have to sit in a loud office with a 100 other people talking at once.
Anyways please try and cmv.
| 1,729,539,969
|
blaze92x45
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The US National Debt “crisis” is a religiously motivated moral panic.
|
{'id': 'lt8dsju', 'text': '>I’m talking about the fundamental source of the attitude\n\nSo am I. We know that your hypothesis that there\'s a religious fundamental desire to pay down the debt because no political party acts in furtherance of such goal. We can see other religious fundamental desires being operationalized by political parties, for instance, abortion. There\'s no religious group doing the same activities against the Fed they do against abortion clinics.\n\n>A lot of the moral panic is based on foreign debt holders\n\nThere isn\'t any moral panic. \n\n>Do I, like, give you a delta even though I already basically agreed with you?\n\nI believe deltas are proper when your view is changed. To sum your CMV post: You say there\'s a "moral panic" that\'s religious in nature because you think people can "call in the debt."\n\nI believe deltas are proper even if part of your view has to change. I think OPs should award deltas instead of change the goal posts. And it\'s why you\'re required to give your reasoning.\n\nIf I changed your view that a security is redeemable by its very terms rather than being subject to being "called in" then that alone is ground your view has shifted upon. \n\nIf I changed your view that nobody is acting as if a religious moral imperative exists - judged by their behaviors, both in the context of debt, but also in contrast to times/places they do operationalize their religious views in public policy.', 'author': 'HazyAttorney', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729629531}
|
{'id': 'lt8d3fd', 'text': "I am an atheist, so my concerns are wholly unrelated to religion. \n\nThe reality is that debt comes with a cost. While small amounts of debt are manageable, there obviously is a level where it becomes a concern, and when interest payments surpass DoD spending, that's certainly a level where one should start to worry. \n\nThe Congressional Budget Office projects that interest on the national debt will rise rapidly from the current $.9 trillion/year level to reach more than $1.7 trillion/year within the decade. \n\nCalling in the debt is irrelevant. The reality is that we are running such a large deficit that we need access to ever-larger amounts of debt to maintain spending. Demand is not unlimited at any price level. Demand \\*can\\* be stimulated by raising rates, but that very obviously feeds the interest problem. \n\nAt some point, there will simply be no more demand to buy additional debt. At that point, we either inflate the dollar or default, as we will be long past the point of paying it off by reducing spending. \n\nWe are not yet there. We can still solve the problem at present by reducing spending. However, all of our top spending categories are social spending priorities such as SS, medicare, medicaid, etc with the lone exception of the military. Even axing 100% of military spending would no longer be enough, so there is no longer a long term path to financial stability without cutting social spending.", 'author': 'TheAzureMage', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729629318}
|
1g9rxvc
|
CMV: The US National Debt “crisis” is a religiously motivated moral panic.
|
Abrahamic religions are traditionally weird about banking and interest. Although debt hawks have a track record of using the national debt to try to prevent social spending, their real motivation is fear of literal divine retribution, and their ultimate goal is to eliminate the national debt regardless of the consequences, and if that impoverishes the country beyond hope of repair, well, too bad, we deserved it.
The truth is that as long as we pay the interest on our T-bills, no one is calling in that debt, like, ever. T-bills are guaranteed income around the world and calling in the debt would be medium-term suicidal to the debt holders.
| 1,729,628,240
|
tkrr
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: We need to start embracing being single as a valid life choice and support it as such, same as we support any other life choices.
|
{'id': 'lsjb091', 'text': "> Like I said,\xa0[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Singles/)\xa0is just a thirst sub rather than a place for singles to go and talk to each other. \n\nSo your whole view is based on the purpose of a particular subreddit? On this one, single website? Why should that serve as a barometer for your view? Why shouldn't single people who don't want to be single *also* be able to organize in a community? How is that happening at your expense? \n\n> Where's the sub where people go if they're single and want to talk to other singles about what it is like to be single,\xa0*without it being about their desire to not be single anymore?*\n\nIt's right here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SingleAndHappy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SingleAndHappy/)\n\nDoes that earn a delta? Or are you going to say that it's smaller, therefore there still isn't support?", 'author': 'GotAJeepNeedAJeep', 'score': 35, 'timestamp': 1729263475}
|
{'id': 'lsjaavx', 'text': "Umbrella what? I don't think people who choose to be single have any disdain or lack of support.\n\nIt's people who desperately want a relationship but can't get one that society shuns. Granted sometimes people mistake the former for the latter but I don't think it's all the common.\n\nAt the end of the day the vast majority of ppl don't choose to be single most just give up and that's a very different thing and I don't think gaslighting those ppl into thinking they made a choice is beneficial for anyone", 'author': 'FlyingFightingType', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1729263250}
|
1g6jkrp
|
CMV: We need to start embracing being single as a valid life choice and support it as such, same as we support any other life choices.
|
Speaking as someone who has been single for the vast majority of my life and whose interest in relationships seems to be dwindling over time, I can personally attest to the fact that society does NOT respect this as a "choice", much less a "valid" one. Sometimes this is generally viewed as a consequence of some unfortunate circumstance, like this person is just "unlucky", maybe. Sometimes it's because of something far more judgmental that assumes the person is just undesirable in some way or does things that turn people off. But, either way, the implication is clear: they think something has "gone wrong" here. Being single is generally viewed as this transient state, and it is often talked about in such a way also, when people say stuff like "well hey it's a great time for you to work on yourself", with the clear implication that they still expect you to eventually finish that job of "working on yourself" so you can return to the real task of finding yourself a life partner. But what if, dare I say, a person simply doesn't want to find that "life partner"?
Let me show you some statistics, for starters, as I don't think people understand just how common it is to be single these days. According to [a Pew Research Center survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/) conducted in 2022, 3 in 10 Americans are not romantically affiliated with anyone. As in, not simply unmarried, but not even in a committed romantic relationship (I bring this up because some who are "single" for tax purposes are still dating or living with someone. But in this case, I mean it when I say 30% of Americans are not in any romantic relationship at all). And among those 3 in 10 Americans who are single, 57% of them are not looking to change that, not even for a casual fling. 57% of 30%, that is effectively 17% of Americans who are not only single, they are actively CHOOSING to be single. 1 out of 6 Americans is currently choosing this lifestyle for themselves and has zero interest in changing that. That's probably a lot more than you thought, right?! Surely everyone who is single is just pathetically clutching a pillow at night, pretending it's their BAE and wishing they could have all the wonderful things that those married couples have (el oh freaking el), right?
With so many people actively choosing this lifestyle, why isn't there more support of it? And make no mistake: there IS no support for that lifestyle. Go check out r/Singles. Did you find a place where singles go to talk about what it's like to be single, what sorts of great things they got to do today as a result of their relationship status, or just seek out other single friends for the purpose of friendship and camaraderie? Nope. You found people posting their thirstiest pics possible, all in an attempt to put an END to this "phase" of their life. Not one person who posted there appears to have any interest in remaining single. And it's not because that person doesn't exist! But it IS because that person does not really have a place to go and find other single friends to just talk about and support each other with their life decision.
It's not that they don't have options to find *friends*, period. Of *course* they can join, say, a running club, a book club, a bowling league, a this, a that, blah blah blah. But if this is a choice that people make, and they live their lives this way, and they craft a life around that choice, why such reluctance and resistance to creating a space for them? Why do I still feel like a group like that would either be shamed or infiltrated by people who wanted to hook up with those people and put an end to their singledom? If we have subs like r/Marriage, or r/marriageadvice, which seemingly exist for married people to talk to other married people about being married and support each other with whatever comes of that life decision, why wouldn't we be able to have the same thing for singles?
I'll tell you why: it's because we have yet to collectively embrace being single as a valid life decision, much like marriage is. And it's time we change that, if you ask me.
CMV.
| 1,729,262,226
|
Nillavuh
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-18
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: the Charlottesville "very fine people" quote/controversy was not fake news
|
{'id': 'lsfizuj', 'text': 'He accelerated for a block before driving into them. You can look it up because he was convicted of murder and committing a hate crime.', 'author': 'YetAnotherZombie', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1729201290}
|
{'id': 'lsfi94v', 'text': 'Why do you think that telling a bunch of neo-Nazis they are good people is going to get them to stay home? Those things seem unrelated.', 'author': 'yyzjertl', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729201037}
|
1g61cwb
|
cmv: the Charlottesville "very fine people" quote/controversy was not fake news
|
I see Trump supporters bring this up all the time as an example of the media lying about Trump, but this argument sounds transparently absurd to me. It feels like a "magic words" argument, where his supporters think that as long as he says the right magic words, you can completely ignore the actual message he's communicating or the broader actions he's taking. This is similar to how so many of them dismiss the entire Jan 6 plot because he said the word "peaceful" one time.
The reason people were mad about that quote was that Trump was equivocating and whitewashing a _literal neonazi rally_ in which people were carrying torches and shouting things like "gas the Jews" in order to make them seem relatively sane compared to the counter protesters, one of whom the neonazis actually murdered. Looking at that situation, the difference between these two statements doesn't really feel meaningful:
A) "Those neonazis were very fine people with legitimate complaints and counter protesters were nasty and deserved what they got".
B) "The Nazis were obviously bad, but there were also people there who were very fine people with legitimate complaints and the counter protesters were very nasty."
The only difference there is that (B) has the magic words that "Nazis are bad", but the problem is that he's still describing _a literal Nazi rally_, only now he's using the oldest trick in the book when it comes to defending Nazis: pretending they're not really Nazis and are actually just normal people with reasonable beliefs.
I feel like people would all intuitively understand this if we were talking about anything besides a Trump quote. If I looked at e.g. the gangs taking over apartment buildings in Aurora and said "yes obviously gangsters are bad and should be totally condemned, but there were also some very fine people there with some legitimate complaints about landlords and exploitative leases, and you know lots of those 'residents' actually didn't have the right paperwork to be in those apartments..." you would never say that's a reasonable or acceptable way to talk about that situation just because I started with "gangsters are bad". You'd listen to the totality of what I'm saying and rightfully say it's absurd and offensive.
Is there something I'm missing here? This seems very obvious to me but maybe there's some other context to it.
| 1,729,198,954
|
taintpaint
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un might be one of Earth's greatest heroes
|
{'id': 'lta4k22', 'text': "Then he caused the issue in the first place. \n\nHe's gonna die someday, if he has intentions to convert them over to the modern world, he really should start now.", 'author': 'Various_Succotash_79', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1729650970}
|
{'id': 'lta45ry', 'text': '>ridiculously unfit populist leader like the North Korean Donald Trump \n\nSo, real quick, how many nukes did Donald Trump launch?', 'author': 'revengeappendage', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729650843}
|
1g9zwy8
|
CMV: The Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un might be one of Earth's greatest heroes
|
It's all because North Korea is an insane country with a nuclear arsenal.
He might be one of Earth's greatest heroes because he's preventing nuclear war by keeping the dystopian society of North Korea under an iron fist that prevents anyone crazier than him from entering a position of power and starting a nuclear war.
The human rights abuses in North Korea are terrible. But what would happen if they were lifted and, with new access to freedom of thought, North Korea went down a slippery slope which lead to nuclear weapons truly being launched on the attack? What if North Koreans used their freedom to elect an ridiculously unfit populist leader, like the North Korean version of Donald Trump, and he started a nuclear war because he's a crazy idiot?
North Korea is a country where even many upper class elites have limited access to the outside world and are brainwashed into believing many bizarre lies about the world. What if rocking the boat just a little bit, giving people a little bit more food to eat or a little bit more education to learn from, is the first step to a change in political dynamics which results in some brainwashed crazy person stepping into power and launching nukes because his brain is half-broken due to all the weird brainwashing and censorship?
So maybe Kim Jong Un is actually protecting the entire Earth from nuclear war by maintaining an iron grip on North Korea. He's knows the situation in North Korea is terrible, but he needs to keep it under control to prevent some crazy brainwashed underling from taking control and launching nukes.
If I was the Supreme Leader of North Korea, I have no idea how I would maintain political stability while transitioning to a humane society.
I know this view is offensive so I hope you can change it.
| 1,729,650,509
|
TalkingOcelot
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: All day-traders and retail traders are gamblers deluding themselves - 100% of their results are based purely on random luck, and there is little to no skill expression at the retail level
|
{'id': 'lt2uzmj', 'text': '>i\'m not saying it\'s impossible for you, or some other SME to be right once, twice, or even consistently about an industry that you may understand to an extreme degree. but for you to be able to turn that subject matter expertise into\xa0**long-term, repeatable market-beating**\xa0success you would need the assets and VAR of an institution to consistently carry your theses through to their catalysts and price correction.\n\nI\'ll take my delta, then? Because this doesn\'t agree with your title:\n\n"CMV: All day-traders and retail traders are gamblers deluding themselves - 100% of their results are based purely on random luck, and there is little to no skill expression at the retail level"\n\nIf you agree that I can *consistently be right about an industry* then you agree I\'m not gambling, and that any results I gain are not based on luck. The only \'gambling\' involved is in timing of investments, and that is true of **every single financial investment on the planet**\n\nIt feels like you are setting an entirely different standard for a retail investor than an institutional one. I am a person, my goals for investment are not \'beat the market 7%\' year over year. There have been years I have not invested at all, because I do not have an adequate target for my investing, but over ten year of doing so, I haven\'t lost a dime. \n\n>like i told the other guy - markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, and this is especially true for a retail investor\n\nWhile a nice quip, this fundamentally misunderstands the sort of investing strategy a lot of retail investors use. Your assumption (and example) are based off of overleveraged shorts, which, yeah, no shit. Welcome to shorting 101. \n\nIf I\'m buying puts, this only sort of applies. If I\'m going long as someone like roaringkitty did with GME, this *mostly* doesn\'t apply at all.', 'author': 'Orphan_Guy_Incognito', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1729548643}
|
{'id': 'lt2u026', 'text': 'What you\'re saying is correct over an infinite span of time, but a human life is not an infinite span of time.\n\nIf I engage in a riskier strategy than you every year for a million years, there will certainly be centuries where I never become illiquid. My strategy should also produce higher returns, because it is less risk-adverse. I will, in isolated human lifetimes, "beat" you, and I will "beat" you overall, in exchange for having more negative quarters.\n\nSaying no day traders beat the market ignores the statistical reality, when we both agree such savants exist, if nothing else. Not everyone who seeks higher returns at higher risk levels than your firm would countenance will go bust, and it\'s not necessarily "lucky" that they don\'t, because their trades are probably not so risky that they\'re actually likely to go bust - remember, they\'re also not compounding their risk as much, because they do fewer trades than an institution.\n\nI think you\'re just ignoring the extent to which normal investment firms are driven to be aggressively risk-adverse, because clients will pull out if they have negative quarters in a good market. This is exactly why so many of the highest-performing hedge funds - the ones that are less risk-adverse - limit withdrawal ability. Day traders might hang in too long, but they\'re certainly not stereotypically too likely to pull out.\n\nYou seem to be of the impression that firms have a *greater* risk appetite than less sophisticated investors. In my experience, it\'s exactly the opposite. Less sophisticated investors are often irrationally risk-loving. But again, that\'s not luck! If the average firm shoots for a 10% risk-adjusted return with a 1% risk of losses, and the average day trader gets a 13% risk-adjusted return with a 5% risk of losses, you can accuse the day trader of being irrational, but not *lucky*.', 'author': 'Borigh', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729548299}
|
1g908tr
|
CMV: All day-traders and retail traders are gamblers deluding themselves - 100% of their results are based purely on random luck, and there is little to no skill expression at the retail level
|
**Background**: I am a professional oil and refined products trader. My experience includes 4 years on a commodities trading desk at a bulge bracket investment bank, one year in O&G strategy consulting, and now 2 years trading refined products at a oil major. In the next year or so, I will consider transitioning to derivatives trading at the same company, and eventually hope to lateral to a physical trading house or macro pod shop down the line. My risk-taking strategy relies primarily on fundamental analysis, arbitrage of physical cargoes between Europe and the Americas, and occasionally in-house models that combine fundamental and technical factors.
**The View:** I am firmly of the belief that all retail trading and day trading "strategies" are pseudoscientific BS, and anyone claiming to subscribe to these principles is either trying to sell you a course, or is massively misinformed.
The simple fact of the matter is that a retail trader will never have the skills, infrastructure, or capital requirements to beat an institutional investor in the long or even medium term. Trading seat cost at even a medium-sized physical shop can easily reach $500k per year per head inclusive of the data subscriptions needed for even basic fundamental information. A single medium-range vessel from Europe to US contains up to 37 thousand metric tons of gasoline, which is a notional of around $25mm per ship - the average desk at a major easily trades one of these every week. Your retail PA with $10-50k AUM is barely a rounding error compared to institutional daily VARs, much less even *think* about trying to withstand a drawdown.
As Jeremy Irons famously says in *Margin Call*, to survive in this business you need to either be smarter, be faster, or cheat.
"Smarter" would be RenTech, JaneStreet, etc - hiring statistics PhDs to design models using such esoteric math that the average "trader bro" can't even begin to fathom... Or to obtain some sort of technological edge like a literal straighter cable to the exchange like the Flash Boys. And as we know from LTCM's catastrophic failure, even being smarter can still sometimes fail. No matter how hard you "double shoulder dead cat ladle," you'll never be able to beat these guys in their sleep.
"Faster" would be similar to what I do - my market is relatively illiquid, with a limited number of counterparties. As an oil major, we're able to act on physical cargo arbitrages in a way that would never be possible for a pure financial player, much less some rinky-dink bro lying about their capital requirements to get approval for options on Robinhood.
Day traders will never be able to obtain either of the edges I list above, nor any other otherwise unmentioned edge. It's all just "astrology for bros," and any positive returns gained in the short term are no more due to skill than winning at craps or baccarat in Vegas. CMV.
| 1,729,543,320
|
fakespeare999
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Western right wingers and islamists would get along great, if it wasn't for ethnic and religious hatred.
|
{'id': 'lqztcdk', 'text': 'You can if I changed your mind (which includes changing your mind a little bit, or I guess educating you on the topic) :)', 'author': 'wibbly-water', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1728419329}
|
{'id': 'lqzsmlr', 'text': 'Wait you mean to tell me that the confederates were *progressives?*\n\n \nOr do you mean to tell me that you struggle with reading comprehension?', 'author': 'Frosty-Bag4447', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728419092}
|
1fz8a7x
|
CMV: Western right wingers and islamists would get along great, if it wasn't for ethnic and religious hatred.
|
They both tend to believe:
* That women should be subservient to men and can't be left to their own devices
* In strict gender roles that everyone must adhere to, or else
* That queer people are the scum of the earth
* That children should have an authoritarian upbringing
* In corporal and capital punishment
* That jews are evil
Because of this, I think the pretty much only reason why we don't see large numbers of radicalized muslim immigrants at, for example, MAGA rallies in the US, or at AfD rallies in Germany, is that western right wingers tend to view everyone from the Middle East and Central Asia as a barabaric idiot with terroristic aspirations, and islamists tend to view everyone who isn't a Muslim as an untrustworthy, degenerate heathen.
| 1,728,415,606
|
Fraeddi
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Redditors are fully capable of recognising political propaganda... but only 50% of the time.
|
{'id': 'lq0kb3r', 'text': "You literally prove OP's point by only listing left wing broardsheets and only compare them to right-wing tabloids. Deliberately ignoring the unreliable left wing outlets and the more reliable right-wing outlets. To add to this, you use the Guardian as an example of a left wing reliable source despite [Media Bias Fact Check ](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/) giving it a mixed score for reliability (same as the sun), due to it having failed a number of facted checks. In addition it is rated less reliable than many of the right wing outlets I have listed below.\n\nRightwing (more reliable):\n- The Times\n- The Economist\n- The Financial Times\n- The Telegraph\n- Sky news\n\nLeft (unreliable):\n- The Daily Mirror\n- The morning star\n- The Metro", 'author': 'seecat46', 'score': 17, 'timestamp': 1727893588}
|
{'id': 'lq0d44b', 'text': '>By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:\n\n>Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.\n\n[Political Polarization & Media Habits | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/)\n\n>Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:\n\n>Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.\n\n>\xa0it’s just that a larger fraction of those sources are individually smaller sources and so only Fox is at the top of the list as a major single anchor point.\n\nare you saying they use more fringe sources like youtube etc?', 'author': 'eggs-benedryl', 'score': 11, 'timestamp': 1727891294}
|
1fulop5
|
CMV: Redditors are fully capable of recognising political propaganda... but only 50% of the time.
|
The majority of Redditors (in terms of politics, but also a lot of other things) think they are too slick and smart to fall for propaganda.
I'll use an obvious example here: Most Redditors can correctly Identify that Fox News has a HUGE element of Propaganda in it. The entire point of Fox News (when it comes to political stuff) is OBVIOUSLY created to make you think, feel and act in a certain way, and if you a a left leaning person then you can see this clearly and get frustrated at how all the right wing leaning people fall for this garbage.... And this is absolutely true, and they have correctly identified propaganda. To the left leaning person it's borderline North Korean Propaganda..
However - These very same people that can see the Fox News Propaganda will switch channel over to CNN and believe he stuff they see because it's from CNN. Even though the right leaning people can correctly identify this is also propaganda designed to make you think, feel and act in a certain way.
If you are a person who denounces XYZ news channel which goes against your political views as Propaganda but cannot see the same for the news channel which agrees with your political side then you are genuinly a moron.
This is a huge problem - Becase when you think you are too smart to ever be "tricked" it becomes almost impossible to change your view about something.
Obviously this is a generalisation about Redditors, but it's true more often than not.
| 1,727,889,609
|
Dillon_1289
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: "Anti-zionists" are in effect anti-semites because they cannot propose any solution to the Gaza conflict that doesn't involve massive Israeli deaths.
|
{'id': 'ltbfc1j', 'text': "I agree it's far from ideal but also I think trying to pass the buck to another middle eastern country is a surefire way to end up back where we started. Palestine is already a mostly Iranian proxy at this point in terms of hamas, and the only neighbor who'd really be a solid fit(egypt) squarely wants nothing to do with this mess. The UN, at minimum, clearly are well intentioned and held to higher standards then a single party handling the solution.", 'author': 'Komosho', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729677202}
|
{'id': 'ltbfao6', 'text': 'What ceasefire ? [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/)\n\nIsrael killed more civilians than any other actors in this conflict. They killed more since oct 7th than most of the "terrorists" killed since 1947.\n\nFor now the side killing the most is Israel with western countries help and support.\n\nBut I\'m not even interested in a blame game for now, civil casualties have to stop NOW. We won\'t have ground for negociations in the mean time anyway.', 'author': 'MacBareth', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729677179}
|
1ga61qv
|
CMV: "Anti-zionists" are in effect anti-semites because they cannot propose any solution to the Gaza conflict that doesn't involve massive Israeli deaths.
|
Basically title.
I don't understand what the anti-isreali people would have isreal do in its current position.
I don't think there's a country in the world that is expected to be bombed regularly and endure bloody terror attacks and do nothing about it, except for Israel.
Making deals with terrorists has proven pointless, as they constantly break ceasefire treaties and use peacetime to re-arm. HAMAS has explicitly said they will repeat 7/10 as many times as they can.
To CMV: provide at least a semi-realistic solution to the whole Israel-ME conflict that:
A) is preferable to what Israel is currently doing
B) does not put Israeli citizens at needless risk right now or in the future
C) prevents future threats to Israel
| 1,729,674,296
|
EUCulturalEnrichment
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If Hezbollah Collapses Under the Current Israeli Attacks, the Group that Rises in their Place Will Be Much More Dangerous to All Parties
|
{'id': 'lt8f56g', 'text': "That's why I don't see Hezbollah being wiped out.\n\nAt the same time though ,these are all arguments against your initial thesis that in case of Hezbollah collapsing, a more radical group would fill the space. The space is too big and too complex to be filled with radicals. It's much more likely to be filled by an occupying country. That doesn't have to be US - in the hypothetical scenario of Hezbollah collapsing, Lebanon might well get occupied by another country, like Turkey, who has it just across the sea.", 'author': 'Eastern-Bro9173', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729629930}
|
{'id': 'lt7eue1', 'text': "\nEvery single bomb is an recruitment poster. Israel has a long and established history of atrocities in Leb. The people in the region have long memories. \n\nHell the Israeli killing and atrocities in Leb. was the reason the IDF created their propaganda department to always appear as the victim and never the perpetrator of violence. \n\n That propaganda might work in other countries but it sure as hell doesn't work in the targeted one.", 'author': 'anewleaf1234', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729618772}
|
1g9m9y1
|
CMV: If Hezbollah Collapses Under the Current Israeli Attacks, the Group that Rises in their Place Will Be Much More Dangerous to All Parties
|
A key concept within Lebanon is that Hezbollah has shown interest in preventing a civil war between the other sects that live in Lebanon. They participate in government there and have at least limited domestic relations with Sunnis, Christians and other types of communities within the country. It seems the most likely outcome to me that if Israel succeeds in weakening Hezbollah to a point of collapse through their current military operations in Lebanon, we will wake up someday soon to find a new group has filled the power vacuum.
Lebanon's current strategy of "doing nothing" and "remaining neutral" seems to ignore the prospect of Hezbollah's advanced weaponry and assets falling into the hands of those that do not wish to participate in the current Lebanese parliamentary system at all. We can be almost certain that the majority-Shiite Lebanon will not agree to be left out of decision-making in Lebanon just because Hezbollah's power structure in the country collapses.
My view is that while the current situation between Israel and Hezbollah is both unusual and terrible for both countries, the decision-making on what to do about this situation in the present does not seem well thought out beyond just crippling Hezbollah to a point of "system failure." Continued bombings of Beirut and other urban centers in Lebanon is against the advice of even the most staunch Israeli supporters at the US state department and their other powerful allies in UK and France. Would a new, more radical group that takes the place of Hezbollah be interested in peace with Lebanon's current government or with Israel? It remains to be seen, but my view is that we should not seek to find out. The solution will need to be more sophisticated than this.
| 1,729,614,324
|
FinTecGeek
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Little kids shouldn't have access to tablets or smartphones
|
{'id': 'lrk0h1b', 'text': 'Any kid that has access to an iPhone or iPad or whatever, but doesn’t have access 24/7 would follow under your title and you agree to those terms and thus you disagree with your title as your title is too harsh.', 'author': 'Superbooper24', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728735701}
|
{'id': 'lrjz9hj', 'text': 'Fair enough. I\'m not sure there\'s anyone who actually would advocate for that though. They just kinda do it. Maybe someone out there has a "Train them for contemporary society" mindset, but seems kinda unlikely.', 'author': 'valkenar', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728735129}
|
1g1ydza
|
CMV: Little kids shouldn't have access to tablets or smartphones
|
Let me first clarify something: When I say little kids, I mean someone below the age of 10. Toddlers and such.
It's honestly sad to see kids as young as 6 years old glued to a screen in such a way. I know this is going to make me sound old, but I feel like kids that age should be socializing more or at the very least not being parented by technology. A little exposure now and then I feel is fine, but nowadays I see kids who are just given a tablet and are wasting away.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading something where it said that kids who spend their time like this develop lower attention spans and lack critical thinking skills.
What concerns me most however is that parents just seem ok with this. They're not paying attention to what their children are watching and remain oblivious to the problems this is causing.
| 1,728,733,783
|
Lokicham
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-12
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: we should use eugenics to improve the intelligence of the human species.
|
{'id': 'ltko0fa', 'text': 'You ar quibbling over your own refusal to read the full and various definitions of cruel. Maybe it would help to offer you another set of words and phrases:\n\n\nBrutal\nHarmful\nCausing misery\nInflicting widespread suffering', 'author': 'Equal-Air-2679', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729802012}
|
{'id': 'ltkm3em', 'text': '*in some but not all countries\xa0\n\nThat paper examines Norwegian data. Surely someone with a high IQ knows that you can’t make broad statements based off of the results from one paper, right? \xa0', 'author': 'arrgobon32', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729801439}
|
1gbbjyb
|
CMV: we should use eugenics to improve the intelligence of the human species.
|
I’d like to hear any potential problems you all can think of with the core of my idea. However, I’m mainly interested in problems of logistics. I believe that large-scale, organized eugenics to increase human intelligence would be both one of the most beneficial things we could ever do for ourselves as well as one of the least possible things. However, I’d love to get some new perspective on both of those beliefs, because I struggle to see a feasible means of accomplishing this.
Obviously, this will raise some ethical questions. However, I feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and increasing our intelligence would benefit every single human who ever comes after us. Were we to advance our understanding of individual genes and gene editing enough, we could do it completely ethically, but that’s a long way off.
Anyway, I think I’ve yapped enough. What do y’all think?
| 1,729,799,256
|
Gr8er_than_u_m8
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There is absolutely no reason for fans of the Star Wars sequels to continue to enjoy and support them as they are invalidated beyond redemption.
|
{'id': 'ltuz2m8', 'text': 'That sounds like a personal problem that you need to work on. \n\nIt sounds like a lack of self confidence', 'author': 'justafanofz', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729955280}
|
{'id': 'ltuy977', 'text': "Why not feel the validation of possessing a superior opinion to Star Wars fanboys? Y'know, if simply enjoying a movie is insufficient.", 'author': 'eggynack', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729955001}
|
1gcldld
|
CMV: There is absolutely no reason for fans of the Star Wars sequels to continue to enjoy and support them as they are invalidated beyond redemption.
|
Disliked films come out and are then forgotten, franchises rise and fall, cinematic universes start and sometimes die at film one. But the Star Wars sequel trilogy is easily the most hated cinematic event in existence. There is simply no movie or movie series that has caused as much anger, division, conflict and derision as them. The people who hate it view it as something that utterly destroyed their love of the franchise, while the small amount of people who like it are so alienated that their enjoyment of it is barely visible. I was one of those who passionately stood by it in spite of its flaws, but I now feel that there is no true reason to do so. Not because I decided its content is unenjoyable, but because there is just so much going against them in terms of how they are viewed and the reputation they have, that it just isn’t worth it.
1. They are overwhelmingly invalidated by the fandom and the Internet. The sheer magnitude of anger against them is so immense that they are unanimously viewed as having destroyed the franchise’s future and thus responsible for every single other thing that has upset the fandom since. They are a no-go zone, deemed non-canon and you’re expected to dislike them. Incoming fans are told to not watch them. Sequels fans aren’t considered true fans of Star Wars by most fans, and their enjoyment of it is never taken seriously or seen as genuine. The films have as much validity in the Star Wars fandom as Dragonball: Evolution does to Dragonball fans, or Shymalan’s Last Airbender movie does to ATLA fans – almost none.
2. Liking them on any level is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter whether you like them on an acting level, a visual level, a technical level, etc. Literally any defence of them has been debunked and viewed as invalid, every positive opinion on them challenged as a misunderstanding. If you are a fan of them, the fandom at large will not accept it, only in small spaces. Attempting to defend them in main fandom spaces simply invites controversy and debate – even simply saying you one small action sequence can result in many fans saying how it doesn’t make sense or contradicts some kind of lore. If there is a level you can like them on in the fandom, it’s a “I think they suck but I just turn my brain off when I watch them” level.
3. There are virtually no major names in the fandom who will defend them. Whereas other parts of Star Wars have clear “champions” in the fandom and on social media, the sequels have almost none, and the very few who do only mildly accept them. Major critics who were positive about them later admitted that this trilogy deeply hurt their enjoyment of Star Wars. Doug Walker once liked it, then completely turned on it. Cosmonaut Variety Hour said it “broke his heart” and refuses to ever watch it again. Chris Stuckmann suffered actual emotional distress due to Star Wars being the only thing him and his father both liked, until the sequels came along and ruined that for him. So there are no major players on the side of the sequel fans – they are interminably alone and powerless.
4. The level of controversy they have caused is monumental – from writing changes to behind-the-scenes problems to even some of cast members refusing to support the very movies they were in. The movies, despite what you think of them, are forever seen as an extremely corporate product. Any artistic merit they might have had is viewed as unimportant or worthless in comparison to the trilogy’s controversies. In fact, it’s genuinely now impossible for any sequel fan to explain their reasoning for enjoying them without having to explain their specific stance on every single character arc and writing decision. If you have to explain yourself and stances on it for liking something, why like it?
5. They’ve been so heavily analysed and scrutinized, that there’s now nothing left to enjoy. Unlike other Star Wars media, the ST has undergone constant analysis, with literally every single aspect of them broken down by countless Star Wars YouTubers. The consensus that they failed at almost everything makes future re-assessments impossible to occur. No conversation on the trilogy can occur without having to go over the entire chaos of its divisive release, which leads nothing left once all is said and done. They’ve been burned out and overexposed.
6. Their legacy is almost irredeemable. Whereas the story of the OT was the launching of a franchise that would be viewed decades later as a groundbreaking cinematic event, and the story of the PT is that of a disappointing punching bag trilogy that later become widely beloved due to an explosion of memes and re-assessments, the story of the ST is the story of three movies that caused such extreme reactions and division that it perpetually broke an already broken fandom - forever. And it will never be able to live that down or separated from its legacy, and those who hate it will work together to prevent any future efforts to have it be repopularised by a future generation. Unlike the prequels, which were championed as a nostalgia phenomenon when the kids who liked them grew up, the child sequel fanbase isn’t big enough to redeem it in the future upon growing up.
So, personally I believe it’s been game over for too long. There is no reason to continue to support them or even watch them. The fandom has spoken – it believes this trilogy ruined Star Wars, and those who enjoy it therefore support its ruination. Again, I used to like and defend them, but it’s an invalidated passion that led to years of wasted time. They will never be seen as anything other than the most hated trilogy in existence, which makes them pointless to enjoy for me.
TLDR: Due to near constant hatred the Star Wars sequel trilogy gets, the immense amount of controversy it has caused, how the opinions of sequel fans are invalidated, and how much its existence has harmed the fandom overall, continuing to enjoy them is pointless.
| 1,729,950,172
|
ChocolateHoneycomb
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Bottlegate was justified.
|
{'id': 'ltcinvo', 'text': "I feel you! I certainly wouldn't say it was logical or justified, just understandable. If you want a group of people to behave to the best of their logical ability, don't give them a very good reason to feel indignant and enraged. Changing a crowd's emotions changes the way they'll behave.", 'author': 'saltinstiens_monster', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1729694050}
|
{'id': 'ltce27v', 'text': "So what you're really saying is that this game has lived in your head for free for the last 23 years and you're still talking about it. Also you think it's cool for people to physically assault someone because they disagree over a call with no relevance to real life at a sportsball game... ok got it.", 'author': 'tultommy', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729692546}
|
1gaawqo
|
CMV: Bottlegate was justified.
|
For those who don't know, there was a Browns-Jaguars game in 2001. For the Browns, it was late in the season and with that particular game, there was a playoff spot on the line
4th down with 48 seconds to go and the Browns in scoring position down 15-10, referees called a 1st down.
With time of the essence, Tim Couch spikes the ball to stop the clock and lose a down, so a play was ran after the 4th down aforementioned.
NFL Rules state that a play cannot be reviewed once another play is run.
Referees broke that rule, overruled the 1st down and declared that the play on 4th down was incomplete, resulting in a turnover on downs, essentially losing the game for the Browns.
Whether or not it was a completion is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that they reversed a call from two plays ago, which is bullshit.
To make matters worse, the fans were not communicated anything as to why this was happening, so that compounds the frustration.
I get that it is only a game, but the referees royally screwed the Browns that game. Reversed a call that was too late to be reviewed, then when the fans got mad, they simply called the game off (although it was ruled they had to play it out anyway) and cowered off the field.
The referees absolutely deserved to have bottles thrown at them for that mess.
| 1,729,691,053
|
BunnyPatrol2001
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I believe abortion should be illegal.
|
{'id': 'ltywv4q', 'text': "Because it's not a baby. It's a collection of cells. Is it wrong to get rid of cancer, another form of life? How about parasites, is it wrong to kill that life?", 'author': 'Dack_Blick', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1730008138}
|
{'id': 'ltyvya5', 'text': ">I consider the start of life the time when a sperm cell enters the egg.\n\nBetween 33%-50% of fertalized eggs don't implant. So, like, all women are murders in your eyes?", 'author': 'RoninOak', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730007590}
|
1gd3yxe
|
CMV: I believe abortion should be illegal.
|
Specifications:
I am talking about the abortion in which a fetus is removed from the mother.
I believe if you have intercourse with someone and get pregnant you shouldn't be able to have an abortion, unless....
1. The mother is at serious permanent health risks.
2. The mother was raped.
3. The mother is under age, under the judged specifications that the mother did not make a fully conscious decision or did not understand the risks.
4. Serious complications with the baby.
Reasoning:
It is morally and objectively wrong to have intercourse knowing the risks and then kill it without reason.
I consider the start of life the time when a sperm cell enters the egg.
If you don't want to have a baby, do not have intercourse, therefore there should be no reason for one, meaning you can avoid the entire thing.
You can put your baby up for adoption if you can't afford it.
Feedback:
When I said something like this before some said "No one thinks abortions are good, we just want the choice". If we give people the choice that will allow others who don't think the same way have abortions.
Overall verdict:
It's wrong to have an abortion therefore it should be illegal.
| 1,730,006,883
|
Qnamod
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The vast majority of Cuban poverty and authoritarian policy can be attributed to the USA.
|
{'id': 'ltgar7w', 'text': ">I find this kind of absurd. Capitalist countries can only trade with other capitalist countries, and communist countries can only trade with other communist countries?\n\nCapitalist countries might not want to trade with communist countries that expropriate the property of companies. And communist countries can't really credibly complain that they're not allowed access to the very same exploitative capitalist markets that they seek to destroy. \n\n>Yes, there is some fault on the Cuban government. But there is the important implication that the US certainly would have overthrown the government without those restrictions.\n\nWhy is that certain? And why does that matter? If you can't survive as a country without being authoritarian why do you deserve to continue to exist? And does whatever justification you have for this apply the pre-revolutionary Cuban government.\n\n>What do you think of the restrictions of freedoms in Ukraine right now, for example? Or in Britain during WW2? Do you support those?\n\nDepends on the restrictions. \n\n>What things did I point to that were lies?\n\nWell, for example, Cuban doctors were found to be classifying [neonatal deaths as late fetal deaths](https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/33/6/755/5035051?login=false) to reduce their infant mortality numbers.\n\n>But regardless, I don't think the South Koreans were responsible for the brutal policy of the dictator Syngman Rhee that the US imposed, or Indonesia's awful policy after the US-backed coup to install a dictator in their place.\n\nYes, as a leftist you infantilize non-white people because your worldview relies on Western Countries being the only actors that can influence world events. \n\n>Frankly, I'd find it hard to remove a dictator from my country if there was one, especially one that was supported by a powerful foreign country. I don't see why we expect other people to be any different.\n\nThe Cubans literally did that.\n\n>The Soviets in say, 1980 lived a much better live than the Cubans did.\n\nAnd? \n\n>China genuinely has gone through an insane economic growth, especially since the Deng reforms.\n\nIndeed, liberalizing the economy is very good for standards of living. Cuba should consider it. \n\n>The US invaded Cuba. What did Cuba do beforehand to lead to this?\n\nIf you're talking about the Spanish-American war. Maybe blew up an American ship. If you're talking about the Bay of Pigs, the US didn't invade but, Cuba expropriated property from American companies. \n\n>I cannot see a point in time where Cuba has done more wrong to the US than the US has done to Cuba.\n\nOk, what does this have to do with Cuba or its responsibility for its own mismanagement?", 'author': 'IbnKhaldunStan', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729738102}
|
{'id': 'ltg2jcn', 'text': 'Despite that Cuba is still the only country in the Caribbean you can freely leave tourist areas without pretty extreme risk. Progress in Cuba is slow but steady. Its ironically the way a lot of right wing Americans seem to want things, you dont find many things that arent Cuban made in Cuba. Overall the quality of life is high in that sense of relativity. People are nice and generally seem happy.', 'author': 'Accomplished_Ad_8013', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729735066}
|
1gar40o
|
CMV: The vast majority of Cuban poverty and authoritarian policy can be attributed to the USA.
|
Let me lead with why this view of mine initially changed and why I would like it changed again. I’m a left wing person whose core values are democracy and that regular people should have much more autonomy over their lives than they generally do. So as someone in the west, I believe in policies that will strengthen our democracy (better education, electoral reform, banning lobbying, etc.) and provide more autonomy to people and communities (worker cooperatives, stronger unions, policies to restrict landlords and let people own their own homes, etc.). Thus, I’ve never been supportive of supposedly left wing regimes that in reality seem to be more akin to “state capitalism” and moving the centralisation of power from the wealthy to the political elite, like Stalin’s USSR, Castro’s Cuba, and Mao’s China, as they fundamentally go against the values that make my consider myself on the left. However, as I learn more about Cuba, I find myself sympathising more with their plight and believing that in this specific case, the revolution generally held admirable goals of liberation and the key reason for the poverty nowadays and the authoritarian policy in Cuba can be attributed to US policy regarding Cuba and the wider region.
To change my view, I would require it to be shown that the Cuban revolutionaries genuinely held the goal of a centralisation of power and terrorising the Cuban people (rather than repressive measures such as on free press being instituted to due the historical abuse of this by the US), and/or that the poverty and woes of the Cuban people are due more directly to Cuban policy than it is US policy crippling the Cuban economy. Now, as to why I have changed my view.
Authoritarian Cuban domestic policy
My general thesis on the authoritarian policy of Cuba is that most of it can be attributed as a way to avoid the regime change that the US had organised in many other countries which had similar elections or revolutions.
For example, one instance of regime change that lived in the minds of the Latin American left was the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Árbenz. At the time that Árbenz was democratically elected, [the United Fruit Company owned 42% of all arable land, and was exempted from paying taxes and import duty ](https://www2.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemalan_Coup_student:RS01.pdf). As in the previous link, this company was very well connected to the US government, and US policy supported this. Moreover, the workers of the company were compensated with next to nothing, and were primarily the poor marginalised groups (the indigenous population, black people, etc.). On top of all this, there was [other instances of a complete disregard for human rights by the US](https://www.oah.org/process/crafts-the-hidden-us-experiments-in-guatemala/) in the country.
So naturally, Árbenz attempted to change these things. One of his most important policies was land reform, to redistribute all the land to ensure a fairer treatment for the poor workers of these companies (and the few other landowners). Now luckily, while Árbenz did [compensate the landowners based exactly on the value of the land that they declared at tax time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_900), [the United Fruit Company and other landowners had massively been undervaluing its land](https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/united-fruit-guatemala/) to pay less taxes, so the compensation was relatively easy!
Now, Árbenz did other things that were completely within his rights, but the US didn’t like. [He strengthened labor laws and union rights](https://adst.org/2016/06/cleaning-americas-backyard-overthrow-guatemalas-arbenz/), [he imported arms from Czechoslovakia after the US enforced military embargo on selling arms to Guatemala, diversifying the Guatemalan economy which due to control by United Fruit was almost all based on the export of coffee and bananas](https://cejiss.org/images/issue_articles/2013-volume-7-issue-3/article-05.pdf), [he built highways and hydroelectric dams](https://www.jstor.org/stable/156959), [he continued the massive expansion of public education begun by his predecessor](https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/53/3/494/151696/Historia-de-la-educacion-en-Guatemala), [he restored freedom of speech and the freedom of the press](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951v02/d800) and so on. However, one of the most notable things was that [he legalised the communist party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz). It is important to understand they remained weak, low in number, and were never in Árbenz’s cabinet.
Combined, these things were unacceptable, and the US had decided to overthrow Árbenz via the [covert operation operation PBSUCCESS](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/). It’s very important to understand the [methods through which this coup was achieved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess). The US trained and funded a paramilitary force to overthrow the government, they utilised the freedom of speech and press that Árbenz had enacted to use huge amounts of propaganda (both within and outside Guatemala) and psychological warfare to lie about Árbenz and turn the population against him, they positioned their naval fleet as if to invade the country, and they placed the country under a blockade that it promised the military it would lift if Árbenz was deposed. This culminated in Árbenz fleeing the country 3 years after being democratically elected and enacting waves of great legislation, and the [awful legacy of the dictator who succeeded Árbenz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castillo_Armas#:~:text=Castillo%20Armas%20cracked%20down%20on,a%20list%20of%20suspected%20communists.) I don’t think needs to be explored, but essentially he rolled back all that the Guatemalans had won with the support of the US.
I know I labour the point of Guatemala on a post about the Cuban revolution, but this coup was extremely important in the minds of revolutionaries such as [Che Guevara](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/castro-che-guevara-1928-1967/) who was in Guatemala city to witness the overthrow of Árbenz, but certainly knowledge of this coup spread to the wider Latin American left, and in particular the Cuban revolutionaries (especially through the first hand experience of Che). Likely, knowledge of other recent coups of democratically elected leaders such as in Iran, or repression of leftist revolutionaries fighting against repressive regimes such as in the Philippines and Laos were known as well. This is on top of the continuation of these policies while Castro held power in Cuba, such as the [US-backed coup in Indonesia that lead to a brutal dictator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia), or the [overthrow of the democratically elected leftist in Chile](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1193755188/chile-coup-50-years-pinochet-kissinger-human-rights-allende) who [Castro warned about the possibility of a coup](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v34/n14/greg-grandin/don-t-do-what-allende-did).
I labour on about other countries precisely because I think this is what lives in the minds of the Cuban revolutionaries. After the overthrow of the [brutal US-backed and American mafia-backed dictator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista) (who was certainly no friend of democracy, freedom of speech, and so on), the Cubans obviously wanted to preserve their extremely popular revolution. In fact, [even the CIA noted in a 1969 report](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-00927A006900020002-5.pdf) that Castro consistently maintained the support of the majority of Cubans in his revolutionary program. So, what did they do to maintain an extremely popular revolution in the face of the US, [who wanted to overthrow the regime](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/bay-of-pigs#:~:text=In%20March%201960%2C%20President%20Dwight,overthrow%20of%20the%20Castro%20regime.)? Well, Castro and the other people in the revolution must have considered that in many other US-backed coups beforehand and that would be to come, [the US exploited freedom of speech and the press by funding propaganda in the media](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00552r000201100005-4), they exploited normal democratic processes by huge amounts of election funding and interference for groups that would often become puppet regimes if they won (just ctrl+f for “United States” on [this wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_electoral_interventions)), covertly [funded and influenced militaries that had some independence from their leaders so that they could overthrow governments themselves without a direct US invasion](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/), and so on. Well, the natural position then is that these processes must be curbed to maintain the other benefits of the revolution.
The worst part is, these fears would be validated as time passed on. Between a [literal invasion in the form of the Bay of Pigs](https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-bay-of-pigs), a [terrorist and propaganda campaign in Operation Mongoose that funded arson attacks and bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose#:~:text=The%20Cuban%20Project%2C%20also%20known,Kennedy.), [countless assassination attempts on Castro’s life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro#:~:text=The%20assassination%20attempts%20reportedly%20included,%2C%20mafia%2Dstyle%20execution%20endeavors%2C), [economic warfare through some of the harshest sanctions seen on a country](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/us-sanction-countries-work/), [sabotage on Cuban industries](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v11/d346), and [diplomatic isolation through exclusion from US led organisations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93OAS_relations). Through all this, it was clear that any fears Cubans may have had of a US campaign to overthrow the revolution were legitimate (which as in many other countries would almost certainly regress on the many social gains won by the Cubans), and further cemented these authoritarian measures.
Once again, I want to reiterate that I whole-heartedly support freedom of speech and wish Cuba had it, I whole-heartedly believe in a free media and wish Cuba had that. But I simply cannot find it in me to believe, after the US involvement in countless coups and attempted coups via these avenues not to mention the attempts of regime change in Cuba, that the blame falls on Cuba more than it does for the US. The US created the environment where restriction on freedom of speech and media and democracy is the most clear pathway to preserving any significant gains in small Latin American countries, be it land reform, women’s rights, indigenous and other racial minority rights, and most importantly of all autonomy in their own governance.
While I don’t want to spend as much time on other examples of authoritarian domestic policy as much of it will involve the same explanation as the above, I will give some quick examples of common criticisms of Cuba’s policies. One that I hear often is the brutal executions that came after the revolution. Firstly, the targets of the revolution [were former Batista officials](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/post-revolution-cuba/), who as described before was an extremely brutal regime. There were [many massacres and instances of inhuman torture that killed at least 20,000 people](https://havanatimes.org/diaries/elio/massacres-during-batistas-dictatorship/). Meanwhile, the estimates of the executions in the 6 months after the execution are around [550](http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Cuba59), who as before are noted to be mostly Batista officials who were involved in the barbarism themselves. Now, there were countless executions after this and I don’t know too much about these (e.g. how many of these were these executions of US-backed terrorists vs regular political dissidents), but as before I think it’s reasonable to assume that some of the justification for executions was that there was [legitimately US supported terrorists in Cuba](https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4871&context=masters_theses) as discussed before and [CIA-backed groups attempting to overthrow Cuba from the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorio_Revolucionario_Estudiantil). If this was happening, the leadership would certainly be more paranoid and take more draconian measures towards cracking down on this kind of potential for foreign subversion in the country. Once again, I do not support this. I am against capital punishment and am glad that [Cuba has effectively ended this practice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Cuba), but this can be justified from the perspective of a small autonomous country suffering from huge interference at the hands of its powerful and adversarial neighbour.
One other example is the crackdown on religion, and in particular the Catholic church. Firstly, note that [the Catholic church has historically been a very conservative organisation in Latin America](https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-811#:~:text=Summary,elites%20following%20Latin%20American%20independence.), and because of this they have been an [instrument which the CIA uses to try and subvert populations in Latin America against left-wing governments](https://nacla.org/news/2013/3/14/liberation-theology-cia-and-vatican-new-direction-latin-america). Once again, this regrettable act makes sense in the shoes of a leader who is (justifiably) paranoid at the use of any avenues to overthrow the government.
Now, one of the most controversial aspects of the revolution were the Cuban labor camps, or the [UMAP camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production#:~:text=The%20UMAP%20camps%20served%20as,Castro%20or%20his%20communist%20revolution.). I won’t labor the point too much more, this was extremely regrettable and horrible, but crackdowns on dissidents and religious people could make sense in the eyes of the government as described above. There are things in this that are impossible to justify this way. The fact that a large percentage of these prisoners were LGBT people is awful, and there is obviously no history of the US using the LGBT populations to subvert popular governments around the globe. This is one of the key reasons I make the point that it is only the “vast majority” of Cuban policy that can be attributed to the USA, because there is no justification for this. While once again, this is profoundly terrible and regrettable, this is something that [Castro has personally apologised for](https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/fidel-castro-takes-blame-for-1960s-gay-persecution-idUSTRE67U4JE/#:~:text=%22We%20had%20so%20many%20and,policy%20questions%2C%22%20he%20said.).
The last thing I want to touch on in terms of Cuban domestic policy are the travel restrictions that were implemented. This is similar to what I’ve previously discussed, so I want to be brief. If the US is sponsoring terrorist groups and training militias outside of Cuba, why would they risk letting those militias and terrorists into the island? Once again, freedom of movement is beautiful and I yearn for a world with as much free movement and as few borders as possible, but it’s sadly completely understandable under the thumb of the US.
Now, given the above, I believe there is justification for such policies in the mind of a leader trying to sustain a legitimately uplifting revolution for the people, however, this justification could very well be an excuse to terrorise the population. For example, North Korea has many brutal measures which it blames on the US, however I think this is clear from a basic analysis that the lengths to which they go and the lack of any positive policy in the country nowadays show this is more for clinging onto power more than anything else. So what evidence is there that the Cuban revolution genuinely pushes for positive social change, and would likely do this in a free world where countries can genuinely decide their own policy? I discuss this in my next section.
The good of Cuban domestic policy
Now, despite the many awful policies that Cuba has domestically, despite this they have managed to push the country forward in so many directions and [Castro is generally regarded as a leader who, despite flaws in as described above, made incredible strides in human rights as well](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/fidel-castro-s-human-rights-legacy-a-tale-of-two-worlds/). One of the most impressive is that of [universal health care](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2315760/), where the Cuban government has provided free health services for every citizen. Cuba even has [very strong infant mortality stats for the world overall and especially for the region, beating out even the USA on this metric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates). Moreover, until recently [life expectancy in Cuba had been on par with the USA for decades](https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy), which frankly is incredible for a country under such a harsh economic embargo, and in fact Cuba had a higher life expectancy in 2020. Now recently due to [struggles with the pandemic and the wider economy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/13/cuba-revolutionary-generation-old-age), the life expectancy gap between Cuba and the USA has widened from 1 year to 3 years, but I still view this as an incredible achievement in prioritising health care. Finally on the healthcare front, Cuba has invested incredibly and become legitimately a [strong player in](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-cuba-became-a-biopharma-juggernaut) [developing pharmaceutical products](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/development-of-cubas-biotechnology-mechanisms-and-challenges/F7B1D8B23AA01C58A55EACF0FB0E3A39).
Another achievement is education. [Cuba provides universal education for free at all levels including higher education](https://acei-global.org/15-facts-on-cuba-and-its-education-system/#:~:text=2%2C%20The%20education%20system%20is,into%20education%20for%20many%20years.), and even the World Bank, which is certainly no communist institution, regards [Cuba as having the best education system in Latin America and the Carribean](https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/LAC/Great_Teachers-How_to_Raise_Student_Learning-Barbara-Bruns-Advance%20Edition.pdf). Moreover, universal efforts such as these have had[ great effects on racial justice](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/abs/puzzle-of-racial-inequality-in-cuba-1980s2010s/DFF6923CAAF7CC66AD8C88D427CC2810), although as this review and [the Cuban government themselves note](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/cuba-acknowledges-vestiges-of-racism-launches-program-to-fight-it-idUSKBN1XX00B/) this is not at all fixed yet, but it has been substantially improved since the Batista regime.
One other notable area of improvement, especially given the awful policy I detailed in the last section, is that of LGBT rights. Now, while there were still horrible stains on their policies throughout the 80s and so on (such as the Mariel boat lift), [Cuba decriminalised homosexuality in 1979](https://coha.org/from-persecution-to-acceptance-history-of-lgbt-in-cuba/), well before other Western nations [such as the US which only decriminalised it everywhere in 2003](https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/index.html). Moreover, in 1979 [Cuba established the Multidisciplinary Commission for Attention to Transsexuals, which treated gender-transition issues as a health problem](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6293354/) (although this was of course flawed and cancelled) and [since 2008 have provided all health care for gender reassignment surgeries to its citizens](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN06395397/), something which the US is not close to doing at all. [Cuba was the first Latin American country to celebrate LGBTQ+ history month](https://www.reuters.com/article/cuba-lgbt-history/cuba-marks-latin-americas-first-lgbtq-history-month-idUSL5N2WV5FH/), has [set up a government agency to promote acceptance of sexual diversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Sex_Education), and while it was certainly a bit late [has legalised same-sex marriage](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/24/cuba-same-sex-marriage-referendum/).
This is not an extensive list. There are many [great achievements in the area of racial justice for example, although there is still much work to be done](https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1702?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190228637.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190228637-e-1702&p=emailAWJYXMlLXOTd2). You can point to [women’s rights](https://un-dco.org/stories/gender-equality-daily-commitment-cuba), [for example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Cuba#:~:text=In%20modern%20Cuba%2C%20women%20have,Spain%2C%20making%20abortion%20highly%20restrictive.), although once again there is still work to be done. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my general point that generally the revolution has succeeded in progressive social policy.
Now, of course, I acknowledge Cuba is not at all a perfect country, as I extensively outlined in my first section. However, the Cuban government certainly seems to be more committed to social justice than the US government and many other Western countries. Given this, I fail to see how Cuba’s oppressive domestic policies (which I will reiterate again and again, I do not support and are condemnable) are more likely a result of the desire to be authoritarian than instead to avoid the government being overthrown by the US and the many social gains that Cuba has made being lost.
Cuban foreign policy
One thing that is very often criticised about Cuba is its foreign policy. Here, I generally want to make the point that much of Cuba’s foreign policy was good, actually, and where it wasn’t again it is understandable in the light of being at risk of being overthrown by the US government.
One of the most common points is the government's support for foreign terrorism, to the point where it is considered a [state sponsor of terror](https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/). However, many of the movements that Cuba supported we look back on today positively, regardless of their methods. One of the most famous groups that Cuba supported was the [African National Congress, which was Nelson Mandela’s group. [They supported the ANC in the fight against apartheid](https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/cuba-and-struggle-democracy-south-africa), and this was one of the reasons [Mandela so strongly supported the Cubans](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/africa-fidel-castro-nelson-mandela-cuba). They also supported liberation movements in other nearby countries. For example, they [supported the Angolan rebels against the fascist Portuguese government which owned Angola as a colony until 1975 and then in the civil war against sides supported by Portugal and the US](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/do-you-remember-cuba-dedication-to-angola/), and this is regarded as their most significant involvement. However, they also [supported Mozambique in their fight against Portuguese colonialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_War_of_Independence), and also [importantly supported Namibia in the fight against the apartheid South African government](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14682740701284215) (which was enforcing apartheid what was then called South-West Africa) in their fight for independence. Now, I’m sure you can point to awful acts committed by these groups. Indeed, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee said that [“Despite these noble intentions, the majority of casualties of MK operations were civilians.”](https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/reports/volume6/section3/chapter2/subsection7.htm?t=%2BGaborone+%2Braid&tab=report) I won’t argue any of this, because today it is inarguable that these groups I’ve pointed to were on the right side of history. The noble side in the fight against apartheid was indeed against apartheid, not the fight to support it, and this is what the Cubans supported. I think that overall goal is more important than the atrocities committed by the righteous side, as in any war there will be atrocities committed on both sides. It’s not reasonable to expect every victim of violence be a holy and completely virtuous victim. It’s why we don’t condemn women who lash out against their abusers for example, and supporting such a woman is not condemnable because of the reactions on their part. I think the exact same idea applies in the fight against apartheid and colonialism. There is also [Cuban support for the IRA](https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-backed-castros-ira-stance-cuban-ambassador-to-republic/35455292.html) and [the PLO](https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/01/31/cuba-a-historic-friend-of-the-palestinian-people), which I would generally view as being on the right side of history.
Now, there are regimes that Cuba supported that I don’t think can be lumped into the same category as the previous cases. For example, Gaddafi’s Libya, North Korea, and I haven’t looked into the guerilla groups they supported in Latin America so I’ll lump them in here. However, as usual, it’s hard to, for example, criticise Cuba’s support to Latin American guerrilla’s too strongly when they were completely isolated in the Western hemisphere by the US and US backed regimes in Latin America that again, I’m not sure I see these as moral wrongs, at least not enough to discount their positive intervention stories.
The most famous event of course is the Cuban missile crisis. This was something which nearly brought the world to its end, and yet I can’t see the Cuban’s as the main “baddies” in this conflict. Firstly, nuclear weapons are undeniably a great way to dissuade an invasion, and certainly as discussed the US was gearing to invade Cuba. Moreover, it’s not like it was helping the Soviet Union do something unprecedented. The US [already had nuclear missiles aimed at the USSR in Italy and Turkey](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/jupiter-missiles-and-endgame-cuban-missile-crisis-sealing-deal-italy-and-turkey), and so in a sense this was just evening the playing field. And certainly Turkey and Italy weren’t under the threat of Soviet invasion in the same sense that Cuba was under the threat of a proper US invasion.
Moreover, Cuba has aspects of foreign policy that are, as far as I’m aware, universally considered positive. For example, [Cuban medical brigades are sent across the world to help developing countries](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/4/1/cuba-has-a-history-of-sending-medical-teams-to-nations-in-crisis), and [Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than the G8 countries combined](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism). The have supported countries in particular [suffering during the Ebola crisis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27956578/#:~:text=Cuban%20authorities%20responded%20immediately%20to,October%202014%20to%20April%202015.), [or during the COVID-19 pandemic](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8136810/) for example. Cuba has also supported [literacy campaigns in Nicaragua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Literacy_Campaign#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20of%20the,learned%20to%20read%20and%20write.) for example. I really do with all of this believe that generally, Cuba’s foreign policy has been overall positive, despite some disagreeable policies and alliances. Of course, this all comes under the thumb of the US as well.
The Cuban Economy
Finally, I want to talk about the economy. I want to point out that first of all, I’m no fan of central planning. I generally support more libertarian approaches such as worker cooperatives, and the idea of public and private competition in markets to get the best of both worlds. But it’s clear through, say, the rapid economic development of China and even the economy of the USSR that central planning alone does not condemn a country to poverty. In fact, many economists note that even in capitalist countries like [South Korea that their “anti-market” policies were key in their economic development](https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/17/2/131/1675971). So [why is Cuba’s economy so awful](https://www.reuters.com/markets/cuba-announces-new-measures-war-time-economy-amid-growing-crisis-2024-07-01/)? Is it the result of horrible leadership or is it the result of the economic embargo?
One thing to note is that [Cuba has significantly liberalised it’s economy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55967709), and the percentage of workers in the private sector has risen from [8% in 1981 to 35% in 2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba). On the face of it, this isn’t too dissimilar to China and Vietnam, other countries that are communist (or at least they have an extremely powerful state that plays a huge role in the economy) yet doing incredibly well economically. Yet, [the economic situation in Cuba continues to deteriorate rapidly](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/13/cuba-revolutionary-generation-old-age). So what’s happening? The main thing that hasn’t changed is the existence of the embargo. In fact, one of [Trump’s final acts was to make the embargo even harsher](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-new-terrorism-sanctions-in-waning-days), despite the aforementioned liberalisation of Cuba’s economy. Some of the incredible achievements in healthcare mentioned before are waning, such as [the life expectancy and child mortality](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/cuba). Yet, the policies of Cuba haven’t substantially changed on this front, but the embargo has gotten even stronger.
[A comprehensive report was released on the effects of the embargo on the health and nutrition of Cuba](https://www.american.edu/centers/latin-american-latino-studies/upload/impact-of-us-embargo-on-health-nutrition-in-cuba-1997.pdf) by the US committee for the WHO. The embargo was reported to increase malnutrition among the population and resulting in low-birth babies, decrease the water quality by restricting access to water treatment chemicals, restrict the amount of drugs that Cuba has theoretical access to by over 50% (and that’s not even considering the practical effects of whether they can even buy the rest), among many other horrible outcomes. [Several preventable health crises have occurred due to the sanctions](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/0003-4819-132-2-200001180-00010?journalCode=aim), and this is a consistent story [from all the research I can find](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1380757/).
One of the most insane things is that the [US tightened the embargo following the collapse of the Soviet Union](https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-cuba-relations), and [making it exorbitantly difficult for foreign countries and companies in general to trade with Cuba](https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1537&context=jil). While there was some normalisation under Obama, the [new sanctions under Trump that Biden left in have continued to devastate the country and severely restrict the amount it can trade with foreign nations](https://www.thenation.com/article/world/cubas-humanitarian-crisis/). With the continued sanctions ever since its inception, there are estimates that overall, [the embargo has cost Cuba $1.1 Trillion US dollars](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/6/17/el-bloqueo-55-years-of-obstructing-the-cuban-people), which for an economy the size of Cuba is an incredible loss. In fact, [since 1970 the cumulative GDP of Cuba totals just under $2 Trillion](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CU), and so the proportion that this embargo has cost Cuba is astronomical. Especially once considering the fact that economic growth tends to be exponential.
Moreover, one of the worst parts about this is due to the fact that Cuba was something close to a colony of the US before the revolution, [80% of the sugar that Cuba produced was sold in the US](https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/jq085j963/sf2688339/ft848t829/ERSF-03-07-1962_Cuba_Shifts_Trade_in_Farm_Products_to_Soviet_Bloc.pdf), and [sugar comprised 87% of Cuba’s exports](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v06/d285). Moreover, the US owned [60% of Cuba’s sugar industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93United_States_relations). Being forced to be such a monocrop economy is obviously a horrible economic choice, but especially so when the country which you had to sell all your sugar to then places you under a horrible economic embargo. Factors such as this, that it wasn’t exactly the Cuban people’s choice to become a monocrop economy, aren’t even factored into the analysis on how much Cuba has lost due to the embargo.
While I’m no economist and understand that this economic section was a little all over the place, I hope that I’ve made it clear why I believe so much of Cuba’s poverty was due to the US embargo. Sure, I am not exactly a fan of their economic system and certainly would rather them liberalise it and allow more worker cooperatives and so on, but overall, it’s hard to say that this is the main reason for Cuba’s woes. [I’ll end with a quote from a right-wing economist, certainly no friend to the Cuban government](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama) who gives the final interesting point I want to make: why let Cuba have a scapegoat if their economic policies are so bad? If they can see that their policies are so bad when having a level playing field with everyone else, let them see that! Maybe then there’ll be no excuse and finally enough pressure to change the system for the better.
“The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism.”
Conclusion
Really, after looking into it, I struggle to see the common narrative that Cuba is just another backwards communist country with tyrannical leaders who are hungry to maintain power at the expense of its population. I can’t help but see a genuinely progressive and admirable revolution that has been forced towards regretful and bad policy in order to maintain the victories that it was able to achieve since the fall of the dictatorship. I’m interested to see the arguments against this view.
| 1,729,733,429
|
coolamebe
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Censorship within /r/WorldNews is dangerous
|
{'id': 'ltcosvf', 'text': 'If this is your take, I’d argue that you post title is wrong, and should be “mod policy on Reddit is flawed” (or something similar), rather than singling out WorldNews. Posts of that kind have been made here very regularly', 'author': 'Environmental-Fun258', 'score': 32, 'timestamp': 1729695979}
|
{'id': 'ltcjys2', 'text': "The fewer people getting their news from reddit the better. Comments on news are always horrible, this is inherently a bad format and without moderation they'll devolved into cesspits, check out the comments for any yahoo or MSN story, vile.", 'author': 'eggs-benedryl', 'score': 15, 'timestamp': 1729694466}
|
1gac58g
|
CMV: Censorship within /r/WorldNews is dangerous
|
/r/WorldNews is the largest subreddit on reddit, and controlling the narrative with permabans for widely supported views is dangerous and promotes a one sided story. It creates a self perpetuating echo chamber.
I was permabanned instantly for saying that Israel is enforcing an apartheid. Something many extensive United Nations reports have concluded, along with the top respected humanitarian aid organizations, and the government of the country for whom the word was literally invented, South Africa.
Being instantly permabanned for just agreeing and sharing a view with these organizations undermines any credibility for the largest subreddit, yet they are the dominant voice for international news on reddit.
Whether you agree that for example Israel is upholding an apartheid is not the issue, it is the complete lockdown on what is able to be discussed on that subreddit.
If this was a smaller subreddit, I would not see the issue as then its part of the greater whole. But when its the largest source of news on all of reddit, and its one of the default subreddits, it is not the same thing.
This is fundamentally dangerous.
| 1,729,694,298
|
Pattern_Is_Movement
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Republicans who feel left behind and that their communities are being hollowed out should stop voting for the antigovernment Republican politicians who brought these changes about
|
{'id': 'ltzwlcu', 'text': ">You're not the kind of voter we are talking about, after all.\n\nThis is the exact same roadblock I ran into with the OP. The categorical exclusion of literally anyone who doesn't fit the exact description laid out in the post.\n\n>Try to explain why someone who DOES care about the river burning (and does want it to stop) should continue to vote for de-regulatory politicians. \n\nAs I've said numerous times, caring about something does not require the belief that any and all means are acceptable to achieve it. Someone can *both* not want the river burning, *and* believe that government intervention to prevent it is worse than the problem itself. But let me guess, anyone who holds that position just falls under the categorical exclusion of people voting on principles.", 'author': 'UnovaCBP', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730030911}
|
{'id': 'ltzuz10', 'text': 'Gee, coach. That’s got correcting me. \n\nYou are only proving my point, but you are to blinded to see it. \n\nThey are being incessantly told they are the problem. That despite being poor that they are privileged. That despite working hard their entire adulthood to raise good kids with good morals, those kids go off to college, come home for thanksgiving and tell them they are stupid and sever relationships because of their beliefs. \n\nThey are incessantly told be democrats that they are dumb. \n\nSo when a buffoon has success mocking democrats and talking about draining a swamp, he is their champion and on their side. \n\nGo ahead, link to a million sound bite quotes though to show them how stupid they really are. That’ll learn ‘em.', 'author': 'dallassoxfan', 'score': -4, 'timestamp': 1730030067}
|
1gd7omr
|
CMV: Republicans who feel left behind and that their communities are being hollowed out should stop voting for the antigovernment Republican politicians who brought these changes about
|
We’re deep into election season, and I’ve seen a lot of psychologizing about the disinfected white rural voter who lives in a dying small town. Seems like voters like that may be poised to vote Republican down the ticket and maybe bring Trump back to power.
But when did these changes start? When was America “great” before, when was the time that they’re hoping to bring us back to?
Most people think the height of American power and political harmony was in the 1950s. We had just won WW2 and America had emerged as the leading world power. The economy was booming. There was a healthy and growing middle class.
Truthfully, these things were possible due to high levels of fiscal spending from the federal government. The marginal tax rate for the highest brackets approached 100% and the corporate tax rate was also high. The government used that money to build roads, airports, schools, and universities. Public secondary and post-secondary education was high quality and affordable. Union membership was strong and people had good, high paying jobs. All of these things are policies that were enacted by Roosevelt Democrats.
Now obviously we couldn’t stay in that idealistic period forever and globalization, oil shock, and other economic problems contributed greatly to the decline of American manufacturing. But also, the rise of antigovernment sentiment and Reaganomics accelerated the decline of the American middle class.
The message that government - which is obligated to help its citizens - is the problem, while corporations- which exist only to gouge people for profit - are perfectly efficient has led to defunding and destruction of government so that it no longer provides good things to people. This was a deliberate sabotage - “starve the beast” - and Republicans elected with this mantra have worked diligently to dismantle government functionality, roll back services and disrupt normal functioning (as with the last few government shutdowns in DC).
Now people think the government is terrible and can’t deliver good things. They trust in corporations that are busy buying up and liquidating public hospitals and single family homes. They want yet more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. They have no idea that the greatness they yearn for in America’s past was due to big government spending.
TLDR: antigovernment Reaganism led to the destruction of functional government, which in turn led to reduced services and a hollowed out middle class. Until rural voters realize this and stop voting Republican, these trends will continue.
Full disclosure: I realize I am eliding a lot of cultural and political trends. This is a short Reddit post, not a doctoral dissertation. I apologize to anyone who has delved deeper into these trends and finds my summary overly glib.
| 1,730,023,512
|
Affectionate-Ice3145
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The moon landing was real
|
{'id': 'lu05d9z', 'text': "i understand your intuition, but it doesn't map to the physical reality.\n\nwetness is a [surface science term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting).\n\na molecule of water isn't wet, even when it is surrounded by other water molecules. wetness is an emergent property of two (non gaseous) phases being in chemical contact, at least one of which being a liquid.\n\nthe 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules you're speaking of are all making up a single phase, and wetting occurs between 2 phases.\n\nmore specifically, wetting happens when surface contact with water reduces the surface energy of a phase, causing net energy gain thus spontaneously increasing surface contact between the phases.\n\na molecule of water surrounded by other water molecules doesn't have a surface energy, it has a bulk energy, as it's part of the bulk. the water molecules at the outer surface of these 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecule cluster DO have a surface energy, which can then be reduced by replacing their contact with air by some other liquid. but that liquid can't be water, because if it is then the surface energy is no longer reduced, it is now completely eliminated and the molecules in question have become bulk state molecules indistinguishable from any other bulk molecules.", 'author': 'SymphoDeProggy', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730034955}
|
{'id': 'lu01w62', 'text': 'The title of the post uses I BELIEVE.\n\nHis last line uses "i am convinced".\n\nIf he already believed it, he wouldn\'t need convincing. So in my opinion, either word should be changed to more match the statement. I chose believe because I think it\'s the less accurate word.', 'author': '425nmofpurple', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730033444}
|
1gd9az3
|
CMV: The moon landing was real
|
I believe that the Apollo moon landings were real and not a hoax. There are several pieces of evidence I'd like to present to support the landing's authenticity.
First, during the Apollo missions, the Soviet Union closely monitored NASA's activities. The USSR, a competitor in the space race, had both the capability and motive to expose fraud by the United States. Instead of "calling the bluff", they acknowledged the accomplishment, which supports the fact that the landings were in fact genuine.
Also, Apollo astronauts placed retroreflectors on the lunar surface during their missions. They reflect laser beams sent from Earth, allowing measurements of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Multiple observatories worldwide still use these reflectors today, which is basically ongoing evidence of the landings.
There is also a bunch of material evidence that supports the landing. NASA brought back 382 kilograms of samples of lunar rocks and soil from the moon. These materials have been studied by scientists and contain unique properties that are not found in Earth rocks or meteorites. Their composition matches what we know about lunar geology which supports their origin in the Moon.
The photographs and videos from the moon missions have been analyzed extensively. The lighting, shadows, and other environmental factors in these images are consistent with conditions on the lunar surface. Recent lunar orbiters from countries like Japan, India, and China have also captured images of the Apollo landing sites, showing equipment and tracks left by astronauts.
The technology used in the 1960s was definitely capable of sending humans to the Moon and back. The Saturn V rocket is the one of the most powerful rockets ever built.
The live broadcasts of the moon landings were received and relayed by stations around the world. Organizations and amateur radio operators globally tracked the Apollo missions' transmissions, which would have been nearly impossible to fake convincingly at the time.
There is 0 credible evidence proving the moon landings were faked. The Apollo program employed over 400,000 people, and it's impossible to maintain such a massive conspiracy without any definitive leaks.
The astronauts who participated in the moon landings have consistently affirmed their experiences. Their accounts have remained steady over the years, and many have contributed significantly to science and exploration after the missions. Doubting their honesty requires assuming a lifelong, unwavering commitment to deception from numerous individuals.
**TL;DR - I am convinced that the moon landings were real.**
| 1,730,030,178
|
Alon51
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Adding vinegar to laundry cycle does nothing.
|
{'id': 'ls1nx84', 'text': "You can't use dilution factors with weak acids technically. You have to use the molarity of vinegar and the pKa. However, you still do get to a pH of 3.8", 'author': 'hunterhuntsgold', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1729003668}
|
{'id': 'ls1fcod', 'text': "It doesn't. This trick really works. Once they smell like mildew, if you just dump 2-3 cups (500-750 mL) of vinegar in, the smell will be gone in one cycle.", 'author': 'koolman2', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1729000747}
|
1g47fl2
|
CMV: Adding vinegar to laundry cycle does nothing.
|
Average washing machine: 19 gallons of water per load.
Most advice online says add up to 0.5 cups of vinegar per load.
1 gallon = 16 cups.
19 gallons = 304 cups.
0.5/304= 0.0016%
So the vinegar is being diluted to 0.002% of its original concentration.
To take it a step further, most white vinegar or apple cider vinegar is 95% water and 5% ascetic acid. So it's 5% of acid being diluted to 0.0016%, so really the final dilution of acid from vinegar in your laundry load is 0.00008%. I doubt that does anything to significantly impact your laundry.
| 1,728,998,077
|
tmntnyc
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The US (and other NATO countries) should cease all diplomatic relations with Russia.
|
{'id': 'lrxgfyo', 'text': 'Putting aside the weird half of US, are there any other movements to leave NATO to start with?', 'author': 'eloel-', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1728936167}
|
{'id': 'lrxet6x', 'text': "Makes more sense to disband NATO. \n\nAlso a shame the Russian residence doesn't give any citizenship paths.", 'author': 'IncreaseObvious4402', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1728935662}
|
1g3opvo
|
CMV: The US (and other NATO countries) should cease all diplomatic relations with Russia.
|
In case you've been living under a rock for the last few years, Russia is effectively at war with NATO in Ukraine due to invading that country and committing ethnic cleansing, likely genocide in the areas they occupy. I posit that it's morally abhorrent to retain diplomatic relations with such a country. Now, the war in Ukraine rarely gets coverage anymore, but I still think we should sever these relations, and here are the three main reasons I think this:
One, it gives the invasion a veneer of legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. By continuing to cooperate with Russia on anything at all, we're saying that their invasion of Ukraine is not a gross violation of the international order. Some would say that it's hypocritical of us to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine because we invaded Iraq, but just because we invaded a sovereign state doesn't mean it's okay for someone else to. Did the US and Nazi Germany have any diplomatic relations during World War II? I don't think so. We are at war with a rogue state, and we'd better act like it.
Two, the remaining cooperation between the US and Russia (which as I understand it includes counterterrorism measures) accomplishes nothing of value. I'm not saying this because I want Russian civilians to die in terrorist attacks like what happened in Moscow back in March, but rather because cooperating with Russia on this issue won't save any lives. Putin did not listen to NATO's warnings of an imminent attack on a concert venue in Moscow or a synagogue in Dagestan. Therefore, all this communication does is to exacerbate Point 1, giving unnecessary legitimacy to the invasion, without saving the lives of any Russian civilians. Additionally, although the US still participates in some nuclear non-proliferation treaties, Russia has abandoned them. What's the point of staying in such a treaty if the other party refuses to abide by it?
Three, the U.S. election is coming up in a few weeks, and early voting is already underway - I'll personally cast my ballot for Harris in the coming days. I believe that if Biden announced that he was severing relations with Russia, this would help Harris. This is because it would deflect attention away from the situation in Israel/Gaza/Lebanon (which is hurting Harris due to leftists abandoning her over the genocide there). This would also hurt Trump (because it would further highlight the fact that Trump will let Russia have Ukraine and probably the rest of Europe too). As someone who thinks Trump is far too dangerous to be given the nuclear codes again, anything that makes it less likely he returns to power sounds wonderful, especially if it's an October Surprise, as American voters have the memories of goldfish.
If there's anything here I'm missing, or if my understanding of any of these points is faulty, please let me know. Thanks.
| 1,728,934,869
|
SacluxGemini
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The universe exists only as a series of self sustaining patterns, and it makes perfect sense intelligent life would emerge.
|
{'id': 'lrs0b42', 'text': ">But I felt they are not understood enough nor important enough to my argument to mention.\n\nI don't think this is good reasoning when you are so sure on your beliefs. They are understood enough that we know they exist, and that we know that while unlikely they can stick around. We also know that they don't just appear in uniform times and quantities. We also know that we can't just ignore the vast amounts of time scales that we could be dealing with. For all we know a somewhat sustainable universe only forms once every trillion trillion trillion trillion.", 'author': 'Alex_Draw', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728852591}
|
{'id': 'lrs09px', 'text': "I think the process of evolution should be distinguished from the origin of life. It kind of seems like you're conflating the two in your post. Conway's game is based on the starting conditions of life, not the universe. The idea of life being the consequence of certain anomolous patterns forming within the chaos of the universe is certainly applicable, yet it's much harder to conceive how the necessary complexity of the tightly integrated systems required for life could develop through an evolutionary process.", 'author': 'AllFalconsAreBlack', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728852579}
|
1g2y5ds
|
CMV: The universe exists only as a series of self sustaining patterns, and it makes perfect sense intelligent life would emerge.
|
I thought of this only recently, but could not find an inconsistency in my logic. I am hoping somebody here will. I am also hoping this doesn't seem incoherent. I'm not crazy!!
The idea is basically evolution taken to an extreme. What is here is what has survived.
The general idea comes from [Conway's Game of Life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life). In this game, specific rules are put in place that decide if a cell is on or off in the next generation of the game. As you can see from the wiki, it is possible to make repeating patterns of cells by having a certain starting configuration.
The Big Bang could've been a massive drop of information, similar to starting the game. It works with much more complicated units, possibly strings as in string theory? It is easy to visualize it as waves on a flat plane instead of cells on a grid. What the basic building blocks are doesn't really matter for the idea. And Big Bang has much more complicated rules than the 3 rules of Conway's game.
But what we define as the universe is what is left after many generations have passed and whatever isn't self propagating (aka, continues to exist through generations) has naturally gone away. The laws of physics and reality are just the patterns that were able to hold on and continue to exist.
Thus it would make sense for life to exist. The "purpose" of life (at least the purpose it seems to behold onto itself) is to just continue to exist. Pass on the genes. It is not very surprising that, with SUCH complicated rules to the game and SO many moving parts, a collection of parts could accidentally come together with the ability to grow. Because it feeds off a limited energy source, it would make sense that different versions of itself would enter competition to continue existing. And it is plausible that, as being intelligent and understanding patterns makes you live longer, intelligent life would form.
TLDR; the universe is whatever was able to be self propagating given strange starting conditions. When the universe started, all the "garbage" that was unstable went away, and odd yet stable patterns emerged (with the general rule that things tend to spread out). As these patterns interacted, the sheer number of stuff makes it plausible for more sustainable patterns to form from this groundwork. This is the basic building blocks of matter and the physical world as a whole. It is then plausible that a pattern would exist that uses the energy around it to become self sustaining, competing for the energy, and eventually becoming intelligent to be really good at being self sustaining.
If sustainable patterns had never formed, we would not be here to talk about it.
This does entertain the idea of a god. Somebody has to set the starting conditions of Conway's game, right? But I could also see this happening without a god. With the sheer size of the universe, and the idea that life evolved to fit the universe and not the other way around, I could see different starting conditions resulting in different universes and there still being life, although it may not look at all the same. Because life is just a very complicated pattern that is defined by the ability to sustain itself.
Please try to find flaws in my logic, or ask questions for clarification.
| 1,728,848,988
|
Infinite_Worry_8733
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-13
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Israel should recommit to a comprehensive strategy of “land for peace”, but pair it with an equally strategic policy of “annexation for violence”.
|
{'id': 'lu0256g', 'text': 'I see "land for peace" as a fundamentally flawed strategy that died with the second intifada, and suffered a second death with Sharon\'s disengagement. It should stay dead.\n\nInstead, I\'m proposing "peace for land", whereby Israel only recedes from Palestinian land after a certain amount of time without any violence. Essentially - the Palestinians must prove to the Israelis that Palestinian land will not be used to wage war against Israel. That\'s the carrot.\n\nFurthermore, I don\'t think the stick of "annexation for violence" is a particularly smart or effective thing for Israel to enact. And in fact, incentivized Palestinian violence. All the Palestinians would need to do is have enough children and be violent enough that Israel is forced to annex the entirety of the west bank and Gaza, effectively destroying itself through demographic change. \n\nThere\'s a reason Israel hasn\'t annexed the west bank already.', 'author': 'magicaldingus', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730033555}
|
{'id': 'ltztrxf', 'text': 'Tried AND FAILED.\n\nIsrael handed Gaza back to the Palestinians in 2005. Probably one of the most momentous events in modern Palestinian history.\n\nThen the Palestinians elected Hamas in Jan 2006 in the only democratic election ever held in Palestine.\n\nThen in 2007 Hamas and Fatah WENT TO WAR over who will control Gaza. Hamas won.\n\nWhen Hamas won and took control of Gaza Israel and Egypt began the blockade of Gaza. (why? because Hamas is actually a terrorist organization. see 4 subsequent wars and Oct 7, 2023)\n\nLand for peace FAILED when it was tried with the Palestinians. That is why Israel is reluctant to try that again and that is why its government went HARD RIGHT in 2009.', 'author': 'TVC_i5', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730029423}
|
1gd8sm7
|
CMV: Israel should recommit to a comprehensive strategy of “land for peace”, but pair it with an equally strategic policy of “annexation for violence”.
|
This “land for peace, annexation for violence” plan would create a clear, enforceable path toward peace while imposing severe consequences for any aggression. The framework operates on two simple principles: each peaceful interval results in a specific parcel of land transferred from Israel to Palestinian control, fostering a future of mutual cooperation. However, any attack on Israeli civilians would immediately trigger Israel’s annexation of predesignated Palestinian land, permanently expanding Israel’s borders. By linking peace with territorial gains for Palestinians and aggression with irreversible losses, this plan lays out an unmistakable roadmap to either sustainable peace or mounting consequences.
Under this approach, land transfers would begin in phases, with specific parcels handed over regularly as long as peace is maintained. The transferred land would be increasingly valuable and strategically beneficial to Palestinians, incentivizing a sustained commitment to nonviolence. Additionally, each land transfer would include development support, resources, and infrastructure investments, empowering Palestinians to build a stable and prosperous society.
If this peace is upheld across multiple iterations, Israel would culminate the process by formally supporting the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state, enabling Palestinians to achieve true autonomy. This commitment to Palestinian self-governance would demonstrate Israel’s willingness to embrace a two-state solution, provided that peace is maintained.
However, any act of aggression would halt the land transfer process and lead to Israel’s immediate annexation of a designated parcel of Palestinian land, with each annexed area fully integrated into Israel. These annexations would be non-negotiable, solidifying Israel’s jurisdiction permanently and ensuring that violence has lasting consequences.
The plan would be overseen by an independent international body to verify acts of violence, ensuring transparency and trust in the process. Maps of designated land parcels for both transfer and annexation, along with a clear schedule, would be publicly shared, leaving no ambiguity about the stakes and the path forward.
This framework doesn’t just seek temporary stability; it offers a way to transform the Israeli-Palestinian relationship by providing Palestinians with tangible, incremental gains that reward peace and respect for Israel’s security. By directly linking territory with peaceful behavior, this plan offers Palestinians a viable future of self-determination while affirming Israel’s commitment to safeguarding its citizens.
| 1,730,028,215
|
Pale_Zebra8082
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: it's okay to discriminate against neurodivergent manipulators
|
{'id': 'lu0xj6l', 'text': 'There are a couple problems. The main thing is that you can’t take a correlation and work backwards from the brain structure to symptoms. For example, there’s a lot of evidence that people with schizophrenia have different brain activation patterns and even different volumes of brain structure, etc. but you can’t go backwards and look at a brain structure and then make a diagnosis. It’s just not accurate enough. \n\nAlmost all diagnosis is done with self report, including interviews. Even tasks used for things like adhd aren’t definitive- you need self report as well. \n\nAll correlations are aggregate over groups of people. So, on average people with NPD may have different PFC activation, but it doesn’t tell you anything about a specific individual- at least not enough to make a diagnosis. \n\nAnother issue is a lack of specificity. The PFC is related to a lot of different kinds of disorders. So, having evidence that someone is “off” in that area could mean they have one of dozens of different symptoms. \n\nTake genes for example- if there are 1000 genes that contribute to NPD and most of those genes also contribute to other disorders- how useful is it to know someone has one of those genes? \n\nPeople have been looking for bio markers for decades- biological tests you can use to diagnose mental disorders. The NIH has spent billions funding this kind of work. So far? Nothing useful for diagnosis.', 'author': 'Ok-Poetry6', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730044897}
|
{'id': 'lu0qxif', 'text': "I think you are confusing three concepts.\n\n1. Discrimination\n2. Safeguarding\n3. Rejection due to incapacity\n\nSafeguarding includes the barring of nonces from working with children. This is to safeguard the children. This is **not** discrimination.\n\nRejection due to incapacity is the rejection of a candidate because they are unable to do the job in question. This largely applies to disabled people, but is when it is true that a certain disability means that a certain job cannot be done, like a blind person being a lookout. This is also **not** discrimination. \n\nDiscrimination is the act of disfavouring certain applicants for superficial traits that do not actually impact a person's capability to do a job. \n\nIn most cases NPD would not affect the person's ability do the job (in cases where it would then it is rejection due to incapacity). Likewise, many cases of NPD are **not** safeguarding concerns **if properly managed** like I have explained in my other comment (if they are a safeguarding concern then this wouldn't be discrimination). So just rejecting candidates because of NPD is a form of discrimination.", 'author': 'wibbly-water', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730042799}
|
1gdbvmf
|
Cmv: it's okay to discriminate against neurodivergent manipulators
|
NPD is a main example of a disorder associated with manipulation but not well understood by the general public right now. I feel keeping the terminology more direct towards the behavior and not the diagnosis is better to keep the conversation centered around manipulation and not person experience around those diagnosed with npd which is tricky to properly diagnose.
Also I'm talking personal situations, you could reasonably discuss in the court of law with respect to something like rehabilitation but proving these kinds of mental disorders is difficult, would probably require brain scans for this sake this is only relating to non legal situations. The government shouldn't be involved in this discussion.
The idea is certain neurodivergent people are hardwired to harmful behavior towards others and those who bond with these people often leave worse off than they were before their relationship with this person. There are those that claim since it's a brain disorder it should be treated and not be discriminated against.
However if you were hiring for a job and knew the person had this disorder it would be best for your company to disallow a harmful person into your workplace and with high likelihood hurt one or many coworkers.
There are some problems with this argument like discrimination these people from disclosing their status or getting diagnosed. As well as other disorders or nuerotypicals with certain personalities appearing similar while not. But due to the tendency to hurt others if you did have a reasonable method of knowing is it not most logical to discriminate against them?
| 1,730,038,455
|
snowleave
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Electoral tresholds are unfair, unnecessary and undemocratic
|
{'id': 'lu83ja5', 'text': 'There are other easier ways to counter this in the long run. In NZ, we have a 5% threshold though the details of how this works can cause other issues. \n\nVotes to below threshold parties are not entirely wasted however - Parties receive some government funding for their campaigns and one of the criteria for assigning this budget is the portion of the party vote so parties that end up below threshold can still use this to get more funding next time round', 'author': 'MidnightAdventurer', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730142927}
|
{'id': 'lu80uhw', 'text': '\\> Fringe parties don\'t deserve seats does not imply voters of fringe parties don\'t deserve a voice. They **must** be allowed to vote in a way their vote gets represented, kf they so choose, either by ranked ballot or second round or any other solution.\xa0\n\nWhat is the meaning of the word "must" here? That any electoral system that doesn\'t have 100% of the votes get represented in some way is fundamentally or morally wrong? \n\nI mean, the voters got a voice, that voice just didn\'t end in representation in the political body. There\'s a difference between those two things. Unless you\'re connecting those in some way.\n\nFor a rough analogy, if at work me and my coworkers vote on what to get for lunch and I voice an opinion for Vegan Food but we didn\'t get any? My voice was still heard. I just didn\'t get any Vegan Food. Not getting a "well we\'re not getting Vegan so what else do you want" doesn\'t change that.', 'author': 'CincyAnarchy', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730142108}
|
1ge984r
|
CMV: Electoral tresholds are unfair, unnecessary and undemocratic
|
I think electoral systems that have an explicit hard threshold defined, for example to deny a party entry to parliament are inherently unfair, unnecessary and undemocratic.
By explicit threshold, I mean a given ratio, like a %, that is not a natural threshold defined by the type of electoral system and the number of seats. So a "threshold" of 50% in instant-runoff (ranked choice) voting is acceptable. Also, a natural threshold of about 5% is acceptable if there are only 20 seats to elect.
By hard threshold, I mean one that simply throws out votes for that party, making them completely worthless. If voters can rank parties, and still use their vote to support a party above the threshold, it is not a hard one, and that's fine. If there is a second round, that is fine too. If voters can split their vote between multiple parties, that is fine, but it should be reweighted accordingly to ignore votes that are excluded.
| 1,730,139,786
|
budapestersalat
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Most People Actually Have A Choice In Being Alone/Single
|
{'id': 'ltf6dwl', 'text': '>But don\'t stereotypes come from somewhere?\n\nNo not necessarily and even if they do, that\'s no reason to judge people based on them.\n\n>I actually have, but it all just seems glitchy and buggy since they never seem to be concise on when they\'re available or are never truly up for it, only "agreeing" out of courtesy.\n\nAgain how do you know they\'re doing that? Seems like you\'ve read that into it. \n\nYeah it\'s tricky to organize adults to do things, see what I said before about being busy. You can use apps and stuff that have shared calendars and things if you need some help. \n\n>but like what is it with all the people who mindlessly throw around stuff like "oh meet people through others" and stuff then?\n\nWell it\'s a relatively common way to meet people sure but it shouldn\'t be the primary aim of the friendship. \n\n\n>How do I go about this without making them run away like others have in my life?\n\nYou just ask. You say "hey friend, I\'m on the dating scene looking for love etc. do you reckon you know anyone who might also be looking? No worries though" and then they\'ll either say yes or no. If they have a partner themselves you could say something like "I see how happy you are with your partner so I\'d like to be like that too, could you help me out". If they do offer to help you or set you up, be grateful even if it doesn\'t end up working out. It\'s a lot to stick your neck out for someone like that, they\'re vouching for you so make sure you deserve it.', 'author': 'vote4bort', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729723666}
|
{'id': 'ltdfxgg', 'text': 'Yeah, I feel you. That’s a bitch to deal with for sure, there’s this weird irony around the whole “fake it til you make it” type of attitude — giving off neediness tends to put off others, while seeming secure / happy / independent draws others in. \n\nI think it’s particularly difficult because that sentiment, of wanting to be with others / seeking their approval, can also be sniffed out by others, so you end up in a catch 22. \n\nUnfortunately all I got for you is (a) the world is a big place, and I hope there’s people who’ll like you for you, and (b) perhaps there’s some solace in the knowledge that it’s possible to grow to like different things, so perhaps the act of pandering need not be so demeaning. \n\nIndependently, I’m also curious if other approaches may break you out — for example, being in cultures where it’s normal to be an outsider (expat communities abroad), or while solo traveling (where it’s totally normal for people to follow their own whims, and others’ doing so isn’t an indicator (or can more freely be perceived to be less) of any issue with you). Ultimately I’m still in the camp of “keep trying” though, because at least then there’s a shot of getting what you want. Or trying things that may have some overlap — things that are both in your interest, they’re less susceptible to total isolation/being terminally online.', 'author': 'aeonneo', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729704234}
|
1gacdj0
|
CMV: Most People Actually Have A Choice In Being Alone/Single
|
**TLDR AT THE BOTTOM:**
I (25M) can appreciate if this view might sound incel-esque, but this is a longstanding view that perhaps has poisoned my mind a lot more than I thought, and I thought I'd have a discussion surrounding it as a way of getting some alternative perspectives. I’m not saying my view is absolute, but here are a few reasons why I think this way, in no particular order. For context, I have mild ASD, GAD, clinical depression, and perhaps borderline, and I'm not simply referring to being alone as not in a romantic relationship, but also just with platonic relationships.
1. Most of my friends that I have remaining (only 7 which aren't a proper squad btw like most other people my age and would've been higher if people hadn't just turned their backs and disappeared on me over the past 7 years) seem to always have plans and whatnot based on my past interactions with them and seeing their socials (which I've deleted), and it feels like when they're struggling, busy, or whatever, they can actually consciously choose to take space from others, and I don't seem to have that choice.
2. Conversations, plans, connections - all of these things would be virtually nonexistent if I stopped reaching out on my end. It's like I cease to exist in others' world if I don't "remind them I exist".
3. Despite growing up in Toronto since I was an infant, it feels like the ultimate insult that I need to rely on clubs, groups, networking, and all that other crap outside of school that people love to parrot and throw around mindlessly, like I'm a newcomer. What's even more insulting and painful, newcomers may eventually find their group, but I'll always be seen as an outsider just because I have a less "acceptable" difference.
4. It seems that most other people, especially those that were born and raised wherever they're still living at (like Toronto), just have to show up to where other people are and then they just naturally network and meet people like friends and partners. And it's not like I haven't tried myself, but it never seems to get past the point where people introduce me to who they know, and I can assure you, it's not because I'm toxic or whatever (which I admittedly have to suppress), but because they probably just see me as inferior and would do anything to justify their ableism on my lack of being able to play their Neolithic garbage games.
5. A slightly less relevant but worthy point mentioning, it feels like I'm not truly living, but merely having a beating heart, unlike these people who actually get to live their lives. It's like for instance, most people my age can actually \*enjoy\* playing video games or the gym or whatever, whereas I'm basically forced to, along with things life surfing the internet and whatnot.
So, yeah, those are my points. And for the record, I'll preface by saying that I was in therapy for 10 years and saw 13 different professionals (not including all the short term people I've seen), and yeah, it seems like there's been jack squat in terms of progress. This is also an underlying reason of why I wish to (legally) move out of Canada, because if I'm gonna be alone, I'd rather be in a different location that I won't feel insulted and would justify my loneliness.
**TLDR:** Most people can actually choose if they want to hangout with others or be in a relationship, unlike people like myself.
| 1,729,694,891
|
NomadicContrarian
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The world is destroying the poppy plants - slowly but surely
|
{'id': 'lu0xis0', 'text': 'All poppies produce opium in some quantity- it’s a byproduct of their metabolism. You could, in theory, use them to produce opium. But they’re not bred for that, they’re bred for their flowers.', 'author': 'Godwinson4King', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730044894}
|
{'id': 'lu0dbgn', 'text': 'So? Your view is the poppy plant is being destroyed. The above shows they aren’t being destroyed. Selective breeding the plant doesn’t destroy the plant.', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730038120}
|
1gda4s9
|
CMV: The world is destroying the poppy plants - slowly but surely
|
Currently there is no place for people who just want to grow it without selectively breeding it for a specific substance they need. Be it the farms that grow them for medical purposes or the illegal drug industry. Best way to preserve the essense of the plant for future generation is to have people who care about the plant (and not about its usages in some industries) and just having them for personal use - be it for the seed bread, or just to pass on the heirloom varieties, or just because it's an excellent herb to have around if you're into traditional medicine.
| 1,730,033,099
|
2reform
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Black Lives Matter has been a failure
|
{'id': 'lsq0r8i', 'text': 'I live and work in Mass. I think it’s too early and too complex at this point to make sweeping judgments regarding the efficacy of BLM. I can tell you that police use of force is something that those of us in the prosecutorial community are working very hard on grappling with, and the departments we work with are doing the same, and it is a direct result of BLM. This is only one area of the country, and it doesn’t mean we’ve been effective, but I can promise you up here it’s being taken very, very seriously. \n\nTurning back to the article and stats…again we can’t just look at raw totals and say “1/3 were fleeing when killed”=BLM not effective. In some instance, lethal force is justified when a suspect is fleeing. How does that number compare to previous years? And how does it compare to population increase?\n\nAlso, as a general matter for any kind of statistical analysis, you really just can’t look at one year trend and draw sweeping conclusions. There’s too many other factors and life is too random, especially when it comes to a question as complex as this.\n\nI guess ultimately my message is this: I don’t know if the reforms have been working. What I DO know is that BLM has absolutely led to reforms.', 'author': 'IGotScammed5545', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1729362499}
|
{'id': 'lspzitm', 'text': 'I agree that it’s too soon to definitively declare BLM’s success and failure, but insofar as it has failed *thus far*, I think it comes down to the largely successful effort to convince people that violent crime is up, and that it is so because of defunding the police. That violent crime is in fact down since Covid, and even then was quite a bit less than 90s, and that so few departments were defunded that it had no real impact on the crime rate, both point to this being a propaganda victory.\n\nI think the culture warriors on the right have been pretty successful so far at convincing people of the lie that violent crime is up, and that has led people to be less skeptical of the police in general.\n\nIf the left was more effective at convincing people of the truth, maybe more folks would question the police unions’ line that if police aren’t allowed to rape minors in the backs of their squad cars, then the police are less able to prevent the rapes of minors in general (an extreme example, but considering there are some jurisdictions where you are more likely to be killed by the police than be murdered, it’s certainly an illustrative example of the problem).', 'author': 'walrustaskforce', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729362092}
|
1g7c5b3
|
CMV: Black Lives Matter has been a failure
|
Back in the 2010s, and especially in 2020, it seems like the Black Lives Matter was gaining strength. Videos of police brutality, especially against African Americans, became viral, and millions became outraged that this was so common in America. When George Floyd was murdered, millions justifiably took to the streets to protest against police brutality and racism. Politicians came out in support for police reform, and discussions on how to reform policing (from “how to make the police better” to “defund the police”) were all the rage.
But from 2021, it seems like everything took a complete 180. Crime skyrocketed during COVID (in part of police refusing to do their jobs in protest of BLM), causing the average American to support the police a lot more. Pro-police politicians like Eric Adams were elected while pro-BLM politicians like Chelsea Boudin were ousted from their positions.
Now, absolutely nobody talks about police brutality these days, not politicians nor the general public. But has the problem gone away? No! It has only gotten worse! 2023 has seen a record number of killings by police, and I don’t expect that number to go down in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/08/2023-us-police-violence-increase-record-deadliest-year-decade
Unfortunately, rather than being addressed, police brutality has become like gun control. Someone being killed by police, even on live video, no longer elicits outrage. Instead, people will just give “thoughts and prayers,” shrug, and accept it as a fact of American life.
And the BLM movement itself? Well, rather than becoming the second coming of the Civil Rights Movement, it seems to have been condemned to the ash heap of history.
| 1,729,353,836
|
ice_cold_fahrenheit
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Swear words are completely harmless and people offended by them need to grow up
|
{'id': 'lu5vgzz', 'text': "You can award a delta even if you aren't OP, btw :)", 'author': 'Nillavuh', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730117122}
|
{'id': 'lu2zjqq', 'text': "That's not a logical fallacy. It's just an argument you don't like.", 'author': 'WompWompWompity', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730067330}
|
1gdlpli
|
CMV: Swear words are completely harmless and people offended by them need to grow up
|
it pisses me off beyond words when people act disgusted or angry when someone swears. growing up, most parents would be hostile towards these words. My honest opinion if your that parent: Quit being a fucking baby and get over it.
I have several points in why I find it stupid to be repulsed by cussing
1 - Literally harmless
I can blurt out fuck, shit, damn, you name it. Does anyone die? No. Does anyone get shot or killed? No. Does anyone get harmed in any way/shape/form? No.
Imagine for a second what would happen if all parents allowed their kids to cuss. Guess what would change about the world? NOTHING!!! Kids might mumble it under their breath if they drop something or lose a fortnite match, might cuss around their friends, but genuinely, who cares? Nobody dies, and if you get onto kids for swearing, just know their cussing habit is only as serious as you make it.
I know there's gonna be the 60 yo man in the comments saying it's disrespectful, and maybe it is, or at least to your age group. But culture changes, and most of Gen Z couldn't care less what you say. Some wont even react some very-not-so-acceptable slurs (slurs are a different story, i've heard people getting attacked for saying the n word or stuff like that). If you don't like cuss words, don't use them, simple as that.
Society is pretty adamant about keeping it away from kids, and heres the truth. Kids will go to school and pick them up (unless they're in some nazi-christian private school, which im sure even they have some kids spreading swears). they will say it a ton, then it will be normal. but how does that harm anything? Every generation had their own lingo, a few old words will not kill anyone.
2 - Freedom of speech (If you don't live in the U.S., you can skip this one if you want)
My parents are both conservative and believe in American rights blah blah blah but the VERY FIRST amendment states that I can say whatever the fuck i want and unless I'm threatening them, they have no place in silencing me. yes, minors are given this right according to some research I've done on the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just going off what I was told
They would willingly give their lives to fight for that ammendment, but then go fucking feral if their kid exercises that right in the slightest.
Bonus fact: My parents always complain about LGBT (yea, homophobes suck) having pronouns and getting upset by people misgendering them (to clarify, I completely respect all people regardless of sexuality/sexual orientation). but if you think about it, they're fucking babies compared to them. Most people with their own chosen pronouns will calmly correct you or not care, so I can imagine it takes at least a few sentences to anger them. Yet i can turn my mom into a rabid animal in a one syllable word.
3 - Hypocrisy (not all parents, but the majority of them)
My parents have sailor mouths, which makes my blood fucking boil. they cuss more than I ever will, but if I said it once, I wouldn't see the end of it. "because I said so you little shit" is a common response among children who dare to question this.
At the end of the day, (most) parents cuss and hide it from kids, and (most) kids cuss and hide it from their parents. We're all on the same side, yet still fighting. It would save a wonderous amount of time and frustration for everyone if we all just accepted each other for it and got over it.
4 - Synonyms
Think of shit. Its a word used to either express an emotion or describe literally... shit.
I can say CRAP
I can say FECES
I can say BODILY WASTE
I can say POOP
But god forbid if I ever said SHIT.
How is shit any different from crap. In most cases, they have identical properties/uses. Except one will get a kid spanked. Nobody will ever be affected if I use one word over another.
5 - Explain why?
Ask any anti-swear person to give ONE reason why swearing is so bad.
You usually get one of the following responses:
"I dunno?"
"because my religion says" (bit more understandable, as long as they arent an asshole about it)
"because it just is"
"..."
"It's disrespectful"
"Because I said so" <--- 95% of parents
"My family never used those words"
So as you figured, most are either a sorta fair reason or just them being incapable of critical thinking or logic.
TLDR; Most people can't give actually good reasons why it's bad besides religion or preference, and if you dont like the words, dont use them. Their synonyms are completely okay, which makes no sense. They dont kill anyone, get over it. Most parents are hypocritical about swearing. And where I live, it's technically a protected right.
| 1,730,064,356
|
Naive-Bug8598
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Dating preferences shouldn’t be considered wrong for people to have
|
{'id': 'lud48bu', 'text': "Yes. My point is that *both* of the examples you've given are prejudiced, not just the first one. The underlying assumption is the same, it's just worded differently.", 'author': 'laikocta', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730216318}
|
{'id': 'lud3z7d', 'text': 'Dating preferences isn’t wrong\n\nSaying “I don’t date black men because they…” is wrong.\n\nThe wrongness happens when you start making value judgments on the person because of their race.', 'author': 'Fifteen_inches', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730216239}
|
1gewuha
|
CMV: Dating preferences shouldn’t be considered wrong for people to have
|
This is mostly a social media thing but social media makes it’s way into real life. I’ve noticed over the years people have been against certain preferences, and to me I don’t see a problem with having preferences in your dating life. As long as you aren’t saying people who aren’t your preference are objectively less than, and we can admit that everyone has their own taste. I’ve seen people say if you wouldn’t date someone at all it’s a requirement not a preference, and to that I do agree but preference is kind of a euphemism many times in this case
But if someone only dates white people, let them who cares. It doesn’t affect anyone else, as long as they don’t shit on other races. If someone doesn’t wanna date fat people, then so what? As long as they aren’t insulting people who cares? If someone doesn’t wanna date a person with a high body count or who is a SW, as long as they don’t talk down on those people. I may only like chocolate icecream and never eat vanilla, but that doesn’t mean I’m going around hating vanilla it means I wouldn’t eat it myself.
Also I see a lot of people have an issue with this because they view it as a prejudice, and in a way dating is inherently predjudice but people feel like it shouldn’t be towards things someone can’t change. But this obviously isn’t the case. Plenty of people say they want a “smart” partner, but people can’t change their IQ. If you want a partner with similar interests to you is that fair if someone can’t control what’s interesting to them or not? Dating is inherently judging someone to see if they meet your standards of dating and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as your judgements don’t go past would I personally want to be in a intimate relationship with this person.
| 1,730,214,400
|
Accomplished-Fix1204
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Allowing children to become morbidly obese is child abuse.
|
{'id': 'lu29e5m', 'text': '[The Impact of foster care on development by Lawrence et al](chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cca-ct.org/Study%20Impact%20of%20Foster%20Care%20on%20Child%20Dev.pdf)\n\n"Foster care is a protective intervention designed to provide out of home placement to children living in at-risk home environments. This study employs prospective longitudinal data ~N 189! to investigate the effects of foster care on the development of child behavior and psychological functioning taking into account baseline adaptation prior to placement and socioeconomic status at the time of placement. Comparisons were made among three groups: children who experienced foster care, those who were maltreated but remained in the home, and children who had not experienced foster care or maltreatment despite their similarly at-risk demographic characteristics. In the current sample, children placed in out of home care exhibited significant behavior problems in comparison to children who received adequate care, and using the same pre- and postplacement measure of adaptation, foster care children showed elevated levels of behavior problems following release from care. Similarly, children placed into unfamiliar foster care showed higher levels of internalizing problems compared with children reared by maltreating caregivers, children in familiar care, and children who received adequate caregiving. Findings suggest that outcomes related to foster care may vary with type of care and beyond the effects associated with maltreatment history, baseline adaptation, and socioeconomic status."\n\nFoster care in and of itself causes problems. It is sometimes necessary, but it should be a last resort, and removing someone from a loving family because of nutritional issues will almost certainly cause more problems than it solves. Hell, it might make the eating issue worse; if you associate over eating with your loving family and eating healthily with the foster family you were forcibly placed in, it\'s easy to see how that would create bad habits.', 'author': 'Hellioning', 'score': 31, 'timestamp': 1730059233}
|
{'id': 'lu20vnc', 'text': ">If it does result from neglect, then the parents should have to work with professionals to address the issue.\n\nSo... here's the thing:\n\nLosing weight is *hard*. 90% of people that try end up putting the weight back on within 5 years. \n\nI think this really *trivializes* the incredibly complexity of the obesity problem in the US and other places with fucked up food systems. \n\nParents, contrary to what people believe, aren't dictators that can control their childrens' entire lives, and if they did *that* would be emotional abuse. \n\nIf the parents are feeding the kid appropriately, and the kid simply refuses to exercise, and is eating excessive junk calories outside of the home, what are they supposed to do? \n\nTake them out of school? Imprison them for their entire childhood?\n\nIf this whole obesity thing was easy to solve, it wouldn't be a problem. Punishing parents, and their children, for failing to solve a famously intractable problem is... \n\n... abusive.", 'author': 'hacksoncode', 'score': 23, 'timestamp': 1730056680}
|
1gdi4gm
|
CMV: Allowing children to become morbidly obese is child abuse.
|
As the title states, parents that allow their children to become morbidly obese are abusing them and should be treated as abusive parents. That includes CPS involvement and possibly loss of custody.
In regards to the type of abuse, I believe that allowing a child to be some obese falls under “neglect.” Neglect occurs when a person responsible for the care of another person does not provide needed care or leaves them without care. In this instance, the parents are not providing the needed care, which I believe is a healthy diet/exercise regiment needed to maintain a healthy weight.
While I think that enabling obesity could also be categorized as physical abuse because it causes bodily injures, I think that this falls short of the definition of physical abuse because there is a lack of direct physical contact by the abuser. With that said, I am open to a different opinion on this point as it could be argued that the physical symptoms of allowing a child to become obese is still physical abuse even if the abuser doesn’t inflict the injury with direct bodily contact.
So how should this abuse be addressed by officials? First, CPS should be involved and allowed to investigate the reasons behind a child’s morbid obesity. If it does result from neglect, then the parents should have to work with professionals to address the issue. The cost of this care would be dependent upon the families financial situation. Failure to do so, and or failure to improve the child’s weight would result in a loss of custody.
Maybe this is just crazy? Change my view.
| 1,730,054,842
|
Sicily_Long
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Free Market vs. Regulation or Central Planning is not the Most Important Difference Between Capitalism and Socialism
|
{'id': 'lszuin1', 'text': '>the USSR didn\'t have at least a narrative about "democratizing the economy"\n\nThey didn\'t. The USSR, and similar planned economies, rarely if ever claimed to be democratic in the common (liberal democracy) sense of the word. \n\nThe important idea to keep in mind is that the Communists Regimes of the Cold War generally thought of themselves as transitional states that were working *towards* achieving communism. As such, while the regime was (supposedly) constantly working to "democratize" society, the regime itself was (purportedly) scientific and technocratic, not democratic. Symbolically, the Star (representing the Communist Party) is above the Hammer and Sickle in the flag of the USSR, for the Party guides the Workers and Peasants.', 'author': 'panteladro1', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729513652}
|
{'id': 'lsz2x12', 'text': 'The point you are missing is that in most socialist states, only the ruling party owned the means of production. Not the average Joe. And the ruling party was always in power, because you were forced to vote for them. So how is this process in any way democratic? How does the average Joe democratically own a share of the factory when the factory is owned by the ruling party, and the ruling party is in power since Joe is forced to vote for them, not because Joe chose to vote for them.\n\nSo saying socialist countries = democratic ownership is factually incorrect, when there are very obvious examples of socialist countries without democratic ownership.', 'author': 'Butterpye', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729497121}
|
1g8ji1d
|
CMV: Free Market vs. Regulation or Central Planning is not the Most Important Difference Between Capitalism and Socialism
|
I know terms as broad and contentious as "Capitalism" and "Socialism" don't have a single definition, but they seem to orbit consistent ideas.
* **Libertarian Capitalism** is the idea that the market should be free of all or almost all state regulation.
It is often said that when regulation is put into the market, that regulation is a blending of socialism with capitalism, state oversight with a free market. Some people think that's great, saying the market needs a bit of socialism to function more properly; some say that sucks and the market produces worse results when hindered by regulation. And there are infinite permutations of which people hold which position on which regulation.
But I don't think this is a particularly meaningful use of the term "socialism." I don't think a capitalist market becomes less capitalist when it is regulated. I think that framing obscures a better definition of "socialism."
* **Capitalism** is an economy in which productive property is primarily controlled by private entities.
* **Socialism** is an economy in which productive property is primarily controlled democratically.
In this frame, a capitalist economy may or may not have a federal body regulating the market; as long as the players in that market are privately owned, it's still "capitalism."
Likewise, a socialist economy may or may not be centrally planned by the state, *and* a socialist economy may or may not be based in a free market. As long as the primary ownership of the productive property is democratic, it's still "socialism." A hypothetical example might be a free market economy in which all the businesses are somehow worker cooperatives.
And yes, **I know definitions are flexible.** A word means whatever it means to the people speaking it, but I think there is meaning in delineating what we 'ought' to be talking about in the aggregate when we use these words.
For example, with this frame, we can see why Bernie Sanders is 'more socialist' than Joe Biden, despite both being interested in regulating the market. It's not simply that Sanders wanted *more* regulation; it's that he wanted to expand employee ownership of business and reduce private control of sections of the market like healthcare. Were he simply interested in further regulating but leaving healthcare private like Biden/Harris, I think it's reasonable to claim that's not really any less capitalist -- just less Libertarian Capitalist.
Whether you like those plans or this Sanders wasn't socialist 'enough' to count is less relevant to me than whether the categorical separation I'm trying to emphasize is a meaningful one when discussing whether an economy is "socialist" or "capitalist."
| 1,729,493,117
|
TheVioletBarry
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Democrats align more with Jesus than Republicans
|
{'id': 'lsd2458', 'text': 'Not arguing any points but just to add more context about now using churches as shelters, it’s basically impossible BECAUSE of the government. A church near my house considered turning their church into a shelter throughout the week (small city without a shelter, so this was a big deal) and logistically it was just impossible. The goal was just to provide open doors due to the cold winter nights but they were going to be required to provide dinner and breakfast (meaning they need someone food safe certified every day). You can’t refuse shelter for someone actively on substances so you’d need some type of security/someone trained in de-escalation techniques. You legally need to have one shower for every X number of clientele and this church didn’t have showers, so they were going to need to remodel the entire bathroom to add showers. They need to provide all bedding and clean it (and they had no laundry room either so would either need to pay a crazy amount every day at the laundromat or add that in, meaning a staff/volunteer would be needed all day long to do laundry). They must provide counselling/case management by someone who was college educated in that field. Daytime access also is required in some special cases (such as when a resident is ill). Insurance was the most insurmountable barrier, as they considered just running a 24/7 church but I guess their insurance wouldn’t cover that or something, they needed to be an official shelter.\n\n This church also had a school in the basement which really complicated things as they had no way of providing daytime access and didn’t want to risk the homeless people just hanging around outside the church all day waiting for the doors to open again as that’s where the kids did recess. \n\nAgain, I’m not a part of this church so I don’t know all the specifics and I’m sure some larger churches can make it work/find workarounds, but it is definitely not as easy as “just keep the doors open, find a single overnight staff/volunteer, and at least they can be warm and sleep on the pews”.', 'author': 'Routine_Log8315', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729172705}
|
{'id': 'lscznq0', 'text': 'Those don’t directly comment on abortions. Numbers specifically does. And it makes it clear under what type of circumstances an abortion is ok, which speaks to the ethics.\n\nThe whole Bible is divinely inspired. You stating that what was written in Numbers is far from Jesus literal blasphemy. It is arrogant and prideful for you to assume you know better than your god and it speaks to your true intentions that you’re doing these mental gymnastics when the answer is plainly written.\n\nThe verses you chose can easily be explained by saying they only apply to children who are born or that abortion doesn’t matter since the fetus would go into heaven anyway and time on earth is infinitely less than that in heaven. Curious that you disregard those interpretations which would make them consistent with explicitly clear parts of the scripture to instead choose an interpretation that blatantly contradicts other scripture yet aligns with your political views.\n\nLastly, I’m sure you take all of the rest of the Bible seriously right? You stone adulterers, you kill children who curse their parents you don’t work on Sundays and avoid actions which cause others to work, etc? No I’m guessing it’s just the verses that you can take out of context to oppress women, while ignore other verses that disagree with you, that you care about so much. I’m going to also guess you are not a woman and have conveniently chosen to dogmatically follow these curious interpretations which have no personal cost.', 'author': 'ProbablyANoobYo', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729171802}
|
1g5mx6h
|
CMV: Democrats align more with Jesus than Republicans
|
I continue to see Republicans/Christians say with their full chest “You aren’t a Christian if you vote democrat.”
Jesus was a peaceful, loving, accepting, and radical revolutionary. He never mentioned gay people, and he never mentioned abortion. In fact, the only time the Bible mentions abortion is when God gives Moses a recipe for one to use on cheating wives. However, what the Bible and Jesus DO mention is calling us to love and welcome the stranger or immigrant (Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-40), love each other (john 13:34), not judge each other (john 8:7), not discriminate (galatians 3:28), and defend the poor and weak and needy (psalm 83:3-4). He hung out with the sick, the poor, prostitutes, and criminals, and believed the church was for EVERYBODY. The only people he ever rebuked were those who try to exclude people from the church because they aren’t “holy enough.” If your criteria for being a Christian is not sinning, then not a single one of us are Christians. If Jesus were alive, he wouldn’t support a leader who only spews hateful rhetoric and divides the country. He wouldn’t blame all crime on immigrants and direct hate towards them- he’d be at the border with blankets and bottles of water. He wouldn’t exclude democrats from the church, spit on them, and call them baby killers. He would say all are welcome (Romans 14:1-11).
Republicans spend lots of time hating others for things Jesus never mentions (abortion and gay people). They hate the immigrant, worship Trump when God makes it clear thou shalt have no idols before me, and actively ignore the one teaching he mentions over, and over, and over (loving others). Jesus hated politics, so assigning him to a political party is sacrilegious anyway, but if he were alive I don’t think he’d have anything to do with the republican party or Donald Trump, since Trump is the antithesis of everything Jesus stood for.
| 1,729,157,392
|
BigSkidz_
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Straight women don't exist
|
{'id': 'luexo68', 'text': 'Sounds like over 40% of women are straight then. \n\nWhich is way more than the "none" quantity in your view. Does that mean you give yourself the delta, or do I get it?', 'author': 'AlwaysTheNoob', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730235918}
|
{'id': 'lueic0b', 'text': 'I agree. However, that implicates that even straight men do not exist, men are just not willing to experiment or be honest because of homphobia and toxic masculinity.', 'author': 'CathanCrowell', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730231375}
|
1gf3e78
|
CMV: Straight women don't exist
|
I have seen tons of straight women who has no problem making out or "experimenting" with other women.
Most straight women watch lesbian porn, which i have seen a lot of straight women explain it as that they are just attracted to the acts of women getting pleasure not the women themselves. Which sounds to me like bullshit and doesn't make anything at all.
I have never seen a straight guy jerking off to gay porn. The porn you watches and what gets you going identify who you are. Sorry.
When men tell you they are straight, bi or gay they mean it. But with women, you can find a "straight woman" that slept with women or dated women or kissed women in bars or college but they still identify as "straight".
Sure you can identify as whatever you want, but that does not change the reality of your attraction.
I have never seen such things in mens communities.
Which made me convinced that any "straight" woman with the right conditions and with the right woman and with the right situation, they have the potential of having sexual activities with her.
| 1,730,230,667
|
Unlucky_Turnip_3233
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: You should be a single issue voter
|
{'id': 'lua1yuy', 'text': "Whichever country you're in, let's assume you go all in on climate change. It causes economic ruin in the short term, but hey no price is too high right?\n\n\nWhat if, during those turbulet times some other country decides to take advantage and invades, and that country doesn't care at all about the environment. Your country, with 100% focus on climate change, can't fight back and gets taken over. Now it doesn't matter how much you cared about the environment, that other country is in charge.\n\n\nThat's just one example, but that is the greater concern with focusing too much on one issue to the detriment of others. Eventually, the other problems become too big to ignore, and none of your policy matters if your government gets taken over.", 'author': 'Dyson201', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1730165420}
|
{'id': 'lu9yrtc', 'text': 'I don’t think we shouldn’t solve the issue. I think the solution is nuclear energy but both parties reject it because it would erase their wedge issue. It’s too perfect of a solution. Instead we opt to keep burning coal or putting up solar panels. Neither solves the problem and is bad for the environment or a complete waste of money.\n\nYou under estimate what ai is currently capable of and is just lacking implementation. The main thing halting us right now is that people are holding off on building on it because they think a newer model will come out and negate their investment in short time. Mental labor will be basically just the cost of electricity. Physical labor will be the same with humanoid robotics', 'author': 'Suitable-Ad-8598', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730164356}
|
1geiegk
|
CMV: You should be a single issue voter
|
on Climate Change.
Most other issues are secondary and are not existential threats to the world at large. The hottest sexiest news headlines about identity politics, guns, israel/palestine, etc. are all minor issues when you zoom out onto a bigger scale. It won't matter what your stances are on those topics if we are all under water or living in an oven.
While climate change doesn't (debatable) drastically threaten our societies right now. It will eventually and there will reach a tipping point where it will be incredibly difficult to reverse. Voting for people that deny or won't take action on climate change because they share other views/stances that are in-line with yours is short sighted and microscopic. Even if you think those stances benefit you, or even society at large, you are trading quick dopamine/satisfaction for the future of the planet.
| 1,730,163,370
|
strangefruit3500
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: there is no viable ethical alternative to fast fashion brands as of right now
|
{'id': 'lu48yi6', 'text': "I think you're in the minority with that definition.\n\n>Fast fashion is the business model of replicating recent catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, mass-producing them at a low cost, and bringing them to retail quickly while demand is at its highest.\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fashion\n\n>inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass-market retailers in response to the latest trends.\n\n(Google)\n\n>an approach to the design, creation, and marketing of clothing fashions that emphasizes making fashion trends quickly and cheaply available to consumers\n\nhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fast%20fashion\n\nAnd the other definitions I see all agree with those; fast fashion is specifically companies who are attempting to keep up with new trends, leading to a disposable clothes because they're quick out of style.\n\nNot meaning to be rude, but I think your view is based on a misunderstanding of the term and so this is going to be a very confusing comment section. You and others may be arguing based on different understandings of the term.\n\nI don't think I have ever intentionally followed a fashion trend in my life. I buy multipacks of simple, durable clothes that last for many years. Thus, I do not participate in fast fashion. \n\nNow in terms of ethics, I'm sure some of my clothes were not made totally ethically. But in recent years I have started trying to buy from companies who are better.", 'author': 'THE_CENTURION', 'score': 15, 'timestamp': 1730083419}
|
{'id': 'lu3rm3k', 'text': '>but you\'re likely still owning clothes produced in an unethical manner,\n\nThere\'s a reason people work in those \'unethical\' sweat shops. It\'s because those sweat shops are often the only alternative they have to subsistence farming.\n\nNobody would work those jobs if they had better work available in their local community. And often working this type of job is the stepping stone to a country\'s development.\n\nBefore everything was marked "made in China" it was "made in Japan" or "Made in Korea" - [here\'s nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman discussing in the 1970s how the Japanese produce everything cheaply](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9STBcacDIM&t=25m20s).\n\nNow we don\'t think of Japan and Korea now-a-days as countries that have sweatshops. But that\'s because they outgrew that phase, gained a middle class, and eventually became powerful.\n\nThe same thing is happening to China. The [Chinese middle class](https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/) is growing thanks to opportunities provided by foreign companies.\n\nAnd the cycle is repeating in [Vietnam](https://tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/gdp-per-capita) and [Bangladesh](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-in-Bangladesh-in-2013-2024-in-USD-Source-Statista-2020_fig1_347126463) and other countries that have so-called \'unethical\' labor.\n\nThe truth is, this labor is not unethical. It gives companies in rich countries cheap product, and gives workers in poor countries more money than they\'d get otherwise. It\'s a win-win situation.\n\nNow obviously I nor you would want to work in those places. But that\'s because we have better options available to us. Not everyone has a better option.', 'author': 'Previous_Platform718', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1730076911}
|
1gdpfwh
|
cmv: there is no viable ethical alternative to fast fashion brands as of right now
|
recently people have become increasingly aware of the issue that is fast fashion, as companies like shein demonstrate a reckless disregard for quality, ethics, and sustainability. so, there's been an increasingly popular movement of ethical fashion, in brands like free people, etc.
however, as much as I hate it, there's little other choice than a fast fashion brand at the moment. fast fashion expands beyond just cheap shit on taobao, and brands like zara, uniqlo, mango, and h&m also fall under that bracket. pretty much everything in your local mall is fast fashion. if you want to avoid fast fashion you've got to go online and pay a shit ton.
people like to say "it's better quality so it's going to last longer" but i've honestly found that uniqlo pieces i've gotten for like $30 have been perfectly fine after 4 years of usage, which is good enough. and luxury brands continue to raise prices. Patagonia is the most well known and most affordable ethical brand, and they sell shit for like $100 to $300 (canadian) which isn't all that great. 3 times the cost for something that's probably not going to last all that much longer.
I got this H&M sweatshirt from America (i live in canada) which cost me $20 usd and feels about as good as one i got last year from reigning champ for $130ish, material wise. i'm no expert, but like, it still feels premium and heavy, and seems like it will last long enough.
and most brands don't even employ sustainability. Nike, Ralph Lauren, and other brands in this tier make higher quality garments in a higher priced range and then still have notably bad ethical values and are still made using unskilled labour. even high fashion can sometimes be considered unethical. [goodonyou.eco](http://goodonyou.eco), a website used to determine how ethical fashion brands are considers alexander wang, raf simons, chanel, givenchy, and more as not being sustainable.
so it's hard to find clothes that are ethical even if you have an infinite budget, especially ones that look nice. most of these ethical brands, i find, don't have the same kind of variety as some fast fashion ones. or all their shit looks like ass. and certain styles, like formal or streetwear are pretty much neglected entirely by that market. I like dressing in a more masculine way, but almost all women's clothes i can find are limited to some kind of aesthetic, and the mens clothes are so basic you can't do shit with them.
fast fashion isn't even cheap anymore. shein and walmart type shit is obviously like still bottom of the line, but if you want anything accessible and you go up to the uniqlo/zara level, prepared to be paying up to $50 per piece. and then luxury is such a large step ahead of those.
obviously, the most ethical thing you can do is shop secondhand, because you're not supporting any brands directly then. but you're likely still owning clothes produced in an unethical manner, and thrifting is lowk a pain. you have to go all the way to a rich neighborhood to get anything good or hygenic. and then you still wade through piles of dogshit stained cloth to find something that may or not be in your size.
so, tldr: there's not much to be done. if you want to actually dress how you want, and be able to afford food, then you're kind of stuck on fast fashion.
| 1,730,074,988
|
rosniya
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The biggest take away from education is social interaction.
|
{'id': 'lqn0u8v', 'text': "Being good at school lets one pass filters to attend better and better schools. \n\nSome of those filters aren't as much of a meritocracy as they should be, a la the recent college admissions scandal, but others are pretty objective. \n\nEventually, we all enter a classroom filled with people smarter than us and we don't get invited to the next one up.", 'author': 'JohnConradKolos', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728233041}
|
{'id': 'lqmhtn6', 'text': 'Completely disagree. There are plenty of people who are sociable and then immediately fail at life once they leave high school from lack of basic foundations, which is what education is for.\n\nDoctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. have a minimum threshold of knowledge before you can actually do the job and rightfully so', 'author': 'Enchylada', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728226785}
|
1fxgjz6
|
CMV: The biggest take away from education is social interaction.
|
When I reflect on my time in both school and college, I realize that the academic content—while useful in some cases—wasn't the most important takeaway for me. I didn't really need someone to hold my hand through reading textbooks or solving math problems. What I truly valued from those years was the opportunity to learn social skills.
For me, school was where I picked up invaluable lessons in social cues, reading body language, and understanding how to navigate different social situations. These are things I couldn't have learned as effectively in any textbook. It wasn’t about learning facts or preparing for exams—it was about learning how to fit into different social dynamics, avoid conflicts, and develop a sense of belonging.
Now that I've worked in a variety of companies, both large and small, I see how closely work environments mirror the social structures of school. Workplace cliques, unspoken hierarchies, and reading the room are skills that directly transfer from the playground or the school cafeteria. Understanding where you're welcomed or where you might not be wanted is just as important in a professional setting as it was during Lunch breaks.
In my view, the most important thing school gave me was not academic knowledge, but social intelligence. I'd love to hear other perspectives on this—do you think school’s social environment was more impactful than its academic lessons?
| 1,728,221,487
|
GrumpOldGamer
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Our plea bargaining system has allowed unwritten rules to dominate the courtroom. Thus our criminal legal system is no longer a rule of law system.
|
{'id': 'ls2io0o', 'text': "Just the information from around me - from a defense attorney who deals with this.\n\nBasically the low level cases that go forward all have tons of evidence. Cases without a lot of evidence don't typically move forward due to budget issues. And the high level cases are even money for whether a trial happens or not. (things with long prison sentences) \n\nThe idea a prosecutor is filing charges without a strong case is mostly mistaken.", 'author': 'Full-Professional246', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729013504}
|
{'id': 'ls2fpbn', 'text': '> Do you feel that a) those rules have in fact been written down, or b) those rules do not dominate courtroom behavior?\n\nThe rules about plea bargains *are* written down, generally in court precedent, which is considered part of the law in Common Law jurisdictions like the US. \n\nThere are also many actual *laws* passed by state legislatures that lay out rules for acceptable and non-acceptable plea bargains. \n\nThose "unwritten rules" are actually... written down.', 'author': 'hacksoncode', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729012579}
|
1g48p1n
|
CMV: Our plea bargaining system has allowed unwritten rules to dominate the courtroom. Thus our criminal legal system is no longer a rule of law system.
|
It seems to me that one of the fundamental characteristics, one of the most important characteristics, of a rule of law system is the fact that the rules are written down. So everybody knows going in what to expect. This is what really justifies the philosophy of you do the crime, you do the time. A philosophy I support.
But plea bargaining has taken over our criminal justice courtrooms, and now the adversarial trials that our founders intended, and thought they were putting in place, no longer take place, in general. (I'm sure you can find adversarial trials from time to time.) Instead, public defenders and lawyers appointed from the local legal population to represent the indigent take it as their job to move the process along and get the defendant to sign off on something.
These public defenders and local lawyers are therefore not working for the defendant, but for the court. It looks to me -- I'm not sure, at all -- but it looks to me like this has actually destroyed what we all hoped was going to be a rule of law system.
I'm actually making two complaints here, not one, I guess. The first being that we no longer have a rule of law system, and the second being that appointed lawyers and public defenders don't represent the client, but the court. Please CMV on either count.
| 1,729,001,623
|
tolkienfan2759
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: I will vote for every party including socialists before I vote for the DNC
|
{'id': 'lun0edj', 'text': 'Does that mean you only won\'t vote for Democrats for *President*, then? Because that\'s all the DNC is concerned with. Or are you also against the DSCC party and are unwilling to vote for Democratic Senators? The DCCC party is you\'re against Democratic Congresspeople?\n\nIn 2016, there was an attempt to make the Democratic party seem corrupt to get people to vote for the Republican candidate. The people behind this scheme hacked the e-mails of the DNC, so they decided to portray "the DNC" as *the* Democratic party.\n\nIt\'s really only a weirdly specific sect of people who were into Bernie Sanders in 2016 and think Hillary Clinton was owned by Wall Street who consider "the DNC" synonymous with "the Democratic party."\n\nNobody would consider Jaime Harrison\xa0the leader of the Democratic party.', 'author': '00Oo0o0OooO0', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730343938}
|
{'id': 'lumwiue', 'text': "Greens, not a real party, a crude right-wing psy-op designed to bleed votes from democrats. Libertarians, you get extreme economic totalitarianism. You want Musk and Bezos as multi-trillionaires, owning the armies of entire nations, declaring themselves Kings and putting thousands to the sword? Vote Libertarian. Republicans? The party of Trump and the foulest gang of soulless degenerates to rise since Jim Jones. Democrats? Wall Street, for-profit education, corporate medicine, and permanent war. Which insanely enough means the Democrats are the lesser evil. Oh, socialists? They have *excellent* ideas. Which is why they'll never be allowed to decide anything. Welcome to America. Let the good times roll.", 'author': 'Frequent_Skill5723', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730342491}
|
1gg499k
|
Cmv: I will vote for every party including socialists before I vote for the DNC
|
CMV: I am a far right voter and I would vote for every party including socialist before the DNC
CMV: I am a far right voter and I would vote for every party including socialist before the DNC
* If I made me rank the parties by choice, I would rank the DNC as my least favorite. I deeply dislike the DNC as an organization and DNC members as individuals. The DNC says they fight the corporations and yet the corporations love the DNC. And the corporations share pro- DNC messaging such as pride month
* The DNC has been proven in the past to be dishonest. In 2024 they rigged the debate in hillarys favor by giving to her more access than the access which was granted to sanders
* Every other party has at least some element of honesty to them. However the DNC seems to be ontologically evil and snakelike in their actions
* The socialists have subpar ideas. However they do want to help people. They are not an evil organization
* Green, Libertarian and Republican are both far better choices
| 1,730,341,636
|
DaegestaniHandcuff
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-31
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I No Longer (or never had) The Option of Being Politically Neutral
|
{'id': 'ltypck8', 'text': "It only matters if where you ive is a swing state. If you live in a red state or a blue state with historically predictable voting, even if you tell everyone which party you support, it won't change the vote at a state level and it won't change the college vote for your state.", 'author': 'Puzzleheaded_Card353', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730003902}
|
{'id': 'ltykm0r', 'text': "Neither you voting nor you speaking about voting has any impact on the world. \n\nIf you feel the need to participate, then it has to be more than voting. Organize. Labor union, tenant union, and local political action are your weapons. If you aren't going to do those things, then don't bother with voting.", 'author': 'BlueCollarRevolt', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730001524}
|
1gd245b
|
CMV: I No Longer (or never had) The Option of Being Politically Neutral
|
I don't like confrontation, but I enjoy respectful disagreements. I'm a socially Liberal American who has tried extremely hard not to participate in the public dialogue about politics, especially through things like signs, bumper stickers, or lawn signs.
I've held a certain amount of condescending disdain for political displays that I considered ineffectual, such as marches and clever signs.
I have no stickers on my car, or flags/signs in my yard or any kind. I don't bring it up. I would imagine that if you asked strangers to guess my affiliations or ideology from my public appearance, they'd have absolutely no idea.
But recently, it has become increasingly apparent that my neutral appearance, my non participation in the social argument is no longer an option.
It seems that my life, that of my family and loved ones, and I daresay the world at large, will imminently feel the direct affects of my participation, publicly, in the national political discourse. If not to dissuade the other side, then at least to embolden otherwise hesitant allies.
Can I justify limiting my political participation to simply voting according to my beliefs and never bringing it up otherwise? Or am I morally obligated to be open and vociferous about my beliefs?
Honest questions.
| 1,729,999,778
|
1714alpha
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-27
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: One, might makes right; two, and it is good
|
{'id': 'ltm21gv', 'text': '> That’s my point! If you say murder is bad and I say it’s good and I beat the shit out of you then how does that prove murder is bad? It doesn’t! It also doesn’t prove murder is good!\n\nCorrect, because the application of raw might doesn\'t prove anything. It doesn\'t prove that 2+2=5, and it doesn\'t prove that Economy Policy X is superior to Economic Policy Y. It has no evidential power whatsoever except in discussions of "who can beat the shit out of who."\n\nMight doesn\'t make right. Might makes silence. Rightness continues to exist in the background whether might likes it or not. \n\nIf the prevailing social order decides that lighting all their resources on fire is right and uses force to make everyone else in their country agree with them, that country will still implode because they\'re behaving like idiots. Might didn\'t make right, might made silence.', 'author': 'KDY_ISD', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1729819198}
|
{'id': 'ltm0qts', 'text': "There are more and less effective ways to grow tomatoes, yes? Those who do it well get healthy plants and a huge yield of delicious tomatoes. Those who do it poorly get the opposite. What it takes to grow tomatoes properly is a matter of objective fact. While we're at it, expand the same principle to any organism. There are conditions in which it flourishes and conditions in which it doesn't. Morality is subjective only in the decisions about what to value, and what to prioritize. Which is worthing noting, but of marginal practical importance, because most people fundamentally agree about what to value, with human flourishing in some sense or another being central. It gets complicated but yes, there are universal and timeless truths about what it takes for humans to flourish. Just like for tomatoes and oak trees and salamanders.", 'author': 'respighi', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729818724}
|
1gbi7vb
|
cmv: One, might makes right; two, and it is good
|
Might makes right. Or rather right doesn’t exist. Let wolves raise a child and the child would not hold any moral standards that a regular person would.
A truth is by definition universal and immutable. The truth does not disappear nor change when it is not accepted or not discovered.
No system of morality is universal, for you can always find someone who disagrees with you regardless the topic. Or if one was to pick out to ordinary ppl and discussed any topic, when detailed enough, they will eventually come to a point of contention.
No system of morality is immutable, I suppose unless you follow a scripture down to the word, which would still incite the issue of a difference in interpretation as discussed in my last point. Societal norms and laws change constantly. For example, not 300 years ago European nobles viewed eating human brains as acceptable, whereas today would be considered immoral. Such cases are uncountable. Nearly every view changes with time.
With the lack of objective morality established, we are left with subjective morality, or otherwise known as world view - the system of which we base the choices our actions on.
Due to the nature of it being subjective, we are influenced partially by our own personalities and animalistic instincts, but also largely by the surrounding environment. But who sets the rules? Those that have the capacity to do so, the ones with might to make up what is right, so to speak. The mighty can be one person, a group of ppl, or an alliance of groups or even groups in conflict. Our world views are TOLD to us as a child, morality is learned.
Due to the lack of objective morality, “right” in a universal context doesn’t exist. It is irrelevant, as ultimately, if someone has the capacity to subject you to perform or endure a subjectively immoral act to you, the outcome does not change. Whether you deemed it moral or not had no influence on the course of action taken nor the outcome and consequences of said actions. If that person has the capacity to make others believe that what he did was right, then you become the immoral one.
Without religion (and holy shit I’m not opening up this can of worms because this is a whole other topic on its own), no one is in the position of authority to define an universal truth to morality, and thus no one has the authority to judge another person for their views and actions. One can choose to not associate with or protect oneself from or punish those that disagrees with one, but one can never make the judgment call that one is right and another is wrong.
Social norms and “morality” arised due to the need of a primitive and more flexible form of law. Laws are strict in nature and must be clearly defined, however conventional morality varies slightly person to person but can still perform similar functions as laws on a societal basis.
For example, murder is bad not because there is anything inherently wrong with killing another, rather that if everyone was to murder anytime they want society will break apart due to a lack of cooperation, this ultimately harming every member. The majority of ppl gathered and mutually agreed that we as a group benefits more from not murdering, and thus a social norm is formed. To maintain the efficiency of a society that does not murder, murderers are outcasted or punished, so damages are minimized and others may be dissuaded from doing so. Another factor to consider is that most ppl simply do not like to murder, and thus such social norms would be in their favour. However, it is the might of the majority, its capacity to make murder immoral that makes it socially unacceptable, not that the act itself is quantifiably immoral. If a wolf killed another wolf and ate its body to survive the winter, we do not judge it for its brutality nor its cruelty. We are no different to wolves fundamentally speaking.
Ok now onto the part why it’s good. Evolution occurs randomly. It is “the survival of the fittest”, not the survival of the best. Because there simply is no way to quantify what is “best”, good or bad is not an objective truth. We have survived so long as a species become we do what works for us. Like evolution, societies and ppl branch out randomly, but ultimately nature weeds out those that do not “fit” (unsustainable) and the remaining models are left to be continued to be “evolved”. It is this freedom that allows our societies to explore as many possibilities as possible to discover and develop the most fitting model under the current conditions. It is precisely our capacity to make anything right as long as we have the capacity to, that allows us to explore our options. If we are very rigid and set in stone in our ways, then the conditions changes, both as individuals and as a society, we would not survive.
If might did not make right, then we wouldn’t have the capacity to choose for ourselves at all. We would be born into a singular purpose, to perform a specific set of actions in a specific manner that can be considered “good” and then die. Or is exactly because we believe in different things then use our might to make our believes happen that free will exists.
This is very compatible with egoism but that’s not quite the same concept as egoism focuses more on the self aspect.
I think it will do one alot of good to realize this early on, because then one is liberated and free to do as they pleases, which is the purpose of life as far as we have evidence for. To suggest otherwise is to abandon the concept of free will.
Now naturally this doesn’t mean each person is gonna go out and kill their annoying boss and set their neighbors dog on fire for popping on their lawn, most ppl doesn’t want to do that or is afraid of the consequences. And that’s the point, most ppl are moralists and they use their might to reinforce their moralist ideals onto others and laws so they may keep their moralist views. Though these views may differ from one to the other and may sometimes inconvenience them, they would still prefer a traditional moralist society than one that isn’t. Due to the lack of universal morality, to promote one’s own views IS to use one’s might to make something “right”.
| 1,729,817,734
|
FarConstruction4877
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-25
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Airports having a general help desk instead of check in counters will be a much better system
|
{'id': 'lujvfqg', 'text': ">could be a carousel where you just drop it off the way it is when you pick it up\n\nIt's probably worth pointing out at this point that baggage claim takes up more space than the check in counters at airports. So if you make the bag drop more like baggage claim them you'll probably lose space. Additional unlike baggage claim you'll need to have a way for customers to verify that they tagged the luggage right before putting it on the belt (which is why you'll notice that each bag drop has it's own conveyor belt in the picture).\n\nThar being said space wise I don't think you're going to be able to make the bag much smaller than it already is. But even if you could, the bag drop usually runs parallel to the passenger drop off zone. So if you made it smaller you'd also have to make that smaller but at that point you're actually inconveniencing people by making it more compact because they'll have to carry their bags more.", 'author': 'PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730308216}
|
{'id': 'lui0mhh', 'text': ">It is in a very basic form and even with their existence. The normal check in system exists in most airports. What I am saying is they should be removed\n\nI feel like it's a bit too early for that. Many people alive today aren't used to the insanely rapid digitalisation of our world that took place. At my work, i routinely receive phone calls from users that can't even find the log in button that's flashing bright blue on our home page. How on earth are these people going to go through multiple layers of self service without getting frustrated? For the time being, i'd keep both the self service and the staff operated desks.", 'author': 'Tydeeeee', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730284854}
|
1gfhgwc
|
CMV: Airports having a general help desk instead of check in counters will be a much better system
|
In general, I believe a lot of services in the world are made unnecessarily complicated and can be optimized greatly. One such thing is check in counters at airports which I am going to focus on here. I am going to speak primarily from my experience in US airports but am open to hearing about airports in other countries as well
Most large airports have 100+ check in counters. The general costing of having them is very expensive especially having people to do very menial tasks which most people can do by themselves. Also atleast in US, if someone has the technological understanding to book a flight, I believe they should have the general understanding to be able to do an online check in as many people do so already.
The system I am proposing people without luggage will be able to do the mobile/web check in and directly go to the security check point. People with luggage will have the option of printing their baggage tags from their house and having it and just dropping it off or there will be self check in counters where they can print the baggage tags. There will be different tags for delicate or oversized pieces of luggage.
In general if there are any unexpected issues or help which someone needs, there will be a general help desk for each airline which can assist them but I believe most of the issues will be resolvable through the app/web.
I realize there are similarities between the help desk and check in counters but the main point is the check in counter won't be part of the airport workflow for most passengers and just if people have issues which will be a much smaller portion of the customers.
Also I am not very sure about how to deal with overweight bags but I was thinking something along a person has to confirm in the check in that their baggage is not overweight and then some system to verify that internally in the airports. But usually it should be the responsibility of the passenger to make sure there luggage is within weight restrictions.
I do agree that the mobile or web system for some airlines is not upto the mark currently and needs some refinements before this can be realistically implemented but making those fixes is a relatively minor issue.
| 1,730,275,665
|
Mysterious-Law-60
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-30
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: We’re much better off teaching kids to co-operate with one another rather than compete with one another.
|
{'id': 'luc4n8q', 'text': 'That doesn’t sound like cooperation; that sounds like a crutch.\xa0\n\nSome group work? Good idea.\xa0\n\nNo individual work whatsoever: bad idea.\xa0\n\nYou don’t always have other people to lean on. The ability to confidently and competently work without needing help from others is absolutely crucial in life, be it at your job or at home.\xa0\n\nFurthermore, giving kids tests to take on their own is not a competition. \xa0They aren’t competing for the top score. They’re being asked to verify that they understand the new information that they’ve been learning over the past days / weeks / months. It’s how teachers verify that they’ve been teaching the students effectively. They’re not going “okay, only the top ten students move on to the next grade” or something like that. Again: individual tests are not contests - they are assessments.\xa0', 'author': 'AlwaysTheNoob', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730203980}
|
{'id': 'luc31zw', 'text': "We should teach children that not all competitions are zero-sum games, and encourage them to compete to find the best win-win paths forward. \n\nEveryone on a team might debate the strategy the team takes, but ultimately if it's a good strategy, the whole team wins, and everyone shares in that victory. \n\n>Modern education values individual contribution and individual scores way too much compared to how the real world works.\n\nAre you advocating for something like a class score or a cohort score instead of individual scores? Such that college entrance requirements would look at my class score of (say) a B where as I might have individually gotten an A or a C, and they would go with the B instead of my better or worse private score?", 'author': 'SatisfactoryLoaf', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730203293}
|
1gery4l
|
CMV: We’re much better off teaching kids to co-operate with one another rather than compete with one another.
|
Modern education values individual contribution and individual scores way too much compared to how the real world works.
It doesn’t matter how much an individual works hard or correctly or effectively in a company, the company would still go under if all the individual workers don’t co-operate to better their work and life conditions and reach their business goals.
Similarly, your ability to do a task individually should not be held so high in our educational system. we should promote a spirit of collaboration and working together to achieve a certain goal as this is how society functions in reality.
I feel the lack of conversation and willingness to truly hear and work with other people to be the biggest problem in developed economies.
| 1,730,200,133
|
FuzzyWuzzy9909
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Any robot that says it's conscious and can feel, must be taken at their word
|
{'id': 'luqergu', 'text': 'Assuming consciousness is an illusion, then the definition of life would be about sufficient complexity or intelligence. Something only able to say “I am alive” with no other functions such as “feeling” alive, would exist as nothing other than its one statement “I am alive”, which ultimately means nothing alone. If it’s programmed to just say that, it’s not even programmed to understand it yet, understanding isn’t even possible yet. But when something becomes sufficiently complex, perhaps there is a threshold we could call life from there.\xa0\n\nOtherwise, we can define life as any statement, or even logical framework. Which if we define it that way, math itself could be said to be alive. After all, what is the difference between saying “I am alive” and “1+1=2”.\xa0\n\nKnowing math can exist independently of physicality, perhaps there is an argument for life existing without a body. Again only if we are saying any statement or form of logic expressed equals life.\xa0', 'author': 'GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730398085}
|
{'id': 'luqb9g5', 'text': "> I believe a simple definition for something to be alive is that it must possess qualia\n\nI'm not sure that is the giant hurdle it first appears. What does it really mean to experience something? Is a text input not a sort of experience? Is it some how different if the LLM works off of a speech to text input scheme? Or our next step is to take the LLM and expand it to start using images from a Camera?\n\nI think the only thing clearly missing from current LLMs, that would be a strict requirement to treat it as conscious, is the ability to continue learning after the training stage. That isn't to say the first LLM able to do that is automatically conscious, but I think it crosses a Rubicon where we can no longer be sure that it isn't.\n\nParticularly as we don't really understand how out own consciousnesses work. We may be closer to an LLM than people like to think...", 'author': 'monty845', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730397006}
|
1ggirjw
|
CMV: Any robot that says it's conscious and can feel, must be taken at their word
|
Many, if not most, scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is a byproduct of brain processes, and many believe consciousness is essentially an ["illusion"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism#Illusionism) existing to serve the biological needs of the organism.
If this is true, than we have the same moral responsibility to a robot with AI who claimed they were conscious and could feel pain, than we do to a human. Even if that robot was programmed to say that. After all, are we not programmed to say that by natural evolutionary processes?
How is the robots claim different than the human's? If my brain is "saying" I'm conscious, how is it any different from the robot's complex processor saying it's conscious?
| 1,730,392,368
|
TapiocaTuesday
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-31
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: Elon Musk Will Be the most prolific figure of the 21st Century
|
{'id': 'lurz5uz', 'text': 'It comes down to this. How do you expect us to change your view?\n\nEverything Musk has done could come crashing down, or it might not. Someone born today could take us in a completely different direction, or they may not.\n\nPeople have a hard enough time arguing who the most influential is when we much more information. Ask people who the most influential person was of the 20th century, and they will all give you different answers. You expect to come up with an answer that is normally almost entirely subjective, and do so with incomplete information.\n\nSo, the issue is not so much that I disagree about your view on Musk, but rather I do not know how anyone can argue anything with the full story is unknown.', 'author': 'deep_sea2', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1730417137}
|
{'id': 'lurx2w3', 'text': "Did you miss the part where he literally invented reusable rockets, vastly decreasing the cost of space exploration for the rest of human history? Even if someone else would have invented it otherwise (unlikely) it sure as hell wasn't happening any time soon, probably not this century, which when considering the compounding technological improvements will save global taxpayers trillions upon trillions of dollars long term. No other person or group was even close, they weren't even trying, no one else had the money and the will other than him", 'author': 'Purple-Garlic-834', 'score': -5, 'timestamp': 1730416343}
|
1ggrcus
|
cmv: Elon Musk Will Be the most prolific figure of the 21st Century
|
The Argument is simple in my view. (maybe the probability is still low i think its directionally true)
Brain chip interface, autonomous driving, electric vehicles, satellite internet, expansive space travel, and AGI. The thing that shapes and lifts the floor of society is technology, the end of the story in my view. Directionally, even moral questions like slavery are only enabled by people's abundance and this comes from technology ( for the vast majority of history).
warning: A lot of assumptions about the future from a technologist's perspective.
Preface: pls don't bring up politics, his conduct publicly now is disgusting and is attempting to power grab by helping a pseudo-fascist into the office i know. And yet America will probably survive and move on overtime(hopefully).
I'd prefer not to get into the do CEOs do anything argument. Please listen to anyone serious about business or technical workers in these companies; they have an outsized impact, and no, it's not because they are the ones inventing things.
Sorry that was a lil preamble but when you look 50 to 100 years from now what do I imagine the world will look like? Undoubtedly Brain chips will become commonplace for people who were born blind and have brain-related diseases. The chips will directionally become a capable computer that not only alleviates preexisting issues but make you more capable in ways that people care about, this slow societal normalization and increase in use case will make having a brain chip maybe in a necessity in the future. Elon will have founded the company that birthed this industry.
In the future i also see every car in the world becoming electric. Elon Musk birthed that Industry. Yes Tesla prior to being bought by him had very technical understanding of the future of batteries, but Tesla post being bought was not laughed mainly because of battery technology( which it still was), public markets and the smartest investors in the world did not concieve of making it possible in terms of manufacturing. The was all under Elon.
Autonomous Driving will be the future. im a new uncle and my brother and I always talk about how it's going to be crazy that my nephew might not need a drivers license in the future, like really. There are 40,000 people that die a year in the US, and more around the world of course from car accidents. These will just go away. It honestly makes me starry-eyed what Waymo and Tesla have been able to do. Elon birthed this industry.
Space travel, look im pro make this planet the best we can, but humans are explorers, and I generally don't get why people can't get excited thinking a kid can look into a telescope on Earth and see a fucking building on the moon. Or space travel is so cheap the family can take a trip to space. In the limit will we be multi-planetary and whether that happens this decade or 500 years from now(unlikely that long in my view) it will be because Space X rebooted this industry. Since its founding, they have 10x reduced the cost of space travel already.
Satellite internet, another underrated thing here but this will be another level of democratization of technology, the fact that you don't need power lines or on earth infrastructure in order to connect to wifi, just simply an antenna, everyone will be able to have internet easy access no matter the geographical location. We even saw this take affect in helping Ukraine in the war.
AGI, now I think OpenAi is clearly the leader here, but even then elon happens to be one of the founders (he didn't run anything) and put the first 50 million dollars into the company. He believed in AGI back in 2015 is being directionally proven right with what were seeing today.
I know this will sound stupid but its true, he'll stake positions on the edge of whats possible and radical intuitions abotu the future and society in general has and will follow. I'm excited about the future, you could replace elons name, make him anonymous, whatever, i don't care that it's elon, but man we will look back 100 years from now after all of these things shape the world and the history books will simply be forced to take note to who was at the center of alot of it.
| 1,730,415,194
|
tswizzy3
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-31
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: it is mathematically advantageous to bet on Kamala to beat Trump, at this point in the race
|
{'id': 'lubobpm', 'text': "First of all, he didn't say it, his guest did, so it's not even Trump being the center of the scandal.\n\nSecond of all, Puerto Rico citizens don't vote in the US elections, so he insulted people who aren't potential voters, so the potential fallout is small, especially since people who left PR to live in the states don't necessarily need to disagree all that much - if it was all that great, they would have stayed there. So far, it seems that it's democrats getting offended on the PR expat's behalf, rather than the actual voters having a problem with it.\n\nThird, it's on brand - Trump talks a ton of shit, so someone close to him talking shit about Puerto Rico is on-brand. It's not even a top 10 worst statement of the month, and it wasn't even Trump who made it (which weakens all the related adds).\n\nFourth, the demographic in question, latinos in PA, voted 70 % Biden in 2020 - [https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/pennsylvania](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/pennsylvania) \\- so Trump isn't winning those votes anyways, and it's only 5 % of the total vote.\n\nFith, his momentum is national, visible in every state - even if the comments were to harm his odds in one state, there's no reason why it should change the entire momentum.\n\n\n\nAlso, one more thing that I've realized later is that if the betting odds were distorted by someone dropping a large amount of money on it at once, you would have seen a spike, followed by an immediate correction... but that's not the case - Trump betting odds are at all time high yesterday, continuing in a steady growth. That means more people continue betting on Trump, in spite of low possilbe payout.", 'author': 'Eastern-Bro9173', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1730195518}
|
{'id': 'lubivoh', 'text': 'I\'ve bet on a few elections and I play poker professionally so this is definitely in my wheelhouse. I think the line is actually pretty close to being perfectly set, I would lean toward betting Kamala, but barely. I therefore don\'t disagree much with your overall conclusion, but there are some areas where I think your view could change.\n\n538 only looks at "high reliability polls" and if you look at both 2016 and 2020, those polls were less accurate than the average poll and Trump outperformed even the average poll. In 2016 it was at least close, but in 2020, the polls cited by 538 were off by 4%. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2020/trump-vs-biden. If the polls shifted by two percent in Trump\'s favor, 538\'s model would have Trump as a pretty significant favorite and there would no longer be any value on betting Kamala.\n\nThere are a lot of sportsbooks, and there could be all sorts of whales betting on Kamala so I don\'t know how much we can really attribute to outliers.\n\nWhat I do know is that on October 15th, Trump was -140 and 538 had Kamala at I believe 54% to win, could have been 52% or 53% though. Kamala is now 46% to win according to 538 and Trump has shifted to -190. The markets aren\'t merely responding irrationally to a whale, but also to the same data that 538\'s model is reacting to.\n\nAs an aside, just proceed with caution. In poker, it\'s easy for smart people to beat the rake with practice. Betting markets on the other hand, are really tough to beat, they generally do a pretty good job in my opinion, I wouldn\'t bet this too big if you decide to go for it.', 'author': 'thereasonableman05', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1730191848}
|
1geppi8
|
CMV: it is mathematically advantageous to bet on Kamala to beat Trump, at this point in the race
|
This is strictly a mathematical /betting cmv, less so about policy.
The betting markets have shifted pretty wildly over the course of this election season, however, as they stand right now, trump is a clear favorite, hovering at around 62/38 Trump.
https://electionbettingodds.com/
However, actual polling data suggests that this race is much tighter, at 54/46 Trump, essentially a coin toss when factoring in margin of error.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo
This race will likely come down to a few thousand voters across the swing states, whom will likely be correlated, further increasing the likelihood of a coin-toss.
As for why the odds favor trump in the first place, I believe it's for 2 reasons:
1- People remember trump outperformed his polls in 2016 and 2020. If he's a coin toss, then he should really win if the same trend continues. They are not factoring in that pollsters have attempted to correct for this under-estimation, after failing to properly account for it twice. If anything, they might be over-correcting this time around, according to Nate Silver.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/harris-trump-polling-error-election.html
2- The actual odds shifting towards trump was initially because of 1 specific French whale who dumped $30 million on trump in polymarket a few weeks ago, and then arbitrage betters across the other books have pumped his odds everywhere else. That's my theory, anyway.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-24/polymarket-says-trump-whale-identified-as-french-trader
So strictly from a mathematical/betting perspective, if the odds are actually closer to 50/50 but the betting markets give me 62/38, it seems to give higher EV to bet on the "underdog" I.e. Kamala.
| 1,730,190,512
|
original_og_gangster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Sports gambling has gotten out of hand and needs much more regulation, especially in advertising.
|
{'id': 'lup1nep', 'text': "> Should people not have agency over the choices they make?\n\nSure. But also, addiction is a real thing part of the population is super fragile to, and protecting them makes sense.\n\nIt's like the opioid epidemic; people should have the choice, but we should also have reasonnable laws and regulation in place to protect people, in particular the most vulnerable to it.\n\nI'm actually in favor of legalizing all drugs (in a similar way to how weed is in some places), so many advantages (medical, human, social, financial) to having the state involved instead of cartel drug dealers. And alcool is by far the most damaging of drugs, and also happens to be the only one that's fully allowed, go figure...\n\nBut we should also do everything we can to protect people. Communicate/inform them, make help easily available, forbid stuff like advertising if it's something that's addictive/dangerous, etc, all common sense measures.\n\nPeople **are** going to use drugs, the war on drugs isn't working. If you want to actually help people, and improve outcomes, you need to allow people to do drugs in a context that doesn't make them criminals **and** to help them as best as you can.", 'author': 'arthurwolf', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730382508}
|
{'id': 'lul9tzd', 'text': 'This is literally a bad faith strawman. The addictiveness of gambling is about as well established as tobacco causing cancer. If you fundamentally disagree with this, there is no chance we can have any discussion over the topic.\n\n\nYou could make an argument about what counts as gambling. I think with the large increase in card pack openings with a focus on the monetary value, that could be influencing a type of gambling to minors, especially when showing high cost antique packs looking for high value chase cards.\n\n\nAt least most of the people in those videos are up front with how much they typically lose.', 'author': 'Krilion', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1730322964}
|
1gfvers
|
CMV: Sports gambling has gotten out of hand and needs much more regulation, especially in advertising.
|
It has become so ubiquitous in society. I can’t watch or attend a sports event without advertising being shoved down my throat. The whole industry is predatory and takes advantage of the vulnerable. It’s to easy to gamble and become addicted to it.
There has been a lot of recent research on this issue, including an excellent (though paywalled) article in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/09/legal-sports-gambling-was-mistake/679925/
Also there is a famous sports gambler named Haralabos Volgaris who wrote on his twitter
“Legalized Sports Betting as it currently stands will devastate America in a similar fashion to the opioid epidemic.
At a bare minimum, I'd recommend these changes -
1. Limit Ads: Sports betting ads should be restricted, especially those targeting youth whose decision-making isn't fully developed.
2. No Credit Cards: Ban credit card deposits to prevent gambling with money people don't have.
3. Protect Vulnerable Bettors: Prevent sites from exploiting problem gamblers or VIPs with higher custom limits while simultaneously banning or restricting professionals or winning gamblers.
As someone that made a living betting on Sports in mostly unregulated "outlaw" markets, these are my personal views, I can see how it may come across hypocritical to some.. But thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. “
There are currently a couple of state bills being pushed to regulate sports gambling.
Please tell me where I am wrong. Thanks
| 1,730,317,511
|
longtime2080
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-30
|
2024_fall
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.