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: Why Pizza is Overrated and Tacos are the Superior Food | {'id': 'lt47fi4', 'text': "Thank you very much, I'll take that delta good sir. You need to actually comment with a delta to my comment, you can find one to copy paste in the sidebar.\n\nAnd I agree, it is best to stop and ask whether we ought, even if we know that we can. Blurring dessert and pizza is perhaps a step beyond man's realms.\n\nIf I'm honest, your third point is the most persuasive so far, pizzas are a lot of work. This appeals to my inner laziness, if not my inner glutton. Which sin prevails, though? Sloth or gluttony? It is hard to say.", 'author': 'Ender_Octanus', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729566470} | {'id': 'lt41n1g', 'text': 'No, it’s a soft taco. Fajita filling is different. Tacos are typically hot meat with cold toppings. Fajitas are grilled meat and veggies.', 'author': 'H1Ed1', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729564182} | 1g96h3f | cmv: Why Pizza is Overrated and Tacos are the Superior Food | Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking about the food we all claim to love, and I have to say—pizza is seriously overrated. It’s just a cheesy bread circle!
Tacos, on the other hand, are the true culinary MVPs. They’re versatile, portable, and you can customize them however you like. Who wants to eat something that requires a knife and fork? Tacos are made for adventure!
Let’s break it down:
1. **Variety**: Tacos can be filled with just about anything—beef, chicken, fish, veggies. Pizza? It’s stuck in the cheese and sauce rut.
2. **Portability**: Tacos are the perfect on-the-go meal. Pizza? Good luck trying to eat a slice while walking without looking like you just lost a battle with a sauce-covered monster.
3. **Creative Choices**: Tacos are like little edible parties—load them up with anything you want! Pizza? It’s basically just a cheese delivery system for regret. You can only stack so much before it all topples over and you’re left crying into the sauce.
So, what do you all think? Am I out of my mind for saying pizza is just a flat, sad excuse for a meal? Let’s hear your best food roast—bonus points if it’s as cheesy as pizza!
**Edit:** Please keep it friendly—no need to throw virtual pizza slices at each other! | 1,729,560,378 | Fabulous-Ad-2458 | nan | nan | 2024-10-22 | 2024_fall |
CMV: You should never donate to animal charities when human charities exist | {'id': 'luqyd8i', 'text': "Yes and yes. Obviously I don't love them more than my immediate family but I prefer animals overall to human beings.", 'author': 'Revanchistexile', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1730404273} | {'id': 'luqv5jo', 'text': 'Does someone giving to the ASPCA make it somehow more likely that there will be a meteor strike or nuclear war?', 'author': 'peachesgp', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730403254} | 1ggmmld | CMV: You should never donate to animal charities when human charities exist | I'm by no means claiming that animals aren't important, but whenever I see charity events for aquariums and the like I can't help but feel like it's such a waste of money.
Human lives could be saved with the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into saving the lives of animals. I agree that it sucks that various ecosystems are damaged or worse, or that many animals are on the verge of extinction, but humans are more important.
I can kind of see the argument of "helping animals helps humans indirectly." But saving those animals are at best a band aid on the real issues. People should focus on charities that are trying to solve the root problem, such as climate change and affordable clean energy, to name a few. Far more animals will be saved in the long run by donating to those groups.
My only conclusion is that people are distracted by the cute animals and fail to prioritize their spending. But I've also never heard anyone share this opinion, so I might be missing something.
That is why I'm here. | 1,730,402,378 | thesuperssss | nan | nan | 2024-10-31 | 2024_fall |
CMV: In terms of execution, the Jan 6th Riot is a better form of protest than most. | {'id': 'lv4x7lv', 'text': "That's possible, but it's also possible that if Trump loses the election because of it that's a larger blow than any ground they got culturally by almost accidentally attempting a really sloppy insurrection.\n\n\nI think we'll see over the next few years whether Republicans get more bizarre or less bizarre, and whichever one happens will definitely have been a result of Jan. 6th, either its utter embarrassment or its galvanizing lunacy\xa0", 'author': 'TheVioletBarry', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730610881} | {'id': 'lv4rd8x', 'text': ">There's a big difference between a protest and a riot.\n\nIs it not a riot when people are throwing bricks through storefront windows?", 'author': 'Livid_Lengthiness_69', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1730607886} | 1gie0tp | CMV: In terms of execution, the Jan 6th Riot is a better form of protest than most. | Regardless of whether you agree with the motivations behind it, I believe that the January 6th riot is a better form of protest than most other leftist based protests.
The criteria I am basing ‘better form of protest’ off is: 1. General achievement of intended goal and 2. Accuracy of where protest is targetted.
While I am pretty set in my view of Jan 6th upholding the 2nd point, I am more lenient in the 1st criteria.
What will NOT change my view is simply condemning the motivations behind the protest or the morality of its effects. For this argument I am simply considering the act of the protest itself.
For Criteria 1, the most obvious goal of the attack was to overturn the 2020 election, and this was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, it still brought the MAGA movement closer to ‘draining the swamp’ as they call it. The protestors genuinely believed the election had been stolen by this group of corrupt elites in Washington in order to protect themselves. The protest was not just to overturn the election, but to scare these ‘elites’ and their supporters.
From MAGAs perspective, I would call this an overall success. The attack is broadly considered an act of domestic terrorism by these people, and a large tenet of the democrat’s election goals is protecting democracy from Donald Trump. They believe that he is associated with Project 2025, which will cause another ‘attack on democracy’ as they call it. I believe this fear of MAGA has largely limited the current governments measures against Donald Trump. Without the January 6th riot, I think it would be likelier for Donald Trump to have been jailed or otherwise prevented from running, but the government now knows that doing so would result in an even greater uproar.
Criteria 2 is what I believe is the biggest strength of this protest, and what distinguished it from many leftist protests of the time. The January 6th riot happened AT the capitol, specifically targeting those in government.
Even though I am more aligned to the causes of most leftist protests, I believe their biggest problem is not being focused on who is actually doing the oppressing. Specifically looking at the BLM protests of 2020, innocents were harmed more than the targets of the protest. If the goal was to end police brutality and racist legislature, why not solely focus on police and government buildings, and pressure those in power? Instead most protests happened in city streets and parks, often ending with small businesses and innocent bystanders being attacked, with those they were actually protesting coming out mostly unscathed and unaffected.
By contrast, the January 6th riot attacked the Capitol, where the government ‘elites’ they were protesting were at. While I believe some innocent capitol workers were harmed in the chaos of the day, you can’t get much more accurate in your plight than the capitol itself. The only thing that would limit the impact on innocents more would be kicking down Nancy Pelosi’s own front door, but that then hinders the symbolic aspect of ‘attacking the evil government’ rather than ‘attacking Nancy Pelosi’ that they were trying to portray.
I would liken the January 6th attack to the french revolution in its execution (pun intended). While cruel and bloody, the french revolution is mostly praised because it aimed to target the french elite through guillotines. While some innocent people were executed as well, the revolution at least intended to systematically only harm the elite. If all the french revolution amounted to was peasants burning down merchant’s stands and the houses of other peasants who sympathised with the elite, it would have not only been unsuccessful, but also ridiculed by history.
If Leftist protestors really want change, they should stop harming the working class by blocking off city streets and attacking small businesses, and instead go straight to the sources of oppression themselves. | 1,730,604,460 | JabbaTheBassist | nan | nan | 2024-11-03 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Corporal punishment not ideal or great, but it's also not terrible and is better than a severe lack of discipline. | {'id': 'lv71pvz', 'text': "No, it is because reinforcement doesn't work that way. You are thinking of the human mind in terms of consciousness, but this is not the level that most of the human experience occurs on. \n\nConsider the fight, flight, and freeze response. This response is present in all humans, it's origins are in the amygdala, and it effectively inhibits the neocortex (where decision making and consciousness is). It does this because during a traumatic or intense event, your neocortex is just far too slow to protect you; your body and mind have ancient reflex and hormonal loops to try to save you when you are overwhelmed.\n\n It takes years of training to, not suppress this response, but to allow the trainee to effectively work around it. It doesn't matter how much you think, how much you know, anything like that: humans require extensive and very unnatural training to be able to operate even at lower efficiency in these conditions; the military, EMS services, and some other groups train rigorously for this. And they still fail, and it's still extremely stressful.\n\nCorporal punishment does this to a child. It forces them into a response where their amygdala is in overdrive, which is both a terrible time for teaching a lesson, but also a powerful blow to your authority as a parent. You are now someone to be avoided, not confided in, and not just on a logical level, but from a deep emotional level that is far harder to resolve.\n\nAs for your hypothetical, first, no amygdala involvement because no fight or flight response. They might hate it, but it's not literally bypassing their conscious mind to implant lasting trauma and aversion. But second, this is not punishment, it's penalty, which does not have the averse reactions of physical violence.\n\nI suggest you do research on operant conditioning, but the four ways you can reinforce or extinguish a behavior are as follows:\n1. Positive reinforcement. Giving the child something they want because they did the good thing. This is the most effective.\n2. Negative reinforcement. Taking away something detrimental to the child. This is somewhat hard to set up, but can accompany penalty.\n3. Positive punishment. This is usually just called punishment, and it involves giving the child something they don't want.\n4. Negative punishment. This is usually called penalty. This is taking away something the child does want.\n\nOf these, punishment is ineffective because punishment shuts off the neocortex, ensuring learning is difficult, while also causing redirection of fear, anger, and hurt. No matter how you explain it, you are literally harming your kid; why wouldn't they blame you rather than themselves? And so, when punishment is applied, we see a break down of the familial relationship and the establishment of an attacked and victim one. So what actually happens is they tend to hide their behavior better, not confide in the parent, and have lasting negative consequences.\n\nMeanwhile, penalty doesn't generally cause these effects, because it does not involve fight/flight/freeze, it doesn't allow redirection, and it maintains the parent/child relationship. \n\nAnd, of course, positive reinforcement is far more effective because it's far more reinforcing: who doesn't want to be the proud kid who did the right thing and got the reward?\n\nTL;Dr: no child is going to agree with you no matter what you say that physical violence is an acceptable reaction to their actions, all children have an amygdala, all children are going to find physical violence abusive, and it's far better to shape their behavior by rewarding good behavior and taking away privileges when bad behavior occurs. \n\nAs for whether penalty results in the same outcomes as punishment, they occur at dramatically lower rates, and that rate lowers more and more as it is reinforced. However, children are human beings too; they are going to disobey and try to hide the behavior if the behavior is worth enough to them. Adults do this too, and it's perfectly normal, and indeed, healthy.\n\nThe fact of the matter is, you shouldn't try to raise children who act like they are straight out of bootcamp. It's not healthy, it's not going to result in better outcomes, and it squashes the natural maturing process. Your job as a parent is to raise, not to stamp a mold.", 'author': 'coraxialcable', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730649746} | {'id': 'lv69qfk', 'text': 'Where we have common ground is that I agree that parents need to discipline their kids, and it’s irresponsible to provide no discipline at all and just let kids find out consequences by cause and effect (ie nobody is going to want to be around you and you may even get in trouble with the law if your are just an AH).\n\nI do not agree at all that parents need to make something painful to discipline. If I can’t (without consent) spank, slap, hit, or take a belt to another adult without risking an assault or battery charge, my logic suggests it would be far more egregious to do so to a child.\n\nI also believe while actions like this would have shock value and maybe stop behavior in the moment, it really only teaches kids to fear parents, not respect them or understand why what they were doing to get that reaction was bad. I see it as mean, lazy, and ineffective parenting.\n\nThe grey area I would concede is grabbing them to keep them out of harms way (example: pushing their hand away, even harshly, if they were playing or trying to touch something hot), or picking them up and hauling them out of a location during a meltdown (example: toddler goes limp noodle screaming on the floor and you pick them up under one arm to get out of a common area and to your car or home). Sometimes you have to get physical with a child, but I see that as a grey area different then putting hands on them with intent to hurt.', 'author': 'Millie_3511', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730640186} | 1gim003 | CMV: Corporal punishment not ideal or great, but it's also not terrible and is better than a severe lack of discipline. | I believe that the best form of parenting is to give your kids clear and fair rules, being consistent in punishing them when they break them, and using some combination of loss of privileges and extra chores when they do break the rules (along with talking to them and making sure they understand why your rules important). And to make sure you're setting the example of behavior that you want to see in them.
However, I also don't believe that corporal punishment (specifically spanking or using a belt) is the monster that some people make it out to be.
The reason I've thought about this is because I'll often see a story online where a kid does something truly bad (well beyond normal children's mischief) and the story makes it clear or heavily implies that the parent(s) didn't discipline their kids. I'll see comments on how this wouldn't have happened if the parents spanked their kids. The retorts always seem to boil down to the negative impacts of corporal punishment and how it will hurt your relationship, and therefore it's never to be used in any circumstances.
Again, I don't think it's ideal. However, I do think it's better than parents who completely neglect the discipline of their children and always give in to their demands. I think it makes children understand that their actions and breaking the rules has consequences. I also concede that it could damage your relationship with your children, but that still might be preferable to how kids with severe lack of discipline will interact with the rest of society.
| 1,730,637,829 | WiscyPete | nan | nan | 2024-11-03 | 2024_fall |
CMV: USA of today isn't even close to the same country of 10 years ago | {'id': 'lv2zjdt', 'text': 'Maybe no one would have thought to attack the capital for that specific reason but attacks on the capital are not that uncommon. Weather Underground bombing 1971 - protesting the US actions in Laos. 1983 Armed Resistance Unit bombing because of US actions in Granada/Lebanon. So the idea of attacking the capital is always out there in the minds of terrorists. \n\nFox News didn’t exist during the Obama years? No one spread these kind of lies? I seem to remember birtherism was common throughout Obama’s presidency. \n\nAgain, your argument is selective.', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730583545} | {'id': 'lv2v3me', 'text': 'You can actually blame Obama and the Democrats for that. The Democrats straight up lied through their teeth about Romney being a racist sexist monster that doesn’t pay taxes. Romney, the most milquetoast moderate Republican.\n\nAnd fucking Harry Reid wasn’t even sorry about it. When confronted he said of his lies “well he didn’t win, didn’t he?”\n\nSo the GOP sees that no matter how much they try to reach across the aisle and nominate moderates they’re going to be tarred as racists no matter what, so they instead nominate Trump, who is to the GOP as Obama was to the Democrats.', 'author': 'Morthra', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1730582010} | 1gi44fn | CMV: USA of today isn't even close to the same country of 10 years ago | I didn't want to believe it. Not just listening to political debates and what the candidates are saying on the campaign trail. Not just what people say about the candidates and why they support them. Tonal shifts, arguments made, the justifications told all spoke of something much more fundamental.
Ten years ago we had a black president and administration who were on good terms with our neighbors, respected and held in high regard by most other countries of the world. We had an economy that was recovering beautifully from Bush's '07 crash. We had racists coming out of the woodwork trying to find some angle to criticize an otherwise impressive president who, by all accounts, was part of a loving family and a truly morally upstanding citizen. If you had so much as suggested that the GOP run a candidate who mocked disabled people and made facetious comments about dating his daughter, one who made obviously racist and sexist remarks at every opportunity, one who would frequently voice support for a certain fascist Russian dictator, they'd think you were joking. It certainly seemed like a joke at the time. Add to that same person now a convicted felon of 34 counts for election tampering, one who suggested people inject bleach to cure a raging pandemic, that funneled taxpayer dollars to his own golf courses by demanding to do official business there, one who has now insisted on multiple occasions that people "won't have to vote again" after he's elected, - well, they'd laugh you out of the room.
These were just the most obvious signs. They could be explained away by the cult of personality surrounding the candidate. The other candidate is reasonably popular despite being a black woman - fairly mainstream in views and policy. Nothing too extreme or progressive, yet they're still on roughly even footing. No, the changes in America run much deeper than party candidates.
It wasn’t only what I saw in the news and politics. It had reached right into my home. During the pandemic, I started noticing that my preteen son was making strange off-handed remarks. He was treating opinions as if they were fact with no consideration for the possibility they were either wrong or only half an argument. I kept having to add the missing side of arguments, having to talk about missing details, and point out why some opinions were flawed. Multiple times, I had to sit him down and have real talks about how and why some of the things he was saying were not OK, which led to asking where he was hearing these things from. The online gaming groups he was in - Roblox, Discord, Minecraft, etc. were actively indoctrinating them with the most extreme opinions and treating it like the toxic ideas behind them should be obvious. I know that middle and high school boys tend to be a rough crowd, but this was very different from what I'd grown up with. He listened to TikTok and Youtubers casually delivering unchecked opinions to millions, presenting ideas with authority they hadn’t earned. Without discussions the kids are left being preached a new gospel. We have no moderation or controls on the vast majority of what our kids are being exposed to now, and the internet has become a breeding ground for extremism of all kinds.
Many parents trust their kids and assume they’re unaffected by what they encounter online. That trust, combined with the lack of time or energy for deep conversations about values, leaves kids vulnerable to indoctrination. When kids start using AI tools to do their homework instead of as a learning guide, it compounds the problem. They skip the process, miss the skills, and sidestep the concepts they’re supposed to be absorbing. It’s no surprise that recent studies show young men are becoming more conservative and extreme since many have grown up exposed to toxic ideas as truth. One could argue this is all just setting up the brain drain, skills shortage and political demographics of the next generations though. I'm focused on the here and now.
People and institutions are no longer driven by values but by self-interest, and it shows. Selfishness kills community supports. Greed supplants charity. Ten years ago, the man who is now the world’s richest seemed genuinely invested in helping the environment—he was pioneering electric cars, solar power, and even reusable rockets to advance humanity. That version of him was focused on science, facts and people - he wouldn't have moved his car company out of California just to escape environmental laws, much less go on tangents about taxes, personal privilege, electioneering and demonizing works for the public good. He's just one man seduced by selfishness and greed though - hardly a case study, so what about social movements? Occupy Wall Street and We Are The 99%, social upheavals I had prophesied back in the early 2000's, gained little traction. Lacking clear leadership and goals, they died quickly and quietly, as if their hearts weren't really in it. Even the race riots seemed to stop abruptly as people were forced back to work. Social justice, so vitally important to so many in the 90's, 2000's and 2010's, was suddenly shoved to the back burner. What changed?
Economic pressures have forced people into survival mode. Average incomes fall far behind soaring rent and property costs, not to mention inflation. Land-holding companies, special interests and international investments have made keeping a roof over your head into a luxury. Fuel costs balloon transport-based pricing of goods. The organic food movement, while respectable, pushes up food prices. Stress, stress-eating and mass production of low-quality food has health impacts, and drives up medical costs. The much-maligned Affordable Care Act of last decade was gutted by the specter of a malicious government, and insurance companies have been given carte blanche to set prices and exploit customers. The whole concept of 'insurance' in our world of climate change has become the palliative nice idea that insurance companies with little oversight laugh about all the way to the bank. Americans fought tooth and nail to keep their broken system. Can't afford 'insurance', your co-pays, or your life-saving treatments? America now says you should just die. America has no compassion left for you.
Speaking of compassion, America of 10 years ago was emerging as a cultural world leader in supporting LGBTQ folks and would soon see the Supreme Court legalize gay marriage in 2015. Down South, people were still embracing their centuries-old Christian beliefs and speaking of a Jesus that loved humanity by spreading the word of kindness and helping others. Some so called “Christians” were pushing people away, sure, but the ideals still held. Now, people are either abandoning their churches in droves, or replacing their preachers with those who speak the opposite of gospel. Walk into a church this Sunday in what used to be the Bible Belt of USA. Jesus' life is contemptible. Only His death matters. Compassion is weak. Sin is perfectly acceptable, even endorsed, if you accept the person committing the sins. Who in their right mind turns the other cheek when it's clearly better to attack or exploit your fellow man and their foolish institutions as much as you can? Ignore the camel and the eye of a needle - the rich are clearly better, more holy and have a divine mandate for ruling the country and the world. A kingdom of peasantry and peons acting like they should be nobility, clearly longing for a vicious new king.
I should step off my soap box. Even this melodrama would've felt completely out of place 10 years ago. I don't want any of this to be true, but I keep seeing more and more reinforcing this wildly different path is the truth of our country now. Please change my views. | 1,730,575,247 | Cirrious | nan | nan | 2024-11-02 | 2024_fall |
CMV: protests are supposed to disrupt order. | {'id': 'ltwls1j', 'text': '>\xa0So while technically correct that JSO has "oil money"\n\nSo you admit I was correct. You claimed JSO has no money. I informed you that was wrong.\xa0\n\nYet you are still complaining. Strange.\xa0\n\n>\xa0So you have no proof it was specifically the Green Party then?\n\nDo you understand how politics works? I did not claim it was the Green party alone, rather that is was the combination of pressure from within the main UK Labour and Conservative parties, plus the Liberal Democrats, plus the Green party whom can influence the main parties by drawing away votes and support (in a similar manner to who UKIP influenced the Conservatives).\xa0\n\nConversely we can be sure it was not JSO as the policy of eliminating coal started long before JSO was formed, because JSO do not run any political candidates that could take votes, and because they are overwhelmingly unpopular with the public such that repressive measures against them have strong public support (and so ignoring their demands is also popular).\xa0\n\nThey also have made zero demands regarding coal, lol.\xa0\n\n>\xa0According to the BBC; "Just Stop Oil (JSO) wants the UK to stop approving new fossil fuel projects, which are\xa0a major cause of climate change."\n\nAh, I wondered if you would mention this. I should have clarified: I mean proposals that would actually address climate change.\xa0\n\nJSO have proposed ending all UK oil licenses. As CO2 emissions are ultimately driven by fossil fuel consumption, not extraction, ending UK oil drilling would do almost nothing to reduce emissions and just lead to us importing more from abroad from states like Saudi Arabia (costing jobs and propping up a repressive dictatorship).\xa0\n\nNote that the BBC article does not claim that JSO’s proposals would reduce CO2 emissions, because they wouldn’t.\xa0\n\nOf course, such a proposal would, on average, boost profits for, say, US oil companies so maybe Ms Getty does support her grandfather’s industry more than she’d like to admit.\xa0\n\n>\xa0They have been contentious, if not unpopular. This is true.\n> Part of that is the fact that the media has dogpiled them. Part of that is that everyone (yourself included) is handwringing about what they have done - despite the fact that they have caused very minimal actual damage.\n\n> But the whole point of this entire argument has been - what separates this action from other contentious protest actions.\xa0What makes this meaningfully different from the suffragette horserace incident?\n\nAre you a troll? I talked about the militant suffragettes earlier. The horserace stunt was also counterproductive and harmful.\xa0\n\nThe point of a social movement or pressure group is to increase the popularity of their cause, so as to cause the powers that be to implement their proposed action.\xa0\n\nIf a group is extremely unpopular, by for example attacking a celebrated national treasure (the Van Gogh) or wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money by stranding thousands of ordinary people in unnecessary roadblocks for hours, they also make their cause less popular by association, and thus cause harm.\xa0\n\nThat point is to obvious that I’m sure JSO know if, and you know it too. Hence why I suspect you are now trolling.\xa0\n\nUnless you can prove you are responding in good faith I am done with you.\xa0', 'author': 'Veyron2000', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729974573} | {'id': 'ltw71uu', 'text': 'The source you cited says this;\n\n>The co-founder,\xa0Aileen Getty, is the granddaughter of J. Paul\xa0[Getty](https://www.artnews.com/t/getty/), who founded Getty Oil \n\\[...\\] \nThe heiress, Aileen, has never worked in the oil industry and is an active philanthropist. In 2019, she co-founded the\xa0[Climate Emergency Fund](https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/), which provides grants to activists and protest groups trying to stop the widespread use of fossil fuels, often through civil disobedience.\xa0 \n \nGetty has\xa0[personally donated $1 million](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/climate/climate-protesters-paid-activists.html)\xa0to CEF, while her\xa0[self-named foundation](https://aileengettyfoundation.org/)\xa0“dedicates the bulk of its resources to organizations and individuals addressing the climate emergency”.\n\nSo while technically correct that JSO has "oil money", it seems to me that it is the descendant of an oil tycoon who wants to use the money she was given to reverse the damage her grandfather did.\n\nBlaming her for her grandfather\'s actions is a very *sins of the father* mentality - and how else are you supposed to use money made via unethical means? Are you never allowed to donate it to what you perceive to be good causes because of where it came from?\n\n>I mean how else do you think a government was convinced to adopt more environmentally friendly policies, of any sort, except from pressure from environmentalists?\xa0\n\nSo you have no proof it was specifically the Green Party then? How can you prove that JSO isn\'t contributing to this?\n\n>I have already spelled this out, I’m not wasting my time doing so again.\xa0A call to just “do something” is also rather useless if you have zero ideas for something more beneficial to do.\xa0\n\nWell, lucky for you that isn\'t what JSO is doing!\n\nAccording to the BBC; "Just Stop Oil (JSO) wants the UK to stop approving new fossil fuel projects, which are\xa0[a major cause of climate change](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772)."\n\n[Just Stop Oil: What is it and what are its goals? - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63543307#:~:text=What%20is%20Just%20Stop%20Oil%20and%20what%20are,100%20new%20North%20Sea%20licences%20had%20been%20granted.)\n\nThat seems like a pretty clear and straightforward request.\n\n>But the more important point is that the methods employed by JSO and other groups are\xa0**actively harmful**. Not just ineffective, but harmful.\xa0\n\nThey have been contentious, if not unpopular. This is true.\n\nPart of that is the fact that the media has dogpiled them. Part of that is that everyone is concernedly handwringing about what they have done - despite the fact that they have caused very minimal actual damage.\n\nBut the whole point of this entire argument has been - what separates this action from other contentious protest actions. *What makes this meaningfully different from the suffragette horserace incident?*\n\nWhy should I as someone who at least broadly agrees with them see them as a really bad example of protest, when they seem to be relatively moderate (they aren\'t actually doing any violence, damage or terrorism - they could be blowing stuff up if they really wanted) and are largely protesting in disruptive ways.\n\nAnd before you say "but they are disruptive" - I\'d ask the question; *what is a protest if not a disruption designed to bring attention to an issue?*', 'author': 'wibbly-water', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729969766} | 1fzmfoc | CMV: protests are supposed to disrupt order. | It seems that protests, by their very nature, are meant to cause disruption to make a point. Yet, it feels like whenever a protest takes place, we’re expected to get clearance and permission. This approach doesn’t seem to have the same impact and often only reaches those already involved or aware of the cause.
It feels like the system pacifies any real attempt at protest, diminishing its effectiveness when we have to follow guidelines and seek approval.
Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for violence, but I believe protests should have the power to truly challenge the status quo. | 1,728,461,539 | dezorg | nan | nan | 2024-10-09 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Scientists have no one to blame but themselves for the record low trust Americans place in them now | {'id': 'lv3ghd8', 'text': 'Not their problem. That\'s on the "public" for being lazy.\n\nIf you think all that is fine, then your view has been slightly changed.', 'author': 'BillionTonsHyperbole', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1730589499} | {'id': 'lv3fext', 'text': 'Which would point to the media as the true culprit, and thus something that scientists could blame instead of themselves, succinctly countering the OP.', 'author': 'KipchakVibeCheck', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1730589125} | 1gi8p5e | CMV: Scientists have no one to blame but themselves for the record low trust Americans place in them now | There's a lot of faux confusion from scientists on the political left on why these "stupid, ungrateful" americans usually on the politcal right-don't appreciate or respect the work of researchers trying to improve out collective understanding of both ourselves and the world around us. They put it down to media illiteracy, brainwashing or simple bad faith hatred. But "they", and I know I'm generalizing here, forget the sheer amount of times in the last few years scientists have said something and then pointed to their educational "authority" as experts as why we should believe them. Think of the early controversies over masking in the US and how the recommendations changed. Think about how many "anti-racist" scientists got on their soapboxes to shout down the disgusting conspiracy theories that perhaps the COVID-19 virus may have originated outside of nature and perhaps, just maybe, instead in the lab of chinese scientists.
There's still vigorous debate on those same topics now if that shows anything. And yet at the time people with doubts were told they didn't know what they were talking about. That they needed to trust the science and the scientists. But they and the people arguing for them, didn't add that "the science can change rapidly and so can the conclusions" because they knew that wouldn't help their arguments. The same way people were shouted down when they wanted to leave their fucking houses because we needed to "stop the spread". But then when George Floyd happened you had hundreds of scientists signing petitions saying that they acknowledge the risks of spread when it comes to public protests but the cause of racial justice supersede it!"
Why would people trust you after that?
Beyond that, there was the "black babies are dying because of the racism of white doctors" paper that came out in 20/21. Another log to the collective fire of racial tension and another strike against american culture that their needed to be a "reckoning" over....until just a month ago when another paper came out saying that it was mostly wrong and the result of misweighing the data. Whoops! Ignore that though and trust the science!
Science is ever changing, i get that. But people's memories when they feel they've been lied to isn't. And you only get s so many chances to appeal to the authority of your profession before people start to see you as charlatans. It's stuff like that that makes people, even the non-far right conspiracy theorists, think there's a liberal bias in academia and sciences.
I mean just recently there was a paper on the front page of r/science promoting the decrease of weed usage among teens and children since states began to legalize and regulate it. Then there was another study shortly after saying the exact opposite.
How can you expect anybody busy with home, work and family to take the time to dig into the cross tabs of these research papers so they can deduce whether they're worth believing or not? Most people have never even read a scientific paper before. Science is always changing but scientists need to be very careful about the conclusions they make and then publish publicly | 1,730,587,953 | nowlan101 | nan | nan | 2024-11-02 | 2024_fall |
cmv: eating meat is morally equivalent to abusing animals for fun | {'id': 'lvdjidg', 'text': '1) I’ve changed your view then as your post said you couldn’t see a distinction between the two.\n\n2) Seeing how far you considered use of an animal in entertainment “abuse” and therefore how far you stretched that to killing.', 'author': 'viaJormungandr', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1730740295} | {'id': 'lvdgt70', 'text': 'Where do things like Halal and Kosher meat prep slot into this?\xa0\n\n\nSure, animal suffering is “natural”, but taking the steps to minimize suffering is a uniquely human thing. I just don’t see how that’s the same as abusing animals for fun\xa0', 'author': 'arrgobon32', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730739504} | 1gjidr3 | cmv: eating meat is morally equivalent to abusing animals for fun | im not making any normative judgements regarding the morality of eating meat; depending on your worldview, you might value the lives of animals more or less than the average person. however, i fail to see the distinction between the consumption of meat and the use of animals as entertainment. if you dont respect an animals right to exist, is it really worse to, for example, use a bull for bullriding? the harm inflicted on the animal is pretty much the same. if anything, conditions on factory farms are probably infinitely worse, 999 times out of 1000, than conditions in households where pets are being abused, or conditions in zoos or aquariums. there is no meaningful difference from the animals perspective.
the only argument i can think of against this would be that the abuse is bad for the humans, and not the animal. but even then - what is that even appealing to? why is it perverse to abuse something that isnt even worthy of life? i get that theres an intuitive disgust impulse in most people when you see a living creature being harmed, but i think that speaks more to the inhumanity of factory farming than it does the morality of animal abuse.
for transparencys sake, i am a vegan, but im not arguing that eating meat is necessarily bad, im arguing that its morally the same as animal abuse.
cmv. | 1,730,737,647 | Ok_Operation1051 | nan | nan | 2024-11-04 | 2024_fall |
CMV: A banana phone only works with the pointy stem to the ear | {'id': 'lv9z3l4', 'text': 'Telephones are not typically inserted into the ear canal so I don\'t think how well the stem fits is relevant. Obviously banana phones are patterned after corded telephone handsets, and if anything the stem would represent the start of a cord.\n\nWhat orientation children normally hold a banana phone I don\'t think is robustly studied. Without reliable statistical data your impression of what is "normal" is likely just bias and anecdote. Also children often have lacking or inconsistent training on how to properly use a banana phone so even if there was a significantly more common orientation that children use it wouldn\'t mean that is the *correct* orientation.', 'author': 'Phage0070', 'score': 28, 'timestamp': 1730682561} | {'id': 'lv9v8gd', 'text': ">Matty is clearly holding a traditional banana phone receiver.\n\nBanana phones work both ways but if the banana is a fixed phones receiver, the stem looks like a cord input.\n\nWhen the banana is a portable phone the stem looks like an antenna, which is what a banana stem most closely resembles. A fixed phone receiver with an antenna wouldn't make sense, so you are wrong.", 'author': 'fghhjhffjjhf', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1730681184} | 1gj1odj | CMV: A banana phone only works with the pointy stem to the ear | In the recent feature for The Observer, Matty Matheson is seen holding his banana phone, IMO, upside-down.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/nov/03/you-only-get-one-shot-so-why-not-the-bears-matty-matheson-on-cooking-addiction-and-making-the-most-of-life
First off, I have to admit that I’ve been talking on a banana phone at least once a week for years (much to the “delight” of friends and family), so I have a certain amount of experience. But I’m definitely willing to hear solid arguments as to why my method is wrong. Does it even function as he’s using it?
And suggesting that stem-to-mouth (phrasing) more closely resembles a hands-free headset is not a compelling argument, as Matty is clearly *holding* a traditional banana phone receiver. | 1,730,679,983 | LiliVonSchtupp | nan | nan | 2024-11-04 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Embiid is starting to become more of a problem than he's worth. | {'id': 'lvjg8rp', 'text': 'C’mon dude, you serious?\xa0\n\nMy uncle who’s 200 pounds overweight can dance on a stage. Literally anyone can dance on a stage. If you can stand, you can dance. Hell, I can dance on a stage. Can I play in the NBA? Hell no.\xa0\n\nIf you’re not gonna meet me and acknowledge the difference in fitness required, I don’t know what else to say.\xa0', 'author': 'arrgobon32', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730822404} | {'id': 'lvjg1x5', 'text': 'You\'re missing a major reason as well. He literally got French citizenship by promising to play for them and then said "too bad" when he didn\'t think they had a chance vs. the US.\n\nThat\'s like saying I\'ll marry you if you give me that Lamborghini and then going "nahh"', 'author': 'IndyPoker979', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730822349} | 1gk8xcx | CMV: Embiid is starting to become more of a problem than he's worth. | After 10 years, I'm getting tired of him lazy ass to the point where he's getting investigated a second time.
First time because he's always "injured" and the sixers feel the need to lie about his condition.
Now, he gets into it with a reporter because he had the balls to speak the truth about your work ethic.
[Article in question (Caution: Paywall)](https://www.inquirer.com/sixers/sixers-joel-embiid-shaq-charles-barkley-nba-opener-20241023.html) (use [12ft.io](http://12ft.io/) to read this)
Embiid was well enough to play in the Olympics, but not well enough to play for the Sixers, who are making him the highest paid Philadelphia athlete.
The nerve of Embiid. Everything that Marcus Hayes said in that column was deadly accurate, and you can't handle it.
Not to mention, I'm still pissed off at him for dancing on stage with Meek Mill and then being "out for the season" next day. That's like him owing me money, he's saying he doesn't have it, but I see him the next day pulling off in a new Lamborghini. It's a huge slap in the face.
And I'm still pissed off at him for crying because your lazy defense cost the Sixers Game 7 against Kawhi on that buzzer beater. Though, Brett Brown should have been fired (and fired *at*, honestly) after that game because he essentially let Kawhi walk all over the sixers all series.
In conclusion, fuck you. | 1,730,819,560 | BunnyPatrol2001 | nan | nan | 2024-11-05 | 2024_fall |
CMV: those who don't vote because of a single issue (e.g. Gaza) don't care about any other issues | {'id': 'lvijtj8', 'text': "Yes, that's correct, they are still caring, just not as much as other issues", 'author': 'corbynista2029', 'score': 19, 'timestamp': 1730811577} | {'id': 'lviirt8', 'text': "I don't vote and the reason is the majority is too high toward one side in my state. Meaning there would have to be a larger group of people who wanted to vote for the opposite. So I don't waste my time when my vote isn't going to make a difference, if I wanted to vote against the majority.", 'author': 'myersdr1', 'score': -7, 'timestamp': 1730811156} | 1gk5r4y | CMV: those who don't vote because of a single issue (e.g. Gaza) don't care about any other issues | Many have strong opinions about certain topics, such as wars, inflation, or others. Some view both US presidential candidates as equally apathetic to their top issue. This is not a good justification for not voting, because there are [many more issues](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/harris-trump-stance-issues-policies-president-race-rcna150570) at stake. What they should do instead is consider their other priorities to break the tie.
Inflation, abortion, crime, gun safety, the border, and many others are on the ballot. In my view, those who don't vote because of a single issue don't care about any other issues. And no, silence does not help their cause.
"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Weisel | 1,730,810,511 | James_Fortis | nan | nan | 2024-11-05 | 2024_fall |
cmv: If you’re voting for Jill Stein you’re a privileged person that has nothing to lose, and you don’t care about Palestinians more than you care about your moral high ground | {'id': 'lucmx25', 'text': 'I don’t disagree with that. \n\nTo try and tackle your main premise, I’ll give my perspective as someone who, while not voting for Jill Stein, will not be voting for either mainline candidates. \n\nThe main reason people advocate for Kamala over Biden is because they tend to believe she is a lesser evil, and I agree to that, however I disagree with the concept of lesser evil voting broadly speaking. \n\nThe point of our political structure is for the politicians to represent their constituents who in turn get concessions from the politicians for their vote. But when a politician such as Kamala runs on a platform of being a lesser evil than Trump, she is no longer running in a way that promotes concessions for her constituents because all she has to do is not be Trump. She is no longer obligated to give anything to make people want to vote for her, all she has to do is be perceived as a lesser evil than Trump which she of course is. \n\nAs an extreme example purely to highlight my point, imagine politician A runs on a campaign where they openly call for the mass slaughter of ethnic group X within America. Let’s say that this is popular with half of the country and strongly opposed by the other half. Politician B, if they were to represent their constituents in return for their votes, they may run on a platform where there would be absolutely no killing of this group at all, however, since politician B is running on a lesser evil platform, they can simply say they’ll only kill half of group X. Politician B and their base then demand those people who feel there should be no killing to vote for them because they are 2x better than politician A with regard to sparing the lives of this particular group. Instead of representing their constituents, all they have to do is be slightly better than their opponent. \n\nSuch a scenario to me is undemocratic and should not be the status quo. I want elected officials to represent the interests of the people they want to vote for them, not to simply represent themselves as a slightly less egregious version of their opponent.', 'author': 'FerdinandTheGiant', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730210791} | {'id': 'lucjuox', 'text': 'As a Harris/Democratic voter, do you genuinely think that being disdainful and judgemental is the best way to convince Green Party voters to change their vote to Harris? \n\nAssuming the threats posed by Trump are true (and I’d say some,if not most,legitimately are) why is the onus on the pro Palestinian left wing voters and not one the Democratic Party for better reaching out to those voters? This is been an issue now for a year and what have the Democrats done to reign Israel in even slightly?\n\nWhy do you assume that this bloc of voters isn’t aware that their vote/non-voting would have an impact on them? \n\nTo be honest, it’ll be difficult to change your mind, because you are not looking at those choosing to vote for Jill Stein or other third party candidates or those who won’t vote for a presidential candidate at all as a legitimate and reasonable bloc of voters. \n\nIt’s not illegitimate or irrational to choose not to vote for a candidate that either supports or will materially benefit a country who is committing war crimes and committing an ethnic cleansing at best. And once you can realize that and accept that it’d be easier to make inroads with that bloc and have the impact you want.', 'author': 'JustDeetjies', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730209755} | 1geu08a | cmv: If you’re voting for Jill Stein you’re a privileged person that has nothing to lose, and you don’t care about Palestinians more than you care about your moral high ground | 1. Downplaying what’s a stake here doesn’t make it any less true. You’re either a white privileged person with nothing to lose, or so you think.
It’s not too far off to imagine an autocratic term if Trump wins.
He has admitted that if Christians vote for him, they won’t have to do it again.
You can try to downplay what Trump says as much as you want, but the truth is, he already tried to diminish our democracy, and he will do it again, he already said he won’t concede.
Here’s what at risk:
1. Mass deportation, including people from muslim countries and Palestinian refugees. This includes getting rid of birthright citizenship. And yes, this is anti constitutional, but Trump was given the power to commit literal crimes under the pretension of “official orders” with no consequences. Who is to say he won’t try to stay power any longer when his term is up?
*“[The court’s decision ensures that future presidents — including Trump himself should he win reelection in November — will know that they can escape criminal accountability for blatantly criminal acts, no matter how corrupt. Even acts that strike at the heart of our democracy, like resisting the peaceful transition of power, could not be prosecuted.](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-grants-trump-future-presidents-a-blank-check-to-break-the-law)”*
2. Even more scary, with the 3 justices Trump appointed, they already overturned roe v. wade (let’s be clear, saying “it’s back to the states” is a word salad because NO ONE asked for this. Majority of people want to support abortion on a federal level, even republicans). With another Trump term, there is a chance he might appoint 3 more, for at least 30 years we could have a Republican majority in the Supreme court. With the 3 he already instated he was already able to find criminal immunity as a president and getting rid of abortion as a right nationwide, who is to say he won’t try to do more?
3. If Jill Stein cared about Palestine, she wouldn’t try to take away votes from Kamala and she wouldn’t tell people “if you don’t vote for me, vote for Trump”. To Netanyahu, it is 100000x more convenient if Trump is president rather than Kamala, why is that? and if so, why would Jill Stein prefer someone who’s in bed with both a P*tin and Netanyahu? (not like she isn’t in bed with P*tin herself)
Aaron David Miller said: “He (Netanyahu) needs Donald Trump. And he needs the Republican Party. He's got to hedge his bets.”
4. Even if Jill Stein got “some” votes, the 5% thing is something that ONLY she pushes. There is no law that says that you need 5% to be a legitimate party, it’s a made up number to sabotage the election. She only shows up against female candidates to take votes from them, feels a but misogynistic and opportunistic if you ask me. If she actually cared about Palestine, she’d run small in local politics and tried to push change from there (like AOC does) this is more about her than it is about Palestine.
5. If Trump wins, you might not get a chance to do anything for Palestine. 6 Supreme court judges appointed by Trump, cult following willing to do anything for this man, unwilling to accept the election results unless he wins (they’re already burning ballot boxes), unlimited power to do as he pleases under the notion of official acts, backed by Netanyahu and P*tin… realistically, either Trump or Kamala will win. And if you’re shortsighted enough to not think this will affect you, please, I beg you, think again. | 1,730,206,787 | fluffypotat096 | nan | nan | 2024-10-29 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Edward Snowden is an American hero w/o an asterisk. | {'id': 'lqcncfo', 'text': "I'd say this refutes much of your 2nd point: \nhttps://www.vice.com/en/article/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns/", 'author': 'motavader', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728071128} | {'id': 'lqc83o4', 'text': 'this is my understand or a lot closer to it', 'author': 'Dense_Tackle_995', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728066205} | 1fw4wqq | CMV: Edward Snowden is an American hero w/o an asterisk. | My view is based on:
* What he did
* How he did it
* The results of his actions
* Why he did it
* The power of the antagonist(s) he faced.
What he did: Does "what he did" represent a heroic feat?
* Snowden exposed the existence of massive surveillance programs that violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
How he did it: Does "how he did it" represent an excellence in execution?
* Snowden leveraged his admin rights to securely download massive amounts of data, then smuggled it out of NSA facilities by exploiting their relatively low-level security procedures.
The results of his actions: Did he accomplish his goals?
* Many of the NSA programs Snowden revealed have been ended or reformed to comply with the law, including the curtailment of bulk phone record collection and the implementation of new oversight rules. However, unresolved surveillance practices like FISA Section 702, which still permit broad surveillance of foreign targets and incidental collection of U.S. citizens' communications remain problematic.
* A rebuttal to my position might bring up the concerns about America's international surveillance and personnel in the field, but holding Snowden responsible for the consequences is akin to blaming journalists for exposing government wrongdoing in war, even if their reporting indirectly affects military operations. Just as we wouldn't hold war correspondents accountable for the consequences of exposing atrocities, Snowden's actions aimed to hold the government accountable for unconstitutional surveillance, not harm personnel in the field.
Why he did it: Did he do it in such a way that represents adherence to a greater good and potential for self-sacrifice?
* He sought to inform the American public.
* While this might be splitting hairs, it is important that we establish he did not do it to harm America relative to its enemies.
* Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who worked with Snowden, has affirmed that Snowden’s intent was to inform, not harm.
* Snowden carefully selected documents to expose programs targeting U.S. citizens, avoiding releasing materials that could directly harm U.S. security operations abroad. He did not give information to hostile governments but to journalists, ensuring journalistic discretion in the release of sensitive data.
* About programs he deemed to be violations of the 4th Amendment
* That these programs did indeed violate the 4th Amendment has been litigated and established.
* 2013: U.S. District Court Ruling In Klayman v. Obama (2013)
* 2015: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling In ACLU v. Clapper (2015)
* 2020: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling In United States v. Moalin (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The power of his antagonist(s): Who was the big boss? Was he punching down, or was he punching up?
* On a scale of "not powerful at all" to "as powerful as they get":
* Snowden went up against the US gov't, its plethora of intelligence agencies and all their networks of influence, the DoJ, the entire executive branch... this has to be "as powerful as they get".
* In 2013, and somewhat to this day, the portrayal of Snowden is, at best, nuanced, and at worst, polarized. I'd frame this as "almost as powerful as they get". Even today, a comparison of Snowden's wiki vs. a comparative, Mark Felt, Snowden is framed much more controversially.
TL/DR: Edward Snowden should be categorized in the same light as Mark Felt (Deep Throat) and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers). Edward Snowden exposed unconstitutional mass surveillance programs, violating the 4th Amendment. He leveraged his NSA admin rights to securely obtain and smuggle classified data. His intent was to inform, not harm the U.S., ensuring no sensitive information reached hostile governments. His actions led to significant reforms, including the curtailment of bulk phone record collection, though some programs like FISA Section 702 remain problematic. Snowden faced opposition from the most powerful entities in the U.S., including the government, intelligence agencies, and the executive branch—making his fight one of "punching up" against the most powerful forces. Today, he remains a polarizing figure, though his actions, motivation, and accomplishments should make him a hero for exposing illegal government activities. | 1,728,063,246 | nhlms81 | nan | nan | 2024-10-04 | 2024_fall |
CMV: It always makes the most sense to vote for the candidate you most prefer, as opposed to voting strategically. | {'id': 'ltmebb4', 'text': "So the dictatorship condition doesnt apply in US elections.\xa0\n\n\nThe two option condition applies if there are no third parties, in which case there can be no voting strategy regardless.\n\n\nWe're therefore talking about the third case. Where a rational vote requires considering other options, i.e. is a strategic vote.", 'author': 'Upper_Character_686', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729823766} | {'id': 'ltmdc66', 'text': "I think this doesn't take into account that:\n\n- The electoral college means that while votes might not matter much in some states, in some Presidential elections it can come down to a single state and that state can be close. Take 2000 where the winner was decided by 269 votes.\n\n- You haven't specified presidential elections and even made it clear this applies to non-presidential elections. Very small elections can give individual voters a great deal of comparative power while still having no chance of third parties winnings.", 'author': 'Toverhead', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729823397} | 1gbj0pr | CMV: It always makes the most sense to vote for the candidate you most prefer, as opposed to voting strategically. | America specific post here but we have a well established two party duopoly here. One or the other almost always wins the election. Especially for bigger elections.
There is also a stigma with voting third party. People see it as a wasted vote or (somehow) as a vote for whomever it is they like the least. It's interesting that your vote somehow counts for different people based on who you talk to, but I digress.
Let me start by defining some terms. When I say "vote your preferred candidate" what I mean is voting the candidate that most closely aligns with your political beliefs. When I say "voting strategically" I mean voting for a party that is not your preference, but you are voting for them to marginally increase the odds of them winning and marginally decrease the odds of some other party losing. You do this because the party you most prefer has a very slim chance of winning, and so you take a "second best" instead.
My argument is a mathematical one: Each candidate A, B, C has some probability of winning p\_A, p\_B, p\_C without your vote
When you vote for a particular candidate, let's say A, you increase the probability of A winning by delta. Note that delta is the same value across the board no matter who you vote for. Your vote equally increases the chance of any one candidate winning. I think the contention with voting third party is that if you vote third party, you increase the chance from <1% to still less than 1%. Whereas with voting a mainstream party your "vote on the margin" increases the chances from 49% to 49.000000000001%
Now lets talk about expected value. Suppose I present you with 3 boxes. In box A, you win $1. In box B, you win $2. In box C, you win $5. Currently, the probability of each box being selected is 49.5%, 49.5%, and 1%, respectively. I will give you the option to select one box, and increase the probability of that being selected by 0.1%. Note: even if you select box A, and let's say box B ends up winning, you still reap the rewards of box B: $2!
Let's start by computing the expected value BEFORE you increase any probabilities. This would be the equivalent of not picking at all. EV = $1.535
Select box A: EV = $1.5325
Select box B: EV = $1.534
select box C: EV = $1.5385
As you can see, selecting the box with the highest value yields the highest expected return. Actually by a fair amount! Even though the probability of it being selected is incredibly low. Perhaps you are skeptical of this. Why is the value of C so much higher than A or B? Let's look at another example where C is only marginally more valuable than B or A, with the same probabilities. So let's say C = $2.1. Baseline EV with no selection is $1.506
Select box A: EV = $1.50495
Select box B: EV = $1.50645
Select box C: EV = $1.5066
Box C wins again. So even though the probability of box C being selected is incredibly low, selecting it still nets the most value to you. This also works by changing the probabilities to whatever you want (try setting the initial probability of C to 0% and you may be surprised to see that it still works), and you can come up with as many boxes as you'd like. It always makes sense to change the probability of the box with the most value. Of course, this relates directly to political candidates. You should always vote for the one which you perceive as most valuable, and the probabilities of each individual candidate winning is irrelevant. This all works because your vote counts equally no matter who you vote for. If that wasn't true, if my vote somehow counts more for one candidate or another, that's a very fundamental violation of this whole electoral system going on.
There is also a corollary to this which I find surprising. Look at the values again if you select no box. It is always higher than selecting the boxes which are not your preference. This implies that not voting at all actually yields more value to you then voting for a candidate that is not your number 1 pick. Kinda interesting. I am certainly not advocating that people not vote at all. Vote for the candidate you most prefer!
Why do I want my view changed. Well this election seems important, and I am concerned with leveraging my political say (what little I have as your average american) to the fullest extent. So if anyone can change my view that it makes more sense to vote for candidates that I prefer less, I'd love to see it. Cheers! | 1,729,820,282 | Zephos65 | nan | nan | 2024-10-25 | 2024_fall |
CMV: "National Pride" is a lie peddled by governments and jingoists worldwide. | {'id': 'lqjfahf', 'text': 'Chauvinism, jingoism, ultranationalism...there\'s a lot of words for the "we are the best and you suck" type of thought, but essentially, when people say nationalism, they usually mean ultranationalism. Nationalism has become associated with ultranationalism due to A. WW2, and B. the fact that pretty much every ideology in the modern day is built around a nationalist framework, thus rendering the original term "nationalism" somewhat pointless. Ultranationalism also has a colonial and aggressive mindset to it. Examples of ultranationalism includes Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, the Khmer Rogue, and various far-right terrorist organizations.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultranationalism', 'author': 'edwardjhahm', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728172243} | {'id': 'lq5cs7f', 'text': 'Yes, its a propaganda tool to unite everyone into one tribe for the purposes of making them available to recruit in a conflict.\n\n\nNationalism is just a predjudice against everyone not in your nation. Also often includes local nationals who are culturally or ethnically different, which is what the national identity was all about.\n\n\nIn all large nations exist varied ethnic groupings. UK is a great example but Russia has over 200 ethnicities and Canada recognizes 600.\n\n\nWhat else do we have in common other than living under a flag? Not much really.\n\n\n"For king and country!" Pfffft', 'author': 'Corrupted_G_nome', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1727968158} | 1fv9luj | CMV: "National Pride" is a lie peddled by governments and jingoists worldwide. | For context. When I see someone say they're proud of their country/nation, or proud to be a citizen of their country/nation, it gets my goat, because when you say that, in my view, you're saying that you're proud of everything that your country/nation is/was. I'm a UK citizen myself and knowing Britain's part in the slave trade, the Windrush scandal, Section 28, the ongoing prejudices against so many different people at both the governmental and the societal level, I would never dare say I was proud to be British. It'd be like saying I was proud that my ancestors were slave traders. That's what the UK (especially England, my country of birth) represents, to me.
Compare the USA. In light of EVERYTHING that's happened since 1776, I genuinely don't understand how some of the kindest, most wonderful people I know can say they're proud of their country. In the modern era, the majority of the people who actually seem to being up national pride as a concept seem to be losers who subscribe to nonsensical far-right ideologies. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of *left*-wing people balk when I mention things like this, one of the kindest and most wonderful people I know actually called my view in relation to the USA "xenophobic."
This opinion has caused rifts between me and my friends in the past. I need someone to talk about this on a calmer level. | 1,727,967,120 | AintMisMehefin | nan | nan | 2024-10-03 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Left wing people should just admit to being woke | {'id': 'lvfk1am', 'text': "Right, they are dissasociating from the idea of wokeness. That doesn't mean that some aspects of a label don't apply, it means they reject the label.\n\n\nIt's like how some don't like being called feminist because it's a different feminism than the views they actually hold. It's the ideology itself that matters, not how we refer to it.\xa0", 'author': 'Dry_Bumblebee1111', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730762067} | {'id': 'lvfjrug', 'text': "Public perception changed based on their perception of the SJW and woke cultures, amplified by social media. There are a ton of examples of expressions of this leftist culture, some of which made national headlines (e.g. Evergreen St). It's not strawmanning if the culture itself is actually engaged in doing or saying what is alleged.", 'author': 'PrometheusHasFallen', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730761982} | 1gjrol2 | CMV: Left wing people should just admit to being woke | That was a deliberately engagement baiting title - but I do have an actual opinion here and I'm open to it being changed...
We live in an increasingly divided society where people identify as either "left" or "right". Yes these terms have complex, vague and ever changing meanings. But they are good shortcuts to two largely partisan groups of people in society today so I'm going to go with "left" and "right". You can replace with "liberal" or "conservative" if you like but let's not split hairs, we all know this division exists in our society in 2024, and the words left and right are useful enough as labels. So anyway back to woke....
People on the left often accuse people on the right of being racist.
People on the right often accuse people on the left of being woke.
There's a lot of parallels between this pair of accusations. They are both partially true, but universally false. Most right wing people are a little bit racist, but all right wing people are not complete racists. And this distinction exists on the left too. Most left wing people are a little bit woke. But all left wing people are not complete social justice warriors.
Another interesting parallel between these accusations is this: both these groups deny the accusation outright, but only the left refuse to engage with it at all. A right wing person when presented of evidence of their slightly racist views will say absolutely anything to defend themselves and will never admit to being a bit racist. This is the same for left wing people but even more extreme. Many left wing people don't even believe that "being woke" exists. They don't even acknowledge the trait they are being accused of. Let alone admit to it in any part. This can make the left seem much more stubborn and closed minded than the right. Which is ironic really for people who claim to be progressive.
And I think that's bad. I think in order to have a proper intellectual debate over something both parties need to meet on common ground initially. If you don't believe wokeness even exists in the world then how are you ever going to empathize with someone on the other side to the political spectrum to you?
Let's have an example.
Disney is pretty woke. They made the Little Mermaid black, not because they strongly believe in the empowerment of black people and want to promote them on film. Disney are a profit driven company they have shareholders. They aren't political activists looking to change the world they are business people trying to make money. And they decided that appealing to people who want to see more racial diversity in kids films will attract and retain their target audience, and make them more money. They also realize that they haven't had much racial diversity in the past and they are scared of being called racists online, which would massively damage their brand. So they are doing something "woke" to protect their brand, build loyalty with their younger and more liberal audience, and make more money. That is why they made the Little Mermaid black. Money. It's entirely performative and it's one of the reasons right wing people don't like wokeness. They hate performative politics and virtue signalling.
Now everything I've just said above is open to debate. And it should be. But my view, as stated in the title, is that if people start from a position of denying they are even a little bit "woke" that discussion never takes place.
You never read the paragraph I've written above about Disney. The conversation rarely happens. Because one side of the debate refuses to even accept they are there. The conversation about Disney is usually just reduced down to one side shouting "woke!" and the other side shouting "racists!". Left wing people will never admit that some things are in fact a bit woke.
I am woke. I think having a black little mermaid is a good thing despite the profit motive. I think we should tolerate profit driven wokeness if it leads to a more inclusive society. Because a little bit of wokeness is okay. I am willing to say this. And more people should too. I am not an extreme left wing zealot who wants mandatory CRT training in every workplace. But I am a little bit woke. And I think it's ok to say that.
**How can you change my view?**
* Demonstrate to me that identifying as a bit woke is actually harmful in some way
* Demonstrate that wokeness really is just a fabrication of the right and doesn't actually exist
* Demonstrate that being woke is always bad and identifying as woke makes you a bad person
| 1,730,760,463 | furiousdonkey | nan | nan | 2024-11-04 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The demonization of the conservative ideals by the left primarily contributed to Trump winning the election | {'id': 'lvpbh2y', 'text': 'If what I said is a bigger issue, then what I said is the primary issue that contributed to Democrats winning the election', 'author': 'Fluffy-Fly6853', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730898425} | {'id': 'lvpagje', 'text': 'Dems lost this election because more than half of the country is too stupid to understand that the COVID pandemic caused global inflation.', 'author': 'ManOverboard___', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730898098} | 1gkxlr6 | CMV: The demonization of the conservative ideals by the left primarily contributed to Trump winning the election | I think one of the main reasons why Trump won, was because the left kept demonizing the right and their beliefs. Isolation and unwilling to comprimise on issues, especially by those online, further pushed moderate voters to the right.
Motivation for this opinion:
PREFACE: I'm getting the sentiment mainly from what I see online, not speaking to voters.
**Abortion**
Plenty of Americans are against abortion. That's just a fact. From the right's perspective , many would allow abortions IF it was life threatening to the mother and/or child, or if the child was a result of sexual assult/rape. However, they fundamentally believe a child should not be aborted if these criteria are not met. I believe that's a comprimise on their part.
However, the left promotes full body autonomy and are essentially unwilling to compromise on this issue at all. Going to lengths by saying anyone who holds this belief are fascists, mysogynists e.t.c.
**Immigration (illegal)**
Illegal immigration is a bad thing and I think many would agree, regardless of left/right. But the left condemns the right wanting to deport illegal aliens. Some question the practicality of it, but others straight up will say it's inhumane to rip people out of their homes and send them back to where they came. Again, calling the right fascists while doing so. A middle ground on this issue does seem more reasonable, but it's hardly seen online
**LGBTQA+ rights**
This is a big one you see online, especially on reddit. There are those on the right who are fully against this, but plenty of those who are more moderate. Let's stick with some mild examples because I don't want to get banned. I think the majority of conservatives **would** call someone by their preferred pronouns if asked to do so, as it is the polite and correct thing to do. Their line is 1. puberty blockers for children and 2. making misgendering illegal.
There seems to be no middle ground found from the left at all for this. Saying on reddit that you don't support a law that makes misgendering illegal will get you called a "transphobe, fascist" e.t.c.
Which leads me to why I think plenty of moderates voted for Trump this election cycle and not Harris. Simply because they find the right more **accepting** of their moderate views. The right is willing to comprimise on such views, while the left will demonize them and disregard them entirely.
| 1,730,896,951 | Cptcongcong | nan | nan | 2024-11-06 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Donald Trump is currently the best choice for President. | {'id': 'lu694lk', 'text': "1.\xa0 He is being prosecuted.\xa0 The trial was delayed first by his lawyers, than by the Supreme Court, and now is finally set for 2025.\n\n\nHe was not found guilty of being a rapist, he was found liable for sexual assault basically.\xa0 So he probably did it, but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.\n\n\nIf Trump really just trying to save the election for justice or some shit, he would have asked that Pence delay the certification, not *overturn* it with the fake slate and literally make himself the president again.\n\n\n2.\xa0 I feel like Bidens like a 3/10 on the divisive rhetoric and Trump is a 9/10, I don't feel they are close at all.\xa0 Kamala probably at a 5/10.\n\n\n3. I mean we are all criminals because we speed on the highway.\xa0 Some criminals are significantly worse than others though.\xa0 Trump lies more than not just any politician I've seen, but *anyone I've ever known in my life*.\xa0 Like politics aside dude, do you know anyone worse?\n\n\n4.\xa0 The economy seemed better under Trump because he was riding Obamas recovery, then the pandemic hit and Trump was printing money.\xa0 It was literally so much money people didn't know what to do with it lol.\xa0 You know if you were self employed you could get $40k for free over the 2 pandemic years?\xa0 That's on top of the free checks they sent out.\xa0 Literally free $40k in PPP.\xa0 Did you get a free $40k?\xa0 Wonder why your groceries are more expensive?\xa0 Other people got a free $40k.\n\n\n5. I like JD vance but Trump will very obviously install loyal sycophants in every position of power, he has said this.\n\n\n6. I meant boring as in not radical, not boring as in weak.\xa0 You can be strong and boring.\n\n\n\n\nAdditionally:\n\n\nOne thing people don't realize is how low the bar is for Trump.\xa0 This is a subconscious thing I think that people have done.\xa0 Would you want Trump as a friend?\xa0 Someone who is possibly a sex predator, who lies and cheats, who only cares about himself?\xa0 Fuck no.\xa0 Like we've gotten so used to this guys we've forgotten common sense as to how shitty this guy is.\xa0 The dude's background to his phone is himself.\xa0 Not his family, not anything he's interested in, himself.\xa0 Obviously this is just some dumb tidbit, but my point is, he is actually not a good person, he is actually, in real life a piece of shit, and he's done a good job of making that not matter to people when it absolutely should.", 'author': 'Xralius', 'score': 24, 'timestamp': 1730122498} | {'id': 'lu66x5e', 'text': "> I do worry that the dems will just keep plowing away on social issues at the expense of the common good.\n\nEveryone being able to live a life that they choose without fear of reprisals from the government is the common good. \n\nBlaming the state of the nation on a few extreme minority groups, and turning large portions of the populace against them to the point that they are called deviants and child molesters is bad for society. \n\n>I also am very anti-war, and Biden had a terrible execution of leaving Afghanistan\n\nThere was no good way to leave that place. That is why no president was able to just leave. Then, [Trump came along and agreed to the plan that lead to what happened](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973604904/trumps-deal-to-end-war-in-afghanistan-leaves-biden-with-a-terrible-situation) leaving it to Biden to execute that plan. \n\nIf he had won, it would have happened under him, and bet money that it would have handled it even worse than Biden. \n\n>Trump obviously kept Russia out of Ukraine.\n\nThat is not obvious, and is actually quite absurd. And, in actuality, he not only liked that Russia invaded Ukraine, [a nation he had regular beef with](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#:~:text=The%20Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine%20scandal%20was,2020%20Democratic%20Party%20presidential%20nomination.), but he said they could attack our allies too.\n\n[Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447)\n\n>I want universal healthcare\n\nTrump will dismantle the ACA, and we will then be further from that.\n\n>and education\n\nHe wants to dismantle the Department of Education, and give special privileges to private schools. \n\n> if Bernie was the dems candidate I’d immediately vote for Bernie. But I don’t think Kamala has any plans to have universal healthcare or education.\n\nBernie had this to say on this issue:\n\n“Let me tell you what else we must do,” Sanders said, before rattling off a progressive agenda that included guaranteeing healthcare as a human right, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, passing the pro-labor PRO Act, making sure every American “regardless of income” receives the higher education they need, and taking on Big Pharma to cut prescription drug costs. “**I look forward to working with Kamala and Tim [Walz] to pass this agenda,**” [he said.](https://time.com/7013208/bernie-sanders-dnc-speech-2024/)", 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1730121706} | 1ge113y | CMV: Donald Trump is currently the best choice for President. | I (M28) have been an undecided voter this election. I voted Trump in 2016, and Biden in 2020. I included my age to show that those are the only two presidential elections I have been able to vote in.
I literally just got done telling my mom the other day that I had finally decided to vote for Kamala, and then the Trump interview on Rogan dropped the next day. That officially swayed me away from Kamala toward Trump.
I’ll be honest I don’t know much of the specifics of either’s policies. I have always voted based on relatability, and perceived honesty.
In 2016, I voted for Trump mainly because I felt so disenfranchised by the “woke-mob” that had begun to infiltrate the Democratic Party. Not to mention he was charismatic, funny, and at least honest that the whole thing was rigged against the common-man.
In 2020, I voted for Biden mainly because I felt like Trump had become vindictive, and his only goal was to silence opposition, as opposed to making the nation better. Biden was as close as I could get back to Obama, which sounded reassuring.
After Biden’s sharp cognitive decline during his presidency, I found myself feeling like the only reasonable choice I had in 2024 was Trump. But then Biden dropped out, and Kamala became a viable option. As it seemed like Trump had become even more vindictive, I fell back into the undecided camp.
Until Friday when I told my mom I had decided to vote Kamala, because I felt like Trump was just gonna waste time going after people. Then JRE dropped. Trump came off calm, casual, and even kind in my opinion. So I swayed back to him.
I really wish Kamala would do JRE, because I feel like it would sway me back. But alas, she has declined so I’m leaving it to CMV.
Thanks for participating, I promise I am open-minded, and am not frozen solid in my desire for a Trump presidency. | 1,730,119,314 | Last-Photo-2618 | nan | nan | 2024-10-28 | 2024_fall |
CMV: We ought to have a national firefighting service. | {'id': 'lvxs1yv', 'text': 'Just FYI. I work with the federal government and deal with aircraft. Yes. It can literally take weeks to get approval to fly across country. Also, look up how much the fuel for these military cargo planes costs. It can be tens of thousands in fuel costs alone.\n\nFEMA gets around this by literally shutting everything down around the disaster area during rescue operations and then following the same procedure as everyone else to ship things in.\n\nAnd airdropping big equipment is not really a viable strategy as it can land anywhere. In a lake, gulley, even a small ditch or sufficiently muddy patch can completely immobilized a 30-50 ton fire engine. You also cant transport water so you have to fill it up somewhere which means you have to drop it near water which further complicates the issues of air dropping it. Also you have to remember that you are dropping this 30-50 ton vehicle at terminal velocity. You will straight up smash the vehicle into the ground unless you get a specially designed shock absorbing system.', 'author': 'urquhartloch', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1731003724} | {'id': 'lvxhfl0', 'text': 'Where are you from? I can tell that you’ve only seen the CA wildfires on TV if you think 20 guys is what they send out. 15-30 guys is one crew and they send out anywhere from 8-10 crews or more on big wildfires. \n\nWant to know another problem here? Cal Fire, the agency in CA specifically designed to fight wildfires, has standard training procedures but every crew operates a little different. The crew that trains together regularly is going to be wildly more effective than a crew thrown together even if they’ve all had the same training, it’s the same as army units. You’re all in the army but you work with the same unit day in and day out. \n\nFinally, one of the most important things about fighting a wildfire is response time. So you’d end up with the exact same thing where you’ve got smaller crews spread out all over the place because have a few HQs that house everyone is going to drastically increase response times, which means larger and more destructive fires.', 'author': 'colt707', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731000760} | 1gltv66 | CMV: We ought to have a national firefighting service. | My view is basically this: we ought to have a national firefighting service in the United States that has the resources, expertise, and ability to rapidly deploy to these large fires that come up from time to time.
Here are my reasons (in no particular order)
1. A fire does not always respect the boundaries of municipalities, counties, or state borders, thus, it would often involve an effort from multiple brigades anyway.
2. The smoke and air pollution often affects an entire region, and can affect air travel, interstate commerce, and the health and safety of people in different states.
3. Many areas do not have the equipment or expertise to fight massive fires, which can result in worse outcomes due to inexperience or incompetence.
4. Much of the national parks are forests that the federal government has a special duty to protect --relying on localities to supply trucks and men is insufficient (especially in rural areas) to meet that requirement.
5. A national firefighting service will allow one large team to focus on curating the most advanced techniques, accessing state-of-the-art equipment, constantly training for differing scenarios, and accessing federal resources like national weather information.
5. If "climate change" is truly a focus for the next century, then making sure our forests don't burn down should be a top priority in this country. Millions of acres of old-growth trees take a long time to replace, and this could even contribute to the extinction of threatened species of plants or animals. | 1,730,995,352 | DifferentAd4968 | nan | nan | 2024-11-07 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Title IX should not include sports that are self funded | {'id': 'lvm5qqi', 'text': 'No you said you wanted self funded sports to not count towards title IX. The most likely outcome is for schools to cut unprofitable programs not add more unprofitable programs. I agree with your sentiment but I don’t think that solution will work. As an alternative, “for every student getting paid to play, an additional scholarship must be awarded in a different sport” no programs can be removed but new programs can be added as student athletes get paid', 'author': 'TinyRoctopus', 'score': 16, 'timestamp': 1730851565} | {'id': 'lvkx8en', 'text': "It's a wording problem. Football has 85 scholarships at the D1 level. If you don't count those yes women get more opportunities. In OPs example, Vandy has 6 mens sports to 9 women's sports.\n\nLike you have 200 scholarship spots if you don't count 85 that go to football men get almost half as many.\n\nAlthough I am curious how the spots shake out as football isn't actually a men's sport. It's an open sport.", 'author': '_Nocturnalis', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730837855} | 1gkex7t | CMV: Title IX should not include sports that are self funded | Title IX requires an equal number of athletic spots for men’s and women’s sports. The issue here is that sports like men’s track and men’s soccer are disproportionately cut to accommodate the size of football rosters.
Granted, this doesn’t apply to every school, but many schools, Vanderbilt for example, do not have men’s track to make up for this.
Title IX was meant to force the university to give equal opportunity for male and female athletes, but in many cases, the football programs are self sufficient so it’s not the university providing the opportunity.
I completely support women’s sports, but considering that football brought in over a billion dollars in revenue last year, I don’t think other men’s sports should suffer as a result of this especially because there is no female equivalent of football.
| 1,730,834,614 | CapableWrongdoer221 | nan | nan | 2024-11-05 | 2024_fall |
CMV: All forms of bigotry are equally wrong, including ableism and stigma towards neurodivergence as a whole | {'id': 'lwboi1i', 'text': "Specifically, it's worse systemically. In the US, where my viewpoint is based, SSI keeps disabled people poor, espeically those who have been disabled from birth. You cannot get married, have over $2000 to your name, and max out at under $1000/month in benefits. SSDI, which I'm in the process of applying for, is incredibly difficult to be approved with over a 90% initial decline rate. Most applicants have to hire legal counsel to be approved and can wait years before receiving benefits they have paid into their entire working lives. \n\nAlthough the echoes of systemic racism, Jim Crow, as an example, still exist today, the system does not actively keep POC in particular poor. There is an argument to be made for abortion rights in some states activity keeping women oppressed, however it has been shown that those barriers have been removed before and can be again. Additionally, there is a lot of support amongst women and men for those barriers to be removed. \n\nDisabled people often struggle to be activists for themselves. In fact, if you are too politically active for the SSA, they will cut your benefits. \n\nI hope this helps add some more context to my decision.", 'author': 'mrvladimir', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731193223} | {'id': 'lwbmxsa', 'text': 'Abuse by mental healthcare workers is illegal and is covered by laws. Saying something like that is proof that people don\'t care about ableism is like saying "crimes happen all over the US so clearly nobody cares about crime". In both cases, it\'s already illegal. \n \nActing on crimes will always take effort. People need to present evidence of actions taken. Defendants are allowed to have their day in court. This is how a fair system works. \n \nAs far as mental healthcare, the US has dramatically shifted in public opinion when it comes to mental healthcare from a few decades ago. However, no matter where you are, mental health is difficult to address because there is no blanket solution. Diseases can be eradicated with the proper medication, but mental health is only addressed on a case by case basis since it\'s wildly different.', 'author': 'Amoral_Abe', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731192676} | 1gnkwn8 | CMV: All forms of bigotry are equally wrong, including ableism and stigma towards neurodivergence as a whole | For clarification, I do not in any way mean to minimize issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. However, from simple observation, it does seem as though a popular and socially acceptable view is that dislike or prejudice towards disabled people or people with neurodivergence is either morally different from racism or outright acceptable.
I am also not saying these issues are identical. There are absolutely nuanced differences that affect how these issues are caused and perpetuated and how they should be socially and systemically addressed, but my view is that all forms of bigotry are pernicious and are morally identical. I'm going to predominately be focusing on ableism and stigma towards neurodivergence, but I do believe the same arguments apply to all forms of bigotry.
The core moral issues with bigotry are abuse or subjugation of a less powerful group (punching down), dehumanization resulting in harm, systemic discrimination, and the basic principal that an inherent or innate condition one has no control over should not be treated stereotypically or prosecuted. All of these things apply equally to neurodivergent discrimination.
The major argument I've heard posed to refute this is that neurodivergence applies to a behavior and that neurodivergent people are more likely to cause harm, but this is factually false.
(sources:
1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1525086/#B14
2. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness)
While SOME mental illnesses present with an elevated risk of harm to the self or others, this is far from a representative sample of ALL neurodivergent people, and the more violent mentally ill people are overwhelmingly more represented in hospitalized populations with the most severe issues. Furthermore, unless the elevated prevalence of violent crime per capita in BIPOC populations validates racist attitudes (it doesn't), the same is true of neurodivergent populations.
Prosecuted (statistically sampled) crime overall is overwhelmingly more linked to poverty than any other factor related to bigotry (https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=eeb), and neurodivergence is a strong predictor (and cause) of poverty (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay0214).
Both in terms of the harm caused to the oppressed individuals and in terms of the moral character of the attitudes of the oppressors, ableism is no different than any other form of mental illness and should be treated as such.
| 1,731,188,975 | Representative_Way46 | nan | nan | 2024-11-09 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Board gaming is a better hobby for people who work on a computer all day than video gaming | {'id': 'lw5783s', 'text': 'The first post in this chain mentioned that "solo playing is boring" and I agree. I have games like the Ultimate Edition of Mage Knight that is often touted as one of the best single player games, but compared to playing even a two player game, it\'s boring to me. The best board games seem to take around five players. It\'s much easier for me to find three friends willing to log in for a Helldivers game online than to get four friends willing to come over for a game of Cosmic Encounters.', 'author': 'HybridVigor', 'score': 12, 'timestamp': 1731099711} | {'id': 'lw3xb1v', 'text': 'I agree with you generally, but I think there’s definitely some cases for nuance.\n\nIn situations where you live far away from your friends, video games are more social experiences because it is easier to connect with friends over a voice call playing a video game.\n\nIn my experience playing board games, having enough of them to not be too repetitive takes up a lot of space. Depending on your living situation, you might not want to commit that kind of space.\n\nAlso if you travel a lot and/or know you’re moving regularly, board games are a hassle to transport. Video games are much easier to move with.', 'author': '-Paufa-', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1731086069} | 1gmlhrm | CMV: Board gaming is a better hobby for people who work on a computer all day than video gaming | This was me for a couple of decades. Google Slides by day, Playstation by night. When you spend your whole day overstimulated by screens you feel tired. But my mind loves stimulation, and puzzles, and the feeling of making a smart decision and seeing it pay off.
So there I went, playing video games into the night. Then back to screens next morning. Occasionally taking a break to watch some films. Over time I felt myself struggling more and more to focus, constantly adding more screens and more stimuli because I could never get enough dopamine.
However over the last year I’ve discovered board games. And, although they’re not a panacea and I haven’t suddenly become cured of my scrolling addiction, I certainly feel they scratch the itch of giving me something entertaining to do without making me less focused and ever more dopamine hungry.
I can’t play board games for as long as I can play video games. But I count that as a plus. The amazing feeling of always wanting to play one more turn or do one more run/mission/etc in the long run is actually unfulfilling. Board games tend to be the opposite. Good ones make you feel like an arc has been completed and then you’re done.
Board games are often a social experience, an antidote to the isolation or ‘empty calories of interaction’ that screens can be. But they can also be played solo (check out r/soloboardgaming), so you can take your time, maybe even cheat a little bit, who cares.
You should be playing more board games. Prove me wrong. | 1,731,080,630 | pyros_it | nan | nan | 2024-11-08 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Muslims and the Qu'ran itself have too many non-democratic and unacceptable standpoints to be supported in secular western countries | {'id': 'lua17s6', 'text': ' I didn\'t say what premise it is but it is bombed. And the bombing started way before 9/11. But of course everyone rewrites their history to fit them\n\n>About the second part: I said arabs and turks here, not muslims, because I don\'t know if they actually were muslims.\n\nSo they have nothing to do with your CMV. \n\n> It\'s easy to get the impression that cologne muslims use their religions as shields when they want to and don\'t follow the religion otherwise. It\'s the same with the italian mafia, which often cited christianity as inspiration, \n\nLike many religious people. [George bush saying god told him to invade](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa) and the relationship between nazis and the church. Nothing new. \n\n"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq"\n\n\nReasons they gave for 9/11\n\n- U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly support for Israel and sanctions against Iraq\n- U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries\n- Opposition to U.S.-backed governments in the Middle East\n\n\n> But they\'re also not present in ghettos, as turkish people are.\n\nThat\'s a german problem, not a turkish problem. \n\nRemember your own CMV was "Muslims and the Qu\'ran itself have too many non-democratic and unacceptable standpoints to be supported in secular western countries" - now you\'re backpeddling a bit, and talking about German\'s incapacity to house people and just create ghettos. \n\nGreate a ghetto with white germans and you\'d have problems too\n\n>A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group are concentrated, especially as a result of political, social, legal, religious, environmental or economic pressure.[1] Ghettos are often known for being more impoverished than other areas of the city. [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto)\n\nThe Turkish just wanted to live this way, it had nothing to do with German policies?', 'author': 'gate18', 'score': 17, 'timestamp': 1730165167} | {'id': 'lu9ydk7', 'text': 'Islamism and the religious right that dominates a lot of these countries was created in reaction to the colonialism of the middle east and the economic and military domination by secular countries in the 20th (and 21st century). Extreme homophobia is an example of a viewpoint that was shaped within this context.\xa0\n\n\nHistorically, homosexuality in Islam prior to the 19th century was culturally practiced and silently accepted. There was outward disdain for the act - similarly to adultery - but the rules were similarly hard to enforce (need x amount of witnesses). So it was a practice that was pretty common, especially among the rich. This continued for most of Islams history (periods of more and less tolerance occured) until colonization, where Britain imported their MUCH more overt and legally enshrined homophobia. That dramatically changed how homosexuality was handled in the middle east. This was then compounded when the West turned away from that homophobia towards tolerance and secular values at the same time that islamic countries were becoming independent and shaping their identities in opposition to their previous colonial masters.\n\n\nIslam had many dramatic changes in thinking on many subjects, and much of it was regional given how there were at least three "centers" of the Islamic world. But I\'ve spoken on two renaissances in Islamic thought - one during the height of Baghdad\'s fame and influence and another over the course of the 1800s where new interpretations were dramatically evolving to meet the realities of the changing world. Unfortunately, more tolerant thought was lost or swept away in the face of mainstream islamism - at least as far as political power and leadership are concerned.\xa0\n\n\nSide note: there\'s a famous Islamic poet that was very very queer and was celebrated for his mastery of the Arabic language and the Bedouin poetic style which he evolved and innovated on over his life. I forget his name rn sadly. Very interesting character and context.', 'author': 'unexpectedlimabean', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1730164220} | 1gehf05 | CMV: Muslims and the Qu'ran itself have too many non-democratic and unacceptable standpoints to be supported in secular western countries | Before saying anything else, I'm going to tell you that most of my viewpoints are based on empirical evidence that I and those around me have collected over the past years and not on looking deeper into muslim culture and reading the Qu'ran, which I'm planing to do at a later point.
I live in Germany, in a city that has both a very large support for homosexuality and the lgbtq community, as well as a large amount of muslims. An overwhelmingly large amount of the muslims I met in my life have increadibly aggressive views on especially the lbtq-community and jewish people, constantly using their religion as reasoning for their hatred. I know that this problem isn't exclusive to Islam, but christians tend to have a much less aggressive approach to these topics because of principles like charity and taking a hit to the other cheek. Muslims on the other hand oftenly take a much more aggressive approach, presumably because of their principles of an eye for an eye and the high importance of the jihad.
Furthermore, people from muslim countries tend to be harder to immigrate than almost all other cultures, because of their (depending on the school) strict religious legislation on the behavior of women, going as far as women not being allowed to talk to any people outside, leading to generations of people not even learning our language and never socialising with the native germans at all, in spite of many (free) possibilities to do so. Many also oppose the legitimacy of a secular state and even oppose democracy in general, because it doesn't follow the ruling of their religion, which emphasizes that only muslim scholars should rule the state.
While I tried to stay open to most cultures throughout my life, I feel like muslims especially attempt to never comprimise with other cultures and political systems. Not based on statistics, but simply my own experience in clubs and bars in cologne (the city I live in), the vast majority of fights I've seen happen, have been started by turkish or arab people. I've seen lots of domestic violence in muslim families too and parents straight up abondening and abusing their children if they turned out to be homosexual or didn't follow religious rulings.
I know that this problem isn't exclusive to Islam, but barely any other culture is so fierce about their views. I'm having a hard time accepting and not opposing them on that premise.
Nonetheless, I feel like generalization is rarely a good view to have, so I hope some of you can give me some insight. Is it really the culture, or did I just meet the wrong people? | 1,730,160,592 | RetepExplainsJokes | nan | nan | 2024-10-29 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Raygun did nothing wrong | {'id': 'lvy8x3r', 'text': "Of course it’s not a crime to be bad but Olympics aren’t a fun competition open to anyone but meant to be a serious event for world class athletes and Raygun like Swaney simply don’t have world class level and just managed to get there by gaming the qualification process.\n\nNow you seem to be arguing that there’s nothing wrong with gaming the system and if you want to go to Olympics and find a loophole then good for you, I argue that it’s an ego trip funded by their wealth and while it’s obviously not the worse thing on earth it’s also not really honorable,\n\nThen here’s the quote of president of the international breakdance federation (WDSD):\n\n> Ensuring the success of breaking’s Olympic debut at Paris 2024 is therefore on the forefront of the WDSF agenda\n\nNow here’s a quote of a pioneer of Australian Breakdance a month after the Olympics:\n\n> I feel like it's just pushed our scene in Australia into the Dark Ages\n\nMy point here is that you seem to think that breakdance at Olympic was just a silly exhibition and it didn’t matter but my quotes are there to show you that for breakdancers, it mattered a lot and Raygun hurt her discipline.", 'author': 'Galious', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731008423} | {'id': 'lvx6185', 'text': '> I\'m not familiar with anything she said to that affect.\n\nShe did, despite you being [unaware.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonpu/2024/09/06/raygun-responds-on-controversial-olympic-breakdance-performance/) "In the Channel 10 interview, Raygun says that some people don’t understand the diversity of approaches in breaking". \n\nShe very close to the level of the "worst Olympians", the only comparisons are tiny countries who send totally unqualified people out.\n\nThere\'s a reason she was an international laughing stock - she was that bad at breakdancing.\n\nAnd again, she did do something wrong by taking the pretentious academic position that she was right and the world is wrong about her performance.', 'author': 'prince___dakkar', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730997539} | 1glsm5y | CMV: Raygun did nothing wrong | In honor of Raygun's retirement from the sport of breaking.
I've seen a lot of hate directed towards this woman and I don't think she ever deserved any of it. The Olympic committees were not trying to make Breaking a permanent fixture in the Olympics, the home country chose it as a featured sport to highlight "youth-focused urban engagement".
I have no problem believing Raygun is one of the best female breakdancers in Australia.
Breaking is not some massive worldwide sport with people training from a young age, and it was revealed that the Australian team had trouble finding enough participants for even the qualifications. If anyone thinks there are these groups of female Australian breakdancers hiding in the shadows who wanted to compete in the Olympics for a slim chance of coming in not-last place - I'd love to see them. I had not heard a peep from anyone who feels like they were "robbed" of a position on that stage.
I wouldn't expect her to risk injury trying to compete on a level with breakdancers from countries where breakdancing was more popular - it was invented not very long ago by African Americans in the upper west coast. Australia is less than 2% African descent, and that even has no connection to African-American culture. Again, not hard to believe it's not exactly popular with Australian women. | 1,730,992,150 | DrSpaceman575 | nan | nan | 2024-11-07 | 2024_fall |
cmv: most game devs don't intend players to 100% their game | {'id': 'lw7oa7n', 'text': 'Oh ok gotcha; I think I agree with you in most cases on that. However, if I was part of the reason you ended up disagreeing with your original title, consider awarding me a delta cuz it makes me happy!\n\nAlso thanks for checking it out!', 'author': 'TheVioletBarry', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731133591} | {'id': 'lw7n8ii', 'text': 'Then it sounds like those people gave an unhealthy relationship with those games. The same way someone who felt like the had to finish a book they weren’t enjoying out of a sense of obligation. If you don’t enjoy the game then you can stop.', 'author': 'Vesurel', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731132989} | 1gn0zwg | cmv: most game devs don't intend players to 100% their game | I've fully done Skyward Sword HD, Kirby's Dreamland, Kirby's Return to Dreamland Deluxe, Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda, and Sonic Unleashed. I've come to realise that game devs don't intend you to complete their game half the time.
Most games don't have a reward for 100#. In Breath of The Wild, the reward for getting all the seeds is poop. Golden poop. If the devs had an actual reward, it would intise more players to earn it. They knew getting all 900 seeds sucked, so they didn't want to incurage you.
If there is a reward, you often times don't need 100% of everything to do it. You can earn the 100% in kirbys return without getting platnuim on all the challenges. They just want you to play it and have fun. Sonic Frontiers' crown was added in an update and didn't require 100%, just some.
If you love 100%ing, thats cool! You do you. But if you aren't having fun, why bother?
**Edit:** My view has been changed. Thank you all. I now think a better title would have been "I don't think games should have a in game reward for 100%" | 1,731,122,865 | Ifyouliveinadream | nan | nan | 2024-11-09 | 2024_fall |
CMV: "Piracy isn't stealing" and "AI art is stealing" are logically contradictory views to hold. | {'id': 'lrtq6fs', 'text': 'It\'s always difficult to find freely available scholarly sources, but here is one. It states that piracy will cause companies to raise prices when there is little competition, but it does not reduce revenue. Essentially, when piracy is an option AND purchasing other products is not, some people will pirate, while those who do not choose to pirate, are willing to pay more. For those more competitive markets which are not affected, I think a reasonable conclusion is that people simply pay according their budget, and pirate whatever is beyond their budget. (relevant quote + [link](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221598671_Multi-Channel_Sequential_Search_with_Application_to_Piracy))\n\n>We then apply this model to study the competition between legitimate and piracy products. One immediate result is that reducing the number of piracy services has no impact on consumers’ decision of whether to pirate unless all piracy services are shutdown. When piracy products pose a threat, legitimate firms may respond by giving up low search cost consumers. This leads to the surprising result that piracy threat may induce firms to increase, rather than to decrease, their product prices. At the same time price distribution among legitimate firms can be more polarized in that the variance in prices increases.\n\n\n\n>Do a lot of companies use AI art? Enough to make a difference to artists?\n\nWell the difference here is that any time AI art is used, an artist would have made money *if* non-AI art were used. I concede there is the possibility that art simply won\'t be used if AI art isn\'t an option. Still, companies are interested in maximizing returns, and there will definitely be cases when the difference between profit and cost of AI and human ends up making the difference. Unlike the "budget" argument for people choosing to pirate media, I don\'t think there is any argument to support the idea that this will never happen.', 'author': 'Kitsunin', 'score': 33, 'timestamp': 1728876070} | {'id': 'lrtn0er', 'text': "Gonna start off by saying that for the piracy side, I'm referring mostly to video games, though arguments probably carry over. \n\nFirst, piracy sits in a morally grey area. Some of it I find unethical and some I think ethics don't apply to. It's usually simple to figure out, if it's no longer in production by the copyright owner, then there's absolutely no problem pirating it in my books. This is because to me the company has deemed it no longer profitable and wouldn't be getting your money anyways. As a general rule, tho, it's a case-by-case ordeal. Additionally, games no longer being produced are still meant to be experiences. A let's play on yt just isn't the same, usually, as actually playing. The player input adds a whole lot to the experience of the game, so leaving these games to never be played again is just a shame. \n\nAi images don't sit close to the grey area. It's unethical because these images are fed into the ai as training data, without any permission whatsoever, and without crediting the original artists. Not to mention it deprives someone of the works it treats like puzzle pieces. And it harms active artists who rely on commissions to live. First, a potential customer can be lost to this ai, and if said artist is accused of using ai, they will lose out on people who would have commissioned them otherwise.\n\nAnd the things ai images are used for by the people who seek art in some form can usually be substituted by what are basically dress-up simulators. Many of those exist, to a higher degree of customization than ai allows.", 'author': 'PH03N1X_F1R3', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728874711} | 1g33ili | CMV: "Piracy isn't stealing" and "AI art is stealing" are logically contradictory views to hold. | Maybe it's just my algorithm but these are two viewpoints that I see often on my twitter feed, often from the same circle of people and sometimes by the same users. If the explanation people use is that piracy isn't theft because the original owners/creators aren't being deprived of their software, then I don't see how those same people can turn around and argue that AI art is theft, when at no point during AI image generation are the original artists being deprived of their own artworks. For the sake of streamlining the conversation I'm excluding any scenario where the pirated software/AI art is used to make money. | 1,728,864,486 | RedFanKr | nan | nan | 2024-10-14 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Californians should not be obligated to pay federal taxes for policies that are directly harmful to us. | {'id': 'lwb100n', 'text': "This is not a unique situation. As I've said, taxes have always been a contentious issue. So, perhaps a more parallel example might work a bit better. \n \nFlorida enacted a new law that prevented Unions from automatically taking money out of paychecks. Florida argued that people should be able to choose if they paid into a Union rather than it be forced on them. A law like this was viewed as having the possibility of damaging Unions if enough people didn't want to actively put money into the unions. Because of this, Biden's department of Labor threatened to withhold ~800M in federal funding. \n \nSimilar to California, Florida pays more in taxes than it receives. I am someone who is liberal (look at my post history) and I understand your frustration, however, the system breaks down once we decide to pick and choose which parts we'll support.\n \nThese types of events are not uncommon", 'author': 'Amoral_Abe', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731185338} | {'id': 'lwatexo', 'text': 'What exactly is the problem if the referenced industries in California were to lose their undocumented immigrant labor force? Those industries could hire documented immigrants and/or US citizens to supplement the workforce. Obviously, these types of individuals would be “on the books” and therefore, employers would be required to pay US and/or CA minimum wages, payroll taxes, social security, Medicare, healthcare, etc, by law.\n\nAre these industries not doing this already for the undocumented immigrant labor force? Are those workers being paid less than minimum wage? Are those employers not paying taxes or any of those other costs associated with employment? If so, why should California be exempt from doing so and given an exception to use undocumented labor just because they are a large global economy?\n\nAlso, if I remember correctly, California is typically a proponent of paying individuals a living wage in our society. Does that stop being the case if those individuals are undocumented immigrants who support their “fifth-largest global economy?”', 'author': 'Investigate_311_x', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731182845} | 1gni00j | CMV: Californians should not be obligated to pay federal taxes for policies that are directly harmful to us. | I understand that everyone pays federal taxes, and there will always be disagreements over how those taxes are spent. People may oppose funding war, policing, or social services, yet these expenses can often be rationalized: war efforts can be profitable or have strategic foreign policy benefits, for example. However, California’s situation is unique, and the impact of certain policies, especially proposed by Trump, directly threatens our state’s economy, education, and the values that our tax dollars support.
1. Immigration Policies: Trump has proposed deporting both undocumented immigrants and some naturalized citizens. California, with the 5th largest economy globally, depends heavily on its diverse population, including immigrants, who contribute significantly across sectors. For instance, our state is a top exporter in dairy, almonds, and wine, all of which rely heavily on immigrant labor. Losing this workforce could devastate our economy, from agriculture to tech and service industries, which are foundational to the U.S. as a whole.
2. Education Funding: Another proposed policy is to defund any school teaching Black history. Given that California contributes a disproportionate amount in federal taxes, it seems unjust that we could lose funding for including accurate history in our curriculum. The idea that California’s taxes could fund other states while our own schools face penalties for inclusive education is absurd.
California’s contributions to federal revenue already benefit states with smaller economies, but policies targeting our core values and workforce hurt us more than most. While I’m not advocating for secession, I am questioning why we should fund a system that actively undermines our state’s well-being. Californians paying such a large share should at least be able to expect that our state will be supported, not punished, with our own tax dollars. | 1,731,180,956 | Scary-Ad-1345 | nan | nan | 2024-11-09 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Violent video games may cause desensitization, I believe this because the majority of studies believe so as well | {'id': 'lu14tmi', 'text': 'By replying to my post with a few lines and adding !delta', 'author': 'Eastern-Bro9173', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730047187} | {'id': 'ltzpt4x', 'text': 'Yes, but that\'s not necessarily meaningful. Why does simulation desensitize to reality then? How do you know when/if anything\'s "real," what\'s the difference in the brain?', 'author': 'Brrdock', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730027126} | 1gd81me | CMV: Violent video games may cause desensitization, I believe this because the majority of studies believe so as well | Title, I’m a big believer of science and will base my beliefs on it as well. I love violent video games as well and have been ruminating on the topic of desensitization, I don’t believe that is causes violence(due to a recent meta analysis showing no correlation) but I fear it might cause desensitization
The studies that have been leading me to this conclusion are the following:
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Psychology%20of%20Popular%20Media&title=Is%20it%20painful?%20Playing%20violent%20video%20games%20affects%20brain%20responses%20to%20painful%20pictures:%20An%20event-related%20potential%20study&volume=11&issue=1&publication_year=2022&pages=13-23&doi=10.1037/ppm0000290&#d=gs_qabs&t=1730023954938&u=%23p%3DzpPX_Zn_TncJ
- http://b-newport.de/papers/Montag%20et%20al.%20(in%20press)%20Biol%20Psychol.pdf
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Journal%20of%20Experimental%20Social%20Psychology&title=This%20is%20your%20brain%20on%20violent%20video%20games:%20Neural%20desensitization%20to%20violence%20predicts%20increased%20aggression%20following%20violent%20video%20game%20exposure&volume=47&issue=5&publication_year=2011&pages=1033-1036&doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.027&#d=gs_qabs&t=1730024530208&u=%23p%3D0dNiOIcLbooJ
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Journal%20of%20Experimental%20Social%20Psychology&title=The%20effect%20of%20video%20game%20violence%20on%20physiological%20desensitization%20to%20real-life%20violence&volume=43&issue=3&publication_year=2007&pages=489-496&doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.003&#d=gs_qabs&t=1730024729049&u=%23p%3DjaC99L42LoYJ
And a lot more you can find via a quick google search
Albeit there is evidence debunking this claim, I do not believe that the correlation found here is nothing
There are a lot of gamers who disagree and I’d like to know why. What am I missing? | 1,730,025,101 | Girlincaptivitee | nan | nan | 2024-10-27 | 2024_fall |
CMV: One of the biggest flaws European Liberal party’s made the last decade was not combating islamist extremism. | {'id': 'lvtfizy', 'text': "So you've changed your view on the idea that they didn't do anything, and now you are just saying that they should have advertised their accomplishments more?", 'author': 'AcephalicDude', 'score': 28, 'timestamp': 1730940468} | {'id': 'lvtcgol', 'text': "But it's not insane to blame Muslims for all this? And 'read in a long time' implies you've been told this before but choose to blame Muslims anyway", 'author': 'BioPsych120', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730939477} | 1glc7i8 | CMV: One of the biggest flaws European Liberal party’s made the last decade was not combating islamist extremism. | I know titles like this leave room for interpretation so before I start some information. I’m a 19 year old, Atheist, bisexual dude who is very left-leaning on social issues and more centrist on economical issues. No I don’t think people from Muslim countries or Muslims are inherently evil or that religion in general is stupid.
One of the trends we can see in the last decades is that islamist extremism and terrorism is on the rise. Even in Europe which tended to be becoming more atheist and liberal Christian in the last decades. This has given right wing populist an extremely successful target and led to the success of right wing parties in recent years.
Liberal party’s were to scared that they seemed racist if they even addressed problems related to Islam which is a thing that still baffles me because textbook Islam(like many religions) is inherently anti feminist and homophobic so one would assume that liberal party’s would try to protect women’s and queer rights/safety. Again I don’t have anything against any religion as long as they don’t interfere with politics. | 1,730,935,150 | Kyaruga | nan | nan | 2024-11-06 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The first thing on the vast majority of governments agendas should be the climate and biodiversity crisis andhow to improve it. | {'id': 'lwlxclw', 'text': 'Missing the point. \n\nTo the vast majority of the world, climate change is scientists arguing about tenths of a degree. Its also a "left" position in the western world and being used to push other agendas. \n\nPollution is easily measured and seen. You can point to it.\n\nIf you want pro climate policies, speak about pollution and environment.', 'author': 'IncreaseObvious4402', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1731345717} | {'id': 'lwlu4vf', 'text': "> \n> \n> \n> \n> 3) you have to keep religion away from the state, religion has caused a lot of unneeded wars, we don't need any more\n\nRemoving religion from the state has generally caused even worse issues - the largest examples of removing religion from the state in the past hundred years have been the Soviets, the CCP, the Vietnamese communists, the Cambodian communists, Ethiopian dergists, south Yemen, Barre's somalia...", 'author': 'Far-Trip-9679', 'score': -4, 'timestamp': 1731344727} | 1gowsfz | CMV: The first thing on the vast majority of governments agendas should be the climate and biodiversity crisis andhow to improve it. | Let me start with this, if your country is in a severe crisis, for example war or famine, this does not apply to them. However there are very few countries who apply to this and the vast majority don't.
the climate and biodiversity crises are extremely severe. There are risks of 50% of species are at risk of extinction and this is only going to increase. the global temperature has already increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre industrialisation and some scientists say that it could get up to 4 degrees by the end of the century. This would cause huge disruption to everyone. Droughts and famine would increase, snow would all but disappear ( pretty bad if you're a skier) and humanity would have to make huge changes. I think the world and all its governments need to act **Now** before its too late. | 1,731,343,869 | Eragon089 | nan | nan | 2024-11-11 | 2024_fall |
CMV: identity politics is the generalized version of class struggle | {'id': 'lwjquqy', 'text': "I think we agree about what is good or bad about these things. \n\nBut, I don't agree that identity politics is more generalised than class struggle. 'The working class' is a very general umbrella that captures 75% of people. 'Transgender person of colour' is a very narrow one, and identity politics is all about multiplying more precise and somehow less meaningful intersections like the latter.", 'author': 'venerablenormie', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731309968} | {'id': 'lwjqg00', 'text': 'I\'d argue they are two separate things. One stems from being nothing more than a cog in the machine and feeling used.\n\nIdentity politics are a whole nother ball game, which I believe stem from our lack of identity in youth. So people start grasping at any shred of an identity that the can.\n\nIt\'s probably why you also see so many Americans calling themselves Irish because they got a DNA result that the are 5% Irish. There is an identity crisis in the modern world that is yet to be solved.\n\nI don\'t agree with your view that either one of these creates situations where the marginalized are "automatically correct".', 'author': 'Lewis0981', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731309710} | 1gom117 | CMV: identity politics is the generalized version of class struggle | The initial intention for class struggle was noble as well to lift the proletariat out of poverty and overturn the corrupt ruling class. When the proletariat became the ruling class, they continue the class struggle and everything is centered around it. Land owners were killed, artists were arrested, in short, anyone perceived as the original oppressing class were automatically bad. Anything peasants and working class did were automatically right. Anyone disagrees was labelled as a anti-proletariat, anti-revolution, anti-people.
Now, identity politics is in fact a broader evolution of class struggle. While traditional class struggle views society through an economic lens. I get it's goal is to support the marginalized group. But how it is done through its mechanics emphasizing on emotion and category shares striking similarities to the class struggle. The marginalized are perceived as the oppressed and they are automatically right. Yes, no one was killed or arrested. But that's because it happened in the west countries with rule of law. | 1,731,306,945 | long_arrow | nan | nan | 2024-11-11 | 2024_fall |
CMV: there is nothing wrong with being anti immigration. | {'id': 'lq6q1fb', 'text': 'I think you can respond with **! delta** but without the space in between.', 'author': 'teaisjustgaycoffee', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1727983938} | {'id': 'lq67lak', 'text': "Still can't tell. You are either a genius or in a completely different category.", 'author': 'cat_of_danzig', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1727978113} | 1fvcm4q | CMV: there is nothing wrong with being anti immigration. | Immigration is not a moral issue. An immigrant is seeking a better life for themselves and so their decision to immigrate is inherently selfish. They’re not immigrating for the good of the country, it’s a decision made with their interests in mind.
A Zimbabwean immigrant who illegally crosses the border into South Africa isn’t doing so for altruistic reasons, they are doing so for entirely selfish motives.
Citizens therefore are also allowed to act in a self interested way. They are also allowed to weigh up the benefits immigration has on their lives and decide if they want to opt into this deal. If the native does the same benefit analysis the immigrant does and decides immigration is not to their benefit they are allowed to oppose immigration if they feel it doesn’t benefit them.
People are always going to act in their own self interests. And the immigrant and the native are both acting in their self interests.
Governments exist to advance the interests of citizens, and if the citizens of a country decide immigration is not in their best interests, the government is allowed to echo those sentiments.
And finally countries should not be forced to carry the burden of failed states. It is not the responsibility of South Africa, Oman, Dominican Republic, America etc etc to carry the burden of the failure to thrive of their neighbours.
Ultimately immigration is an issue of competing interests, the interests of the natives and the interests of the migrant. And each group is allowed to prioritise their interests. | 1,727,975,025 | SydHoar | nan | nan | 2024-10-03 | 2024_fall |
CMV: It Is Unwise for Supporters of Kamala Harris to Mock Undecided Voters | {'id': 'lsf88sv', 'text': 'I didn\'t say anything about mouthpieces. I posted an explanation of the joke. \n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/ZsgTpTJwMR\n\nI can explain the joke even more. Bryant Rosado was on a CNN panel of undecided voters in August \n\n*Did Vice President Harris\' speech at the DNC move the needle for voters still on the fence? @GaryTuchmanCNN speaks with a group of undecided voters in the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania.* https://x.com/AC360/status/1827023320094532042\n\n*Rosado: "Her speech was great. I like how she went into personal history, again. It was just not moving for me."*\n\n*Tuchman: "But it made you think that Trump\'s a better candidate than her?"*\n\n*Rosado: "He\'s here for it. He\'s a little bit more aggressive. She\'s aggressive in her way, but I think she\'ll be aggressive in the next term."*\n\n*Tuchman: "So Trump over Harris for you."*\n\nhttps://meidasnews.com/news/bring-back-trump-cnn-undecided-voter-panelist-has-pro-trump-social-media-history\n\nOn social media, it\'s apparent that he is a Trump voter who was disappointed when Mike Pence didn\'t hand Trump a victory.\n\n\nThis is what the meme is about.', 'author': 'washingtonu', 'score': 18, 'timestamp': 1729197732} | {'id': 'lseupyu', 'text': "Frankly, I believe Harris is a more tangible threat to more important things than Trump is.\n\nThe Biden administration - and Harris by extension - have been incredibly hostile to the first amendment. Tim Walz in an interview spread misinformation that the first amendment doesn't protect misinformation. The Biden administration strong armed social media companies into censoring claims that were inconvenient to their agenda. The whole reason for the impending TikTok ban is that the government hasn't been able to get them on board with supporting the narrative they want to drive. To me, the threat the democrats pose to the freedom of speech is a much more tangible threat than a failed attempt at challenging election results.\n\nI'm not defending Trump - I'm not voting for him either. In 2016 I was sympathetic to Trump's campaign to drain the swamp. He did a shit job of it, but I believe it's something that still needs to be done. Harris represents the swamp.", 'author': 'NaturalCarob5611', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729193432} | 1g5y5nf | CMV: It Is Unwise for Supporters of Kamala Harris to Mock Undecided Voters | I was inspired to write this by an exchange I had regarding this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/s/E2Mj2dgkA8. As you can see the OP made a big hit. Over 1000 upvotes at the time I write this.
But take a second to consider the implications of that meme: it suggests that there are only two groups that exist in the American electorate —people who have decided to vote for Harris, and MAGA authoritarians. That’s it.
Now, I realize this was just a silly bit of fun, but I raised a question to other users on that heavily Democratic-leaning sub: is it wise to shame and ridicule people who still might vote for Kamala, especially considering that the election will almost certainly be decided by a extremely narrow segment of the electorate? Does it make sense to mock undecided voters under these circumstances?
My concerns were met with scorn.
“I’m tired of swing voters! If they can’t figure out who to vote for, they should just stay home!”, said one.
“Swing voters don’t actually exist. They know they’re going to vote for Trump and just pretend to be undecided for attention.”, claimed another.
“I would hate to deny a person their right to vote but if a person can’t figure out why voting for Trump is bad…”
I am paraphrasing here, but only a little. What’s worse, I hear similar ideas from my progressive friends and I believe these opinions are common in left-of-center circles.
For example there was a post not too long ago right here on this sub where the OP expressed concern that Harris was not getting enough support from labor unions. I commented that the Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the university educated managerial class and that they are losing wage earning workers in the process and I suggested that this was lamentable. Lots of people responded that the working class is mostly composed of bigots anyway so progressives shouldn’t seek their votes at all.
Now, that point of view is totally unhinged for a variety of reasons but I do want to say that I get why people are frustrated with swing voters.
Like, how can you be “not sure” about voting for or against a convicted criminal with authoritarian tendencies who endorses dictators and threatens civil rights? What kind of person would struggle with that decision?
But getting impatient is still not the appropriate response because despite what some Reddit users may believe swing voters are real.
There are people who voted for Obama, then Trump and then Biden and who have not made their mind yet about the 2024 election at this time. The key point for me is no matter how exasperating this kind of behavior might be, we need to try to coax these people to vote for our candidate and cannot afford to scoff at them publicly.
Statistically, swing voters are less educated and less politically engaged than hardcore supporters of either party, but they will decide the election. If a person does not want another Trump presidency, it is necessary to appeal to undecided voters. There simply aren’t enough Subaru Outback-driving, NPR-listening progressives (describing myself here) in the country—or in swing states—to carry the day for Kamala alone.
And like it or not, fair or not, there does exist a perception that Democrats are elitist college students and professors with nothing but sneering contempt for those without higher education. We can count on Trump and the Republicans to exploit that feeling to their advantage.
Making posts like the I referenced above exacerbates the problem. Even if it is at a micro level, the sentiment that undecided voters are stupid is widely spread and widely disseminated in progressive circles. And perception and feelings are more important than policy or facts right now, particularly for those “low information” voters who are going to decide whether or not Trump goes back to the Oval Office.
Under these conditions, I think a little tolerance and goodwill toward undecided voters makes strategic sense right now and I’m speaking to all of us who plan to vote for Kamala Harris.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Does it make sense to be openly scornful of swing voters right now?
I just want to say off the bat. Responses that say something to effect of, “What the Republicans do is even worse!” will not change my view. I don’t want the GOP to win so if they shoot themselves in the foot, I’m happy.
And if you do support Trump, I’m glad for you. I don’t. We can discuss him somewhere else. | 1,729,190,685 | BluePillUprising | nan | nan | 2024-10-17 | 2024_fall |
Cmv: when Trump enters office the Republicans will have 100% of the blame and credit. | {'id': 'lwb4v9w', 'text': "Yeah, if facts would matter the US wouldnt't be in that situation.", 'author': 'chefkoch_', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1731186606} | {'id': 'lwb3ftz', 'text': 'People said that there was no way Trump would get elected and it happened **twice**.', 'author': 'Hikari_Owari', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1731186136} | 1gnjfnz | Cmv: when Trump enters office the Republicans will have 100% of the blame and credit. | When January occurs the Republican party will control the House and Senate as well as the Executive branch with a conservative Department of Justice. It is literally a complete control of all branches of government.
While a lot of people are scared of the future, I think something that isn't being said much is that anything that happens is completely on Republican party. Because they control everything, whatever good happens and whatever bad happens cannot be attributed to being done without the help of the Republican Party
I expect the next 4 years to be rather volatile and to put us backwards in quite a few ways but the biggest thing that I think people are missing out is the experiment is over between the two-party system.
Cmv- If the Republican party doesn't create positive outcomes for the American people there is no one to blame anymore. Not that they won't try, but everything that happens in the next 2, possibly 4 years is on the GOP. | 1,731,184,885 | IndyPoker979 | nan | nan | 2024-11-09 | 2024_fall |
CMV: specific airports should be required to have all weather tires on all rental cars | {'id': 'luewhcq', 'text': "So then your real issue isn't requiring them to use winter wheels, it's that many car rentals companies don't provide any option for safely navigating snowy mountains.\n\nThat's a reasonable concern. But it is different from what you originally said.", 'author': 'Aezora', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730235560} | {'id': 'luel8ec', 'text': 'I mean the reason would be some base level of safety... It might not be as big of an issue in the US becaue 80% of the states dont see snow, but its a massive issue in Canada where its winter 8 months of the year.', 'author': 'VforVenndiagram_', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730232229} | 1gf3enf | CMV: specific airports should be required to have all weather tires on all rental cars | As someone who skis, i don’t want to fly into an airport to get a car that isn’t ideal for driving in the state other than in town. People fly to places for many reasons and having a car with all season tires in Colorado to go ski or see family in the mountains isn’t the most ideal. It isn’t safe for people to be driving these in the mountains and snow either let alone the people around them. Imo these rental companies should be required by law to put all weather tires on cars if they get a certain average amount of snow. | 1,730,230,699 | Thegiantlamppost | nan | nan | 2024-10-29 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The Death Penalty is a Good Thing and Should Not Be Abolished | {'id': 'lwpx0sn', 'text': "While you noted that there are 2000 escapes from prisons in the US every year, during some research I found that there are almost NO escapes from maximum security prisons in the US.\n\nThere's not a lot of numbers out there, but in the US from 2009 to 2013, there was a single escape from a maximum security prison, but the escapee was captured within a day. Anyone in prison for murder of a heinous nature would be kept in a maximum security prison.\n\nAlternately, there are many instances of innocent people being executed. The number of people exonerated BEFORE they were executed stands at around 200 since 1973 according to the DPIC. It stands to reason that there are MANY more that were innocent, but not exonerated by evidence found later. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence\n\nThe likelihood of executing an innocent person is too high to justify using capital punishment. You can not UNDO it and it is the ultimate miscarriage of justice for the state to execute an innocent person, which then allows the guilty party to go without punishment.\n\nWhile I agree that some crimes should be more harshly punished such as those where someone in power or of influence uses that power to commit crimes against people, being incarcerated in a maximum security prison for life is not a light sentence. People deemed more of a danger are often put into restrictive housing (solitary confinement), and not allowed to spend ANY time around any other prisoners.", 'author': 'grahag', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731399296} | {'id': 'lwpo8ol', 'text': 'A few problems:\n\n1. Carrying out the death penalty in a humane way for all involved can be more expensive than just keeping the inmate alive. This increases the burden on the state. \n\n2. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable. Video accounts are unreliable. DNA evidence being present is unreliable. Judges and sentencing are unreliable. We can not 100% know, and it\'s easier (and more morally safe) to sentence people to life rather than spend more effort/money making 100% sure and being able to 100% trust every judge\'s decision. \n\n3. The example you provide of "buddy-buddy with the police officers" is exactly the problem. The more power you give the state, the more corruption you get. People being friends/enemies of the police/judges/whoever. If you can\'t trust the police to arrest fairly or judges to sentence fairly, you want to limit how bad that can be. Which means no death penalty. \n\nA few solutions:\n\n1. You want to improve public safety. There are a million other levers that can be pulled here! Mass surveillance (hey, why should you demand privacy in a public space?), education, mental healthcare, etc. Just look up "how to reduce crime" and you\'ll find plenty of other, data-backed options. \n\n2. You don\'t want prisoners to escape. Okay, 2000 prisoners escape, but a large number of them are escaping from minimum security prisons or "absent without leave": already out of the facility. I think you are overreacting to what actually amounts to a rather small problem. But the escape rate is already on its way down. \n\n3. You want people to be treated equally under the eyes of the law. You and me both, friend! It IS obscene. Here, we need to police the police, to judge the judges. There need to be real consequences for failing to uphold justice. And not just making the police department pay a fine that ultimately the taxpayer pays. \n\ntl;dr you identify real problems. But imo you pick one of the more controversial, less effective solutions to deal with them. \n\nIt doesn\'t take long to look up these facts, but since I don\'t know what kind of sources you\'re likely to believe, I encourage you to look it up yourself.', 'author': 'Forsaken_Code_7780', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731393696} | 1gpef04 | CMV: The Death Penalty is a Good Thing and Should Not Be Abolished | Let me start out by saying that I am not a vengeful person, nor am I a forgiving person. I don't care about "they need to rot in prison for life and suffer for what they've done," nor do I care about "they need to be given a second chance and repent and be rehabilitated back into society". But what I do care about is public safety.
There are around 2,000 prisoners who escape every year, and some of them committed the most heinous of crimes. While the majority are usually caught and returned to prison, this can take days, weeks, or months, and that gives them plenty of time to commit their heinous atrocities again before being thrown back in prison. Sometimes, someone's actions are so monstrous that the person needs to be put down, because that is the only 100% way to make sure they cannot harm anyone else. Not to mention the fact that these particularly violent/malicious criminals can also harm other prisoners who don't deserve to be subjected to that, and they can harm the prison workers too. It's not right to subject more innocent (or at least not as heinous) people to these violent criminals just because you don't want the violent criminal to be killed, or because you have some self-righteous, moralistic view of "we can't pretend to be god and decide who lives and who dies" because guess what? We already do that. All the time. Every day. Killing someone in self defense is totally justified (and it's a good thing, in my opinion), and that's essentially what capital punishment is but on a broader, societal scale. It's killing someone in the interest of public safety.
Granted, I think the legal system needs massive improvement and I only think people should be sentenced to death if we can 100% know that they were the ones who committed the crime. Like eye witnesses, and it's literally on video so all the people in court can watch them commit the crime, you can hear their voice and see their face and body, and their DNA is all over the crime scene--it's undeniable that they were the one who committed the crime. And I also want their death to be swift. As soon as they're sentenced, they should be killed very shortly afterwards. If we cannot sentence them to death because we can't be 100% certain, then yes life in prison and they need to be on complete lock down. No contact with others, no chance of escape.
In general, not only do I want our justice system immensely improved but I also want harsher punishments for crimes, especially violent ones. There's a lady on TikTok named burnedbeauty whose husband set her on fire and is now roaming free in Georgia because he was buddy-buddy with the police officers, and they took his word for what happened over hers. She received no justice. It's obscene how much people can get away with in the US. | 1,731,392,329 | SzayelGrance | nan | nan | 2024-11-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Kamala not going on Joe Rogan is cowardly and foolish | {'id': 'ltu9tp0', 'text': "One of the things Rogan is actually most criticized for is not challenging people enough. He does laid-back type interviews, where they switch often to different subjects, from politics to even some esoteric shit. Going on Rogan is not some herculean task. Unless she's actually a robot posing as a human, there's no reason for her to think she couldn't handle it. Her record is mostly pretty clean.\n\nThe likely answer to why she's not going is her campaign thinks it won't bring much benefit and time is spent better doing something else; I disagree with this, so I have no problem with you calling it foolish, but again, coward doesn't make sense. There is nothing to fear when doing a Rogan interview.", 'author': 'Domestiicated-Batman', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1729945678} | {'id': 'ltu4v38', 'text': 'I think it’s a tension to say it’s cowardly *and* foolish. Say it’s cowardly; why? Presumably, because she wouldn’t be successful in that interview. In that case, it’s not foolish—she doesn’t want to tank her campaign with the biggest podcast in the world. Or if it’s foolish—well, why? Because she would likely be successful, in which case is she really cowardly to not go? I suppose she could be cowardly by running away from an interview that was likely to go well, but this presupposes it would go well *and* she knows that. She might find other methods more likely to get her the swing votes she needs (supporting fracking for Pennsylvania, for example).', 'author': 'ExRousseauScholar', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729943354} | 1gcj1o6 | CMV: Kamala not going on Joe Rogan is cowardly and foolish | We got confirmation yesterday that Kamala is not gonna go on Joe Rogan, after a lot of rumors about it over the last couple weeks
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-will-not-appear-joe-rogan-podcast-her-campaign-says-2024-10-25/
Trump just did an interview there yesterday. It is the biggest podcast on Earth by a long shot. Kamala spent the time in Texas instead, a state she can't win, alongside Beyoncé...
Reasons I can see her not going-
She thinks she has nothing to gain.
I see this as incorrect. One of the big holes in her coalition is with young people, particularly young black men.
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-black-voters-polls-win-back-democrats-1970524
Biden got 90% of black male vote, while Kamala is getting only 49% of gen z black male approval vs 40% for trump. This is disastrous if it materializes in the final vote.
Mark Zuckerberg rehabilitated his image in the public eye after appearing on that podcast. It is the easiest way to connect with younger demographic.
2. She thinks Rogan would be biased.
2 issues here- one, it validates trump not doing more debates because he was "worried about bias", makes her look cowardly.
Second issue is that, if anything, the biggest critique of Joe Rogan is that is too accommodating of his guests and lets them get away with anything.
3. She is worried about the long-interview format.
If this is actually the reason, then it is a damnation of her competency and she should not be president. I don't think it is though, she's done other podcasts already and seemed to do ok. But I still see this theory float around online unchallenged, because she didn't come on the biggest podcast on earth when given the chance.
4. She wasn't invited.
Her campaign was in discussion with Joe Rogan these last several days, and confirmed yesterday that she couldn't go due to "scheduling conflicts". That is a clear cop out. She could have cut her Texas event and gone, for example, with virtually no downside for her campaign. | 1,729,942,449 | original_og_gangster | nan | nan | 2024-10-26 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Without other-wordly knowledge, values are firstly arbitrary | {'id': 'lx4pdo1', 'text': "I don't think it does. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that initial values are fundamentally arbitrary. My point is that even even 'otherworldly' knowledge can't change that. You've held open the possibility that an external framework could provide non-arbitrary values, and I think that's the most incorrect part of your view. It seems like that isn't a serious commitment for you, just you defining the scope of discussion. But that wasn't obvious to me from your post.", 'author': 'Alesus2-0', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731610608} | {'id': 'lx4m8yt', 'text': "It's not arbitrary as to whether to choose to be life affirming. It would be arbitrary if it made no difference to the things we cared about or had no relationship to given facts. But basically everyone, as a brute fact of being an embodied evolved living thing, does value their continued existence. If it were actually arbitrary suicide would be a commonplace to the point of not being worth commenting on. Nihilists only exist in the Big Lebowski, everyone else has something to gain from their perspective by sticking around.", 'author': 'Both-Personality7664', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731609659} | 1grauzi | CMV: Without other-wordly knowledge, values are firstly arbitrary | When I was around 14-16 I resolved a lot of that existential dread stuff with the usual suspects of Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, etc. Now, mid-20's, I'm trying to go back to more deeply reflect, and make coherent, my value system.
They all give it different names, but Camus' is probably most famous with "there is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." Camus decides the universe might be indifferent but he is not, and chooses to be life affirming; Sartre claims we are condemned to be free and decides to live coherently/authentically with that fact; Nietzsche decides to assert one's values onto the world as a life affirming creative force. And so it goes. They all make a choice. My thesis is that such a choice is, firstly, an arbitrary one.
Once you draw a box around "The Universe," you very quickly reach the issue that one of two things are true: either 1) there is an *external* vestigial impact (e.g. grand design) that could offer direction, but we would be unable to prove it over any other "it came to me in a dream" claimants (by virtue of being external), or 2) there is no input from the *external,* and all that remains is the internal "The Universe." (and just for completeness I'll add that any claim about "what if the universe were bigger than we thought" (e.g. Many Worlds, an actively participating God, a brain in a jar tricked by a demon, etc) wouldn't change that)
Either way it tends towards "The Universe" as something that can only be said to be globally value-neutral. The Universe persists and transforms, but it can't be said that any particular iteration or transformation is "better" or "worse" from the highest sense, at least to the degree the *internal* can ever know. You need *external*, other-worldly, higher-order knowledge to say more, and that can never come (insert religion's concept of simply having faith they're the one true religion).
So you have to locally construct values, either from things like biology (e.g. humans are social creatures, therefore sociability is a virtue among humans and murder is bad; every instinct in a lifeform's body tends towards self-preservation and procreation, therefore offing youself bad and having children good) or from some notion that living in accordance with the universe might be a good thing because if any purpose does exist its probably there (Spinoza, Stoics, etc.) or just from vibes ("You are radically free. Live until it kills you!")
However, the issue is that first step. We don't get to choose to be born, we don't get to choose to die, but every moment in between we are stuck with this awareness of a self that has the sensation of making choices. We have to make choices, there is no "not choosing," and yet the universe is indifferent (effectively value-neutral). It doesn't care if we decide to be life-affirming or to reject life outright, it doesn't care if we decide to be coherent and sensible and well-grounded in reality or to throw our hands up in the area and always choose the first option that appears. It doesn't care if we flip a coin for every decision, it doesn't care if we respect that coin flip. This makes any decision subsequent arbitrary. Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche say "choose life" and I say "I flipped a coin and got tails, so no 🗿" and there isn't a way to say who is right without arbitrarily accepting one, or believing you have higher-order/other-worldly/external knowledge, and working from there.
Its okay if that's how it has to work, but the implication is that humans just kind of build up virtues that are evolutionarily good and the only reason murder is wrong is because we'll pathologize you as a sociopath and the game theory says its better to not. The equivalent of "bad things are bad because they feel bad in my tum tum." | 1,731,607,119 | AtomAndAether | nan | nan | 2024-11-14 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The U.S. Should Have Open Borders | {'id': 'lubqtki', 'text': "Thanks for the Delta!\n\n>I would argue that there's no reason to believe that the place we currently draw the line is right. My hypothesis is that an order of magnitude more people who would benefit the country and the communities they move into if we allowed them the chance.\n\nI Kind of agree, but open borders implies that the screening process gets thrown out of the window as well, right? I'm defining 'open borders' parallel to what the EU has. No checks, no restrictions, you can drive across borders and the only thing telling you that you're in another country is the welcome sign.\n\nThis allows bad actors to move into the country freely as well. Especially the aforementioned cartels. The US is one of their largest markets, giving them access to the country could bring the violence we see in Mexico and beyond along with them. \n\n>I don't really get your crime piece. Is it just that people will amuggle things across borders? If that's a problem we're trying to solve for, I don't think immigration restrictions are the right fix. If anything having people have to cross illegally gives more opportunities for illegal traffic.\n\nNot just smuggle things, smuggle *themselves*. I'd wager the cartels would gladly accept straight access to the USA, and promptly settle major operations there.\n\n>And on the brain drain piece, I think that's unfortunate but not a reason to restrict peoples freedom of movement. People should be able to live where they want.\n\nI think 'unfortunate' is a bit of an understatement. If there is anything you want as a country, it's for your neighbours to at least be stable as well. Depriving your neighbours of their brainpower all but ensures that the country will spiral into depravity. It would (imo) be way more beneficial to help the US' direct neighbours and collaborate, rather than absorb their people and leaving them floundering.", 'author': 'Tydeeeee', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730197053} | {'id': 'lubovtg', 'text': 'So let’s move away from the abstract and consider what is going on at the Mexico-US border. There are issues that need to be solved before that border can be considered safe and open (racism and xenophobia aside).\n\nOne, we need to stop the drug trade which is fueled not by our own organizations in the DEA, ICE, and CIA. Crime, violence, drug trafficking needs to be solved.\n\nTwo, human trafficking needs to be addressed. An “open border” can’t mean that we look away as people are taken advantage of and smuggled into the country. But this is in big part a problem created by criminalizing migration. \n\nThree, we have to address the politics of having an open border. Capitalism creates artificial scarcity, people compete for a finite number of jobs. Many Americans are struggling day to day and immigration of any kind (let’s be real, the issue is never the “open border” which has never existed but just people coming into the country). We can only start to alleviate these concerns by doing better for the American people.\n\nFour, we have to address why immigrants are coming to the US. It is because of the poverty and destitution global capitalism creates in the third world and a lot of it is tied directly to American foreign policy and exploitative trade deals with smaller countries. Haiti is a good example of neocolonialism ravaging a country and it produces refugees and migrants. We need to repair the damage done to these countries and help people thrive at home if they prefer.\n\nFive, we have to ensure that workers in the US and the rest of the world are on even footing. What creates resentment among people is our jobs moving overseas to exploit low wages and low regulations in other countries. Corporations lobby for “open borders” and work visa policies so they can bring in cheap labor from outside. We need to create a global min wage and have global environmental and labor standards so that companies do not pit Americans against the rest of the world.', 'author': 'marxianthings', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730195874} | 1geq9o1 | CMV: The U.S. Should Have Open Borders | Hi, everyone! I’d like to share my view on why the United States should adopt an open-border policy and welcome any and all challenges to this perspective. I understand this is a complex issue with many sides, and I’m hoping to spark a thoughtful discussion.
My View: Open Borders Could Benefit the U.S.
I believe that the United States would benefit economically, socially, and culturally from open borders. Many of the common concerns about immigration don’t seem to hold up when we look at the data, and I’d like to share some perspectives on why these concerns might not justify restrictions on immigration.
1. Economic Concerns: Jobs and Wages
The Concern: Some people worry that more immigration means increased competition for jobs, especially in industries where wages are already low. There’s a fear that an influx of workers will drive wages down or take jobs from American citizens.
My View: Economically, immigrants have consistently contributed more to the economy than they take. Many studies have shown that immigrants don’t depress wages for native workers but rather fill critical gaps in the labor market, particularly in areas where there’s a shortage of skilled workers or in industries that many citizens are moving away from (like agriculture or caregiving). Additionally, immigrants often start businesses at higher rates than native-born citizens, which creates jobs and drives innovation. I believe open borders would allow for a healthier economy, with talent flowing to meet market needs, benefiting everyone in the long run.
2. Pressure on Social Services and Public Resources
The Concern: A common argument is that immigrants may place a strain on social services—education, healthcare, welfare programs—potentially diverting resources from native-born citizens.
My View: While there are short-term costs associated with any population growth, immigrants contribute more in taxes over their lifetimes than they use in public services. Many immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, are ineligible for many federal benefits but still pay into these systems. Furthermore, more people in the workforce (many immigrants are young and of working age) means a stronger tax base to support public services. In the long term, a growing population actually strengthens social security and healthcare systems, which are currently at risk due to the aging U.S. population.
3. National Security and Safety Concerns
The Concern: Some fear that open borders could pose security risks, with the potential for increased crime, drug trafficking, or terrorism.
My View: Studies show that immigrants—documented and undocumented—tend to commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Effective systems for documentation and integration could actually improve security by allowing for a transparent and structured immigration process, rather than the current model, where strict borders encourage dangerous and unmonitored entry methods. Open borders don’t mean a lack of border security but rather a focus on safe and efficient immigration channels, which could allow law enforcement to focus on genuine threats rather than the immigration process itself.
4. Cultural Concerns and Fear of Losing “American” Identity
The Concern: Some people worry that large-scale immigration could change or dilute American culture, shifting languages, values, and ways of life.
My View: American culture is already incredibly diverse and has continuously evolved with each new wave of immigration—from the Irish and Italians to Vietnamese, Mexican, and Nigerian communities. What makes American culture unique is its ability to absorb, adapt, and integrate new influences. I’d argue that open borders would simply extend this tradition, enriching American culture further rather than erasing it. Additionally, the freedom to move and settle doesn’t imply a lack of shared values; many immigrants come to the U.S. because of their alignment with core American ideals like opportunity, freedom, and diversity.
Why Open Borders?
I see open borders as a way for the U.S. to harness global talent, keep its economy dynamic, support social programs with a younger workforce, and remain a leader in cultural and economic innovation. The current system, with strict quotas and complicated barriers, often doesn’t meet our economic or social needs and forces many immigrants into undocumented status, making it harder to ensure security and fair labor practices.
What Could Change My View?
I’m open to the idea that there may be downsides I haven’t considered. For example, I’d reconsider my stance if there were data from reputable economists or news sources showing that immigration has a net negative economic impact or if there were substantial evidence that cultural changes due to immigration had led to harmful outcomes in the U.S. or other diverse nations. I’d love to hear any counterarguments that point to such data or studies.
These are my thoughts, but I’d love to hear yours. What are the specific reasons you might oppose open borders, or do you think there are nuances I’m missing?
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to the discussion! | 1,730,193,099 | a1j9o94 | nan | nan | 2024-10-29 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Not paying the TV Licence fee is now a perfectly reasonable consumer choice (UK Post) | {'id': 'lwqjhv3', 'text': 'So then I would say there is not a perfectly reasonable consumer choice. The ability to watch sports is predicated on funding the BBC.', 'author': 'SANcapITY', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731413525} | {'id': 'lwqingo', 'text': "Yeah, that's based on **usage choices**. So a TV licence guy can't just roll up to your property and fine you just because you own a computer. Everyone owns a computer. By this logic it may as well be mandatory.", 'author': 'Skavau', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1731413106} | 1gphnas | CMV: Not paying the TV Licence fee is now a perfectly reasonable consumer choice (UK Post) | For anyone not from the UK who hasn’t got a clue what I’m talking about the TV licence is something you need if you want to watch broadcast television in the UK. Predominantly it is used to fund the BBC across television, radio and the internet however some of the costs go to support infrastructure that other broadcast television companies use. In recent years the licence fee has become controversial, partly for the perceived political bias of the organisation (the left see it as to their right, the right see it as to their left) and partly because the fee was seen as a mandatory tax. This controversy has seen calls for the licence fee to be scrapped with the BBC moving to a commercial model (either subscription or advert based), the general argument being that paying for the BBC should be a consumer choice and that Brits should be able to watch non-BBC broadcast TV without paying for the licence.
My view is that the modern TV media market is now so diverse that there’s actually no need for a change and the TV licence already is a consumer choice.
Currently you need a TV licence to watch live broadcast TV on any channel and the BBC iPlayer digital service, this includes live news and sport on any platform. You do not not require a TV licence to watch streaming content on any other platform, that means you do not require a TV licence to watch Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, AppleTV, Paramount+, YouTube, Now TV, ITVx, Channel 4 (the streaming service), My5 or any of the other smaller services available. I hope it is clear that there is a lot of television media available if you choose not to pay the TV licence, much of it free, and that the consumer is no longer limited by a refusal to pay the TV licence. If that is the case then the licence fee should no longer be considered a mandatory tax and whether you pay it or not is now just a standard consumer choice.
| 1,731,406,880 | Subtleiaint | nan | nan | 2024-11-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: If Biden believes Trump is a threat to American democracy, he should use ALL the tools in his disposal to stop him from taking power. | {'id': 'lx06sh5', 'text': 'Sorry to be that guy, but the great fire of London stopped the plague epidemic in 1666.', 'author': 'dreadful_name', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731542325} | {'id': 'lx04q73', 'text': "**So you're doing exactly what you've been fighting against this whole time. That's rich. You're about to FAFO...**", 'author': '-Fluxuation-', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731541604} | 1gqqsio | CMV: If Biden believes Trump is a threat to American democracy, he should use ALL the tools in his disposal to stop him from taking power. | Trump is elected democratically, normally I'd be bummed a Republican won but would move on.
This seems like a special case. I'm sure the Democratic party/courts/etc has mountains of evidence pointing to Trump is a threat to democracy. (An attempted coup/insurrection for example)
If you are currently in power in a democracy and there is strong evidence the incoming politician(s) are going to try to seize power and end democracy, you have a duty to:
\- stop them by any means necessary (yes militarily)
\- strengthen your safeguards so this doesn't happen again
\- then accept punishment for your illegal activities
It doesn't matter if it ends your career/life/freedom. It doesn't matter if the other side views you as performing a coup. The purpose of this action isn't to seize power. It's to stop a dictator before they take power. Then having a new election with the safeguards in place.
Here are some of the things outlined in Project 2025 that are undemocratic/unconstitutional.
Project 2025, developed by the Heritage Foundation, outlines a comprehensive plan to restructure the U.S. federal government. Several aspects of this initiative have raised concerns regarding their alignment with democratic principles:
1. **Expansion of Presidential Powers**: The project advocates for a unitary executive theory, proposing that the entire executive branch be under direct presidential control. This includes eliminating the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Critics argue that this concentration of power could undermine the system of checks and balances fundamental to democracy. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
2. **Reclassification of Federal Employees**: Project 2025 suggests reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees to replace them with individuals loyal to the president. This move could erode the merit-based, nonpartisan nature of the civil service, leading to a government workforce driven by political allegiance rather than expertise. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
3. **Dismantling Federal Agencies**: The plan includes proposals to abolish departments such as the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security, with their functions either eliminated or consolidated under presidential control. Such actions could disrupt the balance of power and reduce the effectiveness of federal governance. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
4. **Use of Military for Domestic Enforcement**: There are provisions to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, which raises concerns about the potential for misuse of military power against civilians and the erosion of civil liberties. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
5. **Targeting Political Opponents**: The project outlines strategies to use the DOJ to pursue individuals deemed disloyal or as political adversaries. This could lead to the politicization of justice and the suppression of dissent, which are antithetical to democratic norms. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
6. **Infusion of Religious Values into Governance**: Project 2025 seeks to integrate conservative Christian values into government policies, potentially compromising the separation of church and state and marginalizing individuals of different or no religious affiliations. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
7. **Curtailment of Civil Liberties**: The plan includes measures to criminalize certain behaviors and restrict rights related to reproductive health, LGBTQ+ protections, and freedom of expression. Such restrictions could infringe upon individual freedoms and equal protection under the law.
Change my view, Biden should use the power granted by the supreme court for some illegal (but not for him) "official acts" to safeguard the country.
Am I advocating for violence? Yes.
And before you say I'm just a pissed off Democrat. Nope, not even an American. | 1,731,540,356 | Rowboat_Cop7 | nan | nan | 2024-11-13 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Weather apps should use dew point instead of relative humidity | {'id': 'lxgprxp', 'text': 'relative humidity tells you if things will dry out, and how much.', 'author': 'S1artibartfast666', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1731779587} | {'id': 'lxgo5gx', 'text': 'RH alone is not informative. 70% RH at low temperatures is nothing.', 'author': 'bearsnchairs', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731779071} | 1gsqwnn | CMV: Weather apps should use dew point instead of relative humidity | I have been learning a bit about meteorology over the past few months, and it seems to me that dew point is a much better measurement of humidity for the average person than relative humidity, and yet many weather apps prioritize relative humidity. Dew point is better for the following reasons:
1) It is objective. I don't need to look up the temperature and a table to know how humid it is outside. A 70 degree dewpoint indicates the same amount of moisture in the air regardless of the outside temperature.
2) It avoids misunderstandings about humidity. Dew point better expresses that the ability of the air to hold moisture depends on the temperature. I hear people say things like "it was so humid, it was like 90 degrees and 90% humidity", which in all likelihood is false, very few places on earth ever get quite that humid, so I really don't know how humid it was. Or they will say things like "it was a humid cold, which made it feel colder than it would have been normally", which is also not true, wind is the main factor in perceived cold, and cold air simply cannot hold nearly as much moisture as warm air can. If people say "it was a humid day, it was a 75 degree dewpoint", I know exactly how that feels, and does not require me to do any mental calculations.
Let me be clear that I think relative humidity is a good measure for certain things, such as fire risk or haze conditions, but it's less useful for the average person who just wants to know how humid it will feel today.
A common objection I hear is that dewpoint is "less intuitive". Maybe so but it's more meaningful. People will learn what dewpoints feel like. I know what 100 degrees F outside feels like because I have experienced it enough, and I could not immediately tell you what 30 degrees C feels like, but that's just because I am used to the fahrenheit system, not the celsius system. | 1,731,774,427 | SteelyFan77 | nan | nan | 2024-11-16 | 2024_fall |
Cmv: there is nothing Trump could do that could justify a 40% increase in tesla’s market cap | {'id': 'lws0axe', 'text': 'Tesla is the least reliant on subsidies. They did not have any until the other manufacturers requested them.', 'author': 'Green_Cloaked', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731432335} | {'id': 'lwreaad', 'text': "Once Chinese carmakers catch up to Tesla's battery technology, will car makers use Tesla patents or Chinese?", 'author': 'GrandAdmiralSnackbar', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731425450} | 1gpmctq | Cmv: there is nothing Trump could do that could justify a 40% increase in tesla’s market cap | Tesla stock has experienced a 40% increase in the last week following Trump's victory. Elon was a very public and vocal advocate for Trump's presidency, and was a big financial backer.
The broader stock market (aka S&P500) has experienced around a 1.5-2% increase in value following this development, presumably off the assumption that the Republican sweep of congress will result in lower taxes and reduced regulation. This is reasonable and modest enough.
However, Tesla has increased in market cap by nearly 400 billion dollars, and become a trillion dollar market cap company off of this victory, in the last week.
There were no other positive developments in the last week that could justify this price action. It really does appear that the market is simply saying that Trump will do huge things to help Elon now that Elon helped Trump.
This is, in my eyes anyway, one of the most clear cut examples of market exuberance I've ever seen.
This price action makes 3 big assumptions-
1. Trump even wants to financially reward Elon's loyalty, and in a huge way.
2. There are things Trump can do that would be tremendous benefits to Tesla, such that their profits could increase 40+% vs what they would have been under other administrations.
3. Trump is capable of providing such egregious benefits to Tesla, despite court intervention holding him back like it did in 2016-2020
I have my doubts about all 3. For 1, I don't see trump having provided a lot of explicitly financial help to his donors in the 2016 race.
For 2, I don't even see what trump could do for tesla to begin with. I guess he could make selling gas cars way harder? But that's not something he's ever said he would do (quite the opposite in fact, he denies climate change and wants more oil and more drilling). And he will be raising tariffs globally, which makes tesla vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs in China. So if anything, trump poses a threat to Tesla.
For 3, I don't see how trump even could, hypothetically, hand bags of taxpayer cash to elon without lawsuits left and right. The courts blocked everything he wanted to do in 2016-2020, he won't be able to get around this unless he goes full dictator (in which case, the market should crash, because society as we know it would come to an end. But clearly, they don't foresee that outcome).
So there's many layers to this madness and I wanted to hear some intelligent viewpoints as to what I might be missing. | 1,731,422,847 | original_og_gangster | nan | nan | 2024-11-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Buffets are Glorified Cafeterias | {'id': 'lv81ero', 'text': 'No, all you can eat at other restaurants is typically limited to one type of food. The 5the plate of the same food is burning. Buffet has variety', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730660386} | {'id': 'lv7whzb', 'text': 'My JV football team went to a Cici’s pizza buffet and lots of them were eating 30+ pieces of (small) pizza, it was pretty funny to watch.', 'author': 'Jugales', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730658950} | 1gitcjf | CMV: Buffets are Glorified Cafeterias | I used to love buffets when I was younger. Now that I'm older, I feel like buffets are nothing more than glorified cafeterias. Everyone stands in line waiting to get food that would taste so much better fresh from the grill/stove to your table at a restaurant. Everyone is touching the same utensils to grab food and it feels unsanitary at the same time. Some argue that theres still really good food like the ones where the chef is slicing food straight from the whole roast, but in that case it goes back to my argument that food would be better just ordered and eaten at a restaurant. I just cant get past all the flaws of a buffet. TLDR: First world problems. | 1,730,657,890 | PresentEuphoric2216 | nan | nan | 2024-11-03 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Anyone who demands “allyship” from others is incredibly naive or a narcissist. | {'id': 'lun96uw', 'text': "Even what I describe requires some degree of going out of one's way and personal inconvenience. Like if I'm sitting in the office and I overhear one coworker being homophobic to another I should step in - that's still going out of my way and inconveniencing myself. But unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the term, active devotion to a cause requires some degree of explicitly seeking out opportunities to advocate for the group, not merely intervening when you observe them arise.", 'author': 'ReOsIr10', 'score': 23, 'timestamp': 1730347468} | {'id': 'lun86uk', 'text': "Yeah I was going to make precisely this point. Effective devotion to any political cause necessarily involves some level of reciprocity, which is best captured by solidarity. To respond to OP's example, any feminist that thinks that men should not expect anything from allyship is misguided. Being a feminist helps a man develop as a person and is in his best interests, and that's the main reason why any man should be a feminist really.", 'author': 'ragpicker_', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730347047} | 1gg5grw | CMV: Anyone who demands “allyship” from others is incredibly naive or a narcissist. | The entire concept of "allyship" in modern social justice discourse is that someone actively devotes themselves to addressing the cause of a group that they don't belong to. This necessarily seems to imply a certain degree of exclusivity, since it's not realistically possible to actively devote yourself to every single cause at once. So in effect demanding allyship from someone is demanding that they put the needs of your group *above* those of all other groups, including the ones they belong too, since they can't really be an effective ally to every group at once.
So it seems to me that there's only two possible reasons someone would make this demand of others. They either believe that it's realistically possible to be an ally to every group at once (naïveté) or they're implicitly asking that their needs be put above those of others while also demanding a level of support their team unwilling to offer in kind (narcissism).
While I'm currently convinced of this view, what would change my mind is a convincing alternative reason why someone would make this demand of others aside from naïveté or narcissism.
| 1,730,345,560 | Gilbert__Bates | nan | nan | 2024-10-31 | 2024_fall |
CMV: If you think cousin marriage should be illegal, you should believe the same for disabled people reproducing | {'id': 'lxgmbxb', 'text': 'That would be eugenics. The problem with eugenics is that a lack of genetic diversity is bad for humans. Which is why we don’t breed with our cousins', 'author': 'EnvironmentalNature2', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731778494} | {'id': 'lxfv4aq', 'text': '“Hey, for health reasons, don’t have sex with these 1-20 or so people.”\n\n“Hey, for health reasons, you should never have sec with anyone, ever.”\n\nYup, same same. /s', 'author': 'critical-drinking', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1731769461} | 1gsom1j | CMV: If you think cousin marriage should be illegal, you should believe the same for disabled people reproducing | People are against cousin marriage because it breeds children with birth defects which can find it difficult to integrate into society. Most people (except for those from the Middle-East and South Asia) accept this as the norm.
However, most people are against banning disabled people from reproducing because they think that no one has the rights to stop others from reproducing. I find people with disabilities reproducing similar to cousin marriages in that it has some chances to cause birth defects in offsprings. Why do you want to stop individuals from reproducing with their cousins but don't want to stop disabled people from reproducing? What's the difference?
My view is that both cases should be legal for the sake of freedom of choice. Modern society has necessary means of taking care of disabled individuals. | 1,731,767,942 | Any_Donut8404 | nan | nan | 2024-11-16 | 2024_fall |
CMV: We are in the midst of US political alignments shifting. | {'id': 'lxqe9m2', 'text': '"Coal Ash Kills Workers. Trump Kills Coal Ash Regulations." Title of the article.\n\nBro he appointed supreme court justices that were anti abortion. What? You believe the words of a liar? A con artist? A rapist and pdfile? \n\nHe fully knew what they planned to do and he lied to you and you believed it. \n\nIf hitler said "jewish ppl are great ppl and they deserve a spot in germany" while he appointed ppl that were ANTI JEWISH you dont see a clear conflict problem there?\n\nYou\'re talking about a guy who defrauded a childrens cancer charity and a veterans charity. You dont think hes capable of lying about abortion despite roe v wade being overturned in his administration? \n\nAnd btw dems tried to make grounds with protecting abortion, guess who fought and voted against them every time? Republicans. \n\nYou cant blame democrats for things republicans do. Thats literally how they managed to trick so many ppl into voting against their self interest. They pumped billions into disinformation campaigns to trick the american people. And it worked.', 'author': 'Azmodis', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731922622} | {'id': 'lxqduji', 'text': "That's not what it's for.\n\nThe DOGE exists to recommend people to fire.\nFor example, here's what one of it's leaders had to say :\n\n>Anybody in the federal bureaucracy who is not elected … if your Social Security number ends in an odd number, you’re out. It ends in an even number, you’re in. There’s a 50 percent cut right there. Of those who remain, if your Social Security number starts with an even number, you’re in, and if it starts with an odd number, you’re out. Boom. That’s a 75 percent reduction. … Not a thing will have changed for the ordinary American other than this size of their government being a lot smaller and more restrained, spending a lot less money to operate it. …\n\n>So now imagine you could do that same thought experiment, but not just doing it at random, doing it at a large scale while having some metric of screening for those who actually had both the greatest competence as well as the greatest commitment and knowledge of the Constitution.", 'author': '10ebbor10', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1731922330} | 1gu0ntv | CMV: We are in the midst of US political alignments shifting. | Just like the common factchecked \["democrats founded the KKK" argument,\](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-democratic-party-did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/) political alignments are appearing to shift from where they once were. Republicans are shifting to more, often thought of as Democrat, viewpoints. Such as: proposing \[credit card interest rate caps,\](https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-credit-card-limit-interest-debt-1986463) removing fluoride and other potentially harmful chemicals from our food and water, and generally more more government oversight in lieu of their previous position of less being better. Meanwhile, democrats seem to be getting corporate backing of \[1 billion plus dollars,\](https://apnews.com/article/harris-postelection-fundraising-dnc-gaetz-trump-donors-806eeb3b92eced3242aeb29a964ca259) and getting endorsements from the top 1% as well as escalating and engaging in wars.
This is all very odd to me as a long time Bernie Sanders supporter. I do still support him, but I see many of my concerns being addressed by the other side. Am I suffering from \[early onset republican?\](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RAA0J8wEVv8) | 1,731,920,509 | Sairry | nan | nan | 2024-11-18 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Toxic negativity is infinitely worse than toxic positivity. | {'id': 'lwyylga', 'text': 'How about "here, let me help you by raising awareness to your situation so that people in your area can see you and help"? How about starting a GoFundMe? How about just saying "I\'m sorry that I can\'t help you, but you deserve better"? Do NOT tell them "just look on the bright side!"', 'author': 'SzayelGrance', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731528221} | {'id': 'lwsu1gj', 'text': "For sure. \nYour topic is inherently difficult, and that's okay. \nIt oftentimes takes a hundred page thesis to get a solid set of ideas across to others. \nSaid, you did your best, I'm sure. \nI did feel compelled to say my piece, considering the topic is incredibly important and worth talking about. \nCheers, mate!", 'author': 'Character-Milk-3792', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731441400} | 1gpra2v | CMV: Toxic negativity is infinitely worse than toxic positivity. | The premise of my argument falls into three major components:
1) The things people are calling toxic positvity are at worst useless advice and nothing else.
2) Toxic negativity encourages complicity and self-destruction along with the destruction of others and often people who challenge toxic negativity are accused of promoting toxic positivty from the getgo.
3) More than ever in today's society we're encouraged to view the world in a negative and hopeless light. Paradoxically it is mainstream to be negative but at the same time it's mainstream to assume being positive is mainstream.
Telling a suicidal person to exercise and go for a walk on a nice day might be slightly annoying but that's about as far as a negative experience will go. Maybe, just maybe your dopamine might increase just by a little which will give you some relief and distractions to what's troubling you, which isn't a fix but it's still better then continuing to feel bad. Interestingly enough, the toxic negative side also argues for distractions that doesn't fix problems as well. Doing drugs helps escape such feelings as well, which as we know is neither healthy for their mental health in the long run but also not good for their bodies and fiances. I'm not drug shaming when I say this, I admit I have a drinking problem as someone who struggles with generalized anxiety disorder, but at least I make an effort to try other coping strategies along with still admittedly doing something that's not good for me.
A cringey boomer Christian telling a depressed atheist that they'll be praying for you or God has something in store for you, is actually somewhat kind and thoughtful. This person is convinced that their religion is correct and as such is trying to use what they think works to help, no different then a child trying to comfort an adult by giving them a toy or something. Like as useless as that is, it's nice to know that there are people who have the intention to help you.
For my fellow communist/anarchist comrades in the crowd, I've noticed many say things like "You're depressed because of capitalism" or that its impossible to change yourself because of the system. The problem with this inherently privileged, upper-middle class talking point(regardless if a minority of people who parrot this happen to be of oppressed demographics) is it places any work taken to challenge capitalism/the system in the hands of the oppressed who need to suck it up, because not sucking it up means literal death for them. Not to mention, if we're encouraging each other that all of our unfixable problems stem from a global economic system, we'll be too depressed to fight capitalism. Naturally, if you're going to argue this, being anti-capitalist is in of itself toxic posivity, as it asserts that changing the world into something better is something we, the people hurt by the system have a burden of responsibility to do.
Lastly I think it's very rebellious to assume your personal life and the state of the world will work out in the end. Such a perspective is dangerous for ruling elites and political opponents because it entertains not only the freedom that one day can be, but also by definition uses the language needed to describe our current un-freedom, rather then describing our un-freedom as "the way things are." In addition to that, we're very much encouraged to think the worst by society because it gives a false identity that "we're different from all the normies" (says every normie btw). Acknowledging that everyone's weird and misunderstood rather than "only I and people like me are weird and misunderstood" helps build empathy, understanding and broadens communities. If you think most people are happy and only you and people like you are the special sad people, you atomize yourself and discourage yourself and your friends from fixing your actual problems. (kinda like incels who hate other incels that ended up losing their virginity becoming #fakecels)
In conclusion toxic negativity is worst than toxic positvity because not only is this mentality useless it actively attempts to make things worse. Where's toxic positvity doesn't make anything worse it's just neutrally useless. | 1,731,435,224 | No-Politics-Allowed3 | nan | nan | 2024-11-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Most Pro-Choice Arguments are Dumb | {'id': 'lx8l515', 'text': "Preterm birthing is not an option past viability, at least not legally.\n\nShe can only object to the continued use of her body until the legal deadline. In a number of countries even before viability, i.e. at 8, 12 or 14 weeks.\n\nIf personhood really didn't matter, then (elective) preterm birthing would be allowed at any time, but it isn't.", 'author': 'ralph-j', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731663020} | {'id': 'lx8hhz3', 'text': "You are deciding for that person that a fetus is not a person. \n\nYou don't get to make that decision for everyone. \n\nIt is 100% logical to say that personhood begins at conception. \n\nWhy do you get to just completely dismiss this?\n\nWhy couldn't I make an argument that personhood does not begin until adulthood and then murder children?", 'author': 'mclauglin', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1731660800} | 1grpwd4 | CMV: Most Pro-Choice Arguments are Dumb | What I mean by this:
I am pro-choice, however there are multiple arguments from the pro-choice side of this debate that aren’t even convincing to *me*, someone who is already pro-choice. So how on earth would they convince a pro-lifer? I think the only good argument (and the one reason I’ve always been pro-choice) is the argument of bodily sovereignty. There are two beings involved: the woman and the fetus. One of them is using the other’s internal organs and literally living inside of her when she no longer wants them to (if she ever did want them to). Her organs/body are the ones being used, so she gets to decide how long she wants to give up her own body/organs for this other person to use, and to what extent (to what level of risk) she is willing to go. This applies to any and all people and situations, not just fetuses, and not just pregnancy.
All the other arguments not only seem like a huge distraction from the main issue at stake here (women’s sovereignties over their own bodies and organs), but they also just seem downright illogical and unconvincing: the argument of value, the argument of personhood, the argument of consciousness, the argument of viability, the argument that men don’t get a say at all, etc.
I would actually appreciate if someone could perhaps explain these arguments better or at least explain why they should be convincing at all:
-Value: I understand that we as a society (and I, myself) value women over embryos and even fetuses at certain stages. If there was a house fire and I could either save 10,000 embryos or 1 singular child, I’m saving the child. And if anyone hesitates even a little bit to save the embryos, that means they too value born humans over unborn ones. But we also value human life over insects’ lives, or animals’ lives, or plants’ lives, and that doesn’t suddenly make it okay to kill those living things just because we value them less. We don’t just arbitrarily decide that things deserve to die *because* they have less value. Ultimately this just goes back to the bodily sovereignty thing: not only does the embryo have less value than the woman, but it is using her organs when she doesn’t want it to, so she reserves the right to kill it. It’s not because of the embryo’s value but because it’s using her organs and living inside of her body when she doesn’t want that.
-Personhood: Such a vague concept to try and make an argument out of. Everyone completely differs on when personhood begins and ends. And once again this is just a distraction from the main issue, because let’s say the embryo/fetus is considered a full person right at the moment of conception—so what? That still doesn’t give them the right to use another person’s organs when that person doesn’t want to share their organs with this person. So why are we even taking about the concept of personhood when it doesn’t matter even if the fetus is a full person?
-Viability: The fetus can be killed all the way until it is viable. This is also a terrible pro-choice argument because it once again undermines the woman’s authority over her own body and organs. Who cares if the fetus is a viable person or not? It’s still using HER organs to keep itself alive, so she gets the final say on whether or not she wants to continue providing her body in this way.
-Consciousness: This one is the dumbest of them all. Since when is consciousness our main reason for determining whether it’s okay to kill a living being or not? We kill and torture animals all the time even thought it could be argued that some of them have an even greater sense of consciousness than we do (certain animals like orcas have more advanced areas of the brain compared to humans). We also can experience comas and unconscious states of mind that are indefinite, sometimes lasting longer than the fetus’ period of “unconsciousness” (which we still can’t even seem to define). I also don’t remember anything from before the age of 4, frankly. So was I really completely conscious when I was 2 months old? I’d argue no. But that didn’t make it okay to kill me. Even if you wanted to argue about “the capacity for consciousness” as opposed to consciousness itself, this the pro-choice argument that seems the least convincing to me.
-Men don’t get a say: There are lots of laws that we have to decide on that don’t directly impact us. There are also lots of moral dilemmas that we have to think about which do not directly impact us. So this isn’t even an argument. It’s just an expression of anger and grief. Which is totally understandable, considering men will never know what it’s like to be in this position and thus are speaking from a place of severe privilege whenever they try to speak on abortion and what rights women should have to their own bodies.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts. | 1,731,650,831 | SzayelGrance | nan | nan | 2024-11-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Republicans will continue to win both the Presidency and Senate continually till 2036. | {'id': 'lxl7qei', 'text': '>Trump has been present before and Harris hasn’t, so wouldn’t Harris be the change?\xa0\n\nA lot of people considered a Harris administration as just a continuation of the Biden administration.', 'author': 'YuenglingsDingaling', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1731849793} | {'id': 'lxl6irg', 'text': 'well, if the economy doesnt get better in the next 4 years, and then it doesnt goes better in the 4 years after that, why should people vote republican *again* in 2032?', 'author': 'ProDavid_', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731849236} | 1gtd4qy | CMV: Republicans will continue to win both the Presidency and Senate continually till 2036. | The Republicans are clearly on top electorally. I think we all knew that a Republican win was a possibility, and I did predict it outright, but we also were not expecting that kind of margin of victory.
My prediction is things will stay this way until 2036 at least for the Presidency and Senate.
My first reason is this. Republicans have become excellent at warping reality.
One example is that while prices have gone up a lot since COVID, the economy has been relatively healthy overall, yet the Republicans were able to convince voters that the economy was basically failing AND that it was the Democrats' fault. They were able to convince voters that increased prices were due to the failing of the Democratic Party when it wasn't true at all. So, I anticipate they'll be able to play this card in 2028 and 2032 as well, regardless of economic health. If the economy is good, they'll take the credit, but if it is bad, they'll blame it on lingering Democratic policies.
Another thing is the border. What makes the border so tricky is that most Americans obviously aren't affected day to day by it like they are the economy. They will basically believe whatever their media tells them, and many media sources are of course going to sensationalize the border for clicks even when it's relatively calm. And, the Democrats always get blamed for the border even when Republicans are literally the ones killing a border bill, as we saw prior to this last election.
Republicans already had a massive advantage this year that I don't think Democrats could've messaged themselves out of if they tried, so 2024 was always a wash.
But now, Republicans have successfully completed a sort of cultural brainwashing. Where many Americans, certainly enough from their perspective electorally, believe that if the Republicans do well, it's their success but if they don't do well, it's lingering Democrat effects.
I should note that I do think Democrats have a chance at a US House majority and state governorship and state Supreme Court seats in tight races, but I don't think we'll see a Democrat president or Democrat controlled Senate until 2037. | 1,731,848,727 | Early-Possibility367 | nan | nan | 2024-11-17 | 2024_fall |
CMV: International Military Law is appropriate and realistic | {'id': 'lxryweh', 'text': 'The conventions have a definition.\n\nFrom Protocol 1 article 49:\n\n1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.', 'author': 'sicilianbaguette', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731947353} | {'id': 'lxb2r3t', 'text': 'Okay and what is the UN going to do about it? Also bomb the terrorists and the civilians they hide behind?', 'author': 'Morthra', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1731696223} | 1grx575 | CMV: International Military Law is appropriate and realistic | This topic is specifically about one pushback I see in discussions around international military law (IML). The crux of the argument that others make is that the standards militaries are held to under international military law are unrealistic and unachievable.
I don't believe this is true and believe there is quite a lot of leeway in IML, for instance civilian casualties being completely legal as long as the risk of civilians deaths are secondary side effect and proportionate to the military advantage. It seems to me IML leaves a lot of leeway for soldiers to fight effectively.
I think the most likely way to change my view is not to challenge the main fundamental aspects of IML, but rather to find some of the more niche applications. I'm more familiar with the Geneva Conventions than the Convention on Cluster munitions for instance, so perhaps some of the less well known laws do hold militaries to unrealistic standards.
I'd also just clarify this is about the laws themselves, not the mechanisms for enforcing those laws and holding countries to account. | 1,731,679,683 | Toverhead | nan | nan | 2024-11-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: There's no reason marriage should only be between romantic couples | {'id': 'lxfjg49', 'text': 'I’m not really trying to change your view but I married my platonic best friend because she had a medical issue and needed insurance. We both assumed we would just get divorced at some later date in the future when the medical issue was dealt with.\n\nBut we both really loved being married and ended up becoming a full on romantic couple lol', 'author': 'theccab234', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1731764915} | {'id': 'lxfiii4', 'text': 'Traditionally, the ONLY reason for marriage as a concept existing and overarching most human societies IS children. Marriage, as a legal social construct was the man taking responsibility for a woman and her children. This is also the reason for the historical legal provisions around marriage, including annulment of marriage if found infertile, bastardness of illegitimate children, etc.\n\nYou just want tax cuts because you have a roommate.', 'author': 'MuskyScent972', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731764528} | 1gsn54f | CMV: There's no reason marriage should only be between romantic couples | I am going to keep it simple. think friendship is an amazing bond, and some people would love seeing their best friend every day. Friends who live together should be able to access the benefits of being married.
I know that nowadays, (I believe) they can marry, but I have never seen it happen in my life so far.
Yes, people often marry for children, but people get married well into old age, and this would open up more opportunities to create bonds and mutual support. People often talk about lonely older people or widow/widowers, and this is a way for them to find companionship.
(I do feel family members (sibs, cousins etc) should be able to have this bond too but that's a whole other can of worms that will likely put ppl off)
Tl;dr Non-romantic pairings should be able to marry, too. | 1,731,763,298 | INFPneedshelp | nan | nan | 2024-11-16 | 2024_fall |
CMV: People were never equal, in modern world are not equal and will never be equal. | {'id': 'lxit3dt', 'text': ">Yes, I give the benefit of the doubt since years ago we didn't believe we would have technologies like the ones we have now, right?\n\nThanks for conceding you don't know the future.\n\nI am glad you changed your view, even if it was a little bit.", 'author': 'BaronNahNah', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1731805147} | {'id': 'lxis654', 'text': 'People aren’t equal. That’s life. You have those that settle and you have those who want to inspire to be something bigger. Creativity…outward thinking. \n\nI remember those days of depending on welfare and WIC. It becomes a generational mentality and government dependability. I don’t think wish that on anyone', 'author': 'Drewsk81', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731804804} | 1gt18dl | CMV: People were never equal, in modern world are not equal and will never be equal. | It's basically explained in biology but in my last posts I argued with a lot of lefties (as a lefty too) saying we are equal.
Yes, there are general few things like health services and safety and laws that should be applied on everyone.
However, life in general is not fair.
Even you like someone and dislike another person, they are NOT equal to you as value. Nobody is equal to anyone and will never be. Life is survival. This is why ideas of communism and socialism could never work. It's very hypocritical for someone to say we are all equal. Not in attraction, not in life traumas, not in wealth, not in happiness, not in strength. | 1,731,803,326 | imyana13 | nan | nan | 2024-11-17 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Anyone who votes for Trump is completely lacking in moral fiber because they are voting for a known rapist | {'id': 'lv0eeh0', 'text': "There's a wide and important gulf between disagreeing with someone's reasoning and believing that they don't actually believe their reasoning just because you don't find it persuasive.\n\nIf you insist on flatly disbelieving the strongest argument against your view, I don't see how it's possible to change your view.", 'author': 'Grunt08', 'score': 17, 'timestamp': 1730552439} | {'id': 'lv0d2zo', 'text': '>It’s goes without saying anyone that the Clinton’s endorse or “hang with” are just as bad( Including Harris)\n\nNo, you definitely have to explain that one. The Clintons would endorse virtually any Democratic candidate for president. You don’t get to just blanket the entire party with the actions of one dude.', 'author': 'chronberries', 'score': 14, 'timestamp': 1730551871} | 1ghvjyr | CMV: Anyone who votes for Trump is completely lacking in moral fiber because they are voting for a known rapist | Ever since the court found that Trump raped Jean Carroll and ordered him to pay a restitution fee for defaming her when he said he didn't rape her, Donald Trump should have been automatically disqualified as a candidate because no one would vote for him. Rape is one of the ugliest crimes imaginable and it speaks to the core of someone's character. Only a monster can rape someone. If you knowingly elect a monster who raped someone, you have no moral character.
I hear people say, shit like "I'm voting Trump because I think he'll be better for the economy". So if someone raped you, you went to court told everyone about it, it was publicly acknowledged and became common knowledge that that person raped you, you would have no problem with them becoming president as long as the economy did well? Is that what you're saying? Or because that's just a hypothetical and you personally weren't the one who was raped, you just don't care? If it's the latter, you have a severe deficit in empathy and moral functioning.
Ms Carroll and the [long list of other women that have publicly come forward with their stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations) deserve better from us all. They don't deserve to put their privacy and reputation on the line to tell everyone about what kind of man he is just for the people of this country to turn around and say, "yeah okay, so what?"
I honestly want to know how anyone who believes themselves to be a moral person can condone voting for a known serial rapist and sexual abuser, even putting aside all his other moral flaws and transgressions for now. You don't need to talk about those when rape alone should be utterly disqualifying. | 1,730,551,333 | Cannavor | nan | nan | 2024-11-02 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Ghosts are real | {'id': 'lvdfc62', 'text': "If you can see or hear them so can your smart phone, no special equipment required. If they existed, we would have plenty of evidence by now. But we don't, so they don't.", 'author': 'Dennis_enzo', 'score': 12, 'timestamp': 1730739072} | {'id': 'lvdc6y0', 'text': 'It is entirely possible that there is something environmental in specific areas that causes people to have similar visual hallucinations. That does not mean that the souls of dead humans are inhabiting our world.', 'author': 'p0tat0p0tat0', 'score': 11, 'timestamp': 1730738136} | 1gjiezp | CMV: Ghosts are real | I need to clarify first that I am thai., and ghost stories are pretty much ubiquitous in thailand, and my mom also was a kind of shaman so I quite firmly believe in it.
I think there's a few reasons that ghosts can be real and is just not investigated enough. 1. We don't know what are ghosts even in general sense, that is, do we know whether ghosts are animal-like, material-like or other? If they are animal-like ofc the axiomatic investigation of physics won't work. Imagine if you are a ghost, and you have your agenda, your personality, your everything. How do you suppose to act "scientifically" when most we do are just trying to axiomatically measure it instead of investigate this "world" like biology approaching the natural world. The assumption that ghosts aren't real bc "they can't move the pen when I said so, it's not real people!" Is just immensely faulty, why would a ghost with dignity do something like that to a selfish scientist trying to gain fame for themselves?
2. When we say ghosts are mostly hallcuniation, have we considered the case that ghosts are seen by 2 or more people without them communicating verbally yet? I think it's highly unlikely that 2 people with different point of view in the same confined space can hallucinate an EXACT same figure or person like that.
| 1,730,737,735 | Sigmamale5678 | nan | nan | 2024-11-04 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Financial liability should be capped at national averages for what you damaged | {'id': 'lugmauh', 'text': 'Yeah- like I am all for social change- but if one idea required another ideal for it to be more good then harm- why not advise the pre-requisite ideas first?', 'author': 'ForgetfullRelms', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730256016} | {'id': 'lugjamq', 'text': ">**So instead we should punish the owner of an expensive object** because someone else's brain glitched?\n\nYes, that's what OP wants to do.\n\nThat's why we hear a hell-of-a-lot about 'taxing the rich' but never about what the additional money would be spent on. It's about catharsis, not helping or being reasonable.", 'author': 'Previous_Platform718', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730254914} | 1gfbuub | CMV: Financial liability should be capped at national averages for what you damaged | The human mind is a fickle and faulty beast. While we do need a deterrent to disincentivize preventable accidents, everyone is capable of getting in an accident at some point in their life.
If I have a 1/10000 chance of getting in a car accident in the next year, why do I have to be responsible for replacing your bugatti since you chose to drive a super expensive car?
Let's say I unintentionally ran someone over. Why should I owe 50 million dollars in lost wages because that person happened to be Tom Brady?
The wealthy should be responsible for insuring their own luxury stuff, not some unlucky member of the general public who happened to make their mistake (which nearly everyone does at some point) with the wrong person. | 1,730,253,665 | snogo | nan | nan | 2024-10-30 | 2024_fall |
CMV: I think art is more of a talent than a skill. | {'id': 'lxwlhz7', 'text': "If your last sincere attempts at drawing were ten years ago, describing yourself as a hopeless case is, frankly, silly. You have no idea what you're capable of - you haven't tried since you were a *child!* \n\nI started drawing for myself fifteen years ago, randomly, because I felt like it. I was not talented, I had always performed well below average in art class. These days, people pay me for my drawings.\n\nI know I keep repeating it, but just *try.* Give yourself a week without judgment, look at some examples and tutorials, and just *try.* If you still feel this badly about your chances afterwards, no harm done. If not, you can stop worrying over your hopelessness, and start enjoying yourself!", 'author': 'MrMurchison', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1732010969} | {'id': 'lxwgsue', 'text': "This line of argumentation doesn't line up with the fact that there are 5 year olds out there, who draw better than a normal person would, if they trained drawing for 2-3 years. The idea that drawing is just motor control is also unsubstantiated. If that were the case we would expect the people with the best motor control to be the best painters or vice versa, but I'm fairly certain that's not the case.\n\nI think what most people are missing in the conversation about talent vs. hard work is the following: Hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.", 'author': 'deathaxxer', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732007816} | 1gusun1 | CMV: I think art is more of a talent than a skill. | I don't think that art; drawing, sculpting, painting, is something that just anyone can learn how to do and that everyone who's good at it has a natural talent. Sure they can develop that talent, but they need to have that foundational talent to begin with.
Ever since school, I've been around people who liked doodling in their books, and they always looked much better than anything I could draw and even better than anything I can draw now. The idea that a 6-7 year old just has put more practice into a skill issue, quite frankly, ludicrous. Sure, everyone has their areas of interest, but no one was hanging up science and maths work on the walls at school. Thought it was kinda shitty to be showing off the "work" of kids who were just natural good at something.
I've never met someone who, at some point, was as bad at drawing or painting as I am and, through practice, developed their skills and is now considered good at drawing or painting.
I am willing to change my mind if someone can present me with an example of someone who lacked these "skills" entirely, but through practice managed to develop them and would now be considered good at art. | 1,732,006,241 | Express_Proof_183 | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Both pro-life and pro-choice are equally virtuous stances and entirely dependent on your perspective on life | {'id': 'lus573o', 'text': 'I think this is a great argument for why we should be empathetic to them and understand why they do what they do but the strength of their convictions doesn’t inherently make them righteous. They certainly think they’re doing something holy but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to feel the same.\n\nIf someone believes that something horrific is good and work towards it, that doesn’t mean they are good for it, there are lots of people throughout history that fully believed that genocide or slavery were righteous. We can look back on them now however and recognize that no matter the strength of their beliefs their actions were monstrous. They aren’t saints just for believing.', 'author': 'Anonymous_1q', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730419465} | {'id': 'luryfjz', 'text': "I don't think the two arguments have anything to do with each other. The Bible says all manner of things that the average Christian would never subscribe to, particularly in the Old Testament.\n\nIf what the \\*average\\* religious adherent takes away from the book is a bias to NOT harm others, then the message the book is spreading is good, overall. Even if it has some shitty edicts, prescriptions and proscriptions mixed in.\n\nVirtually all ideologies have bad ideas mixed in with them. Most people who subscribe to them take the good and leave the bad.\n\nFurther, your argument assumes all people who are pro-life are that way because of religion, or because of a specific religion, which just isn't true.", 'author': 'hkusp45css', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1730416857} | 1ggrel2 | CMV: Both pro-life and pro-choice are equally virtuous stances and entirely dependent on your perspective on life | I personally am pro-choice. Please don't make this screaming about assumptions regarding my personal views. This isn't even really primarily about choice vs life, it's about how both sides treat and view each other. I understand that the choice vs life debate is part of that discussion though.
Pro-life people are often vilified and thought of as in opposition to the values that lead someone to be pro-choice. Meanwhile the values that lead someone to be pro-life are ignored. I fully and completely understand why pro-life people are so adamant in their stance: they think babies are being murdered. If I also thought babies were being murdered, I'd try to stop that too.
Let's say someone is religious, they believe in souls or some variant of a spiritual existence beyond the physical body. Given this belief it is reasonable to say "Yes, an unborn baby has a soul and therefor is as valuable a life as any of us". So abortion would then be baby murder. This isn't something that can ever really be compromised on. If someone believes in souls then it's baby murder, I totally understand why they don't want "Just a little baby murder for people who choose to have abortions".
This also applies to things like "her body her choice", because if you believe in souls, then it's the baby's body who does not get a choice. If you do not believe in any spiritual extra-physical existence, then ya I agree her body her choice. Really all benefits of a pro-choice outlook have to be directly weighed against baby murder, and so are obviously less valid to pro-life people.
To me this is not, and really has never been, a feminist vs anti-feminist, or right vs left, or any us vs them argument aside from "Do you believe an unborn baby is as valued a life as a born one?" which frequently becomes a matter of personal views on religion and spirituality.
I haven't re-examined this viewpoint in a long time. Typing it out here I feel re-convinced that despite my personal pro-choice stance, both sides are virtuous. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.
| 1,730,415,329 | Great_Big_Failure | nan | nan | 2024-10-31 | 2024_fall |
CMV: All edited images on social media should have warning tags | {'id': 'lxvwwsm', 'text': 'The incentive would simply be people trusting the authenticity of your image. For instance, maybe newspapers and TV news stations start agreeing to only buy images that are proven to be authentic. There is no way to enforce a demerit of any kind - you need to create a marker that people actually want to use because it gives them benefits.', 'author': 'BabyMaybe15', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731995527} | {'id': 'lxvubcx', 'text': 'I think you’re intentions behind it are fine, but there are so many logistical issues with enforcing something like this that it’ll likely lead to no progress, or at best minimal progress, in solving your issue. Even if it was isolated to social media, would it be self tagged as edited, or would it be tagged automatically (AI, etc.)? Both of these have huge drawbacks that could lead to more issues. \n\nIt’ll likely be both healthier and cheaper to raise awareness of social media being unhealthy in the first place.', 'author': 'DarkMatterFan001', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731994208} | 1gupisb | CMV: All edited images on social media should have warning tags | I was discussing this with my wife, but I'm of the opinion that every single image on social media should come with warnings if they are photoshopped, AI altered, filtered, etc.
It seems young people can barely see what's real and fake anymore and it's creating a massive problem where they think people with certain bodies actually exist and they want to be like that. This results in them getting depressed and hating their own bodies.
Just like NSFW content, every image that was edited should be automatically be blurred and say "THE PERSON IN THIS IMAGE IS NOT A REAL REPRESENTATION OF THEMSELVES AND THE PHOTO HAS BEEN EDITED". The same goes for videos and any content that is not genuine.
The same should be done for plastic surgery if the person has done that so people don't think that's what the person actually looked like. | 1,731,992,366 | bbongal_kun | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Bear 399 should have been euthanized a long time ago | {'id': 'ly09pfl', 'text': 'Wild animals that are endangered or not considered viable in the wild end up in zoos all the time for perfectly good reasons. Also, it seems to me that a bear famous for being calm around humans would be an ideal zoo animal.', 'author': '86thesteaks', 'score': 14, 'timestamp': 1732056686} | {'id': 'ly07au7', 'text': "It's human nature to domesticate animals, in 1000 years we will have pet bears. There is no stopping it, once bears evolved to be adorable their fate was sealed.", 'author': 'flagellat-ey', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1732055912} | 1gv9vgk | CMV: Bear 399 should have been euthanized a long time ago |
Like many people, I did not know about Bear 399 until her death a few weeks ago. But ever since the news broke, I have learned all about her and the one of a kind life she lived as a bear.
For anyone who is not aware, she is famous for intentionally living in human populated areas as a (theorized) defense mechanism to protect herself and her cubs from other competitive grizzlies. This resulted in a few things:
1. She is considered one of the successful mothers in bear history with only two cubs not making it to adulthood. Grizzle’s have about a 50% mortality rate as cubs and that’s mostly due to other grizzlies.
2. She was 100% habituated with humans. She did not have typical reactions in the presence of people (very calm - which misleads people to think it is safe to be around bears). A large source of food was foraged along roadsides (litter, roadkill). She caused countless traffic jams over the years due to her nonchalance with being next to cars going 60-90 miles an hour.
3. She was considered the most famous and human encountered bear in the world, indirectly leading to a public interest in hunting/poaching grizzlies. Many hunters went out specifically looking for this one bear.
Honestly, looking at the public reaction to this whole debacle is reminding me of those pictures of people in Yosemite feeding bears from their cars. Have we not learned as a society to leave bears alone?
The worst part about this fetishization of this bear is that it has been allowed to reproduce an insanely large population of bears who are now reproducing 2-3 generations down the line mostly have all of these bad habits. Multiple have been hit by cars or have had negative human conflicts. Bear 399 also attacked a man in the 2000’s while protecting her cubs/a meal and absolutely nothing was done about it. So now we have a population of bears who are passing on all of these bad behaviors that are only going to be harmful in the coming years.
I listened to a fascinating National Park After Dark podcast episode covering the life of this bear and encourage you all to listen (cannot share links here). While bears are amazing creatures, history has shown human introduction is asking nothing but trouble. Why was this bear celebrated when every other bear who enters ‘human territory’ is either relocated, captured, or euthanized? Why are we acting so dystopian and allowing passes for this one bear, when we already know this from the past (Yosemite)? What environmental impacts are we going to see from the countless descendants who are not exerting typical grizzly behavior?
Her death is sad, but we as humans should take this as a conservation lesson and not repeat this mistake. Honestly, she should have been euthanized years ago. Her being allowed to live could have disastrous environmental impacts that we will see unfold in the decades to come. | 1,732,055,203 | ChebaButt | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The best way to tax corporations would be to base the tax rate on the CEO to Median Worker ratio. | {'id': 'lxcqurh', 'text': 'so even if the CEO earns a very reasonable salary with very reasonable stock options, and they bank up decades of stock options working that the job, and then in a single year they execute all those options, it bumps the income up for that single year, increasing taxes to 40% revenue, which as discussed before would be enough to kill practically any company.', 'author': 'robotmonkeyshark', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731715456} | {'id': 'lx75sds', 'text': '“You know that there’s actually only three titles that actually mean anything for a corporation? It’s president, secretary, and treasurer. And technically they can be the same person. And all these other titles are just basically made up. So CEO is a made-up title, CFO is a made-up title. General counsel, a made-up title. They don’t mean anything.” - Elon Musk\n\nCompanies do not need CEOs.', 'author': 'JacketExpensive9817', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1731638946} | 1grm7tk | CMV: The best way to tax corporations would be to base the tax rate on the CEO to Median Worker ratio. | The boiling frog in the US is the middle class. A few stats for context:
In 1972, towards the end of the New Deal era, 61% of households were considered middle class. By 2023, that dropped to 51%.
In 1972, 70% of households were single-income households. By 2023, that had dropped to 34.7%.
That means with 35.3% more households having a dual income in 2023, we still have 10% fewer households in the middle class than we did in 1972.
Lots of things changed in the 1970's but this is objectively moving in the wrong direction. The GDP started skyrocking, meaning companies were making way more money, It was supposed to trickle down... I don't think even conservatives would defend that claim today.
One more thing that change is that in 1972, the CEO-to-worker compensation ration was 23:1. By 2023, that was 290:1.
I don't see a path where the government could pass legislation that dictates corporate pay structures. I also don't see a path where unions will be as relevant in the future as they were in the past. However, I do see a path forward on the tax code that could help get some of that money back into the hands of workers.
So, don't focus to much on the numbers, but rather the concept. The current Federal corporate tax rate is 21%. We could move to something like this inclusive of all compensation (salary, bonus, stock, commission):
|C2W Tax Ratio|Corporate Tax Rate|
|:-|:-|
|200+ to 1|40%|
|100+199 to 1|30%|
|50-99 to 1|20%|
|<50 to 1|10% |
||
||
|||||||||||||||||||
| 1,731,638,121 | megadelegate | nan | nan | 2024-11-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Random ballot is a actually an excellent voting system | {'id': 'lv1kkkn', 'text': ">It's all about incentives. I was going to try to avoid specific examples as to be unbiased, but from what you have said I am going to assume you are not a trump supporter. Trump can be extremely conservative, such as denying LGBTQIA+ rights, stances on immigration, etc, and still have a chance of winning. That's because he only needs 51%, so as extreme as he is, there are some people that support him. But under random ballot, a strategy that caters to 51% of people is extremely poor strategy. You are making your election a coin flip. Surely candidates would strive for 55%, 60%, 70%, etc representation. this might require compromise. This might require being moderate. But you do what you can do be elected.\n\nYou're looking at the wrong side of the incentive.\n\nLook at what the incentive is for the voter, not the politician. I have the choice between 2 candidates that appeal to me. Candidate A is going for 80% of the electorate, so while they say something I like, they also say a lot of stuff I don't like, but that the other side of the electorate likes. Candidate B has decided to target my demographic specifically. They do everything I want, but are unlikely to get more than 5% of the vote.\n\nNow, in a conventional system I would vote for A, because voting for B is basically a waste. But in your system, wasted votes do not exist. Your ballot is either randomly selected, in which case it determines everything, regardless of who you voted for, or it isn't. So, as a voter, you can not waste your vote by voting on a niche candidate. It is always in your best interest to vote on the candidate who laser focuses you specifically. \n\nSo, candidates who aim for everyone but please no one. They're not getting any votes. Only the people micro targeting demographics do.", 'author': '10ebbor10', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1730567067} | {'id': 'lv1ebfy', 'text': "1. I don't see how they don't work with each other. Let's say that I am a mainstream Democrat. Let's say that RFK Jr. gets elected. I'm not going to feel represented in that election, or for the next four years. If you are a member of a mainstream political group, then you are much, much less likely to feel represented in this system than you would under the current system. For whatever reason, your OP seems to assume that everybody has weird fringe beliefs. They don't. The majority parties stake out their positions for a reason. Their positions are popular.\n\n2. So, you expect me, as a gay man, to be perfectly happy that the homophobe bloc got elected for 4 years and is going to throw me in jail for sodomy? You expect the Jews to be happy that the Nazi party got selected and is sending them to concentration camps? I mean, sure, it's only 4 years. But a lot of irreparable harm can happen in 4 years. The French Revolution only lasted for a *single* year, and it remains one of the bloodiest and most tragic periods in human history. Should we all be happy that Robespierre is going to be in charge, guillotining his opponents?\n\n3. How on earth does your policy make people less extreme? You're going to get people voting for *more* extreme candidates under this position, because they all have a chance of winning. Under the current system in the US, neither the Nazis or the Communists are likely to win. It is *probable* that one of the two parties would win an election at some point under your system.", 'author': 'LucidLeviathan', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1730565096} | 1ghzo63 | CMV: Random ballot is a actually an excellent voting system | Hello,
[Random ballot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot) (Wikipedia) is a voting system wherein a ballot is randomly selected and the choice made by that ballot is elected. Said another way, any candidate with nonzero votes can win, with probability proportional to the number of votes. In one sense, this sounds irrational. Why would we let something so important up to chance? However, I think this system is actually incredibly beneficial in addressing issues in the current system.
1. Benefits
There are a number of benefits of random ballot. The first is that there is **no spoiler effect or strategic voting**. If multiple similar candidates split the vote, then they each will have a chance of winning, and the combined chance will the same as if all voters simply voted for one. Further, and arguably more importantly, there is reason to vote for independents. While under plurality ("first-past-the-post"), the current system, an intendant with 5% of the vote is simply not going to win, and there is no reason to vote for them. This disenfranchises those who don't feel they are represented by either major party. It also creates artificial stagnation, as those with differing views from the major parties will never receive votes, which ensures that they never become one of the two major parties, ensuring that the beliefs of those elected can't change with the changing views of the populace. In random ballot however, there is good reason to vote for an independent. A 5% chance of winning, though unlikely, is nonzero. Further, if there is a candidate you strongly appose, votes for independents and for the other major candidate both decrease the chance of the strongly apposed candidate winning, so there is no reason to vote for a less preferred candidate simply to stop the strongly apposed candidate from winning.
Another benefit is **proportional representation**. In a single-winner system, ie a system with only one candidate elected (like president), representation can't be directly proportional. If 55% of voters lean one way and 45% another way, the 55% will always win and the 45% will always be ignored, leading to a very large segment of the population to being underrepresented. This is also the case with independents, who may only garner a few percentage points of the populace, but are entirely ignored. In a random ballot system, there is proportional representation *over time.* Simply by probability, in the long-run one would expect a party/candidate with 60% of the vote to win 60% of the time, another major party with 35% to win 35% of the time, and an independents with, say, 5% of the vote, to win 5% of the time. While not every voter can be represented at the same time, in the long run all voter's preferences get a time to be heard.
These are the primary benefits. One could also argue that another benefit is there is no "ceiling" for how many people you should represent. In plurality (and even RCV and approval?) once you have majority there is no reason to support more people. The support of 51% is identical to 95%. In random ballot, any more support is a higher chance of winning. **Candidates should always strive to help as many people as possible**. While its hard to imagine that making a difference in today's political climate, as it is so close between candidates and they have to strive as much as possible just to get the 51%, one could take a step back and argue that this is not actually good faith attempt to appeal to everyone. Candidates need to campaign as much as possible to win the support of those "on-the-edge," but accept that those on the "other side" won't vote for them. It is acceptable to take extreme stances that don't make genuine attempts at compromise or appealing to everyone because of the fact that you only need to appeal to "your side" and just enough of the swing voters, and you won't get the support of the people on the "other side" anyways. I am less certain that this benefit would actually manifest itself though, which is why I say it's not a primary benefit.
2. Addressing the counterarguments
Obviously the entire point of posting here is good counterarguments so I will leave this brief. The most common counterargument is "why leave something so important up to luck? What if a terrible candidate with a few votes wins?" There are two responses. First, its not as luck dependent as it may seem. This is the whole proportional representation representation idea. Sure, in one single election its a toss up between the candidate with 60% of the vote and the candidate with 40%. But *over time*, both will be presented, and the party with 60% will be represented more often. This is similar to the system in the UK, where there is proportional representation in parliament where the party with 40% does get representation--40% of the seats. You can't do this in a single winner election though, so we have to make it over time. Even though this could cause a less popular candidate to win, in the long term this balanced out.
The other response is that the truly bad ballots won't be selected. What do I mean this? If someone is truly bad to the point where only a few hundred people vote for them as "jokes" or because they have some ulterior motive, they will have such a ridiculously small chance of willing is basically negligible. We need to keep in mind that there hundreds of millions of votes. To even have a 0.1% chance of winning, it would require of one-hundred-thousand votes. Anyone who represents the interests of one-hundred-thousand people shouldn't be immediately disregarded. This does require some faith in the law of large numbers. But with 158,000,000 votes I think we can be confident that who ever wins will be someone who represents the interests of a large group of people.
3. A brief note
You will notice I often conflate a candidate receiving someone's vote with representing that individual's interests. This represents another view of mine regarding democracy, and this might be a potential point of attack against my support of random ballot. I don't think popularity implies someone is a good leader. I truly don't. To remain unbiased towards current US leaders consider the fact that Hitler was elected. Obviously a horrible person and a horrible leader. But he was popular.
However, I do beleive that, more often than not, leaders represent the interests of those that vote for them. If I care about issue X, I will vote for leaders who share the same stance as me on issue X. If I have occupation Y, I will support leaders who support those in occupation Y. If I am in social class Z, belong to religion A, or face challenge B, I will vote for someone that accommodates those needs. Therefore, if a leader for example receives 40% of the vote, my conclusion is that their leadership would be, by in large, beneficial for those 40% but less so for the other 60%. This philosophy was reflected in the ways I argued for random ballot above. Perhaps you disagree and think that this invalidates those arguments? Feel free to argue with that approach. Or just against the arguments themselves.
Thank you for taking the time to reed my rant and I look forward to reading your thoughts! Cheers! | 1,730,563,226 | MediumLog6435 | nan | nan | 2024-11-02 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Had Bernie Sanders not been thrust out and won the Dem nomination in ‘16, the US would be pushing Left today, as opposed to Right | {'id': 'lvqb56a', 'text': "That's a very different view though, isn't it? I'm thinking a straight talking midwest populist is probably the best bet for Dems, with center left-leaning economic policy paired with downplaying social issues.", 'author': 'fossil_freak68', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730908688} | {'id': 'lvq9e1f', 'text': 'Doubtful. Unless…\n\n… if Bernie would’ve been good for the economy the. We would go more left.\xa0\n\n… if Bernie tanked the economy America would still vote for a party change.\xa0', 'author': 'Beginning-Comedian-2', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730908228} | 1gl1dsp | CMV: Had Bernie Sanders not been thrust out and won the Dem nomination in ‘16, the US would be pushing Left today, as opposed to Right | The 2024 election has taught people, myself included, a lot about what wins elections, for better or for worse: authenticity and a “like us” mentality. Coastal elite Democrats don’t have either of these whatsoever by default. Your Hillary Clintons, Kamala Harrises, Gavin Newsoms, Chuck Schumers, and more, repping perceived rich states in NY and CA do not and will never feel like the kind of American people want in office. Want proof? Perceived far left candidates like Ilhan Omar and AOC outperformed Harris in their own cities and districts this election cycle by ~8-10%. Why? Because they feel authentic and like someone the local district can relate to, whereas Harris did not and they split the ticket or went third party.
Bernie Sanders, being from little VT and speaking his mind, made people feel like he was one of them, even though he was more left than Hillary. Had he been the Democratic nominee in 2016 and wasn’t ousted, I don’t think a Trump presidency comes to fruition for the above reasons. He talked grand ideas that felt like they came from a working class guy, not some elite from NY or CA. Biden, Obama, and Bill Clinton won handily with similar vibes, even if they were more moderate. Progressive policies have also been historically very popular if you separate them from the party (see the sheer amount of overturns on abortion bans and amendments protecting it added to state constitutions with wide support in this election cycle and 2022-23’s, most notably MO). Bernie being more independent from the establishment would’ve added way more appeal than most in the party at the time, but especially Clinton.
So, change my mind. Bernie is the nominee in 2016 instead of Clinton, Trumpism never comes to pass, the country moves more left, and we aren’t dealing with what’s going on right now. | 1,730,907,665 | mattr1198 | nan | nan | 2024-11-06 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Bluetooth headphones are a health risk | {'id': 'lxyrv30', 'text': "It doesn't. The study itself points out that the data merely suggests there may be a link, and that it shouldn't be taken as evidence.\n\n\nIf you keep looking, you'll find all manner of other studies showing no link whatsoever. You can't just cherry-pick the one study that kinda aligns with what you want to believe, you need to look at the whole field and all the research that has been done. And the overwhelming consensus (by scientists who don't want to get cancer from their phones any more than you to) is that cell phones don't cause cancer.", 'author': 'AgentPaper0', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732040341} | {'id': 'lxynlvc', 'text': 'I’m saying let’s assume that using Bluetooth earphones for say 2 hours everyday for 50 years was the health risk equivalent of a transatlantic flight every month for 50 years- in other words the two activities have the same effect on your health. \n\nI think it’s reasonable to say that the risk is low, if it were large, the data would likely equally be obvious to see, so I’m saying try and compare this to other low risk activities and see if your aversion to this one is consistent.', 'author': 'physioworld', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732039093} | 1gv0tk7 | CMV: Bluetooth headphones are a health risk | I've held out using Bluetooth headphones out of fear that it will increase my risk of cancer years down the road. Finally I have a cell phone that has no jack, so I never use it for music. The thing is I really want to bring it to the gym and stream.
Bluetooth is said to have lower radiation than cellphones. I totally believe this to be true. In fact, I put my phone on speaker instead of holding it to my head whenever possible to avoid such close exposure. I try to keep it in my pocket at a minimum and leave it a few feet from me when not in use.
Despite the lower radiation of Bluetooth, pressing it against your head should expose you to strong radiation as distance dissipates the strength exponentially.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong and free me up to buy a pair. I have taken college a undergrad physics series, so even though I'm no expert I should be able to understand scientific reasoning and jargon. | 1,732,032,777 | luigijerk | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Saying Whites or Europeans are responsible for colonialism as a whole and should apologize for it is blatantly ignorant. | {'id': 'ls6gzug', 'text': 'Good point well made. How do I put a delta here?', 'author': 'bluntpencil2001', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729074218} | {'id': 'ls3zjfq', 'text': 'That’s called recency bias. It’s not a correct line of thinking.', 'author': 'Dramatic_Reality_531', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729030451} | 1g4f1jh | CMV: Saying Whites or Europeans are responsible for colonialism as a whole and should apologize for it is blatantly ignorant. | First, only a handful of European countries were involved in colonialism in the first place. Another thing to also consider is the colonialism of Latin America is entirely different from the colonialism of Africa.
If you were to choose a colonizer you’d probably pick the Spainards. Now, they went to Latin America and intermixed with the population meaning that the people there now descend from BOTH Spainards and Natives. So who exactly are you gonna apologize to? All the people that colonized left Spain and Portugal. And you have BOTH spainard colonizer dna as well as native dna.
Now the real colonizers were the English, French, Japanese and the Turks. and yet everyone would rather just say “Europeans/White People are just evil colonizers” even though not every european country participated in colonialism and the colonialism was vastly different depending on the country. | 1,729,017,755 | Different_Salad_6359 | nan | nan | 2024-10-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Voters in economically disadvantaged states who support the Republican Party are voting against their own self-interests. | {'id': 'lxxn40k', 'text': "I don't think you established that they are voting against their own self-interest is a true statement. You can't just state as a Democrat, Democrat policies are better for people. Obviously they believe they are voting for what they think is best for them. It can't just be you saying you are right and they are wrong. I think it is arrogant to say you know what is best for them, when you don't even know them. I also think it is interesting a state with a large native American population being told what is best for them from someone from one of the original colonies. Some things never change.", 'author': 'Puzzleheaded-Bat-511', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732028009} | {'id': 'lxwrmjw', 'text': '> If you’re correct in that all the big corporations and billionaires supported Harris… she would’ve won\n\nHow are you so sure about that? Let me see your reasoning.\n\n> But overall they like the GOP and it’s a reason the market rallied after the race was called\n\nMore like because they realized that of the few policies that Kamala proposed, like a tax on unrealized capital gains and a massive corporate tax rate hike, would utterly destroy the American economy, and corporations were projecting that Harris would win (either outright, or in the courts).', 'author': 'Morthra', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732014803} | 1gurq0i | CMV: Voters in economically disadvantaged states who support the Republican Party are voting against their own self-interests. | A diagram or “meme” is circulating online that shows a red map of Oklahoma with some of that state’s economic and social characteristics listed, along with a blue map of Massachusetts and a similar list. Its title is “In 2024 Only 2 States Voted Unanimously—Let’s Compare.” That diagram is generating a long and fascinating discussion on r/massachusetts, most of which focuses on one theme: Massachusetts is doing well, so of course its citizens voted for the status quo; and Oklahomans, in their relatively poorer state, are anxious for change. Many have pointed out that the diagram itself is a preposterous distortion of reality, which is certainly true. It conflates a 60/40 vote with a 80/20 vote, for example, and it uses two different sets of characteristics for the two states. Nowhere is mention made of the fact that Oklahomans, for example, enjoy a lower cost of living than do Bay Staters. As memes often do, it reduces a complex set of circumstances in the two states to “Oklahoma bad, Massachusetts good,” when it’s patently unfair to do so.
I am posting my comments here because r/massachusetts seems like exactly the wrong place for the discussion, which presents issues, I think, valuable for all Americans to hear and debate. I hope I’m not violating any rules of this sub by doing so. (I did review them first, btw.)
Please understand that none of what follows is a criticism of anyone. I respect everyone’s right to vote as they see fit, whether I agree with them or not, and I expect the same from others. I’ve learned a great deal about both Massachusetts and Oklahoma from writing this post, and that’s all to the good, I think. Perhaps others will also learn from reading it; I don’t know.
To me, the point here is not that Oklahomans are poor, or that they’re ignorant, or that they’re Indians (an issue that arises repeatedly on r/massachusetts), or that they’re victims of geography, or any of the other meaningless comparisons being made with Massachusetts in the 12,000-and-counting comments published there. The point is that they vote consistently— as far as I understand—for leaders who will make matters worse for them rather than better.
In 2025, the Oklahoma Legislature will be 80% Republican in the House, and 82% in the Senate. (There is one vacancy.) The Governor will be a Republican who just forced a delay to 2026 on a vote to raise the state’s minimum wage from the current $7.25 per hour. ($7.25 in Oklahoma City will buy you a pair of socks at Walmart, or an inexpensive meal at Taco Bell.) And that proposal is on the ballot through an initiative petition, because, I presume, the legislature and the Governor think that minimum-wage Oklahomans don’t deserve more than a chalupa and a cup of coffee for an hour’s honest work.
Does anyone really believe that this leadership will redirect resources from people who don’t need them to people who do? Will improve public education? Will protect public health? Republican politicians specifically campaign on refusing to do any of those things, and—I’ll say this for them—they keep those promises. But amazingly, to me at least, the vast bulk of Oklahomans continue to vote for them, against their own self-interest, year after year. And yes, I understand, and I agree, with the conservative position that “a rising tide lifts all boats”; it’s just that the only boats I ever see being lifted are yachts.
I’m not questioning the intelligence of poor and middle-class Oklahomans, by the way; I just don’t understand. And it’s not a question that’s unique to Oklahomans. The entire country just voted to elect a government in Washington that, again, campaigned on a platform of doing nothing to help the disadvantaged. And nothing, or worse, is exactly what they’re going to do.
Let’s talk about Massachusetts for a moment. Massachusetts, as has been pointed out, is one of the five wealthiest states in the nation. (Oklahomans, by the way, surpass Bay Staters in overall purchasing power, because of Oklahoma’s substantially lower cost of living, already mentioned.) And it’s not for Bay Staters being unwilling to give some of their money to Oklahoma. In 1972–the first Presidential election I volunteered in—Massachusetts was the only state in the nation to cast its 14 electoral votes for George McGovern. The District of Columbia added one more. The candidate who received the other 520 votes—save the one vote that went to John Hospers, whoever he was—was Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace two years later, demonstrating, if nothing else, that winning in a landslide doesn’t necessarily protect a President from their own character deficits.
If you know anything about George McGovern, I think you’ll understand my point. And Bay Staters have voted for Democrats—notwithstanding those candidates’ enthusiasm for taking Massachusetts’ money away and giving it to others—in every Presidential election since.
Turning next to the federal government, in the recent general election, voters nationwide, including all of Oklahoma’s electoral votes, elected a Presidential candidate sworn to deport every undocumented alien in the United States, at an estimated cost of as much as $300 billion, which would have increased the national deficit last year by about a fifth. If accomplished, Oklahomans would absorb $3.6 billion of that increase, over a third of the state’s current annual budget. And, realistically, not enough Oklahomans—if there even are enough who don’t already have jobs—are going to get out there in the Midwestern sun and pick the cotton needed to pay for that. And, by the way, the undocumented workers who (legally or not) used to do that work will be out of the picture. None of this is actually going to happen, of course; it simply provides a context for the claims made by Oklahoma’s (and the nation’s; lets give demerit where demerit is due) chosen Presidential candidate.
Let’s look at the Congress next. As they have for nearly three decades, all of Massachusetts’ nine Congressional seats will be held by Democrats. The same is true for both Senate seats. The exact opposite is true for Oklahoma: all five Congressional representatives, and the two senators, will be Republicans. I don’t know the context of the Oklahomans’ campaigns, but my bet is, none of them talked about allocating a part of the Bay State’s greater financial resources to satisfy pressing needs in Oklahoma. None of this is a criticism, precisely; it just surprises me to see Oklahoma’s relative poverty being held up in that discussion, as it is, as a reason for why the state continues to elect Republicans who promise to do, and actually do, absolutely nothing to address that inequity.
I know that I’m going to take some heat for this post, and I’m prepared for that. After 30 years representing clients from all walks of life in family court, it takes a lot of heat to drive me out of the kitchen. But of course, a more thoughtful response is more likely to make me—and anyone else—examine my own privileges and “change my view.” And, no matter how stupid and elitist you think I am, the proof is not in my words, but in the proverbial pudding: Will Oklahomans emerge from the next four years in improved circumstances, or will, as is too often the case in America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? If my views here are wrong, I will obviously need to change them, a practice sadly absent from modern American political discourse. Imagine if we actually listened to each other, instead of resorting to name-calling in the absence of evidence to support our personal politics? As always, I will hope for the best, no matter where on the political spectrum that point lies. But only time will tell. | 1,732,000,992 | lambchop-pdx | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Cutting off family/friends over who they voted for is valid | {'id': 'lvvmv9k', 'text': 'I can certainly empathize with this, I understand that these issues are very sensitive and do impact a lot of people, but I believe the underlying motivations for a Trump vote were simple, when people are out of work for a year without any prospects or underemployed and are fighting everyday just to put food on the table let alone pay the bills, issues like abortion rights or Gaza, etc are simply not a priority. It makes people that place those issues above all else seem privileged and out of touch with the everyday voter. Just an opinion.', 'author': 'Ncfishey', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1730977575} | {'id': 'lvvmhee', 'text': 'Bingo! As much as people like to pretend there are single issue voters they must contend with the fact that if I vote only on abortion I also have to vote against business and for socialism or if I vote against socialism I also have to vote pro abortion.\n\nIt also explains why third parties are so hard to bring in because any issue they might cover is already covered by the big 2. And if they manage to somehow get a sizeable foothold they are quickly absorbed into one party or the other.', 'author': 'urquhartloch', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730977350} | 1glmwfw | CMV: Cutting off family/friends over who they voted for is valid | I believe cutting out family, friends, co workers etc over the choice they made at the polls is completely valid and no one should feel bad for it. Let me explain.
I’ve cut several people out of my life over their support for Trump over the past few weeks, and cut even more out when i found out the voted for Trump. There are people around me who have done this aswell. I’m a proud member of the lgbtq+ community, and a working class american. My best friend is an immigrant, and my sibling relies on Medicaid to survive. When someone who claims to love me or care for me goes into the voting both and selects Trump, the guy who has said disgusting things about women, the guy who was found liable of raping a woman, the guy who wants to deport the hard working immigrants in this country and spreads horrible false rhetoric about them, the guy who wants to strip away SSI and Medicaid, because he’s ran his campaign on a baseless promise that gas and groceries will be a bit cheaper, they’ve shown that they prioritize extra money over human rights and life saving programs. I feel like this country is officially doomed, and so many people including myself will be directly affected by Trumps second term, and i’m scared. While me and my loved ones (most of them) are horrified for our safety and livelihoods, former friends and family celebrate.
I’m not sure if i’ve made the right decision here, or if i’m overreacting or not. Id love to see other views | 1,730,972,992 | young_comrade_ | nan | nan | 2024-11-07 | 2024_fall |
CMV: White, Evangelical American Christians have the biggest persecution complexes in this country. | {'id': 'lxzqux4', 'text': '> I wouldn’t say they’re the most persecuted\n\nYour view to be changed is "Evangelical American Christians have the biggest *persecution complexes* in this country." Not, evangelicals are the most persecuted. To me a "persecution complex" means that you are giving more weight to the amount of persecution or describing it as being more oppressive than it really is. I don\'t disagree that Christians have or do this. But, I am saying, that their complaints are based somewhat in material reality. People with mental illness, when expressing that they are persecuted by actually not-real hidden forces and figures also have a persecution complexes. But, these are not based in material reality. So, to me, the bigger prosecution complex is the one that does not have a basis in material reality. \n\nIf the "persecution complex" in question was about quality care for the mentally ill, I wouldn\'t actually call it a complex but an accurate accounting of the issues they face.', 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 42, 'timestamp': 1732050855} | {'id': 'lxzq1rh', 'text': '1. Prove something that is non-falsifiable? \n2. Don’t define what “legitimate” means in terms of opression? \n3. Make another claim that is not empirically provable given you snuck in the word “unjustified”? \n\nNo one will be able to change your mind given your list of demands.', 'author': 'donotdonutdont', 'score': 25, 'timestamp': 1732050611} | 1gv7sd3 | CMV: White, Evangelical American Christians have the biggest persecution complexes in this country. | I believe in America, the people with the biggest persecution complexes are white evangelical Christians. They consistently talk about how they are oppressed because other people are slowly receiving equal treatment under the law. (More rights for others doesn’t equal less rights for you, it’s not pie). They say that they are underrepresented whilst making up the majority of elected positions (55% according to PRC). They say that lgbtq+ people or anyone statistically disadvantaged by the government is “forcing” their lifestyle on others while actively trying to pass religious based laws, resending laws that have been on the books for 50 years based on religious reasons, and trying to force the Bible and prayer into public school curriculum. Every system in the United States is set up in favor of them and yet they cry oppression at any semblance of religious freedom or their privileges being lessened.
Ways you can change my view:
1. Prove they aren’t (or aren’t trying to) rigorously enforcing their views into most people’s daily lives.
2. Prove that they are actually facing legitimate forms of oppression
3. Prove that other groups of Americans (POC, Atheists, LGBTQ+, etc.) have higher (unjustified) persecution complexes.
| 1,732,049,950 | Ihbpfjastme | nan | nan | 2024-11-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Donald Trump is less like Hungary's Orbán or Russia's Putin, and more like Andrew Jackson. | {'id': 'lyn671b', 'text': "And by 'rampage' you mean that he was upset that he won a plurality of the votes but lost the presidency due to the nature of the electoral college. You understand that is fundamentally a different thing from putting together seven false slates of electors and attempting to have your VP declare you president in defiance of the vote.\n\nTrump didn't do 'a bunch of crazy shit'. He engaged in conspiracy against the united states in an attempt to overthrow the democratic process. Your attempt to downplay that is pretty sus, as the kids might say.\n\nI'll ask you again. Do you understand that there is a difference in kind with what Trump did. He attempted to overthrow the government, Jackson did not. No other president has.", 'author': 'Orphan_Guy_Incognito', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1732398596} | {'id': 'lymwles', 'text': 'I agree with you that Trump will be very unlikely to install a dictatorship.\n\n\nI disagree with you insofar as our guardrails will stay intact.\n\n\nOur well being as a country will be weathered survivable but we will be significantly worse for it. But one of the worst things has already happened. We have said as a country "if you want to destroy democracy, we will not care or maybe even notice". The smart populists are listening. They see that the laws have no teeth. They see the billionaires getting ready to bleed America dry. They see that as long as you give a validating response and justify people\'s fervor they will give you the keys to power, regardless of your intent.\n\n\nIt will be the populist after Trump that is likely to destroy democracy outright. Though prediction is a fuck as so much is in the air now.', 'author': 'RocketRelm', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732395335} | 1gy68hh | CMV: Donald Trump is less like Hungary's Orbán or Russia's Putin, and more like Andrew Jackson. | I understand the fear that those whose believes lie with the American left has, but fear not, Donald Trump is more like Andrew Jackson and less like the authoritarians of the modern age. In fact, he is not a wannabe dictator or authoritarian at all. Our guardrails will remain intact.
I believe that those who compare Trump to Hitler, Putin, or Orban are just simply speaking in hyperboles. The reality of the situation is a lot more nuanced and complicated. The MAGA/Trumpian Republicans of today are more in line with the staunchly partisan Jacksonian Democrats of old. Most of those politicians were able to come off as authentic, new, and antiestablishment to win the hearts and minds of the people. And, most Americans liked their authenticity and outsider statues. Much like Andrew Jackson, Trump just has a wild personality and does lots of crazy shit that makes him a certified asshole. Even though I am on the left and don't support him or his policies whatsoever, I do have to admit that both of these public figures had had a glaring commonality. It is that they were both known to be outsider authentic men running for office who were against the establishment or the elites who have not delivered for the people they represent. At both moments in history, people were just thirsty for a new way of doing politics and change. And so, it will be on the onus of the Democrats in the coming cycles to learn from their mistakes and adopt a more populist approach and build up a more vast information network much like Trump's or Jackson's campaigns. Different in policy platform, YES, but very similar in approach-wise. Eventually, the Trumpian era will pass, much like it did with the Jacksonian era. In general, politics, economies, and a country's overall sentiment tends to operate in cycles. Sometimes, the public will crave more anti-establishment outsider politics. There are also times, mostly during times of peace and prosperity, when the public prefers more wonky insider politicians and policy-based campaigners, rather than vibes based.
And so, Jackson did all these crazy things in office with his mean personality and populist way of governance, YET look what happened. Our democratic guardrails still remained INTACT.
Even though I'm of the opinion that we have been through this before with the Jackson Era and that a lot of Trump's staunchly partisan agenda is all bark and no bite, I'm open to any argument that offers a different view on the extent to which Trump and his political allies will take things. I'd be convinced if a fellow Redditor can support the idea that things are that much different from the Jacksonian era, in terms of living in a highly partisan populist moment. | 1,732,386,404 | godlike_hikikomori | nan | nan | 2024-11-23 | 2024_fall |
CMV: American Democracy is Over | {'id': 'lwcueu7', 'text': 'The GOP was not in charge of all three branches of government. \n\nPolitics were different but the systems are still there. \n[Military officials are prepared to push back against illegal orders](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/nov/08/us-election-live-donald-trump-cabinet-house-of-representatives). \n\n[Washington State prepares to push back against Trum](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2024/11/07/trump-washington-state-rights-action)p. \n\n[California is “Trump-proofing” itself](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/california-resistance-state-trump-federal-government). \n\nAcross the country, in blue states, this is happening. \n\nThere are 23 Democrat governors. CA alone has an economy bigger than most nations. Are the states going to go down without a fight? I don’t think so. \n\nUpsetting, yes. Over? Not by a long shot.', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1731208632} | {'id': 'lwcqsu2', 'text': "Isn't this opinion contradicted by history? Can you name a single time this has happened in U.S. history (not a 3rd term, that's fairly recent. But rigging elections etc.)? Didn't he fail with his false electorate scheme and wasn't there multiple assassination attempts against him? I guess I'm wondering what precedent there is to think not just the institutions of the U.S. would prevent this from happening but also the people themselves?", 'author': 'RadioactiveSpiderBun', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731207232} | 1gnqo05 | CMV: American Democracy is Over | Trump spent a significant amount of energy in the last term firing staffers, judges, election officials and other importantly ranked individuals across the country and replacing them with loyalists. His mar-a-lago classified documents case was about as dead to rights as any case could ever possibly be and it got killed in court by a MAGA loyalist judge who pulled out all the stops to make sure that Trump got off clean.
On top of this, Trump demonstrably attempted to steal the last election with his fake electors plot and the entire election fraud conspiracy campaign around it.
Trump now has ultimate power in the united states government. He has rid his administration of anyone who would stand against him and stacked it with loyalists, he has the house, he has the senate, he has the courts. It's also been shown that no matter what insane shit he does, republicans will more or less blindly back him
They will spend the next four years fortifying the country, its laws and policies in such a way so as to assure that the Democrats are as backfooted as possible in an election AND, if by some rare chance, the left leaning electorate gets enough of a showing to actually win... Trump and his crew will just say the election was rigged and certify their guy anyways. They already tried this, why wouldn't they do it again. Their low information base will believe anything he says and no one in the entire american governmental or judicial system will challenge it, cuz they're all on the same team.
I honestly don't see a future where a democrat ever wins another election... at least one that isn't controlled opposition or something of the like.
We have now entered the thousand year reich of the Trump administration.
**EDIT: I am not implying that Trump will run a 3rd term. Just that Republicans will retain the presidency indefinitely** | 1,731,206,367 | conn_r2112 | nan | nan | 2024-11-10 | 2024_fall |
CMV: A weighted coin is a better way to elect the president than the electoral college | {'id': 'ly27g8g', 'text': "I too support a popular vote over the electoral college, but I support either over a weighted coin.\n\nPeople will simply not accept the legitimacy of an outcome based on a game of chance. The current system of basing it on swing states is stupid, but at least comes down to actually appealing to the voters, not total luck of the draw.\n\nAnd you say that the coin only comes into play if it's within 5 percent. Of the last 7 elections (i.e. all since 2000), 6 have been that close. And the weighting of the coin is close enough to be basically indistinguishable from 50/50. So if the future is similarly evenly divided, you're saying the vast majority of elections are decided by a coin flip that's basically just 50/50\n\nNot to mention nobody will trust that the coin isn't rigged. There will be immense scrutiny of that whole process and no end of conspiracies.", 'author': 'NUMBERS2357', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732083541} | {'id': 'ly1zn0e', 'text': "No. Hell, I'm not even talking about this specific election. I am just using those two votes as an example to illustrate that when push comes to shove it isn't actually about any of the excuses you use, it is about power. \n\nYou don't care that the senate is unequal for absurd reasons, you care that the senate is unequal because it allows you to push your agenda. I just want you to be honest about your opinions rather than couching them in cute talking points.\n\nRepublicans defend the senate because the senate massively favors them. That is the reason you defend it. Anything else is just excuses.", 'author': 'Orphan_Guy_Incognito', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732079545} | 1gvh1fe | CMV: A weighted coin is a better way to elect the president than the electoral college | So, before I make my argument, I want to get a few things out of the way: I’m a liberal, and I voted for Kamala in this election. And she lost fair and square. Personally, I prefer popular vote (she lost there, too) to the weighted coin, but I think the weighted coin is just a better overall option to the electoral college
By, overall, the argument I’m making is not so much “weighted coin is the best way for deciding the leader,” it’s “weighted coin is better than the electoral college.”
My argument for this method over the electoral college is simple: some people’s votes being worth more than other people’s votes, due to where one lives, is the most polarizing imaginable way to elect a national head of state. There’s just no way around it. It makes individuals in big states just not matter, at all, which just makes voting a complete farce. Everyone’s vote should matter, equally, when electing the head of state, and it should be on the candidates and political parties to be able to capture the hearts and minds of the American public, not just the people in 5 or 6 swing states.
Furthermore, if you’re concerned about people in small states getting left out, you shouldn’t, because their votes will still turn the election more in their favor. Voting is not pointless for them, at all.
There’s a potential caveat to this, though: I feel like a sensible thing to do would be to add limits to this. Maybe if there’s a 5-point difference or less, that’s where the hypothetical weighted coin would come in. I think it would be weird for a candidate to win by twice the vote of the other candidate, and still not be entirely confident that they’d win the vote. We can debate the specifics on this, though, and at what percentage a hypothetical weighted coin should win someone the vote. | 1,732,075,856 | Orang-Himbleton | nan | nan | 2024-11-20 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Youth Tackle Football Should Be Banned | {'id': 'lwslnce', 'text': "Okay i see long term non head injuries, while yes they can pose significant risk, are less likely to occur. The reason concussions and traumatic-brain-injuries are the main issue I'm making a stink about is that concussions go underreported until they are causing issues in the injured parties. Its often because the symptoms often aren't noticeable for weeks on avg. \n\nAbout the portion i copied, it stated that many people undervalue the damage that occurs from tbi's, and the effects it directly has on long term health.\n\nThird and fourth points totally valid. But thats why i picked the cdc study, because it compares tackle games directly to the alternative flag game, and highlights the lower occurrence rate of traumatic-brain-injury in flag football, as reported by hospitals.", 'author': 'PudgieHedgie', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731438851} | {'id': 'lwpl7h1', 'text': "Oh my God bruh it ain't that deep. \n\nSports are significantly less dangerous than other activities which are banned for minors, for example, Marijuana, driving, hard drugs, and smoking.\n\n Tackle football is the only sport that is available to play at an organized level in certain areas. \n\nThe cultural backlash against this rule would be immense, as tackle football is tied to many family's identities.\n\nKids playing football help keep safety standards up, as concerned parents continue to advocate for their childs' wellbeing. \n\nFinally, it doesn't matter that much. There is already too much sheltering of kids through modern parenting, though I concede that this is a subjective view. \n\n\nThis is a great read that I think may also help to change your view. https://theweek.com/articles/468086/why-parents-should-let-kids-play-dangerous-sports", 'author': 'Goliath660', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731391929} | 1gpcs4n | CMV: Youth Tackle Football Should Be Banned | To clarify my stance, I believe tackle football should be banned for children until at least middle school or high school. The primary reason is that, by that age, kids can make an informed decision about whether they want to play tackle football.
It is extremely detrimental for younger children to play tackle football when they are unaware of the risks involved. We know that tackle football can cause brain damage, so I don't understand why parents would choose to enroll their children in tackle football instead of flag football or another safer sport. | 1,731,386,292 | Key_Beautiful6318 | nan | nan | 2024-11-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: If the script was flipped and it was “men’s rights” being fought for then Kamala would’ve won. | {'id': 'ly3gr6w', 'text': 'Yeah, I get it. I just think a lot of men\'s issues could not conceivably be "on the ballot" the same way women\'s issues are. At least, not while maintaining the overall environment similar enough that the thought experiment would make sense.', 'author': 'Giblette101', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732109535} | {'id': 'ly3cljz', 'text': 'If it were men’s rights at stake. Most women would have either stayed home or voted based on their perception of the economy, just like men did. If anything, Trump would have won even more votes in this scenario.', 'author': 'Gilbert__Bates', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732107862} | 1gvox13 | CMV: If the script was flipped and it was “men’s rights” being fought for then Kamala would’ve won. | This might be my cognitive bias speaking, but if you look at the numbers of women who voted in prior elections vs. this one (exit polls) they all stayed the same. This is especially with women of color who are more likely to experience poverty and thus the economy wasn’t their main concern as everyone is spitting out. Kamala lost the votes of men of color, especially Latino men.
Let’s create a dystopian society together. Let’s say Trumps rhetoric towards men was distasteful. He was found liable of sexual abuse towards men. Those who he planned to bring into his cabinet were in the same boat against men too. His agenda talked about how the states can decide how they want to proceed with having all men get vasectomies in order to prevent abortion. They cut off funding to men’s health clinics. Viagra will no longer be available. Those working with him talked about how men who go somewhere else to get the vasectomies undone will get jail time. You get the point, just flip the switch. Now, we have Kamala fighting for men’s rights and that being one of the main topics of her campaign. In this society, do we think Trump still would’ve won? I don’t think so. We live in a patriarchal society. Looking at the data, only men shifted more towards Trump. The woman still stayed mostly the same. The economy was the “most” important thing to men but if it was their rights on the line then we would shift the scenario saying we valued their rights.
“If men could have an abortion, there would be a clinic everywhere like Starbucks”. | 1,732,107,568 | E_EQL_MC2 | nan | nan | 2024-11-20 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Having sex with your family home if you know they can possibly hear it is weird | {'id': 'ly9k2ov', 'text': 'so did I change your view that it can not be weird?', 'author': 'tanglekelp', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732206244} | {'id': 'ly9bkfh', 'text': "And that's why all the fun ends once you have a child.", 'author': 'Objective_Ad_6265', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732200584} | 1gwhk8x | CMV: Having sex with your family home if you know they can possibly hear it is weird | I've always felt like this but I made a post about this yesterday and got tore into so I thought I would make this here. I think it's weird how some people have normalized having sex with their family members home, especially if they can hear you. I see jokes about people walking out of their partners room knowing their whole family heard or of partenes parents asking them to keep it quieter and that's just gross.
I personally don't want to have sex with my family home even if they couldn't hear me but that's a personal preference I guess. I made a post about how I was weirded out by my boyfriend having sex with his ex while his parents were home and people said I had a hangup and was being judgy. You can hear almost everything from his living room and a pin drop from his kitchen with his room door closed. I can hear his families every footstep when we're in his room. And they can hear what we're doing. Especially considering the fact that he has two younger sisters who are 8 and 15. He wasn't playing music. They almost 100% heard them.
Sex isn't a need or something uncontrollable. Havinh have sex when your family is home is a weird choice to make. I think a normal person would think
Not having sex> having my family hear me have sex | 1,732,199,364 | Accomplished-Fix1204 | nan | nan | 2024-11-21 | 2024_fall |
CMV: We should find short-term solutions to climate change and throw future generations under the bus so that current young generations get to live as good as the boomers did | {'id': 'lynun12', 'text': 'For the first one: this is why I wrote about demanding from your governments. What you wrote need to be mandated and enforced by them. \n\nFor the second one: this is just a detail. Once you force governments to actually care, it is easy to design a system that would punish corporations for emissions but would also financially reward them for extracting CO2, e.g., by earning them tax breaks. Once there is enough incentive, investment in related technologies would increase and we might actually develop tech solutions to stop or reverse climate change.', 'author': 'Maysign', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732407368} | {'id': 'lynqr0d', 'text': "You mean like coal-power air conditioning? Bring it on.\n\nOr do you mean you want to be able to venture outdoors and enjoy cooler temperatures? Perhaps you'd be interested in a Swedish device known as a *Volvo*.", 'author': 'npchunter', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732405933} | 1gybkuo | CMV: We should find short-term solutions to climate change and throw future generations under the bus so that current young generations get to live as good as the boomers did | We, the current young people (20-30 or so) find ourselves willingly or unwillingly paying for the ecological and economic debts made by those who have lived before us on this huge ball commonly called Earth. This usually means we have to get used to living for the rest of our lives in a significantly worse economic and climatic situation than our parents, but at the same time make the right moves so that those who come after us will not see the situation worsen and indeed may see a reversal. However, I find it very unfair that while the boomers lived some of the highest standard of living ever seen in human history, our generation has to deal with heatwaves, just because we were born in the wrong year while, again, older generations got to enjoy a cooler climate and economic advantages of fossil fuels with limited drawbacks.
So, I recently switched mentality to a more, say, "selfish" one. Some scientists have recently suggested to spray sulfur or diamond dust to slow climate change, but there are many points that have to be discussed yet. You can read something about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/climate/david-keith-solar-geoengineering.html
And you know what I say? Fuck it, I'm not sacrificing shit, I want it all now. Lower temperatures artificially by shooting sulfates in the atmosphere, or even making volcanoes erupt on purpose. Then, if in, say, 2100 all those sulfates and dusts emitted for climate containment give everyone born in those years a third arm/eye... well, it's not our generation's problem, we've enjoyed a golden age, they sort it out by themselves.
Boomers lived a golden age by dumping all the ecological debts on our shoulders, and considering nobody is doing enough against climate change, why shouldn't we do the same?
CMV | 1,732,400,607 | CapoDiMalaSperanza | nan | nan | 2024-11-23 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The United States should abolish the income tax. | {'id': 'lwfw3k7', 'text': "pre-16th amendment, the government was making most of its money from tarriffs, which fucked over poor people considerably, since the cost burden was being passed onto them. Introducing progressive federal income tax didn't just help the poor, it also opened up international trade by replacing the tariffs, causing a boom in the US economy.\n\nI predict leaving income tax purely to the state level would result in the most lasseiz-faire state becoming a tax haven for the whole country, further depriving the other states. This could quickly become a bidding war among states to have the lowest tax, resulting in lower revenue across the board. This would soon result in harsh austerity. Of course, it's a libertarian's wet dream, but I'm not a libertarian.", 'author': '86thesteaks', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731260147} | {'id': 'lwfw0qw', 'text': '>they tend to vote for limited government anyway while accepting a ton of federal dollars relative to their populations\n\nI had a feeling this was the root of the issue. You should look into those numbers more closely.\n\nThey include military and other spending that doesn\'t actually benefit the state in question. For example, if the government buys a $100m F35 for a base in NC, that doesn\'t really do much for the people of NC but those putting out those numbers count it as money "given to a red state".\n\nAdditionally, much of what they count is Social Security. Those are not tax dollars, so it is outside of your income tax plan. Many older people move south when they retire so Social Security numbers get skewed for southern populations.\n\nThe issue here is that you are starting from a flawed premise based on deceptive propaganda.', 'author': 'sarcasticorange', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731260123} | 1go53i6 | CMV: The United States should abolish the income tax. | I'm pretty solidly liberal, but I've recently (within the last few years) come around to the idea that the U.S. should abolish the income tax.
Originally in the Constitution, taxes were required to be directly apportioned among the states with respect to their population, such that each state had dollars in the game roughly equivalent to the amount of influence they had over federal policy. With the passage of the 16th Amendment, the proportionality of responsibility to influence was no longer maintained. As a result of this, smaller states have an outsize influence on federal policy up to and including the electoral college, but without a corresponding increase in responsibility.
Given how polarized we are as a country, I would propose that the lefties should get on board with abolishing the income tax and returning to a directly apportioned model, wherein the federal budget is set and then each state pays its dues in keeping with its population size (IMO, the state can collect however they like, as determined by its citizens: I expect states like NY and California would keep a progressive income tax structure to collect their federal dues, but other states can implement sales or property tax or do whatever their citizens agree to).
I expect the more conservative folks in the country would get on board with this because "income tax is theft," but the more liberal elements of the country should also embrace this. I've done the napkin math for the amount of tax paid per state relative to its population for each state based on 2023 numbers, by multiplying the total federal collections minus excise tax x the percentage of population in each state (taxes paid: [https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collections-by-type-of-tax-and-state-irs-data-book-table-5](https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collections-by-type-of-tax-and-state-irs-data-book-table-5), population by state: [https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html) ) and to give some broadly illustrative examples, if the states were taxed proportionally, NY citizens would collectively save about $100bn a year, Illinois about $35bn a year, and so on; the states could then decide to collect those funds themselves by raising their own taxes, so income taxes paid by their citizens remained fairly equal, but the state is able to fund initiatives that their citizens favor but that are unlikely to make any headway in a gridlocked federal system. Heck, if I had my way the bluer states would all band together and fund a group department of education, healthcare, etc. using collective funds.
By and large, red states would end up paying more to the federal government at current spending / debt levels (exceptions are Missouri and Ohio, which would actually do quite well), but they would have much more freedom to choose the method; additionally, since their power is proportionally higher in the federal government, they can elect to spend less there to lower their own burden, which should certainly please small-government minded conservatives (and leave more money on the table for the lefties to implement whichever policies they like). People with the economic freedom to move to a different state can always choose to do so based on their own state's policies.
Please explain why this is a bad plan, because I might have accidentally become a libertarian on a federal level and that scares me a bit. | 1,731,257,793 | Able_Buy_2499 | nan | nan | 2024-11-10 | 2024_fall |
CMV: I don't think prequels work fundamentally. | {'id': 'lyqpgwj', 'text': '> In Shakespeare, we don’t know what will happen to specific characters\n\nIsn’t that the same for prequels? In Rogue One, we know that the Death Star plans will be safely delivered to Leia, but we don’t know what will happen to any of the individual characters.\n\n> We read Shakespeare for the character depth/dialogue, not the plot\n\nWhy can’t you do that for a prequel?', 'author': 'DoeCommaJohn', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1732457541} | {'id': 'lyqlrv0', 'text': "Isn't this already the case for like more than 50% of movies though?\n\nWe don't know plot details and specific developments, but most people can correctly guess the endings and outcomes. Nobody watching mission impossible, fast and furious, most superhero movies, harry potter movies, die hard series, etc. is sitting there, thinking ''man, I wonder how this is gonna end''\n\nIt's about the story and the journey, not the ending.", 'author': 'Domestiicated-Batman', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732456038} | 1gyr3ti | CMV: I don't think prequels work fundamentally. | The entire point of a prequel is to show what happened before the events of the book/movie/ TV show unfolded. But the thing is, *we already know how the entire story will end*. I think this forces the writers to make up entirely new storylines for characters who appeared in the original movie/book/TV show, but this completely removes any sense of stakes and tension that we might feel for the character, since we already know their ultimate fate. I feel that prequels should only serve as world-building. | 1,732,455,372 | Fun_Protection_6939 | nan | nan | 2024-11-24 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Liberals and Conservatives are all contradictory. | {'id': 'lwixvgq', 'text': "It often is. Consider the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. Iran blockade the Persian Gulf and began sinling civilian oil tankers. This drove gas prices up in the United States, which led to the US sending the Navy to ensure shipping lanes went unmolested. Iran mined the waters, badly damaged a USN vessel, starting Operation Praying Mantis, which saw the United States demolish Iran's navy. This normalized the gas prices as oil shipments resumed.\n\nWhen people launch a war over resource acquisition, they seek to reduce costs by seizing control of the resource. Now you don't need to bargain for it. But this isn't what the United States typically does. Instead, the US most often supports a sympathetic government regime in these regions, which allows the US to buy oil from them at very low prices.\n\nThis is why war can be both disruptive to oil markets, and also beneficial to a nation to engage in conflict.", 'author': 'Ender_Octanus', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731295846} | {'id': 'lwirzph', 'text': "This is the first time I've actually seen a view in this sub that I think I can change. \n\nWhat you're describing aren't liberals or conservatives, they are Democrats and Republicans. Liberal and conservative are both political ideologies that are often conflated with something called party identity. To be liberal or conservative is to have a broad philosophy of government, but party ID is choosing a side to identify with and parroting their talking points. Those talking points are sometimes in line with liberal or conservative ideals, but are mostly twisted by the personal interests of individual politicians. This results in a lot of people spewing hypocrisy. But they are not liberals and conservatives, they are just fans painting themselves red and blue yelling at the proverbial television that is the political stage of America.", 'author': 'GeneStarwind1', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731293646} | 1gohilu | CMV: Liberals and Conservatives are all contradictory. | I see liberals talking about love and peace then threatening to kill people over hunting. I see Republicans talk about oil and how important it is to our economy then advocate war with the middle east who are some of the largest oil producers.
I see both sides blame the other for the state of the economy when that is a much more complex matter than executive orders. Liberals clame to be about freedom yet they do not stand for the freedom to bear arms or freedom of speech. Conservatives are supposed to be for smaller government and less present in global affairs yet their political affiliates they live so much do the opposite. All i see around me are walking contradictions and they don't even realize it. | 1,731,291,400 | Lanky_Wait_2219 | nan | nan | 2024-11-11 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Israel is more dangerous to the USA than Iran | {'id': 'lrnfrb4', 'text': 'So you’re saying that someone accidentally harming someone else is less ethically wrong than someone intentionally directing another person to harm a person. Please explain with that in mind how Israel’s accidental strike on the USS Liberty was more ethically wrong than Iran’s use of its proxy forces.', 'author': 'LysenkoistReefer', 'score': 12, 'timestamp': 1728780360} | {'id': 'lrna1sk', 'text': 'Premise 1 can potentially work if you take the position that Israel has killed more Americans in armed attacks than Iran, but if you consider the arming and funding of proxy groups such as Hamas, Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, etc. as a form of killing, then Iran has very likely killed more Americans.', 'author': 'FerdinandTheGiant', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728778121} | 1g2d5n5 | CMV: Israel is more dangerous to the USA than Iran | To argue that Israel poses a greater danger to the USA than Iran, I'm going to base my argument on three primary premises (as described below). To be clear; this is the argument that Isreal HAS BEEN and currently IS more dangerous to the USA than Iran, and not a argument of what WILL be the case in the future; although reasonable minds can assume trends will continue.
**Premise 1: Israel has killed more American citizens than Iran ever has.**
Historically, Israel has been involved in incidents that resulted in the deaths of American citizens, with perhaps the most notable example being the attack on the USS *Liberty* in 1967. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces attacked the American naval intelligence ship, killing 34 Americans and injuring 171. Israel claimed the attack was a mistake, but many analysts and veterans of the incident contest this, arguing it was intentional. This remains one of the deadliest incidents of American lives lost at the hands of an ally.
While Iran has been associated with the deaths of Americans, particularly through proxy groups like Hezbollah or in the context of conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, these incidents have not resulted in the same scale of direct fatalities involving American citizens. The key difference here is that Iran’s involvement in American deaths has typically been indirect or through paramilitary actions, while Israel’s actions have involved direct state-to-state incidents.
This is not even to speak of more modern cases, such as Aysenur Eygi, a 26-year-old Turkish American activist, who was killed by an Israeli soldier while protesting Israeli settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank. There are countless other examples of this.
**Premise 2: Israel has more influence over American politics and policy through AIPAC.**
Israel’s influence over American politics and policy, particularly through organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is significant. AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States, consistently shaping the discourse on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. AIPAC’s lobbying has ensured that U.S. aid to Israel continues at high levels, and that U.S. foreign policy remains firmly aligned with Israeli interests, even when those interests might not align with broader American national security concerns.
In contrast, Iran’s influence on U.S. politics is negligible. There is no equivalent to AIPAC for Iran; U.S.-Iran relations have been adversarial for decades, with Iran largely being viewed as an enemy or a threat. And whatever influence iran DOES exert over USA politics via bots, espionage (which they undoubtably do), it is immaterial compared to the sheer weight of influence exerted by israel. As a result, Iran’s ability to sway U.S. policy is virtually non-existent compared to Israel’s far-reaching and deeply embedded influence. This influence extends beyond military aid and foreign policy into domestic politics, where support for Israel is often a litmus test in elections, especially within Congress.
**Premise 3: Israel has dragged the United States into more Middle East conflicts than Iran.**
The U.S. has repeatedly provided military support to Israel in various conflicts, either through direct intervention or by backing Israel in international diplomacy and arms supply. Notable examples include:
1. **1973 Yom Kippur War:** The U.S. launched Operation Nickel Grass, an airlift that resupplied Israel with weapons during the conflict.
2. **Lebanon 1982:** The U.S. deployed Marines to Lebanon during Israel’s invasion, leading to the deaths of 241 U.S. service members in the 1983 Beirut bombing.
3. **Gulf Wars (1991, 2003):** Though not directly aimed at Israel, U.S. involvement was influenced by protecting Israel from missile attacks from Iraq. During the first Gulf War, U.S. forces intervened to prevent Iraqi Scud missile strikes on Israel.
4. **Continued support:** The U.S. provides billions in military aid annually to Israel and has actively engaged in joint missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling, to protect Israeli interests in the region.
In contrast, while Iran has been an adversary, it has not directly entangled U.S. forces in the same scale of military interventions driven by protecting a key ally, as Israel has. Iran's influence has mostly led to indirect conflict through proxies, rather than full-scale military involvement. | 1,728,777,268 | SaberiSixRealtor | nan | nan | 2024-10-12 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Buying a purebreed cat when you are surrounded by homeless cats is unethical | {'id': 'lvk3y86', 'text': 'She’s an amazing little cat! Fortunately her disability isn’t super debilitating (she was originally intended to be a breeding cat, she acquired nerve damage that would prevent her from giving live birth) but I would absolutely purchase a Bengal in the future if I couldn’t rescue. \n\nBeing able to not only mitigate my allergies, but being able to check her line so health history can be tracked, is a huge boon and offers peace of mind. I know what medical issues to keep an eye out for and she had been health tested as a kitten. As sad as it is, there’s always a chance that you adopt a shelter cat that has significant health problems. I very much believe in rescuing (my dog is a rescue adoption!) but it’s easy enough for me to understand why someone may not want to gamble so much with genetics. \n\nI’m close to a family that brought home two shelter kittens, both of which ended up dying just a couple of months post-adoption from health problems that no one knew about. It was *devastating* for the family. While there’s obviously never a health guarantee simply from being aware of genetics, you’re a lot more likely to take appropriate preventative care when you know what to look for.\n\nConsider that human adoptees are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to health history— they could live their entire life not knowing that their family has a high history of cancer, possesses significant heart disease risk, or is genetically predisposed to carrying horrible diseases. \n\nWhile it obviously isn’t an exact equivalence, it’s a good example of how knowing health history and predisposition can both save stress, money, and lives. I can look at my cat and know hip dysplasia is a distinct possibility as she heads into her sunset years, so I proactively take measures for preventative care. In contrast, it took me months and countless medical bills to determine that my dog was *defecating blood* over a freaking food allergy.', 'author': 'Puzzleheaded_Mix4160', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730829322} | {'id': 'lvjgx1f', 'text': "I think you'll have to either extend this view to cover more things or you will have to walk it back and I'll try to explain why.\n\n>Most people's motivation to buy a purebreed cat is simply their looks\n\npeople buy lots of things simply for their looks. And I think its a bit more then looks, people guy things as status symbols. LIke i have a painting in my house that is kind of expensive and i have it either because i like the way it looks or to show off to my friends my ability to afford it. Or maybe both. People do the same thing with cars, you don't really buy a BWM because its fast. If you buy an expensive car then everyone around you knows that you can afford an expensive car. I think its the same with pure breed cats.\n\nso why is it unethical for me to spend a few thousand dollars on a cat but not for me to spend a few thousand dollars on a painting. In both cases i allocated my money toward not helping a stray cat?\n\nmaybe you say, well if you don't want at cat then it is fine to spend your money on other things. But how is that different from not wanting a stray cat.\n\n>Because many people prefer purebreed cats.\n\nand i prefer paintings and leather jackets. \n\nI think you could probably make the case that all luxury items are unethical so long as there is suffering in the world, but nobody lives their life based on that principle. Except maybe Jesus.", 'author': 'jatjqtjat', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730822605} | 1gk4rl5 | CMV: Buying a purebreed cat when you are surrounded by homeless cats is unethical | If you live in an area where there are tons of stray cats or if there are shelters full of cats waiting for adoption, and you still choose to buy a purebreed cat, it's unethical act.
Most people's motivation to buy a purebreed cat is simply their looks which is not a valid reason when there are tons of cute cats waiting for adoption. For many of cats adoption is life or death situation. Unlike dogs, cats behaviors is primarily depends on their individual personality rather than their breed. I feed and TNR stray cats, I can confidently say that their personalities are extremely diverse and there are any type of stray cat. There are many extremely affectionate fully socialized cats among the strays I feed and nobody adopts them despite my efforts. Because many people prefer purebreed cats. Because of high demand they are produced a lot. It's not okay to produce a lot of purebreed cats when there is overpopulation of homeless cats. This is entirely peoples fault for crazily demanding purebreed cats.
Also I'm not sure if this is a global thing but where I live many people view owning purebreed cats as prestigious thing. It's way of showing off. Which is extremely unethical. They are sentinent beings not objects to show off.
| 1,730,807,032 | Party-Background8066 | nan | nan | 2024-11-05 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The blanket idea that child support should be forced even if abortion is legalized falls apart with the concept of SA | {'id': 'lymd3il', 'text': 'But laws banning doctors from performing abortion don’t violate bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy only gives you the right to do things to your body by yourself. It does not give doctors the right to perform abortions.', 'author': 'Relative-File-1321', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732388939} | {'id': 'lyl8f8k', 'text': "Because it's not about the victim of tape, it's about the child. You wouldn't bee rewarding a rapist for assaulting a man, but providing financial support for the kid that had nothing to do with it.", 'author': 'Domestiicated-Batman', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732375767} | 1gy1uxk | CMV: The blanket idea that child support should be forced even if abortion is legalized falls apart with the concept of SA | This is one concept that I've never heard discussed or seen come up and it popped into my head while reading a different post about a prisoner who apparently impregnated like 5 people who worked for the prison.
So the argument I see regarding forced parenthood is usually this:
**A:** If women have the choice to have an abortion, and by extension, choose to be parents, then men should also have the option to opt out of parenthood and not be responsible for child support.
**N:** The difference is that when a woman has an abortion there is no baby to continue taking care of, where as if a child is born, it needs financial support.
**A:** But even men who aren't the biological father can be placed on child support fraudulently or under false pretenses and even in the event that they are determined not to be the father they cannot get that money back
**N:** The child's wellbeing takes priority and by requiring that money to be paid back, it would negatively impact the child.
so on and so on....I think I've seen and participated in every argument here from Safe Havens, to if a man chooses not to use protect he's agreeing to parenthood, etc. If I had to break down the main points of why people believe men should be forced into child support, even in the event that he didn't consent to being a father, It would be:
* **It's in the child's best interest**
* **It takes burden off the mother making it more equitable**
* **It benefits society by not taking on the burden of someone's child**
* **It's the morally responsible thing to do as the child is an innocent bystander**
But one argument I"ve never seen come up extremely often as a foundation in the abortion debate is "well what if the woman was raped"? How does the woman prove she was raped? Rape often goes prosecuted so if she loses should she still be required to give birth? Is it not better to err on the side of the victim? All fair questions
If we apply the same question as a foundation: What if the man was raped, those concepts fall apart to me. It's unfortunately not rare for some women to try to trap a man with a baby through what is essentially rape. We can look at the one guy who was raped by his teacher at 14, I believe, she got pregnant and he was legally on the hook for child support. It also happens to a lot of celebrities and athletes where women will intentionally poke holes in the condom (or even more disgustingly take a condom from the trash and try to inseminate themselves) in order to be entitled to some of their money. We can even add in that a lot of people have drunken sex which could be deemed as rape since neither person can truly consent.
With those concepts in mind, let's say a guy doesn't want to be on the hook for a child so he claims the woman raped him, either falsely or truthfully. In that event, following the same foundation of parenthood/bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion, doesn't that eliminate the above concepts and suggest that the man should not be forced to pay child support? The only alternative to me would be to agree that in the event someone has a crime commit against them, they face responsibility for any outcome of that crime. | 1,732,374,990 | Shak3Zul4 | nan | nan | 2024-11-23 | 2024_fall |
CMV: If you don't know the culture of a country well, when faced with a controversial topic you should first ask questions and then form an opinion. | {'id': 'lsq1t36', 'text': '>Obviously, in extreme cases it is okay to say "no", even if we don\'t have much context\n\n>Well, that\'s not a cultural thing. We\'re talking about science here.\n\nBut aren\'t there some "cultural things" that are as clear cut as "science things"? Like "should people in interracial relationships be mocked" or "should women be pushed away from being scientists" might actually be controversial in certain locations and times. But I don\'t feel the need to deeply learn about those times and places to condemn the practices. \n\nIf someone doesn\'t know anything about the Jim Crow south besides that they were not fans of interracial relationships, they can criticize that.\n\n>But it would be stupid to say that "all Americans are potential mass murderers" just because I hear about that in my country and that many people are pro-gun.\n\nWell "all Americans are potential mass murderers" is just a crazy idea. But, you only need very few facts to criticize gun culture and laws over here. Like even just comparing the violence levels in similar countries and how much guns contribute to that is just a few numbers, but completely valid to criticize the US for.\n\nOr, on the individual level, if some American blows his head off trying to do some dumb trick with his gun, you can call that guy "stupid". You don\'t need to understand gun culture or much about the US to do that.\n\n>Do you see my point?\n\nI understand that people should often have humility when criticizing other cultures. And I understand that "controversial" is sometimes used as a proxy for "uncertain". But, these two conditions are not always valid. Sometimes you don\'t need to understand cultures deeply to criticize them (you agreed to this in extreme cases). And, not all controversial topic are uncertain (you agreed with this in the science case, but it is also true with certain "cultural things").\n\nI\'ll also add that sometimes outsiders can offer a BETTER perspective than insiders. The outsiders can sometimes bring fresh, objective eyes on the topic.', 'author': 'NutellaBananaBread', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729362848} | {'id': 'lsq1sva', 'text': 'So in my country we have this amazing tradition of Saint Nicolas, which was stolen from us and rebranded into Santa Claus. Like Santa Claus our Sint Nicolas has helpers, to be specific he has blacked faced helpers. The face of the helper turned black (que people wearing black face is seen as normal) because they enter houses through the chimney to deliver presents. If you ask a random red neck they claim that for that reason there isn\'t a racist aspect in this celebration. After all it is just the chimney making the helper black!!! In your line of reasoning this would be perfectly fine....\n\xa0\nExcept it ignores many "minor" details that are extremely problematic. For example that black people throughout the year are called Black Pete (name of the helper). Like random people on the street shouting "he black Pete where are you going?" Morever, Black Pete is a stereotype: think big red lips, curly hair, big golden earrings. Obviously he is clumsy and not that smart, smart decisions and solving of the problems caused by Pete is left to Saint Nicolas. Did I already mention that we have lovely songs with texts like "don\'t be afraid my child, I am a friend,\xa0though I am black as soot,\xa0I do mean well". I can go on and on about racist details in the celebration. Yet, up until today lots of people (including politicians) defend the celebration as not racist and say anyone having problems with it attacks our culture.\xa0\n\n\nYou say you cannot point fingers without more detail, yeah you can. People coming from said culture can see and agree it is racist.\xa0', 'author': 'loopsygonegirl', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729362846} | 1g7dxhv | CMV: If you don't know the culture of a country well, when faced with a controversial topic you should first ask questions and then form an opinion. | I see this a lot from people who have an opinion about my country (Argentina) without having any idea of the idiosyncrasy, culture and customs here.
Every so often a controversy arises because someone internationally recognized makes a comment that is offensive: It happened with the racist chants of the Argentine national team, now it is happening with the Formula 1 driver, Colapinto, making homophobic jokes
And every time someone tries to explain the situation, everyone ends up assuming that the person explaining it is just mentally juggling to justify their racism/homophobia/etc.
The reality is not so simple.
----
Argentina has a culture of bothering others, of making others angry.
This can be clearly seen in the chants of the football fans. This chants are not usually "let's go team to win!", but rather "the others are all #%\^$%".
It is also very normal to bother fans of the rival team when your team wins. And not in a friendly way...
I am NOT saying that the chants are not racist or homophobic. **They are, and very much so**. In fact, the infamous anti-France chant is "mild" compared to the original chant it is based on.
But **the Argentine people** **are not** (generally) racist or homophobic.
The classic "*Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity*" applies perfectly to this situation.
----
So my point is:
You may think that you are facing a racist/homophobic situation, and it probably is, but **judging with your culture in mind** the actions of a person **from a different culture** is wrong.
You should first ask what is happening to natives of that country, and based on that draw your conclusions, **even if they are the same conclusions as at the beginnin**g, but at least now you are informed.
And this applies everywhere.
If I see that a certain social group in Japan is not being treated as I consider correct, I cannot put on my "moral police" hat and start pointing a finger at what I think is wrong.
I should first inform myself in detail, and then form an opinion.
| 1,729,358,692 | AestheticNoAzteca | nan | nan | 2024-10-19 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Everyone shouldn't be expected to know about the Holocaust | {'id': 'lvwxwb1', 'text': 'THe issue is that u dont understand the need for the UN if u dont understand the specific evil of those things.\n\nDid i earn a delta?', 'author': 'Wintores', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730995155} | {'id': 'lvwx46f', 'text': '\\> *and*\xa0they kept records of what they did too\n\nWhat records are you speaking of?', 'author': 'irespectwomenlol', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1730994901} | 1glt1km | CMV: Everyone shouldn't be expected to know about the Holocaust | As a Thai history nerd, I have an extensive knowledge of history and an obviously aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. However, I see many Westerners criticizing Thailand and other Asian countries for not teaching their kids about the Holocaust. I feel like this is just hilarious and hypocritical of them.
How many people know about the war crimes Myanmar committed on Thailand? The Sack of Ayutthaya in 1767 killed over 200,000 people and destroyed many historical records, poetry, and scientific documents. Thailand's population at that time was only 4 million so 5% of the Thai population was killed. Also, the Burmese raided the countryside and killed many Thai people. This isn't to say the same as Thailand itself also committed a lot of warcrimes in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, but that people don't know about this part of history.
How many people know how the British and other European powers economically enslaved Thailand. Many people might think Thailand was free from colonization but it was not free. The British and other European powers imposed many uneven treaties on Thailand and essentially destroyed Thailand's economic industry. Thailand modernized 10-20 years before Japan but only started to industrialize in the 1950s as opposed to Japan in 1870.
People may argue that Western history is more important than Thai history because Thailand had relatively few impacts compared to Western history, but isn't that just racist? It's like saying that black people are inferior because they were historically subservient to Western and Middle-Eastern people.
I don't expect people outside of Thailand to have mandatory history lessons on Thai history, but I also don't expect Thailand or other Asian countries to have mandatory history lessons on the Holocaust. The Holocaust doesn't affect me or my country in any way so why should every Thai who isn't a history nerd be forced to learn about it? | 1,730,993,297 | Any_Donut8404 | nan | nan | 2024-11-07 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Provided one have a different password on every website, there is no real point in complicated, hard to guess passwords | {'id': 'lyylvy0', 'text': '> Your own source shows almost all of those are social engineering phishing attacks, not password cracking.\n\nThose are just a different form of password hacking. Like, if your password is complex, you may not even remember it. But, if it is simple, it will pop right to the front of your mind. In a social engineering scenario, having to go look up your password before blurting it out might buy you enough time to say "Hey, is this a scam?"\n\n>This link is about breaching the actual website and finding security leaks, not breaking into individual accounts.\n\nThey do the first so they can later do the second.', 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732565940} | {'id': 'lyyk74y', 'text': 'i guess it depends on what you define as a "password". is a passkey a password in your view? passkeys are comprised of \\~1400 bytes that are generated each time you request the passkey from your keychain. it is incredibly complicated, incredibly hard to guess, and single-use. \n \nthe benefit of a keychain is that no sensitive information is transferred: the website sends data to sign, the keychain signs it, and sends the signature back, then the website validates the signature. if your keychain is not on the device you\'re logging into the website from, the whole process communicates over bluetooth. this ensures nothing leaves the immediate physical boundary of the bluetooth range.\n\nif the server is compromised, this doesn\'t help the attacker much. all you have in the database is credential ids. you still need to somehow forge the passkey\'s private key in order to sign the attestation containing the credential id you managed to leak. \n \nthe beauty of all of this, is that on the end user side there\'s nothing to remember, you just scan your face or fingerprint, or whatever other method you have, and you\'re done. you don\'t have to double check you\'re on the right url, because unless your device or browser is severely compromised, the passkey you choose is only for the relaying party that initiates the webauthn flow. so for example if fake-example.com asks for credentials for example.com, your keychain will only retrieve saved credentials for fake-example.com (of which you have none).', 'author': 'acorneyes', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732565418} | 1gzqxyb | CMV: Provided one have a different password on every website, there is no real point in complicated, hard to guess passwords | Obviously pretty much any website will limit login attempts and they're not going to let any account get bruteforced. The reasons for a complex password are in the case of security leaks, when attacks get access to the database and hashes and can get far more attempts per second than the website would normally allow. However, if one have a different password at every website it's hardly an issue that they can bruteforce it and find it that way. I would go so far as to argue that a password such as “George”, of course easily bruteforcible with a dictionary attack would be sufficient for a website such as Reddit provided it be re-used nowhere for this reason | 1,732,561,694 | muffinsballhair | nan | nan | 2024-11-25 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Politicians who vote against policies on religious grounds are no different to those who use pseudoscience to justify their stances. | {'id': 'lyxqp3e', 'text': 'So? It is certainly obnoxious and prejudiced, but contrary to popular belief, not all obnoxiousness and prejudice is religious.', 'author': 'hacksoncode', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732556297} | {'id': 'lyxbao2', 'text': 'Thats all people. Everyone does this, atheists included. They have ideas on the world and they force others into it.', 'author': 'Haunting-Tell-6959', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732551550} | 1gzmh12 | CMV: Politicians who vote against policies on religious grounds are no different to those who use pseudoscience to justify their stances. | This might not be popular, so I'll preface this by saying that people should 100% be allowed to practice any belief system they choose - provided that their practice doesn't harm others.
This should not, however, be allowed to be used as an excuse to vote against policies such as assisted dying, abortion or vaccines, as these affect the wider public who do not necessarily practice the same religion.
Yes, I know I am describing secularism, however, if the people who's role it is to run a country object to something on religious grounds, it should be their responsibility to demonstrate in empirical terms exactly why their belief is correct, and therefore justify forcing it upon the wider public.
Any politician who was an anti-vaxxer during covid was - quite rightly - hung out to dry, for believing in unscientific nonsense, yet religious beliefs are not subject to the same scrutiny despite being objectively more fantastical than claims that 5g makes us sick, or vaccines will turn you into a Morlok. | 1,732,551,153 | TBK_Winbar | nan | nan | 2024-11-25 | 2024_fall |
cmv: "Objective" Journalism isn't real and never was | {'id': 'lx9auzv', 'text': "Trying to do three times as much work in the same space of time has two effects. One is that they spend less time checking the accuracy of their stories to make sure they’re true and the other is that they are having to rely less and less on their their own investigative journalism and more and more on other sources of information. Now the normal pipelines of information, the local newspapers and independent journalists, have been cut and replaced by new kinds of service providers.\n\nOne of the big ones are the wire agencies like the Press Association. These are the people that the Queen or an MP or the police service or government departments speak to if they want to make a national or an international statement. Every news organisation of any sizes subscribes to them. All the national papers, all the major regions, all the freesheets like the Metro, all of the BBC national and regional outlets, all the commercial news and radio stations, they all subscribe to it and they all rely on it. A study into the major Fleet Street publications, the respected ones like The Times, The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph, as well as the Daily Mail because it’s a monstrously well-selling mid-market title found that about a third of their articles were direct rewrites of Wire material where at best they’d just slightly changed the layout. Another fifth were largely reproduced from the Wire and another fifth on top of that contained elements of wire stories but had a fair amount of original material added on top. That’s about 70% of major uk stories either wholly or partly rewritten from wire copy. It’s completely replaced the national network of local journalists as the major pipeline of stories into the big papers. A typical journalistic rule is that you need two sources for every story. For a lot of media organisations, including the beeb, a Press Association story pulled off of the wire doesn’t need a second story to go on the waves, it’s considered good to go as is. The problem is that wire organisations just aren’t up to the job, either in terms of coverage or accuracy.\n\nThis means that the unique selling point of media is no longer the unique stories they've investigated and scooped their competitors on, because they're all really just regurgitating the information from the same sources. So how can they stand out? What can they do to attract attention now? It's to give their paper a spin to target a particular demographic, which is usually a political segment.\n\nJournalism in the past wasn't perfect, but it also wasn't inherently based on political division as it was in the past.\n\n2/2", 'author': 'Toverhead', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731676191} | {'id': 'lx9ae76', 'text': "Objectivity is like justice. Both are pretty impossible in a subjective and amoral existence, but those don't mean you shouldn't strive for both ideals, it does mean that you need to act like you don't have either.\n\nYou will never have a whole story, you should strive to have the whole story, but also not do irreversible actions just in case you are missing something.", 'author': 'MassGaydiation', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731676012} | 1grvl12 | cmv: "Objective" Journalism isn't real and never was | This past decade or so, there's been a lot of talk regarding "biased" journalism : journalism that is deemed too partisan by either side. To name the USA only, FOX News being deemed a conservative propaganda outlet by the Democrat side, and Republicans thinking the same of democrats with CNN. Let me be clear right now that I do not disagree with these assessments. I believe that regardless of what one's personal political ideology might be, it isn't difficult to see that FOX News, for exemple, is largely a conservatve news network for some very obvious reasons. It's owned by conservative personalities who have an interest in presenting a conservative perspective and who are quite aware of the power held by a major news outlet like the one in their ownership. Consequently, FOX is staffed predominently by conservative personalities, and ends up having a conservative bend. Similarly, for historical reasons, CNN is a more liberal network, staffed with more liberal personalities than that on FOX news.
Following this line of reasoning, I've witnessed a lot of wishing from either side for a return to what I'll refer to as "good old, truthful journalism". A return to what is often presented as the good old times of journalism, when journalists were real journalists, concerned only with presenting the true, objective facts of the situation, unburdened by partisan bias. Of course, there's a lot of disagreement on what it means to be an 'objective' or unbiaised source. Unsurprisingly, each side tends to trust outlets that lean toward their own political bend more, and deem those sources with whom they agree with as more objective or truthful. ([Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/))
Which is where my personal opinion comes in. The time of "good ol', objective journalism", as in, journalism unburdened by a particular perspective or political bend, never existed. Simply by virtue of being owned with particular individuals with particular interests and viewpoints they'll consider as the norm and the "objective" truth, from which will sprout the choices in who'll get what positions therein, I believe any piece of journalism that deals with the news will, inherently, have a political bend to it. This doesn't mean, to be clear, that every piece of journalism ever is or has to be as overt as a political pamphlet, or that there isn't a degree to which different news sources will allow that political bend to get in the way of their integrity. But a PURELY nonpolitical news source with no political bend whatsoever, as so many seem to wish to "return" to? I simply don't believe that's possible.
I don't believe objectivity, when dealing with political issues, is a real thing, simply by the fact that politics is inherently subjective. Even if the manner in which the subject is dealt with isn't overtly partisan, the subjects that are chosen to be presented themselves IS a political choice. With so many things going on in the world at all, times, how does one decide what the most "important" ones are, the ones most worthy of being broadcast and commented? It's a political, subjective choice.
Let me make clear that I don't think that DOESN'T mean there hasn't been an uptick in misinformation as of late. I believe that's a different issue entirely and has more to do, in my opinion, with the quality of journalism rather than on its "impartiality.". One of the goals of journalism is the spreading of ideas, to let the public consider new perspectives. Impartiality and a refusal to engage politically, I believe, runs counter to that.
I believe that, rather than strive for "impartial" journalism, something I don't think can be achieved and maybe shouldn't, it's a much more realistic and healthy goal to aknowledge one's inherent political bend. Pretending to be objective while not truly being it (because one can't be it) is a slippery slope to straight out lying, or bending the truth to fit one's agenda. I believe it'd be much healthier for news outlets to drop the facade and openly aknowledge what their political bend is so that the public would at least know where that outlet is coming from, which would inform their perspective as to why each outlet is saying this or that.
To change my view, I think one would have to :
\-Provide a satisfactory definition of what "objectivity" in journalism means and why it's ultimately a desirable outcome.
\-Explain to me how it'd be possible to deal with political topics without bringing a political bend to it yourself.
| 1,731,674,855 | CommunicationTop6477 | nan | nan | 2024-11-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Germany wasn't evil in WW1 | {'id': 'lz7j4c4', 'text': "And the Serbians accepted it, mostly. Of course, the parts you're leaving out, and the parts they rejected, would have meant giving up their sovereignty as an independent state.", 'author': 'Whydino1', 'score': 18, 'timestamp': 1732691654} | {'id': 'lz7h1st', 'text': 'Did my point about Kaiser Wilhelm being *the* major contributor to the conditions that led to a conflict between A-H and Serbia spiraling into a wider war change your view at all?', 'author': 'Morthra', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1732690422} | 1h0xtfa | CMV: Germany wasn't evil in WW1 | WW1 was started when a Serbian terrorist murdered the Austrian Archduke and his wife. Shouldn't Germany have the right to defend her ally against a country that endorses such acts. The dispute between Austria-hungary and Serbia only spiralled into a european war when Russia and France decided to help Serbia. So it was really everyone's fault that WW1 happened
Yes I know Imperial Germany committed the Herero genocide, but it was unsuprising for the time as many other European colonisers commited similar acts. King Leopold II of belgium enslaved people in the Congo, the Dutch had colonies in Indonesia and committed similar atrocities [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawagede\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawagede_massacre)
To be clear, Germany was the instigator of WW2, I am not a neo nazi. But demonising Germany for everything is a bit unfair. No one was good or bad in WW1, the net of alliances made it inevitable that regional conflict could spiral into a coalition vs coalition war. | 1,732,688,067 | RandomKidssss | nan | nan | 2024-11-27 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Neoliberalism Perverted Our Society And Destroyed Democracy As We Knew It. | {'id': 'luqxbpb', 'text': 'So let’s just make things easy and use the start of the Reagan administration as your point of delineation. Your post makes the following claims regarding alleged impacts of neoliberalism, such that we should expect to see measures of these increase starting with Reagan’s inauguration:\n\n1. Decreased political responsiveness/more entrenched elite control of political institutions.\n\n2. Decreases in overall well-being while wellbeing among upper class citizens increases.\n\n3. Increased socioeconomic inequality.\n\n4. Reduced levels of compassion surrounding poverty and suffering.\n\nIt’s not clear that any point other than 3 is obviously true (and even point 3 is… kind of weird). I’ll take each in turn.\n\nFirst, while there is a strong argument that the US government is not very sensitive to democratic pressure, it’s not obvious that that has gotten worse and in fact a lot of our bigger political issues can be traced to fraying elite control of political institutions coinciding with the rise of mass media, particularly on the GOP’s side where Reaganite neoliberals have largely been vanquished by populist Bircher types, the most recent of which is Trump. Eroding elite control of institutions is widely discussed in the political science literature on American politics; it’s crazy to think books like *The Party Decides* could have been written about politics in the same country that saw the rise of MAGA. While Trump is certainly rich, he represents a class of rich people who have generally been excluded from elite status who have increasingly been able to use direct access to voters to rally support. Additionally, it’s unlikely that the elite-dominant political system of the pre-Reagan era would allow self-described socialists like Bernie or AOC from developing a following.\n\nAnd importantly, this all occurred largely because of the neoliberal regulatory consensus that has left social media generally unregulated compared to broadcast media forms.\n\nSecond, in terms of overall well-being, almost every objective measure except for overall inequality has gotten better, with a notable exception being the cost of housing, something that is difficult to pin on neoliberals since barriers to housing construction are almost always rooted not in neoliberalism but in a fetish for local governance and democratic interference in the disposition of private property. Neoliberalism isn’t the barrier to expanded public housing investment either though public housing is entirely incapable of resolving the housing crisis without implementing a command economy that forced people to move out of the places they choose to try to live (which advocates generally shirk).\n\nThe third point is valid - inequality has increased by most measures, though in an absolute sense incomes have increased for all parties, just relatively moreso for the rich. I don’t personally view this as super important but I don’t want to invalidate the point either, there is a good argument that inequality has gotten worse.\n\nAnd the fourth point, I don’t have any hard data on this but I work in the welfare system, and previously the child welfare system, and I think that in an intangible sense we’ve seen a massive shift in the opposite direction as you propose - in the time between when I grew up in poverty to now, we’ve gone from treating poverty as a moral failure to a systemic one, perhaps too much so (which is a different discussion entirely); it’s almost considered bigotry to criticize someone on the basis of their socioeconomic contribution even in circumstances where it’s relevant.\n\nIf anything, I think the shift from classically liberal perspectives which were dominant among American liberalism prior to the 1980s to the neoliberal consensus that was very briefly dominant before being subsumed to something else entirely provided the framework for the hyper-structural and institutional modes of thinking dominant in most policy analysis, in a way which has sapped Americans, and particularly working class Americans, of their functional agency and moral autonomy. By reducing humans to the sum of their interactions, we lose the ability to make qualitative assessments on human behavior that aren’t lost entirely to quantitative analysis. As a quant it’s an odd argument for me to make, but it’s very difficult for most people to genuinely adapt their thinking to a probabilistic rather than deterministic world, which is a significant barrier to better policymaking. But I don’t think your analysis of how neoliberalism has impacted us is correct; I think it’s a convenient boogeyman to cast as an opponent in pursuit of your own ideology, but convenience has little analytical merit.\n\nMost of what has gone wrong over the past 40 years can be attributed to the average American voter being simultaneously braindead and bloodthirsty.', 'author': 'EmpiricalAnarchism', 'score': 44, 'timestamp': 1730403942} | {'id': 'luquzj0', 'text': 'Although I agree to a point and this was really well written and touches on important social and psychological nuances of how we react to these systems,\n\nIt’d be really great if you guys researched the actual economic model that we use that makes these abuses possible, that’s the shared foundation between neoliberalism and neoconservativism. Please research that before jumping into political theory that was born from adopting that model. You can’t critique something effectively if you don’t know the source of the intricacies and the options that it provides people in power who are supposed to steward it.\n\nOne thing to note before you jump into learning about a Keynesian economic model, it was originally endorsed by Mussolini in the 20’s as one of the best introductions to fascist economic theory even though Keynes himself was a liberal.\n\nBecause of our economic model and the results of it’s effects, I would literally refer to neoliberalism and neoconservativism as fascist-adjacent from the jump because of this, and also because you’re arguing between two points that are both designed for corporatism, not capitalism.\n\nIf you understand this point, it’ll make sense why every president post-Cheney, blue or red, ends in the same three conclusions: Unprecedented stock/GDP growth, Ballooning debt, and an even greater income gap. We desperately needed economic reform after the Cold War and still do.\n\nI totally understand if we adopted authoritarian principles to fight another authoritarian society but if we don’t return, then we will just become what we fought for like 40 years straight, and I think that’s exactly what’s happening.', 'author': 'CreamMyPooper', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730403199} | 1gglp0a | CMV: Neoliberalism Perverted Our Society And Destroyed Democracy As We Knew It. | Neoliberalism has perverted our society and destroyed democracy by promoting the idea that human relations are defined by competition and that citizens. The ideology advocates market mechanisms over traditional institutions of political democracy. It suggests that the individual choice in the market place is better than voting at the ballot box. Neoliberals believe that the market rewards merit and punishes inefficiencies and that the efforts to limit competition of promote equality are counterproductive and morally corrosive.
In reality, neoliberalism has led to governments becoming beholden to investors and big corporations, rather than serving the people. It has worsened inequalities, privatized public services and destroyed trade unions and public bargaining. The pursuit of profit above everything has destroyed many people’s well being while the wealthy continues to get wealthier at the expense of the majority.
Neoliberalism is fundamentally an anti-humanist ideology, which reduces humans to commodities and rejects the values of empathy, solidarity and collective welfare. By elevating the cult of Market above all else, Neoliberalism has created a rotten system that is devoid of compassion, justice, humanity, where the interests of the powerful few are prioritized over the needs of the many. It promotes a Social Darwinistic mindset where the only strong survive while the weak is left to fend for themselves and falter and in this case the so called strong are the wealthy while the vulnerable of our society who are the sick and the needy are the weak. Its basically Fascism in a more politically polite setting.
**We must end this rotten system before it ends us!!** | 1,730,399,949 | OasisLiamStan72 | nan | nan | 2024-10-31 | 2024_fall |
CMV: The issue with many people today is work-ethic related, but generally instead of generationally. | {'id': 'lslfeph', 'text': '>Perhaps mismanagement has a part, too. While I\'m not management, I\'m expected to manage the back end while being front-end.\n\nDo you work in a kitchen? Where is it you work or what industry? \n\nIt\'s hard to know what kind of things you\'re referring to not getting done. \n\n>but I\'m not wanting to rock the boat too much since trying to redirect effort to what they need to be doing was met with hostility\n\nActing like a boss when you aren\'t one is generally a good way to foster resentment\n\n[Parkinson\'s law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law)\n\n"work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion",\n\nGenerally people behave this way, if there isn\'t a good workload people drag their feet and him and haw, this is not just laziness but rather what you mentioned, that you often found yourself bored, and it exposes to management that perhaps people are expendable. an employee getting all work done in 5 minutes in to their 12 hour shift is a good way to expose mismanagement, which is usually not beneficial for a worker since layoffs are usually the first thing to happen\n\n I am guessing that these workers DO get their work done, just throughout their entire shift or within the timeframe it\'s needed to get done. \n\nIf you chide them for not getting the only task they\'ve been given for their only shift done immediately, I would get annoyed as well. Basically, hurry up so we can sit around bored all day.\n\n>Would this mean a delta awarded to you for me being technically wrong?\n\nGenerally if your mind\'s been changed even a little about anything, but it\'s up to you.', 'author': 'eggs-benedryl', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729288212} | {'id': 'lsl8naz', 'text': "There have always been outliers in every generation, the ones that worked harder and achieved success. \n\nModern workplaces often report genuine measurable performance differences between generations in general. So there is a generational change in work ethic, but even then there are always outliers to either side of the norm. \n\nCongratulations on doing well. This will serve you well your entire life. Don't feel bad about those you left behind. Nobody will take care of you but you.", 'author': 'zgrizz', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729285874} | 1g6sav8 | CMV: The issue with many people today is work-ethic related, but generally instead of generationally. | As the title surmises, work ethic is an issue, but from the standpoint of people in general instead of generationally.
I see many lauding Millennials/Zoomers as lazy and not worth hiring/working with due to a perceived lack of work ethic. It's not an age or generational issue though in my opinion. What I have witnessed has been more pointed towards humanity in general.
I am not 100% on task all the time. I l'm not automatically better than anyone else. I do all I can to fight against a superiority complex. I have noticed things though.
My current workplace where my coworkers bemoan how the job is though by the very visible metrics available to everyone, we rarely Crack 20% capacity on our work. I feel there's not enough work to keep busy, and have been finding myself bored. It pays better than what I have ever done previously, but its mind nummingly boring at times. Likewise, the team I'm a part of seems to not be intellectually interested for lack of a better term? They don't want to improve processes or learn skills that would provide a better, smoother workflow. The one notion I raised to them related to this did not go well at all. I was told I was making "additional work" by suggesting that something be followed through on and not sidelined.
A previous workplace that I enjoyed, though the pay was not consummate with the work being done. My boss lauded me for what he considered rare ethic. To me it was just doing what I was paid to be there for. Working on task and completing my job to the best of my ability. I said as much too, I'm there to do my work.
I credit it to my upbringing and first job. One where I was to learn as I went but not as if I allowed to be slow to pick up on things. My ability or lack thereof of doing tasks was directly related to the pay and potential I had there. I'm not old either. 27 years young. The people I notice and why I consider it a societal issue range in age for in their 60s to 20s. Those who played fantasy football on the job instead of working. Those who used it as social club central. Those who just view what they are doing as a place to be to earn a check by existing.
Change my view please. | 1,729,284,376 | cood101 | nan | nan | 2024-10-18 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Serving sizes are inherently dishonest | {'id': 'lxckzk4', 'text': 'It’s not intentionally misleading bc it isn’t really supposed to be leading anything. It’s meant to inform you so you can decide how much you want to eat. It just defines a unit of measurement so you can do the conversion. It isn’t a conspiracy lol companies can set the unit as whatever they want as long as the nutrition information is correct for that amount of food. It isn’t designed to tell people what to eat nor should it be used that way. Anyone thinking it is, is simply misusing a tool, not really being mislead. No one is saying you should only be eating one serving of the food at a time.', 'author': 'Immediate_Cup_9021', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731713307} | {'id': 'lxci9he', 'text': "Maybe it would be more accurate to list the nutritional information for a whole bag of chips, but let's say that you do want to eat 20 chips.\n\n\nYou have to divide the amount you want by the total amount, and that's too much math for most people. It's easier if it gives the information for 15 chips, then you know that 20 chips is just 1.5x more.", 'author': 'Natural-Arugula', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731712337} | 1gs8ksn | CMV: Serving sizes are inherently dishonest |
Serving sizes are made out to measure the calories and nutrients/contents of your food, by a certain amount of volume or weight. Or amount.
But I often see food with serving sizes listed in blatantly misleading ways. We all know 7-12 chips (~28 grams) is roughly 120 calories but who in their right fucking mind is going to be satisfied off of just 12 chips? People will simply continue to eat it until they’re satisfied. I haven’t eaten chips in a long time but I’d usually fill a plastic cup, bowl, or plate with them which ends up weighing 50-70-100 grams respectively, three/four times the recommended serving.
Portion control right? No. Fuck that. For one, snacks like that are intentionally designed to make you want to eat more with a special combination of fat, sugar, and salt. Not going to accept an argument like that if they’re designed to ruin that
*(I will actually accept arguments in regards to portion control and healthy relationships with food, I’m just making a point)*
Prepackaged portions? Good idea. Problem is they’re intended to be eaten in one sitting. So why are most bags of chips/popcorn/nuts, especially the calorie dense ones like caramel, listed as 7 servings of 100 calories and IDGAF grams of sugar, fat, and salt? They literally cannot be resealed.
Crumble cookies too. Who the fuck is eating half of a cookie? You’re not supposed to be satiated off of that little food, sweets and pastries themselves aren’t that filling but have the energy density of a star so of course they have to massively undercut the amount they “Reccomend” for you, specifically for the average person that doesn’t have the time or energy to count their calories and nutrients, come off from a long day of work, eyeball some donuts and chips and see “110 calories” and think the plateful they fill for themselves is exactly 100 calories.
MThey’re right, it’s 110 per serving of 1/3rd of a donut! And I’m not settling for just one donut. It tastes fucking good.
On a personal note this is exactly why I transitioned to healthier, more filling foods like potatoes, vegetables, fruits, etc. but depending on your source, and the types of sauces/seasonings you put in. The same can be said about them albeit to a lesser extent.
Like, I measure cheese. And ketchup/mustard. Most people aren’t neurotic enough to do that even if they’re track calories. I used to pour my heart and soul into ranch seasoning since it was 0 calories! Until I found out they can legally list shit as 0 if it’s under 5. The amount of “Servings” of this seasoning is like 217 🤦🏿♂️
Look up the tic tac guy. Who the fuck is going to be satisfied off of a singular, “0 calorie” tictac? | 1,731,709,713 | Nubian_Cavalry | nan | nan | 2024-11-15 | 2024_fall |
CMV: I'm never going back to a doctor again | {'id': 'lyyq4wg', 'text': "> All I've encountered is neglect and indifference. \n\nI fully understand and have experienced this myself with my son. I have empathy for you. \n\nBut, you have to see that giving up could lead to a significant reduction in your quality of life if these issues continue to present or get worse. Have you contacted nearby research hospitals or reached out to doctors that handle complex diagnosis outside of your area?", 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 12, 'timestamp': 1732567245} | {'id': 'lyypehh', 'text': 'that is incredibly frustrating and i’m sorry to hear that that has been your experience\n\ndo you think it has anything to do with where you live or the medical resources available? the medical professionals you’ve interacted with seem wildly *unprofessional* to a point that i have to wonder where you are and their mentality of illness/injury, etc\n\nare you able to be referred or reach out to a specialist? i can understand your hesitation to seek more help but there are absolutely doctors and nurses out there who care about their patients and provide amazing care', 'author': 'elysian-fields-', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1732567023} | 1gzsxck | CMV: I'm never going back to a doctor again | I called 911 two days ago because I was unable to move, experiencing extreme vertigo, and vomiting. I was in and out of consciousness. They discharged me while I was unresponsive, after a nurse screamed at me for "throwing" myself at her while she tried to force me to walk, when I'd barely been able to lift my head for hours. I only got home safely because my partner carried me to the car.
A year and a half ago, I was discharged from the ER while actively bleeding to death and told to come back "if" I passed out. My partner had to bring me to a different ER once I did lose consciousness; I lost over a liter of blood and it took more than six months to fully recover.
Two years ago, I blacked out while experiencing extreme vertigo and sudden deafness and nearly aspirated on vomit. I woke up to EMTs hitting me in the face and screaming at me that they knew my friend was lying about this not being an overdose and that I was obviously faking. When they got me to the ER, I could barely speak and couldn't stop vomiting. The lady working intake told me if I didn't stop throwing up she wouldn't do my intake. I couldn't, obviously, so she wheeled me into a corner and left me there. My sister showed up because the friend who had called 911 called her and forced them to admit me. They immediately ordered a drug test, gave me medication that I'm allergic to, and as soon as the drug test came back clean they said "oh I guess you didn't overdose" and discharged me.
Numerous doctors have forced me onto meds that I was allergic to or otherwise intolerant of. I've been held against my will, screamed at, assaulted, and violated countless times. A nurse once jabbed an IV into me with the wrong needle gauge then pulled out the wrong part of the IV, and stood there frozen while blood spilled out of my arm before finally...get this...attempting to catch it in her hands.
I'm not an anti vaxxer nor am I anti medicine. I fully believe in both science and modern medicine. I also fully believe that, one of these days, a medical professional will kill me. Whether that be from neglect, maliciousness, or sheer stupidity, I don't know, but after the events of the past few days I've fully lost any lingering faith I had in our medical system.
I'm supposed to get a CT scan done on Wednesday to see if we can figure out what the hell is going on with my sudden deafness and vertigo after an ENT finally said I do in fact have hearing loss--my other ENT spent two years claiming my hearing was perfectly normal. I've told my partner I'm not going and that I have no intention of going back to any doctor again. Convince me it'll be safer to go than to put my faith in them again. | 1,732,566,460 | nosleeptillnever | nan | nan | 2024-11-25 | 2024_fall |
CMV: If I pay for YouTube premium, the web/app should automatically skip all sponsors within the video | {'id': 'ltiftdr', 'text': 'Check the link in the edit. It was announced for Premium on Android in June, and I confirm I have the feature on iOS 18 in October. I think what you’re asking for is already in place.', 'author': 'uiucfreshalt', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729777756} | {'id': 'ltielmk', 'text': 'you are paying so that youtube doesnt show you youtube ads.\n\nyou are not paying so that youtube skips non-youtube ads, or otherwise censoring parts of the video you want to watch.\n\nwhat you want is not what youre paying for. dont like the deal, dont take the deal. (or use regular adblock)', 'author': 'ProDavid_', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729777337} | 1gb2rvm | CMV: If I pay for YouTube premium, the web/app should automatically skip all sponsors within the video | I'm already paying for an ad-free service, it makes no sense that if I pay to not see them, I have to see them anyway.
"But YouTube can't detect them if they're in the video" -> Bullshit can perfectly detect banned words or copyrighted products, it can detect this without problems. Plus there's already the SponsorBlock extension that does this.
"But you already have extensions for that" -> I shouldn't have to use extensions for that from the start since I'm already paying for the service.
"But you can fast forward the video" -> I shouldn't have to. I'm paying for an ad-free service.
"But that's the mechanism that YouTubers use to collect money" -> It's not my problem. They should demand better salaries from YouTube. Why should the end user have to pay to not see ads and watch them anyway? If they don't like it, they should go to another publishing service... oh, wait, THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING TO MAINTAIN FREE COMPETITION.
It is a system endorsed by YouTube to avoid losing users (and paying less to youtubers), where the one who watches the videos is the one who loses in the end.
Imagine that you go to a cafe, you pay for the coffee you are going to drink, but to drink it you have to listen to an advertisement that the waiter is going to tell you.
Nobody would go to that cafe!
But if you are the only one selling coffee... the situation changes and the one who is screwed is the consumer. | 1,729,776,906 | AestheticNoAzteca | nan | nan | 2024-10-24 | 2024_fall |
CMV: tax cuts for the rich people, and aggressive tax minimization practices, although legal, are morally wrong | {'id': 'lyu9ro1', 'text': "Appreciate the partial concession on the parent. I would think the obligation if anything would be stronger to our parent than a state because a parent does a lot more for us by these metrics. But we generally don't think that obligation is high enough that the parent has a largely content-independent right to coerce their adult descendants. On the obligation of parents, my current view is they would merely have the obligation to give their child a life worth living and not to severely violate their rights. But many parents go well beyond that and well beyond what their parents gave them as far as improving their child's life and income and we don't think they have that content-independent right to tax them.\n\n> In the case of the HOA, I guess that resident does not use the said services at all. And could indeed sell his house for a higher price. I think in that case it is legit from the HOA to ask for a tax (of a sensible amount) on the selling price of the house when once it sells. But if the owner never sells, and keeps not using the services, than the HOA is not legit to impose the tax.\n\nI think this is a consistent position (excluding the parent case above). I just disagree. I don't think it's okay for a non-state actor to tax someone who didn't agree to the taxer's scheme merely because the taxer provides a corresponding benefit. Other examples include a non-state actor donating money to charity and taxing it back, or filling potholes and taxing nearby residents.", 'author': 'Lunatic_On-The_Grass', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732499838} | {'id': 'lys3lle', 'text': "The argument for a progressive tax system is that it's based on the amount of pain caused by lacking the money you give up on tax. A poor person is injured by even a little bit, so they pay very little. A rich man is only injured when you dig pretty far into his pockets, so you can charge a lot.\xa0\n\n\nThis makes sense to me, but it does also mean that when you reduce spending and cut taxes, the rich would get a larger cut. If we charge them 5% for every one percent we charge the poor, then giving back one percent to the poor should be 5% back to the wealthy. That way, it's still equal pain, and equal balm.\xa0", 'author': 'PaxNova', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732474038} | 1gywb0e | CMV: tax cuts for the rich people, and aggressive tax minimization practices, although legal, are morally wrong | So this topic has been on my mind for many years. I talked about it with several people that believe in the opposite view over the years. But so far I haven't heard an argument convincing enough to me.
I strongly value understanding both sides of a debate - independently of your own beliefs - and the vast majority of the time I am able to do that all by myself. But this topic is one of the those that eludes me totally, and I want to change that.
People who disagree with me on this topic usually tell me it is a matter of freedom for the people, freedom to hoard as much money as they wish, and freedom to enjoy not being taken what they earned from them. And to me that is too individualistic of a stand to make sense, as this causes morally wrong consequences.
Hope I'll delta my view on this matter. | 1,732,469,167 | akaPointless | nan | nan | 2024-11-24 | 2024_fall |
CMV: I've Found Myself Becoming More And More Disappointed With Gen Z/Culture Catering to Gen Z | {'id': 'lycrs0j', 'text': '>What sort of economic model does Gen Z seem to gravitate towards these days?\n\nLike all generations, Gen Z has the whole spectrum of ideas on economic policy. The guys who wrote the books everybody reads, like Hayek, Friedman, Keynes, and Marx aren\'t going to be writing new ones any time soon. I don\'t think we\'ll ever get to a point where a whole generation agrees on economic policy because the books people study aren\'t going to change quickly or soon..\n\nI think the biggest difference is that Gen Z isn\'t as split on certain social issues like gay marriage or legal weed that used to clearly divide the country. If you asked a Gen Xer in like 2000 how they felt about those things, you could probably guess who they were going to vote for. If you ask a Gen Z now, both sides will likely be supporters or indifferent. I guess my point is, adjust your barometer for what is right and left socially.\n\n>but what specifically was so repulsive so as to roll back so much environmental and social effort\n\nI suspect that Gen Z is tired of the identity politics and oppression olympics that Millennials seem to love so much. Gen Z, specifically the men, feel like democrats, or the left in general, hate them. Not so much the rhetoric from politicians, but from lefties on reddit and other places. Calling people privileged, evil, colonizer, nazis or whatever, isn\'t going to get people to come to your side even if your ideas are flawless. White people are still the majority in the US; demonizing half of them is not a good strategy.\n\nBy contrast, people on the right embrace the "demons" created by the left. They accept the problems that men say they have and offer solutions, or at the very least, don\'t call them nazis. It\'s pretty easy to get people to agree with you when the other side is openly antagonistic. On top of that, 19 year olds will be much more impressionable than 55 year old dads, and will be more likely to swing their vote.\n\n>Was it the war-mongering? \n\nYeah, linking up with the fucking Cheneys, of all people, was not a good move. \n\n>Compliance with establishment?\n\nThis too. I think the big problem for the dems this go around was that the left claims to be "the resistance." When most of the news media, facebook, twitter (until recently), hollywood, and the incumbent president are on your side, it feels very inauthentic to call yourself that. Young people want to rebel, and siding with hollywood and the current establishment is the opposite of that. The oldest Gen Zs are in their mid twenties now; they can sniff out the bullshit.', 'author': 'Doodenelfuego', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732243873} | {'id': 'lybel36', 'text': '> One thing I\'ve noticed too is a rise in "tech bro" culture that seems to participate in the derision of artistry, and particularly advocates of its erasure for AI. \n\nI dont care about modern western art.\n\nI am a 27 year old accountant. I play video games and watch anime. \n\n3 days ago I was at my father\'s house browsing TV channels - prime, hulu, and netflix. Everything was dark and depressing. Dramas, zombies, apocalyptic, etc. I was searching for about 40 minutes and the only thing I could find that wasnt depressing was just random nature videos on the discovery channel.\n\nTo call AI art "hollow" when the other side is actively depressing is just not a meaningful criticism. I prefer hollow over actively destructive messages.', 'author': 'JacketExpensive9817', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1732226349} | 1gwquju | CMV: I've Found Myself Becoming More And More Disappointed With Gen Z/Culture Catering to Gen Z | I want to preface this by saying, I have always loathed and bemoaned inter-generational slander, especially since Boomers/X consistently ostracized my generation (Millennials) as being the generation "killing" all that's good. I have detested narratives like "This new generation is rotting themselves doing all those video games", and while I do agree that there are harms from excess of things like social media and general "digital leisure", I recognize that this is something that has always been [circulated since civilizations began](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcCE8BsdGK8). I have acknowledged there are things I will initially reject or misunderstand about newer things, but that it doesn't necessarily mean it is a net negative. I attempt to do my best to check my own biases, and realize my brain will accept less and less new/changing around me. The criticisms of previous generations to mine reflect that, with how relatively technologically inept, bigoted, or outdated certain reactions were. The kids are alright.
For a while, I saw Millennials passing the cultural torch to Gen Z, and for most of that time in the past five years I saw both seemingly pretty united culturally, or so I thought. We were often showing a unified front that was critical of Neoliberal Capitalism (maybe what I missed was the "Neoliberal" part being more resented by Gen Z than the latter), more environmental concerns, and seemingly bigger on egalitarian issues. There was more outcry and awareness about certain topics and more concern about sustainable and fair legislation.
Then 2024 happened. I saw some murmurings about Gen Z's divergence, but it was from r/GenZ and opt-in polling which I knew had to be taken with a huge grain of salt due to general Reddit culture (combined with "as a black man" fallacy when we often can't verify these are actual Gen Z participants) and polling liability, respectively. The results showed more isolation/nationalist attitudes (which is a loaded word, but I'll get into why this didn't bother me as much as it does now), sexual prudence (which again, after seeing some more detailed responses, I didn't think much about), etc. When I looked at some responses on the reasoning, it made sense:
Nationalism: Even more progressive Gen Z adopted some of this, because they were seeing the faults of global economics. Outsourcing/sweat shops were seen as exploitation while also draining potential social mobility and employment within the country, while also giving a potential backdoor for foreign political influence.
Sexuality: Again, the progressive response was interesting. They said this generation was born in a time where access to sexual services are the most accessible its ever been. It's so steeped, and now fanservice/sexual titillation in media/pop culture (movies, comics, games, etc) outside of direct access like porn sites felt gratuitous and fake. Additionally, there is a tacit admittance that while sex workers could be treated better and it's a way to empower an often-neglected group, it is at the end of the day, a product of an unfair society and rarely do people engage in sex work out of fulfillment.
These are of course, tied together with some more heinous reasonings, but we've heard plenty of that from this election cycle. I thought that I couldn't trust the opt-ins too much because people who volunteer for online polling often do to amplify an agenda or just to troll around.
Turns out, the kids are not (entirely) alright.
I have never been more let-down than by seeing the rise of Zynternet/Manosphere culture, especially by my fellow males. I have also been baffled by how large certain anti-intellectual behavior/sentiments have been. I originally attributed the [teacher crisis here in the US](https://www.gradientlearning.org/gl-poll/the-great-teacher-resignation/) (especially in Red States like mine) to a mix of faulty parenting and general Conservative dismantling, but I've begun to wonder if this generation really innately embraces general disrespect to education and teaching holistically.
Then I've started to revisit what I once dismissed as my biases over better judgement, especially in tech/data since that is the industry I work in. Late Gen X/Millennials were the generation to have tech access commonly come with the prerequisite of knowing at least some script/powershell/terminal writing, and I've often come to respect early developers before me since they often had to understand hardware implementation more thoroughly. I'd like to first say that I don't think it's good design to require that burden of knowledge of your users. It's archaic, and being good in software means knowing what levels the playing field for accessibility, and it also provides benefits in efficiency and speed in navigation, etc. That said, Gen Z seems from personal experience to have backslid in overall technical literacy. I know there's a general higher ceiling of what Gen Z has and will accomplish, but I feel like when I was doing Technical Support, there was a "bell curve" in competency and age relations.
There's some other criticisms that are mostly opinionated and my own biases, but things that seem to tie into some other points here:
\-This one we all are complicit in, but I really hoped that oversaturation and exposure to problems of SaaS, Freemium models, and generally shallow or "strung-along" software development, particularly in entertainment. I know the demand for comprehensive software/services is antiquated, and patching/content trickle is necessary to sustain bigger platforms/companies while also helping alleviate inevitable bugs that come from increasingly complex design. However, I feel like there has been no criticism, no nuance in this digestive process, and the newest generations are among the most susceptible to this rise in "slop".
\-Between the fallout of teachers, increases of cyberbullying, other consequences of social media influence, and some documented trends in professional recruiting even going so far as to calling Gen Z "unhirable", it all points to a relatively hyper-individualistic culture, which might account for the increase of apathy towards disadvantaged groups. I want to again challenge this because I know some of this is cultural whiplash from the older generations who are generally the ones hiring not understanding things like the value of remote work.
\-Ironically, there has been some commentary reacting to a decrease in individual/personal expression and identities, and more desire to conform to [group "aesthetics"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31NDzvFtNnI). I think both mine and the next gen have issues with cultural "brigading" because of the internet, but it seems this goes in hand with digital influence.
\-Music has had its own changes and problems with this: Pop is always going to be a study in marrying art with commercial studies, but we are starting to see a broader correlation with what makes it to most played lists and a unique type of degradation of musical structure. I really despise this point at times because I'm a fan of abstract and deconstructive approaches, but trends in music have drifted in an extreme to "sound bites" as a consequence of TikTok since short-form content has encouraged hacking away at bridges, build-up, etc to getting to the catchiest part. It's a slightly different trend that differs from an entire song being simplistic, or more repetitive for commercial success, it's more faddish than infectious, if that makes sense.
And going back to that "bell curve", I guess that's where I've started to be more comfortable with validating my criticism. Most older gen criticisms before seemed to lean on rationalizations like moral panic based solely on personal ideology instead of Utilitarian objectives, and trivial "knowledge checks" like reading the face of a clock. Maybe programming literacy is going that way too, but for the moment it's still a very valuable and actually marketable skill across many industries, and it seems to be slightly lacking.
Admittedly, most of my nitpicks have been with the recent election results. I want to be clear, I understand that the younger vote still overall votes more egalitarian overall, but the exit polling showed what I think was a "backslide", especially culturally. Collective culture has its cons, but I really thought we were largely on board with protecting more of all of our rights in this newest politically participating generation. I really do love a lot of other broad facets of current culture and appreciate what has been contributed by Gen Z (humor, international awareness/acuity, general optimism, and again TikTok and some other newer platforms that are somewhat resolving issues discovered in older social media). | 1,732,224,512 | Phi1ny3 | nan | nan | 2024-11-21 | 2024_fall |
CMV: NATO can't just rely on drones and F-35 is a great programme overall | {'id': 'lz7r1vv', 'text': "I think that highly depends on whether ECM jamming drones is easier, equally difficult or more difficult than radar detecting a stealth plane. \n\nAnd how expensive it is. \n\nOne reason I think stealth may be better is that radar systems seem to be very very expensive. So a country cannot have a lot of them deployed everywhere. And if there's only a limited number of them, and they are difficult to replace due to cost and complexity, knocking them out with HARM missiles becomes a real possibility. \n\nNow if ECM is really just a matter (I don't know, I know very little about ECM systems) a matter of churning out thousands of relatively cheap jammers and spreading them all over, ECM can never truly be 'destroyed'. If ECM systems are very expensive, then destroying them becomes feasible.\n\nSo I think it depends on that. I know US doctrine heavily relies on basically SEAD, DEAD and then mopping up. As long as a Russian S-400 system costs 500 million a piece, I can see how the US air force can be reasonably confident that they can knock out enough of them to cripple the enemy air defense to an extent where the F22, F35 and B2 have free reign over the battlefield and indeed all of the enemy land territory. And if that happens, the enemy is well and truly fucked.", 'author': 'GrandAdmiralSnackbar', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732696678} | {'id': 'lz7mvxd', 'text': "> That doesn't really matter that much if the F-35s engage first, shoot and disengage first. They suffer much lower losses and the gap quickly narrows over the conflict. Moreover, the J-10s have rather limited utility as they can't really come anywhere near US ground based air defense.\n\nAnd what if the J-10s are *defending*? If there are so many targets that the F-35s simply cannot take them all out? An alpha strike is important and by relying solely on stealth aircraft - rather than using them to take out only critical infrastructure like fire control radars - you're making tradeoffs in speed.\n\nTo make myself clear, I'm not saying that stealth aircraft are *bad* or anything - they absolutely have their uses, but it's becoming more and more clear that relying on them for the backbone of your air force is not going to be able to produce the actual volume (at reasonable cost) of warplanes that you need to fight a peer war against a nation with a significant air force.\n\n> And Russia has tried to break through the Ukrainian air defenses on multiple occassions, because their gains from the glide bomb deployments are relatively limited.\n\nAnd yet it's *Russia* that is winning. It's *Russia* that is poised to take Pokrovsk, and with it, shut Ukraine out of the Donbas entirely.", 'author': 'Morthra', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732693977} | 1h0y1d1 | CMV: NATO can't just rely on drones and F-35 is a great programme overall | Recently, we saw quite a few "tech bros" attacking the F-35 and saying that it is obsolete because of drones. For example, Elon Musk called the F-35 builders "idiots" and Marc Andreessen said that drones are "far superior" during an interview with Joe Rogan. I believe that these people are completely wrong.
When we are discussing unmanned aircraft, we are talking about two distinct concepts, the remotely controlled platforms and the autonomous platforms.
The former was always somewhat questionable as a backbone of an air force fighting a full-scale peer conflict. The electronic warfare environment can be incredibly unforgiving in such a situation, making it very difficult to reliably control the fleet. The link is a huge systematic vulnerability and can be expected to be exploited by the enemy. We can't really trust our future into hands of such vehicles in a situation where anti-satellite weapons and nukes are flying left and right.
On the other hand, the fully autonomous machines are very interesting. With the recent improvements in the field of artificial intelligence, they are getting more realistic. But we have no idea whether they will actually be able to replace the decision making skills and the situational awareness of combat pilots in the near to mid-term future. We don't know if they don't hold systematic vulnerabilities which the enemy could exploit. And we aren't even certain, if their use is ethical.
Sure, autonomous combat aircraft should absolutely be built in numbers! They will be a great force multiplier and they may be much cheaper than manned jets (the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program aims at price per autonomous vehicle around 25 to 30 percent of a manned one). For strike roles, unmanned aircraft may soon be preferred as the proposed US Navy future strategy reflects. But a mix of manned and unmanned fleet still seems like much more resilient and healthier concept with less potential holes for the enemy to attack.
May this change? Certainly! But the time between a decision to design a new combat aircraft (manned or unmanned) and fielding this machine in numbers is at least 15 years now. And that is very optimistic. Based on the recent US, Chinese, European and Russian datapoints, we could easily assume 20-30 years. Hence, it is much safer to actually have a manned platform in your inventory in case it didn't change. Otherwise you can be decades from one.
And NATO has a great manned platform! With a flyaway cost around 80-100 million dollars depending on the version, the F-35 isn't even expensive for a modern jet. It has great sensor and electronic warfare capabilities, it can easily interface with the rest of Allied forces and carries a proper loadout.
Seeing the Russian 4.5 gen fighter jets completely fail against Ukrainian air defenses, one can truly appreciate how crucial is stealth for suppresing enemy air defenses in the modern times. With the F-35, this became a capability available to every other NATO nation.
Did the program face some early mismanagement issues? Yeah, it did. But that doesn't change the fact that the plane became great with time and we should be totally grateful that it exists now. Change my view!
| 1,732,688,950 | Downtown-Act-590 | nan | nan | 2024-11-27 | 2024_fall |
CMV: CMV: Women have all the social and legal power over men, young women have more financial power than young men and it's illegal for men to use any of their physical power over women even in self-defense. In short women have all the power over men. | {'id': 'lxgyt9x', 'text': "Your claim doesn't differentiate between different types of men. There's a wide array of men and women, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, black, white, brown. There's no evidence to support these mass blanket claims and overgeneralizations.\n\n\nIf you're open to having your mind changed on a specific point, clearly describe that point. Right now, this post is a tall castle made of sand.\xa0", 'author': 'literally_a_brick', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731782457} | {'id': 'lxgn5n9', 'text': 'Yeah obviously we\'ll always have the situation of a hiring manager\'s personal bias. What makes DEI and AA different is that it\'s written doctrine. \n\nLike, imagine if it was written down somewhere that you can only get the job if "you know somebody who knows somebody"? Rightfully, everyone would assume the person who gets the job has a personal network thing going.', 'author': 'TrueTrueBlackPilld', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1731778758} | 1gspztx | CMV: CMV: Women have all the social and legal power over men, young women have more financial power than young men and it's illegal for men to use any of their physical power over women even in self-defense. In short women have all the power over men. | When people say men are privileged or women are oppressed in the west I have no idea what they are talking about. Women have all the social and legal power over men, young women have more financial power than men and it's illegal for men to use any of their physical power over women even in self-defense. In short women have all the power over men.
Let's start with social, women have always had more social power then men, it was basically their counter balance back when men had financial power over them so it's not surprised it's persistent but the social power men have has been dwindled even further with many men not even having a single friend according to the stats and a mere accusation being able to get a fired and ostracized from society.
Now onto legal power, advantage during divorce, family law, criminal law, false accusations are taken seriously even if there's no evidence have occasionally lead to convictions, the Duluth model etc. etc. etc. You'd have to be a very well off with a good lawyer up against a crack addict to win custody over your children as a man and even then she'd probably accuse you of rape and ruin your life even in victory.
Now financial power, historically men have had most of the financial power being the sole or at least main breadwinner, by some stats that's still technically true, however when looking at younger generations women out earn men, have higher college attendance, are favored in job hiring (and house hunting) etc. etc. of course look down on men for not out earning them despite DEI initiatives being largely why they are earning more and not merit.
Last but not least the one aspect left that men have. Physical power. However men aren't allowed to use physical power in anyway other than backbreaking jobs for slightly better pay (but still worse then women for answering emails at google or w/e) even when a women outright attacks them with a weapon if they defend themselves they go to jail, it's just absurd.
So yeah the whole narrative that women are oppressed is bullshit, the exact opposite is true, men have zero recourse in society against women and it's playing out in wider society like you'd expect to the detriment of everyone. | 1,731,771,932 | FlyingFightingType | nan | nan | 2024-11-16 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Revealing clothes does increase chance of harassment | {'id': 'lz7pzxs', 'text': 'Probably because you raised it at an inappropriate time, or at least it reminds people of when people say this. If someone gets harassed (or worse) and your response is to say "well you shouldn\'t be been wearing that" then that\'s a shit thing to say and you shouldn\'t say that. It\'s insensitive and rude, and I think peoples sensitivity to that sentiment is tied in very deeply with all the times people say that in exactly the worst moment to say it', 'author': 'glubs9', 'score': 26, 'timestamp': 1732695972} | {'id': 'lz7pv7d', 'text': '"Don\'t be pretty to not get raped. It\'s just common sense."\n\n"Don\'t have an obviously nice house to not get robbed. It\'s common sense."\n\n"Look as white as you can to not get stopped by the police on every corner. Common sense."\n\nYou said you\'re not blaming the victim, and then you did just that right away.\n\nHere\'s [a video on The Onion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0nnU71ggro) about disguising your child like an old man in order to make him less attractive to pedophiles.', 'author': 'Cat_Or_Bat', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732695882} | 1h0zbpj | CMV: Revealing clothes does increase chance of harassment | Before someone posts the link to “what you were wearing” art exhibit, I want to make a point: I’m not saying being fully clothed makes you immune to harassment, but it increases the chances of it.
Yes. Some harassment are perpetrated by relatives and families so my “revealing clothes” argument may not apply since in these case. I’m talking about sexual assault by strangers.
I’m sure you’re tired of hearing “Don’t flaunt your jewelries in the street, especially area of the city. You’ll might as well asking to get mugged”. But I’ve never heard a logical response to it. Most of the response are either:
- “so you’re blaming the victim?”. No, I’m saying be reasonable and (for lack of better word) not stupid.
- “we expect freedom in wearing clothes and not get harassed”. By all means, there are bad people out there and saying “don’t catcall” or“don’t rape” can’t protect you from these situations.
- “I’m fully clothed and still experienced harassment”. I’m sorry that happened to you. But my point still stands: revealing clothes have effect on the chance of getting harassed: in your case, the effect is 0. In some other case, it may be > 0. Circling back to my first paragraph, I never say full clothing makes you immune.
Thank you | 1,732,694,352 | No_Record_60 | nan | nan | 2024-11-27 | 2024_fall |
CMV: I have some significant distrust of the Democrats because of their response to Covid. | {'id': 'lyt1osl', 'text': ">I'm very suspicious of any numbers that are thrown out. During the height of covid panic, there were people angrily asserting that 3 to 5 percent of the population was going to die. In the end, the death toll was a fraction of a percent.\n\nWhile I'm sure some quack did this, I want to raise a counterpoint. In March of 2013, the [CDC estimated ](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html)four possible scenarios. ranging from 200,000 to 1.7 million. Actual experts, who should have been listened to, told us about our best and worst case for this, and we ended up on the high end.\n\n[Fauci](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/29/823517467/fauci-estimates-that-100-000-to-200-000-americans-could-die-from-the-coronavirus) who republicans claim as some nightmarish monster thought that the 1-2 million death toll was very unlikely.\n\nThe actual experts told us that this was a possibility, they thought this was actually high, but based that on people behaving like adults, which was admittedly a very bad idea.\n\n>I'm sorry for your father. But, lots of people die from the flu. How would you feel if I said we should have regular lockdowns because of the flu? Also, my grandmother died of the flu, so fuck anyone who challenges my demand for flu based lockdowns.\n\nI'm with the original poster on this one.", 'author': 'Orphan_Guy_Incognito', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732484386} | {'id': 'lyszziw', 'text': "I worked in the ICU when Covid hit as a nurse. We knew nothing of Covid. How it spread, ill effects it had, or possible long term complications. \n\nAll I knew was that people were dying. We literally had refrigerator trucks because the morgue was full. \n\nPhysicians and nurses were working overtime to keep up. \n\nIf we know nothing of a new virus, how do you propose to mitigate the spread? Lockdowns were absolutely necessary and absolutely helped. The hospitals were overflowing with Covid. If you had a heart attack, good luck. There were no beds for noncovid complaints. \n\nLockdowns were a necessary evil to help hospitals. \n\nAnd fuck you for down playing it. I have watched people die and held their hand all while in full PPE so they wouldn't die alone.", 'author': 'ReinaKelsey', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732483855} | 1gz1bkt | CMV: I have some significant distrust of the Democrats because of their response to Covid. | I think Covid-19 was a serious disease that definitely killed some people. But, I think its severity was exaggerated. The Democrats acted like it was going to be a new black plague. We all now live with Covid, and it hasn't been world ending. Most of us got sick, and then we got immunity. Now, its just like a strain of the flu.
I think the lockdowns were draconian and very damaging. Firstly, there was major economic damage, which we are still feeling the repercussions of. Secondly, it was emotionally damaging for people to be confined and isolated for such a prolonged period. I think the lockdowns had much more significant negative consequences than the disease itself.
I also hate how discussion was practically forbidden. People would get shouted down if they expressed any skepticism of the policies the Democrats supported. The idea seemed to be that if you disagreed with the Democrats, you were murdering grandma. And ultimately, I think the Democrats were proven to be wrong on a wide number of Covid related issues.
The messaging of the Democrats wasn't even coherent. You're a heatless bastard if you don't go a long with the lockdown regime. And yet, the black lives matter protests were applauded. That doesn't make any sense. Either the lockdowns are essential, or they're not. A disease isn't going to stop being dangerous because you're protesting for a political cause. It felt like being gaslighted.
I'm also disturbed by the swiftness with which the Democrats embraced authoritarianism. A new disease emerges, and the Democrats immediately decide to embrace the policies of authoritarian China. Why are they taking their cues on disease management from an autocratic regime?
I feel like my ability to trust the Democrats was irreparably damaged. Furthermore, even though so much time has passed, I feel like this is still a taboo subject. I half suspect this post will be removed. Though, I'm not sure why discussion would still be forbidden all these years later.
I think the Democrats made some pretty horrible missteps in their response to Covid, and this topic has not been discussed. I don't know how anyone can trust them after how terribly they mismanaged things. | 1,732,481,816 | damndirtyape | nan | nan | 2024-11-24 | 2024_fall |
CMV: In a war between NATO and Russia, NATO should focus fighting in Eastern Russia | {'id': 'lz4p9p9', 'text': 'Can you provide sources for that claim that NATOs strategy is not to use a first strike?', 'author': 'Twenty_twenty4', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732652174} | {'id': 'lz4djwi', 'text': 'Does having all your major cities reduced to ash by russian nuclear armed ICBMs because they have nothing to lose count as winning?', 'author': 'all_hail_michael_p', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732648571} | 1h0jjhn | CMV: In a war between NATO and Russia, NATO should focus fighting in Eastern Russia | This isn't a traditional CMV. More like "I know I am probably wrong but please explain why." I am imagining a hypothetical scenario in which the current Ukraine conflict somehow spills over into a NATO country, provoking the alliance into war. This is a scenario in which nuclear weapons have not yet been used, but Putin continues to threaten their use.
My belief is that the only scenario in which nuclear weapons are likely to be used is if Russia faced an existential threat. However, I also believe that invading Russia to some extent would be necessary to end the war. Russia has shown that even with maximum western sanctions it can continue its warmaking efforts for a very long time. Possibly forever.
Moscow is not far from Russia's western border, so it is likely to see any invasion from the west as an existential threat. However, an invasion from the east would be far from an existential threat. As far as I can tell, an amphibious invasion would be feasible given the superiority of the US navy as long as the attack was a well-planned surprise. However, I do not know how much of a surprise such an attack could be given that it would require the mobilization of a large number of ships and troops. Additionally I do not know if it would be feasible to maintain a land-based army inside of Russia for very long.
However, I believe this would pose a number of advantages for NATO:
(1) Russia has to fight on two fronts: one in the west, close to Moscow even without crossing into Russia proper, and one in the east, actively fighting in Russian territory, hopefully disrupting wartime production and causing panic within Russia.
(2) Russia is unlikely to nuke its own territory to eliminate the eastern front. And/or it would not be very effective if NATO troops were sufficiently spread out.
(3) Assuming Russia can continue to fight for a very long time as long as its borders are not punctured, this may be the only way to end the war in a reasonable time frame. While it may seem drastic in context of a potential nuclear war, I think this would be the most effective way to end such a conflict without risking nuclear war.
Let me know if I am crazy for even thinking this. I know amphibious invasions can be difficult to pull off. | 1,732,647,207 | Prince_Marf | nan | nan | 2024-11-26 | 2024_fall |
CMV: Abortion is more than a bodily autonomy discussion and framing it in such a way is disingenuous. | {'id': 'lz98zl8', 'text': '> No human should be forced to use their body to help another human survive for such a long period of time. No human should be forced to risk their life so another human can live. No human should be forced to risk their health, earning potential for the life of another human.\n\nThe draft is a counter to this entirely unless you are also good with eliminating the draft', 'author': 'Jalharad', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732722302} | {'id': 'lz98nm0', 'text': 'Just trying to be objective here, but at what point would a fetus also have the same level of autonomy?\n\nAnd perhaps a bit of a silly argument because it\'s not possible, but interesting to me nonetheless, what if women laid eggs?\n\nI think it\'s actually an important point to consider for a more philosophical approach to the question of "when does life begin" as also being an answer to "how far should law extend to protect life".', 'author': 'DuskGideon', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732722197} | 1h16mg1 | CMV: Abortion is more than a bodily autonomy discussion and framing it in such a way is disingenuous. | When on the subject of abortion and whether it should or should not be legal, all paths of conversation will likely be forced to go to the bodily autonomy argument. I find this to be disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and likely just leads to ad hominems, strawmans and red herrings.
Framing abortion as just a bodily autonomy issue is reductive because it is a complex issue with many factors and people to consider the effect on. There are many legal, ethical, moral and philosophical points to consider and arguing bodily autonomy with dogmatic zeal only serves to stifle the overall discussion.
What I generally see of the two sides is that Prolife places bodily autonomy as a lower priority argument while Prochoice places bodily autonomy at a higher priority argument, often being diametrically opposed on the stance of this position. By continuing to focus on this singular aspect of a complex topic rather than addressing any other point, it creates a pointless discussion between an immovable force and an unstoppable object. | 1,732,720,595 | TheAverageBear132 | nan | nan | 2024-11-27 | 2024_fall |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.