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: Euthanasia and neutering of pet animals should generally be banned
|
{'id': 'lzgrafb', 'text': 'But why doesn’t modern farming techniques, battery chickens, etc etc count as “treating animals bizarrely”?', 'author': 'oGsBumder', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1732828221}
|
{'id': 'lzgr7lx', 'text': "Animals can't convey their own choices. They should be put down if they're old and/or in serious pain. Pets should be neutered because feral animals are bad. They cause problems, drive bird populations down, and further the problems of inbreeding.", 'author': 'lt_Matthew', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732828193}
|
1h25ky6
|
CMV: Euthanasia and neutering of pet animals should generally be banned
|
I think a lot of the softness / weirdness / decadence in modern society comes from (or coincides with) our wrong and bizarre opinions about animals.
I believe these 2 practices are large contributors to our wrong beliefs about animals.
**Euthanasia**
- First, is demonstrably very harmful to the poor vets who are forced to perform it, as evidenced by their high rates of self harm. Why are we allowing all these people to inflict this sort of trauma on their vets?
- Distorts belief in what a "good death" is. Traditionally we understood that a "good death" is one where you have time to contemplate your fate, repent of your sins, reconcile and spend time with your loved ones, and nobly fight your condition until your body can't take it anymore. Now there's this incorrect idea that a "good death" is one where poof, you're just gone. Animal euthanasia, while not intrinsically wrong like human euthanasia, contributes to this errant belief.
- There's just not enough death around. It's weird and abnormal. It would be a genuinely positive experience for kids to see their dog slowly die of a condition and learn to spend time with it as it suffers and learn compassion and how death works. Then they can be told that will probably happen to them one day too.
- The lack of exposure to death and the "sanitation" of it leads to all sort of weird and soft policies - IE, how we have to dress up our death penalties as medical procedures and waste millions on them because people have this weird need for it to be "clean," unwillingness to support needed policies because they result in deaths, etc. It leads to this general softness and societal malaise and now it's so bad people can't even be around animal death without being weird about it.
I would still allow for livestock euthanasia (because there the point is not companionship, there it's a business and it might just be the case that it's a better business move, another good lessons for the youngins) but not with weird expensive drugs, only the old fashion way. And hey, if a family wants to do it the old fashion way to their own dog, I guess I'm still a bit too libertarian to want to stop them. But I would stop legitimizing it as a "veterinary practice." It's not, and I would prohibit licensed vets from administering these "procedures" to any animals and everyone would be better off for it.
________________
**neutering**
- Contributes to this misguided belief in population control, that "if someone's gonna suffer it's better for them not to live at all," etc, very similar to the issue above. This argument is used in favor of abortion, antinatalism, all other sorts of ideas, and applying it to our pets isn't going to fix the problem
- Bad for the animal population. What's the goal of it? Reduce population? That will happen naturally. So what if there's way too many dogs? The most desirable ones will be adopted or bought, many will die, that's normal, this goes back to the issue of people being weird about animal death and not wanting it to exist for some reason. And now the dog population is better off because we can more easily select for desirability. It's better to have way too much of something and pick the best, than to artificially limit it
- Leads to silly ideas about animals and sex. People would rather have a slave than a mature animal companion with its own personality and sex drive, or they want to shield their kids from seeing normal animal sexual behavior, so we have to pretend animals are these non-sexual beings and keep them in perpetual prepubescence. Idk, it's weird. Not traditional, there was a time when this didn't happen and the world still turned just fine. Get rid of it. If you want a cat but don't want it spraying everywhere and mating with other cats, then you don't actually want a cat, you want this weird sterilized fantasy version of a cat.
- Would still in limited instances allow this practice as a veterinary procedure for certain livestock, etc.
So basically, neutering and euthanasia of pets should go away, especially as a "veterinary practice." CMV
| 1,732,827,509
|
wormno
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Psychotherapy is overrun by leftist practitioners, lacks diversity, and cannot be trusted to provide ethical therapy
|
{'id': 'lzlzsan', 'text': 'Again, this applies to a professional organization or a professional community of practice. Not individual therapist. \n\nLet’s say the American Medical Association spoke out against Trump or against Harris. Doesn’t really matter. The professional organization now has a political bias that is obvious. Now let’s say also that most doctors are men. \n\nIf you got injured, would you avoid your own personal doctor because they can’t be trusted?\n\nApplying the qualities of a class of people to an individual is racism when it applies to race. It’s wrong because that way of thinking is wrong - and by wrong I mean inaccurate. You can’t generalize in that way. (It’s also morally wrong but that’s not the point.). Similarly when you say that therapists can’t be trusted to provide therapy because of the attitudes expressed by some trade organization, this is not accurate.', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732912293}
|
{'id': 'lzlwlqd', 'text': 'Your argument about diversity falls apart when you look at the actual data. The field is way more diverse than you think - APA stats show that among new psychology PhDs, about 38% are racial/ethnic minorities, and that number is growing every year. Male representation has also been steadily increasing.\n\nBut more importantly, you\'re making a false equivalence between tech diversity and therapy diversity. In tech, lack of diversity directly impacts product design - like facial recognition failing on dark skin or voice assistants struggling with accents. In therapy, what matters is cultural competency training and the ability to work with diverse clients, which is now a core part of every practitioner\'s education.\n\nI work in mental health and regularly see conservative Christian counselors, POC therapists, and practitioners from various backgrounds. Many specialize in serving specific communities. The idea that it\'s all "white liberal women" pushing an agenda is just wrong.\n\n>some clients may feel that their beliefs or experiences are judged, dismissed, or misinterpreted\n\nThis is explicitly against professional ethics codes. Therapists are trained to work within the client\'s value system, not impose their own. If a therapist does this, they can lose their license. There are clear professional boundaries and oversight.\n\nThe real issue isn\'t the demographics of providers - it\'s access to mental healthcare, especially in rural and low-income areas. That\'s what we should be focusing on, not imagined political biases.', 'author': 'joedoe18212', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732911181}
|
1h2u6xp
|
CMV: Psychotherapy is overrun by leftist practitioners, lacks diversity, and cannot be trusted to provide ethical therapy
|
I believe that psychotherapy as a field has become dominated by white, female, liberal practitioners, which undermines its ability to provide ethical and trustworthy care for clients. Using the same argument that leftists often make about diversity in fields like programming, executive boards, and other industries, I argue that this lack of diversity creates blind spots and biases that are harmful to clients who do not share the dominant worldview of the practitioners.
Diversity is often touted as essential for fostering innovation, understanding, and ethical practice. In fields like tech, activists have argued that a lack of gender, racial, or ideological diversity leads to a narrow perspective that alienates those outside the majority demographic. If we accept that reasoning, shouldn’t it apply to psychotherapy as well?
The overwhelming dominance of white, progressive women in this field can create an echo chamber where certain political or social ideologies are baked into the therapeutic process. For example, some clients may feel that their beliefs or experiences are judged, dismissed, or misinterpreted if they do not align with the practitioner’s worldview. This dynamic can erode trust and create an environment where therapy serves as a form of ideological reinforcement rather than a safe space for growth and healing.
Moreover, when certain social or political perspectives dominate a field, it becomes harder for practitioners to recognize their own biases or to challenge them effectively. This raises the question: how can psychotherapy claim to be ethical and client-centered if it lacks the diversity needed to fully understand and respect the wide range of human experiences?
I’m not saying that political or social beliefs inherently disqualify someone from being a good therapist. However, when an entire field is disproportionately represented by one demographic and worldview, it seems reasonable to question whether it can provide equitable and ethical care to all.
I’d love to hear your perspectives and see if anyone can challenge my view. CMV.
| 1,732,909,823
|
Puzzle_headed_4rlz
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Sometimes race swapping matters, sometimes it doesn't
|
{'id': 'lzlv3te', 'text': "How does her skin being any other color make the story so radically different that someone wouldn't be able to recognize it even with the same name? It seems you're opposed to the very thing that allowed those stories to take shape, which is that they were adapted from prior stories with all the changes that come with adaptation.\n\nSnow White could be her name simply because she was born when it was snowing heavily, which was also part of many versions of the story.", 'author': 'Dictorclef', 'score': -6, 'timestamp': 1732910649}
|
{'id': 'lzluill', 'text': "You couldn't pick worse example. Some people say, she was white, some say she was black. Some say in between. I'd say in this case it doesn't matter because we simply don't know. \n\nI think it matters in cases where we know. You don't want a film about Japan in middle ages where every other character is non-asian. They would look like a bunch of imigrsnts which would break immersion. Or Steve Jobs played by Morgan Freeman.", 'author': 'lamp-town-guy', 'score': -15, 'timestamp': 1732910439}
|
1h2tdql
|
CMV: Sometimes race swapping matters, sometimes it doesn't
|
I have seen the extremes of this perspective, and perhaps more people think like me, but the loudest voices drown out the rest. But, I think that if a remake or live action adaptation of a movie/tv show is being made, then the race or ethnicity of a character matters only when cultural/racial elements are at the forefront and the world is not purely fantasy.
For example, in "Snow White" her physical description is the first thing you know about her, and that it would be logical to have a very pale person play her, even if that person is east asian or a different race but happens to be pale, but to have an olive-skinned tone person play her, does not make her "feel" like Snow White. But, in the case of Ariel, she is a mermaid, and she had siblings who were of all different races, so her race is extremely irrelevant. For someone like Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, their races also don't matter because they are far more derivative of fantasy than the real world, and the stories have been told so many times in different ways. But, in the case of the Frozen story, it is clearly heavily inspired by Scandanavian culture, and it would be silly to have a dark skinned woman playing Elsa. It has nothing to do with racism or white erasure, but rather realism, and not whitewashing people just for diversity's sake.
| 1,732,907,667
|
Blasberry80
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Tyson Vs Paul should have been been transparent about the rules and then billed it as Tysons toughest challenge yet.
|
{'id': 'lz6w0t5', 'text': 'There\'s no way anyone would organically spin it that way. Instead you\'d hear people saying\n\n\n"Tyson ruins legacy after accepting incredibly unfair fight for money"\n\n\n"Jake Paul fight with Tyson won\'t do anything for his reputation after hearing about the fight rules" \n\n\n"No way Tyson can beat Jake Paul. Leaked fight contract"', 'author': '4yelhsa', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1732680027}
|
{'id': 'lz6vvqb', 'text': 'Paul only wants to fight fights he know he will win.\n\nThe whole point of the fake fights is for a rich, famous nobody to get some fake accomplishments\n\nIf everyone knew ahead of time the rules are set up so this chump has unfair advantage it would hurt his reputation rather than boost it', 'author': 'GearMysterious8720', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1732679969}
|
1h0vay5
|
CMV: Tyson Vs Paul should have been been transparent about the rules and then billed it as Tysons toughest challenge yet.
|
By this point anyone who even cares remotely about the Tyson vs Paul fight, knows about the several, alleged, (secret) handicaps against Tyson in the fight. One of which, being he can't knock Jake Paul out.
Going forward, let's assume this to be fact. If it IS true, they should have marketed it as Tysons biggest challenge yet, and just been transparent about the rules.
Imagine the underdog angle, as an aging Tyson must complete the entire fight and win by decision without getting too winded or knocked out himself.
That's an incredible specific way to win, and eliminates a lot of Tysons arsenal.
Nothing would have changed about the fight, Tyson still would have lost, but it wouldn't have left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
It would have changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the fight though, and I think for the better.
Is there an angle I'm not considering? Could be as simple as vanity being the reason they went the route they did? Idk man. Cmv.
| 1,732,679,299
|
Ultimateace43
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Slavery and human trafficking is morally and ethically wrong.
|
{'id': 'lzjgcmd', 'text': "Rule B of the subreddit says you must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to changing it. \n\nYou hold the view, which is great, but have not demonstrated an openness to changing it. With this topic, that's also great. I think we'll all agree that being against slavery is a good view to hold on to. but it disqualifies this topic from CMV.", 'author': 'Wellfooled', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732874646}
|
{'id': 'lzjfs8j', 'text': 'Didn\'t you get the memo? A segment of a particular country\'s electorate doesn\'t call them slaves or the human trafficked; they call them asylum seeker and undocumented immigrants \n\nSince these "undocumented immigrants" are paid like crap the liberals can go through with their lives calling them that instead of slaves', 'author': 'ThenInstruction4388', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732874261}
|
1h2icde
|
CMV: Slavery and human trafficking is morally and ethically wrong.
|
Honestly there is no defence for slavery and human trafficking, the idea of a human being forced against their will to do labour or be taken to a place against their will as property is abhorrent affront against human rights.
Honestly, it is terrifying and sad that these still happens, but some people say it is morally okay to enslaved and human trafficking some people, that they deserve it and are lesser so it’s okay. Personally I find it to despicable that it still happens even if it’s not legal or spoken out against.
There is no moral or ethical ground to ever force someone to basically be reduced to human property and have their life be taken from them even as they live.
| 1,732,873,482
|
Evoxrus_XV
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I believe within ethics and politics the consent principle/voluntarism is unreliable and times fallacious.
|
{'id': 'lz5orqe', 'text': 'This kind of reaffirm my point that the context and scope of the conversation and how certain phrases fit actually has to be taken into account.\n\nYou can be talking about a multitude of sex act and somebody in passing will say well I don’t really give a shit as long as the people partaking in it or consenting and you keep it behind closed doors. These same people are probably not thinking about the potential ramifications of large scale incest and a subsequent degradation of society.\n\nThis is why people need to stop assuming phrases are said as absolutes. This doesn’t mean the person is going out of their way to contradict themselves that’s just how people tend to talk. For the most part when people use phrases they are largely applying it to the current conversation that they’re in not every instance of which the phrase can be applied.\n\nI don’t think it’s that people aren’t considering indirect consequences, they’re probably just not having that in depth of a conversation about it so why would they think about it? If you actually did a deep dive about the ramifications of large scale incest and polygamy you’re gonna have more insightful conversations then someone saying “oh well it’s between consenting adults so I don’t care. “', 'author': 'myboobiezarequitebig', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1732663605}
|
{'id': 'lz5nhu0', 'text': "I suppose my response would be, how serious is the perceived harm? There are no universals. \n\nYou can't consent to being murdered for instance, you also can't consent to your surgeon perfoming surgery on you with McDonalds cutlery. Consent is not the defining factor. \n\nSimilarly extreme sports of all flavor carry with them a harm risk and yet we tolerate them because, in part, the risk to the public is minimal. A dude who dies in a skydiving accident is acceptable risk. We don't need a prisoner's consent because the safety risk is that high\n\nFrankly I can see at a glance why incestous parental/child relationships both from a power dynamic and genetic perspective is a risk society is prepared to not accept. For better or worse. \n\nI can't do that for polygamy though. Maybe I'm not thinking but I can't think of similarly contentious issues that polygamy raises to parent/child sexual relationships\n\nI suppose my next question too is, what's your better guiding principle?", 'author': 'Tanaka917', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1732663145}
|
1h0pmtp
|
CMV: I believe within ethics and politics the consent principle/voluntarism is unreliable and times fallacious.
|
I commonly hear people when advocating for various contentious social issues use the phrase “if it’s between consenting adults, I have no problem” as a form of justification. While that principle seems reasonable at face value, I’ve found the majority of people who use it rarely apply that standard universally and resort to special pleading when that logic reaches its reasonable limits
You could ask someone for example whether polygamy should be a crime, and that person could respond “as long as it’s between consenting adults I have no problem”. You could go on and ask the person “should consensual incest between an adult father and daughter using contraception be a crime?” and the vast majority of the people pushing the consent principle will protest and go on to explain how that’s different because incest causes harm for XYZ reason.
If you go on to explain to them why you believe polygamy causes harm, they’ll quickly jump back to justifying it based on the principle of consent. If you ask them why that principle justifies polygamy, but not consensual incest using contraception, they’ll usually go back to exclaiming the various harms the latter causes. You then ask, “if that’s the case and harm overrides consent, why then does principle of consent invalidate the various harms I believe polygamy causes?” and I’ve found at that point you’ll usually reach a dead end with these people. They’re put in a position where either they have to support incest, or reject the principle they’ve used to justify polygamy all together, and rarely will they choose to do either.
These are just examples to demonstrate the selective use of this logic, one could use indentured servitude or prostitution as examples and so forth. The point is, this a common theme in today’s discourse and I find it problematic. In my opinion the entire premise is a red herring used to stop further discussion over polarizing issues that require real ethical examination.
| 1,732,662,362
|
Kage_anon
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Isolationism, as foreign policy, will fail. The next generation will suffer due to an adherence to isolationist principles.
|
{'id': 'lzajza5', 'text': '>What is isolationism, then?\n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku)\n\n**Sakoku (鎖国 / 鎖國, "chained country")** is the most common name for the [isolationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) [foreign policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Japan) of the [Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) [Tokugawa shogunate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate) under which, during the [Edo period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period) (from 1603 to 1868), relations and trade between Japan and other countries were severely limited, and almost all foreign nationals were banned from entering Japan, while common Japanese people were kept from leaving the country.', 'author': 'Skoljnir', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732736878}
|
{'id': 'lzafek8', 'text': 'It always fails.\n\nLook at the most isolationist places in the world. They are all shit.\n\nAlso, it\'s a lie.\n\nOur navy is literally the police of the world\'s oceans.\n\nWe are the largest economy in the world.\n\nBy definition, we can\'t be ourselves and still be isolationist.\n\nIt was always a code word for "xenophobic".', 'author': 'jseego', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732735449}
|
1h1c3mx
|
CMV: Isolationism, as foreign policy, will fail. The next generation will suffer due to an adherence to isolationist principles.
|
From AP: “Trump argued Ukraine should have made concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the months before Russia’s February 2022 attack, declaring that even ‘the worst deal would’ve been better than what we have now’.”
Donald Trump wanted Ukraine, a sovereign nation, to cede territory to Putin in a “deal.”Why? Because it may have temporarily headed off Putin’s immoral/illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Donald Trump views military aid to Ukraine as a waste of American resources or tax dollars.
If Donald Trump appreciated history, he would understand this tactic - giving a dictator what he demands - will not work. Appeasement will embolden Putin. It’s won’t stop him. If Trump gives Putin what he wants, which is all or part of Ukraine, Putin will not stop. Putin will press on.
Isolationism sounds good, in theory, but it does not work, in practice. Common sense tells us: the bully does what he can get away with. Putin is the bully.
MAGA “America First” isolationism is simply punting. This ideology allows Trump to score political points. The problem: the next generation(s) will be forced to deal with increased Russian or Chinese aggression.
The autocracies around the world will know America doesn’t have the will to confront their aggression. Thus, autocrats’ aggression will increase. Free societies will decrease. Less free societies around the world is bad news for America.
| 1,732,734,331
|
bg02xl
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: We were put on this earth to suffer
|
{'id': 'lzxfn8a', 'text': "You're welcome.\xa0\n\n\nAdvice regarding strategies is a huge ask. It's much easier for me to think of the other side of the coin than to actually be convinced by those thoughts, if you know what I mean.\n\n\nI think for me it all boils down to a few core truths: the bad in us will never keep the good in us down. There are always *great* people doing the best they can to help all of us, ('look for the helpers, in any horrible situation, there are always people trying to help'). One small moment or invention can topple everything we thought we knew.\xa0\n\n\nBesides those broad things, if I have a specific worry, I like to zoom out and look at the bigger picture and give situations the benefit of doubt. People who bother you now will most likely not be there forever, or not always. If you work on something you'll generally be able to improve it over time. People who are rude or who act as forces of evil are often still trying to do what's right for those they love, or are misguided. If not, then even those people will eventually die and stop spreading their badness. It's all calm in the end, all suffering gets eased.\xa0", 'author': 'IrrationalDesign', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733086028}
|
{'id': 'lzwxqe9', 'text': '"Comfort" and "Convenience" have brought our shared environment to the brink. Pursuing them has created selfish, entitled, and cruel people with huge disparities of wealth. God will judge us harshly!', 'author': 'Lance_E_T_Compte', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1733080563}
|
1h4atso
|
CMV: We were put on this earth to suffer
|
One of my long-held mantras in my life is a simple one: "We were not put on this earth to suffer". This year has shown me that the opposite is the truth. Life is one instance of suffering after another, and the only constants in it are that we are born, and that we die. In my individual life, I have been hit with an absolute onslaught of suffering. My health has deteriorated to the point where I may not ever be the same active person I ever was (I will leave specific details out for anonymity but let's just say long term injury, chronic health issue, and cancer scare). Socially, my closest friends have all reported some of the most horrible things that could possibly happen to them, often all at once. Being someone who people go to for emotional support, I have been greeted with an inability to maintain empathy (which I have always been phenomenal at), because I am too exhausted from seeing and feeling all of these terrible, terrible things happening to good people, in addition to my own shit. And in society, the world has never been angrier, never more hostile, never more difficult to navigate in ways that are seeing horrible actions and mindsets returning in full force. I'll admit, I made this account in an attempt to get back to my times of reddit from years ago, trolling and silliness and not taking things seriously to get away from it all. But, "getting away from it all" is not possible anymore. Awful things are shown directly to front pages, and I simply have not been able to help myself with engaging at awful things and stories. Additionally, outside of the internet, I've personally never seen more racism, homophobia, and sexism happening in front of me with my own eyes than this past year. Society is genuinely crumbling before us - I haven't even mentioned the bevy of international conflicts and wars that are being shown to us in real time like never before thanks to modern media.
So basically, I think we were put here to suffer as much as possible. There is a theory of existence which imagines another species of humanoids who have put us humans essentially into an ant farm type isolated ecosystem, and that they are throwing as much bullshit as possible at us to see how long it takes before we literally or figuratively "pop". I tend to be critical of conspiracy theory, but that one for whatever reason is one I fixate on. It makes too much sense that the world keeps getting more and more horrible and that for whatever reason we as a species can't put shit aside to fix it. Not only were we put here to suffer, I think that a significant portion of the world are either OK with or happy about it if it means they can inflict suffering, or have others suffer so they don't have to.
I feel myself becoming a more bitter, sad, jaded, and sometimes also angry, person. This is thanks to everything above, but in particular my own health this year as this is the most immediate stressor in my life which has resulted in me missing out on possible good things that I would use otherwise to cope. I would appreciate perspectives from the community who disagree, agree, or otherwise with the title of this post. Insight regarding this topic would be appreciated for me - thank you.
| 1,733,080,274
|
effervescentcatheter
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: r/nostupidquestions and perhaps any other question subreddit is kinda useless now.
|
{'id': 'ltn1ei2', 'text': "If I've changed your view, even a small bit, please feel free to reward a Delta.", 'author': 'Wellfooled', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1729834229}
|
{'id': 'ltmwdtk', 'text': 'AI chatbots are built to make the most natural-sounding text it can. Not the most accurate.', 'author': 'dougmantis', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729831555}
|
1gbm11p
|
CMV: r/nostupidquestions and perhaps any other question subreddit is kinda useless now.
|
It would've been useful - at least, if ChatGPT didn't exist. Now such AI chatbots can answer a variety of questions even Google can't. Sure, won't hurt to ask in the subreddit, but wouldn't it be faster to use AI to help answer the question rather than waiting for another user to respond?
I mean, it's not even about extremely complex topics (and even AI can answer some). As far as I've seen, it's mostly general topics. I think people should just use these stuff first and consider the answers generated before they actually start to post on these stuff.
| 1,729,830,328
|
ManyRazzmatazz4584
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-25
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Terms like unalive detract from the painful reality of suicide, the fact that words are now being used which specifically became mainstream due to people not wanting to get demonetised is a sad reflection of the state of humanity
|
{'id': 'lz933m8', 'text': 'It sounds weird to me too and isn\'t something I\'m likely to say. But I almost wonder if that\'s part of the idea. "Suicide" sounds romantic and meaningful, "unalive" sounds clumsy and dumb. After a couple decades of increasing rates of teen suicide, maybe it\'s a small way to take some of the power out of the idea?', 'author': 'premiumPLUM', 'score': 15, 'timestamp': 1732720384}
|
{'id': 'lz8za9u', 'text': 'That’s true that language evolves but “unalive” wasn’t a medical term like your example, it is genuinely a joke. It’s like “uncomfy”, like imagine if the word harrassed was replaced by “uncomfy”z I remember when people started using “unalive” some years ago as self depricative “✨depression✨” type humor and teens thought it was funny to say “kms” all the time. It’s too unserious', 'author': 'BlightoftheBermuda', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732719087}
|
1h15jnn
|
CMV: Terms like unalive detract from the painful reality of suicide, the fact that words are now being used which specifically became mainstream due to people not wanting to get demonetised is a sad reflection of the state of humanity
|
The word came about from subtitles on shorts and videos, to prevent getting the video demonetised. This is dystopian, the fact that watered down language that shouldn’t exist now does, not due to language progressing, but rather regressing due to money being held above using proper terminology.
I don’t blame the creators, but I do blame anyone who uses such words.
Example: Kurt Cobain museum now uses the tiktok “unalived” the man blew his brain out and committed suicide, let’s face the dark reality as people in dark situations aren’t helped by bubbly words which detract from the real issue.
| 1,732,717,662
|
CopyGrand7281
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: there can be no morality without religion
|
{'id': 'lxo91tn', 'text': "Absolutely - someone else could believe its moral to litter. \n\nBut I don't believe it is moral, so I don't do it. But that is not based on any legal standing or religious doctrine. \n\nI feel bad when I do things that I think are bad, so I avoid those things.", 'author': 'Rainbwned', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1731887107}
|
{'id': 'lxo1xkz', 'text': '///"Any system of morality has to have a mechanism of enforcement. I am saying that religion and nothing else is such a mechanism of enforcement.\xa0"\n\n \nYes , you are SAYING that, not demonstrating it in any way whatsoever so why even bother debating what has not been proven ?', 'author': 'Dependent-Fig-2517', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1731884603}
|
1gtpymm
|
CMV: there can be no morality without religion
|
This topic is posted here on a regular basis but I have not yet seen a sound argument. The fundamental reason why religion is required is to have an enforcement mechanism for moral principles in the same way that courts and police exist for legal principles. Let me first make a few assumptions.
1. I refer to religion as the genuine belief in the literal existence of omnipotent or effectively omnipotent "divinity" such as God in Abrahamic religions, samsara and karma in Buddhism, or divine justice in other religions. It would be sufficient for the "divinity" to not be omnipotent, only that it must be beyond the power of any man and all men combined. So if, for example, Christians follow principles from the Bible but do not genuinely believe in their hearts that God literally exists then that is not sufficient to qualify as religion in this discussion.
2. The specific moral principles of each religion are not important. There are clearly differences in what is moral between Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and other religions. But each religion has a set of guiding principles which would presumably function in benefit of the common good.
3. The world is inherently amoral. The lightning which cleaves the rock asunder does not, in its destructiveness, act according to moral principles. The lion eats the zebra according to its strength and its nature, and neither the lion nor the zebra is good or evil. Humans manufactured religion and morality because of our comparatively complex social system which requires such inventions.
4. Some degree of "delusion" is needed to believe in the divinity of religion. Depending on how you put it, it may be the case that people of the past were unenlightened or it may be the case that we are now overly obsessed with science and rationality. Even our current notion of logic is built entirely on faith, as we must trust the axioms without any rational basis. If we have absolute faith in our logic and rationality and build morality from there as Enlightenment thinkers might, then that too is a religion because of the belief in an unshakeable force of nature (i.e. logic). (As an aside, I am an atheist myself and majored in pure mathematics so I am no stranger to logic, and I can you the more you study mathematics the less you trust in the absoluteness of logic).
Now to the argument. Any system of morality has to have a mechanism of enforcement. I am saying that religion and nothing else is such a mechanism of enforcement. Just as laws need police and courts otherwise laws are not laws at all, so too does morality need a judge who can impose divine blessing for virtue and inescapable punishment for evil.
The legal system cannot be a substitute. In the first place, morality informs the creation of laws, not the other way around. Do not murder. Do not rape. Do not steal. Why? Well, it would be because those acts are immoral that the law forbids them. It would be ridiculous to flip it, that is to say that murder is wrong because it is illegal. Even if this point were not so, the legal system is nonetheless insufficient. The legal system generally cannot prosecute dishonesty or being mean or dishonourable acts. For example, 99.9% of the time if I choose to litter, I would not face any legal consequences. Considering a more serious crime, most people with over 100 IQ can probably get away with murder without getting caught. Then why should I not murder? I can just as well choose to murder or not to murder.
If earthly punishment for evil is the only thing that existed then one can commit evil and deceive his peers, deceive the courtroom. Such doubt is then present, and leads society to be suspicious of the fellow man. On the other hand, if the existence of divinity is a given then the criminal has no reason to deceive since it would anyhow be impossible to deceive God or karma, etc. At all times, one is being watched by God. That is, in my opinion, the true meaning of morality.
I welcome any discussion in this matter. Please propose, if you may, how morality can exist independently of religion.
| 1,731,883,698
|
NightflowerFade
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If thoughts represent potential realities, then simulation theory suggests we are likely already living in a simulation.
|
{'id': 'lza49w8', 'text': ">It’s not about a 100% success rate but about the demonstrable link between imagination and eventual realization in certain contexts.\n\nWhat is that context and how does simulation theory fit into that context? Because frankly there's also a strong link between imagination and false ideas. That someone has a thought doesn't make the thing they think about more likely. As I said you're counting the hits, but given most humans died without their thoughts recorded it's not even possible to count all the misses that dissappeared into obscurity. You can't even calculate the odds as a direct result.\n\n>I acknowledge that I can’t calculate the probability of an unknown like simulation theory being true, nor do I claim certainty.\xa0\n\nBut you said \n\n>\xa0If such simulations are possible in the future, then it is statistically likely that we are already living in one.\n\nStatistical likelihood is calculated. If you can't calculate you have no statistical likelihood at all. \n\n>My argument isn’t about proving simulation theory, but rather suggesting its plausibility based on historical patterns of human imagination leading to realizable advancements.\xa0\n\nYou didn't just give it plausibility you gave it strong likelihood (from your OP) that means over and above other ideas. You even used the word likely in your title. If you had just called it logically possible there'd be no real discussion. But you're going a step beyond that and I'm asking you to justify that step. Because the list of logically possible things is both long and varied and the vast majority of them are impossible to calculate. Are you willing to then say that simulation is in fact just possible and not likely?", 'author': 'Tanaka917', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732731994}
|
{'id': 'lz9zs82', 'text': 'The jump from 3 to 4 requires a clarification of 3. Really, it’s an assumption that you can decide for yourself it it’s fair\n\n> 3. It is reasonable to assume simulations exist\n\nHonestly I think this is fair, considering we have simulations, but strictly speaking there are legitimate arguments against this. \n\nThe idea is that our simulations are much more simple than ours, and they can contain large but simplified worlds with many people (or whatever is supposedly experiencing the simulation). \n\nEssentially the idea is to consider one of those NPCs. Theyre 100% definitely in a simulation, but they don’t know it. They think “there’s no way I’m in a simulation, look how complex the world is.” Inside of this simulation, they have their own nations, states, cities, homes, and within those homes are computers with their own simulations, and those simulations have their own, getting increasingly simple as they go on. \n\nOne day you decide to let this NPC in on a secret: you created this world they live in, and they are just one of billions of simulated people in a very simplified version of the real world. \n\nHe turns around and says “out of the hundreds of worlds within my computer, none of them are aware of the level above them. What makes you think you are the one out of those hundreds which is at the very end of the chain? How would you ever know?”\n\nEssentially, if a meaningful simulation exists you can calculate the odds that you’re real with the formula:\n\n (Real consciousness) / (Real consciousness + simulated consciousness)\n\nAnd it’s super easy to simulate consciousness, so the odds you’re not simulated essentially go to 0. It’s super easy to simulate people.', 'author': 'TheGuyThatThisIs', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732730609}
|
1h19vhl
|
CMV: If thoughts represent potential realities, then simulation theory suggests we are likely already living in a simulation.
|
Humans have an extraordinary capacity for thought: the ability to envision, predict, and simulate alternative realities in our minds. Throughout history, many ideas that once seemed impossible—such as creating fire or flying—were eventually actualized. What was unachievable in one era became reality in another, as knowledge, tools, and circumstances aligned.
This pattern suggests that thoughts, even far-fetched ones, are inherently real as possibilities. They may not immediately manifest in our shared physical world, but under the right conditions—whether by us, others, or some external force—they can become reality.
Consider simulation theory: the idea that our reality might be an advanced simulation created by another entity. If this thought exists in our collective consciousness, and if history shows that thoughts can eventually be actualized, then simulation theory has a strong likelihood of being realized at some point.
Here’s where it gets interesting: if simulation theory can be actualized, it implies that we might already be living in a simulation. Why? Because the existence of the thought itself suggests that it transcends time—it could be actualized in the past, present, or future. If an advanced civilization created simulations, and if these simulations are indistinguishable from "base reality," then statistically, the chances that we are living in the original, unsimulated world are extraordinarily low.
My argument is not empirical, but it’s grounded in a logical pattern:
1. Humans conceive ideas, even seemingly impossible ones.
2. Over time, many ideas are actualized through advancements in knowledge and technology.
3. Simulation theory is one such idea. If it can be realized in any timeline, it suggests the likelihood that we are already in a simulation.
I’m open to critiques on the logic of this argument or alternative explanations for the pattern I’ve identified. If you think this reasoning is flawed or there’s a stronger counterpoint, please change my view.
| 1,732,728,844
|
la_poule
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The Internet Is Not That Bad
|
{'id': 'm041vyn', 'text': "The issue with your post is that you are describing what people complain about in regards to the internet, but you are leaving out what they think people should do about those problems. You acknowledge that the problems exist and then point out that they can be fixed, as if the fact that they are fixable means the people complaining about the problems are wrong. But if you complain about a problem, doesn't that imply that you want the problem to get fixed?", 'author': 'AcephalicDude', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733180288}
|
{'id': 'm03yo0k', 'text': 'The internet is all of our eggs in one basket. Someone said you aren’t supposed to do that.', 'author': 'jennimackenzie', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733179183}
|
1h57bh9
|
CMV: The Internet Is Not That Bad
|
Frankly, I'm surprised that it took this long for somebody to make a post like this, but I did actually check google and, wow, it's nothing but angry Redditors complaining that the Internet is a cancer/worst thing ever to exist/is ruining everything. I highly disagree, here's why:
**Point #1: The Internet helps people with niche interests find a community.** This one seems fairly intuitive as well as easily to explain. In real life, unless your interest is sports or pop culture (which isn't niche at all), you are gonna have a hard time finding someone to talk to about it. For example, myself. If you look at my post history you'll see I like Plants vs Zombies, powerscaling, a little bit of The Amazing Digital Circus, and other such things. Do you really think I'd have a decent chance of finding somebody in real life where I can have an in-depth conversation about this stuff? I don't even think the average person even knows what "Multiversal+" or "scales to x" mean. But on the Internet, people like me are everywhere and it's a lot more fun to talk about your favorite things that nobody else seems to care about.
**Point #2: The Internet is the best place for knowledge to ever exist.** Think about it. At the tip of your fingertips you have essentially the combined knowledge of the entire human species, and an easy way to sift through it. Contrasted to the pre-Internet era, where, in order to find something, you would need to painstakingly sift through a libraries' collection of volumes to find the info you need. And also, you'd have little luck finding the fun, niche bits of trivia, such as you'd see on r/todayilearned or the anecdotal useful advice on r/YouShouldKnow. I geniunely do not think people appreciate how good the Internet is at this (I will get to the very glaring, obvious counterpoint later). A sub point to this is that this also makes the Internet a really good place to learn new things, as well as to find useful tools in general (essentially, a better version of a Library of Things. Instead of kitchen tools and other such items, it's GitHub scripts that massively improve your digital quality of life. Another sub point, this makes it the most compact way of storing information. I don't think the folks who say "We should go back to the days BEFORE the internet!" realize just how painful it'll be to archive anything because the Internet eliminated physical space needs.
*Now let's get to the counterpoints:*
**Counterpoint #1: "The Internet is horrible for children!"**: I do not deny the existence of..less than savory items on the Internet. However, you shouldn't be giving your children free rein of the Internet anyway, nor should you blame the Internet for their problems. You should, I don't know, be TALKING to your kids and teaching them important skills like where to avoid and how to deal with seeing things like gore and sex. And frankly, you should be teaching them how to deal with those things anyway. You can't babyproof their eyes forever, and locking the Internet away isn't going to help. As for the other big problem, again, content farms sucking your children inside isn't the Internet's fault. And frankly, the only way they'd end up there and stick around is if you, the parent, is just plopping your 2 year old on an iPad and leaving them there. This is why you SUPERVISE (by which I mean, sit next to them while they are playing games not spy on your teenager's activity at all times). Also, while addiction is a real danger, it feels MASSIVELY overblown, to the point of entire states banning stuff like TikTok partially for this reason. While the Internet needs moderation to not actively grab your kid's brains, its also partially YOUR responsibility to teach them how to self moderate.
**Counterpoint #2: "The Internet spreads misinformation and creates division.":** ...It's not like conspiracies weren't rampant BEFORE the Internet. See: The JFK assasination. Of course a medium that gives everybody an equal platform as well as an audience will spread misinfo. You think books didn't have the same issue, just on a smaller scale, when they got introduced? As for spreading division, I think this is just because more viewpoints are being exposed to the average person, which is a good thing. Before the Internet, I'd wager, people just kept their politics in their own home, and rarely did people even consider other viewpoints because theirs is the only one they've been exposed to. But on the Internet, every viewpoint is hitting everyone at once, so of course people get more angry about this. This is also, partially, I think the reason why people always seem to think way back when was less polarized. It's probably just because people kept their opinions to themselves.
| 1,733,177,339
|
AGuyWhatDoesThings
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Our global society is turning to a dumpster-fire due to pollution, animal cruelty, fossil fuel extraction, political/social polarization, new technologies being used to commit unspeakable injustices, and other harms.
|
{'id': 'm03zwnf', 'text': "Because having problems doesn't mean you shouldn't have hope. I refuted all of your other points and agreed on one point. \n\nJust because my finger hurts doesn't mean I should lose hope. I have the rest of my body that's fine and I use that to fix my finger. In the same way, we live in a time ridiculous technological progress, and unprecedented ability to communicate. Working with other humans to try and solve the issue utilizing all of the other tools you have instead of being hopeless one problem exists is how.", 'author': 'Live_Background_3455', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733179605}
|
{'id': 'm03z51d', 'text': "We live in the age of convenience and technology. We have the knowledge of the world in our pockets. We go to a warehouse of food and trade paper for sustenance. It's absurd to think that modern times are horrible compared to any other age.\n\nYou need to get off the internet and go outside or something because most people are worried about what they've always been worried about. Making a living for themselves and surviving.", 'author': 'mikutansan', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733179343}
|
1h57d7l
|
CMV: Our global society is turning to a dumpster-fire due to pollution, animal cruelty, fossil fuel extraction, political/social polarization, new technologies being used to commit unspeakable injustices, and other harms.
|
So I am in my late 20s, and I have been alive long enough to realize how screwed up modern life has become. It is like that musical song "Life is a Fucked Up Mess" from *Big Mouth* is turning to reality. So to give you an idea what topics I would point out, here is the bulleted list.
* Pollution
* Animal Cruelty
* Fossil fuel extraction (fracking and similar techniques)
* Political polarization
* Emerging technologies being used by bad actors to cause harm.
It honestly feels like the world is getting worse and there is little hope for change. Pollution causes acid rain and harms ecosystems, animal cruelty is becoming glorified on YouTube and TikTok with fake animal rescue videos, people are threatening to harass, assault, or murder someone if there are political disagreements, and new technologies like drones, AI chatbots, and balistic missles shows that new technology only makes the world a better place only if bad actors aren't allowed to use it to commit heinous acts.
This instability is not sustainable as multiple riots have occured due to political/social unrest.
First, I feel like combatting climate change and animal extinction is a losing battle. There are datasets that predict that much of South and Central Florida would be wiped off the map due to rising sea levels between 2085 and 2135. Recylcing programs are helpful, but their impact is sadly small compared to the waste accumulating at landfills. Also, electronic waste or e-waste is poisioning the soil of these landfills and could cause endocrine problems like obesity, inferility, and premature puberty in girls age 7 to 10. I feel so hopeless over what is going to happen to Earth and human civlilzation. Also, fracking concerns me because it can expose toxic chemicals to the drinking supply, which I mentioned earlier in my post.
In regards to political polarization, America has never been this divided since the Civil War in 1861. People are becoming very hostile and distrustful of people with different views and the mainstream media. More people are getting their news from alternative media outlets, but some argue that these sources are more prone to spreading misinformation compared to estabilished mainstream media outlets. People are getting death threats, swatting, harassment, and blackmail because of their political and religious views.
Also in terms of religion, registered Democrats increasingly are more likely to identify as nonreligious or religiously unaffiliated compared to Republicans. Since religion plays a pivotal role in shaping someone's worldview, as the political left becomes more secular, disagreements on political, economic, and social issues will become more pronounced as time progresses. And it seems that everything has gotten political. Companies are being boycotted for being "too woke" or "not woke enough".
Lastly, there is technology. I believe that electronic devices and software are like guns. They are neither moral or immoral since they are merely tools without free will. But as there are people who will use guns to harm others, there are evil people who will use electronic devices and software to defraud, steal, DDoS, hack, deepfake, voice clone without person's consent. This technology emboldens these cruel people to commit harms at a greater degree and scale than previously possible 50 years ago (1974).
I feel like the world is turning to shit and instead of making positive change, people are starting flame wars on social media platforms, and news networks promote inflamatory news for ratings, and in turn money.
| 1,733,177,458
|
Denim_Skirt_4013
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Mr Keating from Dead Poets Society was THE best teacher
|
{'id': 'lznelhv', 'text': 'Well back then the resources avaialble were pretty much non-existant and people were generally a hell of a lot more violent and less interested in school.\n\nHaving kids chant the alphabet or their times tables wasn\'t harming anyone and the rhetoric around "only" rote learning was greatly exaggerated, yes they did have to learn various facts, but that wasn\'t the entire process, it never was.\n\n>They didn’t had any space to do anything but to repeat what they listened\n\nThey\'d have had the chance to write, to engage with art, to do PE and games, to do woodwork, to sing and so on and on. \n\n>awful place with all those restrains and restrictions would benefit anyone\n\nBecause the alternative (without substantially more resources) would be spending years not learning anything, constant open revolt, bullying and endlessly seeking thrills and entertainment above all else to satiate short term "fun" with little or no regard to long term learning or progress.', 'author': 'llijilliil', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732931303}
|
{'id': 'lzmx7s3', 'text': "I haven't watched the movie as an adult so maybe I should do that. But as I remember he gave some good advice to the kids, specifically the lesson about following your own path and to avoid the mundane and unsatisfactory experiences that comes from conformity.\n\nBut turning the kids against their parents is not good. One interesting thing about being an adult is that you start understanding your parents, and eventually you realize that you more or less are your parents. So you should listen to them. Neil could have studied to become a doctor and had the theater hobby on the side. Colleges even then had all kinds of activities and stuff. He could have done theater acts during parties or something.", 'author': 'Grovda', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732924321}
|
1h2ynr4
|
CMV: Mr Keating from Dead Poets Society was THE best teacher
|
I know a lot of people like to say that Mr. Keating wasn’t a good teacher, and honestly, I don’t get it. Sure, we don’t see a ton of his actual classroom instruction, but the point of his character wasn’t to drill poetry analysis or hand out grades. He was there to inspire, to get his students to think for themselves. And isn’t that what a great teacher is supposed to do?
The whole “carpe diem” thing wasn’t just a motivational catchphrase—it was his way of challenging the rigid, oppressive structure of Welton Academy. Whether it was ripping pages out of textbooks or standing on desks, his teaching style was about pushing the students to question the world around them. It wasn’t random; it was deliberate. And it worked!
Look at Todd Anderson, the quietest and most timid student in the group. Keating didn’t just help Todd write poetry; he gave him the confidence to stand up and express himself. That’s huge. How many teachers genuinely change their students like that?
People also say he was irresponsible or didn’t provide enough structure. But he wasn’t trying to spoon-feed answers or impose his own views. His goal was to be a guide, to show his students that they had the power to think critically and make their own choices. In a school as rigid and controlling as Welton, that approach was revolutionary.
And let’s talk about the Neil situation because this always comes up. Yes, it’s devastating, but blaming Keating for what happened feels like a huge stretch. Neil’s father and the suffocating environment of the school were clearly the main drivers of that tragedy. Keating didn’t tell Neil to defy his father; he simply encouraged him to pursue what made him happy. If anything, Neil’s story shows why teachers like Keating are so necessary—because kids in environments like that desperately need someone to tell them their dreams matter.
Look, was Keating perfect? No. But great teachers don’t have to be. What made him great was his ability to connect with his students, inspire them, and make them believe in themselves. Education isn’t just about following a curriculum or acing tests; it’s about learning how to think, how to feel, and how to live. And Mr. Keating nailed that.
Change my view—I’m open to it—but I think we need more teachers like him, not fewer.
| 1,732,922,236
|
Total_Literature_809
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Citizen traffic violation reports should lead directly to fines in many cases
|
{'id': 'lzdtq6a', 'text': 'So in my town there are red light cameras at every intersection. School zones also have cameras for speeding. We don’t run red lights or speed in school zones here. It gets annoyingly expensive if you do. So call it dystopian but that’s reality for a lot of cities. And certainly this level of camera coverage is better than private citizens. \n\nOn the issue of appeals, it isn’t the quality of the evidence. At least in the USA, I can subpoena the cop that gave me a ticket and make them appear in court. It’s actually a nice way to get out of a ticket because a good chunk of the time they don’t show. Of course it takes me a day off work too and so usually I’ll just pay the thing, especially for a parking ticket. Now what happens when it isn’t a cop but a citizen that needs to take a day off work to appear in court?', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732786099}
|
{'id': 'lzdt1aw', 'text': 'I\'d count those both as traffic violations.\n\nBy "if there\'s evidence," you include a random person sending a cell phone or dashcam video to the police? Speeding is especially surprising, given that basically everyone is speeding basically all the time.\n\nWhere do you live? And can you link to an example of this happening?', 'author': 'BrotherItsInTheDrum', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732785636}
|
1h1rsrm
|
CMV: Citizen traffic violation reports should lead directly to fines in many cases
|
In today's age with everyone having a smartphone and some people even having dashcams, I feel like it would make sense to allow some reports to directly lead to a fine for the traffic violator. A lot of the time, people simply don't care about respecting traffic rules but if they knew that their fellow citizens were more engaged and willing to report them if they're causing a dangerous or unpleasant situation they might think twice.
My idea would be to allow citizens to submit video evidence of serious traffic violations that can lead to a fine being issued directly after being viewed by the police or other authority. For example: reckless driving, running a red light or whenever a situation actually causes a danger.
It could also include parking violations in cases where the illegal parking is either dangerous or is a major inconvenience (a non EV vehicle parking at an EV spot, someone parked in a handicapped space, etc.)
I'll try to respond to some of the main counterarguments I can think of here:
1. It will be used for petty disputes or for revenge reports
There is indeed a risk that that could happen but my proposed solution for that would be to limit the amount of reports to a single report per year for the same vehicle/person. That way, there is no risk that someone will just follow another person around and keep reporting them. If there is in fact a serious dispute with that person, it would be best for the police to be involved.
2. It will increase the likelihood of wrongly issued fines or even AI altered footage
There can be ways to make sure that the dashcams are subject to an approval process and also big fines and potential criminal sanctions for people who are caught falsifying evidence. In addition, judges could be more lenient when someone appeals a fine issued based on "civilian evidence". Either way, there would be no criminal penalties for any "citizen reported" violations, only fines.
3. Some people will compare it to "informing" on your fellow citizens which is deemed undesirable
I do see the point that it's uncomfortable knowing that you're potentially being "watched" by your fellow citizens I feel like it's still a better solution to encourage citizens to be more active rather than have more police patrols. In any case, this would only concern serious violations or cases where people would probably call the local town hall or police (like parking issues) which would waste their time that they could use focusing on other issues.
Rather than only being "afraid" of the police, citizens would play a more active role in making sure traffic laws are being respected.
In order to avoid "vigilantism" there could also be a maximum cap on the amount of reports you can submit where it's clear that someone is just spending their day driving around and watching for violations to report.
4. The argument that this is already possible in some places
That might be true but I think that the police/courts are rather apprehensive of this kind of system and prefer that the officers directly witness the event.
| 1,732,783,907
|
macnfly23
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: 90% of Donald Trump’s public statements are hyperbolic. 50% of Americans Accept These Statements As True.
|
{'id': 'lzmoail', 'text': "Not disingenuous but it's a sort of cognitive dissonance, if you ever get one down to brass tacks on their beliefs and what he's said or done they get mad because it flies directly in the face of their religious beliefs 99% of the time.", 'author': 'Spacemarine658', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1732920955}
|
{'id': 'lzmnh77', 'text': "To be fair you could argue a lot of his backers also believe his hyperbolic nonsense if you look at objectively it's literally impossible for him to please all the corporations and organisations he's made promises to because they have conflict goals and interests.", 'author': 'Foxhound97_', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732920648}
|
1h2xlmg
|
CMV: 90% of Donald Trump’s public statements are hyperbolic. 50% of Americans Accept These Statements As True.
|
The following are some of Trump’s most egregious hyperbolic statements:
“On Nov. 7, 2020, as news organizations correctly projected that Biden had defeated him, Trump tweeted the opposite: ‘I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!’.”
“Kamala has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world … from prisons and jails and insane asylums and mental institutions, and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to prey upon innocent American citizens.”
In 2024 he said the American economy is: “the worst ever.”
Donald Trump has vowed that if voters return him to the White House: “inflation will vanish completely.”
Donald Trump calls this language “truthful hyperbole.” But hyperbole is not truth. Hyperbole departs from reality and lives in the realm of fantasy. Hyperbole is not “truthful.” There’s no truth in hyperbole itself.
The above-referenced statements uttered by Trump are not rooted in evidence or fact.
Why do human beings exaggerate? Because the human being wants to hide an untruth. The drunk driver is stopped: “How many drinks have you had tonight? The drunk driver: “two beers.” The drunk driver has consumed 16 beers in the past five-hours. The drunk driver is exaggerating, in an effort to conceal how much alcohol he or she has consumed in the past five-hours.
Donald Trump is the drunk driver. He wants you to believe he’s only had one or two. He’s lying. The distressing part: half of American is buying the lie.
| 1,732,919,206
|
bg02xl
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Goodhearted "cultural appropriation" is flattering and should not be frowned upon.
|
{'id': 'lx7bv0s', 'text': 'There\'s cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation. Appreciation is, well, appreciated. Good faith, well meaning people showing genuine interest and due reverence for sensitive cultural things is amazing. Belittling the important cultural aspects of a marginalized peoples as an accessory, or mascot, isn\'t.\xa0\n\n\nI\'m Eastern Cherokee, and I love seeing non-natives at powwows, buying indigenous made arts and crafts, visiting our museums, ingesting our media, even learning our dances and languages. It\'s amazing. There\'s just a huge difference between those people and people who dress up like a sexy Indian Princess for Halloween. Again, appreciation vs appropriation.\n\n\nIt\'s important to remember we, as Native Americans, weren\'t allowed to practice our cultural traditions for hundreds of years. It was literally illegal. So taking it and demeaning it is a super double whammy of suck. We fought hard to just practice our traditions, and lost so so many of them due to our subjugation - so I think we deserve better than having someone make light of our most cherished practices.\n\n\nAlso, final note, we have the "pretendian" issue to deal with, too. People lying, saying they\'re indigenous to get clout or sell shit. It\'s weird AF.', 'author': 'kissmybunniebutt', 'score': 121, 'timestamp': 1731641079}
|
{'id': 'lx6yl7z', 'text': 'I think a lot of times when people say someone is doing cultural appropriation what they really mean is that they are just being raciest. For instance, someone doing blackface isn’t borrowing cultural aspects from African Americans, they are just mocking African Americans. I think if you are mocking or have ill intent then I would consider that definitionally not to be cultural appropriation and just disrespectful. I think the one area where it is okay to discourage cultural appropriation is when it comes to spiritual/religious/sacred aspects of another culture. I personally am not a religious person and cannot really relate to like how Christian’s feel when they see drag queens recreating the last supper or how native Americans feel when they see someone at Coachella wearing a feathered headdress, but i do realize that people are just irrational when it comes to religious/spiritual stuff and we all need to get along so we should tip toe carefully around that stuff. But people who like hate on Beyoncé for having Bollywood style dancing in one of her music videos or that bemoan non-black people who have perms or dreadlocks can seriously go fuck off.', 'author': 'tzcw', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731636472}
|
1grkyyp
|
CMV: Goodhearted "cultural appropriation" is flattering and should not be frowned upon.
|
I am Austrian and when non-Austrians find a liking in our culture and lets say find Schnitzel tasty and cook it or offer it in their restaurants or want to wear Lederhosen I am not offended at all, quite to the contrary.
Same with Americans: I bet most Americans wouldn't even think about being insulted by Europeans for "appropriating" Halloween.
I'd argue this is the normal healthy way cultural exchange goes. One perceives another culture and takes the things one likes and incorporates them into ones own culture. As long as there is no mocking or otherwise negative intent I truly see no issue.
Remember when Mario Odyssey was released? Americans on Twitter complained about him wearing a Mexican hat there. Meanwhile actual Mexicans were mostly flattered by cultural representation.
| 1,731,634,243
|
Possible_Lemon_9527
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-15
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: feminism is a hate group for men
|
{'id': 'm00a48k', 'text': 'Hi. I\'m a feminist and I don\'t hate men and, in the feminist spaces I hang out in, it is not acceptable to say "all men are like this" (unless there is actual evidence that all men are). Does that disprove your view?', 'author': 'SeldomSeven', 'score': 13, 'timestamp': 1733127311}
|
{'id': 'm009t02', 'text': "It's hard to change your view when you're simply making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about feminists. \n\n\nBut quite simply, few hate men as a whole and their views simply aren't mainstream or influential. At most it bleeds over into meme culture because memes tend to be rather simplistic", 'author': 'Ver_Void', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1733127102}
|
1h4q28i
|
Cmv: feminism is a hate group for men
|
Before I start I know people for some reason consider "female" to be sexist. In this post I'll be using it as an age neutral term.
But i (along with many other males) are sick of being gaslit about feminism. Feminists clearly hate and demonize men, and there's no way to argue against this.
Like many others who grew up with YouTube I watched anti feminist and sjw videos and stuff. The eventually as criticisms of these videos became more popular I didn't really support anti feminism anymore, I didn't consider myself a feminist but I certainly wouldn't go around calling myself an anti feminist.
However, for the past few years, I started hating feminism again not because of "Andrew Tate" or "manosphere" like feminists always blame. But because I starting seeing more feminist spaces where as a male they actively demonise men as a whole. (I'm talking about places like the twoxchromosomes subreddit)
I feel this way for a bunch of reasons.
I think they generalize entire groups of people, then get mad when they are called out. This is basically every interaction on a feminist post on ant social media website
Feminist: men are rapists
Male: I'm not a rapist generalizing all men is bad.
Feminist: I clearly didn't mean all men why do men always say not all men instead of discussing the issue!!!
I can assure you, feminists would have a lot more success discussing this issue with guys if they just didn't generalize all of them. But instead they get mad or turn to shit like #yesallmen and wonder why guys don't wanna talk about the issue and just get defensive.
Also another reason why is that they pretty clearly just hate males. Idk how some expect males to support their movement when they say stuff like they'd rather be with a bear or all men are violent and need to be treated like monsters. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but are feminists seriously surprised when males don't support a movement that demonizes them. Believe it or not most people just want to be treated like normal members of society and not demonized.
Feminists also have no empathy. This mostly comes up when talking about males issues but honestly when they "infight" they act similarly towards eachother. An example is "male loneliness" this is one issue that I actually agree with the take feminists have somewhat. But feminists basically always respond by getting mad when the issue is discussed, or saying men deserve it and vitriolic shit like men kill themselves more because they want to traumatize their family and friends. I could understand them getting mad when these issues are only brought up to downplay female issues. But in this infamous post https://images.app.goo.gl/kBLJuyKa8wSeSgYN9 from what I can tell the op wasn't even responding to anything about feminism, and is a female herself. Yet this feminist instantly gets mad at the idea of the topic being discussed.
Another example is where they blamed this entire election cycle on males, especially gen z males despite most groups (including women groups) shifting Republican. Just looking for another excuse to demonize men.
Feminists essentially say all men are shit women should treat all of them like predators, I find this ideology to be shit and therefore I do not support "feminism".
Im not saying feminism should be banned or anything like that (it's not possible to ban an idea anyway) just that they should stop saying stuff like feminism helps men too. It's objectively an anti male movement
Furthermore this is just my personal experience, females in real life don't act like this towards me or males in general. I guess my message to males in this would be if you feel like feminists are demonizing you, the females in real life around you probably aren't like this, so don't go down the misogyny pipeline.
So TLDR feminists are rude and have no empathy, and I'm not sure if its a widespread belief anyways
| 1,733,126,437
|
jdjdjdiejenwjw
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Voter Retaliation is Wrong
|
{'id': 'lw0hi6e', 'text': "I'm saying that returning to neutral doesn't count as retaliation, even though the jump from positive to neutral might be painful for them. You have to actually go into the negative part, actively seeking harm, for it to be retribution. \n\nLet's distinguish between the types of support. Because some types of support can actually be legally required if you have a contract to pay them, including legal contracts. So yeah, those types of support would be wrong. That could include your parents home care, child support, spousal support, or your adult child's rent or expenses. \n\nBut all of those (except child support) are not necessarily something the recipient would have actually been entitled to, but since dependency has been created, they are entitled to some transition period.\n\nAnd of course actual retaliation is wrong. If your boyfriend voted for Trump and you're mad about that, you can and should dump him, but you should not key his car or dump his belongings. \n\nBut, let's examine that situation. Let's say they live together in a one bedroom. She was living there before, her name is on the lease, and she can afford it on her own. He's in school and can't afford a place by himself. He pays her a small amount towards the rent. \n\nSo in this situation, he is reliant on her financially. We agree she has the right to break up, cool. He's not on the lease, so she can kick him out legally. But legally (and morally), she can't go home, change the locks, put all his shit on the curb, and leave him homeless. He's got established rights and is entitled to notice so he can make the changes. But he's not entitled to stay there forever. \n\nEven for agreed upon support, unless it's contractually obligated to, that's the most anyone is morally or legally entitled to. A transition period to get their affairs in order so they can do without the support. For an adult child having their rent and tuition paid in uni, that might mean finishing out the term and then getting a loan or going to a cheaper college. \n\nThey aren't necessarily entitled to their whole ride paid for no matter what they do. Let's say there is a gay couple and their adult kid lives at home, is in college and the parents find out he's wildly homophobic. He started a podcast and has been spreading that on social media. They don't have to continue giving him housing and paying his way just because he's exercising his right to free speech, but they do have to give notice so he can get a job or figure out where to go, and arrange something else for his tuition. \n\nRight to vote isn't the right to vote without any influence from anyone ever. Right to speech isn't the right to say whatever you want with no criticism or consequences.", 'author': 'Oishiio42', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1731033506}
|
{'id': 'lvz5xl9', 'text': '>Nice Motte and Bailey there\n\nNice straw man there. \n\n>Freedom of disassociation isn’t the same as threatening or even enacting violence, financial punishment and so on.\n\nWe aren\'t talking about threatening violence. We are talking about cutting people out of our lives *because we have the freedom to do so.*\n\n>You’re advocating for the latter, literally.\n\nWhich is your straw man.\n\nYou need to first learn what the term "autocracy" means. It is a government controlled by one person. Me being a person who isn\'t a member of government, let alone the sole member of government, cutting toxic people out of my life does not make the US an autocracy, because me exercising my freedom of association isn\'t any part of the definition of an autocracy. \n\n>What is anti democratic is saying people have to give money and time to people who think they are inferior…“ another point showing you don’t understand how democracy works.\n\nI love how you prove you don\'t know how democracy works when you suggest i do not.\n\nDemocracy is not a system of government where I have to give time and money to people I disagree with in my own private life just because they want me to. It is a system of government where we vote for political outcomes or representative.\n\nYou\'ve somehow come to the conclusions that a government is actually a private citizen who has no legal authority or power over political decisions. That is preposterous. \n\n>Democracy means you absolutely have to play by the rules of the game even when the person currently in charge is your political enemy.\n\nAnd the rules of the game include freedom of association. Accordingly, exercising my right to associate with who I want or not is participating in democracy.\n\nThe suggestion that I should be mandated by the government to spend time with people I don\'t like is wholly anti-democratic and definitively authoritarian. Your suggestion is that we should not have free association. \n\n>When democracy is just when you’re in charge, again, that’s autocracy. \n\nIt\'s a democracy regardless of if I\'m in charge because I\'m not a politician. My decisions about my personal relationships have no bearing on what our form of government is and I\'m truly confounded as to how you came to the conclusions that me cutting someone out of my life dictates what kind of government America has. This shows a severe deficiency of civic knowledge and the basic of national government. \n\n>Throwing in the towel stating „then it always was an autocracy“ isn’t a valid argument\n\nIt is a valid argument only if we accept your assumptions. I\'m not saying "then it always was an autocracy" is a valid argument, I\'m saying that to point out your logic is flawed and that is the conclusion of your argument. Hilariously, you missed that and now you\'re admitting your claim that my management of my personal relationships means America is an autocracy is also not valid. \n\nThank you for pointing out your claim is not valid and proving my point. \n\n>it’s just a statement that you’re not educated on your own countries history nor the form of government democracy itself.\n\nSays the one claiming how I, in particular, manage my personal relationships is the basis for our form of government.', 'author': 'Biptoslipdi', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731017852}
|
1glz42m
|
CMV: Voter Retaliation is Wrong
|
I’ve been seeing posts about retaliating against people who voted from Trump. I didn’t vote for him but this behavior is concerning. Some examples include going no contact/blocking or cutting them off financially.
If you believe in democracy then you shouldn’t pressure people to vote a certain way or punish them if they don’t vote the same as you. The right to vote includes **choosing** who you vote for. Trying to manipulate a person’s vote is wrong.
It doesn’t matter how strongly you feel about a candidate you shouldn’t coerce people into voting a certain way. You may think it’s justified because it’s Trump, but what if it was reversed. If Kamala won would it be ok for people to retaliate against her voters? I’m sure there are people that would believe that’s justified to.
So regardless of personal opinion or what candidate/party was voted for, we should not retaliate against voters for simply exercising their right.
| 1,731,008,484
|
WildFEARKetI_II
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Gorsuch is as good or better of a SC justice as Garland would have been
|
{'id': 'lzyxn74', 'text': "And what makes you think Garland wouldn't make the same decisions on native rights? Gorsuch was joined by the other liberal justices on those was he not? Why do you think Garland would differ from any of them?", 'author': 'Roadshell', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1733104381}
|
{'id': 'lzywnxy', 'text': "I agree with his natives rights views. They are inconsistent with his other legal views. Inconsistent views is not positive. He can have a couple good decisions, that doesn't outweigh the many more negative ones.", 'author': 'superskink', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733104029}
|
1h4jbuw
|
CMV: Gorsuch is as good or better of a SC justice as Garland would have been
|
Knowing what we know now, and putting aside how you might feel about the process surrounding the nomination, do we think Garland would have actually been an effective justice? As AG he has shown zero willingness to hold trump to account. And after the untimely demise of RBG, he would not even have been the deciding vote to save roe v wade.
Sure, Gorsuch is just as rabidly pro-corporate and anti-woman as his ideological counterparts, but he is the fringe of his coalition and often goes his own way. He has been genuinely progressive on Native American rights. scoring some big wins on that front. To me, this seems preferable to a milquetoast centrist who would not have swung the balance on the major constitutional questions of our time.
| 1,733,102,890
|
whydontyousimmerdown
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Relatively speaking, New York has the most underperforming system of Higher Ed. in the US.
|
{'id': 'm0bksrk', 'text': "The private schools came first in the NE so have the entranched advantage. Harvard 1636, Yale, Cornell, nyu 1830, syracuse 1860. Vs suny storybook (1950s), suny Binghamton (1946).\xa0\n\n\n\nState and federal funding didn't start pouring into higher education until almost 200 years after Harvard was founded.\xa0\n\n\nOut west, like California, the major state schools were founded before or at the same time as the private schools.", 'author': 'sprouts_farmers_54', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1733287161}
|
{'id': 'm0bjwg2', 'text': "I don't know enough about it to explain why, but there aren't any great public universities in the entire northeast region. I presume there is a reason for this. Whether New York is underperforming cannot be evaluated without a better understanding of the full context.", 'author': 'Delicious-Cress-1228', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733286758}
|
1h67hc3
|
CMV: Relatively speaking, New York has the most underperforming system of Higher Ed. in the US.
|
New York is the 4th most populous state in the US. It has the highest GDP/capita. It's in the top 10 states in terms of the percentage of adults holding a bachelor's degree or higher. It has one of the most important financial hubs in the world--New York City.
One would think the state would have a strong public higher education system, with at least a nationally, if not internationally, renowned public university.
But looking at the most recent US News rankings, the best public school in NY is... SUNY Stony Brook at #26: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
SUNY Binghamton comes in at #34 and SUNY Buffalo at #36. That's it within the top 50.
Similar range in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitford/2024/08/27/forbes-top-25-public-colleges/
Some sites don't even include NY schools: https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/top-public-universities/
Given the state statistics, I argue that NY's system of higher education is badly underperforming.
How am I wrong? CMV
| 1,733,285,730
|
NittanyOrange
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Rape should have a lesser punishment
|
{'id': 'lxvuvnk', 'text': 'Your argument to punish based on everyone affected wasn\'t a point I made at all, my point was that rape significantly and irrevocably impacts the victim in a way that cannot be rectified through financial or medical means like many other crimes. I at no point said we should consider all the ancillary people affected by a single crime, but instead that we should look at whether a punishment is capable of creating restitution for a victim.\n\nAdditionally, I don\'t believe any part of the current prison system shows the ability to rehabilitate inmates, it only makes their life significantly worse enough to try to create a counterbalance to the perceived benefit of their crimes.\n\nYour argument about "human instincts" is at best inane and at worst intentionally misleading. All crimes are done on the basis of human instincts, but these are behaviors we\'ve determined detrimental enough to the common good that they must be punished to counteract whatever "urges" people might feel. I don\'t think sexual instinct is a mitigating factor, it just explains part of why a crime was committed. Do you believe that if a pedophile were able to demonstrate that they had true sexual desire towards children that we should count that as a mitigating factor for punishment? I would argue it should swing the punishment in the more harsh direction because they\'ve demonstrated no ability to control their urges.\n\nLook man, it\'s clear you have a verbose vocabulary, but you use this to hide some extreme logical jumps you\'re making to justify your own internal bias. You believe rape should be punished less to bring it "in line" with other punishments, but you don\'t have a clear reason why that punishment duration should be brought down rather than other punishments increased. Do you have proof that shorter sentences lead to lower recidivism rates? Do you have evidence that rapists are able to meaningfully reintegrate into society when they\'re only incarcerated for two years vs six? Also, if rapists are routinely sentenced at longer durations than other criminals wouldn\'t that be exactly the sort of multiple perspectives you\'re asking for? Many people across all levels in the justice system across all states sentence these crimes more harshly than others, isn\'t that evidence that societally we believe this crime is worse than others and should be handled more harshly?', 'author': 'nuggets256', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1731994490}
|
{'id': 'lxvisdw', 'text': '\\>Now sure, rape is a horrible crime, but to excavated it to the degree that it\'s even half as bad as murder is absurd. Additionally, many times rape actually ends up giving longer sentences than murder.\n\n \nThe second part is just wrong according to the DOJ [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp18.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp18.pdf)\n\n\\>the median time served was 17.5 years for murder, 7.2 years for rape\n\nRape also isn\'t just rape. It often includes violence or the threat of violence. Or it includes drugging someone. It rarely is just the sexual act itself. Some rape victims even end up dead or mutilated. Rape being half as bad as murder isn\'t absurd at all. There are some case were it isn\'t but in those the offender often gets off significantly easier. But many others the rape victims ends up half dead and beating someone half dead is half as bad as killing someone.\n\n\xa0\\>There almost should be never a circumstance where a rape crime should hold equivalence to a murderer for rehabilitation need\n\nI also disagree here. A lo of murder is happening in the heat of the moment. That\'s why some charges get downgraded to manslaughter. While actually planned murder sees significantly harsher punishment. Rape might sometimes happen in the heat of the moment but way more often has some part of planning. People murders someone in front of others if they lose themselves. Rape very rarely happens in front of innocent bystanders.\n\nAt the same times the "triggers" for spontanous murder are fairly rare and often can add context to the situation that even the victim somehow contributed to the situation. For rape, the trigger rarely puts actual blame on the victim. Sure there are the circumstances where two people have consensual sex and then one partner changes their mind and the other keeps going. But way more often it\'s just that the victim was just minding their own business.\n\nThese two points combined mean that rape can require significantly more rehabilitation because the triggers are happening way more often and the decision often goes well beyond the initial part.\n\n\\>Sex, power is a natural human urge. We don\'t punish those with mental illness because it\'s natural.\n\nThis is just wrong. We might not always put people into prison for mental illness but if they are a danger to society they still get locked up. It\'s just that a lot of mentally ill people are mostly a danger to themselves. And of those who do get violent towards others, many still end up in prison and lack proper care. I am all for expanding access to mental and a change for the prison system. And that certainly can include more actual rehabilitation for rapists rather than just locking them up.\n\n\\>The US lets people who are mentally ill walk free a lot (not to say they won\'t be sent to a psych hospital, just that they aren\'t sentenced to prison), even if they committed murder.\n\n0.26% of cases get dismissed because of insanity. I would’t call that “walk free a lot”.', 'author': 'HighwayStriking9184', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731989034}
|
1gunmm6
|
CMV: Rape should have a lesser punishment
|
**Warning: My view may be extremely disturbing for some. I highly advise to proceed with caution.**
My view is that one-time rape should have a lighter sentence, particularly in the US where the punishment for rape is extremely harsh. This view is soley that the US ought to give lesser punishments for rape to hold consistency with other punishments and values.
**Rape vs murder**
First, there is the fact that rape is about half the sentence as murder. Now sure, rape is a horrible crime, but to excavated it to the degree that it's even half as bad as murder is absurd. Additionally, many times rape actually ends up giving longer sentences than murder. The justice system, whether based on rehabilitation or retribution, ought to hold consistency with similar sentences, or it's not justice either way. There almost should be never a circumstance where a rape crime should hold equivalence to a murderer for rehabilitation need, and certainly not retributory considering in one the victim is literally dead.
**Deterrence**
I don't think a lesser punishment would be much of deterrence reducer. The same argument is why death penalty isn't always preferable over life in prison, because the punishment is already so great it dosen't matter which it will act as a deterrence. Even spending one year in jail, which would likely be insufficient for rape, would still be outstandingly worse than anything the perpetrator hopes to benefit.
Additionally, a reduction wouldn't indicate societal acceptance of rape more than involuntary manslaughter is downgraded from murder. That is also just a societal acceptance of murder under the heat of passion, so one could make the same argument that we are allowing murder to be more socially acceptable under certain circumstances with reduced sentencing.
**Trauma**
This is also relevant to my deontological point below that punishment is mostly based on intent. So the variety of different possible impacts of long lasting impacts of rape shouldn't really have as much of a say in sentencing as the direct, intended action. Similarly, trauma to victim families in homicide cases are never really considered. While the differentiation is clear, that this trauma is directly inflicted on the victim, the families are just as much victims of the impacts of the crime. Directly, murder victims' trauma are rarely considered at all, compared to the gravity of the crime of the murder itself. While trauma can be long lasting and life changing, it shouldn't necessitate long prison sentences in all cases due to it's uncertain nature and the deontological goal of the system.
Here is my main argument though, in three parts:
**Deontological justice**
1. Punishment is mostly deontological, not consequential.
Most evidently this can be seen in homicide. Justifiable homicide lacks intent or recklessness, manslaughter lacks intent, and murder lacks none of them. Yet the first comes with zero punishment by the state, the second with minimal, and the third is punished relatively harshly.
Thus, rape should also be looked at upon in a mainly deontological view. Which is why I think the induced trauma may not be as relevant as the motivation, at least in the US legal system.
2. Sex, power is a natural human urge. We don't punish those with mental illness because it's natural.
Sexual desires are a natural part of human nature. Power is also a trait that developed evolutionarily and it became natural for humans to seek power.
The US lets people who are mentally ill walk free a lot (not to say they won't be sent to a psych hospital, just that they aren't sentenced to prison), even if they committed murder. This is because the fact they are mentally ill caused them to commit such an action that is out of their control.
My view is this desire for power and sexual gratification is a natural human instinct. While it certainly appears to be much less influential than an actual mental illness, it's just as much as something your born with.
To compare this with Schizophrenia, the most common justification for insanity, it is "A disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly" (google.com). Now, obviously, sexual arousal or even just attraction has similar consequences, inhibiting prefrontal cortex activity which is in fact responsible for thinking and behaving clearly. Just for a quick citation, "the state of sexual arousal is associated with compromised decision making" (Shuper & Fisher, 2008).
Sexual urges and the desire for power are something natural in humans and may be hard to control. Sure, people 100% should control them, but that dosen't undermine the fact not everyone succeeds. This can be directly cross applied to schizophrenia that people should try ensuring clarity of reality, but it's hard to do so with the impairment on logical thinking.
3. Rape is a horrible crime, but a reflection of natural human urges
Thus, I believe we can attribute forced sexual intercourse to similarly inhibit one's decision making as scezophrenia. This obviously does not justify it, but it is explanatory to a degree that I think warrants rape a lesser punishment, much less of the life sentences some are given and the fact the average prison time for rape is approaching a decade. This can also mean considering the psyc ward instead of prison for some cases.
So that's my view. Please CMV!
| 1,731,986,152
|
Revadon
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Companies should be required to obtain, and continually renew, explicit consent to send physical advertisements to addresses.
|
{'id': 'm0flfcj', 'text': "Yea, if you're fine with it, then you're fine with it. It's just something to consider.\n\nA secondary point I thought up while doing that math (I got about the same answer as you in another comment, using different sources, so we're probably on target there), is the economic impact.\n\nThe marketing industry is going to take a hit, so there will be some level of lost jobs out there. Also, companies continue to send these mailers because they work, so the lost advertising will have a negative effect on consumer spending, which will in turn have a negative effect on the economy overall.\n\nAgain, you may be fine with those negative effects and consider the whole thing worthwhile overall, but it should be considered as part of the basis for the view.", 'author': 'XenoRyet', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1733346742}
|
{'id': 'm0fhsoo', 'text': "This would effectively remove an entire method of communication for small, local businesses. Despite the ubiquity of the internet there is a huge contingent of the population that either doesn't have access - almost 11.5 million homes - or doesn't want to use it, like elderly and rural populations. \n\nAdditionally, you're not really removing any government overhead, you're just transferring it over to a different department. A system requiring explicit consent, QR codes, and government enforcement would be extremely complex and costly to implement. You want a web portal resilient enough for 300 million people to be able to frequently using it, the IT infrastructure to support it, and a robust system to investigate reports/parse them out from fraudulent reports against things like debt collectors or electricity bills/actually enforce violations. This also takes cost and capital and manpower, and is a lot more complicated to configure than it sounds.\n\nAdditionally, we already kind of know that fining businesses for emissions violations just allows people to pollute if they have enough money--how would this not happen with your proposed system as well? Now you're just getting junk mail from major businesses, which was already a lot of it in the first place.", 'author': 'DudeLoveBaby', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733345682}
|
1h6ql7d
|
CMV: Companies should be required to obtain, and continually renew, explicit consent to send physical advertisements to addresses.
|
I'd guess everyone is familiar with a mailbox full of spam advertisements from grocery stores, local business, credit card companies, etc. Many times it's just sent to "Current Resident." There's a national do-not-solicit list, but there's no enforcement or regulations around businesses honoring that list.
This is annoying, but also a huge waste of resources and destructive to the environment. It boggles the mind to think how many trees are sacrificed every year just to fill up every address in the United States with junk mail. Not to mention the energy and carbon footprint of the supply chains to manufacturer, print and deliver these. And, of course, the wasted cost and capital on this.
And yet, it continues to be shrugged off as acceptable. Even very progressive, highly-regulatory states like California do not have any mechanism for punishing this type of spam mail.
My view is that the government should come down hard on this. I think that explicit sign-up and consent should be required to send these emails. Not the "left a checkbox enabled when creating an account" type of consent, either. Business should be required to explicitly request consent to send physical mail to an address, and then renew that consent every five years. Furthermore, every piece of mail should have a QR code which allows the recipient to easily withdraw consent.
The government should set up an easy portal for consumers to report mail that they did not consent to, and companies should be progressively fined for every violation.
| 1,733,344,915
|
NowImAllSet
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-04
|
2024_fall
|
Meta: r/changemyview is recruiting new moderators
|
{'id': 'lzddkps', 'text': 'The moderation standards, which are part of the community guidelines, say that posting rules (which would include Rule D) do not apply to moderators when they are acting in a moderation capacity. \n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/3Mka7FRX54\n\nPlease feel free to award me a delta for changing your view.', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1732776095}
|
{'id': 'lzdbf0h', 'text': 'Rule D violation. If meta posts are allowed in this sub by mods, that should be directly specified in the community guidelines', 'author': 'chewinghours', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732774905}
|
1h1pb0h
|
Meta: r/changemyview is recruiting new moderators
|
It's that time of the year folks. We're looking to expand our team of volunteers that help keep this place running. If you're passionate about changing views through thoughtful discourse, what better way can there be to contribute to that than help to keep a community like this as a smoothly oiled machine? We're not looking for a fixed number of new moderators, generally we like to take things by eye and accept as many new mods as we have good applications. Ideal candidates will have...
* A strong history of good-faith participation on CMV (delta count irrelevent).
* Understanding of our rules and why they're setup the way they are.
Please do note though:
Moderating this subreddit is a significant time commitment (minimum 2-3 hours per week). It's rewarding and in my opinion very worthy work, but please only apply if you are actually ready to participate.
Thank you very much for making this community great. The link to the application is [here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScsLvIvt7ghitVONvLUNtxsyK-KCPhtPUdtaIo0SHmzg-PP8A/viewform?usp=sf_link)
| 1,732,773,526
|
RedditExplorer89
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: it would be beneficial for Reddit users to go off platform
|
{'id': 'lvdbjlt', 'text': "Social media works when you have critical mass. Content creators want to be on platforms where there are users that will see said content, and users want to be on platforms where content creators post content. Unless you can get a critical mass of creators/users to migrate, the new platfrom won't take off.\n\nFor the average user/creator, there was no benefit to being on Mastedon and there were large downsides (lack of critical mass) so it failed.", 'author': 'Ansuz07', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1730737938}
|
{'id': 'lvdb361', 'text': ">Is there not some sort of open-source model that could be non-profit? \n\nOf course. It relies on billions of dollars of investment spending. Do you have a backer who can supply that billions of dollars?\n\nRemember: Reddit spent literal billions of dollars before they managed to break even. In order to reach a zero-profit situation, you will have to somehow support the years of negative-profit. \n\nIf you have the funds to do it, or if you can somehow convince some billionaire to donate to your cause instead of... I dunno, feeding someone, then sure, go right ahead. No one's stopping you.", 'author': 'MidAirRunner', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730737799}
|
1gjhgt8
|
CMV: it would be beneficial for Reddit users to go off platform
|
Last week, Reddit released rosy earnings and guidance, causing the stock to explode.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/reddit-stock-skyrockets-earnings-beat-ai-growth-revenue-huffman-2024-10
It seems that a large part of their growth has come from selling our data to AI training models.
In other words, they are selling our conversations to openAI and other companies, and we don't get anything for it. On the contrary, we are served ads for our time while adding tens of millions of dollars to their models.
Probably the most famous example of a subreddit going off platform was The Donald subreddit, which made a large clone after increasing meddling from admins and moderators. I don't see why a larger scale version of this cannot happen, with the direct benefit of no ads in exchange for our data being sold.
| 1,730,735,426
|
original_og_gangster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Stock Market vs. Gambling: Are They Really That Different, i don't think so
|
{'id': 'ly0xrrv', 'text': "Because stock is a source of capital that allows business to grow. If a tech company sells stock, it lets them fund research that leads to innovation. \n\nMoney freely flowing from worse companies to better one also drives improvement and innovation. Companies that make better cars and operate more efficiently will on average outperform companies that make shitty cars. \n\nIt's also not about betting on winning companies. Everyone who has bought and consistently added to an S&P 500 index fund has made money if they didn't die young. If you started investing in 1970 or 1980 or 1990 or 2000 or 2010 or 2020, you would have made money in the stock market.", 'author': 'StrangeLocal9641', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732064975}
|
{'id': 'lxzl372', 'text': "It is very different from what people normally think of as ownership.\n\nIf you buy a bicycle, you get to use the bike. You don't get to use McDonald's if you buy shares in it. There's no benefits like if you owned your own restaurant.\n\nYou also don't get to decide what happens to McDonald's, unless you own a very very large amount of the shares. Most of the time by far people are talking about buying such piddling amounts of the company it's not even worth thinking of as ownership.\n\nFinally, you can flip your ownership extremely quickly compared to any other thing that you own. People don't often buy a bike and then sell them 10 seconds later.", 'author': 'lordnacho666', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732049128}
|
1gv645d
|
CMV: Stock Market vs. Gambling: Are They Really That Different, i don't think so
|
The stock market is just another form of legalized gambling, where the balance is tilted in favor of the rich and powerful. A few individuals can crash the market, politicians profit from insider information, and regular individuals are left betting on luck. Unlike other industries, no tangible product of value is created to generate money; someone has to lose money for another to gain. Around 70% of individuals incur losses in the stock market, especially in high-risk activities like intraday trading.
While factors like company growth, strong financial performance, and market trends are often cited as reasons for success, these are also present in traditional gambling. For example, a well-known horse has better odds of winning in horse racing, and a skilled fighter has a higher chance of victory in combat sports. By definition, gambling involves wagering money or something of value on an event with an uncertain outcome, usually with the risk of losing the wagered amount. Doesn’t this definition align closely with the stock market
| 1,732,045,711
|
tyrorc
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There is no scientific evidence of anything spiritual being real.
|
{'id': 'ly6gvfg', 'text': 'We may not believe the evidence, but it is still evidence.', 'author': 'deep_sea2', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1732152109}
|
{'id': 'ly6einr', 'text': 'There is no scientific evidence of math being real either.', 'author': 'donotdonutdont', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1732151245}
|
1gw3tgu
|
CMV: There is no scientific evidence of anything spiritual being real.
|
I am not saying spiritual things aren't real, but I do believe that there is no scientific evidence pointing in that direction. Most of the "evidence" I see is just looking at things we don't have answers for yet, and assuming that a materialistic universe doesn't HAVE an answer, because we haven't found it yet. Saying "we don't know, so its something spiritual" isn't good evidence. Saying "these things in science make MORE sense if we assume there is something beyond the physical" would, but I haven't seen that.
| 1,732,151,112
|
BigMiniPainter
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Patriarchy Hot Take: Women only have rights if men agree to grant them rights.
|
{'id': 'lyd5e7q', 'text': 'Sure, my argument is the sex based lens is useless. Your argument is winner take all. 99.9% of people, regardless of sex have no rights.\xa0', 'author': 'Kazthespooky', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1732249036}
|
{'id': 'lyd3uu9', 'text': "No, women have rights because every human has rights. In any case, your argument should be that women's rights are only *recognised* if men agree to recognise them.", 'author': 'threeknobs', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732248422}
|
1gwyzqu
|
CMV: Patriarchy Hot Take: Women only have rights if men agree to grant them rights.
|
Given the biological differences of physical strength in men and women, men collectively have a monopoly on force over women
Rights only exist in actuality insofar as a government grants AND enforces them through laws. All laws are compelled by physical force.
Therefore, men will always be the arbiters of rights because they biologically have the monopoly on force. (note: “weaker” men would also be subject to this same claim). Yes women may be in leadership, or in charge, but that is only true if men allow it to be.
This is why, in some Middle Eastern countries, when men collectively decide to take women's rights away, they do so quite easily. The rights of women will always be dictated by the collective beliefs of the men in any given society and will only be granted if the collective agrees to do so.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that men should not grant women rights or should not treat women as equal; I am merely making a descriptive claim regarding the reality of women's rights (kinda like the dude last night that argued, logically same-sex incest is “fine” while also stating he thinks its disgusting).
Anticipated rebuttal: Guns have leveled the playing field in regards to biological strength differences.
The playing field is not in fact leveled. A gun is a force multiplier, not equalizer. Putting a woman with a gun against a man with a gun, the man is still in the superior position as has he has more “starting” force(physical strength to deal with close combat, ability to manage recoil, muscle mass, etc) and shares the same force multiplier (a gun). This rebuttal would also ignore that men possess the vast majority of weapons and overwhelmingly do the physically demanding/dangerous jobs that result in the making of said weapons. As a collective group men still hold the power even given the creation of ammunitions.
A simple way to think of this view is, if the President convinced all men to kill all women, the women would be killed fairly quickly. If the president compelled all women to kill all men… the women would be killed fairly quickly.
I recognize if women can brainwash enough men to side with them they could reach a point of having sufficient force. Likewise if women simply outnumbered men by a significantly larger margin than the actual birthrate allows for, that would also potentially turn the tables. That said, im interested in practical ways this philosophical argument is wrong and not in the unrealistic hypotheticals like these examples.
So Reddit change my mind.
| 1,732,247,755
|
donotdonutdont
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: not all cultures deserve respect
|
{'id': 'lx5eqry', 'text': 'WARNING: Long comment, if you don\'t want to read all of it, skip to the last paragraph\n\nConsider the proposition "I respect your right to believe X, but draw the line if you *do* X." We have no choice in our present societies but to do the first bit - we can\'t actually police the thoughts of people. Moreover, freedom of expression protections in countries that enshrine them entitle people to express most anything, even abjectly horrible things, with some noteworthy exceptions (i.e. Germany\'s strict anti-Nazi censorship). However, if someone who believes a terrible thing (say, an Islamist jihadi, or a white supremacist partisan) actually *does* that thing (say, shoot up a black church to trigger a race war), the violence of the state is deployed to suppress their behavior.\n\nTo what extent can we say that we *actually* respect their right to believe these things, or that we respect their culture, when we intentionally prevent them from actualizing their beliefs? From my point of view, we\'ve essentially shunted them into the same category as asylum patients, who can happily believe that they\'re pixies or demons or vampires or whatever, but whose liberty and bodily autonomy are denied on account of their beliefs being understood as unserious at best, and violently anti-social at worst.\n\nThe crux of the issue is this:\n\n>Is that a functional problem that we\'re dealing with? A culture that is described entirely by, or comprised entirely of, objectionable practices?\n\nThe answer to that question is not a simple yes or no. You have more in common with a jihadi than you\'d think of off the cuff, on account of the first things you think of when you think "jihadi" (probably) being things that distinguish you from them. Most cultural practices aren\'t particularly objectionable, and we can easily find near-universal commonalities between all human societies (food preparations, religious motifs, shared language or common ancestral language, etc.).\n\nBut the practices we do identify as objectionable don\'t arise in a vacuum. Particular practices exist within the logic of a given culture or subculture, informed and justified by the whole. The concept of "jihad" is inextricable from the broader context of Islam, which is a religion that arises from the particular ethnic context of the medieval Arabian Peninsula, even if the concept of "holy war" is shared elsewhere. The concept of "white supremacy" is inextricable from the history of European nationalism and colonialism, which in turn emerge from the cultures and social structures of pre-modern European nations.\n\nThe statement "I respect your right to believe X, but draw the line if you *do* X," is not a statement absent of ideology. It makes sense only within the context of a secular liberal democracy, wherein people retain the feeble right to believe anything, but lack the agency to do anything *except that which is condoned by the state*. What is condoned is, in turn, informed by the culture of any given society: the United States and most European nations are culturally Christian, even if the general population is not religiously so. What Americans or Germans find normal and acceptable behavior, though substantially different, is even more so from what the Chinese or Kenyans or Iranians find normal and acceptable behavior.\n\nAnd so what we ultimately arrive at is that cultures and cultural practices must be neatly slotted into the liberal free marketplace of ideas, within which nearly any idea can be *expressed*, but only certain select ideas can be *actualized*. And the set of ideas which may be actualized is, in turn, determined by the culture that controls the marketplace. Germany does not permit people to chant "Heil Hitler" in public under pain of state suppression - the United States does permit this. Saudi Arabia executes individuals convicted of apostasy - the United States, to my knowledge, has never permitted such a practice (please educate me if I\'m mistaken on that matter, I can only plead ignorance of any such case post-Revolution).\n\nIf we accept the premises as laid out thus far (that particularly objectionable cultural practices arise not from a vacuum, but from within the context of a particular culture; that cultural practices of any kind can be actualized only with the consent of the state; and that what is permitted by the state is informed by the culture hegemonic within the state), then we arrive at the conclusion that the state must necessarily respect some cultures over others, namely the cultures that control the state. Cultures that do not fit so neatly into the marketplace (conveniently designed to be more suitable to some than others) are cheapened, watered down, until they exist in contradiction with their own logic for the sake of survival. If the condition of my respect for a thing is that it is bound, gagged, and hung from the rafters, then I reject the notion that I respect that thing at all.', 'author': 'Henderson-McHastur', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731618397}
|
{'id': 'lx55kan', 'text': ">What civilization is is six billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each other's shoulders and kicking each other's teeth in. It's not a pleasant situation. And yet, you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love, and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us, the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are lead by the least among us, and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.\n\n>This is something—and I don't really want to get off on this tear because it's a lecture in itself, but: Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people's convenience, and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture, and yet we glorify the creative potential of the individual, the rights of the individual, we understand the felt presence of experience is what is most important, but the culture is a perversion. It fetishises objects; it creates consumer mania; it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanise themselves by behaving like machines, meme processors of memes passed down from Madison Avenue and Hollywood and what have you.\n\n- Terence Mckenna, 1999", 'author': 'Nobio22', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731615579}
|
1grcnjc
|
CMV: not all cultures deserve respect
|
hot take but yeah. i come from a country that thrives off it’s cultural practices and I partake in them. I believe culture is the very essence of humanity. however i don’t believe ALL cultures deserve to be respected and tolerated. some examples of cultural practices i’ve come across that i will never personally tolerate or understand:
1. women who leave marriages should walk out with the clothes on their backs and nothing else. this happens close to where i live. as a woman, if uou choose to leave your marriage for whatever reason, you don’t get to keep ANYTHING in the house with your husband. not even your clothes and personal belongings.
2. forced marriage. no no no NO. i don’t even need to explain myself for this.
3. brides drinking water off their husband’s feets. if you’re on instagram reels a lot you’ll know what i mean. disgusting and degrading towards the woman.
| 1,731,611,632
|
ZealousidealWorth986
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Men and Women should ALWAYS be held to the same standard within any given job
|
{'id': 'lzvnt4i', 'text': 'Sure, but are we really holding them to “the same standards” when one of the standards is “you need to be a particular gender to do this job?” Obviously you still want the person to be competent, and you would maintain certain standards accordingly, but it seems plain that you might overlook otherwise more competent people because gender is a standard for the job.', 'author': 'ExRousseauScholar', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1733065990}
|
{'id': 'lzvlumx', 'text': '> "everyone shines differently"\n\n\nNo, this is not what I mean. What I mean is that jobs are very, VERY rarely, exactly the same for two people. Expectations, duties, communication, treatment, etc., changes person-to-person, regardless of gender. Or any other factor, for that matter.\n\n\nSo putting it down to something like "women are given lower standards," is not only cherry-picked bullsh*t, it\'s both objectively and subjectively incorrect.', 'author': 'Peefersteefers', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1733065275}
|
1h44j71
|
CMV: Men and Women should ALWAYS be held to the same standard within any given job
|
I was having a conversation with a woman about why more women aren't pilots and they had all these reasons why, and they said something that gave me pause. They said that in aviation everyone is held to the same standard but when giving the reasons why more women weren't in aviation, they didn't mention that maybe women simply can't or aren't willing to meet that standard. I think firefighting is another job where women are expected to meet the same standard as well.
In jobs such as the military, women are held to an objectively lower standard and arguably a lower subjective standard when it comes to discipline. This doesn't make sense to me as if someone is doing a specific job, regardless of their sex, there is a standard to do that job and I think everyone should be held to that standard period. This means one of two things for me:
1. If someone is unable to meet the standards required for the job then they just don't have the prerequisites required to accomplish the job and should not be hired.
2. If the standards are lowered so that a group of people are able to meet the requirements, then the standards should be lowered across the board because this shows that's the actual standard needed.
The only exception that I can think of doesn't have to do with sex but rather merit where there is something extraordinary about you which would justify waiving a standard.
| 1,733,063,614
|
TheAverageBear132
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Everyone deserves compassion (even the worst people)
|
{'id': 'm0y56oy', 'text': 'My bad i forgot about that, just copy paste the “yes, you did” comment', 'author': 'yeah-this-is-fine', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733613934}
|
{'id': 'm0xzad8', 'text': '“Hurt people hurt people.” \n\nEver heard that expression? No one is born a rapist, but some people do, for example, suffer from childhood sexual, physical, psychological abuse that causes them to similarly hurt people when they’re older. \n\nNo one is condoning or justifying them hurting people. Obviously. By any means. But don’t you feel compassion for someone who was tortured and is so broken as to do the same to others? I do.', 'author': 'Clear-Sport-726', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1733611869}
|
1h9317i
|
CMV: Everyone deserves compassion (even the worst people)
|
Firstly, let me explain my perspective. I don’t believe that murderers, rapists, or others who commit heinous acts should escape justice. They must answer for their crimes. However, my theory is that evil in people is often a statistical byproduct of society. With billions of individuals in the world, someone is bound to have the misfortune of being "born evil," whether due to genetics, life circumstances, or random events that trigger a massive butterfly effect.
In light of this, I think we should approach such individuals with compassion—not excusing their actions but recognizing the tragedy of their existence. They deserve punishment, but without the added layers of hatred beyond what is necessary. To illustrate, consider the *Injustice* timeline in the DC Universe. We know Superman is fundamentally good, and we love him. But if he breaks and commits horrible acts, is it truly justice to subject him to a torturous punishment? Or would it be more humane to end his suffering with mercy, acknowledging his broken state?
Is it really a unforgiveble sin to be someone who falls for misguided beliefs, who, through a series of tragic circumstances, becomes what we call "evil"? On the other hand, I also think about the victims, their families, and the importance of setting an example for society. This inner conflict used to weigh heavily on me—I felt guilty for having empathetic thoughts about alternative realities where these individuals might not have turned out so cruel.
But now, I’m learning to redirect that empathy. Instead of imagining kinder scenarios for the perpetrators, I want to channel my compassion toward those who have suffered at their hands. They are the ones who truly need our support and understanding.
| 1,733,607,780
|
Kizinhou
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The public response to the United healthcare CEO’s death is proof that the majority of the US is left-wing economically, at least on healthcare.
|
{'id': 'm0vravl', 'text': '>If anything I feel like what people post online is the MOST reflective of how they really feel. No fear of retribution because of the anonymity.\xa0\n\nExcept people who post their opinions online are a bad sample representation of people in general. \n\nIt’s like saying “most people think Jenny is a whore” because that’s the consensus on the bathroom wall.', 'author': 'WorldsGreatestWorst', 'score': 39, 'timestamp': 1733585989}
|
{'id': 'm0vqqu5', 'text': '> I believe the overwhelmingly supportive response to the death of the United healthcare ceo is among the strongest pieces of evidence to support the economic side of that argument we\'ve ever seen.\n\nMore directly, would you also say the "overwhelmingly supportive response" is a strong piece of evidence that the majority of Americans are pro-murder?', 'author': '00Oo0o0OooO0', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733585804}
|
1h8uok2
|
CMV: The public response to the United healthcare CEO’s death is proof that the majority of the US is left-wing economically, at least on healthcare.
|
I made a cmw a little while back that asserted that the majority of the US is economically liberal, and socially moderate. Conservatives politicians typically attack the left from a social policy perspective for this reason, their actual economic policies are extremely unpopular among the vast majority of the electorate.
I believe the overwhelmingly supportive response to the death of the United healthcare ceo is among the strongest pieces of evidence to support the economic side of that argument we've ever seen. At the very least, as much is evident from the perspective on healthcare.
Medicare for all was Bernie Sanders's signature policy, and people in the media called him a radical for it, but now you see a huge plurality of actual people arguing against the existence of for-profit health insurance.
| 1,733,584,906
|
original_og_gangster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Rap peaked years ago and will never be as good as it was
|
{'id': 'm1apuho', 'text': "There's also survivorship bias. The low quality stuff of previous eras gets forgotten", 'author': 'genobeam', 'score': 79, 'timestamp': 1733797392}
|
{'id': 'm1aot8l', 'text': "Haven't heard a good rap since Doggystyle.", 'author': 'InfidelZombie', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733797006}
|
1haqzj4
|
CMV: Rap peaked years ago and will never be as good as it was
|
Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of rappers right now who have talent. However, a majority of the modern rap songs I listen to now come from artists who have been around for a long time (mostly Eminem, who is one of the few artists who falls under this category). Rap isn't my favorite genre in the first place, but I am very knowledgeable of the current status of rap as well as its history, and it's currently pretty horrendous and pales in comparison to what it used to be.
I wasn't necessarily around when the most iconic rappers were big, but the late 90's and 2000's were absolutely incredible for rap. Nobody really gave a fuck, and every big rapper was explosive, no matter what track they were on. Collaborations were legendary, and artists who had some sort of correlation or chemistry with another artist in any way would work with them without thinking about it too much beforehand. At the same time, rappers would absolutely murder the people they loathed on their own tracks, and the feuds during that time period are still exhilarating to look back at to this day (although plenty of them ended in tragedy).
Nowadays, things are so sloppy. There are still plenty of great rappers out there right now who haven't been around for very long (Kendrick, Tyler, the Creator, etc.), but scrolling through social media and being forced to consume shitty, overproduced rap songs made by rappers who can't write their own lyrics or even perform them decently is frustrating. I don't pay too much attention to the artists of these songs, but everyone and their grandma wants to be a part of the scene, and this entire trend of becoming a rapper if you have any fame at all is getting old.
Content creators becoming rappers is somewhat understandable, but you know what isn't? Churning out hunks of garbage that not even a toddler would enjoy to make a quick bag. From the Lil Pumps to the Ice Spices, the rap game has been watered down significantly by these worthless mumble rappers who aren't even passionate about what they do. These new age rappers don't even try to take shots at each other--they collaborate and rap about adversity that they've never even faced.
Now, I'd like to make it clear once more that there are still talented rappers out there right now, and even then, I don't really care if you want to listen to this slop. However, it shouldn't be forced down my throat like it is now when I'm actively trying to isolate myself from it. I believe that the only people who should be making songs that they want to promote to a mainstream audience should be able to articulate strong messages and translate them through the mic, and they shouldn't be afraid of the media. If you think that these wannabes are worth something, please let me know why in the comments.
| 1,733,796,513
|
HeroOfTime_21
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-10
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: You cant reference your “background” in a scientific subject when you didn’t finish your undergrad in that subject.
|
{'id': 'm18j0pr', 'text': 'So if they had done research or lab work, but not completed an undergrad - would you consider it a credible background?', 'author': 'Rainbwned', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1733770964}
|
{'id': 'm18hvpe', 'text': 'The fact that different people might focus on different levels, does not negate the very real hierarchy of competence.', 'author': 'obsquire', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733770614}
|
1hagzir
|
CMV: You cant reference your “background” in a scientific subject when you didn’t finish your undergrad in that subject.
|
Hey everyone! I’m currently in paramedic school, and have a honours degree in neuroscience from when I was younger. In my current program, there are a few individuals who constantly reference their previous knowledge in various scientific fields (neuroscience, kinesiology, biology, etc). However, after talking with them, none of actually finished their degrees at university. In fact, I know thought talking with other people that most of these individuals failed out or were not doing so hot in their programs before dropping out.
I finally said something today to one individual when they stated “building off of my background in neuroscience”. Considering I ACTUALLY HAVE my degree in that subject, I find that it is kind of something that irks me. Personally I believe that a “background” in a scientific subject refers to a degree in this field. In fact, I personally think that the degree to have a “background” should be a phd, but that’s an opinion for another day. What do you guys think, should you be able to say you have a background in a field that you didn’t complete your undergrad in?
| 1,733,769,911
|
theweepingarmadillo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: scrub daddy is a bad product
|
{'id': 'm0inpd3', 'text': 'Try the Scrub Mommy. It is the only one I use. Hard and soft sides!', 'author': 'turiyag', 'score': 18, 'timestamp': 1733393601}
|
{'id': 'm0h7evk', 'text': "Definitely much more effective when it's hard. A sentiment I'm sure we all agree on!", 'author': 'TaketheRedPill2016', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1733366353}
|
1h6xx71
|
CMV: scrub daddy is a bad product
|
Each one of its benefits are either not that useful or in actuality drawbacks of the product
1. hard when cold, soft when warm. I don't like to wash dishes in cold water, who likes to have their hands freezing. "oh but you don't leave the cold water running, you just make the sponge hard with the cold water", yeah and then because of friction heat, within 10 seconds it becomes soft again and useless for surfaces that requires a rougher or harder sponge. You know what would easily fix this, a sponge with a soft side and a hard side, the ones that you know already exist.
2. Small holes like the smile of the smiley face to clean spoons - yeah there's already a solution for that, bend the sponge, it's ridiculously easy to do and gives you a way better position to scrub hard on the spoon if there is any material left behind, scrub daddy is not really bendable, and different spoons have different sizes and shapes that don't all conform to the smile of the sponge
3. They are pricey compared to dollar store sponges which don't have the above disadvantages
I tried sponge daddy first hand, thinking it was an interesting product on shark tank, but it is such a bad product. It's really just a gimmicky product. Why does it do so well? Is it really just marketing
| 1,733,364,112
|
Janewaymaster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People who are celebrating UnitedHealthcare CEO’s death are wrong
|
{'id': 'm0hw7y0', 'text': 'The fact that in the US health insurance is considered a part of compensation is such a wild and disastrous misstep on every level independent of your political leanings if you actually subscribe to a political ideology rather than a part ideology. Tethering insurance to employment is the opposite of free market capitalism in so much that the insurer has so much more leverage than let’s say State Farm vs Geico for auto. Don’t like your healthcare? Make a huge life change and still be subject to your new employer changing your provider next year. It doesn’t make a bit of damn sense. \n\nI heard a good breakdown about this like 10 years ago that I really wish I could find which explained how the practice started but went into depth of alot of the negative impacts that have steamed from it. \n\nAll to say yes I see how the insurer is not responsible for the healthcare of the insured, and is only responsible to pay out the claims that is agreed upon as per the insured plan. But there isn’t an open marketplace where the average consumer has any true power of shopping that marketplace as its decided for them by their employer and is subject to change at their employers discretion. The ACA doesn’t provide competitive plans (non catastrophic coverage) as the employer provided market which pins everyone outside of the “wealthy” to be essentially stuck in the “non market”.', 'author': 'acableperson', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733376687}
|
{'id': 'm0h76qj', 'text': ">I don’t know how you can argue against that.\n\nThe counterargument is fairly straightforward: The insurance company is not responsible for ensuring access to healthcare. They're responsible for ensuring that they pay out qualifying claims made against the policies that they sell. If their terms for providing coverage change, it's up to their customers to seek out alternative coverage if they find the new terms unacceptable. If a customer submits a claim for something that is not covered under their policy, the insurance company owes them nothing more than you or I do. \n\nPeople do die without healthcare and you can rightly argue that healthcare should be provided to all as a public good - but that doesn't mean that a given insurance company is responsible for keeping everyone alive anymore than a hotel is responsible for keeping everyone sheltered or a restaurant is responsible for keeping everyone fed. These businesses all provide a service with defined terms to customers who agree to those terms, and are not responsible for providing anything in excess of those terms.", 'author': 'MrGraeme', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1733366271}
|
1h6v8ey
|
CMV: People who are celebrating UnitedHealthcare CEO’s death are wrong
|
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media about Brian Thompson’s death. A lot of the claims are asserting that UnitedHealthcare is terrible at approving claims and has led to the loss of loved ones.
While I see and understand the frustration of people, is it crazy for me to think that it’s not his fault that your family couldn’t fully pay for their medical expenses?
First, it’s important to acknowledge the very real frustrations with healthcare, especially when it comes to insurance companies. No one should have to go through the pain of losing a loved one due to medical issues, and the financial strain of dealing with medical bills can feel like a second loss. It's well-documented that health insurance companies, especially large ones like UnitedHealthcare, can have troubling approval processes for claims, and the denial of coverage for life-saving treatments can lead to devastating consequences.
However, we need to be careful not to equate the actions of an entire system with the actions of a single person. Yes, Brian Thompson was the CEO, but the problems with healthcare access and insurance approval processes are much deeper and more systemic than one individual’s leadership. The issues with healthcare in America are rooted in policy decisions, the structure of the insurance industry, and the prioritization of profit over patient care—longstanding issues that go beyond one CEO, no matter how powerful their position might have been.
Celebrating anyone’s death, regardless of their business practices or policies, strikes me as an extreme response. It may offer momentary catharsis for those who feel wronged, but it ultimately doesn’t contribute to any constructive conversation or meaningful change. It’s crucial to hold corporations accountable, to push for healthcare reform, and to advocate for the ethical treatment of people in healthcare systems—but it’s just as important to do so in ways that focus on solutions, not on animosity or vengeance.
In a perfect world, healthcare would be universally accessible and affordable, and no one would have to suffer due to an inability to pay. But that world doesn’t exist right now, and celebrating the death of someone, regardless of their role, doesn't move us closer to that goal. Instead, we should focus on how we can push for real changes in the system that could prevent such harm from happening in the first place.
| 1,733,356,610
|
Dizzy_Title
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Ethics is not a "real thing" but an evolved psychological mechanism to encourage prosocial behavior
|
{'id': 'm04i12s', 'text': 'I adopt a meaning because I believe in it. I don’t need an objective standard for my belief\n\nAs for active nihilism, here’s a [link](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/9/23/leonard-finding-purpose-nihilism/)', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733186087}
|
{'id': 'm004l9d', 'text': 'So where does the "ought" come from?\n\nEither it\'s created from objective reality or it\'s magically created outside of objective reality. There are no other options.', 'author': 'Z7-852', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733123745}
|
1h3y56i
|
CMV: Ethics is not a "real thing" but an evolved psychological mechanism to encourage prosocial behavior
|
I believe that ethics is not an objective or universal phenomenon but rather a psychological and cultural instrument evolved to encourage prosocial behavior that benefits the individual indirectly through the success of their community. In this view, ethics can be understood as a heuristic system - imperfect but generally effective - for promoting cooperation and mutual benefit in social groups.
While we have the ability to reflect on our ethical views, reason about them, and even change them, they are always serving our unconscious instincts. For example, in this view, one could understand psychopathy as an opportunistic adaptation to macro conditions that favor ‘unethical’ behaviors rather than as a diseased state. For example, in a prisoner’s dilemma, an entirely selfless population is vulnerable to cheaters.
Ultimately, through this way of seeing things, there is no ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ in a greater sense, but only ‘is’ and the ‘is’ is like that way because of simple fundamental rules of the universe, such as ‘things which proliferate, proliferate.’ Hopefully, you can appreciate how this view can lead to a bit of existential dread. If so, you will understand why I felt inclined to have my view challenged :)
| 1,733,038,665
|
Aimbag
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The reason things seem so politically hopeless in America for the left is because their expectations are too high
|
{'id': 'm1bth1w', 'text': 'You are just making a bunch of claims without much evidence, though. How do you know "we don\'t really want to do lefty policies"? If that was truly the case, why couldn\'t the GOP undo Obamacare under Trump\'s first term? \n\nIf the problem is that GOP just calls everything woke, then it doesn\'t seem like the left is making a fallacy but rather that the GOP has gotten exceedingly good at lying and that is at the heart of the issue. That is what needs to be defeated.', 'author': 'damn_dats_racist', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733815965}
|
{'id': 'm1bbgiv', 'text': '> They want to go back to the 1950s and 60s when taxation rates were high, we had a great compression, and lower income inequality. We had universal programs that raised a generation of Americans out of the great depression.\n\nTrue. \n\n> We had civil rights and liberalism was the name of the game for a long time Unions were strong. We hear all the time from the left that wages went up with productivity until the 1970s. If only we could go back to those days!\n\nCompletely wrong and liberalism is a bad thing.', 'author': 'ImALulZer', 'score': -7, 'timestamp': 1733806107}
|
1hatxpk
|
CMV: The reason things seem so politically hopeless in America for the left is because their expectations are too high
|
My basic thesis is that the left in America is like MAGA in the way they yearn for a time that no longer (or never) really exists. They want to go back to the 1950s and 60s when taxation rates were high, we had a great compression, and lower income inequality. We had universal programs that raised a generation of Americans out of the great depression. We had civil rights and liberalism was the name of the game for a long time Unions were strong. We hear all the time from the left that wages went up with productivity until the 1970s. If only we could go back to those days! Then everything changed when the Ronald Regan attacked.
The problem is that this rests on the belief that society should always get better. Unlimited growth is not sustainable. America doesn't have the stranglehold over the world economy like it did before the 1970s. People are too skeptical of the government and polarization guarantees no party will be in power long enough to fundamentally change things. The reality is that life has sucked fundamentally for the vast majority of people forever. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to make more than $15/hr no matter where they live or what their job is. Things are ultimately way better than they were 100 years ago. If the left managed their expectations a little bit things wouldn't seem so hopeless under a trump administration.
| 1,733,805,954
|
corbohr
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-10
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Since Trump is a threat to democracy, Dems should completely overhaul the American electoral system even though it means they might never hold the White House again.
|
{'id': 'm14gy5k', 'text': 'I\'m not an economist.\xa0 In the case of the US presidential election your tie breaker objection isn\'t relevant.\xa0\n\n\nMy understanding of Arrow\'s Impossibility Theorem is that no (ranked) system eliminates strategic voting and so no (ranked) system can perfectly capture the preference set of the voters in all conditions.\xa0 This doesn\'t mean that the voters\' preference set is never captured, just that spoilers can lead to a suboptimal outcome.\xa0 Per Arrow:\n\n\n>"Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times."', 'author': 'DadTheMaskedTerror', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733706882}
|
{'id': 'm10gxuv', 'text': "moderates just voted for Trump, so they won't care. moderates aren't smart enough to understand what a proportional voting system is anyway. \n\nif you're only asking them to *campaign*, then you should have titled your post that, rather than telling them to just *do* something that they don't remotely have the ability to do. \n\nthere's no point in wasting political capital campaigning on something that's so deeply unlikely to happen. that's why democrats don't do it. it's also useless now that a fascist who will ignore the results of future elections has won the presidency.", 'author': 'No-Cauliflower8890', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1733653604}
|
1h9fraz
|
CMV: Since Trump is a threat to democracy, Dems should completely overhaul the American electoral system even though it means they might never hold the White House again.
|
I’m coming at this from the position of a libertarian and as an American that spent some time in Europe.
In America, we have a first past the post system which gives a candidate with 50.1% the win even when their opponent wins 49.9%. Seems fair but when you think about it this leaves a lot of people feeling alienated and ignored. I hold the position that a system like this can only benefit someone like Trump. Why? Because it forces people to vote one way or the other even if they don’t like the candidates on the ballot because if only offers 2 viable candidates.
In a proportional representation system there is more than 2 candidates and they are all elected based on the proportion of their support. This encourages more dialogue amongst politicians and voters and has the potential to not eliminate, but significantly reduce the quantity of extremist candidates on either side of the political spectrum that run for office. It also encourages non extremist parties to work together to oppose extremism. An example of this is Germany, where the Socially Democratic Party (SPD) chose to work together with the fiscally Conservative Party (FDP) to prevent extremist parties from forming a government. It may even force extremist parties to dilute their political platforms to keep winning votes. This system also encourages the creation of more parties which forces more diversity of opinion rather than the Liberal/Conservative binary which pushes extremism onto the ballot.
The current American system awards the winner of 51% of the vote the victory even when the ideology of the voters is incredibly varied between the individual voters. I can easily foresee the creation of multiple different parties in America like a left wing party lead by an AOC type figure, a centrist party lead by a Biden type figure, a Conservative Party lead by a Mike Pence type figure, and a MAGA party lead by a Trump type figure. While as a libertarian I would dislike all of these parties it would encourage more dialogue and compromise. Mike Pence for example does not like Trump so his Conservative Party would be more willing to compromise with Biden’s centrist party to prevent a MAGA government.
I know a proportional representation system for the US is unlikely since Republicans would oppose it because they would lose power. But what really bugs me is how Democrats portray Trump as a threat to democracy, yet they do little to break down the system that leads to Trump style figures from gaining a base. Under proportional representation a party like the modern Democratic Party would never win the White House without making major compromises to the leftist and conservative parties like I described them but it would give voters a bigger voice like democrats claim they do.
| 1,733,652,322
|
computerconflict19
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: We should not be celebrating or encouraging the healthcare CEO murder
|
{'id': 'm0w0y15', 'text': 'you should really have the solution in hand for how to get the government to act without this kind of thing first before coming to this conclusion', 'author': 'Letters_to_Dionysus', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1733589160}
|
{'id': 'm0w09lb', 'text': 'True enough, but to say that the Romans of all people took a strong line on corruption and embezzlement is... a brave interpretation, to say the least.', 'author': 'dts85', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1733588943}
|
1h8vo3e
|
CMV: We should not be celebrating or encouraging the healthcare CEO murder
|
First and foremost, I want to say that I don't feel bad for the CEO. That is not my view. My view is that the reaction to his murder is bad.
Here are the reactions I'm talking about:
Celebrating his murder.
Encouraging people to not help police catch the murderer.
Encouraging stealth jurors to get on the jury and nullify if the murderer is caught.
Encouraging other people to kill other CEOs/executives.
People seem to think that this type of vigilantism will lead to reform. Either gun control, universal healthcare, or better health insurance policies. Instead, historically speaking, here is where it has and likely will lead to.
White juries nullifying and acquitting people who participated in lynch mobs.
Doctors who provide abortions in Christian/Muslim areas being murdered in defense of the unborn and the public protecting the murderer.
Someone who looks like the intended target being killed.
Overall, the guy who murdered the healthcare CEO needs to be found and brought to justice. If he or a loved one had a claim denied, we can certainly take that into account as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing, but we can't let him get away scott free.
| 1,733,587,682
|
spoilerdudegetrekt
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Inflation is not a good thing.
|
{'id': 'm1cg8kq', 'text': 'Your demand patterns will change if there is deflation. So yes, there will be less demand on top.\n\nThis phenomenon will hold true for all asset classes.\n\nBusiness impact would be chaos too. Long term supply chain contracts will simply not make sense at all (high inflation/currency volatility causes the same issues).', 'author': 'buddybd', 'score': 12, 'timestamp': 1733831217}
|
{'id': 'm1ceabj', 'text': 'It is function of a debt based economy. When there is inflation, debt works well, because there is basically guarenteed growth. \n\nIf there is no inflation, there would be deflation due to increase in productivity, than there would be high default risk even if there are massive tech growth.', 'author': 'biebergotswag', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1733830081}
|
1hazmb1
|
CMV: Inflation is not a good thing.
|
1. Inflation means my money will be worth less over time. Why would I want that?
2. The 2% inflation target that many countries strive for is [completely made up](https://time.com/6548908/inflation-target-federal-reserve-essay/) and not backed by any sort of empirical research.
3. A common argument is that it promotes spending. However this doesn't make sense.
For example, when a video game releases it costs full price, however loads of people still buy it even though they know that if they waited a year or two they could get it for a lot less. Why wouldn't it be similar elsewhere - especially for services that are needed on a continuous basis.
4. Another argument is that inflation works to reduce debt by cutting the value that is owed. Firstly, interest rates are always higher than inflation so debt will always rise in real terms. Secondly, if there was 0% inflation, or even deflation, surely by that same logic companies could offer even lower interest rates?
| 1,733,829,808
|
TuskActInfinity
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-10
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Terms Like 'Incel' Prove That We Reduce People's Worth to Sexual Success
|
{'id': 'lvye87k', 'text': 'I think that this is a very internet problem, outside of men and boys 15-25 I don’t think this is really a thing in the real world. I know lots of people outside of relationships that are still loved and cherished by those around them. My favourite uncle was single for my entire childhood and adolescence and we never thought less of him for it.\n\nMedia and especially social media always blow things out of proportion, if anything the tendency towards this is rapidly decreasing in younger generations as child rearing shifts from an expectation to a choice. I don’t think this is one of the rots at the centre of modern society, it’s a view that’s been dying for 40 years and is likely to mostly disappear in our lifetimes. The incel nonsense is just the latest faux-masculine reactionary swing, just like the one we see every generation, it’s not special.', 'author': 'Anonymous_1q', 'score': 11, 'timestamp': 1731009926}
|
{'id': 'lvy690a', 'text': 'They reflect the fact that they themselves are frustrated for not being able to engage in relationships, and that very frustration is the reason why they are so toxic and disrespectful to others. \n\nSure, the term has become so broad that people call anyone they don\'t like incels (just like facists and communists), but the primary issue is that lonely men and women (because femcels are a thing too) were the first ones that weaponised their failures and bitterness to be dicks and all around horrible people with others. \n\nSo when someone call someone else an "incel", they are not bringing attention to their lack of sexual sucess itself, but to how they portray themselves and treat others because of that lack of it -- especially because you can\'t even be sure of how good their sex lives are. They are judging and reducing them to their own behaviour.', 'author': 'ToranjaNuclear', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1731007671}
|
1gly6bc
|
CMV: Terms Like 'Incel' Prove That We Reduce People's Worth to Sexual Success
|
Let’s start with the term “incel,” which often reduces a person’s value to whether they succeed in the dating world. I think this is a narrow view. After all, it overlooks bigger struggles, like isolation and the lack of meaningful relationships, which are real issues. When we focus only on sexual success, we miss the chance to understand deeper emotional needs and human dignity.
Indeed, not all men who identify as “incels” (or are labeled as such) see others as mere objects for sex. However, the culture around the term often promotes (and proves) a transactional view of relationships, where human connections are reduced to something that validates someone’s identity. In my opinion, this directly takes away from the true depth and respect that relationships should have.
Of course, misogyny, toxic masculinity, and objectifying women are serious problems, no doubt. But I think the bigger issue is that society struggles to understand human dignity. We need to see each other as whole, multi-dimensional people, not as objects to conquer or manipulate. Respect should come from this deeper recognition.
Yeah, relationships are naturally complicated, and we all want intimacy and connection. But they shouldn’t be seen as transactions, where someone’s worth is based only on what they can give in return.
In the end, I believe that sexual success should never define a person’s worth or the health of a relationship. So, when society overemphasises it, we set up unrealistic expectations, frustration, and lose sight of the emotional bonds that make relationships last.
Consequently, societal expectations impact relationships, but we need spaces where people can connect authentically, without pressure to meet shallow standards. The goal isn’t to eliminate all expectations but to shift the focus away from appearances or sexual success and make room for genuine, meaningful connections.
| 1,731,006,127
|
borisdandorra
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If your climate consistently experiences at least 1 snowy day/night per year then it cannot be classified as a mild winter climate anymore.
|
{'id': 'lxjojhu', 'text': "Vancouver BC is a mild winter. It's rain for 5 months straight. But we get a week or two of cold. Compared to the rest of Canada that IS mild.", 'author': 'thatcfkid', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1731817755}
|
{'id': 'lxjocap', 'text': 'If you don’t get snow then you don’t get winter at all.', 'author': 'Adequate_Images', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1731817663}
|
1gt5hd8
|
CMV: If your climate consistently experiences at least 1 snowy day/night per year then it cannot be classified as a mild winter climate anymore.
|
I have seen a lot of climates that experience snow being called “mild winter climates” to me that’s already at least within low end moderate winter climate. I don’t see how an area that EXPERIENCES CONSISTENT SNOW per year be classified as a “mild climate”.
The term “mild winter” should be reserved for subtropical regions ex:Florida or the very Deep South , dessert areas that don’t snow or the Mediterranean regions of the world THAT DON’T EXPERIENCE SNOW ex: Majority of California. I believe the latter is where the cutoff of “mild winter climate” should be at. Anything colder can be classified as low end moderate winter. Yes these regions can have anomalies that make them get colder or snow but those events don’t happen consistently every year.
| 1,731,817,146
|
Tale_Any
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Teams should have a feature to display the languages you speak
|
{'id': 'm1js3cy', 'text': 'I think you just highlighted a key issue with your request... "If there is enough demand for those features." \n \nThe reality is that Teams is a product a company is selling. If that company sees enough demand for a feature, they\'ll implement it as they are financially encouraged to do so. \n \nMost people are not communicating with people who speak a different language. In addition, the people who do communicate with those who are speaking a different language generally know which language the other party speaks. \n \nIt\'s far less common to enter a meeting with someone and question what language anyone is speaking on a global scale. \n \nHowever, I would still make the request to Microsoft so they can track demand and adjust priorities accordingly.', 'author': 'Amoral_Abe', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733936347}
|
{'id': 'm1jg5hz', 'text': 'In my Teams right now I see options to set my work location and to set status message. So, your team should be able to use that if necessary.\n\nI think your issue is more of an organizational thing - if you need to get something from a team in another country, your IT company could organize a help desk style space (Jira) where you can submit your requests to some central location and the receiving team would respond to them in writing in whichever language the company agrees to.', 'author': 'ptn_huil0', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733932606}
|
1hbw3tz
|
CMV: Teams should have a feature to display the languages you speak
|
Microsoft Teams should give users the ability to select which languages they speak. You can configure loads of different things, your work hours, what office you're working in during which days, your work hours, your pronouns, ... But for some reason the languages you speak is not one of these options. I'd think that for a tool with the primary purpose of communicating with other people, the languages you speak is a rather important piece of information.
I've run into this issue several times now in the past few weeks. I recently started working for a multinational headquartered in France, I however speak basically no French. This is normal, as the office I'm working in is located in Brussels and the team I'm working on is 80/20 Dutch/French. In our team, we all speak English to each other. And within my team there isn't an issue. But from time to time I need to reach out to other people in the company. I now need to either ask one of my coworkers if they know what language the person I'm reaching out to speaks, or just guess based on their name. It'd be a gazillion times easier if people could just enter the languages they speak into Teams.
So, change my view, why is this a feature that should not be present in teams?
| 1,733,931,226
|
Finch20
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-11
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: American high schools should have mandatory gun safety classes
|
{'id': 'lufytuv', 'text': 'But arent those the same people who need the most help with gun safety?', 'author': 'IncandescentObsidian', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730248056}
|
{'id': 'lubi2ue', 'text': 'Americas so fucked man, no don’t teach your children to shoot guns. \nSo weird', 'author': 'Mundane_Primary5716', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730191287}
|
1geifto
|
CMV: American high schools should have mandatory gun safety classes
|
The 2A exist and I’m going to assume it’s not going away anytime soon. As such firearms ownership is a right
Not all families own guns or are unsafe with them, so they can’t teach their children who will eventually have the legal right to bare arms
Accidental gun injury can be be reduced if people are taught how to be safe with them (emphasis on accidental)
I think that the discipline taught in these classes may change American gun culture, not eliminate it but place more emphasis on safety rather than whatever it is now. Having more people know how to safely use and own firearms could lessen the “guns are my identity” mentality because their “coolness” would be made more mundane.
I don’t know how good of an idea this is, but maybe have them practice with blanks so a discharge won’t be fatal but 100% noticeable in the class
Exceptions can be made for mentally disabled/ill kids and frequently violent kids
Overall I think that if guns are going to be prevalent and easily accessible, people should be taught how to be safe with them
| 1,730,163,485
|
pisspeeleak
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Culling male chicks is the least cruel option after in-ovo sexing
|
{'id': 'lyr2wh1', 'text': "Of course it's not going to change my mind. Though I have been an advocate against factory faming for more than a decade now, and I have not eaten anything from a factory farm for that entire time, not an egg, not a drop of milk, not a chicken.\n\nBut yea... it's pretty obvious even to me, someone who despises factory farming... that if you want to actually change someones mind, you can't start from a premise they will never accept, such as.... comparing some chickens.... to millions and millions of dead human beings...\n\nIt's not really about changing *my* mind, I'm pointing out that you will change almost zero minds with such a argument..", 'author': 'Finklesfudge', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732462376}
|
{'id': 'lyf9d46', 'text': 'Those sentences are simply not equivalent in any sense, and while you may think it\'s just a stand-in, other commenters are actually insisting that the statement itself is true. This isn\'t "common shorthand." The conversation was about the literal price of eggs. If you think correcting demonstrably misleading and false statements about the world isn\'t worth anyone\'s time, what\'s the point of being in this sub? For that matter, why spend time defend the utility of making demonstrably misleading and false statements? \n\n>but it will generally be seen as pointlessly argumentative and pedantic\n\nBelieve me, I am well aware of the general human aversion to rigor. I just don\'t find it worthwhile to perpetuate it, much less defend it.', 'author': 'OddVisual5051', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732287752}
|
1gx4o9z
|
CMV: Culling male chicks is the least cruel option after in-ovo sexing
|
Several EU countries have banned the practice of culling male chicks because the general population finds it "icky." The thing is, factory farming as a whole is inherently icky and culling the male chicks is objectively the most humane way of dealing with the fact that it makes zero economic sense to raise these chickens. Instead of going into the grinder shortly after they hatch, the male chicks are shipped off to live in a warehouse with the absolute worst conditions allowed by law until they're ready for slaughter. So we either kill the chick on day 1 or we kill it on like day 50 after it's spent its entire life inside a windowless warehouse where there's not even enough space to move. Either way, we're killing the chicken and the grinder minimizes the time it has to suffer.
Raising all of the male chickens also causes a surplus of chicken meat and, since there isn't enough demand for this meat in the EU, it ends up being exported to developing nations and destabilizing their own poultry industry, which will inevitably cause them to be dependent on the EU for food. Without fail, every single time a developing nation has become dependent on wealthier nations for food, it has had absolutely devastating consequences for the development of that nation. So you can't even really argue that "At least the male chickens are dying for a reason if we slaughter them" because a) the chickens *literally* do not give a fuck and b) the "reason" is to dump cheap meat in Africa.
Destroying the male eggs before they even hatch with in-ovo sexing is obviously the best option but, as far as I understand, this is still pretty expensive and hasn't been universally adopted. Until the cost for in-ovo sexing comes down, the grinder remains the best option. It would be different if the male chicks were being shipped off to some green pasture to live out their days but this is literally the opposite of what actually happens to them. I would even argue that these bans on culling are a form of performative activism so that privileged Europeans can feel better about themselves while they remain willfully ignorant to the horrors of factory farming.
I am not vegan and regularly consume mass produced meat, dairy, and eggs.
| 1,732,270,673
|
Consistent-Gap-3545
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Nobody should have 400 billion dollars or even 1 billion
|
{'id': 'm1pn1n5', 'text': 'And how can you do that with 500 million but it’s impossible at a billion?', 'author': 'Superbooper24', 'score': 26, 'timestamp': 1734020637}
|
{'id': 'm1pmrzy', 'text': 'Question: do you really think Musk has 400Billion in the bank? Or that all the rocket ships and factories and facilities and such makes up the bulk of his "billions"', 'author': 'Soundwave-1976', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1734020554}
|
1hcomod
|
CMV: Nobody should have 400 billion dollars or even 1 billion
| ERROR: type should be string, got "https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/11/business/elon-musk-400-billion-net-worth\n\nElon musk just reached a 400 billion net worth. I don't care if most of that is in stocks or assets nobody should have this much money while most people are struggling right now. \n\nHe profits off the labour of his employees while paying them a pittance to what he makes in return. He used his wealth to help get a government installed that is favourable to his interests such as deregulation.\n\nNobody needs over a billion dollars let alone 400 million. This wealth in excess of 1 billion should be taxed at 100%"
| 1,734,020,205
|
vuspan
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-12
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Contemporary nations on territories with rich past have no right to claim artifacts from the West
|
{'id': 'm0fzgvi', 'text': "You saying that value is determined by demand is actually (not taking into account field specific academic terminology) a very good explanation on how we do decide what heritage is. The point you are making is exactly what the perspective of heritage studies argues. The ownership I talk about in terminology relating to that of academic heritage literature is not a material ownership. I think I failed to correctly explain that. \n\nThere is a twist in your argumentation though which makes your initial post and what you are saying here contradiction-airy. To elaborate on this I'll use your example, with a small twist for the sake of clarity (hopefully): You in the example will represent a collective culture and the car is owned by your parent. \n\nLike you said, you value the car because it reminds you of you childhood. A spiritual connection with this car that helps you reflect on your identity as a culture. It learns you who you are and also defines you. Not only in its material existence (maybe even the least) but also on Sunday morning when you go out with your dad to wash it. The smell of the leather backseat after a trip to the park. The songs you sing out loud on a family road trip. Maybe even your first kiss when you were allowed to take it for a drive with your date. \n\nNow lets say this car was a limited edition, and a collector from the other side of the country offers your parent a great sum of money (the way it is acquired is not relevant for this explanation, the discussion regarding how it was acquired in real life itself is then also a separate discussion from the ownership of heritage) and they sell the car for this collector to have it in its private collection. \n\nNow, you lost something which defines you. You lost something in which you can connect to your memories and childhood with. You dreamt of one day driving this car with your kids in the backseat while you sing the exact same songs you did when you were in the backseat and your parents in the front seat. You thought of taking your kid out to wash the car with you on Sunday morning. But that is all gone now and you did not even get a say in it. \n\nWith all this in mind, the collector only places value upon the car in its object and materiality (which is old heritage dichotomy represented). They value it only because it is a limited edition car. Your value is way more complex and this car represent your identity. It connects to you on a deeper level which the collector obviously will never be able to understand, because then they would have to have lived your live. \n\nKeep in mind that in the heritage concept back in the real world is of course much more complex. Like I said before my example, you are a collective. Your parent represent maybe an authority figure such as a government selling assets of culture but it can also represent a power structure taking them away by force or manipulation (as colonial treasures have been). And your memories and dreams represent the inherent multi-generational aspect of cultural heritage. Hopefully I explained it well and hope you see the perspective in which we approach cultural heritage nowadays and why we do that. And additionally, why this has an inherent critique of a broad scope of heritage objects kept in museums around the western world might at that point be nothing more than a valueless object in a glass box. This all not taking into account the immoral ways they were taken in the first place.", 'author': 'XForce070', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1733350933}
|
{'id': 'm0ff16m', 'text': "You're making a lot of assumptions that are irrelevant to this discussion because they pertain to the generous hypotheticals you THINK happened when these artifacts were looted and not to the actual circumstances. \n\n>a culture *im not even apart of*\n\nThat's not the case for the vast majority of the places where western powers looted artifacts. In fact, the fact that such artifacts were part of the ongoing cultural life of a people was a reason to take them. \n\n>my region at the time did not have the infrastructure or want to secure them\n\nAgain, not relevant to the majority of the cases we're talking about. In fact, it's indisputable that the powers that took these artifacts were not often in a position to secure them better than those they stole from, since so many were lost, because that wasn't the point. The point was for the person stealing the thing to profit from it while exploiting the people. We're talking about nations that had no issues stealing *people* and selling them. they certainly weren't scientists going in and doing archeological digs at neglected sites. They were looting homes, churches, shrines, gravesites, and others. In many cases, these artifacts were kept safe for hundreds or even thousands of years before being looted, and many artifacts were then lost by the negligence and ignorance of people you appear to believe knew better inherently. \n\n>Being from a region does not make you apart of an ancient culture or make you an authority on their artifacts\n\nRegardless of whether one subscribes to your particular opinion on when it is appropriate to decide that a group of people living in a place is culturally distinct enough from the creators of an artifact to justify *stealing it,* the vast majority of stolen items were part of living cultures with long histories. \n\n>Regardless the other poster made a very badly put together argument, the phone in question didn’t belong to them anymore than it belonged to the ‘thief’. It belonged to someone who existed hundreds/thousands of years ago with the only connection being place of residence.\n\nYeah sure, didn't belong to them, it just sat in the temple. It wasn't theirs, it just hung on their walls. I'm going to make this argument about the magna carta and see if they'll let me go home with it in my bag. \n\nYou still never answered my question as stated :)", 'author': 'OddVisual5051', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1733344871}
|
1h6c24v
|
CMV: Contemporary nations on territories with rich past have no right to claim artifacts from the West
|
I belong to a nation with relatively rich past and some artifacts in British museum. I think calling what XIX century archeologists and collectors did with objects from ancient civilizations stealing and looting is wrong. Archeology, interest in distant past, valuing these objects is a modern western enlightenment or romantic (not sure which) concept. With l few exceptions the local peoples used ancient sights to collect building materials and loot or ignored them. It was West's interest that created the value of ancient artifacts and western efforts, know how and investments that gave them to the world and preserved them. That should be acknowledged and the artifacts should stay in the western museums. What is more, the locals claim on the ancient heritage is questionable, since these lands oftentimes experienced invasions, arrivals of new populations and disappearance of the cultures that left the artifacts.
| 1,733,303,916
|
Emo_Dilemmo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The right does more to help the working class by accident than the left does while pretending they care
|
{'id': 'm23ij3r', 'text': 'You said "the left" not federal democrats.\xa0\n\n\nBernie is Left.\xa0', 'author': 'Locuralacura', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734222923}
|
{'id': 'm224l3o', 'text': 'The Child Tax credit that the Dems bragged about and then also ended?', 'author': 'MountainHigh31', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734204637}
|
1hea8u9
|
CMV: The right does more to help the working class by accident than the left does while pretending they care
|
So I voted for Trump my biggest reason is inflation over the decades and especially recently has taken a sledge hammer to wages which have been suppressed by policies like high immigration, not addressing illegal immigration and of course trade with countries that use pseudo slave labor. I highly doubt you can change my mind on this permeance that things have been getting worse for people or that those things have contributed to it that it is not the view I want changed.
The view I wanted changed is I believe the democrats have not only done nothing to improve this problem but are actively working against any solutions under the guise of caring about people. Not only do they not address the issues I stated above but they don't even have a real plan to raise wages, their only idea is raise minimum wage which doesn't work for more than a year because prices of everything just rises to match the new norm and the people who were making a bit more than min wage get screwed the most because now they are making min wage.
They don't even have another solution. It's the same for housing prices, their solution is "build more" but they didn't build anymore when in power, when they have the feds, state and city they don't build more, logistically it's hard to build more and they have no path to the build more. It's so much easier just to take in less people so we end up building per capita but no that's racist or some bullshit.
And again it's not like the republicans are even trying to raise wages or lower housing prices, but deregulation, deportations, divesting from China and other slave labor countries all have that effect. But the democrats they have nothing and actively fight any real solution. And it's not because there's no left wing ideological solutions that are possible, the economic progressives have a few ideas and while I'm skeptical of them for various reasons if they were on the ticket against a neocon I'd vote for them. But they aren't, the left is the party of the status quo which means cost of living rises as wages stagnant.
Also I know what your thinking, wages slightly outpaced inflation in the last few years. That's just a partial correction to the covid inflation which aligns when inflation is under control, so over 2 years it looks slightly better but over 5 years it's way worse and there's zero reason to think the trend will continue under the same policies, it's just a result of the massive spike in inflation.
So yeah please convince me that there's some democrats somewhere that are doing something to help lower cost of living or raise wages in a real and sustainable way.
| 1,734,204,113
|
FlyingFightingType
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Gatekeeping is necessary for the furtherance of taste
|
{'id': 'lyt6gux', 'text': "Yeah, you've been wrongly accused of Gatekeeping I believe.\n\nYour opinion is quite valid. Although many might disagree, the real question is who are they to gaslight you into believing your opinion is Gatekeeping?\n\nI'm not Gatekeeping Picasso saying I don't like his art. I'm simply expressing my personal opinion on Picasso's art. I can even follow with my sentiments that art should avoid cubism, because it leads to the rise of facism or whatever.\n\nOnce again, that's my opinion, and isn't Gatekeeping.\n\nWhat would be Gatekeeping is to say to young Tommy that he's not a cubist artist because he never smoked opium in Montmartre.\n\nLike, what??? What makes ME the arbiter (Gatekeeper) of who is and isn't a cubist artist and what does smoking opium in Montmartre have to do with it?", 'author': 'Much_Upstairs_4611', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732485918}
|
{'id': 'lyt2miw', 'text': 'id love to hear your take on bebop. Black musicians invented jazz and then white musicians learned it and started making all the money off of it ruining economically what black musicians created. Charlie Parker and counterparts invented bebop in the late 40s essentially as a gatekeeping device to keep white people from stealing all their gigs and livelihood. It was super fast, super complex, and super niche. their gatekeeping didnt work out and white people ended up getting proficient enough in black musical vocabulary to take their gigs anyways. But a part of me thinks that gatekeeping in that sense is kinda important. eventually black musicians camr to create free jazz which white people really can only imitate as it is completely free expression of the black experience.', 'author': 'vinceurbanowski', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732484680}
|
1gz1dbp
|
CMV: Gatekeeping is necessary for the furtherance of taste
|
So many people use "gatekeeping" as evidence that someone is in the wrong, but gatekeeping is necessary for culture. Gatekeeping is something that everyone experiences every now and then, and it's totally normal and reasonable.
For example, if you want to be in fashion, by virtue of existing, you won't be able to competently design or sew a garment. Is it gatekeeping when someone with know-how in the fashion world says that you are ignorant when it comes to design and sewing? No. It just means you have to learn and perfect your craft.
Likewise, in order to thrive in literary and cinematic spaces, a certain amount of knowledge should be cultivated. A lot of literary and cinematic enthusiasts (or people who think they're enthusiasts) claim that tastemakers aren't letting people "enjoy what they enjoy". To some extent, this is true, but that doesn't make it morally wrong. It simply suggests that you have more to learn and engage with in relation to the field you appreciate. No one comes out of the womb with perfect knowledge and taste.
| 1,732,481,944
|
Pop3Productions
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The Democrats are doomed in the long term.
|
{'id': 'm129jy1', 'text': 'That wasn’t long ago though, and keep in mind that Hillary’s election was extremely close. Then Biden won after that.\xa0\n\nThe head of the DNC has already stepped down and there are lots of big shifts happening. MAGA resonating with workers also means they have to evolve the message.\xa0', 'author': 'StuckAFtherInHisCap', 'score': 108, 'timestamp': 1733680685}
|
{'id': 'm128mrx', 'text': "I think you are discounting the power Trump has over his followers. They are not Republicans they are MAGA. Once Trump is gone, the Republicans are screwed. They couldn't even win the Senate seat in Wisconsin which also voted for Trump.", 'author': 'thejoggler44', 'score': 42, 'timestamp': 1733680396}
|
1h9o6wr
|
CMV: The Democrats are doomed in the long term.
|
Before I present my case, I want to get two things out of the way. One, I am a Democrat who voted for Kamala Harris, so I would very much like to be wrong. Two, this analysis does not take into account the possibility that no future elections are held. While I'm not convinced US elections are over forever, half of Reddit seems to be. Anyway, here's why I believe the Democrats are fucked even if democracy remains intact.
The 2024 election should have been a lay-up for Kamala Harris. Biden and Trump were both historically unpopular nominees, so much so that a man changed his legal name to "Literally Anybody Else" and ran a joke campaign. Biden was replaced by Harris in July, leading to tons of enthusiasm and small-dollar donations on the Democratic side. The economy was (and is) doing considerably better than in most other countries, including wealthy European nations. Most importantly, her opponent was a senile old man whose inaction led to the deaths of over a million people in the United States alone, was the only head of state to deny climate change, and tried to overthrow the government on his way out. Despite having the easiest possible set of circumstances with which to win a presidential election, *she still lost.*
Furthermore, rural voters are never going to vote for Democrats again. Local media, commonly cited as an antidote to polarization, has shriveled up, to be replaced by right-wing talk radio. Now, if Democrats could lose those areas by 30 points instead of 50 points, that would go a long way in the swing states. However, they don't just need swing states to remain viable as a national party (more on that later). Additionally, the 2024 election saw urban centers, people of color, and many other demographics that traditionally vote for Democrats swing violently rightward. As a 24-year-old man myself, I'm shocked but not surprised that Trump outright won men under 30. And I don't think they're coming back, because the Democrats won't embrace alternative media - there will never be a left-wing Joe Rogan. If the Democrats can't make up ground in rural areas, but also lose core parts of their base, they are doomed.
The situation is even more dire in the Senate, especially important because the Senate is the only chamber that can confirm or block nominees to the judiciary. Even with a 47-seat minority, the Democrats will still control both seats in several states that voted for Trump in this election. This includes both Arizona seats in a state Trump won by more than 5 percentage points. In other words, the Democrats are far more likely to lose Senate seats than to gain them in the long term. Even in the short term, the Democrats have just two pick-up opportunities in 2026 Senate - North Carolina (which has remained elusive for Democrats at the federal level since 2008!) and Maine (in which the unbeatable Susan Collins is likely to run again). Even if the Democrats can elect a President, they can only do so much without the Senate on their side, and if the judiciary gets right-wing enough, they will start green-lighting even more egregious voter suppression than we've already seen, which will eventually make it virtually impossible for Democrats to win again.
Finally, let's look at the media. In a craven display of anticipatory obedience, the Washington Post infamously did not endorse Kamala Harris this year. To make matters worse, MSNBC's Morning Joe (the channel of choice for the #Resistance) is already sucking up to Trump because they fear he'll try to shut them down. Trump would be foolish to shut them down, of course, because they're perhaps more responsible than anyone else for him returning to power. But in the period between the 2016 election and Trump's inauguration, I remember there being a lot more protests among both Democratic lawmakers and Democratic civilians than I see this time. That could partly be because the Kyle Rittenhouse precedent allows white vigilantes to murder protestors and get away with it, in which case I don't blame people for being too scared to protest. But the Democrats seem demoralized rather than angry, which is why I don't think they will engage in the necessary activism to resist Trump's worst policies.
CMV.
| 1,733,679,746
|
SacluxGemini
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: No Realistic Democratic Candidate Could Have Won the 2024 Presidential Election
|
{'id': 'm1sl3gb', 'text': "And the logic is that was she is the VP pick. When you vote for someone in the primaries for president, you are voting for the VP pick to replace them if the president can't or won't be president.\n\n\nBiden won the primaries and then dropped out. Ergo, the VP pick is the winner of the ticket. It's how the Democrats voted in the primaries.", 'author': 'Tsarbarian_Rogue', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734055382}
|
{'id': 'm1sid6e', 'text': "I don't think they should have held another primary. What I am saying is putting up the second most popular candidate would have been the wiser choice. In my opinion.\n\nThis does raise a quandary within my own logic though because I wasn't happy they just threw Kamala up as the presidential candidate, but doing the same for Bernie would make me a hypocrite.", 'author': 'QuickNature', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734054381}
|
1hcyukr
|
CMV: No Realistic Democratic Candidate Could Have Won the 2024 Presidential Election
|
I posted a similar CMV soon after the election, but it got removed because there were a bunch of posts saying similar things at the time. But now that the dust has settled a bit, I figured I'd try again on this.
Soon after the election, people started pointing fingers. I saw a ton of complaints that Kamala was the wrong choice. Now, I'll concede that another Democratic candidate may have done better than Kamala. But I don't think there was a candidate that had a good chance of winning.
In 2016, there was this narrative that Trump won because Hilary was just that bad a candidate. I remember people lamenting that she was the only candidate that could have lost to Trump. Then, in 2020, Biden was the candidate. And Biden very nearly lost. He did win, but I really think that should've killed the whole narrative that there was a massive group of people begrudgingly voting Trump because Hilary was that bad. But, no, that particular narrative seemed to still be a major aspect of the 2020 election with people saying they voted Trump because they just really hated Biden. And now, 2024 has happened and that's a major complaint. "Trump won because of Kamala." I just don't think that's true.
Polls (mostly) confirm my perspective. Polls suggest the same thing. Apparently I can't link on this sub, but a poll by Emerson college (which 538 considers to be a highly accurate pollster) shows every Democrat they considered in a head to head (including Bernie) losing to Trump in July of 2024. And this is roughly universal, regardless of what poll you check.
The exception is Michelle Obama. Polls actually fairly consistently showed her winning the head to head matchup. For various reasons, I think that she would've lost the election anyway, but one way or the other, she's not a realistic candidate because she doesn't want to be involved in politics. (And, to be clear, that's basically what I mean by realistic. As long as your suggested candidate is, or has been, a Democrat, or a left-leaning independent, and there is some reason to believe they'd run if they thought they had a shot, feel free to bring them up in the comments).
In my mind, the issue is that Trump had to lose voters for Dems to have a shot, and there was nothing an opponent could say or do to make him lose voters. As I said before, Trump very nearly won in 2020. And that was after a disastrous first term, and with COVID being at its worst. Despite there being about a 9/11 of deaths every day. Trump lost by razor thin margins in 3 swing states. His voter share probably would never get much lower than that because that voter share represented a time when people really would have the most grievances toward how Trump was affecting their lives. When shit sucks, voters take it out on incumbents.
For the Dems to win in 2024, they really needed to be batting a thousand throughout Biden's term and they just weren't able to do that. You can say that it wasn't really their fault, inflation was a worldwide issue. And that's true. And worldwide, incumbents lost voting share in every developed country. If the election was in 2025, then maybe Dems could've won, once the perception of prices caught up to the reality that inflation had substantially decreased. But that just isn't the world we live in.
Now, you might say that if a Dem offered an enticing economic plan, that might do it. Kamala didn't offer much different from Trump. But I don't think that economic plans really had much to do with how people voted. Trump's plans clearly wouldn't ease inflation, and he still received a massive win from people who thought the economy was the most important issue.
Overall, I think there just wasn't going to be a Democratic candidate that could outperform Trump's genuine popularity amongst the electorate coupled with people's legitimate grievances about the economy. 2020 was as low as his voter share could go, and the conditions that caused that weren't around for 2024.
Change my view
| 1,734,046,987
|
BackAlleySurgeon
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-12
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Rittenhouse trial should have been tried at the Federal level, not State. Judge botched it.
|
{'id': 'm23yz41', 'text': "Black did not buy the rifle as a gift. Rittenhouse gave Black the money, and told Black what rifle to purchase. What they did comes right from one of the examples on 4473. I just changed the names from Smith to Rittenhouse, and Jones to Black.\n\n\\>Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm. \n\n\\>EXAMPLES: Mr. Rittenhouse asks Mr. Black to purchase a firearm for Mr. Rittenhouse (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Rittenhouse gives Mr. Black the money for the firearm. Mr. Black is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “no” to question 21.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Rittenhouse. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Revised August 2023 Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 21.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (h), (n), or (x).\n\nSo if Dominick Black had bought the rifle with his own money, and later gifted it to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse turned 18, that would be ok. \n\nIt's speculation, but I think it's likely the feds did not prosecute Black for doing this because they don't want to open up a can of worms with SCOTUS.", 'author': 'LastWhoTurion', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734229527}
|
{'id': 'm21hwe2', 'text': ">So you think the convicted pedophile that had just gotten out of custody because he body slammed his girlfriend that was on video aggressively yelling at people and starting fires, that was also seen on drone video coming out from behind a car to chase Kyle about 100 feet and was only shot when he grabbed the barrel of a rifle someone else was holding...was aggressed against by Kyle?\n\nHe didn't attack anyone else that day, that I'm aware of. Why Kyle? We know Kyle wanted to shoot people, and wandered away from the responsible adults after having seen somebody shouting at people. Perhaps he saw his chance.\n\n>Because the situation was about Kyle shooting the people and he stood trial for that event\n\nHe was charged with multiple crimes, including illegal possession of the firearm he used to kill two people and maim a third.\n\n>attaching a process crime to get him on when you're upset about the other stuff only seems to be petty\n\nWas he not charged with all of the crimes simultaneously?\n\n>It's like complaining that an armed robber didn't face shoplifting charges in addition to the robbery charge.\n\nNo, it would be like complaining that an armed robbery didn't face charges for illegal possession of a weapon he used to commit the robbery.", 'author': 'Tarantio', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734196888}
|
1hdwkn3
|
CMV: Rittenhouse trial should have been tried at the Federal level, not State. Judge botched it.
|
The whole mess begins with Kyle’s straw buyer Dom Black, who purchase the weapon from a Ace Home Center in Ladysmith WI, and stored at Dom’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha WI until Kyle picks it up.
The way the trial went down, as we know it, is the WI prosecutor charged Dom Black with two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor. I would say if Kyle also lived in WI at the time, then fine it could be contained to state-level charges. But Dom Black, who was dating Kyle’s sister at the time, was fully aware Kyle was coming in from out-of-state to pick it up and bring it back to his home in Illinois.
Knowingly transporting illegally-acquired firearms across state lines is a form arms trafficking, regardless Dom Black belief Kyle’s purchase was for personal use or otherwise. Dom Black, having knowledge the buyer intends to smuggle the contraband across state lines, implicates himself as an accessory to interstate arms trafficking (a punishable crime). Thomas Binger, the ADA prosecutor for state of Wisconsin, was in no place to keep it a state-level offense. He should have handed this matter over to the ATF instead to be prosecuted at the federal level.
Okay, so… three months later, Kyle Rittenhouse takes this illegally-acquired firearm ACROSS state lines [yet again] to commit the violent acts on that fateful night in Kenosha Wisconsin.
At trial, Kyle explained his reason for being there to defend property. Judge Bruce Schroeder allowed this, though he shouldn’t have. According to WI state law, somebody’s use of deadly force MAY be justified for the purposes of defending their property. But this shouldn’t apply to Kyle because he wasn’t in Kenosha to defend HIS own property, he was there to defend OTHER people’s property. Judge should not have allowed that.
Anyway, so Kyle (a 17 year old minor) is roaming the streets that night, for reasons that cankt be justified per WI state law, while armed with an illegally-acquired dangerous firearm that doesn’t even belong to him, and not complying with local curfew mandates and refusing to leave / disperse when ordered by authorities to do so.
The shooting deaths can be debated night & day till the cows come home, my gripe is less about that. Another reason why it should be a federal case is AFTER the incident, Kyle returned home (gunman crossing a state line) where he subsequently turned himself in and taken into custody. Because the crime spree spans across two different states.
Anyway, the next part. Judge’s misinterpretation of state law **intentionally omitted** parts relevant to Kyle’s case.
My gripe is with the Judge’s decision to throw out he weapons charges. The judge explained it by citing only a section of WI state law regarding possession, yet chose to ignore clearly-written factors of the law that don’t apply in Kyle’s case.
“Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
Judge conveniently left out the part about :
unless “the person under 18 years of age discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.”
Or that “This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult”
I don’t recall Kyle being under any such supervision that night.
Regarding “short barrel rifle” judge cited the weapons length to throw out that charge, which allows a 16 year old to possess one. He ignored the fact that it only applies to target practice or licensed hunting, while under adult supervision, neither of which was the case for Kyle.
Target practice and or licensed hunting, that’s not the same as carrying it openly in public spaces - which is what Kyle was doing.
Judge also failed to mention about that same law :
section shall not apply to any firearm unlawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm not lawfully registered at the time.
Gee, well that sounds a lot like Kyle’s rifle.
| 1,734,156,464
|
canned_spaghetti85
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There is an inverse relationship between how easy it is for you to vote and how important it is for you to vote.
|
{'id': 'lurhlco', 'text': "For what reason? That it's easy? Your premise doesn't hold true for any state without restrictive voting laws. \n\n9 out of 50 states now allow all mail voting now that several states have added within the last year or so. \n\nThe popularity of this method is growing. For around 30 million people, your premise doesn't hold true. \n\nThis feels like you moving the goalposts, for millions of people, your premise doesn't hold water.", 'author': 'eggs-benedryl', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730410607}
|
{'id': 'lurgbwj', 'text': "The state I live in is 100% mail in, everyone gets a ballot mailed to them. Ballots can be placed in collection boxes or mailed back. It isn't at all a swing state, but like it is everywhere local elections are the most important to people's day to day. I mailed my ballot back this week, researching the local candidates took me maybe 30 minutes. I don't know how it could have been easier", 'author': 'Whatswrongbaby9', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730410168}
|
1ggpd3g
|
CMV: There is an inverse relationship between how easy it is for you to vote and how important it is for you to vote.
|
If you are a white male you are least likely to be demonized and impacted by the mostly white males who are elected. Also, the richer you are the easier it is for you to vote, and the least impactful policies will be on you.
The older you are the more free time you have, culminating with retirement, and the least impacted because of higher accumulated wealth and a shorter time to live.
The less educated you are and the more in need of government services you are, the harder it is to find the time to research and vote.
There are many more examples I’m sure.
This theory seems solid. CMM?
| 1,730,409,534
|
somecisguy2020
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-31
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The state of the insurance/medical industry in the USA is not the fault of Brian Thompson and he did not deserve to be killed.
|
{'id': 'm0mc0zz', 'text': "It is not the percent approval. It is the way the approval is decided. UHC is relying on AI models to deny elderly people coverage. They are ignoring providers' advice, and the AI is wrong 90% of the time. The elderly cannot appeal these decisions because they lack time to wait for this. Both using AI to make these decisions and not following their own policies are illegal. UHC has a legal duty to abide by their contractual agreements. They are failing to do so.", 'author': 'StobbstheTiger', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1733440706}
|
{'id': 'm0m80m8', 'text': 'Did UnitedHealthcare not have heavy lobbying efforts to create an environment that maximized their profits by denying essential healthcare to people? Mr. Thompson is the executive of that company and those efforts. \n\nWhat health insurance companies do is immoral and attempting to turn a profit on people in the most desperate times is absolutely repugnant. I don’t believe in extra-judicial justice but what these companies do should be criminal. I don’t lose sleep over the killing of loan sharks, so I don’t lose sleep over this parasite on society.', 'author': 'wjgdinger', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733439301}
|
1h7m48o
|
CMV: The state of the insurance/medical industry in the USA is not the fault of Brian Thompson and he did not deserve to be killed.
|
I have seen lots of ravenous posts lately about how little people care for Mr. Thompson, how he led an amoral company and his killing might be justified or even beneficial, but this all sounds extremely myopic to me. We (Americans) chose this system, and we have reinforced and reiterated that choice through our votes time and time again. There is a prevailing sentiment out there that even though these insurance companies take huge profits and do so at least in part by denying insurance claims, that this practice can easily be reframed as “efficiency” within the system - efficiency that would be lost if the reigns were handed over to the government (in which case we would lament waste and politicization instead of private profiteering).
How can we blame Thompson for this? And how can we celebrate his death?
| 1,733,438,599
|
adenocard
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The west should not be escalating the war in Ukraine even further
|
{'id': 'lvlzd9d', 'text': 'Of course. Heres a list of the most notable. There are also of course cases of Americans refusing to fire when ordered as well. \n\n\n[Vasily Arkhipov. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov) The intresting thing about Arkhipov is that he wasn\'t a subordinate unlike most of the other cases, he was a high ranking officer. \n\n\n[Stanislav Petrov "The man who saved the world" ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)\n\n\nThis is probably the most famous example, because not only was Petrov ordered to fire by a superior but russian early warning satellites had actually confirmed that 5 US nuclear missles had been launched at Russia. Unlike a lot of cases their was no ambiguity here, no trigger happy superior officer. \n\n\nHe had no reason to suspect that in reality the early warning satellites had malfunctioned, he literally just went with his gut and probably saved the billions of lives in the process. If he had followed protocol and done his job russia would have launched a real retaliatory strike.', 'author': 'Former_Indication172', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730849404}
|
{'id': 'lvly35p', 'text': ">Short of launching massive numbers of nukes, Russia has no capability of successfully invading anything much beyond their immediate neighborhood.\n\nDidn't stop them from trying. War sucks, and Putin sucks for starting them.\n\n>1) This is the language that warmongers use to hype up the next war.\n\nNah dude. War sucks. The war would end tomorrow if Russia packed up and fucked off. I hope we can agree that's the best option if it were possible. It's language used to warn against the next war not hype it up. \n\n>And The Great War was supposed to be the war to end all wars. What's your point?\n\nMy point is that some wars are worth fighting. Like ones against dictators invading their neighbors.\n\n>War doesn't end war either.\n\nExcept for when it does.\n\n>\n> Force is the only language they understand.\n\n>Keyboard warrior trying to destroy humanity.\n\nI'd welcome your evidence to the contrary. \n\nKeyboard bootlicker trying to give up on humanity", 'author': 'ContrarianDouche', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730848970}
|
1gkjohz
|
CMV: The west should not be escalating the war in Ukraine even further
|
Let me preface this with I am and was my whole life rather pacifistic, so I probably am very biased. The majority of Redditors I encounter seems to want to escalate the war Putin wages against Ukraine. But the way I see it is:
Either the US/Europe/NATO does the bare minimum or even nothing to aid Ukraine. Then, Ukraine will probably fall, sooner or later. Putin will still be in office, the west will sanction Russia even more. In the end, probably not much will change, except a sovereign state lost her independence and more will be threatened.
Or the US/Europe/NATO matches Russian aggression and sends equipment for proactive warfare, allows long range missiles to be shot into Russian territory or even directly sending troops. This seems to be what most people on reddit want from Ukraines allies.But in my opinion this only leads to even worse. I can‘t see an outcome where, eventually, Putin won‘t be cornered since the whole of NATO is obviously very capable of taking out Russian military forces. Unfortunately, he has access to nuclear weapons. The only logical outcome I see is basically nuclear annihilation of the world. Losing Ukraine and even the rest if eastern Europe is of course tragic, but preferable to the end of the human race.
So yeah. My question is is there is an outcome I am missing that everyone else banks on. And if no, how people are dealing with the fact that their preferred outcome is the end of the world.
| 1,730,846,820
|
FastLegEnte
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Deportation of immigrant is racially motivated
|
{'id': 'lw872w7', 'text': "It doesn't happen in large numbers. It isn't something people care about because it doesn't happen in large numbers to affect culture, wages, neighbourhood safety. You say it's a racial issue, when it is actually a socio-economic/crime issue. Loads of poor uneducated people that don't speak English brings social and crime issues. People want something done to stop the obvious problems from illegal immigrants specifically coming from South of the border.\n\nThere is similarly not much fuss about Chinese overstaying their visas as Europeans. Because they don't cause as many social issues as people from South of the border.\n\nYou're trying to make this an overtly racial issue, when there are more significant factors at play. I'm sure there are many racist people that want to deport on the basis of race. But peoples racist sentiments are often just as much a response to the low socioeconomic factors correlated with race. The socioeconomic factors are the biggest reason.", 'author': 'KLUME777', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1731145710}
|
{'id': 'lw86nxq', 'text': 'Unfortunately the Dems really didn’t have a response to what to do about illegal immigration except to say, but without them our fruit won’t get picked. I think the mass deportations are also racially motivated. It’s just here in England the messaging didn’t work for the Conservatives who lost the election. It’s pretty fucked up that the only way America can apparently run is by having a permanent illegal underclass of workers with below standard pay and no rights … but are absolutely necessary. Whether it’s prison labour or migrants, American can’t seem to get around needing slave like labour to ensure *some people can have a good life.', 'author': 'Various_Thanks_3495', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731145428}
|
1gn6hjh
|
CMV: Deportation of immigrant is racially motivated
|
Back in operation wetback, there were legal Mexican mixed up with illegals immigrant and deported back. A staggering 3 million were deported back. All had one thing in common and that was they looked like Mexican.
Back to 2024 , the case is still the same. If you look at footage of detection center you will see they are POC. It can lead to two possibilities only
One that is that all white caucasian people are legal citizen and no one is illegal which I doubt it. Second is that it is racially motivated. Whenever mass deportation topic comes up, there is always talk of deportation of people of POC. ICE agents pick up POC especially . I want to change my view on this if I have seen the proof of white being targeted too.
| 1,731,144,584
|
Cheetah_sperm_1999
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: We should get rid of all public graveyards and golf courses.
|
{'id': 'm21cu02', 'text': 'Now that I think about it, if would make funerals more interesting, too.', 'author': 'jstnpotthoff', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734195190}
|
{'id': 'm21c3am', 'text': 'Religion is not just important to religious people. Even the famously anti religious communists had graveyards.', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734194945}
|
1he6eqo
|
CMV: We should get rid of all public graveyards and golf courses.
|
These giant swaths of green space and land are taken up by the dead and the small few who think public golf is necessity (it's not).
Both golf courses and graveyards could be converted to affordable houses and publicly usable green space and community space.
There is literally no reason outside of religion for the need for graveyards as cremation doesn't take up space. Religious burial can and should take place on land owned by those churches or temples etc.
Golf courses destroy ecosystems and are some of the least utilized public resources across all demographics. Give you a guess which demographic uses then the most which is why we still have them.
I see absolutely 0 value in keeping either. Change my view.
| 1,734,193,415
|
AllTheNopeYouNeed
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Using Europe as a compass for Defining the Orientation of a U.S. Political Party is Not Logically Sound
|
{'id': 'lz92h1k', 'text': 'Wonderful counter argument!\n\nUsing the same form of logic, let’s say the definition of a square originated there and that is a 4-sided, regular polygon with angles of 90 degrees.\n\nThen somewhere else, people started expanding the definition of a square to include rectangles, so all 4 sides are no longer the same length.\n\nWell, by the original definition, these rectangles *aren’t* squares because they don’t conform to the Western European definition.\n\nSo now we have two perfectly valid analogies that support opposite (yet valid) points.\n\nHow do you propose we resolve this? Under which conditions would you allow the definition to evolve over time and under which conditions would you maintain we stick to the original definition?', 'author': 'FootballDeathTaxes', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732720174}
|
{'id': 'lz8xw4n', 'text': 'ok but this is wrong and kind of feeds OP\'s point a little. Democrats in America are quite progressive on social issues, even by European standards, while being more liberal on economics. You guys have led most of Europe in legalising gay marriage and marijuana, and now your climate policy is among the best in the world in terms of effect. Biden has also been quite pro union. \n\nMy point is left and right on American politics genuinely are different to other countries. it obviously makes sense to compare countries with each other but politics is too complicated to say "Democrats are lying to you" when they say they\'re on the left.', 'author': 'NoGeologist1944', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1732718602}
|
1h15go3
|
CMV: Using Europe as a compass for Defining the Orientation of a U.S. Political Party is Not Logically Sound
|
Inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but a pet peeve of mine on here all the same.
All the time I hear "the left are not actually left because...somewhere in Europe"
The orientation of a political party and how far left or right they are, is determined by the environment and sentiment of the country they exist in. For example, in the USSR, the main political party would've been considered radical by most countries, are they thus radical in the USSR. No, they were pretty moderate by all standards in said country. (Maybe I could be wrong about how moderate they were at the time, but I think the point comes across well enough)
Furthermore, if we were going to use the argument that other countries could determine the true orientation of our political party's why in the world do we use Europe, considering they account for 10% of the world's population. Why not India, China, or the Middle East, considering they account for more of the world and thus would be more reflective of worldwide standards. Of course, using any of these, wouldn't work since the comparison is illogical in the first place.
I would love to hear some thoughts on where I might be going wrong on this.
| 1,732,717,435
|
PaperPiecePossible
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-27
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Subsidising low emissions technology is a much better approach to reducing global emissions than penalising fossil fuels.
|
{'id': 'm2i862p', 'text': '> The reason for a carbon tax is that you have to get rid of ongoing use of existing high carbon footprint energy generation, transportation, fertilizers, etc. \n\nIf your goal is to get rid of fertilizers using the haber bosch process, you want to kill 80+% of the world population. There is zero climate change model remotely that bad.', 'author': 'JacketExpensive9817', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734449423}
|
{'id': 'm2hzapc', 'text': 'Make renewables cheaper and better, and everyone will switch because it just makes sense economically.', 'author': 'Gear-Outrageous731', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734446324}
|
1hgbyjs
|
CMV: Subsidising low emissions technology is a much better approach to reducing global emissions than penalising fossil fuels.
|
The western world are currently the most interested in slowing down anthropogenic climate change, with many of them imposing carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuel exploration, etc. While this will likely reduce the emissions of the countries that have these policies in place, it has no effect on countries that take climate change less seriously (e.g. China, India), and sometimes even has the adverse effect of exporting manufacturing to more carbon intense energy grids (e.g. China's heavily coal powered grid).
The west also currently has much higher energy consumption than the world's poorest countries (U.S. consumes about 10x the energy per capita that India or many African countries do), but the poorer economies of the world (who care less about climate change) catching up with Europe and North America will inevitably come with more energy consumption from their citizens, thus increasing global emissions if their methods of production remain similar to current methods.
My view is that the subsidisation of research into making renewable energy technologies more economically viable, both in generation and in storage, is a much more realistic route for incentivising these sleeping giants to keep their emissions under control in the coming decades. If governments in North America and Europe can develop better hydrogen storage tech, or cheaper solar cells, it will be more economically viable for all countries to use these technologies, not just ones that care about climate change. If we can get to the point where a grid based on wind and solar is cheaper than a fossil fuel powered grid, while achieving similar levels of stability, and we can find a way to electrify industry and transport without inconveniencing travellers or manufacturers, carbon taxes and emissions caps will be superfluous, because carbon intense technologies won't make economic sense.
| 1,734,446,176
|
eagle_565
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Man has never been on the moon.
|
{'id': 'm24tias', 'text': 'You can see a wall because it reflects light back at you. But does it reflect a laser back at you?', 'author': 'roylennigan', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1734243964}
|
{'id': 'm24rd5r', 'text': 'are YOU reflective then? if i point a tiny red laser dot on you, will you reflect it right back?', 'author': 'ProDavid_', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734242776}
|
1helur2
|
CMV: Man has never been on the moon.
|
Based on what I have researched, eg. all videos of the moon landing, people who made analysis of the photos, the specifics of the Hasselblad camera and what environments it can operate in, I do not believe people have been on the moon. I do believe that machines such as satellites have been on the moon, though.
The way I see it, the United States wanted to bankrupt the Soviets by forcing them into a space race.
Also, I have seen the videos of the Lunar Landing Module, and there is no way that contraption could've gathered enough energy to blast off the moon, especially considering the gravity is only 1/6th of Earth's.
| 1,734,240,572
|
Minimum-Guest4937
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Whenever you have to create a password for something there should always be a second box to confirm it
|
{'id': 'm2eyaho', 'text': "Middle schoolers shouldn't be logging in to random websites at school. \n\nIf all you're talking about is kids in schools, that don't have phones, and can't just get a new password if they mess up, then sure, fine: Middle-school's homework systems could perhaps benefit from password confirmation. \n\nFor most people, most places, on most websites, password confirmation is just a hassle that serves little function.", 'author': 'hacksoncode', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734394088}
|
{'id': 'm2e6l66', 'text': "The biggest danger to password security is password re-use.\nIf you rely on people to type in their password every time, they're going to reuse it.\n\nSo, rather than the second box, you should design your password system to operate using openId Standards, or accomodate password managers, and so on.\n\nThe box helps, I guess, but it's a patch on a broken solution.", 'author': '10ebbor10', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734384668}
|
1hftyu7
|
CMV: Whenever you have to create a password for something there should always be a second box to confirm it
|
The point of this post is not to argue that this is any kind important or controversial issue in grand scheme of things. This is instead a challenge to see if anyone on this sub can come up with a rebuttal for a very simple opinion that I cannot think of a counter argument for.
As for the argument, I believe that any site or service that requires you to create a password should have a second box that asks you to confirm your password.
Whenever you’re typing a password there’s always a possibility you might mistype and have a different password from the one you want. So it makes no sense as to why a site should not have a second box to confirm the password you typed. It’s not like it’s any kind of significant burden to program a second box in cuz if you can implement the first box you can implement the second. Maybe one could argue that you could just click the eye to make your password visible but you could maybe misread it and think you typed it correctly. It’s also not super safe if someone managed to tap into your computer and is spying on your current activity. Either way having the second box is just a better solution.
Not having the second box to confirm your password just makes a site less user friendly and increases the chances of you getting locked out and having to create a new password.
| 1,734,384,212
|
Drillix08
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: Most Republicans/conservatives are either soulless, un empathetic creatures or have a mental deficiency.
|
{'id': 'm23ethy', 'text': "I think curiosity and the ability to self-educate, as you suggest, are also signs of privilege. Now, many Republicans are privileged --- but many are not.\n\nSay you're a Republican. You come home after working twelve hours, you're exhausted, trying to make ends meet; you know the world is broken in some way, but you don't know how. Because you were raised in a conservative household, you turn to familiar places. It's easier, and you don't have the time or energy to do research for yourself. Biased outlets give you answers that align with your preconceptions. You don't have any reason to think they're wrong; everyone around you is conservative, too. The longer it goes on for, the harder the cycle is to break, the more energy it takes, and the more impossible it becomes.\n\nIs that person unintelligent? I don't think so. They do not have the opportunity to be curious. The door was never opened for them. Being an adult, they *could* open the door themselves, but they don't have the energy to. Being told that their views, what they were raised to believe, what everyone *around* them believes --- make them stupid and inhuman, they're likely to grasp even tighter. It's easier than letting go.", 'author': 'StatusTalk', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734221480}
|
{'id': 'm23e181', 'text': 'I\'m not a conservative. I\'m pretty far left as a progressive (at least in US politics). \n\nThat being said, I value opinions that differ from my own. Honestly, it\'s how I arrived at my opinions and beliefs. When I was an ignorant teen, and young man, I absolutely was a "conservative." I didn\'t know what that really meant, but I was just ignorant enough to believe most of the propaganda. \n\nI don\'t think these people are soulless or unempathetic. I\'m sure plenty of them are, probably more so than on the left. I think they\'re just ignorant, whether willful or not. It\'s super easy to tune out when you\'re blasted with all this noise. \n\nTry to have some empathy yourself. \n\nNow Trump supporters, those are soulless and unempathetic prople. To be tuned in and to actually like the vitriol and hate that criminal pos spews out on a daily basis, well, you definitely need help.', 'author': 'MacNuggetts', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734221174}
|
1hefvqq
|
Cmv: Most Republicans/conservatives are either soulless, un empathetic creatures or have a mental deficiency.
|
It's pretty simple really. Why would anyone be against things like universal healthcare, free education, etc. These things should be basic human rights. The only people that are against these things seem to be rich f*cks that don't give two sh*ts about anyone else.
There's that and then people who generally think Trump is going to "save America". These people are absolute morons and believe anything Trump tells them (e.g., he knows more about judges than anyone in history).
Yeah, so there you have it. The two types of conservatives. Cmv
| 1,734,220,100
|
Specific-Emu-8067
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: dogs are old-fashioned AI girlfriends
|
{'id': 'm275uoj', 'text': 'Human interference isn’t enough to make something artificial. I came about because of human interference, I am not artificial', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734285443}
|
{'id': 'm26wpyz', 'text': 'Not only that. Various teledildonics technologies (lmao) make it so your masturbation aid is reactive to onscreen content.', 'author': 'ElephantNo3640', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734282466}
|
1hewqpw
|
CMV: dogs are old-fashioned AI girlfriends
|
I like dogs they're very cute and fun to play with but the thought of getting one myself give me the ick. They're the neediest thing in existence, a trait bred into them to make them easier to own and in return they're excited about everything and will give you unconditional love forever. People love this about them, golden retrievers are to compared to men and are many women's ideal man.
They remind me of those ai girlfriend apps. You pick a personality and tell it about yourself and the computer acts like a woman would but you don't have to actually deal with a woman.
In place of real human contact many people choose something designed to love and need you. And while fine it's kinda weird. At least the hypocrisy of getting a dog because of your depressed is fine but ai girlfriends aren't.
While cats have some of this going on for them they have a wider range of personalities and don't immediately love you instead warming up to you more like connections between humans.
| 1,734,281,649
|
snowleave
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Walt Disney was the greatest American to have ever lived.
|
{'id': 'm28778b', 'text': 'Lincoln literally helped abolish slavery. That is one of the largest cultural shifts in history, and the impact is still seen today. That didn’t influence the culture of our society? No president has done so?', 'author': 'ifuckedup0226', 'score': 21, 'timestamp': 1734297235}
|
{'id': 'm286d2b', 'text': "Wouldn't the greatest American be someone who influenced the US for the better? Also, couldn't you argue it is those who followed his legacy that are the most inspirational, not Disney himself?", 'author': 'No_Button5279', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734296967}
|
1hf29qq
|
CMV: Walt Disney was the greatest American to have ever lived.
|
I understand that the greatest American to have ever lived is up for debate, but I believe the title of the greatest American goes to Walt Disney and I will explain why. Most Americans today grew up with some sort of Disney's influence. Many Americans have visited his theme parks in Florida and California and watched some of the Disney movies and TV. He has made a wonderful influence through generations of kids. You could make the argument for people like Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers were more influential than Disney himself. However, the things that they have invented (lightbulb and airplane) would have been invented by someone else, had these individuals never existed in history. I believe that if Disney himself never existed in history, the culture that Disney introduced would not have happened or would be radically different compared to today. I wouldn't consider him the greatest American when it comes to just influence (for better or worse), but it's hard to argue against a guy who have influenced many generations of kids and adults. I hope to hear your arguments below.
| 1,734,296,488
|
Commercial-Pound533
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Sadists and Zoosadists who commit violence resulting in injury, and all pedophile who have done so much as procure csm should be jailed for life without parole.
|
{'id': 'lwyyibk', 'text': "> If the selective enforcement isn't a part of the law itself,\n\n[Addressed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gqimt0/cmv_sadists_and_zoosadists_who_commit_violence/lwyv0np/). \n\nYes, I do think that a two tiered system for minors and adults should be set up. But, until such a system is in place, prosecutorial discretion must be used.", 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1731528194}
|
{'id': 'lwyqopd', 'text': 'As someone with a family member in prison for life, I understand what you mean. I mean, in an instance where there is video of someone abusing animals and children, and the reasonable doubt is, nonexistent, we shouldn’t waste our tax dollars on them.', 'author': 'Unhappy-List-1169', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731525823}
|
1gqimt0
|
CMV: Sadists and Zoosadists who commit violence resulting in injury, and all pedophile who have done so much as procure csm should be jailed for life without parole.
|
Provided that their crimes have been proven.
These are egregiously antisocial acts that no healthy society can tolerate. They almost universally impact people who are totally powerless, or animals. This very fact makes it difficult to apprehend perpetrators; the sheer volume of these activities and the veil of anonymity provided by dark web/Telegrah like platforms compounds this. Minimum sentencing for these acts are so weak that there are more or less no deterrents.
People who cross the line to commit these kinds of atrocities have demonstrated that they exist in a realm that has no regard for basic morality, and holds no future of redemption.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-65951188.amp
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd109z73ek3o.amp
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crejr8grr01o.amp
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/19/dark-web-paedophile-matthew-falder-jailed-for-32-years
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/15-years-in-jail-for-pure-evil-child-porn-webmaster-matthew-graham-20160317-gnl8mv.html
| 1,731,519,664
|
Common_Noise_9100
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-13
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Executives of healthcare insurance companies are no more guilty for the deaths of patients than any other decision maker within the healthcare sector
|
{'id': 'm2a2wxh', 'text': '[EMTALA means that emergency room patients, by law, must be treated regardless of whether they have insurance/can pay or not.](https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtala/emtala-fact-sheet)\n\nSeparately, [Propublica has done *many* articles on how insurance companies deny legitimate claims as a cost saving measure](https://www.propublica.org/topics/health-insurance).\nIt\'s not just nebulous "AI claims processing". It\'s also [insurers not providing care mandate by state law, or repeatedly denying claims but \'fixing their mistake\' when state regulators come knocking](https://www.propublica.org/article/health-insurance-denials-breaking-state-laws).', 'author': 'Lyusternik', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1734321620}
|
{'id': 'm29rjb6', 'text': 'Your argument seems to be focused on pricing of medications. However as evidenced by the shooter writing "delay, deny, depose" on his ammunition casings, he was specifically making a statement about the insurance company\'s strategy of, again, "delay, deny, depose" meaning dragging out the process of approval/slowrolling as long as possible until the patient gives up or dies. The CEO is specifically responsible for steering his company towards this strategy.', 'author': 'thebucketmouse', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734317018}
|
1hf92ag
|
CMV: Executives of healthcare insurance companies are no more guilty for the deaths of patients than any other decision maker within the healthcare sector
|
This CMV **does not** relate to the events in New York. I have no interest in discussing vigilantism. This post is in response to comments I've seen across reddit blaming executives of healthcare insurance companies for the deaths of patients. I am seeking to understand this position more thoroughly - specifically what sets these decision makers apart from others within the healthcare sector.
My position is straightforward: Executives of healthcare insurance companies are not the only party responsible for denying patients care, therefore it is unreasonable to place the blame mostly or entirely upon them for the deaths of patients. Some examples:
• Doctors and hospitals are able to provide their services at lower - even no - cost for patients who have had their insurance denied or do not have insurance to begin with. This is fundamentally identical to an insurance company refusing to pay for an uncovered claim - people are expecting an organization (doctor's office / hospital / insurance company) to provide something that they are not contractually obligated to provide on the basis that it is the right thing to do.
• Pharmacies and to a much greater extent pharmaceutical companies are largely responsible for setting such sky-high prices for life-sustaining and life-saving drugs, like insulin. Why are executives of insurers being blamed for the inaccessibility of drugs when it's the pharmaceutical companies (and to a much lesser extent the pharmacies) that set the price at an unattainable level for uninsured patients?
• Legislators have the means to improve access to care by enacting price caps on essential care and essential drugs, reducing regulations preventing access to generic or foreign drugs, and have the means to create programs offering funding (either insurance or a welfare program) to those who lack the means to financially sustain their care. Legislators create the rules that all other decision makers must abide by - so why are the players in this system being blamed more than the people who maintain the system itself?
The strongest argument that I have seen is that these insurance companies will reject legitimate claims (ones that they're contractually obligated to pay out) - however this still doesn't excuse the behavior of other participants within the system. From the perspective of a doctor/hospital/pharmacy/pharmacist, an uncovered patient is an uncovered patient regardless of *why* they're an uncovered patient. These organizations still have the means to provide care, but deny it on the same basis of financial self-interest as the insurance companies.
What will not change my view:
• Arguments that do not relate to the content of the OP. I will not engage with comments focused on vigilantism specifically, as this is not the subject of the CMV.
• Arguments that are equally applicable to other decision making participants within the healthcare sector. Eg: "insurance companies are profit-driven" can just as easily be "doctors/hospitals/pharmacies/pharmaceutical companies/legislators are profit driven"
• Arguments that are not substantiated by facts or clear reasoning.
What will change my view:
• Arguments that convincingly outline how health insurance executives are uniquely more culpable than the mentioned groups
• Arguments that demonstrate bad-faith engagement on the part of health insurance companies in general. For instance, providing data that shows these companies regularly and intentionally deny legitimate claims. Note: I will not accept the [AI denies 90%](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-healthcare-ai-denied-claims/) argument, as this is not confirmed and possibly a one-off instance rather than a greater trend within the sector.
• Arguments that show that I have missed something that is substantial and consequential.
I would like to better understand the perspective that I am responding to. Thank you!
| 1,734,316,310
|
MrGraeme
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: Trying to be manly is ironically very unmanly
|
{'id': 'm2ddsid', 'text': 'There are a lot of angles to tackle this ideology from, but I think the most salient one is to find the consistency in their behavior:\n\n\\- These men think lashing out in anger as emotional outlet is a masculine way to emote. \n\\- These men think breaking down into tears as emotional outlet is a feminine way to emote. \n\\- These men think men should be masculine and women should be feminine. \n\\- These men think it is essential to maintain this division.\n\nWith these stipulations, they would say a woman lashing out in anger is misbehaving because she is behaving in a masculine way. They would also say a woman breaking down into tears is behaving appropriately *but only* *so long as she knows it is a feminine way to behave*. \n\nThey would also say that a man lashing out in anger at a woman for breaking down into tears is behaving appropriate, despite the woman\'s tears also being appropriate, because they are both overwhelmed, and he is behaving in a masculine way and she in a feminine way.\n\nAnd there we see the deep kernel of misogyny.\n\nBeing \'cried at\' may be uncomfortable, but it is not automatically going to make a person feel unsafe. It doesn\'t beget aggression in the crier. Being yelled at is going to make a person feel unsafe, because it does beget aggression in the yeller; that\'s kinda the point of yelling.\n\nSo, this patriarchal gender dichotomy isn\'t \'silly and inconsistent.\' It encourages a gender expression which empowers men over women basically inherently.\n\nPerhaps not including "anger" when we refer to a person as "emotional" is a linguistic encouragement of that same dichotomy, but this is much deeper than a semantic point like "anger is an emotion too."', 'author': 'TheVioletBarry', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734375697}
|
{'id': 'm2cuu0k', 'text': '>This is a specific type of person...\n\nYeah, a strawman.\n\nYour top-line argument and the body of your post don\'t really jive. Up top, you are making a flatly categorical statement. Then in the body, you are giving us a very narrow definition of what you consider to be the unmanly way of acting manly. \n\nSo, which position should we focus on? Should we just try to bust the category by giving you unironically manly ways of being manly, like by trying to be a good provider for your children? If I try to do that, and my reasoning is due to the gender role that states men should be good providers, is my trying to live up to that ironically **un**manly? If no, then your category is proven false. \n\nBut, if you *really* want to focus on this:\n\n>I feel as if being brave enough to truly be your authentic self in the world without trying to be manly and just being who you are is what is actually manly. \n\nWhich seems like the actual crux of your argument, then it too should be easy to alter as there is not anything gendered about "being brave enough to truly be your authentic self in the world". That is a thing all genders should aspire to. Reaching for this is neither manly or feminine.', 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734369800}
|
1hfn4kf
|
Cmv: Trying to be manly is ironically very unmanly
|
This is a specific type of person. Guys who try desperately to be manly “alpha” men, who are very insecure about how others see them and become very emotional if anyone dares think they are not mr macho man are ironically very unmanly. They cannot do something which they consider “feminine” because they are manly men what if someone sees them. They are slaves to gender stereotypes and society. They have to try to look as “manly” as possible and anyone who does not look like that is automatically less of a man to them. What is manly is obviously not always universally defined, but going off gender stereotypes, i feel that caring so hard about being manly is not very manly. It is also the same kind of guy who is always becoming so angry at everything and yet says that men are not emotional as if anger is not an emotion.
I feel as if being brave enough to truly be your authentic self in the world without trying to be manly and just being who you are is what is actually manly. You do whatever you want it does not matter if someone else might think it is not masculine, who cares. That being said if you happen to fit into the masculine stereotype then that is cool and completely fine. As long as you are not a try hard or asshole about it.
| 1,734,366,949
|
After_Discipline_794
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: White people SHOULD be punished for the acts of their ancestors
|
{'id': 'm0g18rb', 'text': 'Why should it stop there? You’re saying someone else’s generational trauma doesn’t matter just because it’s older than historical records.', 'author': 'I_shjt_you_not', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733351492}
|
{'id': 'm0fzq8q', 'text': 'You’re moving goalposts here. The guy clearly told you what he thinks.', 'author': 'TopTopTopcinaa', 'score': -7, 'timestamp': 1733351014}
|
1h6sqve
|
CMV: White people SHOULD be punished for the acts of their ancestors
|
(I have quite a few hot takes that would probably never be taken seriously as a viewpoint anywhere else, that explains why I'm often here, for context, I am Asian).
This just doesn't make sense when people say otherwise.
If Person A steals from Person B, and Person A dies and gives the money to their kid, Person B is well within their rights to ask Person A's kid to give the money back. Imagine how frustrating it would be if Person A's kid then said "Well I didn't actually do anything, don't blame me for what my dad did".
Now, imagine Person A and Person B are entire races and Person B has been persecuted and downright tortured for a century, probably more. This has led to an untold number of physical pain, emotional pain, and countless lost hopes and dreams. Frankly, NOT giving some form of retribution and reparation doesn't make sense. And yes, SOME white people are trying to help. But not enough of them, and they still benefit from their privilege in that they will always have an easier time in society. Also, most of them are just virtue-signaling anyway. How else do you explain how ineffective white liberals are at practically anything? Even the groups white liberals say they want to help don't like them, at least from what I've seen on this platform.
So with that all being said, yes, I do believe white people deserve to be punished or forced into retribution in SOME form. Please CMV, because admittedly this is an ugly viewpoint to have, but I just cannot unrationalize it.
| 1,733,350,208
|
AGuyWhatDoesThings
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There is absolutely no good reason to hold a pro-Palestinian demonstration today (Oct 7) and it should be seen as glorification of terrorism
|
{'id': 'lqsqm1h', 'text': 'It seems extremely likely that the goal was to take hostages for a prisoner swap while getting a ton of attention for the conflict. This is based on the fact that they pretty immediately offered a prisoner swap. They probably didn’t realize that Israel was going to respond by completely destroying Gaza and that they’d be willing to kill the hostages to do so.', 'author': 'mnmkdc', 'score': 22, 'timestamp': 1728318288}
|
{'id': 'lqspdzs', 'text': 'Ya but Hamas is the controlling gov in Palestine. Has been for a long time. Now all the sudden they separated? \n\nYou can’t cheer for Hamas attacking Israel then turn around and cry when Israel hits back. Not agreeing with any of the violence but let’s stop the nonsense with word play. The wild majority of the population has been pro Hamas for decades.', 'author': 'Nostradomas', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1728317892}
|
1fyamjb
|
CMV: There is absolutely no good reason to hold a pro-Palestinian demonstration today (Oct 7) and it should be seen as glorification of terrorism
|
It is the first anniversary of the horrific attack on Israel, yet streets in my city are full of pro-Palestinian protesters with their flags.
I believe that there is absolutely no good reason for them to be there today and it can only be explained as celebrating the terrorist attack. They could have chosen literally any other date. Oct 7 is irrevocably connected to the horrors of last year.
I can see possible explanations like "it was the start of the violence in Palestine", but it really wasn't. On Oct 7 last year, there was only violence in Israel. The retribution came only days later.
Arguments of the type "they are there to demonstrate for ceasefire to stop suffering on both sides" seem quite disingenuous to me as well. Why the Palestinian flags then?
| 1,728,315,409
|
Downtown-Act-590
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: there’s no such thing as dressing for yourself.
|
{'id': 'm1kclgp', 'text': 'Thanks! You can type ! Delta (without the space) with an explanation as to why your view was changed. \n\n[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem/)', 'author': 'sawdeanz', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733942515}
|
{'id': 'm1jpbc9', 'text': "I wear what's comfortable for me. I'm not doing this for others, I just don't want to catch a cold.", 'author': 'BenIsDrowningInWater', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733935491}
|
1hbwv4w
|
CMV: there’s no such thing as dressing for yourself.
|
Alright here’s my contention: there is no such thing as dressing for yourself.
The other day, I heard someone (woman, if it matters) say “I don’t dress like this when info out for other people; I dress like this so I feel confident! So I feel good!”
The immediate thing that comes to mind is that your concept of confidence is based on what other people find attractive. You’re never seeing someone go out in a chicken costume because they want to feel confident. By and large, the clothing people wear that makes them feel confident is driven by what makes them feel attractive to others. The less obvious thoughts about it: ideas about what is beautiful have been historically male-driven. Men have dominated industries that have shaped beauty standards until recently. Besides that, a person’s ideas of confidence are often tied to the validation they received in environments shaped by male gaze ideals, so a certain style of clothing getting attention can make that person internalize those styles as inherently confidence-boosting.
Humans are social creatures and external validation is a big part of our life. A lot of our self-worth and confidence is influenced by how others perceive us.
But the attributes considered “confident” or “attractive” in clothing—like emphasizing curves, showing skin, or wearing fitted styles—are not inherent but culturally constructed. These standards are disseminated through media, advertising, and social circles.
So Reddit, I’m asking you to change my view: please help me understand how a person could honestly lay claim to the idea that she dresses a certain way only for herself, knowing how ideas of confidence are formed.
And maybe I should just add a disclaimer: this is in a western country (USA).
| 1,733,933,198
|
schafna
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-11
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People convicted of the most violent crimes (such as murder, violent SA) should be turned into quadriplegics by the state as an official form of punishment
|
{'id': 'm0hakap', 'text': "A quick Google search shows that there are about 200,000 people with quadriplegia. \n\nSome more quick Google searches show that there are more than 100,000 sex offenders per year in the US, and about 10,000 cleared cases of murders. \n\nEven assuming pretty generously about how much overlap there would be (e.g. people who killed multiple people would only be punished once), and assumptions around how much of those are repeat offenses that would be stopped by your plan, it would still only take a couple of years so that there would be more criminals with quadriplegia than non-criminals. \n\nBut I don't even think you needed that. Even if your plan went into place for a thousand people a year, because of the publicity and shock of it, there would be a lot of assumptions about everyone who is quadriplegic, even if that's not borne out by the statistics. Humans are terrible at statistics, and really great at jumping to the worst option, so it seems naive to assume that stigma wouldn't follow.", 'author': 'rightful_vagabond', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1733367509}
|
{'id': 'm0h6q06', 'text': "That's pretty extreme.\n\nImagine if you had your dominant hand chopped off - that would largely make you unable to cause harm to others as well, but you would also be less of a burden on others. This was a common punishment for thieves in premodern societies.\n\nBut also imagine if you tattooed the criminal on the face - it would show everyone to be on-guard against these people, and would largely eliminate their ability to get away with things. Anywhere they go, people will have an eye on them. This was a punishment done in Qing dynasty China. \n\nRendering someone a quadriplegic is a very extreme form of punishment, and while I think that society is actually not better off even tattooing criminals' faces, I do think you don't need to go quite so far, and could easily have a more efficient punishment that also renders a person helpless to inflict further violence.", 'author': 'Vitruviansquid1', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1733366100}
|
1h6yh8e
|
CMV: People convicted of the most violent crimes (such as murder, violent SA) should be turned into quadriplegics by the state as an official form of punishment
|
I think people who are convicted of rape, murder, and violent sexual assault should, in addition to a traditional prison sentence, be turned quadriplegic by the government. This would be done via a painless surgical procedure on the spinal cord. I genuinely think it has many benefits:
* Greatly reduces recidivism by effectively eliminating any chance for the person to commit the crime again. A rapist cannot force anyone into nonconsensual sex if they cannot move.
* Only needs to be done once per convict, does not need the ongoing intervention of a medical body as with chemical castration.
* Avoids the decades of appeals associated with the death penalty.
* Allows the convicted person to continue to work jobs outside of society for the greater good.
* Most people would be much more terrified of this idea than they would be of prison and so it would serve as a greater deterrent against crime.
This should not be considered cruel or unusual punishment, because being physically disabled is not a lesser state of being. It would be ableist to suggest that turning someone into a quadriplegic is cruel because it implies that being quadriplegic is a lesser state of being when it isn't. Actually, disabled people are protected in the developed world and we accommodate for their disabilities, so in some sense they are protected just as much as they are in prison. We are simply changing the prisoner's living situation for a functional purpose, just as confining them to a locked room in a prison serves a functional purpose.
| 1,733,365,763
|
Kalk-og-Aske
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Jack Smith should have insisted on being fired.
|
{'id': 'lyzuuq7', 'text': "I am revising my position here a little bit. I'm not sure how important the AG report would be, I'm trying to find more on that. But I think there were two other considerations that were important for Smith:\n\nFirst, the fact that dismissing the cases himself allowed him to request that they dismissed *without* prejudice. It is highly unlikely that Trump will ever be prosecuted given that the statute of limitations will run out before his presidency ends. However, it is now in the court record (in the dismissal documents themselves, as well as the Judge's orders) that the cases were not dismissed due to any lack of evidence or legal grounds or other lack of merit, which I believe is important. There will be no rewriting of history, no ability for Trump and his sycophants to claim that there was never a real case, it is now in the court record that Trump needed to rely on the DoJ guidelines against prosecuting sitting Presidents in order to avoid prosecution.\n\nSecond, there are ongoing cases against two other individuals that were involved in the classified documents scandal. By formally withdrawing the case against Trump, at the same time Smith was able to request that these other cases remain open and move forward.", 'author': 'AcephalicDude', 'score': 19, 'timestamp': 1732580595}
|
{'id': 'lyzrcbz', 'text': 'Voted for one. What do you think is going to happen when Trump\'s insane plans tank the economy? Do you really believe a man who is nearly $2 billion in debt, has declared bankruptcy 6 times including bankrupting a casino of all things, committed millions of dollars of fraud in his home state, has been sued roughly 3000 times for failure to pay his bills, and added the most of any sitting president ever in a four year term to the national deficit is really going to handle economics problems well? Do you really believe Elon Musk, a man that has a team of people who follow him around the companies he owns in an effort to distract him from causing damage, who tanked the value of one of the largest social media platforms ever, and who has zero experience in politics or large scale economics, is really going to make educated and productive cuts to spending? Do you really believe that Vivek "It\'s just an idea, but how about a social security lottery to find out which 75% of recipients we cut off?" Ramaswamy has any clue on how to properly address economic overspending?\n\nAnd what, pray tell, would be the crime Hilary would be prosecuted for? I would love to hear this. There a very good reason she wasn\'t prosecuted for anything, but I want to hear what you have.', 'author': 'Chilichunks', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732579345}
|
1gzwkkq
|
CMV: Jack Smith should have insisted on being fired.
|
A few hours ago, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith filed a motion to have the courts dismiss both pending cases against Donald Trump. I do not believe he should have done so.
The Jan. 6 case charged Donald Trump with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct, Obstruction and Conspiracy against rights. This indictment was founded in the seven false slates of electors that Donald Trump procured and sent to VP Pence with the express goal of having Pence overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The Florida case charged Donald Trump with Willful Retention of National Defense Information, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and corruptly concealing documents. This case was until recently part of an ongoing appeal with the 11th circuit after Judge Cannon initially dismissed it on the grounds that the Special Prosecutor was improperly appointed, a belief I consider frivolous and expect will be overturned for Trump's co-conspirators should their cases be allowed to proceed without a pardon from Trump.
These cases were dismissed after consultation with the DOJ. The DOJ has an outstanding belief that the President is immune from prosecution while in office, something I disagree with but accept as the DOJ's policy. On these grounds, Jack Smith sought guidance from the OLC who told him that the rule more or less applies to incoming presidents.
I believe his decision to dismiss these cases is folly.
1. The Special Counsel is not bound by OLC legal opinions. The point of a Special Counsel is to be independent from the rest of the DOJ. Having the rest of the DOJ tell them what they can and cannot do runs counter to this. Even if it were, I do not believe he was required to request their opinion. The regulations authorizing a special Counsel do not compel him to follow OLC opinions.
2. The existing opinion, that the president is fundamentally immune to criminal charges while in office dates back to the office under Nixon. I find it incredible that we accept as precedent a decision that was presented by the executive branch that says the head of that branch is immune to crime. Especially when the DOJ that produced it was run by a guy who committed crimes in office and fired people *in that department* in order to get the results he wanted.
3. Independent Counsel have disagreed with the OLC opinion in the past. Notably, Kenneth Starr rejected it in his internal 1998 [memo](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/03/us/savage-nyt-foia-starr-memo-presidential.html) stating: “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
4. The very idea runs counter to the basic rule of law in America. The idea that a citizen could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and be immune to prosecution so long as they took office in a timely fashion is absurd.
Now to be clear, I hold no illusions that Smith would be allowed to continue his work. I imagine he would be fired within hours of Trump taking office, but it is my view that there is value in forcing that action on Trump. If nothing else, a purely moral stance of stating "No, I will continue to prosecute you for your crimes until I can no longer do so".
We live in a headline based society. Today's NYT headline was "Trump's Jan. 6 Case Dismissed as Special Counsel Moves to End Prosecutions". Millions of Americans will read that and believe some variation of "I guess he didn't do it", Americans who might be even slightly swayed to a correct position by reading "Trump Fires Special Counsel Investigating Him For Crimes."
The only meaningful counter-argument I've heard is that closing the investigation now means that the cases are ended without prejudice, allowing them to be re-opened at a later date. I find this unconvincing because most of the crimes involved have a ticking statute of limitations that will not be stopped with Trump in office (especially given that the case was voluntarily dismissed). Moreover, even if there were will to still prosecute him in 2029 and it were still possible, it seems likely that Trump would simply pardon himself (or give the office to Vance to pardon him) on the way out the door.
To me it just feels like cowardice. That our officials would rather just quietly close up shop and slink away than stand in defiance.
| 1,732,575,300
|
Orphan_Guy_Incognito
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-25
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Billionaires are not as rich as we think they are
|
{'id': 'm2bju8u', 'text': 'Very very rich to the tune of **billions of dollars**, yes? Like they literally have access to that money.', 'author': 'blind-octopus', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734352735}
|
{'id': 'm2bgpvs', 'text': 'I agree it’s much harder to comprehend when talking about time, because we don’t measure time using a decimal system', 'author': 'Swayfromleftoright', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734351154}
|
1hfhalm
|
CMV: Billionaires are not as rich as we think they are
|
There are supposedly more than 2,500 billionaires in the world these days. While **I certainly agree that these people are very very rich**, I do not think they are as rich as often claimed, in the straightforward economic sense of possessing billions of dollars of purchasing power (as presented in the memes and infographics that circulate relentlessly on Reddit).
Billionaires' wealth is nearly entirely in the form of financial assets (i.e. shares), which have the feature of being valued at the flattering price at which a small number are traded in the market. The problem is that the price at which people are willing to buy and sell a few thousand shares greatly exaggerates what people would be willing to pay for the next few thousand, and the next few thousand and so on until all the millions of shares owned by billionaires could be monetised.
(I think of it like this. Suppose you own one house in London - then you are doing very well. Suppose you own 5 houses in London - then you are certainly rich. But suppose you own 100,000 houses in London. On the one hand you are definitely very rich indeed. On the other hand, you are not 100,000 times as rich as the guy with one house.)
Of course billionaires can realise substantial real purchasing power by directing the companies they control to give them free things or low interest loans, or by selling small fractions of their share holdings or borrowing against them (which is how Elon Musk lives so well and could afford to buy Twitter). But they certainly can't raise the amount of money that their fortune is officially worth. Hence billionaires are rich, but not that rich.
| 1,734,349,414
|
phileconomicus
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Candace Owens is, indisputably, one of the most heinously moronic political commentators in the world.
|
{'id': 'm2fuydj', 'text': 'Not in order but all worse than Owens as far as heinous idiocy goes:\n\nAlex Jones \n\nTucker Carlson\n\nBill O’Reilly\n\nJoe Rogan\n\nNicholas Fuentes', 'author': 'FerdinandTheGiant', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734406092}
|
{'id': 'm2fuwiw', 'text': 'Consider this: she is a product of an environment that incentivizes this behavior. To focus on Candace Owens would be to ignore the broader system that made Candace Owens possible.', 'author': 'TarquinusSuperbus000', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734406072}
|
1hg11gj
|
CMV: Candace Owens is, indisputably, one of the most heinously moronic political commentators in the world.
|
I will try and keep this relatively succinct :)
The majority of her positions on contentious issues fall apart upon the slightest degree of scrutiny. For the ones that warrant examination beyond their absurd conclusions, the reasoning betrays an egregiously alarming lack of any critical thought. It’s as if an angsty, hormonal teenager from a rural town decided to read Mein Kampf (or a comparable radical political manifesto) and concluded that, amidst its unconventional presentation, there is truth in the premises.
Here, I will present the more comical ones. Feel free to have a good laugh. Or cry, for these are actually taken seriously by a troubled few.
- Ashkenazi Jews are necessarily ‘corrupt’ and ‘demonic’.
- Emmanuel Macron’s wife is secretly a male.
- The Bolshevik Revolution was organised by Jews, in furtherance of some ‘satanic’ ideal.
- The majority of world leaders are homosexuals and coordinate their ‘paedophilic’ practices. These two are linked.
Now, I can appreciate earnest attempts at historical revisionism. And, similarly, I’ve grown to somewhat appreciate commentary that is inflammatory in its prose (as long as it is well-founded). These, however, are not only incorrect but are deplorable in the implications they present. Even more worrisome, she is a prominent political figure with millions of followers gladly extolling the same beliefs. Considering the influence that political messaging on social media carries, this is really, really, REALLY bad.
I will welcome attempts at defusing my obvious anger. Also, if anyone feels like they actually defend the claims that she has made, feel free to do so. Although, I have faith that everyone here has gotten an education :)
| 1,734,404,237
|
60tomidnight
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The most effective way to install Trump as a dictator is to revolt against the rich.
|
{'id': 'm2fm5ft', 'text': 'More efficient, maybe, but less effective. Too easy to overturn or reign in. Too many variables that might not go his way and prevent him from slipping into the dictatorship role.', 'author': 'QuentinQuitMovieCrit', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734402763}
|
{'id': 'm22il8s', 'text': "This is absolutely not true. Trump killed tens of thousands of his own supporters by promoting anti-vax conspiracies. \n\nPeople don't realize that authoritarians kill almost as many of their own people as they do people who oppose them.", 'author': 'BurgerQueef69', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734209564}
|
1hebr0n
|
CMV: The most effective way to install Trump as a dictator is to revolt against the rich.
|
The French revolution was great for the common people, right? The commoners gained some of the rights that Americans already have. It provided some opportunities, but then lead to a dictator ruling for the next decade or so. So, now there's a pro-business administration coming into power and the general consensus is that we should rise up against these CEOs to change the way the country is run? And they don't expect any huge blow back from an administration that is already talking about doing some things that people are worried about? It seems to me that challenging the status quo while you have a majority of Republicans in all three branches of the government is just asking for emergency powers to be given to the very people they're trying to fight against while they're at their most powerful. It doesn't sound like a good strategy to me.
| 1,734,208,232
|
epikverde
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Molcajete are not sanitary, but cast iron skillets are.
|
{'id': 'lydf53x', 'text': "season it with rice and salt, the salt will kill and prevent anything from being able to grow, this is how it is traditionally done. there should be no food particles left over when you're done cleaning..", 'author': 'Comprehensive-Leg-82', 'score': 22, 'timestamp': 1732253438}
|
{'id': 'lydd8xw', 'text': 'You can clean something without soap. Cleaning methods using salt, vinegar, or baking soda exist.', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 14, 'timestamp': 1732252502}
|
1gx0a0l
|
CMV: Molcajete are not sanitary, but cast iron skillets are.
|
I've been recommended videos on how to properly "season" a molcajete, a dish made of porous volcanic rock, mainly used for making salsa and the sort. However, although it's often compared to seasoning a cast iron skillet, it's not nearly the same.
When you "season" a cast iron skillet, you aren't literally leaving behind miscellaneous gunk to seep into your food... Or at least, you aren't supposed to be. The act of "seasoning" a cast iron skillet creates a tough nonstick "film" of sorts, similar to plastic, made from heating oil and essentially burning it onto the cast iron. Cast iron seasoning used to be ruined by dish soap because it contained lye, but because modern dish soap doesn't have lye, it's completely safe to wash your cast iron with dish soap; it doesn't get rid of the seasoning, because the seasoning isn't literally "seasoning", it's a layer of cooked on oil.
The molcajete, however, is a rock. A very porous rock. When you season the molcajete, you take "seasoning" much more literally: you jam rice and salt and garlic and water into the holes of the porous rock, with no heat or oil involved, and you're never supposed to wash it with soap. The purpose of this is to add flavor to the foods you make... But that's not sanitary in the slightest. Starch and water and garlic? That's gonna go bad in those holes, that's gonna be a breeding ground for bacteria and mold, and it's absolutely nothing like cast iron skillets.
Although "seasoning" is the name for both processes, they're completely different. Cast iron seasoning is necessary, helpful, and safe, but molcajete seasoning is just... Nasty, and unnecessary, and unhelpful. I don't want my food tasting like rotten garlic and rice, I'd rather just add garlic if it needs more garlic flavor.
I do not and have never owned a molcajete, everything I'm saying is just theoretical to me. Also, I acknowledge that while it may not be enough to be a "major" safety concern, I still do believe that it's an unsanitary practice that is simply overlooked.
| 1,732,252,063
|
TheCunnyEnthusiast
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: fetal personhood should impact how age is calculated
|
{'id': 'm0kmih3', 'text': "Age is already something we track for convenience, not because it makes complete sense. In many cases, the things we actually care about are physical and mental maturity, but those things can't realistically be checked every time they are relevant. So we use age as a stand-in, because this roundabout way of estimating a person's current maturity is good enough when compared to the alternatives.", 'author': 'Asato_of_Vinheim', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1733421338}
|
{'id': 'm0km362', 'text': "A year is a human measurement, it's an earth rotation we use, it doesn't actually tell you anything magical it's just a personal milestone.\xa0\n\n\nDifferent cultures measure differently, there's more than gregorian calendars, you can have a lunar birthday, zodiac significant dates, there's the Hindu measurement system, all sorts.\xa0\n\n\nWho is forcing you to only rigidly use one date system exactly?\xa0", 'author': 'Dry_Bumblebee1111', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733421209}
|
1h7esga
|
CMV: fetal personhood should impact how age is calculated
|
if a country or state has laws stating that a fetus at fertilization/6 weeks/whenever is an alive human person, then that date should be used to calculate the individual's age (as opposed to date of birth). this is my view because it just makes sense to me: once you are "alive", that time should be reflected in your age. by not including the time before birth in someone's age, i feel it undermines the idea that they were actually alive during that period. and by continuing to use date of birth to define age it suggests that a person is not really alive until birth, regardless of the laws clearly stating otherwise.
i get that making this change would create a lot of paperwork, confusion, and the need to re-define lots of things. let’s put that aside and discuss it from a strictly logical perspective.
some definitions I found using oxford languages and texas law (just an example but the concept would apply anywhere with a law that specifies someone is alive before birth):
* age: the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.
* texas health and safety code 170A: (5) "Unborn child" means an individual living member of the homo sapiens species from fertilization until birth, including the entire embryonic and fetal stages of development.
based on the texas law, an unborn child is alive at fertilization. therefore, their 0th day of life is the day of fertilization, and approximately their 38th week of life should be their birth. continuing to use their date of birth as their 0th day of life makes no sense in this context. that would mean the day before their birth they are -1 days old, and at fertilization they were approximately -38 weeks old. but they can't have had a negative age for 38 weeks, because that would imply they weren't alive during that time! someone please give me an alternative perspective because trying to rationalize this hurts my head.
note: this is obviously biased by my experience living in western countries where it is uncommon to include time before birth in age. also, don't reply with pro or anti-choice rhetoric because that’s not the point of this post. i'm not asking if it's right for somewhere to have a law that defines a fertilized egg as a living human. i'm asking for someone to convince me that it's logical to have laws that define life before birth while not counting that time before birth towards someone's age.
| 1,733,420,233
|
Vegetable_Night_2034
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Trump will be a dictator.
|
{'id': 'm2er8dp', 'text': "To address your expansions:\n\nElections are actually surprisingly hard to rig. He tried and failed to do that exact thing. The election system is quite secure. And in any case, no rigging of elections will get him a third term.\n\nThe SCOTUS is on his side up to a point, but they are not under his control, and there are checks and balances against them. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the SCOTUS, as well as Congress, loses all their power under a dictatorship. They are on his side, but Trump is an existential threat to them if he goes too far.\n\nHaving the DOJ go after people only works if those people have done anything wrong, and again, no amount of propping up Vance by this method results in Trump remaining in power as a dictator.\n\nFinally, with the military, it's one thing for the Generals to be aligned with Trump, it is a very different thing to be willing to order troops to fire on American citizens, and even a different thing still for the rank and file to actually follow those clearly illegal orders. Then beyond that, it's further still to get to a place where the US military is willing to execute a military coup and install Trump as dictator. It could theoretically happen, but the risk is far from being a thing that's sure to happen in the next four years.", 'author': 'XenoRyet', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734391541}
|
{'id': 'm2ekwn1', 'text': "Um the fact that has house and Senate is the result of democracy.\n\n\nThe person majority elect should be given free rein of decisions so they can accomplish what they want.\xa0\n\n\nThat's why you have term limits so you can simply don't vote for him again next election if you feel he did a terrible job.\xa0\n\n\nI actually feel the maximum 2 term president rule is detrimental to the US because it keeps swinging from dems to reps every few years. More time is spent on dismantling each other policies rather than progress. This is causing US to slowly lag behind.\xa0\n\n\nI come from singapore and people think we live in a dictatorship or something due to a party winning elections 60 years in a roll by huge margins.\xa0\n\n\nBut honestly, it's because they produce results and I am glad we can keep voting for them over and over again so their hardwork won't get wasted. And how there are no term limits. Just re-eklect every 5 years.\xa0\n\n\nThe moment they stop producing results, they are getting fired via next election. But so far, they have been doing a great job.\xa0", 'author': 'condemned02', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734389334}
|
1hfvqgw
|
CMV: Trump will be a dictator.
|
No, I'm not saying that he's Fascist or Nazi, not every dictator is Fascist or Nazi. And when I say "Dictator" I more mean that he'll turn the U.S. into a Democracy with a citation needed.
1. He literally said that he'd be a "dictator on day one."
2. He has complete control of the House, Senate and SCOTUS.
3. He is trying to sue Anne Selzer. Attack of the free press is a cornerstone of authoritarian governments.
4. He has threatened to legally go after political opponents. His attorney general, by the way, said "Prosecutors will be prosecuted."
5. Even if he doesn't, he has given a smarter individual a blueprint to be Dictator.
Change my view.
| 1,734,388,746
|
BalanceGreat6541
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I believe the Israel-Palestine conflict would be old news not really talked about anymore if there wasn't a perception that Jewish people are white
|
{'id': 'ltu9g3p', 'text': 'Since I changed your view, please remember to issue a delta! Thanks.', 'author': 'jzpenny', 'score': -4, 'timestamp': 1729945508}
|
{'id': 'ltu9cgn', 'text': 'The problem is the baby killing and literal bulldozing over innocent civilians since 1947', 'author': 'Azby78', 'score': -7, 'timestamp': 1729945463}
|
1gcjjxi
|
CMV: I believe the Israel-Palestine conflict would be old news not really talked about anymore if there wasn't a perception that Jewish people are white
|
99% of conflicts that happen around the world are between two or more non-white groups, so they barely get any coverage in the US. I mean there's a whole Sudanese Civil War going on since last year that nobody cares about that has killed nearly as many people as those who have died in Palestine and has displaced over 7 million people in the African region. Very rarely do we get a modern European war nowadays, so the Ukraine Russia war is an example where discussions, regular news, and any sort of demonstrations have functionally ended. Like at this point nobody really cares.
But we're well into the Israel Palestine conflict and there's really two parts to this issue.
The first is the historical treatment of Jewish people, in particular Ashkenazi Jews. Right off the bat, Jews do not really fit into the racial paradigm of the US. There are jews of many backgrounds, from the Sephardi to the Mizrahi to even Ethiopian Jews, all a diaspora of colors. So to say "Jews are white" is already a mischaracterization. What people mean when they usually say this is they're referencing Ashkenazi Jews, who make up the historical majority of immigrants to the US. Ashkenazi Jews are Jews who primarily immigrated to the US from Eastern Europe.
Firstly, all Jews originate from the Levantine, or MENA (Middle East- Northern Africa). And no matter where Jews ended up in the global diaspora, Jews have distinct DNA markers separate from White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs). But more to the direct point, Jews were never treated as "White" historically. In the 1800s, Jews were killed for being Jews in the pogroms. And the whole point of WW2 in Europe during the 40s was that Jews were an "inferior race" to Aryan whites.
As more Jews came to the US, they were still treated as "the Jews," a separate and distinct group from your American white families. It was only after many Jewish families changed their last names, stopped speaking Yiddish, and observed Judaism less publicly were they able to "blend in" more. The important thing to note is that being Jewish and being considered white is what can be considered Conditional Whiteness. Basically meaning Jews are either white or not white depending on the politics.
If you ask a Neonazi if Jews are white, of course they’ll tell you no. Once again, see WW2. If you ask a progressive leftist, their mental image is “white” Jews who are bombing “Middle Eastern” people, even though this is not the case at all, and you honestly wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between your average Israeli and average Palestinian.
I genuinely believe a lot of the rhetoric around Israel being "colonizers" and all of this language about "oppression" and whatnot is purely driven by what really is a misplaced anti-whiteness. Which I'm not saying isn't deserved for the White community to address or doesn't need to have its reckoning, but I genuinely believe the average American thinks Jews are just white folk who practice a funny different religion than Christianity.
For the kids on college campuses that are already antisemitic because maybe it's their parent's culture or something, it works out for them to now get a megaphone. And for the WASP kids who don't know any difference, it's a great opportunity to join a cause du jour that pushes blame somewhere else for a while instead of the conversation being back on white privilege and stolen land and whatnot that they themselves need to reckon with before casting a stone.
The bottom line is, there has to be a bigger explanation than how the Jewish people went centuries being viewed as something "other" than the dominant White culture to the degree of literally being mass murdered for not being "Aryan" to only within two generations have people call Jews white and still blame them for stuff.
| 1,729,944,362
|
ImportTuner808
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People weren't meant to live in mega cities from a social perspective, the mass anonymity of them messes with our psyche
|
{'id': 'm1qu7mu', 'text': 'So a quick Google tells me that "deaths of despair" (suicide, overdose, addiction related deaths, etc) tend to be more frequent per capita in rural areas rather than cities. For instance, here is a study to that effect:\n\nhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10997338/\n\nObviously there are more of these in cities than the country, because there are simply more people in the cities than the country....but the *rate* of deaths of despair is higher in rural areas than in urban ones.\n\nThis would seem to indicate the *opposite* of what you\'re suggesting -- people in cities tend to be *less* isolated than people in rural areas, and this seems to correspond to lower levels of deaths of despair in urban places rather than rural ones.\n\nI think I understand your hypothesis here -- people in small towns are more connected and tight knit than alienated city dwellers, more like the idea of right knit hunter gatherer societies that humans used to live in, and this contributes positively to their mental health...but the figures seem to show the *opposite*.\n\nAs unnatural as cities are, they *are* much more socially connected and vibrant than a lot of smaller communities. There are caveats and complexities to all of this, of course...but that\'s kind of what I\'m saying. Humans are adaptable, and can survive and thrive under lots of conditions, but differences in reported happiness and measurable life statistics are difficult to tease out.\n\nAnd I don\'t think you can boil it down to people being generally happier or better off in smaller groups. The people in those groups, the larger circumstances surrounding them, and other things are all important factors as well.', 'author': 'helmutye', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1734033980}
|
{'id': 'm1pz64e', 'text': '> From personal experience living in Denver then Atlanta then Taos, I can say it’s vastly easier to build friend networks here in Taos for 2 big reasons: you run into people repeatedly so your conversations can build and your friends know your other friends, bridging connections and bringing conversation out of the dreaded small talk much faster. Both are a result of less strangers in the mix to dilute.\n\nSo, one of the issues with your personal experience is that this is dependent on your values. Like, maybe you in particular are better off in Taos or in a smaller town. \n\nBut you do have to be more intentional when you’re living in a big city. You can’t just rely on happenstance. The upside is that it’s easier to find people if you have a niche interest, both romantically and friendship wise. And that’s without going into the other benefits of living around so many people. The variety of businesses, restaurants, the arts, various activities etc. \n\n> Being alone in isolation like in nature is good, and being in a group of people you know is good, but feeling alone in a group of strangers is not that good \n\nThat’s not good, but I don’t think you necessarily have to feel that way even if you don’t talk to any of them. You’re not alone. You’re around lots of other human beings living their own lives just like you are. \n\n> When there’s strangers around, your mind is never free like it is out in nature. \n\nWhat are you talking about?', 'author': 'the_1st_inductionist', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734024409}
|
1hcozr8
|
CMV: People weren't meant to live in mega cities from a social perspective, the mass anonymity of them messes with our psyche
|
People only have the ability to have something like 150 stable interactive social relationships. Likewise until the last 200 years, people pretty much exclusively lived in places with 50,000 people or less. Also, social relationships are one of the biggest indicators of long term wellbeing, both physically and mentally.
Economics gave rise to the mega metro, where we have 1 million+ people living in metro areas. It's more efficient for transport and hiring talent. The economic growth that has resulted is good, but this mass agglomeration does had negative social side effects.
From personal experience living in Denver then Atlanta then Taos, I can say it's vastly easier to build friend networks here in Taos for 2 big reasons: you run into people repeatedly so your conversations can build and your friends know your other friends, bridging connections and bringing conversation out of the dreaded small talk much faster. Both are a result of less strangers in the mix to dilute.
Obviously having a 150 person village isn't ideal either as not all 150 people will be good relationship material, but 1 million+ person metros are too far the other way. Neighborhoods can somewhat recreate the the small town experience, but it's not truly representative because people often don't work, live, and play all in the same hood in a major metro.
People need community, and modern social gatherings like the workplace don't fill that niche. There's way to many rules and no gos for workplaces to offer real socialization (like how you shouldn't date at work). People lament the loss of the church as a social gathering, but having a social gathering based on forced theological beliefs is problematic too, hence why people stopped going.
Being alone in isolation like in nature is good, and being in a group of people you know is good, but feeling alone in a group of strangers is not that good - this is what messes with people's heads. When there's strangers around, your mind is never free like it is out in nature. Now you could start up a conversation with one of the strangers, but you'll never see them again in a major metro. And having a bunch of one off conversations is socially void.
| 1,734,021,159
|
Tiny-Pomegranate7662
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-12
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The frequency of false rape accusations is an unknowable statistic
|
{'id': 'ltal3if', 'text': "The portion where you compare to other crimes is a poor argument. It's reasonable to believe that the vast majority of people *convicted* are guilty, because the bar of proof is relatively high.\n\nWe are not discussing convictions, but accusations. The rest of your comment doesn't go into the reliability of these statistics much either, it was mainly the parallel to other crimes that was interesting, but irrelevant.", 'author': 'Mi6spy', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1729658099}
|
{'id': 'ltadkld', 'text': ">punished for reporting it\n\nThat's literally not what happened. She told she had made it up, so they believed her (why wouldnt they?) and punished her for the crime she admitted to (even though she didn't do it) \n\n>accused of filing false reports \n\nShe was not accused of it, she told the police she did, so she was charged with a crime that she claimed to have committed", 'author': 'Mike_Hunt_Burns', 'score': -10, 'timestamp': 1729654621}
|
1g9xfik
|
CMV: The frequency of false rape accusations is an unknowable statistic
|
A popular argument against addressing the issue of false rape (or sexual assault) accusations is that they are so exceedingly rare, that it isn't an issue worth dedicating significant resources to. And that addressing the issue of rape and sexual assault is far more vital.
Various "studies" have been done to try to determine the rate of false accusations, and they typically conclude that somewhere in the range of 2% - 8% of accusations are false. Some claim a lower number. Others claim it is over 40%.
My view is that, because of the nature of the crime, it is simply impossible to get reliable data upon which to form a conclusion about the frequency of false accusation. There will be some small percentage of accusations that can be proven (to a reasonable extent) to be true, and some small percentage of accusations that can be proven to be false. And then you'll have a large percent - at least 80% to 90% - that fall somewhere in the middle and might be true, or might be false, but we don't really know to any reasonable extent.
In most accusations, there are only 2 people who know what *actually* happened and whether consent was granted, or even if sexual activity was engaged in. If those 2 people's stories disagree on either of those factors - and they usually do - it is unlikely that we'll ever be able to reasonably conclude whether the accusation is accurate, or false.
The ones that could be concluded as true would include:
* Situations where video, audio, or eyewitness evidence of the actual act exists and shows that sex was had without consent.
* Situations where the 2 people's stories genuinely align, and the details of those stories indicate that a rape occurred, even though the accused doesn't think it should.
* Situations with significant physical evidence that indicates that both (a) sex was had, and (b) it is unlikely that consent was granted. This would be rape of the "stranger jumped out of the bushes and violently attacked" variety.
The ones that could be reasonably concluded as false would include:
* Situations where video, audio, or eyewitness evidence shows that consent was provided for any sexual activity.
* Situations where the 2 people's stories genuinely align, and the details of those stories do not meet the legal definition of rape, even though the accuser thinks it should.
* Situations where the accuser recants their accusation, and there is reasonable evidence to support that recantation. [Sometimes accusations are recanted because the accuser just doesn't want to deal with the situation anymore. Recanting for that reason wouldn't be indicative of a false accusation].
There's probably a few other situations that could be definitively determined as true or false that I've missed. But the overwhelming majority (80%+), are just going to be indeterminable.
On top of all that, there are additional factors that even further exacerbate the challenges of defining the frequency of false rape accusations:
* There isn't clear or consistent agreement on what counts as an "accusation". Is it just criminal reports to police? What about civil litigation without criminal prosecution? How about Title IX reports to universities? Or simply tell a friend group or social media that a rape happened? At what point does it become an "accusation" that gets analyzed as true or false?
* There are inconsistent laws as to what legally qualifies as rape / sexual assault, and beyond the laws, there are discrepancies of whether the statistics are intended to represent just "legal rape", or "moral rape" as well - even if it doesn't meet the legal definition for rape.
* If we're talking about "moral rape", people can and do disagree on what counts as rape and what counts as a false accusation. In these cases, people could 100% agree on every detail of the accusation, but still disagree upon whether it was rape, or a false accusation. For example, disagreement over where the line of "too drunk to consent" would be encompassed here.
For all these reasons, and definitive statement about a specific percentage of accusations that are true or false is simply unreliable.
| 1,729,643,037
|
JuicingPickle
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-23
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: A Poacher's Life is Not More Valuable Than an Entire Species
|
{'id': 'm0vfilw', 'text': "It isn't about that. I'm not asking anyone but you. If you are ok with that then you are happily self aware of it then it is at least unhypocritical. \n\nIf you said no and tried to deflect and said it would be a decision or the greater group or whatever is what I was curious about. It sounds like you asked in honesty though. \n\nI disagree on principal. Human life is of an entirely different complexity beyond comparison. If you haven't done the research it is unlikely I will help you appreciate that within this decade.\n\nSo I'll applaud your sincerity, invite you to study the frontal cortex, and bid you well.", 'author': 'Jagid3', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733581869}
|
{'id': 'm0slg3y', 'text': 'Classes of citizens already exist. What are you going on about. And the post is basically "if you do these things, it\'s not bad if you die". They aren\'t saying we should go out and shoot people we think are poachers. It\'s like saying I think people who rape children should die. That doesn\'t mean we should all go out and attach suspicious looking people. But if proven, yeah, I think they should die. We already have enough people. \n\nI swear some of you get online just to fight. Sounds like you support people who kill endangered species for profit. Not sure if that was the look you\'re going for.', 'author': 'improperbehavior333', 'score': -7, 'timestamp': 1733530874}
|
1h8e1q5
|
Cmv: A Poacher's Life is Not More Valuable Than an Entire Species
|
A poacher does not deserve to "live" (to the fullest) after wiping out several members of a species, and it is in no way immoral to take their life (outside of prison) from themselves as, being a poacher, for performing what is basically genocide (speciocide as someone suggested) of another. In no matter what way you put it, I do not believe that an (individual or group of constant) poacher(s) should be granted more protection or rights than the sake of a whole native species' population. In no way is it even necessary to even hunt an animal to the brink of extinction, whether it is for wants and needs, in the first place, when there are clearly other creatures that are freely available to be hunted for enough material needed to live, or even cultivate. (Simply put, anyone who is a genuinely horrible poacher, at the end of the day, is that who does not use majority of the animal they illegally hunted, hunts several members of the endangered species, for money or prize, and mobs or groups up in helicopters, expensive gear, and weaponry for that protected species and does threaten it and other people.)
The exploitation of a lifeform, in the wild, to the point that it suffers to rebound, is beyond cruel when they are not there for humans to play civilization with. (I will stick with that)Someone who does this is clearly eligible to be punished in some form (from charges to imprisonment, rarely death), and if efforts to decrease poaching are not working, it SHOULD be permitted to have force involved in the process of conservation. This clearly worked in India and some places in Africa, where the animals have successfully repopulated to some degrees because of the legalization of shooting or fighting back against a poacher, (as well as chasing, confronting them with tracker dogs and defense, as well as conservation efforts by tourists and safe zones for the animals.) This should be extended in areas where massive poaching has pressured species to the brink of extinction. Yes, I am talking about you, North African ostriches, rhinos, elephants, and pangolins. These (harsh groups of) poachers (deadset on profit for themselves) do NOT matter more than these species. They are horrible individuals that attack the vulnerable, and show no fear, shooting the innocent. And simply (charging and) imprisoning them (for a couple years) does not make poaching stop for them, when it IS happening. Methods must be taken seriously to save species in such cases. (Which is what has been listed above.)
Hunting something that is common and able to hold a bit of predation, is one thing, but it is another to exclusively target one that is already low in its population and cannot freely handle stressors of its own, for something that is falsely labeled as valuable. Most of these delicacies that are taken from kills are absolutely worthless in value and do not have anything special about them, only to be popularized through the endangerment of the species and chinese medicine. If only there was a way to reduce the popularity of such ivory. But I still do NOT believe a (repetitive) poacher should be treated as a normal person for essentially participating in the elimination of an animal. (If they have threatened, killed several individuals, and refused to back down.)
Edit: People really seem to be placing morals on individuals who clearly do not have any, themselves. When someone is out there, hunting several individuals at a time, knowing that it is illegal, human or animal, they clearly have no sense of regard for lives or laws of any kind. Treating them like a person is letting them get away with treating others like they are not living things, and that they are above the law. At that point, giving them the death penalty is the best thing that can be done for them and other people. It costs one savage life to save multiple innocent ones. And you cannot redeem someone who has a twisted sense of logic of any species. This is the main reason why serial killers often have the death sentence or life in prison for their crimes. Not only have they eliminated several innocent lives and violated crimes, they are physically unsafe to be around. So, it is better to keep them away from others for safety. No matter how much rehabilitation is done, they still remain deeply inbedded with ending lives, because they HAVE done it multiple times before. They show no fear in doing so. Same with poachers, specifically the ones that hunt multiple for the simple use of money. They are comfortable with killing protected animals and breaking laws.
Also, another thing people are missing is that I am referring most to competitive and repetitive poachers who hunt multiple specimens, drastically decreasing the population of endangered animals. Killing a couple animals for food is fine, especially if you use most of the animal, but you still should not be excused from the law, and should be discouraged from doing so. (I meant no death sentence or life imprisonment for someone who hunted a few animals and proceeded to back down from the authority.)
Edit 2: Also, I am starting to think that maybe chinese medicine and the ivory from elephants tusks, rhinos horns, and hornbills casques, etc, should be frowned upon, the most. Like, everywhere should attempt to lower its value, and make it straight up illegal to transport or own, if not directed managed and arranged by law. If we could just that, people wouldn't be poaching as much for those rare things. (I also, believe at the end of the day, that force is necessary, but work should also be out into other degrees of conservation.)
Edit 3: I put () around some changed views others have brought for me. Thanks for cleaning up my opinion, guys. I might need to leave. This has taken a toll on me.
| 1,733,525,361
|
JacobKernels
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The fertility rate crisis is the biggest crisis we'll face for the next 100 years.
|
{'id': 'm2glz5o', 'text': 'Would be nice if you could type a longer reply, so that I could get the delta :)\xa0', 'author': 'Mcwedlav', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734419189}
|
{'id': 'm2gl9qq', 'text': "I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. Try looking up rather than down.", 'author': 'Wattsa_37', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734418763}
|
1hg4a4k
|
CMV: The fertility rate crisis is the biggest crisis we'll face for the next 100 years.
|
Everyone knows about the drop in births around the world, and aging populations.
I think people especially in left wing circles tend to dismiss the danger that low birth rates pose. The predominant view on the left wing (in my experience) is that the fear around low birth rates is driven by landlords and capitalists who want a steady supply of workers and renters, or by racists who worry the white race is being stamped out, or that it's only an issue that rich countries are facing.
But low birth rates are a problem everywhere. China, India, Latin America, are all experiencing low birth rates, and birth rates are still falling every single year.
In places like Japan they only have about 25 years before the decline becomes completely irreversible.
The economic impacts are devastating and the countries that are going to be hit hardest by this are the poorer nations in eastern Europe, in south east Asia, and in Latin America.
In fact the only countries I'm not worried about are the rich G7 nations because they can just import the working age population from poorer countries.
And the economic impacts will be devastating. Either people are going to be forced to work until they're about eighty five or the few working age people who are left are going to stuck in a world with increasing prices and a never ending decrease in living standards as more of our workforce, food, medical supplies, and everything to the elderly.
In fact unless the governent starts to euthanise the elderly or Elon musk's robots take over all of our jobs, which is another dystopia that frightens me I don't see any solution to this worldwide crisis.
I don't know if it's obvious by now but I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm still in highschool, and this has been bothering me for the last few weeks so I would really appreciate someone trying to change my view.
| 1,734,415,502
|
Username-17
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People who pay 300 EUR for a single-mold plastic, no articulation character figurine and claim the quality warrants it are deluding themselves
|
{'id': 'm2n39aa', 'text': "> Do you have any source for these numbers because when I searched I found numbers ranging from 60 euros to 800 000 depending on factors but if it really be so expensive and they will only make 200 units. I feel they would simply 3d print them isntead.\n\nThere's no fixed prices for this sort of thing. It's clients talking to manufacturers and working out something. Manufacturing is expensive and complex. Some random detail in a character's design might just make things twice as expensive, because it's awkward to manufacture.\n\n3D printing isn't a panacea. FDM's quality sucks, and SLA is limited in material choices and needs extensive post-processing, and is slow to print, and has design constraints of its own. It's also quite expensive.\n\nI do think 3D printing has good potential, but it's not magic. It's just different tradeoffs.", 'author': 'dale_glass', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734519421}
|
{'id': 'm2n1ppp', 'text': "Here's an article that says according to the 2022-23 financial report, Games Workshop paid $8.6 million just on molds. It also breaks down some of the other costs associated, like $2.3 million for tooling, milling, injection moulding, and paint machines.\n\nhttps://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-miniatures-molds-cost\n\nWarhammer does have a high cost associated, but that's also because the miniatures also have other costs associated with them. Each faction you buy has a separate rulebook (called a codex) that requires development, and then there's errata and balancing that needs to happen from game developers that need to be paid, plus staffing to manage the molding machines, handle shipping, advertising, and c-suite positions. Then there's events, sponsorships, license product development and funding, paying authors for the novels and short stories, etc. etc.\n\nIf you want to see the actual financial reports, they can be found [here](https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results).", 'author': 'CivilianDuck', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734518438}
|
1hgxx9o
|
CMV: People who pay 300 EUR for a single-mold plastic, no articulation character figurine and claim the quality warrants it are deluding themselves
|
For reference, I mean something such as [this](https://www.ebay.com/itm/265271544879?norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-169407-715209-8&mkcid=2&itemid=265271544879&targetid=293946777986&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9063754&poi=&campaignid=20536901515&mkgroupid=153284523317&rlsatarget=pla-293946777986&abcId=&merchantid=5085164280&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAgoq7BhBxEiwAVcW0LCkx_szM7IJdNuIXn5hTsmPn3lFA14juQdzO0mhhih-f8TVMi_mKSBoC8_0QAvD_BwE). The prices for these things range from 150 to 450 EUR in my experience. I've talked to many people who justify this purchase by saying that it's really high quality and the paint job is so good that it justifies it which I think is ridiculous looking at the painting. The price seems to purely be driven up by arficial scarcity due to intellectual property.
It's a single-mold, no articulation figure cast from cheap plastic that's painted in a very simple style. For reference, this is is a [professionally painted Warhammer 4000](https://www.artwstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/pintado-miniaturas-nivel-3.jpg) miniature. Reading around comissioning a paint job like this sets one back around 30-75 euros and obviously it is of a far superior quality.
Also, say a [high quality ball jointed doll](https://www.amazon.nl/-/en/Fashion-Jointed-Clothes-Makeup-Change/dp/B08JYT2DX9) goes for around 75 to 150 euro in my experience. This comes with articulation, far better painting, actual hair, a full set of miniature clothes, and actual eyelash detail. I am putting this random unrelated line here to see who did and did not actually read the original post so I can know which responses to ignore. Please indicate in some way you read this when you resspond. There is simply no way that ball jointed doll is of inferior technical quality and time consuming craftsmanship than that single-mold no articulation figure. It was cast once from plastic, and then had a shoddy paint job and then sent of to be sold for 400 euros because it was limited to 200 copies and diehard collectors are willing to pay that kind of money for it because the people that buy that kind of stuff are typically both well educated and don't have a lot of hobbies or expenses so they end up having vast disposable income.
| 1,734,513,597
|
muffinsballhair
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: IQ tests should just be a score out of a 100
|
{'id': 'm35nrdj', 'text': 'Thanks man! I think you have to invoke the bot writing !delta :)', 'author': 'davidkalinex', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734799582}
|
{'id': 'm35eo86', 'text': 'IQ is truly only measured by a Stanford-Binet test which has been outed as flawed and racially biased and generally replaced with a wonderlic as the standard aptitude test these days.\n\nSo yes, aptitude tests have been constantly refined and adjusted over the years to be more accurate measures of aptitude vs older tests which were more knowledge based', 'author': 'Green_Training_7254', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734796429}
|
1hjcara
|
CMV: IQ tests should just be a score out of a 100
|
I took one of these “IQ” tests and got my results back in the male yesterday. I got 79 which is like a very good score for me because in high school the highest I ever got in a class was 63% but I think I’ve learnt a lot of things about life since then so I did expect a good score.
I then showed my friends my score because I was pretty proud about it and then they laughed at me and said some pretty awful jokes.
Apparently it actually compares you to people which for me means that 21% of people are smarter than me which is alright but a bit higher than I expected but OK.
But then I thought about how stupid that system is
How do they compare you to people it doesnt make sense?? Okay like lets say so if a new person does the test and they score dumber than me does that mean my score goes up?? Or what about new smart people (unlikely because of TikTok generation and plastics on the brain), does my score become dumber? Do i get an dumbness update?? Phsss
It should just be a smartness test that is constant over time which you can compare your score with other people
| 1,734,795,582
|
BruceELehrmann
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Germany’s choice of Hitler in 1933 shows how democracies can elect their own downfall
|
{'id': 'lvw6h22', 'text': "I think we've reached the core of our disagreement. I view the Weimar Republic as an extreme case *historically, culturally and institutionally*.\n\nSo although all humans are susceptible to reaching for authoritarian solutions if their security is threatened, *something* prevents that from reaching national-scale in very many cases in the 20th and 21st centuries. That something in my model of the world and the human psyche, are larger institutions and civil society that restrains us to certain traditions and ways of doing things. If the latter decay or are actively destroyed, then we have a problem. \n\nBut for the specific view as stated above, I see the Weimar Republic as too alien in the institutional sense to be a useful template for most countries today. Your model of the world and the human psyche appears different and therefore sees the human authoritarian impulse as less restrained by other factors, which makes the case of the Weimar Republic less alien, since humans as such have changed very little in the last century.\n\nI think that's an inadequate model of the social fabric. But I've made my case above and failed to make you change your view. Thanks for engaging nonetheless.", 'author': 'SmorgasConfigurator', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1730986345}
|
{'id': 'lvvr11o', 'text': 'Of course it\'s tricky to work out the finer details of morality, but as humans we\'ve generally worked out some good ideas of what is "right" over the last few millennia. I\'d say reciprocity/the social contract is at the core of it, recognising that even when in power, we should act as we would hope those in power would act towards us if we weren\'t.\n\nUsing Nazism as an example, why was it bad that they killed the people they did? Because we don\'t like to be killed or hurt, and we agree that we won\'t hurt others if they don\'t hurt us. There\'s no moral justification for saying "we have the power to take what we want from you / do what we want to you, so we\'re going to do it even if it harms you" if you\'re using that social model. \n\nWhat justification does a racist have for considering other groups as less than themselves? They will try to say a certain group is less intelligent, or more dangerous/violent, or less moral etc. No serious research has ever identified a statistically significant difference of this kind between ethnic groups though (that\'s inherent to their genetics and not societal), so it\'s a lie told to justify their behaviour.', 'author': 'bigdave41', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730979824}
|
1glntsb
|
CMV: Germany’s choice of Hitler in 1933 shows how democracies can elect their own downfall
|
The story of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power stands as a damning indictment of blind faith in authority, of the allure of a figure who claims to “restore greatness” while sowing division, and of the horrifying consequences when fear and anger are allowed to override logic. Let’s dismantle the comforting illusion that democracy is foolproof simply because it allows the majority to choose a leader. Hitler was elected through a democratic process—empowered by citizens convinced that his leadership would safeguard them, renew their nation’s power, and rid them of perceived threats. Yet this same majority, acting on visceral emotions instead of rational foresight, set the stage for the darkest chapter in modern history.
The appeal of a populist leader who plays on grievances, stirs resentment, and relentlessly attacks “the establishment” can be intoxicating. Hitler’s rise was fueled by his mastery in turning legitimate national issues—like economic collapse and national discontent—into a narrative that demonized entire groups and promised to tear down checks and balances as obstacles to progress. A majority, desperate for a figure they believed would fight for them, empowered a man who dismantled democratic institutions, marginalized dissent, and cast anyone who questioned his power as enemies of the state. What they ended up with was not the renewal they’d been promised, but a dictatorship.
Look closely at history: populism often masquerades as democracy’s savior, but under its surface, it undermines the very pillars of democratic stability. Hitler’s supporters believed they were patriots defending Germany’s future, but their choice obliterated any semblance of that future. Electing a figure who disregards legal boundaries, thrives on cultivating division, and portrays dissent as treasonous is not an act of patriotism; it’s a gamble that invariably ends with the forfeiture of freedom itself.
This should serve as a sobering warning to those who believe that majority rule guarantees wisdom or virtue. The masses chose Hitler, and the price they paid was monumental, devastating, and irreversible. When a society hands absolute power to a single figure in the hopes that he will “save” them from perceived enemies, they are gambling with the very fabric of their democracy. Every citizen has a choice: to succumb to the allure of a strongman or to hold their leaders accountable to the standards that preserve democratic freedom. The consequences of that choice reverberate for generations.
| 1,730,977,037
|
Top_Present_5825
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Tariffs actually (politically) progressive
|
{'id': 'm2sorlk', 'text': 'But there would be better ways to implement this.\nBlanket tariffs give no incentive to stop exploitation.\n\nBut a tariff of which the height depends on labor conditions, en environmental laws, etc. would.\n\nSuch tariffs would be progressive.\n\nYou can see this in the difference between Trumps tariffs and the left EU’s tariffs. Trump does a blanket tariff to protect US industry. The EU imposes a carbon tax, meaning that the tariffs are entirely dependent on emission. The first isn’t progressive, the second is', 'author': 'wahedcitroen', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1734597866}
|
{'id': 'm2sodb0', 'text': 'Aaah that’s a fair point. I think traditionally, tariffs were very much a conservative economic policy (at least here in the UK and Europe, I’m not 100% sure about the US). The old landed gentry, aristocrats and other members of the conservative elite favoured tariffs due to a combination of various factors such as fear of the rapid change brought about by industrialisation would have on the old ways.', 'author': 'TheMinisterForReddit', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734597594}
|
1hho98n
|
CMV: Tariffs actually (politically) progressive
|
To be clear, this is not a pro or anti Trump post. Just the subject of tariffs being discussed got me thinking about it.
The global labor market seems to work in a 'lowest bidder' kind of way (i.e. "who can make these products at a quality level we deem acceptable for the lowest possible cost?").
In a lot of cases this ends up meaning the nation willing to subject its population to the lowest pay and working conditions 'wins', because they are the cheapest. Those countries end up dominating the global labor market at the expense of their working population, exacerbating poverty and all the societal issues that come with it.
If tariffs are imposed by developed nations, it offsets at least some of the financial benefit obtained exploiting people who aren't protected by minimum wage or labor laws. It probably won't remove the exploitation, but at least the developed nations would no longer be deriving a benefit from it.
| 1,734,596,125
|
Loose-Tumbleweed-468
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Mental Health issues are becoming too diluted and aren't being used properly anymore
|
{'id': 'm0xv4pn', 'text': 'I hope none of this comes across as aggressive! I just had a lot to say :)\n\nI think it\'s worth noting that there are very real diagnostic criteria for any mental illness that psychiatrists follow. If someone describes their symptoms that aren\'t improved despite making lifestyle changes to improve circumstances, then there\'s likely something physiological that would be helped with medication. So people get prescribed medication so that they can function when struggling. Some even choose to renounce the diagnosis and stop the medication.\n\nThere\'s definitely a difference between "i saw someone say picking my nose is a sign of autism, I must be autistic!", and someone who sees a tiktok that spurs them down a rabbit hole of researching the socio-developmental impacts of autism on child development and starts connecting dots and realizes "oh wow! It\'s likely I do have autism which is now destigmatized, I will \\[self diagnose or see a professional\\]" type thing.\n\nThat\'s all to say these things have very real diagnostic criteria, see the DSM, and sometimes what looks like hypochondria is actually just realizing a diagnosis may be there where it may not have been previously considered :)\n\nSuicidality and extreme depression do have their own diagnosis-major depressive disorder-while other forms of depression are just depression. A patient with these depths will likely be diagnosed with both and be treated accordingly. You can have one and not the other, etc. etc. and the medical professional will determine which medications are to be prescribed and how/when to switch them. Source: I have been through the mental health system for going on 8 years now as a patient.\n\nI do agree that sometimes people self-label nigh frivolously, but I don\'t know the depth of their experiences or what they really mean. So I don\'t judge.\n\nAnd one more thing, being depressed and having depression are two very different things. Being depressed is being in a state of depression that\'s temporary. "i\'m sad and can\'t get myself to do much today" while having depression is "i\'m sad and can\'t get myself to do much ever" type stuff. That\'s a huge oversimplification but you get my idea.', 'author': 'Altruistic-Risk-7470', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1733610473}
|
{'id': 'm0xtj4o', 'text': "'clinical depression' is actually a very well-defined criteria-based thing ([link](https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10195/dsm-5-criteria-major-depressive-disorder#next-steps))", 'author': 'Aimbag', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1733609944}
|
1h938vr
|
CMV: Mental Health issues are becoming too diluted and aren't being used properly anymore
|
I would like to start out by saying that mental health is important, but I feel like nowadays everyone is depressed or has anxiety. You are not depressed just because you feel sad sometimes. Depression is feeling sad basically all the time, losing interest in everyday activities, planning suicide, and along that degree of extremism. It feels like everyone (on social media and in real life) has depression and/or any other mental health issue. I don't know whether the solution is raising awareness about mental healtb or lessening it, because I feel like part of the issue is people learning about a mental health issue and hypochondriacing themselves into "having" the issue.
| 1,733,608,396
|
Dull_Firefighter3584
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Draws should not be allowed in Chess - 1st to Capture King Wins, and Kings can move into Check
|
{'id': 'm0xtsff', 'text': 'I just think in practice this is going to result in unsatisfying stupid endings.\n\n\nLike, you say the move that "triggers" K vs K results in a loss. Okay, but then rewind the game a bit. Before that, maybe it was K + something else vs K, and then the King *capturing* that piece becomes a losing move. Which means that the position was *already* essentially a losing board unless the opponent walked their king into your kings spot some reason.\n\n\nThe point is a lot of game states are basically hopeless in your rules well before you get to one of your auto loss triggers, but it\'s not always going to be intuitive or satisfying to recognize these, since the other player *also* can\'t win, but only wins because one player gets forced to hit your trigger.', 'author': 'themcos', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733610029}
|
{'id': 'm0xsrdm', 'text': '>If the move you make triggers these particular positions\n\nFor example if you have a king and your opponent has a king and a castle, taking their castle would lose you the game?', 'author': 'Vesurel', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733609686}
|
1h937xo
|
CMV: Draws should not be allowed in Chess - 1st to Capture King Wins, and Kings can move into Check
|
Far too many chess games end in draw - the game would be better if there was always a winner and a loser to the game of chess. This would be a more interesting and dynamic game if there were only winners and losers.
The rule changes required are simple:
1st to Capture an opponent's King wins. Kings can move into check (therefore be captured and the game is over) The current checkmate rules are the same obviously.
A stalemate cannot occur since the first to capture the opponent's king is the winner, forcing a king to move into check is now a winning move since you'll capture the king first.
Players can still resign but not agree to a draw.
Now the only issue to these to these new rules to solve would be perpetuals, move repeats, and endgames where players shuffle their pieces forever. Current FIDE rules are:
9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
\-- to fix the above 2 rules, the best answer would be making the final drawn move is an auto loss. Same goes for Perpetuals and repeats. Take the current rule, and if your move would cause a draw in a current rules, it is the same as a forfeit, this forces the game to play on.
This is fair since you if you got into this situation with your position where you're forced to make a losing move or lose, then guess what, you had a losing position and it's your fault. A winner and a loser is decided.
| 1,733,608,319
|
GoodGuyGinger
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: It makes sense for the elites to play nice after AI fully replaces human labor
|
{'id': 'm3dp455', 'text': "Too many women do. Another example: Conservative women voting for politicians who put into place laws that endanger the lives of pregnant women who face medical emergencies. Because _they_ won’t be one of the poor women left to bleed out in parking lots.\n\n>\xa0It's clearly an irrational way to think.\n\nHumans aren’t rational. We just like to believe we are.", 'author': 'FreeFortuna', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1734921328}
|
{'id': 'm3do5j6', 'text': '>>\xa0So no matter where you are on the economic ladder, you have a reason to be peaceful towards the unproductive class. The reason is that you could end up in it.\n\nSame as how people living paycheck-to-paycheck are kind to homeless people, because they’re just one medical emergency away from total financial ruin and could end up homeless themselves?\n\nI d say they do', 'author': 'blanketbomber35', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734920926}
|
1hkdso4
|
CMV: It makes sense for the elites to play nice after AI fully replaces human labor
|
I see a lot of people arguing that once AI replaces all human labor, the elites who control the AI will have no reason to support the rest of the population since they provide zero productive value. So instead of creating something like a UBI, the elites will simply allow mass poverty and starvation to worsen and maybe even actively participate in a genocide against the rest of the unproductive population who in their eyes are parasitic leeches and polluters.
My problem with this picture is that this assumes this group of "elites" is a monolith and will behave like one. There is massive wealth disparity within the top 0.1% of the U.S., there are billionaires, deca-billionaires, centi-billionaires, etc. In the future, some billionaire who owns a corporation of AI as a part of the productive class could end up economically outcompeted and cast aside the next year by a larger mega-corporation owned by someone else and his more advanced AI, or by fully autonomous agentic AI. At any moment, anyone in this "productive elite" class can be shunted down into the "unproductive leech" class with the rest of us. Once technologies like mind augmentation and uploading are developed, this mobility in and out of the productive class will happen even more. Those at the very top have to be worried about some type of cooperation or revolutionary technological breakthrough done by those below them that could upend their economic influence.
So no matter where you are on the economic ladder, you have a reason to be peaceful towards the unproductive class. The reason is that you could end up in it.
| 1,734,920,198
|
Suitable_Ad_6455
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: A “religion” centered around modern particle physics will be created within the next few centuries
|
{'id': 'm15a44t', 'text': 'Pretty sure you just copy and paste the little delta symbol, which is on the right underneath the rules, along with an explanation of the basis for the delta.', 'author': 'eggynack', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733718215}
|
{'id': 'm12v2y3', 'text': "If modern science were to give birth to a new religion, why hasn't it happened already? Science has been around for centuries.", 'author': 'Siddhantmd', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733687296}
|
1h9qrow
|
CMV: A “religion” centered around modern particle physics will be created within the next few centuries
|
After my NoStupidQuestions thread got nuked by Reddit moment moderators for being a "disguised agenda post," and being "objectively wrong" I decided to post here. Definitely sparked enough interest, so I thought here would be best too for actual discussion.
Here I'm arguing that as we learn more about the universe, our belief systems will evolve to integrate those scientific discoveries. Specifically in the realm of particle physics and connections to consciousness. I posit that modern physics heavily implies reincarnation of some kind, and could guide a space faring human religion, for example.
Guess what I'm looking for is discussion, pushback, etc. against this idea, perhaps going forward humanity will always believe in older religious ideas, abandon religion entirely, etc. Because I think a default state of "religion" in the future will reflect our best models of reality we create otherwise. Obviously no right or wrong either.
| 1,733,686,484
|
SpoopyNoNo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Arguing that pro-life people should support welfare or in general should be anti-war/death penalty is arguing semantics and thus a fallacy
|
{'id': 'lvtf5j8', 'text': 'It would be an analogous "semantic argument" if the people against antisemitism were actually arguing that Jewish people should be protected because they were Semitic peoples. \n\nLife is a supposedly the *core element* of the "pro-life" movement, *according to them*. They *claim* to be concerned about life. They are not, even of the babies they claim to be "saving". Their hypocrisy on this topic is not merely semantic. They are *using it* as an emotional argument. \n\nAntisemites aren\'t *claiming* to be against Jews because Jews are semitic. If they *were*, it would be a valid argument that they are in favor of some other semitic peoples. \n\nIt might be a valid complaint about the *term* antisemitic, though, if anyone was actually claiming some defense of Semites due to their being Semites.', 'author': 'hacksoncode', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1730940348}
|
{'id': 'lvt7egr', 'text': 'I think there\'s an obvious conflict in the case of folks who oppose abortion in all instances for the reason that "life is sacred" or whatever in the case of hazards to the life of the mother. If you oppose abortion because you believe the fetus has a sacred right to life, but have no more nuanced take on rare but significant instances where a pregnancy will kill the mother before the fetus is viable, then I would say the onus would be on you to elaborate how such a position is self-consistent. It seems straight forward: You can kill one to save one, or you can let two die. If life is sacred, then you have some \'splaining to do. In other words, it is not MERELY semantics.\n\nPS "arguing semantics" is totally different than deploying a fallacy', 'author': 'Hasaraf', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1730937834}
|
1glcxuh
|
CMV: Arguing that pro-life people should support welfare or in general should be anti-war/death penalty is arguing semantics and thus a fallacy
|
This is not a pro-life argument necessarily, I am merely trying to state that arguing that pro-life people are hypocrites for not supporting certain stuff like being for the death penalty or being anti-war.
1. War is a complex matter it is a false equivalence to compare abortion debates if one is pro-life and supporting a war as not being “pro-life” in the most general sense, literally yes sure someone who supports an unjust war that is killing civilians and they themselves support it sounds hypocritical - they are not being pro-living, but let’s say this war is something that they are in favor of because of valid strategical reasons. To argue that they are against abortions but supporting a war like this is perhaps a hypocritical statement or a warped morality but I do not believe it should be argued because the person is pro-life specifically in the topic of the abortion debate. This goes into supporting the death penalty and hell just being against welfare for these same babies that are born which they wanted to be birthed but they leave left abandoned. If the imagery sounds frustrating and evil it’s meant to, but technically they are still “pro-life” in terms of abortion which goes to my second argument
2. It’s called pro-life because that’s what they deemed the term. It’s like arguing about anti-semitism and if it should apply to semitic groups, it shouldn’t because anti-semitism is historically used against Jewish people, and arguing that it should apply to other groups who are semites is arguing semantics, people know what anti-semitism is, they know what pro-life is.
My argument is simply:
Pro-life no matter how much they can be against people living post-birth still applies because the term specifically is applied to the debate of abortion. They are pro-life (or anti-abortion/anti-choice) because they are pro letting the fetus live, that’s their argument that’s their view what views they have outside I believe falls into different fallacies specifically arguing semantics, and whatabout-ism.
If your argument is “but how can you be pro-life if you are for the death penalty, or killing civilians or not allowing welfare for the baby you just forced to give!” Is arguing semantics because that’s not what *pro-life is, all that pro-life is allowing the birth of the fetus to happen so anything about their other views cannot be interpreted as anti pro-life*
I would most definitely like to see why this isn’t arguing semantics anyways.
| 1,730,937,155
|
Any-Emu-570
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: It's better for voters if a candidate promises semi-vague aims then hyper specific policies
|
{'id': 'm12qzdn', 'text': "Governor promises to lower crime.\xa0\n\n\nGets elected, actually lowers crime by making several white collar crimes he's committing legal.", 'author': 'Tsarbarian_Rogue', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733686017}
|
{'id': 'm12l7rg', 'text': ">It's better for voters if a candidate promises semi-vague aims then hyper specific policies\n\nThis advice seems to suit husbands as well!", 'author': 'CallMeCorona1', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733684242}
|
1h9pgrq
|
CMV: It's better for voters if a candidate promises semi-vague aims then hyper specific policies
|
A lot of people are giving Trump flak for being vague on his campaign promises/policies while saying Harris had more thought out and specific policy proposals but I never got why that's better it seems worse to me for several ones.
1) Voters can't be expected to understand the hyper specific policies and their outcomes. Like how the fuck are we supposed to know the macro effects of changing section 31 d of the tax code slightly? It's highly doubtful even the expects know what the effects will be ffs.
2) It eliminates the ability for the candidate to fulfill the technical promise but break the spirit of the promise. Like if a candidate campaigns on policy A and says that policy A will reduce housing prices and they implement policy A and housing prices continue to skyrocket unchanged, they technically kept their promise but people didn't want policy A they wanted housing prices to go down, they didn't care if it was policy A, B, C or D as long as it worked and it didn't work.
3) It creates both incentive and mandate for politicians once in power to pivot when things go wrong or if their policies are underperforming their expectations. They can go after it from a different angle without being accused of breaking their promise when they drop their failed policy and they are incentivized to drop said failed policy and try something else because they promised results not policy A.
So yeah not really seeing why Trumps platform being more "vague" than Harrises is a bad thing, when even the experts can't predict the outcome of a policy why should anyone care if the policy is implemented or not? What matters is the end goal not the policy itself.
| 1,733,683,069
|
FlyingFightingType
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: UHC CEO Shooting Will Result in Less Overall Suffering Than If it never happened.
|
{'id': 'm0vedaw', 'text': 'You\'re ignoring the single factor people are most upset about, which is unfair denials. While this CEO isn\'t the cause of "THE problem," he is the cause of many people actually suffering and/or dying because he is responsible for dramatically increasing denials.\n\nIt\'s true that collectivizing risk is a legitimate benefit of insurance. I would even add that collectivizing bargaining is another one. But that\'s not what people are mad about. They\'re mad about paying a bunch of money and then getting denied treatments that should be covered.', 'author': 'callmejay', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1733581437}
|
{'id': 'm0v7h5a', 'text': "He's literally just gonna be replaced and nothing will change. For actual change:\n\n1) There is quite literally a mass spree of murders against executives of healthcare companies\n\n2) There is a mass and continued protest against these healthcare companies, whether by somehow boycotting them or physically protesting outside their offices all over the country\n\n3) A mass petition and movement aimed at politicians to induce healthcare companies to have less scummy practices and standards\n\nI realize 2 and 3 are very much related.", 'author': 'SatisfactionLife2801', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733578681}
|
1h8q7gr
|
CMV: UHC CEO Shooting Will Result in Less Overall Suffering Than If it never happened.
|
To clarify, I believe that the humbling of the corrupt and powerful will cause said bad faith actors who are “unpunishable” by standard law to feel fear and vulnerability. This will result in several possibilities:
1: Possibly nothing and it fizzles out, still being a blood drawn on the untouchable proving a point.
2: A new standard of “justice” and a trend for those who have nothing to lose to deliver justice to those who build massive wealth on the suffering and horrible treatment of the poor/ trying to instill a feeling that even the untouchables bleed like anyone else. And those who use their money and power for objectively evil and greedy ways may be risking their wellbeing.
3: A silent fear where the belligerently rich and abusive silently roll back terrible things slightly as a means to sate the public. (Ie the anthem Anastasia time limit backtracking)
In all cases I don’t see any real downsides to this other than the suffering of one very rich family of a wife and two kids. Now, this isn’t to downplay their suffering as they are people too, but the suffering of one family and especially of a man who has lead a company which historically has been built on evil deeds and heinous denials(a child with cancer was denied nausea medicine for chemo being told that chemo wasn’t a valid reason for nausea etc.)
I genuinely want to hear any arguments against as the general media seems poised to call those who view it as a possible positive as “extreme” and “angry” when I think it’s more like a symbol. Much like the casings at the crime, “delay” “deny” “depose”.
Murder being bad isn’t really a good enough excuse for complacency of those with so much power who cause so much hurt. Do I believe all at such a level deserve this? Absolutely not, but there is a sort of karmic justice in that, an untouchable gambling away what is no different than blood money, was snuffed out like anyone else.
To those who will argue “he didn’t break any laws” I know, that isn’t the point though. Law abiding citizens in the circumstances with millions and billions of dollars who use said power to litigate and kill people by denying their life saving help for what is money, should absolutely be illegal, and everyone arguing to change litigation instead of violence, that is naive and almost impossible without first solving the massive dissent and divide of current politics.
So with that said, if you disagree I would like to hear why. I would like to understand why you disagree or would support condemnation for the situation or dissidence from the view expressed.
| 1,733,569,385
|
Murky_Toe_4717
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Men should be the one to ask for exclusivity
|
{'id': 'm38zx5t', 'text': 'Well any couple serious enough to consider marriage should 100% be talking about it well in advance to any sort of proposal. Both parties over time talking about goals, aims, needs. And eventually—hey, what’s the timeline for taking this thing all the way?\xa0\n\nA proposal should only be a surprise in execution; not in concept.\n\nThat’s the short answer at least.\xa0\n\nAlso deltas if people are effectively changing your mind or making you rethink things\xa0', 'author': 'UninspiredCactus', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734847870}
|
{'id': 'm379rbq', 'text': 'I’ve never heard that only women can ask for the relationship to be exclusive. \n\n> Men stereotypically are the ones that have commitment issues. \n\nNot from what I’ve observed. From what I’ve observed latch onto their first serious girlfriend or woman who treats them like their mother does. \n\nWomen, on the other hand, take their time and try to find the man with a personality that will treat her right.', 'author': 'Next_Sun_2002', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734820117}
|
1hjkm1i
|
CMV: Men should be the one to ask for exclusivity
|
I've never been in a relationship, but from my POV guys should be the one to ask the girl for exclusivity/to be steady. Why?
1. The question is essentially an ultimatum. Let's say the girl asks the guy to be exclusive, and maybe his preferred timeline is to wait another month or two before doing so, but he can't say no because she would just leave and so he has to say yes so he doesn't lose her. And having a slower timeline also shows that he didn't like her that much in the first place.
3. Men stereotypically are the ones that have commitment issues, so if he didn't initiate exclusivity then that means he didn't want to commit to some extent.
4. Traditionally, guys do all of the milestone leaps in relationships - asking her out on the first date, marriage proposals, etc., and this includes exclusivity.
But please, I genuinely want someone to prove to me that I am very wrong. And if there are any successful relationships where the girl initiated exclusivity, then I am all open ears.
| 1,734,819,432
|
lilychoufan
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Luigi Mangione shouldn't be idolized
|
{'id': 'm3gwaeq', 'text': 'Okay, I honestly think this is the problem. I’ve seen lots of threads and takes from people saying this, and they all seem to miss a key part of the argument. ‘Why wouldn’t they try something else before going to killing? Killing is wrong.’ I fully agree with you here. And I agree with you that even killing in war is not honorable at all— there are almost no situations where I find that to be a positive or honorable thing.\n\nHowever, healthcare insurance in the united states basically works like this: all of their profit comes from denying people coverage for medical treatment, which leads to countless deaths and suffering. Neither party wants to change this system— they are both in so deep with the healthcare companies that there’s no getting out. These CEOs are indestructible in the public eye— when you’re that rich, you don’t really face consequences for anything. United was known for denying coverage about 30% of the time, almost twice as much as the company in second place IIRC. Most people don’t really get to choose their insurance and they’re stuck with that, but there are no laws or protections, nothing, in place that stops united from denying as many claims as they want. Absolutely nothing would change, and people would keep dying.\n\nKilling the CEO didn’t change the law— in fact, they didn’t even change policy yet for United alone. But luigi killing the CEO opened the public’s eyes to the ‘true enemy’ we all fight against— the completely indestructible ruling class of the united states— and how we are all being made for fools, republican and democrat alike. As we are uniquely a country flaunting open gun ownership, this sort of attack was a type of ‘fuck you’ to the class which allows so many people such weapons and shows them ‘Hey, we aren’t blind to this, and if our own laws and government won’t ever punish you for the most hellish, heinous acts on the planet, our public vigilantes must make you finally afraid.’\n\nIt’s a far more symbolic thing to represent a ‘breaking’ of how impenetrable they are. It is a pretty uniquely American issue where the wellbeing and lives of our citizens overlap with the abominable flaws of privatized healthcare and capitalism, and makes a lot of sense why this understanding wouldn’t come naturally to someone from another country.', 'author': 'ganymedestyx', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734976816}
|
{'id': 'm3guykn', 'text': "While I don't think murder is great, entire kingdoms and civilizations were built and overthrown with blood.\xa0\n\nLooks aside, I think most people are too afraid or don't have the time to stand up for what is right. We feel small and powerless, like going to vote doesn't feel like it's doing much. I think there's some merit to being the one who stands out to make strides towards the change lots of people want to see. That's why whistleblowers and people who commit crimes on behalf of society are seen as heroes. Yet, the structures that don't want society fighting back condems them.\xa0\n\nSo when we idolize someone who does something unconventional that makes people notice, we aren't idolizing the person per-se, but the desire for change that has awoken.", 'author': 'ExpressingThoughts', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734976381}
|
1hkt04t
|
CMV: Luigi Mangione shouldn't be idolized
|
It's so weird how everyone seems to thirst after him and treat him like some kind hearted superhero. He shot another man point-blank.
Yes, that man was an insurance holder who kept people from live saving items and yes that is awful and he deserved karma. Luigi as a person however is not to be idolized. What he did was vigilantism and things like vigilantism are quickly misguided and lead to impulsive decisions, corruption and chaos.
Just because he's conventionally attractive and benefits from the halo effect doesn't magically turn him into a good person.
That day he may have taken the live of someone who made other people's lives indefinitely harder but what's at fault here is the system that even allows this situation to happen. Murder is not the answer to it.
| 1,734,975,633
|
Bowsfrill
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Taxation is not theft. In fact, it is more akin to a modest admission ticket to participate in the economy.
|
{'id': 'm1s67ws', 'text': 'No, i just decided arguing with a brick wall isnt a good use of time. You havnt proven (although you have claimed you have) that its possible to opt out. For crying out loud - One of your scenarios call out paying tax for years to purchase property (income tax, property tax) and then be "out" (but you still owe those yearly property taxes). Its silly, you are simply throwing shit at the wall. \n\nSimply put, i dont think you are operating in good faith and i have decided to disconnect from the chain. That you are asking me for a delta repeatedly comes off as passive aggressive (or bot behavior).\n\nAdd to that straight up lies like:\n\n> Clergy are totally tax-free.\n\nIts ridiculous. Why would i continue with you? This is easily disproven if you think for even a second. (taxed for housing allowance, income tax, SS tax, Sales tax, If they own a car or buy gas they pay taxes etc.)', 'author': 'LycheeRoutine3959', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734049926}
|
{'id': 'm1kqm0x', 'text': "While two things can be true, in this case they aren't. Taxes are not theft. You cannot opt out of someone stealing from you, you can opt out of paying taxes. You can somewhere without government or taxes. \n\nYou could more easily mare an argument for taxes being extortion, since if you don't want to pay taxes your options are either facing punishment or moving to a desolate wasteland. It's also possible that people want to pay their taxes, which would make it no theft as those people are willing giving up a share of their income. \n\nI don't personally view taxes as either theft or extortion though. I see it as the price you pay to live in a society. It is fully optional, but it's such a great deal that people willing pay it. What your tax dollars buy for you is an absolutely insanely good value when you put it all in perspective. It's not theft, it's an offer too good to refuse.", 'author': 'FreeLook93', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1733946633}
|
1hbydut
|
CMV: Taxation is not theft. In fact, it is more akin to a modest admission ticket to participate in the economy.
|
I think a lot of people get their paycheck and see tax deductions and feel robbed. Like what do you mean my yearly salary is not actually how much I take home?" Right? Libertarians make the the saying "taxation is theft" their rallying cry, often arguing that no taxation is acceptable, and the government should essentially disband or be at least decimated.
I think this argument is intuitive to a lot of people because it does not feel like the benefits we get out of our tax dollars is not as valuable to us as the money would have been. When the average person thinks about how tax dollars benefit them they probably think about roads and maybe the mail or schools but not much else unless they receive government benefits like Medicaid or SNAP. In fact, the ways the government helps poor people are a lot more visible than the ways the might help everyone else. When poor people are essentially getting a monthly check from the government every month, I think it's easy for the average person to conclude that taxes are basically a scam to transfer money from working people to bums who don't work.
But I think the benefit of tax dollars for the average American are actually much greater than we see at a glance, and the average American benefits from taxation far more than they lose because the government creates and manages the economic conditions that allow us to earn so much in the first place.
Let's say you're a car salesman at a Toyota dealership. That dealership exists because cheap, safe trade is possible with Japan. This safe free trade is facilitated by the US military, which supports the defense of allies like Japan that could be invaded by China if the US were not an ally. If Japan were at war with China, the country might be blockaded, embargoed, or sanctioned by China in ways that make exports more expensive. Japan would also have to devote tremendous resources to their war effort. Domestic labor would be shorthanded and car manufacturing might have to be converted for war machines. If it were possible to get Toyota cars out at all, they would be more expensive. If China won the war they might impose trade restrictions on Japanese cars to the US to support its own vehicle industry. Also keep in mind the Japanese car industry only exists because the United States supported Japan's economic recovery after WW2 (with taxes), which created the Japanese economic miracle, which allows them to keep producing cheap cars. This relationship with Japan is only possible because the US won WW2 (with tax dollars).
Imagine if FDR had been a penny pinching libertarian. He might have gone to war with Japan but would he have converted US industry to the extent necessary to win the war? Would he have raised taxes to fund the war effort if taxes are inherently theft? Or would he have negotiated for peace the moment he could secure non-aggression with Imperial Japan? Libertarian Truman certainly would never have approved funds to help Japan's economy recover. Libertarian FDR/Truman probably means no winning WW2, no Japanese economic miracle, no cozy trade relationship, which means no cheap cars in 2024.
Your job selling cars at Toyota exists because of decisions made by the government 80 years ago supported by a tremendous tax burden, and tax dollars continuously spent to support that status quo. And besides you, customers benefit from cheap reliable cars. And the government collects tax revenue on the sales to make up for its expenses. This whole industry that benefits us all would not exist without the government spending money. This is how economies grow and create more wealth overall than existed before taxation.
While Toyota cars are maybe an easy example, there are so many other ways the government upholds the economy, such that this reasoning can apply to any job. Domestic cars? Made with imported steel and exported for profit that allows the company to grow and employ more people. Work at Walmart? Full of cheap imported goods. Bank? Insured by the government. Library? Government. Law? All about the government. Farm? Subsidized by the government. Healthcare? Majorly bloated with employees bc of the government.
All of this is not to say that the government is perfect or that you should be "thankful." I am just arguing that we should recognize that the government is a necessary institution that requires taxes to work. Every day millions of Americans drive to work in Toyota cars on roads built and maintained by the government, kept safe by the government, to work in industries supported by the government, buy goods and services kept cheap by the government, and send their kids to schools provided at no cost by the government and wonder where all their tax dollars are going. Your tax dollars are all around you mate.
And I know a lot of people are going to say this can all still exist with a free market and no government, but we have never seen that happen in the real world. Imagine what no government truly means. You would have to pay a toll of some sort to use a road if you did not build it yourself. You would have to pay a regular fee for police and fire protection. Your employer would not be required to provide healthcare, a bare minimum salary, or safe working conditions. You would be nickel and dimed at every turn so often that it would be just as bad as paying taxes or worse. And that's only assuming the inevitable corporate monopolies play nice and do not decide to simply enslave you. If a libertarian utopia were possible I just think it would have been accomplished by now.
There are already places on earth in which there is no government. Haiti's government has collapsed. If you hate the government you can just move there. But it's a gang-controlled hell hole and nobody has the power to stop it except governments. People there are desperate. They would work for pennies to make iphones or flip flops or whatever but nobody can build a factory there because it would be taken over by gangs. Governments create order which creates economies which create wealth. You cannot have the economy and wealth without the government. All the government asks is a small fee in the form of taxes.
Taxation is not theft, it is a small admissions fee to enjoy the robust, lucrative economy created and maintained by the government. Again, not perfect, but far better than the alternative. The lie that taxation is theft was created and circulated by rich people who know that less government means more power for them.
Sorry, I have never taken a single economics class. I am guessing this is some economics 101 shit that economists have already extensively fleshed out. But I am a humble non-economist who does not possess the mental bandwidth to get up to speed sophisticated macroeconomic debates. Also pls no communism/socialism.
| 1,733,936,997
|
Prince_Marf
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-11
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Inheritance tax is morally consistent with conservative values
|
{'id': 'm362t3j', 'text': 'That is confirming the mindset of resources all being the governments and they are deciding what a person gets to keep. \n\nThe money, the land, the capital, the assets are not the government’s. They are private property owned by the individual. A person conveys ownership through their death onto the individual of their choosing.', 'author': 'dallassoxfan', 'score': 49, 'timestamp': 1734804848}
|
{'id': 'm35xy9c', 'text': "\\>But when a multi millionaire (or wealthier) dies and leaves their children enough money so that they have no incentive to work or contribute to the economy and they're free to live a life of indulgence with no consequence, I think that should be examined and thoroughly taxed.\n\n \nWhy do you believe theft is acceptable in this situation?", 'author': 'RMexathaur', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734803174}
|
1hjeqcv
|
CMV: Inheritance tax is morally consistent with conservative values
|
As per the title. As a disclaimer, I am somewhat fiscalle conservative myself, if not at least a moderate. I was pondering the common logic of arguments against robust welfare programs, which is typically that it does not provide people who benefit from them an incentive to participate in the economy if the alternative is labor that doesn't give sufficiently superior compensation.
It occurred to me then that it is consistent with that logic to support a "nepo-tax." That is, past a certain sum, a tax on windfall inheritance. I'm not necessarily supporting taking a big chunk of change when someone is left ten grand by an uncle. But when a multi millionaire (or wealthier) dies and leaves their children enough money so that they have no incentive to work or contribute to the economy and they're free to live a life of indulgence with no consequence, I think that should be examined and thoroughly taxed.
To be clear, I am NOT advocating for heavier taxes on them while these people are alive and I think people should be allowed to use their wealth to do things such as paying for their child's college - to disagree would entail following a logic that leads to denying the right of the parent to provide on a more fundamental level. It's also a separate argument entirely. When and how we tax people should be examined case by case, and this is one such case.
I am sure, given the predominantly left leaning nature of reddit, many will agree with me on this. But I'm hoping for some compelling devils advocates. Those are who I will be responding to.
| 1,734,802,500
|
Strange_Quote6013
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-21
|
2024_fall
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.