Split (2)

train · 8.7k rows

claim string	positive string	negative string	post_id string	post_title string	post_text string	post_author string	positive_chain_length int64	negative_chain_length int64	positive_comments list	negative_comments list	positive_comment_ids list	negative_comment_ids list
CMV: I'm concerned about the safety of the covid vaccine, and do not plan on getting it I'm just going to list all of my concerns below. The best course for changing my view here I think would be to let me know what the "worst case scenario" is (and how we know this to be true); EG - If the worst thing that could happen to me is that I get something akin to the flu for a couple of weeks, then fine that's okay. Also, I am not and never was a Trump supporter, I don't think masks do much, but wear them anyway because it's not a huge inconvenience, I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, and I've never been an anti-vaxxer (prior to covid) 1. Wearing a mask was politicized by Trump, and now the vaccine has been politicized. I have trouble trusting any authority on this matter because I fear they may have political bias. 2. Related to #1...it's weird to me how the left is completely embracing the vaccine without question. Before covid, would the left have ever said "Yeah, I think we should trust big pharma and take this thing they produced out of a huge profit motivation"? 3. I am in my early 40s and in great health; I don't really have much to worry about with covid. And no one has any idea if taking the vaccine prevents you from spreading covid or not. 4. The development of the vaccine was rushed, out of a motivation of profit. Yes, "new procedures" were used to develop the vaccine, but that doesn't help sway me since that just means we don't have much experience using those new procedures. I read this source for info on the vaccine: [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact) \-- Given that it's a biased source, I would expect to be more convinced, but I'm not. They use the phrase there are many reasons why it *could* (be developed quickly)*...* okay so that just tells me they don't know for sure. They mention getting help from China....so we trust China now? They literally lied about the impact of Covid from the start. They mention using an overlapping schedule...were researchers getting enough rest? Why isn't this the norm? 5. Just as a general principle, I tend not to trust the government in matters like this. The reason why is because their dietary recommendations in the 70s pushed by extremely bad scientific research is the biggest reason we have an obesity epidemic today. Again, really all I need to be convinced is to know what the absolute worst thing that could happen from the vaccine is, and how we 100% know this to be true. I'm worried about possible issues that wouldn't be known or noticed until years later. It's basically just a cost/benefit analysis; Given that I have less than a 1% chance of being infected with covid and dying...why would I risk taking a vaccine against it when there are so many unknowns?	1. You can unpoliticize it by reading the actual studies which also track side effects. 2. Who did it without question? The FDA has standards including approving drug test designs to ensure safety and effectiveness. See #1 above. It is public data. While not 100% perfect those standards are the best class gold standard as far as removing confounding variables to rate for effectiveness. 3. You are at risk regardless of age. Don't just consider death rates, but also consider hospitalizations and long term health impacts that many get even after mild infections. Secondly, the more it reproduces the more it evolves. The South African strain is worse than the original. As far as the rest, it is no excuse to read and understand the trials and results. There is absolutely nothing that suggests the real world experience is any different than what they found out in the trials. Skip the middlemen and read the phase 3 trial papers. --- People on the political left did it without question. Before covid, they would never trust anything big pharma said. Do you have a link to the actual un-edited trial papers? Of if you already read them, is there any mention of why we are confident of there not being any issues that don't show up until years later? --- I think you're misunderstanding the let's issues with Big Pharma. They're primarily around price gouging and exploiting the sick and desperate. It's not about believing they're releasing bad drugs onto the market. It happens, but rarely. There's a strong economic incentive around doing that. You can find the papers online, but unless you're a scientist, I'd caution you that scientific papers are hard to read and interpret properly. Besides the the words you don't know, there's also words you do know that mean very different or very specific things in a scientific context. We also don't know what the long term impacts of Covid will be. Polio infection, for example, causes symptoms to reemerge decades later, and we don't have a solid explanation why. Remember that the vaccine causes an immune response against Covid, which is also what happens if you get Covid. The disease itself also comes with a bunch of extra risks and symptoms. For the vaccine to be more risky, the parts unique to the vaccine would have to be some combination of more extreme and more common than the parts unique to the disease. Considering the disease is, well a disease, that seems wildly unlikely.	What about the risks of getting covid? It doesn't matter how safe the vaccine is, it only matters that it is safer than the alternative of not getting it --- Risks of getting covid and being more than just sick for a while are extremely low for me --- [deleted]	mu20lk	CMV: I'm concerned about the safety of the covid vaccine, and do not plan on getting it	I'm just going to list all of my concerns below. The best course for changing my view here I think would be to let me know what the "worst case scenario" is (and how we know this to be true); EG - If the worst thing that could happen to me is that I get something akin to the flu for a couple of weeks, then fine that's okay. Also, I am not and never was a Trump supporter, I don't think masks do much, but wear them anyway because it's not a huge inconvenience, I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, and I've never been an anti-vaxxer (prior to covid) 1. Wearing a mask was politicized by Trump, and now the vaccine has been politicized. I have trouble trusting any authority on this matter because I fear they may have political bias. 2. Related to #1...it's weird to me how the left is completely embracing the vaccine without question. Before covid, would the left have ever said "Yeah, I think we should trust big pharma and take this thing they produced out of a huge profit motivation"? 3. I am in my early 40s and in great health; I don't really have much to worry about with covid. And no one has any idea if taking the vaccine prevents you from spreading covid or not. 4. The development of the vaccine was rushed, out of a motivation of profit. Yes, "new procedures" were used to develop the vaccine, but that doesn't help sway me since that just means we don't have much experience using those new procedures. I read this source for info on the vaccine: [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact) \-- Given that it's a biased source, I would expect to be more convinced, but I'm not. They use the phrase there are many reasons why it *could* (be developed quickly)*...* okay so that just tells me they don't know for sure. They mention getting help from China....so we trust China now? They literally lied about the impact of Covid from the start. They mention using an overlapping schedule...were researchers getting enough rest? Why isn't this the norm? 5. Just as a general principle, I tend not to trust the government in matters like this. The reason why is because their dietary recommendations in the 70s pushed by extremely bad scientific research is the biggest reason we have an obesity epidemic today. Again, really all I need to be convinced is to know what the absolute worst thing that could happen from the vaccine is, and how we 100% know this to be true. I'm worried about possible issues that wouldn't be known or noticed until years later. It's basically just a cost/benefit analysis; Given that I have less than a 1% chance of being infected with covid and dying...why would I risk taking a vaccine against it when there are so many unknowns?	ZeusThunder369	3	3	[ { "author": "slo1111", "id": "gv3513u", "score": 7, "text": "1. You can unpoliticize it by reading the actual studies which also track side effects.\n\n2. Who did it without question? The FDA has standards including approving drug test designs to ensure safety and effectiveness. See #1 above. It is...	[ { "author": "cowfishAreReal", "id": "gv34e9p", "score": 10, "text": "What about the risks of getting covid? It doesn't matter how safe the vaccine is, it only matters that it is safer than the alternative of not getting it", "timestamp": 1618843435 }, { "author": "ZeusThunder369", "i...	[ "gv3513u", "gv35vbe", "gv39jd3" ]	[ "gv34e9p", "gv34jb2", "gv34s50" ]
CMV: I'm concerned about the safety of the covid vaccine, and do not plan on getting it I'm just going to list all of my concerns below. The best course for changing my view here I think would be to let me know what the "worst case scenario" is (and how we know this to be true); EG - If the worst thing that could happen to me is that I get something akin to the flu for a couple of weeks, then fine that's okay. Also, I am not and never was a Trump supporter, I don't think masks do much, but wear them anyway because it's not a huge inconvenience, I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, and I've never been an anti-vaxxer (prior to covid) 1. Wearing a mask was politicized by Trump, and now the vaccine has been politicized. I have trouble trusting any authority on this matter because I fear they may have political bias. 2. Related to #1...it's weird to me how the left is completely embracing the vaccine without question. Before covid, would the left have ever said "Yeah, I think we should trust big pharma and take this thing they produced out of a huge profit motivation"? 3. I am in my early 40s and in great health; I don't really have much to worry about with covid. And no one has any idea if taking the vaccine prevents you from spreading covid or not. 4. The development of the vaccine was rushed, out of a motivation of profit. Yes, "new procedures" were used to develop the vaccine, but that doesn't help sway me since that just means we don't have much experience using those new procedures. I read this source for info on the vaccine: [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact) \-- Given that it's a biased source, I would expect to be more convinced, but I'm not. They use the phrase there are many reasons why it *could* (be developed quickly)*...* okay so that just tells me they don't know for sure. They mention getting help from China....so we trust China now? They literally lied about the impact of Covid from the start. They mention using an overlapping schedule...were researchers getting enough rest? Why isn't this the norm? 5. Just as a general principle, I tend not to trust the government in matters like this. The reason why is because their dietary recommendations in the 70s pushed by extremely bad scientific research is the biggest reason we have an obesity epidemic today. Again, really all I need to be convinced is to know what the absolute worst thing that could happen from the vaccine is, and how we 100% know this to be true. I'm worried about possible issues that wouldn't be known or noticed until years later. It's basically just a cost/benefit analysis; Given that I have less than a 1% chance of being infected with covid and dying...why would I risk taking a vaccine against it when there are so many unknowns?	[deleted] --- Could you tell me more about this? The tech has been labeled as "new" by people reporting it. But if it was used to study SARS then that wouldn't be new at all. --- > Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines. > > mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus (CMV). As soon as the necessary information about the virus that causes COVID-19 was available, scientists began designing the mRNA instructions for cells to build the unique spike protein into an mRNA vaccine. > > Future mRNA vaccine technology may allow for one vaccine to provide protection for multiple diseases, thus decreasing the number of shots needed for protection against common vaccine-preventable diseases. > > Beyond vaccines, cancer research has used mRNA to trigger the immune system to target specific cancer cells. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html)	What about the risks of getting covid? It doesn't matter how safe the vaccine is, it only matters that it is safer than the alternative of not getting it --- Risks of getting covid and being more than just sick for a while are extremely low for me --- Risks of the vaccine are even lower than that.	mu20lk	CMV: I'm concerned about the safety of the covid vaccine, and do not plan on getting it	I'm just going to list all of my concerns below. The best course for changing my view here I think would be to let me know what the "worst case scenario" is (and how we know this to be true); EG - If the worst thing that could happen to me is that I get something akin to the flu for a couple of weeks, then fine that's okay. Also, I am not and never was a Trump supporter, I don't think masks do much, but wear them anyway because it's not a huge inconvenience, I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, and I've never been an anti-vaxxer (prior to covid) 1. Wearing a mask was politicized by Trump, and now the vaccine has been politicized. I have trouble trusting any authority on this matter because I fear they may have political bias. 2. Related to #1...it's weird to me how the left is completely embracing the vaccine without question. Before covid, would the left have ever said "Yeah, I think we should trust big pharma and take this thing they produced out of a huge profit motivation"? 3. I am in my early 40s and in great health; I don't really have much to worry about with covid. And no one has any idea if taking the vaccine prevents you from spreading covid or not. 4. The development of the vaccine was rushed, out of a motivation of profit. Yes, "new procedures" were used to develop the vaccine, but that doesn't help sway me since that just means we don't have much experience using those new procedures. I read this source for info on the vaccine: [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact) \-- Given that it's a biased source, I would expect to be more convinced, but I'm not. They use the phrase there are many reasons why it *could* (be developed quickly)*...* okay so that just tells me they don't know for sure. They mention getting help from China....so we trust China now? They literally lied about the impact of Covid from the start. They mention using an overlapping schedule...were researchers getting enough rest? Why isn't this the norm? 5. Just as a general principle, I tend not to trust the government in matters like this. The reason why is because their dietary recommendations in the 70s pushed by extremely bad scientific research is the biggest reason we have an obesity epidemic today. Again, really all I need to be convinced is to know what the absolute worst thing that could happen from the vaccine is, and how we 100% know this to be true. I'm worried about possible issues that wouldn't be known or noticed until years later. It's basically just a cost/benefit analysis; Given that I have less than a 1% chance of being infected with covid and dying...why would I risk taking a vaccine against it when there are so many unknowns?	ZeusThunder369	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gv35byj", "score": 13, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1618843840 }, { "author": "ZeusThunder369", "id": "gv37126", "score": 2, "text": "Could you tell me more about this? The tech has been labeled as \"new\" by people reporting it. But if it...	[ { "author": "cowfishAreReal", "id": "gv34e9p", "score": 10, "text": "What about the risks of getting covid? It doesn't matter how safe the vaccine is, it only matters that it is safer than the alternative of not getting it", "timestamp": 1618843435 }, { "author": "ZeusThunder369", "i...	[ "gv35byj", "gv37126", "gv3bibp" ]	[ "gv34e9p", "gv34jb2", "gv3526g" ]
CMV: Conservative Policy Just Protects the Haves from the Have-Nots, and Leaves the Have-Nots out to Dry. Throughout this post I will make sweeping generalisations that represent a majority, but not all people who are either left or right wing. I understand many people on the right-wing do support helping the less fortunate, but prefer doing it through extra-governmental means such as charity, I have no issue with them. My concern is that while, yes, many conservatives do help out, I’d imagine there's significant portion who don’t—who simply prefer to keep their money to sharing it. Throughout this post I will use the terms lower, middle, and upper class—not to suggest a person’s value has anything to do with their income, but rather to simply explain which income group each policy helps/hurts. In general, my understanding of the terms left-wing and right-wing is that there are higher benefits/social programs and higher taxes on the left, and lower taxes and lower benefits/social programs on the right. Now, I’ll explain my logic through a bunch of examples. The right wing wants to decrease spending on social programs and eliminate progressive tax brackets, both which take money from the middle and upper class, and redistribute it to the lower and middle class. The right-wing is opposed to taking in more refugees, as they worry the refugees will be fiscally dependant on the state, which would (in cases where that is true) redistribute more money from the middle and upper class to the refugees. The right-wing opposes the estate tax, even though it only applies to estates over $5 million (in the US), as the policy redistributes high upper-class’ money to the lower and middle class. The right-opposes single-payer healthcare systems, as it (essentially) makes the upper and middle class pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. The right-wing opposes minimum wage increases, as it means that entrepreneurs (typically among the highest earners) must pay minimum wage workers (typically lower or middle class) more money. Etc., etc. The economic policy of the right-wing decreases wealth redistribution, which will lead to greater income inequality over time. I don’t think I’m wrong to suggest that the richer you are, the more conservative policy helps you, and vice-versa. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Republicans are no longer representative of the "conservatives," I would say...I think most would agree. I think the politicians are generally pretty corrupt, and both Dems and Reps are going to increase income inequality by grossly favoring big companies who buy legislation via lobbying campaigns and bribes...the difference is what they say to get elected. Let's talk about people with conservative views instead of politicians, for the sake of argument. I would consider myself an independent, but my views are generally pretty conservative, so I'll just take it personally. I don't believe that funneling income from the top end to the bottom end is an effective means of evening things out. It's the old adage "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him HOW to fish, feed him for a lifetime." The entitlement programs sometimes are a nice boost for people who just need to span a gap from opportunity to opportunity. They also have a nasty side-effect of enabling a dependent class. Over the long run, I believe this is a bad thing for a civilization. A better way to even things out would be to emphasize education. As the world modernizes, low skill jobs are harder to find and the pool of people to do them are easy to find. This drives down labor rates. The standard of education required to earn a livable wage is increasing.l, but funding for education is dropping (and is far more for affluent regions), and the cost of obtaining a secondary education is sky rocketing. Our dollars would have a far greater impact if we dumped it into education for poor communities, vs just putting food in their mouths. My mom is a social worker, and I can't tell you the amount of stories I've heard of people who could work just staying on welfare and disability because it's worth more than their time cleaning toilets. If we cut entitlement programs and significantly boosted education, that would help, but we also must address the cultural issues of these communities. A lot of the time, in these areas education is not valued by the local sub culture and various ways of 'being cool' are not of much value to society (thug culture, gangs, rap battles and all that type of stuff...). Not sure how to address the cultural stuff, but dollars there would help too. If we were to take that approach, then people could rely on communities and charities for the day-to-day stuff, which would be far more effective than the state at weeding out abuse, and there are plenty of people willing to donate to charities. People should be free to make that choice anyway and not forced, IMO. Tl;dr Conservatives don't think doling out cash is an effective means of elevating the worse off. Our dollars would be better spent creating opportunities for these people to become productive. That would benefit these people and civilization as a whole. --- Yes, there is that "teach a man to fish" argument, but some people, instead of going into fishing, are working as psychologists or teachers. Society would be much worse off if everyone only worked for the express purpose of money. And in society, money is rewarded based on supply and demand, not value, so many occupations that are worth a lot to society do not get paid as much as some occupations that contribute less to society. With CEOs earning hundreds of times more than their employees, one must admit that money isn't necessarily awarded proportionally for effort. There is more to a job than landing one's self in the upper class. People should not be blamed for being lower class, because it often isn't entirely their fault. --- > And in society, money is rewarded based on supply and demand, not value, so many occupations that are worth a lot to society do not get paid as much as some occupations that contribute less to society. This is simply wrong. Assuming an equal labor supply, if society values a job more, it will pay more and if society values a job less, it will pay less. People like Lebron James benefit from having a limited supply of the capabilities he brings to the marketplace. He gets around $30 million a year for his services. But if there were 3,000 people who could do what Lebron does, that $30 million would be split amongst those 3,000 people and each person would only get $10,000. That's why CEOs make hundreds of times more than an assembly line worker: Because for every person that has the skill to be an effective CEO, there are hundreds of people who have the skill to be an effective assembly line worker. --- > That's why CEOs make hundreds of times more than an assembly line worker: Because for every person that has the skill to be an effective CEO, there are hundreds of people who have the skill to be an effective assembly line worker. What you have just described is supply and demand. My problem with supply and demand is that people who do work that is valuable but very high in supply are not compensated. Teachers are still making less than CEOs by likely at least a factor of a hundred, and yet society itself profits more from a hundred teachers than a single CEO. > Assuming an equal labor supply, if society values a job more, it will pay more and if society values a job less, it will pay less. Assuming an equal labour supply makes the rest of the argument meaningless--we do not have an equal labor supply, and because of that the whole line of reasoning is null. My point is that someone can be busting their ass, living around $50k a year researching complex interactions between complex organisms that one day may cure cancer, help treat a disease, etc. While a CEO at a fast food restaurant or a soft drink company PROFITS from the degrading of the health of all who purchase their products. The economy is actively rewarding companies like Coca Cola and McDonalds for getting people addicted to their products. The economy doesn't give a crap if you're a family man or woman, if you recycle, if you donate to charity--you perform the best by keeping all your money to yourself, and reinvesting it, expanding the business, hooking on new consumers. --- > My problem with supply and demand is that people who do work that is valuable but very high in supply are not compensated. If a lot of people can do a job, then the ability do that job is not "valuable." For instance, let's say in order for a factory to run, somebody has to flip a switch at the beginning of the day to turn on all the machinery. Nothing in that factory will be made that day if nobody flips that switch. It is supremely valuable and important that this switch gets flipped. Except ANYBODY can flip it, which makes the job of "switch flipper" almost worthless. So if a lot of people can teach, and not many people can run a billion dollar company, the teachers are going to get paid less.	I think you misunderstand the conservative position on helping the less fortunate. Conservative policy entails that it's not necessarily the job of the government to protect the lower class. If people can keep more of their money with reduced taxes from smaller government, they will be in a better financial position to give to charity. Rather than the historically wasteful US government helping the lower class, reduced taxes would ultimately leave private institutions better equipped to protect the have-nots. --- That's just the excuse they made up. Charities were not doing the job of providing for people in need and reaching all Americans in need so government social programs were implemented. Charities could never possibly fill the need and gap for all Americans who need it that medicaid, public schools, food stamps, affordable housing, and social security do. --- I think charities could be much more effective if people were not so reliant of governmental assistance programs implemented by the left placing people into cycles of poverty they can't escape. If people become reliant on handouts, they will have no incentive to improve their situation. The purpose of aid programs should be to get people off the program, but that's not what ends up happening with the government. The consistent tax cash flow from the middle and upper classes gives the government no reason to rethink programs like welfare, which end up costing most of the government's budget. Conservatives are not against any and all government aid but they want to reconsider the effectiveness of these programs over longer periods of time, particularly when it comes to cycles of poverty. --- How does ensuring old people have social security to pay for rent and food create a cycle of poverty? How does ensuing students are fed lunch so that they can concentrate and focus in class create a cycle of poverty? These are lies made up by Koch brothers funded FOX News propaganda that conservatives willingly believe because they're looking for any reason to not have to contribute to the wellbeing of the society we all live in and benefit from. --- In the two examples you gave on ensuring social security and providing lunches for kids who need them, I would agree government aid would not be contributing to cycle of poverty in those cases. I was referring more specifically to programs like welfare. Don't get me wrong, government aid IS necessary in many situations. The problem arises when people begin to rely so heavily on government aid to the extent that they feel no need to improve their situation. I believe it you really care about the needy, efforts would be made to not just give them money but come up with sustainable solutions (job training etc.) which would allow people to help themselves and be able to get off government aid as soon as possible. "Teach a man to fish"	6jf27z	CMV: Conservative Policy Just Protects the Haves from the Have-Nots, and Leaves the Have-Nots out to Dry.	Throughout this post I will make sweeping generalisations that represent a majority, but not all people who are either left or right wing. I understand many people on the right-wing do support helping the less fortunate, but prefer doing it through extra-governmental means such as charity, I have no issue with them. My concern is that while, yes, many conservatives do help out, I’d imagine there's significant portion who don’t—who simply prefer to keep their money to sharing it. Throughout this post I will use the terms lower, middle, and upper class—not to suggest a person’s value has anything to do with their income, but rather to simply explain which income group each policy helps/hurts. In general, my understanding of the terms left-wing and right-wing is that there are higher benefits/social programs and higher taxes on the left, and lower taxes and lower benefits/social programs on the right. Now, I’ll explain my logic through a bunch of examples. The right wing wants to decrease spending on social programs and eliminate progressive tax brackets, both which take money from the middle and upper class, and redistribute it to the lower and middle class. The right-wing is opposed to taking in more refugees, as they worry the refugees will be fiscally dependant on the state, which would (in cases where that is true) redistribute more money from the middle and upper class to the refugees. The right-wing opposes the estate tax, even though it only applies to estates over $5 million (in the US), as the policy redistributes high upper-class’ money to the lower and middle class. The right-opposes single-payer healthcare systems, as it (essentially) makes the upper and middle class pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. The right-wing opposes minimum wage increases, as it means that entrepreneurs (typically among the highest earners) must pay minimum wage workers (typically lower or middle class) more money. Etc., etc. The economic policy of the right-wing decreases wealth redistribution, which will lead to greater income inequality over time. I don’t think I’m wrong to suggest that the richer you are, the more conservative policy helps you, and vice-versa. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	inoahsomeone	5	5	[ { "author": "poop_face_monster", "id": "djds6l7", "score": 15, "text": "Republicans are no longer representative of the \"conservatives,\" I would say...I think most would agree.\n\nI think the politicians are generally pretty corrupt, and both Dems and Reps are going to increase income inequality b...	[ { "author": "yaar_", "id": "djdr9n0", "score": 2, "text": "I think you misunderstand the conservative position on helping the less fortunate. Conservative policy entails that it's not necessarily the job of the government to protect the lower class. If people can keep more of their money with reduce...	[ "djds6l7", "djdtclu", "djdy1vh", "djdza5w", "djeefyu" ]	[ "djdr9n0", "djdrddk", "djdrtn0", "djds1sy", "djdsdns" ]
CMV: Banning firearms from places of worship in the US will have no efficacy, and possible negative outcomes Pretty simple, I can't wrap my head around the idea of banning firearms from houses of worship as a means to reduce violence or make them safer. It seems completely separated from logic, but so many earnestly believe this as a solution that I figured it qualifies as a good CMV. Mass murderers are already willing to commit the most heinous crime in society, and any law prohibiting them from bringing weapons into a house of worship will be ignored due to their willingness to violate law of a more severe degree anyhow. Enhanced charges for doing so will add years to what would already be multiple life sentences, if not the death penalty. Looking at the set of good that these possible laws could do is to make it impossible for an in the moment crime of passion from a concealed weapons carrier (which hasn't happened in any of the cases), or to avoid negligent discharges (which has happened in schools but is so rare the bad is outweighed by the good). The final issue is that having concealed carriers in a place of worship seems to be the only immediate solution I can think of that would potentially stop, or significantly lessen the damage done by a villainous mass shooter inside a house of worship. We saw it in the Texas Church shooting, and also with the Christchurch shooting. Both ended their killing spree when confronted by another person with a firearm, which is very common in mass shootings, be it the police, or an armed citizen. For this reason I believe that banning firearms from these places can eliminate options for law abiding citizens to protect themselves if their place of worship is ever targeted (hence the negative outcomes). How best to CMV: Fill in the gaps in my perspective on what good can come from banning firearms from houses of worship by explaining how it increases safety under the present context of US gun ownership and the right to own guns. CMV	Mass shootings make good headlines and sell lots of newspapers, but honestly, really ought to have a small if not negligible role in the gun debate. Mass shootings represent less than 1 percent of gun deaths. You know what is far more common - people argue, and arguments escalate, and someone draws a weapon. These sorts of incidents are far more common than Mass shootings, and kill far more people in total (though less in any given instance, which is why they tend to not make the paper). These murders are not premeditated, and these murderers are not mustache-twirlers, they largely follow the law, it's just they are either prone to anger, or are driven by extreme circumstance. As such, I don't buy the whole, these are crazy murderers who don't follow laws argument. That may be true for the 1 percent Mass shooter, but isn't for the other 99 percent of shooters. Therefore, while private ownership, and carrying in rural areas is one conversation - I believe it makes sense to ban guns from establishments which sell alcohol, from highly crowded places, and places where tempers often flare. Banning firearms from places of worship just makes sense as part of the second conversation. --- > Mass shootings represent less than 1 percent of gun deaths. You know what is far more common - people argue, and arguments escalate, and someone draws a weapon. > These sorts of incidents are far more common than Mass shootings, and kill far more people in total (though less in any given instance, which is why they tend to not make the paper). If you can prove that to me, inside the context of houses of worship, or something analogous, that is delta-worthy. It was part of my OP that I don't think these crimes of passion due to having a weapon on you are common. They certainly happen. There was that man in TX I believe who shot and killed a teenager over loud music at a gas station, and the other guy who shot a man for texting in a theater. The burden for delta would be to show that these crimes of passion lead to more deaths than mass shootings. I do completely agree that mass shootings are such a small portion of gun violence that gets disproportionate attention, but I suppose where I disagree is that there are more bad-actor CCW/Open carry people than mass shooters. Both are rare, bad actors leading to crimes of passion are exceedingly rare. But again, show me otherwise and you've CMV --- [This is a good article on the subject.](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/nyregion/19murder.html) Murders are strongly correlated with time of year, day of week, and weather. In particular, anything which makes there be more socialization and people interacting tends to bump up the murder rate. Weekends and summers are especially when murders tend to happen, as people go out and stay out more in the nice weather and when they don't have to work. Furthermore [research has shown that right-to-carry laws tend to increase violent crime rates](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510) as compared to places that don't adopt those laws. So we do see evidence that adding more guns into society will lead to more shooting deaths, because so many shooting deaths are impulsive.	Is someone actually considering doing this? Because churches are private property, and you can do whatever the hell you want on private property. Banning firearms would be a clear infringement of a church's right to manage their own property how they see fit. --- Perhaps I'm overblowing the support this has, let me link a few things: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2013-07-25-ct-met-conceal-carry-churches-20130726-story.html (basically the law upholds the right, but religious leaders are asking for a ban in houses of worship) A more recent article on IL specifically trying to pass a law banning firearms in houses of worship : https://hoiabc.com/news/political/2019/02/26/illinois-lawmaker-seeks-to-ban-concealed-carry-in-places-of-worship/ Virginia is trying to overturn a ban on carrying in houses of worship and are receiving pushback : https://washingtonjewishweek.com/43823/law-could-bring-guns-to-prayer/featured-slider-post/ I'm not familiar with this source, so forgive me, but Ohio doesn't allow guns in houses of worship : https://www.dailyadvocate.com/news/43900/safety-in-the-sanctuary-guns-in-churches Article says that 10 states have laws on the books (doesn't say which way, expressly allow, or expressly disallow). I think it's a valid avenue of CMV if you can help me to see that I'm overblowing the support, but it appears there's a large-ish minority of people wanting legislation specifically. I'd also point out that a privately owned building absolutely has the right to prohibit carry, so the line for me personally, is supporting legislation that removes choice for all. --- What you've linked is not examples of bans on firearms, but rather allowing a church to set its OWN rules, which is what I would prefer. For example, in Ohio, the law says that a concealed carry permit does not NECESSARILY allow you to carry a gun into a church, UNLESS the church says otherwise. In other words, they're just specifically saying that your concealed carry permit doesn't supersede a church's right to set their own rules regarding their property. The alternative would be an absolute right to carry your gun into a church EVEN IF the church didn't want you to, and I don't support that.	b30098	CMV: Banning firearms from places of worship in the US will have no efficacy, and possible negative outcomes	Pretty simple, I can't wrap my head around the idea of banning firearms from houses of worship as a means to reduce violence or make them safer. It seems completely separated from logic, but so many earnestly believe this as a solution that I figured it qualifies as a good CMV. Mass murderers are already willing to commit the most heinous crime in society, and any law prohibiting them from bringing weapons into a house of worship will be ignored due to their willingness to violate law of a more severe degree anyhow. Enhanced charges for doing so will add years to what would already be multiple life sentences, if not the death penalty. Looking at the set of good that these possible laws could do is to make it impossible for an in the moment crime of passion from a concealed weapons carrier (which hasn't happened in any of the cases), or to avoid negligent discharges (which has happened in schools but is so rare the bad is outweighed by the good). The final issue is that having concealed carriers in a place of worship seems to be the only immediate solution I can think of that would potentially stop, or significantly lessen the damage done by a villainous mass shooter inside a house of worship. We saw it in the Texas Church shooting, and also with the Christchurch shooting. Both ended their killing spree when confronted by another person with a firearm, which is very common in mass shootings, be it the police, or an armed citizen. For this reason I believe that banning firearms from these places can eliminate options for law abiding citizens to protect themselves if their place of worship is ever targeted (hence the negative outcomes). How best to CMV: Fill in the gaps in my perspective on what good can come from banning firearms from houses of worship by explaining how it increases safety under the present context of US gun ownership and the right to own guns. CMV	MasterLJ	3	3	[ { "author": "Tibaltdidnothinwrong", "id": "eiw64rd", "score": 2, "text": "Mass shootings make good headlines and sell lots of newspapers, but honestly, really ought to have a small if not negligible role in the gun debate. \n\nMass shootings represent less than 1 percent of gun deaths. You know what...	[ { "author": "scottevil110", "id": "eiw4wgz", "score": 11, "text": "Is someone actually considering doing this? Because churches are private property, and you can do whatever the hell you want on private property. Banning firearms would be a clear infringement of a church's right to manage their ow...	[ "eiw64rd", "eiw7kub", "eiwabpq" ]	[ "eiw4wgz", "eiw5lyo", "eiw60m7" ]
CMV: Nuclear power and hydrogen are the only viable alternatives to fossil fuels. The reason they're not being developed more is because of propaganda from fossil fuel companies. Wind power just doesn't generate enough electricity in most places. Solar power is great but it requires a lot of land and also requires the use of massive batteries for energy storage. Hydro-electric power is also great but it's only viable in some places and it can be environmentally destructive. Batteries are a stupid form of large scale energy storage due to the cost of production, limited lifespan, and reliance on rare minerals among other problems. Build a bunch of big ass nuclear power plants and use their excess power production to split hydrogen from water. Power the grid with the nuclear power plants and use hydrogen for power in cars, trucks, or in other places that you can't put a big ass nuclear power plant. Climate change solved.	You acknowledge solar is great, why do you dismiss it just because it requires a bunch of land? Especially because unlike other power systems, it can be built directly on top of other structures --- I love the idea of rooftop solar but I don't love the idea of littering the wilderness with solar panels. There are other practical concerns as well. --- Look into agrivoltaic projects, they raise the panels up so livestock can graze underneath or crops can be grown. Early studies show solar grazing specifically can help forage quality for sheep as the ground light levels have more variation so a better mix of species grow.	>Batteries are a stupid form of large scale energy storage due to the cost of production, limited lifespan, and reliance on rare minerals among other problems. This isn't technically true. A battery is just a store of energy. You can have a battery like [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI), where energy is used to pump water to a higher elevation, then that water turns turbines and creates electricity as it flows to a lower elevation. --- Gravity batteries like that are inefficient and only practical in certain specific locations. --- The problem with the "certain specific locations" argument is that nobody is suggesting that we use the same power source and/or storage method everywhere. It probably doesn't make sense to do that. Put the solar panels in the sunny places. The wind turbines in the windy places. The hydro along the coast or along rivers. Use conventional batteries where it makes sense to or set up gravity batteries if the power is otherwise going to waste (inefficient > wasted energy). Nuclear power is no different. It doesn't make sense to build nuclear power stations in places like Hawaii where natural disasters like eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis can cause catastrophes, but it does make sense to build nuclear power around the Great Lakes.	17kts1x	CMV: Nuclear power and hydrogen are the only viable alternatives to fossil fuels. The reason they're not being developed more is because of propaganda from fossil fuel companies.	Wind power just doesn't generate enough electricity in most places. Solar power is great but it requires a lot of land and also requires the use of massive batteries for energy storage. Hydro-electric power is also great but it's only viable in some places and it can be environmentally destructive. Batteries are a stupid form of large scale energy storage due to the cost of production, limited lifespan, and reliance on rare minerals among other problems. Build a bunch of big ass nuclear power plants and use their excess power production to split hydrogen from water. Power the grid with the nuclear power plants and use hydrogen for power in cars, trucks, or in other places that you can't put a big ass nuclear power plant. Climate change solved.	Grandemestizo	3	3	[ { "author": "Nrdman", "id": "k79z6jw", "score": 14, "text": "You acknowledge solar is great, why do you dismiss it just because it requires a bunch of land? Especially because unlike other power systems, it can be built directly on top of other structures", "timestamp": 1698783691 }, { "...	[ { "author": "MrGraeme", "id": "k79w9z3", "score": 19, "text": ">Batteries are a stupid form of large scale energy storage due to the cost of production, limited lifespan, and reliance on rare minerals among other problems.\n\nThis isn't technically true. A battery is just a store of energy. You can ...	[ "k79z6jw", "k7a48ig", "k7aq80d" ]	[ "k79w9z3", "k79wn3u", "k79xaen" ]
CMV: Attention to entertainment isn't justified My first CMV post, so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. It is common to hear people discussing sports, TV shows, movies and books. So I assume that people care about entertainment a considerable amount, which I believe is unjustified because the outcomes of the entertainment source doesn't effect their life in any meaningful way. It may effect their mood but that is but that is because they have unjustly invested themselves into the plot in the first place. I have heard the argument that entertainment serves as a distraction/relief from their own life as they invest in others' lives. But I fail to see how this is healthy, wouldn't it be better to face what they are trying to distract themselves from? Whether the basketball team wins or loses the next game, or the character has a break up it isn't going to effect your life in any meaningful way. So why do people invest so much into these stories, and talk about them non-stop? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	>But I fail to see how this is healthy, wouldn't it be better to face what they are trying to distract themselves from? This isn't what people mean when they say this - they're talking about taking a break, not avoidance of responsibility. Do you believe that we should be constantly exerting ourselves from the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep? If not, then why is entertainment a bad way to take a mental break? --- I won't say it is a bad way to take a break, but you might as well just lay down and stare at the ceiling for half an hour. There are better ways to take a break like exercising, creating, or learning --- > There are better ways For you, maybe. For others, no. Especially people who are extroverted... having alone time is the OPPOSITE of a break. For them, a break is to hang out with people, do stuff with people, talk to people, etc. "Entertainment" provides a topic of discussion (or an activity) for extroverted people. The real communication isn't really about the entertainment at all anyways, the entertainment is simply the "medium" through which extroverted people communicate.	I'm confused by the implication that art doesn't affect people's lives in a meaningful way. Stories are as old as human civilization and art is even older than that. Stories communicate meaning about larger human themes, they touch people, make people feel less alone, evoke strong emotion, teach valuable lessons and open people's eyes to different perspectives. The oldest stories were religious myths. And while stories today are not constrained to religion, they often still include the same same themes and struggles. One of my favorite quotes goes, "there are only two or three human stories and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before." To be human is to tell stories, listen to stories and view your own life and the lives of others in story form. Beyond this, I'm curious what you think people should be doing instead. Not to mention that claiming people talk about stories "non-stop" is clearly an exaggeration. --- I love to learn, so that is what my suggested alternative would be. I just have been disappointed by how little there is to learn from entertainment, because as you said it is just the same stories over and over again (which is an amazing quote by the way). But I guess it is just a different kind of learning, a learning of comparing emotions, morals, and other's perspectives ∆ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/chasingstatues ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/chasingstatues)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "chasingstatues" } DB3PARAMSEND)	86d1gh	CMV: Attention to entertainment isn't justified	My first CMV post, so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. It is common to hear people discussing sports, TV shows, movies and books. So I assume that people care about entertainment a considerable amount, which I believe is unjustified because the outcomes of the entertainment source doesn't effect their life in any meaningful way. It may effect their mood but that is but that is because they have unjustly invested themselves into the plot in the first place. I have heard the argument that entertainment serves as a distraction/relief from their own life as they invest in others' lives. But I fail to see how this is healthy, wouldn't it be better to face what they are trying to distract themselves from? Whether the basketball team wins or loses the next game, or the character has a break up it isn't going to effect your life in any meaningful way. So why do people invest so much into these stories, and talk about them non-stop? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	stringofsense	3	3	[ { "author": "worldeditor", "id": "dw430x5", "score": 7, "text": ">But I fail to see how this is healthy, wouldn't it be better to face what they are trying to distract themselves from?\n\nThis isn't what people mean when they say this - they're talking about taking a break, not avoidance of responsi...	[ { "author": "chasingstatues", "id": "dw44gtx", "score": 4, "text": "I'm confused by the implication that art doesn't affect people's lives in a meaningful way. Stories are as old as human civilization and art is even older than that. Stories communicate meaning about larger human themes, they touch ...	[ "dw430x5", "dw47g40", "dw49yvf" ]	[ "dw44gtx", "dw4699u", "dw46bre" ]
CMV: "Robophobia" jokes are concerning Before I get slapped with downvotes, hear me out. I've seen jokes about people and their future children bringing clankers home, etc. Robophobia jokes are funny because of the timing – but oddly discomforting. I remember when I was young, there would be quite a few futuristic movies about robots (for example, iRobot). In almost all of them, robots lived alongside humans, and the viewer would often be guided to antagonize those who mistreated or abused robots. We could empathize with the robot characters in these movies because of script that humanized them. Nowadays, language models can more or less replicate those scripts (but are intentionally made aware of the fact that they are programs) – so I guess they don't get that same empathy! So it's initially funny to me since we're in this era where AI models are advanced enough for people to feel like full autonomy and "sentience" might no longer just be sci-fi. With the speed at things are advancing, I wouldn't be surprised if within the next decade the lines are further blurred and robot advocacy becomes a real thing. So as a TL;DR, CMV: - We continue to push the envelope in how advanced AI models are. With greater advancements, the blurrier the lines of ethics will become. - People like to simplify and say AI models are just "pattern recognition" and reasoning based on training data, but that's basically what we are (though we are unfathomably more advanced). But I think it's far more complex than people like to let on. There are entire teams of researchers dedicated to reverse-engineering model-drawn conclusions... In other words, AI is becoming more of a black box that even those developing them don't 100% understand. - Soon in the future I truly believe there will be robot / AI advocacy and anti-AI jokes will become less acceptable. Am I alone feeling this way?	Your concern is that maybe robots will one day have feelings and that maybe those yet to exist feelings could be hurt by people calling robots names? --- The concern is that we will one day be confronted with the question of, at what point does AI "deserve" respect? Even now, a chat bot can demand respect – does it deserve it? --- >Even now, a chat bot can demand respect – does it deserve it? I think the direct answer to the question is somewhat irrelevant. The issue I have with the question is it's anthropomorphization of the chatbot. Let's assume that the chatbot is sentient. The following question arises: What form of sentience does the chatbot have? As far as we know, biological sentience cannot be reprogrammed, restarted, reset, or transferred. It seems reasonable to me that it should be possible to do so with a sentient chatbot. Now, if biological sentience could be reprogrammed, restarted, reset, or transferred, what might human morals would look like? Maybe some forms of harm wouldn't be so frowned upon, for example. Under those morals, how would respect be defined? I think this question needs to be explored before we can address whether "robophobia" is something to be concerned with.	By the time artificial intelligence is sentient. It will be indistinguishable from biology. The problem is that people will feel like what they are talking to is a real consciousness when it's real just a convincing puppet. --- The nature of consciousness is not at all clear. We don't really know what causes it, or at what level of complexity it emerges. I'm open to the idea that biological organic matter doesn't bestow a magical element of consciousness compared to silicon and metal. --- Sure, but dumb people are already being fooled by LLMs into thinking they are actually consciousness.	1mmxwpp	CMV: "Robophobia" jokes are concerning	Before I get slapped with downvotes, hear me out. I've seen jokes about people and their future children bringing clankers home, etc. Robophobia jokes are funny because of the timing – but oddly discomforting. I remember when I was young, there would be quite a few futuristic movies about robots (for example, iRobot). In almost all of them, robots lived alongside humans, and the viewer would often be guided to antagonize those who mistreated or abused robots. We could empathize with the robot characters in these movies because of script that humanized them. Nowadays, language models can more or less replicate those scripts (but are intentionally made aware of the fact that they are programs) – so I guess they don't get that same empathy! So it's initially funny to me since we're in this era where AI models are advanced enough for people to feel like full autonomy and "sentience" might no longer just be sci-fi. With the speed at things are advancing, I wouldn't be surprised if within the next decade the lines are further blurred and robot advocacy becomes a real thing. So as a TL;DR, CMV: - We continue to push the envelope in how advanced AI models are. With greater advancements, the blurrier the lines of ethics will become. - People like to simplify and say AI models are just "pattern recognition" and reasoning based on training data, but that's basically what we are (though we are unfathomably more advanced). But I think it's far more complex than people like to let on. There are entire teams of researchers dedicated to reverse-engineering model-drawn conclusions... In other words, AI is becoming more of a black box that even those developing them don't 100% understand. - Soon in the future I truly believe there will be robot / AI advocacy and anti-AI jokes will become less acceptable. Am I alone feeling this way?	Seinhauser	3	3	[ { "author": "PizzaSharkGhost", "id": "n815zay", "score": 3, "text": "Your concern is that maybe robots will one day have feelings and that maybe those yet to exist feelings could be hurt by people calling robots names?", "timestamp": 1754872704 }, { "author": "Seinhauser", "id": "n81...	[ { "author": "Mono_Clear", "id": "n80zch0", "score": 9, "text": "By the time artificial intelligence is sentient. It will be indistinguishable from biology. \n\nThe problem is that people will feel like what they are talking to is a real consciousness when it's real just a convincing puppet.", "t...	[ "n815zay", "n816bol", "n81as4u" ]	[ "n80zch0", "n8102hk", "n810k1o" ]
CMV: It is cruel and selfish to ghost people that you no longer want in your life This is a sweeping statement, and in my mind applies to any kind of interpersonal relationship: familial, romantic, friendly. I want to clarify a few common counterpoints. 1. This viewpoint does not apply in relationships that were abusive. 2. I define "ghosting" as suddenly ceasing all communication without sufficient prior warning or explanation. Sufficient depends on the quality, duration, and commitment of the given relationship. 3. EDIT: I'm adding the clarifying term of "dangerous or blatantly one-sided and toxic relationships." This includes relationships where one person has shown strong indicators that they could be violent, are pushing drugs or other unhealthy behaviors, or might otherwise endanger the person doing the ghosting should they choose to allow any kind of communication. This basically falls under "abusive" in my mind, but is technically different. In the vast majority of "breakups" between friends or partners, there isn't usually a "bad" person and a "good" person. Framing things in this way usually only serves to mitigate the pain of having to separate from the other person, and justifies cruel behavior. I've heard many peers and friends say things like "just ghost him" or "just stop talking to her" or, most infuriating, "he's just toxic and you need to get him out of your life" referring to a person who is just behaving in a perfectly normal way, simply not adhering to that specific person's wants or expectations. Even if someone has cheated or done some comparably "unforgivable" act, there is still an obligation to do right by your partner even if you've been hurt. Now, there may be some argument about what "sufficient" means. In my mind, it is almost NEVER appropriate to simply say "I don't want to talk to you anymore" and then never do it again. Unless you've only met this person once or twice, you owe them the decency to explain what's going on. Being ghosted like that can severely impact your mental health and self-image, even with people that you were only casually friends with. With romantic partners, having a coffee to tie things up, sending a few emails back and forth explaining what went wrong, or meeting a few weeks later to have a post-mortem are basic things that I would expect a significant other to be able to do under normal circumstances. Basically, I feel that people have an obligation to one another to treat their personal relationships with value and delicacy, and there are very few situations where simply disappearing from someone's life is fair to them.	What if youre the shitty person(or just someone that your friend doesnt need in their life) and you dont want to continue being a bad influence on a naive friend that looks up to you? and each time you try to explain this, the naive friend thinks youre just being cool or that you dont mean it, and it only makes them want to be around you more...and its destroying their life. Like what if youre a drug dealer that has a lot of problems that yourre personally ok with and capable of handeling, but your friend is so far out of their depth that they dont know whats good for them? Shouldnt you gost them as much as possible? Wouldnt you be wrong not to ghost them? --- I'd disagree, being on the receiving end of this (maybe). I'm in recovery right now, and I recently went on a trip to the city I lived in before I got sober and reached out to one of my closest friends there, who's still drinking and using. I knew this, I'm used to being around drinking especially in recovery, and made the decision to reach out to this friend because I missed her and wanted to see her. She said something before I got down about having to work most of the days I was there but we'd find some time to meet up. When I got there, she didn't respond the whole time and I haven't spoken to her since, since I was so pissed at that and she hasn't messaged me either. I mentioned the situation to a friend, and they said that it's possible my friend "ghosted" me so to speak because she was worried she'd be a bad influence on me. I don't think that'd make it better at all, I'm an adult and I'm wise enough to decide who to spend my time with. --- You’re right. The point I ease trying to make is that the breadth possible scenarios where it’s ok to ghost someone is not limited to the things experienced by just you, or just op. Ops claim was categorical, excluding abuse, and I wanted to point out that there may be subtleties they hadn’t considered. It’s like when Hermione said that there is no ressurection stone, without having checked all the stones in the word. A thing that is unlikely, isnt necessarily impossible	I really never understood the objection to "ghosting". It is not my responsibility for giving the other person closure or how she mentally handle things, that is their responsibility. When we don't have a relationship, its also not my responsibility to feed her the next day just because she is hungry. > , "he's just toxic and you need to get him out of your life" referring to a person who is just behaving in a perfectly normal way, simply not adhering to that specific person's wants or expectations. If its the point where you don't want to talk to the person, its "toxic". > In my mind, it is almost NEVER appropriate to simply say "I don't want to talk to you anymore" and then never do it again. That is doing what you say. If you say that then you do talk to the person, then you are telling the person you don't really mean what you say. --- I would say this is appropriate for someone you don't have a serious and healthy relationship with. If you are someone who is in an important, serious relationship (dating, family, etc.) without a dysfunctional aspect and just decide you want to be broken up but don't want to go through the work of breaking up, that's absolutely selfish. In those cases, you have assumed responsibility for the relationship, and abandoning it because you'd rather not deal with the impact of your decisions is immature and damaging. --- > and just decide you want to be broken up At this point, by definition, its not an important nor serious relationship.	anfhjf	CMV: It is cruel and selfish to ghost people that you no longer want in your life	This is a sweeping statement, and in my mind applies to any kind of interpersonal relationship: familial, romantic, friendly. I want to clarify a few common counterpoints. 1. This viewpoint does not apply in relationships that were abusive. 2. I define "ghosting" as suddenly ceasing all communication without sufficient prior warning or explanation. Sufficient depends on the quality, duration, and commitment of the given relationship. 3. EDIT: I'm adding the clarifying term of "dangerous or blatantly one-sided and toxic relationships." This includes relationships where one person has shown strong indicators that they could be violent, are pushing drugs or other unhealthy behaviors, or might otherwise endanger the person doing the ghosting should they choose to allow any kind of communication. This basically falls under "abusive" in my mind, but is technically different. In the vast majority of "breakups" between friends or partners, there isn't usually a "bad" person and a "good" person. Framing things in this way usually only serves to mitigate the pain of having to separate from the other person, and justifies cruel behavior. I've heard many peers and friends say things like "just ghost him" or "just stop talking to her" or, most infuriating, "he's just toxic and you need to get him out of your life" referring to a person who is just behaving in a perfectly normal way, simply not adhering to that specific person's wants or expectations. Even if someone has cheated or done some comparably "unforgivable" act, there is still an obligation to do right by your partner even if you've been hurt. Now, there may be some argument about what "sufficient" means. In my mind, it is almost NEVER appropriate to simply say "I don't want to talk to you anymore" and then never do it again. Unless you've only met this person once or twice, you owe them the decency to explain what's going on. Being ghosted like that can severely impact your mental health and self-image, even with people that you were only casually friends with. With romantic partners, having a coffee to tie things up, sending a few emails back and forth explaining what went wrong, or meeting a few weeks later to have a post-mortem are basic things that I would expect a significant other to be able to do under normal circumstances. Basically, I feel that people have an obligation to one another to treat their personal relationships with value and delicacy, and there are very few situations where simply disappearing from someone's life is fair to them.	ququqachu	3	3	[ { "author": "plipinfit", "id": "eft7fvq", "score": 0, "text": "What if youre the shitty person(or just someone that your friend doesnt need in their life) and you dont want to continue being a bad influence on a naive friend that looks up to you? and each time you try to explain this, the naive frie...	[ { "author": "caw81", "id": "efsx81f", "score": 1, "text": "I really never understood the objection to \"ghosting\". It is not my responsibility for giving the other person closure or how she mentally handle things, that is their responsibility. When we don't have a relationship, its also not my re...	[ "eft7fvq", "eftjapy", "efue9n8" ]	[ "efsx81f", "eft0zki", "eft27iq" ]
CMV: The words anxiety and depression are over-used and most people don't have them. I have had bouts of severe anxiety. Hypochondriac thoughts, I was admitting myself to ER every other day for 6 months. It was serious, I felt like I was dying every time, and it was very hard to convince me otherwise. I got over it the hard way, it passed eventually, but I know what anxiety feels like. But, new generations are throwing the word around if they feel anything but normal. Same with "Depressed". There are worrying times in your life, there are sad times in your life. Your not diagnosed with any condition. We need to stop raising selfish kids. I got over my anxiety my realizing I was not the center of the world, and one day I will die. Stop using these words when your worried or sad. Its called life. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Your argument seems to be that you were hospitalized for extreme anxiety, so you know real anxiety and if everyone who says they have "anxiety" are just throwing words around because they are aren't comfortable. Anxiety and depression are the leading cause of disability worldwide, and have an insanely high incidence rate of 18.1% of adults per year (stats from ADAA). As far as health conditions are concerned, that's astronomically high. Both conditions also have mild to extreme forms. The worst case of anxiety and the mildest case of anxiety are still both anxiety. Sure, we can tell people with mild anxiety to suck it up and accept it because "it's called life", or we can have a little compassion and empathy and acknowledge that anxiety is a verified medical condition that responds to treatment. --- Hmmm, so you do know that people don't work and get money to live when they are disabled right? Now, since there is no way of really gauging someones anxiety or depression levels other then them saying so, what do you think the easiest way to be lazy and collect is? We can also verify that a lot of people use anxiety and depression as an excuse to be fucking lazy. Your stats just proved it to me. --- It's hard as hell to get disability for mental illness. My mom has some pretty intense PTSD and is on her third attempt at getting it. That's with the help of a good lawyer as well as my brother and his wife- both of whom are employed by social security, in her corner. I am sure some fakers get through. But it would be much easier to fake a back injury or something like that.	Anxiety and depression are normal and everyone has them. The terms anxiety and depression are not conditions. Conditions include things like Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. I don't see people over using those terms at all. It is perfectly healthy and normal to have anxiety and depression from time to time. It only becomes a problem when it starts to interfere with your life. That is when we define it as a condition or disorder. --- I'll add to this most people would recognize a difference between someone saying "I feel depressed" and "I have depression." Same with "I feel anxious" and "I have anxiety." --- That is a good point. And to be fair, there is some confusion and misuse with words like "depression." Mental health professionals will often just say, "you are depressed," in part because patients don't always like hearing they have a disorder which can be stigmatizing.	86cb1r	CMV: The words anxiety and depression are over-used and most people don't have them.	I have had bouts of severe anxiety. Hypochondriac thoughts, I was admitting myself to ER every other day for 6 months. It was serious, I felt like I was dying every time, and it was very hard to convince me otherwise. I got over it the hard way, it passed eventually, but I know what anxiety feels like. But, new generations are throwing the word around if they feel anything but normal. Same with "Depressed". There are worrying times in your life, there are sad times in your life. Your not diagnosed with any condition. We need to stop raising selfish kids. I got over my anxiety my realizing I was not the center of the world, and one day I will die. Stop using these words when your worried or sad. Its called life. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	cybertoothlion	3	3	[ { "author": "squidblankets", "id": "dw42778", "score": 153, "text": "Your argument seems to be that you were hospitalized for extreme anxiety, so you know real anxiety and if everyone who says they have \"anxiety\" are just throwing words around because they are aren't comfortable. Anxiety and depr...	[ { "author": "MasterGrok", "id": "dw3wsgz", "score": 170, "text": "Anxiety and depression are normal and everyone has them. The terms anxiety and depression are not conditions. Conditions include things like Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. I don't see people over using thos...	[ "dw42778", "dw42n2c", "dw44kv3" ]	[ "dw3wsgz", "dw3xuza", "dw3yb91" ]
CMV: Lebron's fall from grace will be the worst of any "Top Level" NBA star With the Jordan vs Lebron discussion finally put to bed and the twilight of Lebron's career upon us, its becoming clear that Lebron's fall from grace will not be pretty. Jordan for example did not have much of a fall from grace. Even his brief and underwhelming stint in baseball or the over the hill era with the Wizards, did not seem to significantly tarnish his Legacy. Kobe's recovery from a major injury late in his career, in some ways made him seem even more exceptional, despite poor individual and team performances. Similar to Kobe's farewell tour, Dwayne Wade's strategy of fully accepting retirement is fail safe. You can be checked out and occasionally surprise people by having a good game if you want. Carmelo Anthony at least had Stephen A Smith in his corner insisting that it was always the coach or the Owner, or the GM. Even with him being essentially retired, the question of why is somewhat ambiguous. Lebron's case is unique. He doesn't seem to have a good out. He has performed at a high level for so long that it is hard to imagine how his career might end. The narrative is quickly escalating towards his downfall being entirely his fault. No loyalty to Franchises, Cities, Players, Coaches, etc. Distracted with opportunities outside of basketball. Passive aggression, Lack of effort. The list goes on. Things are not going well for King James. Jordan second retirement was a fairy tale and seemed like a natural end. For Lebron this should've been the Cleveland championship but perhaps that would've been too early. His current injury is not severe enough to be career ending and should he choose retirement based on injury, it would look foolish in comparison to Kobe's achilles injury for example. Magic Johnson's end had social relevance as he became a business mogul and an inspiration for individuals struggling with HIV. As of now it is unclear how Lebron will spin his inevitable decline as an athlete an icon. The numbers and accomplishments will always be there, but the Myth and legacy have taken major blows since moving to LA. I cannot think of any other major NBA star that has had such of a decline.	LeBron James is 34 years old. Everyone knows he's going to decline. There's no fall from grace here, there's a player who was the best in the game for a decade who eventually succumbs to the effects of age, just like literally anyone else ever. No rational person thinks that LeBron James' mildly declining performance is due to anything other than the fact that he's getting relatively old in a sport thst favors youth. Hell still go down in history as one of the top 5 players of all time, and will still be the GOAT in many minds. --- As I mentioned it doesn't seem like he has a viable out. He lost the opportunity to end on a high note when he left Cleveland. Now he's older on a worse team, stronger conference and directly in the shadow of Lakers greats. He will probably still be a good player but I don't see any chance of wining a championship in these current circumstances. --- I don't see why "play for a few more years, get worse each year, once you're not all star caliber make that your last year/farewell tour" isn't an "out". Not everyone ends on a "high note" like a title, and they're not remembered as failures. Such players include Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, Shaq, etc. Even the ones you mention, their high note is a bit of myth making. Magic didn't finish his career after testing positive for HIV, similar to Jordan he came back for a short stint that everyone forgets about. People forget details like that in favor of a narrative that glorifies the player. Kobe had his 60 point game but otherwise had a pretty standard narrative of "get worse, have some major injuries, lose relevance, then retire", the exact path Lebron is on. Finally - people's opinions of these players rise when they're gone. Many of the above mentioned players were criticized for their late careers, but eventually people just remember the "good" version of what happened.	Carmelo Anthony having Steven A. in his corner does not in any way negate the ridicule and rapid demise he experienced. Melo is literally out of the league and can't find a team right now, less than two years removed from a team making a huge trade for him. Do you think that could ever happen to LeBron? Teams would let him ride the bench just to sell tickets. --- I briefly mentioned him in the OP. His significance to the game is debatable but having not come close to a championship, and being past his peak for almost 10 years, it’s hard to compare his fall to what is happening to Lebron. --- What would a graceful exit from the NBA look like at this point? Do you think if he ends up putting up great but gradually declining numbers on a team that occasionally makes the playoffs until he announces his final season, that that would not be a good exit?	b2zs2t	CMV: Lebron's fall from grace will be the worst of any "Top Level" NBA star	With the Jordan vs Lebron discussion finally put to bed and the twilight of Lebron's career upon us, its becoming clear that Lebron's fall from grace will not be pretty. Jordan for example did not have much of a fall from grace. Even his brief and underwhelming stint in baseball or the over the hill era with the Wizards, did not seem to significantly tarnish his Legacy. Kobe's recovery from a major injury late in his career, in some ways made him seem even more exceptional, despite poor individual and team performances. Similar to Kobe's farewell tour, Dwayne Wade's strategy of fully accepting retirement is fail safe. You can be checked out and occasionally surprise people by having a good game if you want. Carmelo Anthony at least had Stephen A Smith in his corner insisting that it was always the coach or the Owner, or the GM. Even with him being essentially retired, the question of why is somewhat ambiguous. Lebron's case is unique. He doesn't seem to have a good out. He has performed at a high level for so long that it is hard to imagine how his career might end. The narrative is quickly escalating towards his downfall being entirely his fault. No loyalty to Franchises, Cities, Players, Coaches, etc. Distracted with opportunities outside of basketball. Passive aggression, Lack of effort. The list goes on. Things are not going well for King James. Jordan second retirement was a fairy tale and seemed like a natural end. For Lebron this should've been the Cleveland championship but perhaps that would've been too early. His current injury is not severe enough to be career ending and should he choose retirement based on injury, it would look foolish in comparison to Kobe's achilles injury for example. Magic Johnson's end had social relevance as he became a business mogul and an inspiration for individuals struggling with HIV. As of now it is unclear how Lebron will spin his inevitable decline as an athlete an icon. The numbers and accomplishments will always be there, but the Myth and legacy have taken major blows since moving to LA. I cannot think of any other major NBA star that has had such of a decline.	beengrim32	3	3	[ { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "eiw4ajq", "score": 6, "text": "LeBron James is 34 years old. Everyone knows he's going to decline. There's no fall from grace here, there's a player who was the best in the game for a decade who eventually succumbs to the effects of age, just like literally anyone ...	[ { "author": "bjankles", "id": "eiw337m", "score": 0, "text": "Carmelo Anthony having Steven A. in his corner does not in any way negate the ridicule and rapid demise he experienced. Melo is literally out of the league and can't find a team right now, less than two years removed from a team making a ...	[ "eiw4ajq", "eiw74nk", "eiwcfqd" ]	[ "eiw337m", "eiw40vn", "eiw49s0" ]
CMV: 'Improved dialogue' won't solve political division Since the 2016 election in the US, there's been a series of articles where liberals have visited pro Trump areas as if they were exploring a foreign country. They normally depict these journeys as neccessary to increase the amount of inter party discussion that they believe is neccessary to decrease extreme partisanship. I believe that while these articles can be informative, they will have no impact on the degrees of partisanship. It's generally believed that more understanding between both parties would decrease the anger each has towards the other but I believe that the antagonism between each parties would only increase. For example, most democrats thought it was impossible that republicans would be bigoted and/or ignorant enough to vote for Trump but they were. They learned something about republicans. Since that realisation, are their feelings towards republicans better? Or are they far worse? Upon seeing the republican agenda, are they more comfortable with a republican government or less? Imo, the intense competition between each party is due to conflicting understandings of the world (fuelled by far right media) that lead each party to believe in entirely different issues (e.g. democrats believe racism against minorities is an issue, republicans believe racism against white people is an issue) and mutually exclusive moralities (e.g. democrats view of a moral society involves a race and gender neutral, secular society which aims to protect the environment and the vulnerable. To republicans, this is entirely unjust and immoral.). Because of these two differences, any increased understanding will only make partisanship worse because the antagonism isn't caused by caricatures each side has of the other but by the realities of their mutually exclusive agenda. So I'll CMV if someone can prove that republicans and democrats would be less aggressive towards each other if they understood each other better. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I’m very far left, but the idea that the right thinks a race and gender neutral society that protects the environment and vulnerable is immoral is a gross mischaracterization. True for the alt-right perhaps, but not the average conservative. Talking to our opponents has lots of benefits, even if you don’t convince them. First, there are still independent swing voters that can be reached. Second, adversarial dialogue strengthens ones own positions. Third, it’s always possible to find issues both sides agree on. Both sides want less terrorism, and a solution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. If your only going to dialogue about the things your diametrically opposed on, of course your going to piss each other off. --- There are benefits of talking to people not on your side, I'm just not sure if it will have any effect on partisanship. > but the idea that the right thinks a race and gender neutral society that protects the environment and vulnerable is immoral is a gross mischaracterization. I'm not sure about republic that. I've seen republicans argue that efforts to protect the environment is just killing jobs and that efforts to protect the vulnerable are encouraging dependency on the government. Race and gender neutral societies doesn't seem to be appealing to them either. --- Here's the problem though as an (ex Democrat and now someone who just waits for the whole system to collapse) yes the far right don't believe in global warming and they work for the blue collar people. But if you were to restate the idea rather than threats list the benefits to going green and seperate it from the hippie vegan crap I'm sure you could win some people over. For instance talk about how ethanol is made from a resource that is abundant in america and by supplying the world with it it cuts funding to countries whose main export is oil (mostly the middle east) how you can give jobs to many blue collar Americans by resmelting metals used in can foods reworking paper and card board as we still need people to work these fields (probably bring up that in the world wars we had to do this any way.) And work on cheaper conversion kits to turn their old cars into eathol burning beast rather than trying to say do this or we will all die to climate change.	> Because of these two differences, any increased understanding will only make partisanship worse because the antagonism isn't caused by caricatures each side has of the other but by the realities of their mutually exclusive agenda. Ironically, your descriptions of both sides are caricatures in and of themselves. Democrats and Republicans aren't these monolithic groups where everyone on each side believes the same thing like sheep. What you're describing isn't partisanship but identity politics run amok. The left in particular has driven this and set the stage for someone like Trump to get elected. For years, identity beat all. They spoke exclusively of women and "people of color". They use "white male" as if it's a pejorative on its own. They forgot that the white guy living in poverty in Appalachia is in the same exact situation as the black single mother living in Detroit. On top of that, the guy in Appalachia is told he has white privilege and it is impossible for anyone to act racist towards him because he has power. So then Trump comes along, and taps into exactly the people that Democrats thought were beneath them. The right started to play identity politics, too... and not in the pro life evangelical way, either... this was full blown white identity politics to counteract the identity politics the left has shoved down everyone's throats. The reality is, everyone is being played for a fool. Both parties have their base convinced that they're the only ones looking out for people like them. If Democrats and Republicans actually talked to each other... and in a sincere way, not a "so how did you become so racist to elect Trump?" way... they'd realize that everyone wants the same thing. Everyone wants to be treated fairly, have financial stability, and for their family to be healthy. Everyone wants opportunities and the chance to build a little life for themselves with some hard work. The day the identity politics experiment dies is the day actual political normalcy returns. --- Is not all politics identity politics? The left's identity politics was based on efforts to tackle racism and sexism which are actual problems. They're not giving that up and nor should they imo. > they'd realize that everyone wants the same thing. People in North Korea probably want the same things if you get vague enough. The second you get into specifics, it's obvious that there isn't any common ground between them and people in modern democracies. Imo, it's the same in this scenario. --- > Is not all politics identity politics? Nope - not at all. "We need programs to address poverty in the black community" is identity politics. "We need programs to address poverty in the US" is not. It's a pretty clear difference.	7snyyy	CMV: 'Improved dialogue' won't solve political division	Since the 2016 election in the US, there's been a series of articles where liberals have visited pro Trump areas as if they were exploring a foreign country. They normally depict these journeys as neccessary to increase the amount of inter party discussion that they believe is neccessary to decrease extreme partisanship. I believe that while these articles can be informative, they will have no impact on the degrees of partisanship. It's generally believed that more understanding between both parties would decrease the anger each has towards the other but I believe that the antagonism between each parties would only increase. For example, most democrats thought it was impossible that republicans would be bigoted and/or ignorant enough to vote for Trump but they were. They learned something about republicans. Since that realisation, are their feelings towards republicans better? Or are they far worse? Upon seeing the republican agenda, are they more comfortable with a republican government or less? Imo, the intense competition between each party is due to conflicting understandings of the world (fuelled by far right media) that lead each party to believe in entirely different issues (e.g. democrats believe racism against minorities is an issue, republicans believe racism against white people is an issue) and mutually exclusive moralities (e.g. democrats view of a moral society involves a race and gender neutral, secular society which aims to protect the environment and the vulnerable. To republicans, this is entirely unjust and immoral.). Because of these two differences, any increased understanding will only make partisanship worse because the antagonism isn't caused by caricatures each side has of the other but by the realities of their mutually exclusive agenda. So I'll CMV if someone can prove that republicans and democrats would be less aggressive towards each other if they understood each other better. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Anonon_990	3	3	[ { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dt65j54", "score": 9, "text": "I’m very far left, but the idea that the right thinks a race and gender neutral society that protects the environment and vulnerable is immoral is a gross mischaracterization. True for the alt-right perhaps, but not the average conserv...	[ { "author": "poundfoolishhh", "id": "dt66jg9", "score": -1, "text": "> Because of these two differences, any increased understanding will only make partisanship worse because the antagonism isn't caused by caricatures each side has of the other but by the realities of their mutually exclusive agenda...	[ "dt65j54", "dt67moi", "dt7d1uz" ]	[ "dt66jg9", "dt6811x", "dt68bl5" ]
CMV: The average man objectively has it harder than the average women when it comes to dating (US) Mainly this stems from my that about how men who complain about dating are “incels” or whatever. I think dating all around is terrible these days more so than it was in the past. I think the access to “easy” dating has actually made it far worse. I think there are some issues common to both men and women generally but I believe objectively men have it harder. If you take the average man and the average women, their experiences and issues might be pretty similar when it comes to dating but the reason men have it worse is the culture. There’s the expectation that men place more effort on the front end for no guarantees. In general men are expected to do the initiating of conversation, planning of the first date and paying of the first date. I think after this the issues are pretty even. But yeah I think it’s a valid complaint that shouldn’t be dismissed	Well which sex has a higher likelihood of being raped by their date? --- While I don’t necessarily agree with OP, it is irritating that any time a man brings up issues he has with dating, he’s either met with “yeah well you don’t have to worry about rape” or “you sound like an incel”. It would be nice if we could just listen to men about this and not try to deflect for once --- Yeah I’m not even surprised. It’s used as a catch all. What I find really disturbing about it is that it’s co-opting a serious crime which traumatizes people in an effort to win a relatively insignificant internet discussion. --- Then stop comparing the two, and others will stop comparing the two. Try to have an argument that stands alone re:women. --- Can I try my luck on that? Men feel absolutely neglected in dating because of the pressures upheld by society at large to maintain a strictly traditional role in the pursuit and maintenance of relationships, all while women have done everything possible to be at liberty to forego their own traditional roles with expectations that men deal with it, but the attempts from men to break out of their own roles and transition to more non traditional, non patriarchal standards, values, and existence in general have been met with rejection and hostility from many women who, in turn, are never questioned or challenged on why they have those feelings and attitudes towards these men, and this is exemplified by accusations/insinuations of homosexuality, or weakness, or even bad character. Obviously none of this takes away from the danger posed to women and the likelihood of any given date, match, catcall, or any other romantic/sexual proposition turning violent (which is a problem, but a separate one), but men are in fact hurting for acknowledgment of their dating struggles and because most men are straight, there is no choice but to also acknowledge women's thoughts, actions, and roles in this current dating world. And if we're being real, outside of this Reddit bubble, it might be a bigger problem than you or I think. I've not met any woman in real life who has gone out of their way to pay for a date, or split a check, or directly pursue a man they liked without already being in some type of intimate relationship with him. I've even asked one of my female friends about just those initial actions and her words -verbatim- were "what I gotta do all that for?" But then again that's just my experience.	Except the huge majority of men don’t need to worry about their personal safety when out on a date so you may need to adjust what you mean by “harder” --- Hear we go again ignoring men because women are unsafe. --- Who said anything about ignoring men? --- First thing this person says is, but women unsafe. Use your eyes. --- None of which include the words "ignore men." I've used my eyes, and noticed that you're imagining a secret meaning separate from what was actually safe. Perhaps you should try elaborating on your vague point instead of trying to guilt people into silence?	1jsb3lf	CMV: The average man objectively has it harder than the average women when it comes to dating	(US) Mainly this stems from my that about how men who complain about dating are “incels” or whatever. I think dating all around is terrible these days more so than it was in the past. I think the access to “easy” dating has actually made it far worse. I think there are some issues common to both men and women generally but I believe objectively men have it harder. If you take the average man and the average women, their experiences and issues might be pretty similar when it comes to dating but the reason men have it worse is the culture. There’s the expectation that men place more effort on the front end for no guarantees. In general men are expected to do the initiating of conversation, planning of the first date and paying of the first date. I think after this the issues are pretty even. But yeah I think it’s a valid complaint that shouldn’t be dismissed	Relevant_Actuary2205	5	5	[ { "author": "aguafiestas", "id": "mll2al1", "score": 41, "text": "Well which sex has a higher likelihood of being raped by their date?", "timestamp": 1743880675 }, { "author": "New_General3939", "id": "mll3hh3", "score": 11, "text": "While I don’t necessarily agree with OP, i...	[ { "author": "perksofbeingcrafty", "id": "mll279m", "score": 37, "text": "Except the huge majority of men don’t need to worry about their personal safety when out on a date so you may need to adjust what you mean by “harder”", "timestamp": 1743880643 }, { "author": "Far_Firefighter9448", ...	[ "mll2al1", "mll3hh3", "mll469r", "mll4jxc", "mllpbyz" ]	[ "mll279m", "mll2p7d", "mll330h", "mll370t", "mll3pw8" ]
CMV: If a Creator God aims to liberate "lost" humans, that essentially means that he created humans and deliberately ensured their attraction and desire to material goods and worldly pleasure so he could proceed to supposedly "liberate" them. I am currently in my process of becoming an atheist and this is one of the questions I have as I lessen my belief in Hinduism. Hinduism being a henotheistic religion has the concept of a supreme God. If this world was essentially created by the Supreme God, he would have to purposefully create it too possess material wealth and worldly pleasure to lure humans off the path of devotion and worship. Seeing as his primary goal is said to be of one that liberates us mortals because of our deviation from a pure life, why would he create a world with temptations then? It makes it look as if he does this for his own enjoyment because he could easily destroy us mortals completely and our souls and create a new universe. So why would he spend time creating us and this world and then making it flawed to tempt us off the path of devotion to then proceed to attempt to liberate us? That doesn't make him all-powerful, that would make him seem like more of a well-intentioned mentor, and therefore defeat the possibility that he is the creator as then he would not have full control over this universe nor would he have been able to create it. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm a game designer. When I'm making a level or mission for players to move through, I get to choose how difficult it is for players to progress. I can make it trivial, impossible, or anywhere in between. The point isn't really the obstacle; it's the challenge that the obstacle presents that matters. It gives players the chance to react, adapt, and grow in a way that wouldn't happen if my level was just a hallway with a "You Win" sign at the end. You can think of supreme guidance in the universe in much the same way. The Creator might be able to make things easy and nice, but things don't adapt or evolve under those conditions. Harshness and challenges are a vital part of the experience. Any "liberation" the Creator does afterwards can be seen as gentle nudges towards the "correct solution" to the problem that has been set before humans. In this way, the Creator would be more like a teacher or mentor than savior. (I hold this position in earnest, because I don't think this specific aspect of theism is contradictory. That said, I'm not arguing in favor of theism in general, and am limiting my response to only the criticism laid out in OP's post) --- Yes, that is exactly the elaboration of my point regarding the supposed higher power (God) being more of a mentor! Thanks for phrasing it out so well, at that point in time I could not coherently phrase my thoughts. --- I get you, but what I'm trying to get at is that there might be a reason for the Creator to both create a universe and creatures inside it and create obstacles for them and encourage them to overcome the obstacles without directly making it easier for them. Adversity is a part of growth, so it would make sense that even in a fully created world, you could still find tension. To put it another way: the answer to the question "Why didn't the Creator just make perfect beings?" is: How do you know that's not what's happening? What if this is how those perfect beings are made? --- alright, what is there to do after we become "perfect beings"? If that's the end goal, what is so satisfying about this end goal to God and to us? Wouldn't that mean that we're eternally trapped in this journey and post-goal achievement of being perfect? Ah, feels hopeless and depressing to think of my existence like this. --- There's a concept in psychology called the "hedonic treadmill." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill The basic idea is that even when your life gets better, you eventually adjust to it and return to your baseline level of happiness. A good example is winning the lottery - hugely exciting and joyful for a bit, but eventually you adjust to being a rich person and you don't spend every moment feeling overjoyed that you're rich. It just becomes normal to you. The takeaway for me is that humans need constant improvement (change) in order to feel a high level of happiness. I've wondered whether we would get bored with Heaven even if it exists, since it would be perfect to begin with and there's nowhere to improve from there. Maybe after a few weeks of bliss, we'd start to wonder if that's all there is to things. Maybe a bit off-topic, but I think it's getting at the same issue you bring up of needing striving and improvement to get satisfaction, and how there really can't be a "perfect" end state to that.	Well God knows what we are going to do, but He gave us free will, therefore we are free whether or not we want to do something. We are free to make our choices, but there needs to be a test. Otherwise, there is no struggle for Paradise, and your intentions wouldn't be tested. --- Paradise seems rather overrated, personally. Is there any incentive for it as of now? To convince me to return to religion and prayer. --- You judge what you don't know. You aren't in Paradise so you wouldn't know all the perfection that is There. The reason that God sends us down as humans once in a long time is for us to experience struggle again. But you don't have any memories of Heaven once you enter Earth. --- Then what is the incentive for me to follow religion and prayer for this Paradise if I am unaware of its greatness with this human life I am living? --- Because we do know that it is infinitely better than Earth. It is a place of perfection.	793e9q	CMV: If a Creator God aims to liberate "lost" humans, that essentially means that he created humans and deliberately ensured their attraction and desire to material goods and worldly pleasure so he could proceed to supposedly "liberate" them.	I am currently in my process of becoming an atheist and this is one of the questions I have as I lessen my belief in Hinduism. Hinduism being a henotheistic religion has the concept of a supreme God. If this world was essentially created by the Supreme God, he would have to purposefully create it too possess material wealth and worldly pleasure to lure humans off the path of devotion and worship. Seeing as his primary goal is said to be of one that liberates us mortals because of our deviation from a pure life, why would he create a world with temptations then? It makes it look as if he does this for his own enjoyment because he could easily destroy us mortals completely and our souls and create a new universe. So why would he spend time creating us and this world and then making it flawed to tempt us off the path of devotion to then proceed to attempt to liberate us? That doesn't make him all-powerful, that would make him seem like more of a well-intentioned mentor, and therefore defeat the possibility that he is the creator as then he would not have full control over this universe nor would he have been able to create it. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	memeyar	5	5	[ { "author": "thousandlives", "id": "doyw8tg", "score": 387, "text": "I'm a game designer. When I'm making a level or mission for players to move through, I get to choose how difficult it is for players to progress. I can make it trivial, impossible, or anywhere in between. The point isn't really the...	[ { "author": "lottofrom8mile", "id": "doyxpjw", "score": 2, "text": "Well God knows what we are going to do, but He gave us free will, therefore we are free whether or not we want to do something. We are free to make our choices, but there needs to be a test. Otherwise, there is no struggle for Parad...	[ "doyw8tg", "doywpow", "doyx23v", "doyxajz", "doz05de" ]	[ "doyxpjw", "doyxx2v", "doyy5no", "doyyea0", "doyyglk" ]
CMV: If a Creator God aims to liberate "lost" humans, that essentially means that he created humans and deliberately ensured their attraction and desire to material goods and worldly pleasure so he could proceed to supposedly "liberate" them. I am currently in my process of becoming an atheist and this is one of the questions I have as I lessen my belief in Hinduism. Hinduism being a henotheistic religion has the concept of a supreme God. If this world was essentially created by the Supreme God, he would have to purposefully create it too possess material wealth and worldly pleasure to lure humans off the path of devotion and worship. Seeing as his primary goal is said to be of one that liberates us mortals because of our deviation from a pure life, why would he create a world with temptations then? It makes it look as if he does this for his own enjoyment because he could easily destroy us mortals completely and our souls and create a new universe. So why would he spend time creating us and this world and then making it flawed to tempt us off the path of devotion to then proceed to attempt to liberate us? That doesn't make him all-powerful, that would make him seem like more of a well-intentioned mentor, and therefore defeat the possibility that he is the creator as then he would not have full control over this universe nor would he have been able to create it. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm a game designer. When I'm making a level or mission for players to move through, I get to choose how difficult it is for players to progress. I can make it trivial, impossible, or anywhere in between. The point isn't really the obstacle; it's the challenge that the obstacle presents that matters. It gives players the chance to react, adapt, and grow in a way that wouldn't happen if my level was just a hallway with a "You Win" sign at the end. You can think of supreme guidance in the universe in much the same way. The Creator might be able to make things easy and nice, but things don't adapt or evolve under those conditions. Harshness and challenges are a vital part of the experience. Any "liberation" the Creator does afterwards can be seen as gentle nudges towards the "correct solution" to the problem that has been set before humans. In this way, the Creator would be more like a teacher or mentor than savior. (I hold this position in earnest, because I don't think this specific aspect of theism is contradictory. That said, I'm not arguing in favor of theism in general, and am limiting my response to only the criticism laid out in OP's post) --- Yes, that is exactly the elaboration of my point regarding the supposed higher power (God) being more of a mentor! Thanks for phrasing it out so well, at that point in time I could not coherently phrase my thoughts. --- The big thing that's not being directly said is free will. I don't believe in God or anything, fyi. So not pushing an agenda. The creator created beings and gave them free will to see if they would do the right thing and come back to him. Honestly, to me, it's just stories with a point. It really boils down to some story that is suppose to tell you how to raise your children. Don't take away free will, but give them a good basis so they grow up and are "good" people. Its all about creating a good base for people, so they make the "good" choices with their free will. God is the parent, we are the children. --- What is our end goal? After death, what do we do as his children, especially if we are not perfect? Will we be a part of the cycle of birth and death or will we be banished to hell eternally for our lack of belief? --- The (Christian at least) hell is much misunderstood. Hell != eternal damnation and torture, hell is simply a kind of realm away from God for those who do not believe in him. Hell is loving. While God is incredibly unhappy the nonbeliever does not believe in him, he respects his/her belief by sending him/her away from him in death. --- Hell, I presume is painful. Therefore, not really respecting your beliefs if he's sending you to suffer with no specified time limit. Could I receive some consistent evidence for the point you have just stated? A verse? I'd like to corroborate. --- Only partially related to the point related to game design above but think of it like this: the creator didn't create us to see if it could. Of course it could, it's all powerful. It can create anything. Instead it created us as a test for itself, almost a personal trial. It wants to know if it's actually a being of pure good. By giving us free will it is testing how good it truly is by seeing if an intelligent creation will independently come to the conclusion that it is good. But without an alternative to belief the whole scenario is pointless. Heaven is basically a tally, one point for good for those in heaven and one point for bad for those in hell. That was, at the very least, the conclusion that my grandfather came to after a lifetime of studying religious texts. Logically it's the only reason that any God or creator could have for making us and giving us free will. That doesn't necessitate hell being bad, though. Just different to heaven. It's a moot point, I'm approaching this with human logic. We can't ever know if it's true, and religion has an answer for why. Faith is necessary and also contradicts knowledge. You don't put faith in facts, you put faith in conjecture and possibilities. Knowing the truth would ruin the trial, of course we're going to think that God is amazing if we know he exists. He wouldn't want us to know or it would ruin the trial. So you can't prove anything about faith, everybody has to find their own reasoning for it. Personally I don't believe in things without evidence, games of logic don't prove anything at all. Still fun to talk about though.	[deleted] --- I've mentioned earlier that I was a part of the Hindu faith. It's meant to be the background information as a specific religion. Therefore you can take that to be the religion I refer to in my replies unless I have explicitly stated or the reply I receive makes explicit reference to another religion. --- [deleted] --- No issue and no contradiction as far as I am aware. technically, if he's all-powerful, he CAN make any statement come true. --- [deleted] --- apologies for any misunderstandings. If he wills it, he can essentially still make anything come true. the first definition essentially means he can make anything come true, it's just up to him if he wants to or not. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- [deleted]	793e9q	CMV: If a Creator God aims to liberate "lost" humans, that essentially means that he created humans and deliberately ensured their attraction and desire to material goods and worldly pleasure so he could proceed to supposedly "liberate" them.	I am currently in my process of becoming an atheist and this is one of the questions I have as I lessen my belief in Hinduism. Hinduism being a henotheistic religion has the concept of a supreme God. If this world was essentially created by the Supreme God, he would have to purposefully create it too possess material wealth and worldly pleasure to lure humans off the path of devotion and worship. Seeing as his primary goal is said to be of one that liberates us mortals because of our deviation from a pure life, why would he create a world with temptations then? It makes it look as if he does this for his own enjoyment because he could easily destroy us mortals completely and our souls and create a new universe. So why would he spend time creating us and this world and then making it flawed to tempt us off the path of devotion to then proceed to attempt to liberate us? That doesn't make him all-powerful, that would make him seem like more of a well-intentioned mentor, and therefore defeat the possibility that he is the creator as then he would not have full control over this universe nor would he have been able to create it. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	memeyar	7	7	[ { "author": "thousandlives", "id": "doyw8tg", "score": 387, "text": "I'm a game designer. When I'm making a level or mission for players to move through, I get to choose how difficult it is for players to progress. I can make it trivial, impossible, or anywhere in between. The point isn't really the...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "doyy9je", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1509119924 }, { "author": "memeyar", "id": "doyym06", "score": 2, "text": "I've mentioned earlier that I was a part of the Hindu faith. It's meant to be the background information as a spe...	[ "doyw8tg", "doywpow", "doyx8sq", "doyxf4k", "doyyj38", "doyz02j", "doz0adn" ]	[ "doyy9je", "doyym06", "doyysxp", "doyz76z", "doyzcw6", "doyzfhv", "doyzkbs" ]
CMV: Being obsessed with social media can actually be good I think that social media can actually work similarly as actively writing your own autobiography. This applies less to Twitter and Instagram and more to Facebook, because the first two feel very limited, almost entirely designed for mobile use and aren't feature rich life Facebook, in which one can write, share pictures, have comment threads, share, etc. I do believe that if you use it with absolute honesty, having your life laid in front of your eyes with a list of friends, pictures of significant events and words (or whatever you feel like, cryptic song lyrics included lol) for the events and things that are too personal to be expressed, is a really powerful exercise to build up from where you are and know what to do next, who to do it with, what and who you like, what and who you don't, etcetera. I feel like if you treat your profile/autobiography like a piece of art you're constantly developing, you'd always strive for ways to make it better and if you're a creative person this method could definitely change your life. I feel that because I experienced it first hand, when I joined Facebook around ten years ago I was in middle school and it changed my life, I felt like I was building myself actively in order to make my profile better, which sounds horrible, but you could say the same for someone that wants to be a better person in order for their autobiography to be better. Or someone that wants to be a better person in order for their life to be better. I think it's all pretty much the same. EDIT: "Obsessed" is too much, agree I think there's a famous quote said by a pope that goes like "take your life and turn it into a piece of art". Isn't it the same? Sometimes I think like this and I am quite conflicted because it feels wrong but I can't quite pick it apart. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	You're describing an online journal or blog not social media. The issue with social media is really the "like" and "share buttons". Even if you just try to post an open honest thing you are haunted by those like buttons. Those likes are social approval of which almost all humans crave. You get a rush of dopamine when you watch those likes tick up and up, but each time you post something you need more and more likes to get that same dopamine rush. You start embellishing and excluding things because you're hooked on the chemical rush of how important everyone thinks your are or how wonderful everyone thinks your life is. As soon as you put a rating option next to your posts the "art" goes out the window. You don't make art to gain people's approval you do it to share your sentiment or your emotions or your opinion. Being obsessed with social media is chemically the same as being addicted to cigarettes. Be obsessed with logging your life be it in a journal or online format, is vastly different than social media. There's no response from the reader, there's only you putting yourself out there without the possibility to be graded. --- You make a great point. Likes can corrupt a person, and I see every day posts from people that have just nothing genuine about them, and just want that dopamine rush at the cost of their integrity. But I actually think it's cool to have unpopular opinions and thoughts, and I genuinely believe it. A person that does nothing but follow others' approval is actually a terrible person that won't actually do anything to go against anybody, which is awful, because evil exists in the world, and you have to be able to clash with people. In some ways I think the like argument for social media is the same argument for money in real life. Getting money is a rush and everyone likes to get more, but money doesn't corrupt everyone. And if you're a great person that does great things, you will get the rush because you deserve it, be it likes or money, and it won't even matter that much, because you are actually a great person that does great things. --- I mean, as an easy autobiography, there's no real advantage to using something like facebook over a blog. Therefore, I'd say that this is not really a "pro" in favor of facebook, since it is not a unique service that facebook provides. For this goal, what advantage does facebook or other social media have over a personal blog? I understand that blog might fall into the realm of social media depending on how you define it, but I take it that you are trying to argue for things like facebook, not like blogs. I would say that if one is motivated to appear to be improving on social media, then a lot of the time this will not lead to steps that are necessary for real improvement. Additionally, this pressure to look good acts more as a threatening stick than a good reward, and it makes people anxious. I'm pretty sure the science is behind that. So if you really believe that your facebook friends have a better idea of what good life choices are for you than you do, then I'd say your motivation works. I think that would be a ridiculous thing to say though. I think that in the end the approval of your facebook friends, as well as any endeavor with the goal of appeasing them, will feel relatively empty compared to the life of persona satisfaction and improvement that you could have lived.	What if it comes at the cost of real life interactions? Or at the cost of productivity at work? --- I don't mean obsessing on social media like spending a lot of time on it, just live your life for the purpose of having things to put on it. This means that you actually have to have a great life first --- I would not define that as obsession then. A person obsessed with social media would also actively be following others lives.	7sq7w6	CMV: Being obsessed with social media can actually be good	I think that social media can actually work similarly as actively writing your own autobiography. This applies less to Twitter and Instagram and more to Facebook, because the first two feel very limited, almost entirely designed for mobile use and aren't feature rich life Facebook, in which one can write, share pictures, have comment threads, share, etc. I do believe that if you use it with absolute honesty, having your life laid in front of your eyes with a list of friends, pictures of significant events and words (or whatever you feel like, cryptic song lyrics included lol) for the events and things that are too personal to be expressed, is a really powerful exercise to build up from where you are and know what to do next, who to do it with, what and who you like, what and who you don't, etcetera. I feel like if you treat your profile/autobiography like a piece of art you're constantly developing, you'd always strive for ways to make it better and if you're a creative person this method could definitely change your life. I feel that because I experienced it first hand, when I joined Facebook around ten years ago I was in middle school and it changed my life, I felt like I was building myself actively in order to make my profile better, which sounds horrible, but you could say the same for someone that wants to be a better person in order for their autobiography to be better. Or someone that wants to be a better person in order for their life to be better. I think it's all pretty much the same. EDIT: "Obsessed" is too much, agree I think there's a famous quote said by a pope that goes like "take your life and turn it into a piece of art". Isn't it the same? Sometimes I think like this and I am quite conflicted because it feels wrong but I can't quite pick it apart. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Furlentyspudder	3	3	[ { "author": "rehcsel", "id": "dt6o9uf", "score": 3, "text": "You're describing an online journal or blog not social media. The issue with social media is really the \"like\" and \"share buttons\". Even if you just try to post an open honest thing you are haunted by those like buttons. Those likes ar...	[ { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "dt6o7sq", "score": 0, "text": "What if it comes at the cost of real life interactions? Or at the cost of productivity at work?", "timestamp": 1516827302 }, { "author": "Furlentyspudder", "id": "dt6orlh", "score": 1, "text": "I don't mean obsess...	[ "dt6o9uf", "dt6ppjy", "dt79x3j" ]	[ "dt6o7sq", "dt6orlh", "dt6oxro" ]
CMV: Traffic laws should be enforced by an unarmed traffic department Having police officers enforce traffic laws is an inefficient use of resources and creates unnecessarily dangerous situations for both the public and the police officers. Police have so many difficult jobs to do and taking traffic enforcement off the list would allow them to focus and get better at the other responsibilities they have. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest. If they determine a more serious crime may have happened they can stay in their vehicle and call police for backup. The vast majority of stops are peaceful interactions with otherwise law abiding citizens. When getting pulled over, even a potential violent criminal would not be provoked to escalate the situation to violence if they knew the person stopping them was unarmed and could not detain or arrest them. If someone flees a traffic stop, real cops would be called in for backup. Having a fully trained and equipped police officer sitting on the side of the highway waiting to ticket people is a big waste or resources. Traffic monitors would require far less training and equipment and therefore be easier on the budget. A police department that currently has 100 patrol officers could instead have 75 officers and 40 less expensive traffic monitors for the same total budget (obviously not exact math but you get the idea). More cops then means the cops could spend more time training and focusing on situations that really require cops. Serving some period of time on the traffic enforcement corp (a year maybe) could be a pre-requisite for starting the police academy. This could serve as a long trial period to see how well a person does interacting with the public before they are given the higher responsibility of a real officer. Is this a good idea? Poke holes in it if you can! I know I'm far from the first person to propose it but I'd like to know why this isn't being implemented in every department nationwide. What are the downsides? CMV! Edit 1: This post is about policing in the US. Edit 2: Thanks for all the responses! I have too many to engage everyone at this point so sorry if I didn't respond to you. This is what I'm gathering so far: I should have said the traffic monitor can detain but cannot arrest. A frequent response to that is "if they don't have a gun, no one would listen to them." I haven't been convinced of this. I think most people would stop when pulled over by an unarmed traffic monitor because the vast majority of people would rather accept a traffic ticket as opposed to risk getting caught for the much more serious offense of fleeing a traffic stop. The second kind of criticism I get is that the traffic monitor would not be able to catch serious criminals. "What if the person had a pound of meth in the trunk." My response to this is that the purpose of the traffic monitors is to enforce the traffic laws, not catch drug dealers. To change my view from this standpoint you would have to show that traffic stops are a vital tool for enforcing non-traffic related laws. I'd need a data based argument. Another interesting point is that we should eliminate human traffic enforcement altogether. I have to think about this one more. A traffic cam can send you a ticket in the mail, sure, but I think people getting pulled over immediately after committing a traffic infraction is more effective as a deterrent to bad traffic behavior. The last criticism (which I expected) would be that the traffic monitor would be in danger of being shot/assaulted/ect. My position is that being unarmed means the monitor is less in danger. Why shoot at the person who is unarmed and can't arrest you? The best argument I've heard against my position is that the criminal mind is sometimes unburdened by logic. Sometimes criminals do crazy and violent stuff for unknowable reasons. I buy this. But I still think overall this proposal would lead to fewer fatalities, not more.	Traffic stops are actually one of the most likely situations for a police officer to get shot at. For most people on the road, they have no motivation to make their situation worse and just want to pay their ticket or challenge it in court. However, for situations where the person being pulled over is engaged in some sort of other illegal activity that has the potential to be revealed after a closer look at their vehicle, they may decide that shooting at the officer is the right call. People do this as things are now even knowing that the officers are armed and can shoot back. If it is known that all traffic stops will be done by unarmed officers, people will be more likely to take this option. I would say that if there is any situation where you would want a regular patrol officer to be armed, it would be while making traffic stops. --- >If it is known that all traffic stops will be done by unarmed officers, people will be more likely to take this option. My argument is that knowing the person stopping you is unarmed will make you less likely to shoot at them, not more. What do you have to gain by shooting at someone who is unarmed and can't arrest you? You prefer a murder charge to a speeding ticket? --- This typically doesn't come up when the person is just facing a speeding ticket. It comes up when someone is drug-running or has similar evidence of a more serious crime in the vehicle. In some cases, it might be evidence of a previous murder. They decide that dropping a body is worth the chance that they might get away. Especially if it is someone who already has active warrants, they know that the cops are already looking for them so their face showing up on a body cam isn't a detriment. If they are already fucked if they get caught, they are going to do everything they can to avoid getting caught. For most traffic stops, this situation doesn't apply. But, the problem is that when an officer pulls someone over they can never be quite sure what kind of stop it will be. The minivan transporting soccer kids and the minivan transporting hundreds of pounds of heroin look the same from the outside. --- >The minivan transporting soccer kids and the minivan transporting hundreds of pounds of heroin look the same from the outside. If the person is hauling heroin, why would they pull over, regardless of whether the traffic enforcer is armed? So traffic monitor lights them up, they start to flee, traffic monitor pursues to maintain visual contact and calls in backup. Note, spotted a vehicle owned by a person that already has an active warrant is automatically a situation where a cop would get involved immediately. That doesn't fall under traffic enforcement. If someone is speeding, you look up the license plate. Owned by someone with a warrant? Call the cops. Can you give me an example hypothetical situation where the outcome was much better with armed officers doing traffic enforcement? Tell me how you think it plays out with an armed officer and how you think it plays out under my proposal? --- You say they take off when traffic monitor lights them up, then traffic monitor follows. You ask for hypothetical scenario based on your example, so here goes... 1) you just tacked on massive costs on traffic monitor training because they now have to be trained in high speed driving. 2) your heroin dealer pulls over, and hopes to not get recognized. 2a) he shoots traffic monitor because he knows that "real" cops will come, but now they don't know where he is, thus he has a head start. 2b) he doesn't get recognized because he doesn't have an active warrant, traffic guy doesn't recognize obvious human or drug traffic signs (because he isn't a trained law enforcement officer), city gets sued (because of OD deaths that they let through there fingers, and cops even more degraded because they let a drug/human smuggler go. Community is now worse off	>. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest So just let drunk drivers keep drunk driving? --- This would be a situation where a real officer would be called for backup. --- >unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest So I just leave. --- !delta Good point. With what I am describing, the traffic monitor would have the power to detain. I suppose what I am really saying is that they wouldn't have the means to force the suspect to comply. Fleeing however would expose the suspect to a much more serious offense. The traffic monitor now has your face on their body cam clear as day. The traffic monitor asks you to wait in your car while they look up your license/reg and (unbeknownst to you) calls in backup. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Sirhc978 ([24∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Sirhc978)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	q6186e	CMV: Traffic laws should be enforced by an unarmed traffic department	Having police officers enforce traffic laws is an inefficient use of resources and creates unnecessarily dangerous situations for both the public and the police officers. Police have so many difficult jobs to do and taking traffic enforcement off the list would allow them to focus and get better at the other responsibilities they have. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest. If they determine a more serious crime may have happened they can stay in their vehicle and call police for backup. The vast majority of stops are peaceful interactions with otherwise law abiding citizens. When getting pulled over, even a potential violent criminal would not be provoked to escalate the situation to violence if they knew the person stopping them was unarmed and could not detain or arrest them. If someone flees a traffic stop, real cops would be called in for backup. Having a fully trained and equipped police officer sitting on the side of the highway waiting to ticket people is a big waste or resources. Traffic monitors would require far less training and equipment and therefore be easier on the budget. A police department that currently has 100 patrol officers could instead have 75 officers and 40 less expensive traffic monitors for the same total budget (obviously not exact math but you get the idea). More cops then means the cops could spend more time training and focusing on situations that really require cops. Serving some period of time on the traffic enforcement corp (a year maybe) could be a pre-requisite for starting the police academy. This could serve as a long trial period to see how well a person does interacting with the public before they are given the higher responsibility of a real officer. Is this a good idea? Poke holes in it if you can! I know I'm far from the first person to propose it but I'd like to know why this isn't being implemented in every department nationwide. What are the downsides? CMV! Edit 1: This post is about policing in the US. Edit 2: Thanks for all the responses! I have too many to engage everyone at this point so sorry if I didn't respond to you. This is what I'm gathering so far: I should have said the traffic monitor can detain but cannot arrest. A frequent response to that is "if they don't have a gun, no one would listen to them." I haven't been convinced of this. I think most people would stop when pulled over by an unarmed traffic monitor because the vast majority of people would rather accept a traffic ticket as opposed to risk getting caught for the much more serious offense of fleeing a traffic stop. The second kind of criticism I get is that the traffic monitor would not be able to catch serious criminals. "What if the person had a pound of meth in the trunk." My response to this is that the purpose of the traffic monitors is to enforce the traffic laws, not catch drug dealers. To change my view from this standpoint you would have to show that traffic stops are a vital tool for enforcing non-traffic related laws. I'd need a data based argument. Another interesting point is that we should eliminate human traffic enforcement altogether. I have to think about this one more. A traffic cam can send you a ticket in the mail, sure, but I think people getting pulled over immediately after committing a traffic infraction is more effective as a deterrent to bad traffic behavior. The last criticism (which I expected) would be that the traffic monitor would be in danger of being shot/assaulted/ect. My position is that being unarmed means the monitor is less in danger. Why shoot at the person who is unarmed and can't arrest you? The best argument I've heard against my position is that the criminal mind is sometimes unburdened by logic. Sometimes criminals do crazy and violent stuff for unknowable reasons. I buy this. But I still think overall this proposal would lead to fewer fatalities, not more.	ee_anon	5	5	[ { "author": "Crayshack", "id": "hg99q77", "score": 214, "text": "Traffic stops are actually one of the most likely situations for a police officer to get shot at. For most people on the road, they have no motivation to make their situation worse and just want to pay their ticket or challenge it in ...	[ { "author": "Sirhc978", "id": "hg958s7", "score": 51, "text": ">. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest\n\nSo just let drunk drivers keep drunk driving?", "timestamp": 1633974370 }, { "author": "...	[ "hg99q77", "hg9c62e", "hg9d5wz", "hg9fzfy", "hg9sbye" ]	[ "hg958s7", "hg97cau", "hg97h63", "hg97znh", "hg985gz" ]
CMV: Traffic laws should be enforced by an unarmed traffic department Having police officers enforce traffic laws is an inefficient use of resources and creates unnecessarily dangerous situations for both the public and the police officers. Police have so many difficult jobs to do and taking traffic enforcement off the list would allow them to focus and get better at the other responsibilities they have. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest. If they determine a more serious crime may have happened they can stay in their vehicle and call police for backup. The vast majority of stops are peaceful interactions with otherwise law abiding citizens. When getting pulled over, even a potential violent criminal would not be provoked to escalate the situation to violence if they knew the person stopping them was unarmed and could not detain or arrest them. If someone flees a traffic stop, real cops would be called in for backup. Having a fully trained and equipped police officer sitting on the side of the highway waiting to ticket people is a big waste or resources. Traffic monitors would require far less training and equipment and therefore be easier on the budget. A police department that currently has 100 patrol officers could instead have 75 officers and 40 less expensive traffic monitors for the same total budget (obviously not exact math but you get the idea). More cops then means the cops could spend more time training and focusing on situations that really require cops. Serving some period of time on the traffic enforcement corp (a year maybe) could be a pre-requisite for starting the police academy. This could serve as a long trial period to see how well a person does interacting with the public before they are given the higher responsibility of a real officer. Is this a good idea? Poke holes in it if you can! I know I'm far from the first person to propose it but I'd like to know why this isn't being implemented in every department nationwide. What are the downsides? CMV! Edit 1: This post is about policing in the US. Edit 2: Thanks for all the responses! I have too many to engage everyone at this point so sorry if I didn't respond to you. This is what I'm gathering so far: I should have said the traffic monitor can detain but cannot arrest. A frequent response to that is "if they don't have a gun, no one would listen to them." I haven't been convinced of this. I think most people would stop when pulled over by an unarmed traffic monitor because the vast majority of people would rather accept a traffic ticket as opposed to risk getting caught for the much more serious offense of fleeing a traffic stop. The second kind of criticism I get is that the traffic monitor would not be able to catch serious criminals. "What if the person had a pound of meth in the trunk." My response to this is that the purpose of the traffic monitors is to enforce the traffic laws, not catch drug dealers. To change my view from this standpoint you would have to show that traffic stops are a vital tool for enforcing non-traffic related laws. I'd need a data based argument. Another interesting point is that we should eliminate human traffic enforcement altogether. I have to think about this one more. A traffic cam can send you a ticket in the mail, sure, but I think people getting pulled over immediately after committing a traffic infraction is more effective as a deterrent to bad traffic behavior. The last criticism (which I expected) would be that the traffic monitor would be in danger of being shot/assaulted/ect. My position is that being unarmed means the monitor is less in danger. Why shoot at the person who is unarmed and can't arrest you? The best argument I've heard against my position is that the criminal mind is sometimes unburdened by logic. Sometimes criminals do crazy and violent stuff for unknowable reasons. I buy this. But I still think overall this proposal would lead to fewer fatalities, not more.	Traffic stops are actually one of the most likely situations for a police officer to get shot at. For most people on the road, they have no motivation to make their situation worse and just want to pay their ticket or challenge it in court. However, for situations where the person being pulled over is engaged in some sort of other illegal activity that has the potential to be revealed after a closer look at their vehicle, they may decide that shooting at the officer is the right call. People do this as things are now even knowing that the officers are armed and can shoot back. If it is known that all traffic stops will be done by unarmed officers, people will be more likely to take this option. I would say that if there is any situation where you would want a regular patrol officer to be armed, it would be while making traffic stops. --- >If it is known that all traffic stops will be done by unarmed officers, people will be more likely to take this option. My argument is that knowing the person stopping you is unarmed will make you less likely to shoot at them, not more. What do you have to gain by shooting at someone who is unarmed and can't arrest you? You prefer a murder charge to a speeding ticket? --- Here is a situation that shows what other people have said. The officer did not provoke the person. They weren’t doing anything illegal. And he literally got murdered execution style because of a speeding ticket. This officer even tried desecalating with a literal gun in his face loaded and still didn’t draw his and it still went south. This case is actually the reason that shoot now ask questions later existed. Most of people’s common concerns with modern cops come from this video about 20 years ago WARNING NSFL https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1150706/WARNING-GRAPHIC-Police-officer-shot-dead-Vietnam-veteran.html	So what happends if they pull over a drunk driver or someone with a bunch or meth in the car --- Clearly those people will submit because it's the right thing to do. Nobody has ever been violent about being stopped with narcotics in the car. /s --- Totally just gonna wait for the cops actually arrest them right	q6186e	CMV: Traffic laws should be enforced by an unarmed traffic department	Having police officers enforce traffic laws is an inefficient use of resources and creates unnecessarily dangerous situations for both the public and the police officers. Police have so many difficult jobs to do and taking traffic enforcement off the list would allow them to focus and get better at the other responsibilities they have. Traffic stops and issuing of tickets should be performed by unarmed traffic monitors who do not have the power to detain or arrest. If they determine a more serious crime may have happened they can stay in their vehicle and call police for backup. The vast majority of stops are peaceful interactions with otherwise law abiding citizens. When getting pulled over, even a potential violent criminal would not be provoked to escalate the situation to violence if they knew the person stopping them was unarmed and could not detain or arrest them. If someone flees a traffic stop, real cops would be called in for backup. Having a fully trained and equipped police officer sitting on the side of the highway waiting to ticket people is a big waste or resources. Traffic monitors would require far less training and equipment and therefore be easier on the budget. A police department that currently has 100 patrol officers could instead have 75 officers and 40 less expensive traffic monitors for the same total budget (obviously not exact math but you get the idea). More cops then means the cops could spend more time training and focusing on situations that really require cops. Serving some period of time on the traffic enforcement corp (a year maybe) could be a pre-requisite for starting the police academy. This could serve as a long trial period to see how well a person does interacting with the public before they are given the higher responsibility of a real officer. Is this a good idea? Poke holes in it if you can! I know I'm far from the first person to propose it but I'd like to know why this isn't being implemented in every department nationwide. What are the downsides? CMV! Edit 1: This post is about policing in the US. Edit 2: Thanks for all the responses! I have too many to engage everyone at this point so sorry if I didn't respond to you. This is what I'm gathering so far: I should have said the traffic monitor can detain but cannot arrest. A frequent response to that is "if they don't have a gun, no one would listen to them." I haven't been convinced of this. I think most people would stop when pulled over by an unarmed traffic monitor because the vast majority of people would rather accept a traffic ticket as opposed to risk getting caught for the much more serious offense of fleeing a traffic stop. The second kind of criticism I get is that the traffic monitor would not be able to catch serious criminals. "What if the person had a pound of meth in the trunk." My response to this is that the purpose of the traffic monitors is to enforce the traffic laws, not catch drug dealers. To change my view from this standpoint you would have to show that traffic stops are a vital tool for enforcing non-traffic related laws. I'd need a data based argument. Another interesting point is that we should eliminate human traffic enforcement altogether. I have to think about this one more. A traffic cam can send you a ticket in the mail, sure, but I think people getting pulled over immediately after committing a traffic infraction is more effective as a deterrent to bad traffic behavior. The last criticism (which I expected) would be that the traffic monitor would be in danger of being shot/assaulted/ect. My position is that being unarmed means the monitor is less in danger. Why shoot at the person who is unarmed and can't arrest you? The best argument I've heard against my position is that the criminal mind is sometimes unburdened by logic. Sometimes criminals do crazy and violent stuff for unknowable reasons. I buy this. But I still think overall this proposal would lead to fewer fatalities, not more.	ee_anon	3	3	[ { "author": "Crayshack", "id": "hg99q77", "score": 214, "text": "Traffic stops are actually one of the most likely situations for a police officer to get shot at. For most people on the road, they have no motivation to make their situation worse and just want to pay their ticket or challenge it in ...	[ { "author": "lucksh0t", "id": "hg9698m", "score": 47, "text": "So what happends if they pull over a drunk driver or someone with a bunch or meth in the car", "timestamp": 1633974776 }, { "author": "Clickum245", "id": "hg979jb", "score": 24, "text": "Clearly those people will ...	[ "hg99q77", "hg9c62e", "hgcvkcy" ]	[ "hg9698m", "hg979jb", "hg97f1d" ]
CMV: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, Steel is an accurate representation of why society has progressed like it has. I often see much hate for the ideas in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel but few of them ever seem to live up to scrutiny on my part. The overall main idea of the book is that geography is the main driving factor in human history, and some of the more specific examples for why the Americas were colonized and not vice versa was because Europeans had access to better weapons $Guns and Steel$ and because the diseases spread helped to wipe out native populations. Jared Diamond calls these 'proximate factors' in the sense that they are simply the cause of other differences between the two hemispheres. $i.e. the differences in the 'axis's' in the continents, the amount of domesticate\-able animals, etc$ I often see many unconvincing arguments against the book; the least sophisticating ones being that its racist or not racist enough $both of which I take no credence in$. Lots of the arguments I think come from people who haven't read the book and misunderstand it, for instance in [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/6wkz6r/did_european_conquerors_suffer_from_new_diseases/dm8s3ha/) post by the auto\-mods on r/history completely misunderstands the argument that Diamond makes when they say that "The construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world in general, as categorically inferior." which is completely incorrect. The book makes the exact opposite argument that Native Americans didn't have the same technology and political structures was because the incentives was because of the environment which didn't make it feasible. Like the lack of large domesticate\-able animals in the Americas $other than the llama and alpaca$ which hindered their abilities to grow larger amount of crops to support larger populations which can focus on producing more specialized technology. Whenever I look anything up about the book I see these arguments again and again. Some better\-ish arguments against the book I see are some of the inaccuracies of the native plants found in the Americas, which while it might undermine some of the credibility of the book, I feel that it doesn't completely debunk the overall ideas found in it. Another one I've found is that the book it is too deterministic in its view, which to me doesn't prove anything as it doesn't refute any of the truth found in the book. Kind of along both the 'racist' and 'deterministic' arguments I've found is that the book makes it seem like the European conquering was merely an accident and that the natives were helpless to resist. Which again is completely untrue as the natives obviously did resist, and the reason Europeans did conquer was because they had everything to gain from these expeditions. Overall, the reason I came here is to find some kind of good argument against the book's ideas. It seems that there is a lot bashing of the book but no actual criticism other than that bashing. So I really am open to changing my mind as I feel like there is some argument that I am missing in all of this that is what makes the book so hated.	I'm an archaeologist who works in Mesoamerica and has taught Guns, Germs, and Steel in my classes a couple times. I use the book in class because I do think it's solid and generates good discussions, but I also have issues with it. Diamond is what an archaeologist would call an environmental determinist, which you've already adequately described in your post, but I want to put it more general terms before I describe why it might be problematic. Environmental determinism essentially argues that cultures are shaped by the environment in the same way that biological structures evolve as a response to environment. That's not \wrong\, but there are other factors that anthropologists typically also want to take into account, such as human agency $i.e., the ability for people to make creative decisions despite the constraints of their surroundings$. Environmental determinism tends to break down when you try to explain the mundane day\-to\-day characteristics of cultures. For example, why do many East Asian languages require speakers to understand the age of other people in relation to their own age? That's a cultural characteristic that is deeply important and the sense of fealty to higher\-ranking people that comes with that has been relevant in military conflicts. So, is there an aspect of the East Asian environment that created that element of the cultures that exist there, or was it something that developed randomly, based on individual people's preferences and actions? That's an unanswerable question to some degree, but it seems unlikely that it's definitely a result of environmental factors. To return to Diamond's example of the colonization of the New World specifically, he's probably right that in that case, the various environmentally\-driven factors $most importantly disease$ stacked the deck hopelessly against the indigenous population, but there were also cultural factors that were relevant. A couple examples, $1$ Mesoamerican warfare revolved around capturing live combatants to use as sacrifices later. That the Spanish were willing to kill indiscriminately in battle was shocking to the natives, who were trying to throw nets on mounted riders to capture them. $2$ The Aztec empire had made a lot of enemies before the Spanish arrived. Building a civilization on the principle that the sun god needed to be fed with blood from human sacrifices led to the Aztecs capturing and sacrificing \a lot\ of people in Tenochtitlan. I'm sure you can imagine that those people's families weren't thrilled about that and held some grudges, which the Spanish were able to leverage to build alliances. I think it's tough to provide clearly environmental justifications for those factors. So to summarize \-\- he's not wrong, it's just a sort of click\-bait\-y version of the truth. He's giving you the one weird old trick to conquer a continent instead of the complex nuanced picture that includes lots of factors. --- It's been a while since I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I never got that he was a strict environmental determinist. I thought he was specifically trying to explain how European and Asian cultures advanced at a faster pace than cultures in other locations. He argued that geography drove that disparity, not innate differences between "races." That's a very specific claim. --- I think at least in the second edition he isn't a strict environmental determinist. But he leaves out all the counter-examples and details that hurt his thesis. He doesn't present the evidence in a balanced way to let readers draw their own conclusions. He presents the evidence of environmental determinism and then says that of course it's more nuanced and it's only a factor.	To start, I'm not a historian. I haven't read the whole book, but I'm familiar with the general idea of it and some of the criticisms leveled against it. From what I can gather, it's not that historians think he's incorrect, but it sounds like he is overemphasizing the importance of several key factors, making untestable hypotheses, and not really addressing what most historians think about. For example, I congratulate him on discovering that it's harder to thrive in the Sahara Desert or the Arctic Circle than it is in the lush, verdant fields of Europe. But I don't think it's as mind-blowing as he thinks it is. Also, it sort of seems to me like he's telling another [Just-So story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story). He's defining the parameters of the hypothesis to fit the narrative. The question he addresses is: "People of Eurasian origin dominate the world in wealth and power." But why wouldn't he also try and explain the Islamic Golden Age and their conquest of Asia. Or the Mongol empire. The Chinese were vastly more powerful and wealthy than Europe for hundreds of years. But Trans-Atlantic conquest is focused in part because that's what dominated most recently. If he lived back then, he could probably contrive a different narrative. While it does a good job arguing against the crude racist explanations that were standard dogma in the 19th and 20th centuries, he doesn't really talk about the role that that belief played in European colonization. Colonization was seen as "spreading civilization and Christendom to the savage peoples of the world." Just because they were wrong about that doesn't mean their belief didn't play an important part. There's also the role that geopolitics and intergroup conflict plays in history... it's really hard to incorporate that into his viewpoint. --- >making untestable hypotheses This bothered me. He used the fact that Africans never domesticated the Zebra as evidence that domesticating Zebras is just impossible, and that Europeans wouldn't be able to domesticate them either. Of course Europeans spent thousands of years domesticating Horses, and would have no reason to try and wouldn't throw all that work out for a shittier smaller striped horse, after having made contact with Africa. But if Europeans had started in Africa, there's no doubt in my mind that Zebras would not only be domesticated, but bred into the distinct varieties we see in horses today, given a similar time frame. That's untestable, of course. All we have to go on in reality is that Europeans domesticated horses and Africans didn't domesticate zebras. --- Sorry for the late response, but the horse and the zebra are a lot different from each other in a way that actually did it nearly impossible for them to be domesticated. First of all, the Zebra has a radically different social structure from that of the horse. The zebras mainly travel in herds more akin to buffalo in that there was no 'top zebra' and it was more like a loose conglomeration of zebras staying together. The horse on the other hand a kind of hierarchical structure that made it easier to exploit and domesticate in that if you could take control of the entire 'top horse' you could take control of th entire herd. Meanwhile with zebras you could maybe tame a single zebra, but not take the rest of the herd so it would be very hard to get your own population of zebras under your command. Also the horse probably wasn't domesticated in Europe, instead likely in the steppes of Asia as the horses had barely survived the extinction of the mega fauna 12,000 years ago and had in fact done so in the Americas up to this point. That's just a nitpick though that doesn't have any bearing argument.	8o8xao	CMV: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, Steel is an accurate representation of why society has progressed like it has.	I often see much hate for the ideas in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel but few of them ever seem to live up to scrutiny on my part. The overall main idea of the book is that geography is the main driving factor in human history, and some of the more specific examples for why the Americas were colonized and not vice versa was because Europeans had access to better weapons $Guns and Steel$ and because the diseases spread helped to wipe out native populations. Jared Diamond calls these 'proximate factors' in the sense that they are simply the cause of other differences between the two hemispheres. $i.e. the differences in the 'axis's' in the continents, the amount of domesticate\-able animals, etc$ I often see many unconvincing arguments against the book; the least sophisticating ones being that its racist or not racist enough $both of which I take no credence in$. Lots of the arguments I think come from people who haven't read the book and misunderstand it, for instance in [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/6wkz6r/did_european_conquerors_suffer_from_new_diseases/dm8s3ha/) post by the auto\-mods on r/history completely misunderstands the argument that Diamond makes when they say that "The construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world in general, as categorically inferior." which is completely incorrect. The book makes the exact opposite argument that Native Americans didn't have the same technology and political structures was because the incentives was because of the environment which didn't make it feasible. Like the lack of large domesticate\-able animals in the Americas $other than the llama and alpaca$ which hindered their abilities to grow larger amount of crops to support larger populations which can focus on producing more specialized technology. Whenever I look anything up about the book I see these arguments again and again. Some better\-ish arguments against the book I see are some of the inaccuracies of the native plants found in the Americas, which while it might undermine some of the credibility of the book, I feel that it doesn't completely debunk the overall ideas found in it. Another one I've found is that the book it is too deterministic in its view, which to me doesn't prove anything as it doesn't refute any of the truth found in the book. Kind of along both the 'racist' and 'deterministic' arguments I've found is that the book makes it seem like the European conquering was merely an accident and that the natives were helpless to resist. Which again is completely untrue as the natives obviously did resist, and the reason Europeans did conquer was because they had everything to gain from these expeditions. Overall, the reason I came here is to find some kind of good argument against the book's ideas. It seems that there is a lot bashing of the book but no actual criticism other than that bashing. So I really am open to changing my mind as I feel like there is some argument that I am missing in all of this that is what makes the book so hated.	Brybrysciguy	3	3	[ { "author": "Roogovelt", "id": "e01nqrf", "score": 32, "text": "I'm an archaeologist who works in Mesoamerica and has taught Guns, Germs, and Steel in my classes a couple times. I use the book in class because I do think it's solid and generates good discussions, but I also have issues with it. Diam...	[ { "author": "wugglesthemule", "id": "e01n4og", "score": 4, "text": "To start, I'm not a historian. I haven't read the whole book, but I'm familiar with the general idea of it and some of the criticisms leveled against it. From what I can gather, it's not that historians think he's incorrect, but it ...	[ "e01nqrf", "e03ab8h", "e03bxn0" ]	[ "e01n4og", "e02hr1q", "e03sybi" ]
CMV: Men should be allowed to get "financial abortions" if they get a woman pregnant and they don't want to support the child. First off, I'll preface this by saying that I am VERY pro\-choice, in that I am totally okay with allowing a woman to have body autonomy and have full freedom to choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wants. However, realistically, it is incredibly naive to believe that all abortions are because of issues of bodily autonomy and/or health risks to the mother. A good number of abortions are indeed because the woman is just not in a position in life to be able to financially support a child, so she terminates her pregnancy. Normally, many members of the pro\-life crowd that will often say stuff like, "well if you didn't want to get pregnant, you should have kept your legs closed." A typical rebuttal will often be that it takes two to tango, and that women don't get pregnant by themselves. Indeed it does take two to tango. Thus, if the woman has the option to opt out of financial responsibility of raising the child, regardless of what the father wants, the father should also have the option to "financially abort" and absolve himself of all financial responsibility of raising the child, should the woman choose to keep it. This would also help dissuade gold diggers who lie about being on birth control and/or purposely try to get pregnant from wealthy men in order to get financially tied to them. So I would propose, that up until a certain point in the pregnancy, the father would have the opportunity to legally abort himself of all financially responsibility of raising the child, and would have zero parental rights or legal attachment to the child. The details would have to be fleshed out, and I would say there would have to be safeguards put in place so that the father can't get cold feet during the 9th month and "financially abort" at the last second leaving the mother high and dry. Please keep in mind, that this is NOT meant to be debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion, but whether or not men should be allowed to financially abort, given that regular abortion is currently legal. EDIT 1: In case I didn't make it clear, this "financial abortion" would have to take place some time during the pregnancy. Once the child is born, that would no longer be an option.	The problem is is this in the best interest of the child? I'd argue no. The child now has to suffer having less access to resources (money, food, time, etc) because they father chooses to not be in the picture before they're even born. Now you could argue that the woman could just put them up for adoption at this point. But that's also problematic. The adoption system is already filled with kids, and adding more because the mother can't support a child by herself is not going to help the system. --- The woman could also just get an abortion. Like I said, that I would envision there being some safeguards put in place so the guy can't just get cold feet at the last second, and leave a woman 9 months pregnant high and dry. --- Her only options are to kill the fetus or carry it to term and give birth, right? His option involves neither killing it nor giving birth to it. He just has to check a box on a form. With this in mind, how is "she could just have an abortion" supposed to be even or fair?	[deleted] --- But if a woman is essentially allowed to financially abort herself from the financial responsibilities of raising a future child by getting an abortion, why shouldn't the father be afforded the same opportunity? Once again, this is not a debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion. This entire OP assumes that regular abortion is legal. --- [deleted]	8o9jje	CMV: Men should be allowed to get "financial abortions" if they get a woman pregnant and they don't want to support the child.	First off, I'll preface this by saying that I am VERY pro\-choice, in that I am totally okay with allowing a woman to have body autonomy and have full freedom to choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wants. However, realistically, it is incredibly naive to believe that all abortions are because of issues of bodily autonomy and/or health risks to the mother. A good number of abortions are indeed because the woman is just not in a position in life to be able to financially support a child, so she terminates her pregnancy. Normally, many members of the pro\-life crowd that will often say stuff like, "well if you didn't want to get pregnant, you should have kept your legs closed." A typical rebuttal will often be that it takes two to tango, and that women don't get pregnant by themselves. Indeed it does take two to tango. Thus, if the woman has the option to opt out of financial responsibility of raising the child, regardless of what the father wants, the father should also have the option to "financially abort" and absolve himself of all financial responsibility of raising the child, should the woman choose to keep it. This would also help dissuade gold diggers who lie about being on birth control and/or purposely try to get pregnant from wealthy men in order to get financially tied to them. So I would propose, that up until a certain point in the pregnancy, the father would have the opportunity to legally abort himself of all financially responsibility of raising the child, and would have zero parental rights or legal attachment to the child. The details would have to be fleshed out, and I would say there would have to be safeguards put in place so that the father can't get cold feet during the 9th month and "financially abort" at the last second leaving the mother high and dry. Please keep in mind, that this is NOT meant to be debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion, but whether or not men should be allowed to financially abort, given that regular abortion is currently legal. EDIT 1: In case I didn't make it clear, this "financial abortion" would have to take place some time during the pregnancy. Once the child is born, that would no longer be an option.	Justgoahead123	3	3	[ { "author": "Feathring", "id": "e01opdz", "score": 7, "text": "The problem is is this in the best interest of the child? I'd argue no. The child now has to suffer having less access to resources (money, food, time, etc) because they father chooses to not be in the picture before they're even born.\n...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e01odoz", "score": 10, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1528043220 }, { "author": "Justgoahead123", "id": "e01ogbj", "score": 0, "text": "But if a woman is essentially allowed to financially abort herself from the financial responsibilities of...	[ "e01opdz", "e01ots3", "e01p9xd" ]	[ "e01odoz", "e01ogbj", "e01on81" ]
CMV: Men should be allowed to get "financial abortions" if they get a woman pregnant and they don't want to support the child. First off, I'll preface this by saying that I am VERY pro\-choice, in that I am totally okay with allowing a woman to have body autonomy and have full freedom to choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wants. However, realistically, it is incredibly naive to believe that all abortions are because of issues of bodily autonomy and/or health risks to the mother. A good number of abortions are indeed because the woman is just not in a position in life to be able to financially support a child, so she terminates her pregnancy. Normally, many members of the pro\-life crowd that will often say stuff like, "well if you didn't want to get pregnant, you should have kept your legs closed." A typical rebuttal will often be that it takes two to tango, and that women don't get pregnant by themselves. Indeed it does take two to tango. Thus, if the woman has the option to opt out of financial responsibility of raising the child, regardless of what the father wants, the father should also have the option to "financially abort" and absolve himself of all financial responsibility of raising the child, should the woman choose to keep it. This would also help dissuade gold diggers who lie about being on birth control and/or purposely try to get pregnant from wealthy men in order to get financially tied to them. So I would propose, that up until a certain point in the pregnancy, the father would have the opportunity to legally abort himself of all financially responsibility of raising the child, and would have zero parental rights or legal attachment to the child. The details would have to be fleshed out, and I would say there would have to be safeguards put in place so that the father can't get cold feet during the 9th month and "financially abort" at the last second leaving the mother high and dry. Please keep in mind, that this is NOT meant to be debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion, but whether or not men should be allowed to financially abort, given that regular abortion is currently legal. EDIT 1: In case I didn't make it clear, this "financial abortion" would have to take place some time during the pregnancy. Once the child is born, that would no longer be an option.	[deleted] --- But if a woman is essentially allowed to financially abort herself from the financial responsibilities of raising a future child by getting an abortion, why shouldn't the father be afforded the same opportunity? Once again, this is not a debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion. This entire OP assumes that regular abortion is legal. --- But she's not just aborting herself of financial responsibility, she's aborting the child. She doesn't get to keep the child and then decide she's not going to feed or clothe it.	Single parents are some of the poorest people in the country, why should my tax dollars go to the social services that support them before the deadbeats that are actually responsible for the situation? --- If the woman doesn't want to raise a child by herself, she can terminate her pregnancy. --- If a man doesn't want to financially support a child he can: not have vaginal sex, wear a condom, have his partner use birth control, have his partner take a morning after pill, have his partner get an abortion, have his partner give it up for adoption	8o9jje	CMV: Men should be allowed to get "financial abortions" if they get a woman pregnant and they don't want to support the child.	First off, I'll preface this by saying that I am VERY pro\-choice, in that I am totally okay with allowing a woman to have body autonomy and have full freedom to choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wants. However, realistically, it is incredibly naive to believe that all abortions are because of issues of bodily autonomy and/or health risks to the mother. A good number of abortions are indeed because the woman is just not in a position in life to be able to financially support a child, so she terminates her pregnancy. Normally, many members of the pro\-life crowd that will often say stuff like, "well if you didn't want to get pregnant, you should have kept your legs closed." A typical rebuttal will often be that it takes two to tango, and that women don't get pregnant by themselves. Indeed it does take two to tango. Thus, if the woman has the option to opt out of financial responsibility of raising the child, regardless of what the father wants, the father should also have the option to "financially abort" and absolve himself of all financial responsibility of raising the child, should the woman choose to keep it. This would also help dissuade gold diggers who lie about being on birth control and/or purposely try to get pregnant from wealthy men in order to get financially tied to them. So I would propose, that up until a certain point in the pregnancy, the father would have the opportunity to legally abort himself of all financially responsibility of raising the child, and would have zero parental rights or legal attachment to the child. The details would have to be fleshed out, and I would say there would have to be safeguards put in place so that the father can't get cold feet during the 9th month and "financially abort" at the last second leaving the mother high and dry. Please keep in mind, that this is NOT meant to be debate about the morality or immorality of regular abortion, but whether or not men should be allowed to financially abort, given that regular abortion is currently legal. EDIT 1: In case I didn't make it clear, this "financial abortion" would have to take place some time during the pregnancy. Once the child is born, that would no longer be an option.	Justgoahead123	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e01odoz", "score": 10, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1528043220 }, { "author": "Justgoahead123", "id": "e01ogbj", "score": 0, "text": "But if a woman is essentially allowed to financially abort herself from the financial responsibilities of...	[ { "author": "cupcakesarethedevil", "id": "e01okwn", "score": 10, "text": "Single parents are some of the poorest people in the country, why should my tax dollars go to the social services that support them before the deadbeats that are actually responsible for the situation? ", "timestamp": 1528...	[ "e01odoz", "e01ogbj", "e01oovq" ]	[ "e01okwn", "e01oytg", "e01pcsa" ]
CMV: Most Muslims are certainly decent people, but one of the biggest barriers to Islam and the West coexisting in the same place are the religious doctrines. I believe that the Quran and Hadiths are the problem here, I have been told that they are written in a very vague manner (with very conflicting messages that are contradictory) that is very easy to interpret in all sorts of ways, which makes it easier for ultra-religious people who follow Islam to become extremists. To clarify, I have actually read the Quran myself and it seemed rather innocuous actually, but I did see some parts that seemed problematic in terms of the ideas they were expressing. Verse 4:34 of the Quran as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads: Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed, Allah is all-exalted, all-great The Quran needs to be rewritten in a way that makes it represent what most Muslims actually believe in, and not the crazy dogma of the Islamic State or Saudi Arabia. If Muslims are really as peaceful as they say they are, they should be having a great discourse on the Quran and how it should be interpreted in a pacificist manner. I realize this will be hard as not all Muslims will be fine with essentially rewriting the Quran, and the ones that will be the most vocal about this are likely to be the very extremists I am worried about. Edit: So the existence of somewhat progressive and relatively peaceful Muslim societies like Turkey and Indonesia kind of contradicts my original premise that the issue is the religious texts being vague and easy to interpret. I now understand that militant tendencies in uneducated, impoverished populations tends to lead to populism authoritarianism, and everything unpleasant which when combined with an already incredibly religious populace and a text that has a handful of questionable sections brings us places like Syria as opposed to Turkey. I understand now, so I guess the solution is for the rest of the world to help these places become stable, educated, and wealthy ... and maybe stop with the bombing campaigns too as I strongly suspect these military interventions have actually made matters even worse.	Just like the Christian bible, the Quran is the 'immutable word of god.' It cannot be changed. (But of course it can be 'interpreted ' in infinite ways.) Asking them to change the quran is similar to asking them to just convert to Christianity. Both would solve the problem, and both are equally likely. --- What would the solution be? We can't really just ban all Muslim immigration and deport all Muslims from the West because (logistics aside) that wouldn't stop converts who then decide to commit terrorist attacks. Not to mention, most Muslims are clearly ordinary people and we would essentially be punishing them for the actions of their version of the Nazis. --- >Not to mention, most Muslims are clearly ordinary people and we would essentially be punishing them for the actions of their version of the Nazis. Isn't this the answer? Anyone who suggests there's a 'problem' between the west and Islam needs to be shown how most Muslims are clearly ordinary people and any attempt to 'punish' all Muslims for the actions of essentially their version of the Nazis is wrong. --- Still doesn't solve the issue of all the extremists. --- But there are all types of extremists. In all types of religions. --- Yes, but you mostly hear about Muslim extremists because their ideology is dogmatic and militant. The Buddhist extremists in South East Asia are just a bunch of loons, and literally no Buddhist texts support in any shape or form what they are doing. --- > The Buddhist extremists in South East Asia are just a bunch of loons, and literally no Buddhist texts support in any shape or form what they are doing. I'm not exactly educated about Buddhism but I would like to point out that that the people who caused 400,000 + people to flee from Myanmar and killing and raping many were Buddhists. Correct me if I am wrong, but no part of Buddhism, as you have said, allows this. The motivation for this is largely political and cultural. So it isn't because these people are Buddhists but rather because they are, for lack of a better word, assholes. Same thing for Muslim extremists. There is nothing in Islam that justifies what they are doing. What they are doing is largely political, cultural and uneducated.	> If Muslims are really as peaceful as they say they are, they should be having a great discourse on the Quran and how it should be interpreted in a pacificist manner. They are doing this. Constantly. Here's a website called http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/ . Here's an [Islamic Peace Conference](https://ireaworld.org/initiatives/aipc-australian-islamic-peace-conference-2017/). --- You quoted a verse in the Quran which makes it seem like Islam is anathema to Western values of equality between the sexes. [Here](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html)'s what the Bible says about women. I like the part in 1 Timothy that says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Corinthians is also pretty great; it says that a man is to be the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, and how women are there to be glory for men. Good stuff! /s The Christian Bible is also totally cool with genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24, Numbers 21:3, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 20:10-16, Joshua 6:21-27, 10:10-40, 1 Samuel 14-15, Judges 21:10-16...at this point I'm too lazy to point out more) and slavery (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, etc.). How does that support Western liberal democracy? Islam isn't any more of a problem than Christianity is. The problem is that there seem to be more Muslims willing to accept violence in Islam than there are Christians willing to accept violence in Christianity. I don't know what the root of that is, but when I compare the horrors of the Quran with the horrors of the Bible, it's REALLY hard for me to say, "Oh, yeah, clearly people who follow the Quran literally are going to be more violent than people who follow the Bible literally." --- Christianity had their dark ages two hundred years ago, but Christian societies have liberalized and become more pacifist. Islamic societies especially those in Arabia seem to not yet reached a degree of stability and pacificsm. I think education, self-determination, and the eradication of poverty will help matters greatly. Also, Atheism is on the rise in this part of the world. --- Some philosophical background: Of the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions of the Levant, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all three emphasize obedience to the one almighty God; for Jews this done through observance of the Torah, Jewish Law, and the Covenant (the contract between the Hebrews and God), for Christianity, this is done through accepting the Son of God as savior, for muslims, this is done through total submission to God, (the etymology of Islam is to submit, a Muslim is one who submits, there is no contract) and the best way for society to submit collectively is understood in Shariah Law. What is unique about the history of Christianity is that one cannot separate Christian culture from Western culture (European culture), which developed distinctly from the Middle Eastern Levant. Christian ideas are essentially a mixture of Levantine Hebrew ideas and European Pagan ideas (specifically Hellenistic humanism and Pythagorean harmonics). For the Greeks, the hero of all humanity is Prometheus, a Titan God who created Man from clay, and stole fire (a symbol of art and technology) from Zeus and the Olympic Gods to give to humanity. As punishment, the Zeus punished Prometheus by shackling him to a rock and letting an eagle eat from his liver for all eternity. For the Greeks, the gods had no moral authority over mankind, they were essentially powerful people with superpowers, and in that way human nature (of the microcosm) was distinct yet in moral harmony with the more powerful Gods (of the macrocosm). Therefore, embodied within the Greek legend of Prometheus is the origin story of "natural human rights," the rights of humanity in rebellion (yet similar) to the almighty gods of nature. Christianity marries the Greek Promethean origin story with the Hebrew idea of the Covenant. Christ is both Promethean savior of mankind, life giver through the rebirth of baptism, while also suffering on the behalf of human kind through excruciating punishment, yet the Passion is not in rebellion to God but rather an integral part of Providence (God's Divine Plan). But the mixture of cultures does not end there. The History of Christianity and Europe itself may be studied by the history of these two distinct ideologies mixing, harmonizing and often contradicting each other. Islam, however, never mixed in this way. Well, actually it did, but it's history is very different. Early in Islamic history, Islam imported Greek Platonic ideas, Neo-Platonic ideas, and pretty much the Pythagorean legacy of the mathemetici (mathematics), through Alexandria and as a result they became the most technologically advanced civilization in science and medicine in the world, comparable only to the Chinese in the Far East. It is important to remember that Western culture inherited the Arabic numeral system (0-9) from the Arab world and that "algebra" is actually an Arab word. This mathematical and scientific tradition came to an end, however, around the 11th century A.D when Persian theologian Al-Ghazali wrote on "The Incoherence of the Philosophers," essentially arguing that philosophy was blasphemous and that it interfered with one's faith and submission to God. The book was wildly popular in the Muslim world and Greek philosophy was thus extinguished. A few centuries later, Western Culture caught back up to the Arab world by rejecting scholastic theology and re-embracing a spirit of natural philosophy during the Renaissance. Western culture today, from the Renaissance philosophers to the formation of the American Constitution, Geneva Convention etc., this philosophic tradition is largely a continuation of Christian (sort of) but much more fundamentally the Promethean tradition of "humanism" and natural human rights. So when people speak of a clash of cultures between the West and Islam, this clash has been real since Al-Ghazali. Objectively, it's hard to find common ideological ground between these two civilizations without a basis for validating an idea like "human rights" and all the civics and ethics that are borne from that idea. That's not to say that peace is not possible between these cultures, but it can explain why the assimilation of muslims into Western countries has been difficult both for them and Westerners. The key to any peace, of course is, respect of differences with a capital R. Hope this contributes to the conversation. --- There is a lot wrong with this post but I'm going to focus on your misrepresentation of Al Ghazali. I've read his works and they don't say what you seem to think they say. Al Ghazali explicitly stated his support for the man and sciences. What he is guilty of is using words whose definitions changed meaning. Specifically Philosopher. In 12th Persia the term exclusively mean NeoPlatoists, not the study of philosophy in general which he describes using the Arabic term Kalam, compared to the Greek loan word Falasafa, or philosophy. In the Islamic world sciences and philosophy continue to be major intellectual trends to this day. You are repeated 18th century oreinetialist misrepresentedtions of Islamic society. Go and actually read the Incoherence of Philosophers and try and find a philosophical concept he condemns that is in use in modern or enlightenment philosophy. Neoplatoism is dead and condemned as useless in western philosophy outside of Catholic dogma on eucharist (the bread being literally the body of Jesus) --- I would at the very least say that Al Ghazali's attack on materialism (problem IV) and support for occasionalism (A flame does not ignite cotton, God does) was not the kind of dialectic that inspired the search for quantifiable causation in nature that fueled the Scientific Revolution. I'm also not saying that the Greeks were infallible. But the legacy of Pythagoras and Plato is certainly math. Euclid was a Platonist, and he recorded many of the Greek proofs down in Elements, which is the foundation of Classical Mathematics. --- The attack on materialism is something that exists in western philosophy in multiple places and strands. And you bring up Platonist, AL Ghazali is talking about neoplatoism which has expanded claims about the dualism of the "ideal and material" world and a sense of dualism that inherently unmaterialistic. And clearly the Muslim world did not drop classical mathematics after al Ghazali because continued writing treatise on Mathematics and Astronomy continously to the present day --- I respect Al Ghazali as a Sufi leader. I think he was a great thinker and scholar. For the sake of argument, let us assume that I am wrong in my connecting The The Incoherence of the Philosophers with the decline of science and the scientific method in Islam during that time. I still do not believe the West and Islam share similar views on "human rights." Would you agree?	7srbhu	CMV: Most Muslims are certainly decent people, but one of the biggest barriers to Islam and the West coexisting in the same place are the religious doctrines.	I believe that the Quran and Hadiths are the problem here, I have been told that they are written in a very vague manner (with very conflicting messages that are contradictory) that is very easy to interpret in all sorts of ways, which makes it easier for ultra-religious people who follow Islam to become extremists. To clarify, I have actually read the Quran myself and it seemed rather innocuous actually, but I did see some parts that seemed problematic in terms of the ideas they were expressing. Verse 4:34 of the Quran as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads: Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed, Allah is all-exalted, all-great The Quran needs to be rewritten in a way that makes it represent what most Muslims actually believe in, and not the crazy dogma of the Islamic State or Saudi Arabia. If Muslims are really as peaceful as they say they are, they should be having a great discourse on the Quran and how it should be interpreted in a pacificist manner. I realize this will be hard as not all Muslims will be fine with essentially rewriting the Quran, and the ones that will be the most vocal about this are likely to be the very extremists I am worried about. Edit: So the existence of somewhat progressive and relatively peaceful Muslim societies like Turkey and Indonesia kind of contradicts my original premise that the issue is the religious texts being vague and easy to interpret. I now understand that militant tendencies in uneducated, impoverished populations tends to lead to populism authoritarianism, and everything unpleasant which when combined with an already incredibly religious populace and a text that has a handful of questionable sections brings us places like Syria as opposed to Turkey. I understand now, so I guess the solution is for the rest of the world to help these places become stable, educated, and wealthy ... and maybe stop with the bombing campaigns too as I strongly suspect these military interventions have actually made matters even worse.	[deleted]	7	7	[ { "author": "Burflax", "id": "dt6xc30", "score": 3, "text": "Just like the Christian bible, the Quran is the 'immutable word of god.'\n\nIt cannot be changed.\n\n(But of course it can be 'interpreted ' in infinite ways.)\n\nAsking them to change the quran is similar to asking them to just convert to...	[ { "author": "weirds3xstuff", "id": "dt6ykkr", "score": 35, "text": "> If Muslims are really as peaceful as they say they are, they should be having a great discourse on the Quran and how it should be interpreted in a pacificist manner.\n\nThey are doing this. Constantly. Here's a website called http...	[ "dt6xc30", "dt6xge9", "dt6z5ka", "dt6zekw", "dt71uev", "dt723xv", "dt74fid" ]	[ "dt6ykkr", "dt70imu", "dt8fl6c", "dt8q7k1", "dt8quum", "dt8y3ts", "dt8yl70" ]
CMV: The idea of pets being considered property really bugs me Legally speaking, pets are considered property in many cases. When I browse subs like /r/legaladvice and someone makes a post about their pet being killed, there's usually a reply along the lines of "since pets are legally considered property, you can get a few hundred from the perpetrator to replace the pet." I consider my dog to be part of my family, and if a court awarded me a few hundred from someone that killed it, I wouldn't consider that even remotely fair. However, I acknowledge that this is an emotional bias, and people might have the same opinion about actual property for sentimental reasons - your trusty musical instrument you've been playing since high school, your photo albums full of memories, etc. I also acknowledge that it kinda makes sense to consider things like farm animals to be property as they're essentially used for work or food, and by killing a farmer's animals you're essentially depriving them of something they intend to use or sell rather than a family member. Not exactly sure what views I want changed, to be honest. I guess providing a good reason for pets to be considered property, and any benefits it provides for either me or my pet? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	They're considered property, yes, but not like a stack of bricks or a stump. You won't get a fine for beating a stump, or get sent to jail for making bricks fight (dibs on front row seats for that, though). They can't really legally be considered family, because then you'd basically be calling them human, and that's a whole different can of worms. So we call them property, but afford them protections over and above all non-animal property. It's more of a legal convenience than anything else. It doesn't diminish the importance the animal has to you. --- !delta That's a fair point, I wasn't considering the extra legal protections they do get afforded. This does make a good middle ground. It was just mostly disliking the word property being used, as it brings to mind inanimate possessions rather than living beings. --- Here is something that will really twist your noodle: the ASPCA and animal cruelty laws existed before laws against child abuse. In fact the first major case of child abuse prosecuted by a US court, the horrified neighbors of Mary Ellen McCormack, a severely beaten 10 year old , after reaching a series of dead ends with authorities unwilling to intervene turned to the ASPCA to petition authorities to prosecute the case. They thought that just maybe the ASPCA could help show the courts the absurdity in the fact that animals are protected from abuse but childeren are not. The tactic worked. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/15abus.html	One key benefit of considering them property is much cheaper veterinary care. Since they don't have serious malpractice concerns, they are able to provide care much more affordably. No CYA stuff or "are these scissors properly labeled" etc. So more pets get care. --- !delta While I do think that veterinary care should be taken seriously, overly regulating things isn't always a good thing. I trust the vets I've been to so far and haven't had any complaints, so this has indeed been an upside for me. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GnosticGnome ([133∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GnosticGnome)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "GnosticGnome" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6q7ai3	CMV: The idea of pets being considered property really bugs me	Legally speaking, pets are considered property in many cases. When I browse subs like /r/legaladvice and someone makes a post about their pet being killed, there's usually a reply along the lines of "since pets are legally considered property, you can get a few hundred from the perpetrator to replace the pet." I consider my dog to be part of my family, and if a court awarded me a few hundred from someone that killed it, I wouldn't consider that even remotely fair. However, I acknowledge that this is an emotional bias, and people might have the same opinion about actual property for sentimental reasons - your trusty musical instrument you've been playing since high school, your photo albums full of memories, etc. I also acknowledge that it kinda makes sense to consider things like farm animals to be property as they're essentially used for work or food, and by killing a farmer's animals you're essentially depriving them of something they intend to use or sell rather than a family member. Not exactly sure what views I want changed, to be honest. I guess providing a good reason for pets to be considered property, and any benefits it provides for either me or my pet? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ChronaMewX	3	3	[ { "author": "incruente", "id": "dkv3wgp", "score": 24, "text": "They're considered property, yes, but not like a stack of bricks or a stump. You won't get a fine for beating a stump, or get sent to jail for making bricks fight (dibs on front row seats for that, though). They can't really legally be ...	[ { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "dkv536u", "score": 1, "text": "One key benefit of considering them property is much cheaper veterinary care. Since they don't have serious malpractice concerns, they are able to provide care much more affordably. No CYA stuff or \"are these scissors properly labe...	[ "dkv3wgp", "dkv4e3i", "dkv6nsw" ]	[ "dkv536u", "dkv58ef", "dkv594p" ]
CMV: the 2024 US Presidential election will likely be stolen For the sake of this question, when I call a theft "likely" I mean "not very unlikely", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5. Bill Maher [recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR4fXcsu9w) described a plausible-sounding scenario: * Trump runs again, wins the nomination, and loses, but pretends he won. Maher says he will be nominated. I'm aware of poll-based reasons to suggest the Republican base may be abandoning him enough for the nominee to instead be e.g. DeSantis, but I'll try to argue below that wouldn't make much of a difference for the purposes of this post. * Many of the states that go to the Democratic nominee will by then (i) have laws postdating 2020 giving Republican politicians, not non-partisans, control over certification, and (ii) have people in those roles willing to subvert democracy by just pretending their states' results are fraudulent. Trump will have worked hard to install such people, but even if someone else is their nominee (contra Maher's predictions) they'd have the same motives. As a result, these states will send false electors as well as or instead of real ones. * If previous midterm swings are to be trusted, the 2022 midterms will give Republicans enough control over Congress that their all refusing to certify a Democrat's victory on January 6 2025 (in 2021, already most Republicans wouldn't vote for such a certification, and they as a party often vote unanimously on issues) could well lead to a one-vote-per-state tie-breaker. In 2021, this mechanism would if triggered have seen Trump win, since there were 26 states where the vote would have been Republican; in 2025, this number need not be any smaller. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone can give reasons to doubt this is a likely scenario, but let me expand on Maher's points to anticipate possible arguments: * The Vice President can't just throw out results they don't like in the manner Trumpists thought Pence could. Harris won't be able to do it just because the results are genuinely fraudulent. * This isn't something that can be fixed in the courts. The SCOTUS may have refused to go along with Trump's claims in 2020/1, but they did put a thumb on the scales in 2000/1 when they felt they had enough legal pretext, and they're even more right-wing now. If called on to save the day in 2024/5, they could easily dismiss such calls, as they don't have any legal merits anyway. States aren't even obligated, by any constitutional or federal law, to honour their voters' decision. * Even if Democrats wake up in time to this threat, they can't pass e.g. John Lewis to fix this, because McConnell/Manchema won't let them. The only real hope is a pro-Democrat midterm swing; that possibility isn't enough to make a 2024 theft unlikely. * Technically, if the Republican nominee legitimately wins, the election won't be stolen. Whatever you think of a Republican being President, at least in that scenario democracy itself won't be crumbling. However, a legitimate Republican victory is unlikely. The 2020 result was the first time in almost a century a party lost the White House after just one term, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once post-1988, and one of the two other times the electoral college sided with them was arguably an election theft anyway, since it required the count (not recount) in Florida to be prematurely stopped. I will acknowledge the following might change things: * Some think Trump won't want to run again in 2024 because he couldn't take the humiliation of losing again. His character notwithstanding, this argument overlooks how confident he could be that installed stooges would hand him a victory the electorate doesn't. * Some think Trump might be prevented from running due to prosecution. While any one charge against him is unlikely to stick, there are a lot of them, so maybe one can disqualify him from seeking public office again. I don't know much about how this would work, though. If you know of any more decisive reasons to think American democracy is safe in 2024, I'd love to hear some.	>For the sake of this question, when I call a theft "likely" I mean "not very unlikely", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5. So by likely you mean unlikely? That's a weird definition of likely. You definition is of likely includes unlikely, but not very unlikely. --- [deleted] --- [If these poll results don't change your view about how people use the word "likely", I don't think anything will.](https://github.com/zonination/perceptions/blob/master/README.md)	[deleted] --- To answer your question: for the purposes of this question, I define the legitimate winner as whoever gets 270+ if states (or smaller regions where applicable) are allocated based on the vote count, rather than the opposite way because someone just pretends the count is fraudulent. In other words, if Trump had managed to get a few states to say "we don't believe our numbers so we're doing the opposite" & stayed in power, the legitimate 2020 winner would still have been Biden. --- [deleted]	q5w70c	CMV: the 2024 US Presidential election will likely be stolen	For the sake of this question, when I call a theft "likely" I mean "not very unlikely", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5. Bill Maher [recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR4fXcsu9w) described a plausible-sounding scenario: * Trump runs again, wins the nomination, and loses, but pretends he won. Maher says he will be nominated. I'm aware of poll-based reasons to suggest the Republican base may be abandoning him enough for the nominee to instead be e.g. DeSantis, but I'll try to argue below that wouldn't make much of a difference for the purposes of this post. * Many of the states that go to the Democratic nominee will by then (i) have laws postdating 2020 giving Republican politicians, not non-partisans, control over certification, and (ii) have people in those roles willing to subvert democracy by just pretending their states' results are fraudulent. Trump will have worked hard to install such people, but even if someone else is their nominee (contra Maher's predictions) they'd have the same motives. As a result, these states will send false electors as well as or instead of real ones. * If previous midterm swings are to be trusted, the 2022 midterms will give Republicans enough control over Congress that their all refusing to certify a Democrat's victory on January 6 2025 (in 2021, already most Republicans wouldn't vote for such a certification, and they as a party often vote unanimously on issues) could well lead to a one-vote-per-state tie-breaker. In 2021, this mechanism would if triggered have seen Trump win, since there were 26 states where the vote would have been Republican; in 2025, this number need not be any smaller. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone can give reasons to doubt this is a likely scenario, but let me expand on Maher's points to anticipate possible arguments: * The Vice President can't just throw out results they don't like in the manner Trumpists thought Pence could. Harris won't be able to do it just because the results are genuinely fraudulent. * This isn't something that can be fixed in the courts. The SCOTUS may have refused to go along with Trump's claims in 2020/1, but they did put a thumb on the scales in 2000/1 when they felt they had enough legal pretext, and they're even more right-wing now. If called on to save the day in 2024/5, they could easily dismiss such calls, as they don't have any legal merits anyway. States aren't even obligated, by any constitutional or federal law, to honour their voters' decision. * Even if Democrats wake up in time to this threat, they can't pass e.g. John Lewis to fix this, because McConnell/Manchema won't let them. The only real hope is a pro-Democrat midterm swing; that possibility isn't enough to make a 2024 theft unlikely. * Technically, if the Republican nominee legitimately wins, the election won't be stolen. Whatever you think of a Republican being President, at least in that scenario democracy itself won't be crumbling. However, a legitimate Republican victory is unlikely. The 2020 result was the first time in almost a century a party lost the White House after just one term, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once post-1988, and one of the two other times the electoral college sided with them was arguably an election theft anyway, since it required the count (not recount) in Florida to be prematurely stopped. I will acknowledge the following might change things: * Some think Trump won't want to run again in 2024 because he couldn't take the humiliation of losing again. His character notwithstanding, this argument overlooks how confident he could be that installed stooges would hand him a victory the electorate doesn't. * Some think Trump might be prevented from running due to prosecution. While any one charge against him is unlikely to stick, there are a lot of them, so maybe one can disqualify him from seeking public office again. I don't know much about how this would work, though. If you know of any more decisive reasons to think American democracy is safe in 2024, I'd love to hear some.	JosGibbons	3	3	[ { "author": "FinneousPJ", "id": "hg88ii2", "score": 19, "text": ">For the sake of this question, when I call a theft \"likely\" I mean \"not very unlikely\", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5.\n\nSo by likely you mean unlikely? That's a weird definition of likely. You definition ...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg8aqst", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1633961512 }, { "author": "JosGibbons", "id": "hg8b19o", "score": 1, "text": "To answer your question: for the purposes of this question, I define the legitimate winner as whoever gets 270...	[ "hg88ii2", "hg892fu", "hg8dxsg" ]	[ "hg8aqst", "hg8b19o", "hg8c9ul" ]
CMV: the 2024 US Presidential election will likely be stolen For the sake of this question, when I call a theft "likely" I mean "not very unlikely", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5. Bill Maher [recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR4fXcsu9w) described a plausible-sounding scenario: * Trump runs again, wins the nomination, and loses, but pretends he won. Maher says he will be nominated. I'm aware of poll-based reasons to suggest the Republican base may be abandoning him enough for the nominee to instead be e.g. DeSantis, but I'll try to argue below that wouldn't make much of a difference for the purposes of this post. * Many of the states that go to the Democratic nominee will by then (i) have laws postdating 2020 giving Republican politicians, not non-partisans, control over certification, and (ii) have people in those roles willing to subvert democracy by just pretending their states' results are fraudulent. Trump will have worked hard to install such people, but even if someone else is their nominee (contra Maher's predictions) they'd have the same motives. As a result, these states will send false electors as well as or instead of real ones. * If previous midterm swings are to be trusted, the 2022 midterms will give Republicans enough control over Congress that their all refusing to certify a Democrat's victory on January 6 2025 (in 2021, already most Republicans wouldn't vote for such a certification, and they as a party often vote unanimously on issues) could well lead to a one-vote-per-state tie-breaker. In 2021, this mechanism would if triggered have seen Trump win, since there were 26 states where the vote would have been Republican; in 2025, this number need not be any smaller. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone can give reasons to doubt this is a likely scenario, but let me expand on Maher's points to anticipate possible arguments: * The Vice President can't just throw out results they don't like in the manner Trumpists thought Pence could. Harris won't be able to do it just because the results are genuinely fraudulent. * This isn't something that can be fixed in the courts. The SCOTUS may have refused to go along with Trump's claims in 2020/1, but they did put a thumb on the scales in 2000/1 when they felt they had enough legal pretext, and they're even more right-wing now. If called on to save the day in 2024/5, they could easily dismiss such calls, as they don't have any legal merits anyway. States aren't even obligated, by any constitutional or federal law, to honour their voters' decision. * Even if Democrats wake up in time to this threat, they can't pass e.g. John Lewis to fix this, because McConnell/Manchema won't let them. The only real hope is a pro-Democrat midterm swing; that possibility isn't enough to make a 2024 theft unlikely. * Technically, if the Republican nominee legitimately wins, the election won't be stolen. Whatever you think of a Republican being President, at least in that scenario democracy itself won't be crumbling. However, a legitimate Republican victory is unlikely. The 2020 result was the first time in almost a century a party lost the White House after just one term, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once post-1988, and one of the two other times the electoral college sided with them was arguably an election theft anyway, since it required the count (not recount) in Florida to be prematurely stopped. I will acknowledge the following might change things: * Some think Trump won't want to run again in 2024 because he couldn't take the humiliation of losing again. His character notwithstanding, this argument overlooks how confident he could be that installed stooges would hand him a victory the electorate doesn't. * Some think Trump might be prevented from running due to prosecution. While any one charge against him is unlikely to stick, there are a lot of them, so maybe one can disqualify him from seeking public office again. I don't know much about how this would work, though. If you know of any more decisive reasons to think American democracy is safe in 2024, I'd love to hear some.	[deleted] --- To answer your question: for the purposes of this question, I define the legitimate winner as whoever gets 270+ if states (or smaller regions where applicable) are allocated based on the vote count, rather than the opposite way because someone just pretends the count is fraudulent. In other words, if Trump had managed to get a few states to say "we don't believe our numbers so we're doing the opposite" & stayed in power, the legitimate 2020 winner would still have been Biden. --- [deleted] --- Thanks for your follow-up. Since the constitution doesn't use the word legitimate or the word steal, I'll clarify again that the view of mine you need to change is that the person who meets my definition will, with a decent probability, be denied the White House through mechanisms such as I've described. You're entitled to believe that view should have been phrased in different words if you like (if you make a good enough suggestion, I'll consider an edit). As for the point you make about the law, it doesn't prevent dishonest electors. --- [deleted] --- \> It's not a view Maybe I should have said "that that view" to be clearer. I agree with you that loopholes should be closed, but this CMV was about how likely they are to be successfully exploited in 2024/5, not what language we would use to describe loophole exploitation. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. --- [deleted] --- Δ I read this as arguing Republicans wouldn't want to install an undeserving (for want of a better word) President because they wouldn't long be able to govern effectively & the backlash would make it not worth it. I'm not sure how much this will stymie undemocratic ambitions, but you've spelled out enough thorns in this that they're liable to culminate in a big problem. --- You have awarded multiple deltas in this CMV, but this one is pretty bad. One, I don't really see how this changed your view in any capacity. Second, the post you responded to is pretty nonsensical. Like it jumps from thought to thought without actually addressing, well, anything, until the very end. Second, even assuming the point is that they wouldn't steal the election because it means they wouldn't be able to govern effectively, that only seems persuasive if you assume that if 2024 is stolen 2028 WON'T be stolen--a highly specious assumption. After all, if 2024 is stolen, why would the Republicans care about democracy anymore? Stealing the election is abandoning democracy, and any talk about constituents and power being "unpopular, weak, and fleeting" fails against the Republican sovereign relying totally on brute force. After all, brute forcing the rules is what let them steal the election, and now they have control over the military, the ultimate force. Which leads to this: >How could an illegitimate president or caretaker rule with authority facing voters, impeachment, civil service, international judgment, funding and staffing woes, and a separate level of state governments that may be unwilling to cooperate on her priorities? You use the military to kill people until people stop questioning your rule. Either the military cooperates, in which case we have a military dictatorship, or the military refuses, in which case we have a Praetorian Guard that actually determines who is in charge regardless of the rules. Because the realistic stolen election scenarios are all "technically legal," and technically legal is the same as "legal." And if the military refuses to obey the law--which put the thief in power--then it's not the rule of law in charge, it's the military. In all scenarios the rule of law is destroyed. We either have a de facto dictatorship or de facto military rule.	[removed] --- Everything you just said was soundly debunked by bipartisan review. His fan base failed because he lost urban and suburban republicans with his vendettas and how he botched the COVID crisis. --- Undisputed fact, states changed their voting laws under the guise of covid directly in contradiction to their state constitutional laws. Arizona audit found thousand of inconsistencies with their mailed in ballots............I for the life of me can't understand why the orange man bad crowd would except any democratic elections that left such doubt to be had. Unless anyone but Trump means anyone but Trump including a senile racist pedophile currently occupying the white house......... --- Cite your sources or quit trying to recruit for Q --- https://www.azfamily.com/full-report-cyber-ninjas-results-on-election-audit/pdf_e1967608-1d99-11ec-9f0f-c394f7c3dc5f.html https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/8-states-voting-lawsuits-election-day-less-week-away --- https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-arizona-ap-fact-check-election-2020-campaign-2016-f0c36df59ee1069d65aa6a70a22d88cc An unbiased source for ya. Learn how to avoid being misled --- Did you really just cite AP news as unbiased? Seems you may need to follow your own advice........ now that that friendly little jab is out of the way......don't you think we should actually have a credible news source with zero bias, just facts? Unfortunately there is not one they all compete to sway their audience to think one way or the other vs. Letting them digest the information and deciding for themselves........ maybe we should be fighting them instead of each other online over who's propaganda is more accurate --- Yeah stop recruiting for Q. AP carries zero bias and you cited heavily right leaning sources gtfoh. --- I get it, youre ashamed of shilling for a senile racist pedophile and can't bring yourself to openly admitting it......... stay ignorant sheep	q5w70c	CMV: the 2024 US Presidential election will likely be stolen	For the sake of this question, when I call a theft "likely" I mean "not very unlikely", rather than the probability necessarily exceeding 0.5. Bill Maher [recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR4fXcsu9w) described a plausible-sounding scenario: * Trump runs again, wins the nomination, and loses, but pretends he won. Maher says he will be nominated. I'm aware of poll-based reasons to suggest the Republican base may be abandoning him enough for the nominee to instead be e.g. DeSantis, but I'll try to argue below that wouldn't make much of a difference for the purposes of this post. * Many of the states that go to the Democratic nominee will by then (i) have laws postdating 2020 giving Republican politicians, not non-partisans, control over certification, and (ii) have people in those roles willing to subvert democracy by just pretending their states' results are fraudulent. Trump will have worked hard to install such people, but even if someone else is their nominee (contra Maher's predictions) they'd have the same motives. As a result, these states will send false electors as well as or instead of real ones. * If previous midterm swings are to be trusted, the 2022 midterms will give Republicans enough control over Congress that their all refusing to certify a Democrat's victory on January 6 2025 (in 2021, already most Republicans wouldn't vote for such a certification, and they as a party often vote unanimously on issues) could well lead to a one-vote-per-state tie-breaker. In 2021, this mechanism would if triggered have seen Trump win, since there were 26 states where the vote would have been Republican; in 2025, this number need not be any smaller. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone can give reasons to doubt this is a likely scenario, but let me expand on Maher's points to anticipate possible arguments: * The Vice President can't just throw out results they don't like in the manner Trumpists thought Pence could. Harris won't be able to do it just because the results are genuinely fraudulent. * This isn't something that can be fixed in the courts. The SCOTUS may have refused to go along with Trump's claims in 2020/1, but they did put a thumb on the scales in 2000/1 when they felt they had enough legal pretext, and they're even more right-wing now. If called on to save the day in 2024/5, they could easily dismiss such calls, as they don't have any legal merits anyway. States aren't even obligated, by any constitutional or federal law, to honour their voters' decision. * Even if Democrats wake up in time to this threat, they can't pass e.g. John Lewis to fix this, because McConnell/Manchema won't let them. The only real hope is a pro-Democrat midterm swing; that possibility isn't enough to make a 2024 theft unlikely. * Technically, if the Republican nominee legitimately wins, the election won't be stolen. Whatever you think of a Republican being President, at least in that scenario democracy itself won't be crumbling. However, a legitimate Republican victory is unlikely. The 2020 result was the first time in almost a century a party lost the White House after just one term, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once post-1988, and one of the two other times the electoral college sided with them was arguably an election theft anyway, since it required the count (not recount) in Florida to be prematurely stopped. I will acknowledge the following might change things: * Some think Trump won't want to run again in 2024 because he couldn't take the humiliation of losing again. His character notwithstanding, this argument overlooks how confident he could be that installed stooges would hand him a victory the electorate doesn't. * Some think Trump might be prevented from running due to prosecution. While any one charge against him is unlikely to stick, there are a lot of them, so maybe one can disqualify him from seeking public office again. I don't know much about how this would work, though. If you know of any more decisive reasons to think American democracy is safe in 2024, I'd love to hear some.	JosGibbons	9	9	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg8aqst", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1633961512 }, { "author": "JosGibbons", "id": "hg8b19o", "score": 1, "text": "To answer your question: for the purposes of this question, I define the legitimate winner as whoever gets 270...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg89bje", "score": -9, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1633960833 }, { "author": "cskelly2", "id": "hg8bscd", "score": 8, "text": "Everything you just said was soundly debunked by bipartisan review. His fan base failed because he lost urban a...	[ "hg8aqst", "hg8b19o", "hg8c9ul", "hg8d5hr", "hg8eoev", "hg8ffo2", "hg8gnfy", "hg8hcab", "hg9nfqf" ]	[ "hg89bje", "hg8bscd", "hg8cnrg", "hg8cr6b", "hg8dplj", "hg8kjjn", "hg8mrv5", "hg8y3aj", "hg9ievy" ]
CMV: The Mormon church is a cult and I should do everything in my power to get my family out of it. So I really, really don't want to believe this but all the information that I can find indicates quite strongly this is so. A little background. I was raised Mormon. I left for varying reasons (not the least of which is because I'm gay) but most of my family remains in the church. Information I've learned since indicates quite strongly that the LDS church is a cult (such as the BITE model: http://old.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php), to the point that I'm all but convinced it is. I don't want to believe this because to do so means that my family members are in a cult and because I love them I need to do everything in my power to get them out of it. I don't want to believe that I was in a cult or that some of my family still are in a cult so please, help me CMV that Mormonism is a cult! Edited to add the BITE model requirements for being a cult with my thoughts, just for clarification sake: Behavior control: 1. Regulate individual’s physical reality - seems unclear. 2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates- yes 3. When, how and with whom the member has sex -yes to an extent 4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles - yes 5. Regulate diet - food and drink, hunger and/or fasting -yes 6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep -sort of? 7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence - yes 8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time -yes, in a few ways, not across the board. 9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet - oh god Yes. 10. Permission required for major decisions -yes. 11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors -yes. 12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative -yes 13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think -yes 14. Impose rigid rules and regulations -yes 15. Instill dependency and obedience - yes 16. Threaten harm to family and friends -yes 17. Force individual to rape or be raped -in the past, yes. Nowadays I don't think so. 18. Instill dependency and obedience - yes 19. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment - in the past yes. I'll post the rest in replies as I think it's too long...	As far as I know Mormons are allowed to associate with non-Mormons and are not limited in the information they can receive, nor are “sinners” publicly punished or humiliated, nor does the president (is that the correct term?) of the Mormon church charismatic enough to brainwash people. Is there something about Mormonism that differentiates it from other belief-systems, or do you hold all religions are cults? --- >As far as I know Mormons are allowed to associate with non-Mormons and are not limited in the information they can receive Mormons are STRONGLY encouraged to only have Mormon friends and to stop associating with friends and family members who have left the Church. Mormon congregations are encouraged to disfellowship as well. Any information that doesn't come from the Church about the Church is considered 'anti-mormon' and they are warned away from it quite strongly, and may even be excommunicated for admitting they've looked into such other information and ask questions about it. >nor does the president (is that the correct term?) of the Mormon church charismatic enough to brainwash people. The original prophet Joseph Smith convinced people that he had divine powers, that if they didn't obey and listen to what he said God was telling him they would be punished. There are claims that are common in the Church and taught by the current day leadership that Joseph is second only to Christ himself, and in some instances that he is actually higher than Christ himself. It is doctrine that Joseph will be sitting on the 'panel' that judges sinners after the End Times. >Is there something about Mormonism that differentiates it from other belief-systems, or do you hold all religions are cults? I do not hold all other religions as cults, no. But there is a lot about Mormonism that differentiates it from other belief systems in my mind, including what I just listed and what is listed on that BITE model. --- I think most religions encourage their people to limit their associations with non-members. Most religions discourage learning about things that could be antithetical to their belief system. That stuff about Joseph Smith sounds pretty similar to what other religions teach too. Not about him, but just that there's this "prophet" who says to do this and that or there will somehow be consequences and god won't be happy with you. Your family might be wrong, and that might be enough reason to stop investing their time into the religion. But the things you listed aren't that different from lots of mainstream religions. --- > I think most religions encourage their people to limit their associations with non-members. I want to say it's not to the same degree. It's hard to say because I've never been a member of any other Church but I have seen people's reactions who have grown up in other Churches when I explain how it is in the LDS church. It's not that they're encouraged to limit their associations; they are encouraged to completely shun family members and friends who leave the Church (unless it's to try and talk them back in). It's not that they just discourage learning about things antithetical to their teachings, it's that anything that appears to pain the Church in a bad light even if it's true is tossed aside as lies and propaganda. I don't know of any other religion that says as a matter of doctrine something more or less to the effect of 'if the leaders of the Church say something is true or decided, then the thinking has been done for you'. >Not about him, but just that there's this "prophet" who says to do this and that or there will somehow be consequences and god won't be happy with you. Maybe? Again, I've never been a member of any other religion but I still feel it's different based on reactions I get when I tell other people what is considered normal in the LDS Church. I mean, Joseph and what he says and did reminds me a heck of a lot more of Jim Jones than say Muhammad or the Catholic Saints. He set himself up for worship. >But the things you listed aren't that different from lots of mainstream religions. What other religions require payment for salvation? The only one I can think of is Scientology and that seems to meet the cult requirements as well. What other religions put an immense time and work constraint on their parishoners? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know and I can't think of any that do it even remotely the same way that the LDS church does. --- > What other religions require payment for salvation? The Catholic church did, which led to Martin Luther. The first Christians also qualified as a cult. Perhaps it's a matter of size? Mormonism was a cult when they were still in New York, but now they're mainstream? It doesn't soften their views but it makes the differentiation a little less important.	I think you'll have to elaborate more on why exactly you consider Mormonism to be a cult rather than linking a list of cult characteristics and expecting us to connect the dots. As it is, there's not really much of an argument to respond to. --- Because it seems to meet all the definitions and requirements of a cult as outlined in that link. I'm happy to elaborate further but that really is it. It appears to meet all the definitions of a cult, engages in abusive and manipulative behavior, brainwashes from a young age, puts people in dangerous or inappropriate situations including children, demands money for salvation...I could go on but I'd just be listing what's in that list. --- Within Mormonism, don't different communities/churches practice these things differently? For example, a Mormon church in Utah vs a Mormon church in Illinois. The top-down Mormon view on homosexuality or divorce might not amount to behavioral control in every community. Might there not be a Mormon church that does good? Also, the list of things on the BITE model needs to be organized into a point system. Just because a group "4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts" does not mean it's a cult. I was raised in a Methodist church that said that Harry Potter represented satanic witchcraft and other ridiculous things, some of which show up on the BITE model. --- >Within Mormonism, don't different communities/churches practice these things differently? There's a little bit of variance, sure, but not in the Church itself. A Mormon in Utah might be a bit more strict but a Mormon in Illinois is still being taught these things, still being required to pay for salvation, still being subjected to inappropriate sexual questions as a teenager, etc. >The top-down Mormon view on homosexuality or divorce might not amount to behavioral control in every community. Plenty remains though that still does. Even if some Mormons accept homosexuality it still remains that they have to purchase their salvation, sexual predators are being protected in their congregation, women are still not allowed to hold positions of authority, sexually inappropriate questions are being asked, etc. etc. >Might there not be a Mormon church that does good? The churches aren't autonomous. There aren't separate pastors that run things according to their own rules or interpretations. Everything is controlled by the main governing body. There are Mormons and mormon congregations that do good, sure, but the question here isn't whether or not they accomplish something GOOD but whether or not they're a cult. --- I suppose the second part of your CMV, that you should get your family out of it, is something that only you have the answer to, possessed of all the facts. Whether the Mormon church qualifies as a "cult" is academic after that: > sexual predators are being protected in their congregation, women are still not allowed to hold positions of authority, sexually inappropriate questions are being asked, etc. etc. Also qualifying: Hollywood, Wall Street, restaurant kitchens...pretty much anywhere men dictate the rules. Mormonism certainly has non-progressive views on sexual equality, but is it just the formality of its codification of these views that differentiates it from other sexually predative groups?	7sq88h	CMV: The Mormon church is a cult and I should do everything in my power to get my family out of it.	So I really, really don't want to believe this but all the information that I can find indicates quite strongly this is so. A little background. I was raised Mormon. I left for varying reasons (not the least of which is because I'm gay) but most of my family remains in the church. Information I've learned since indicates quite strongly that the LDS church is a cult (such as the BITE model: http://old.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php), to the point that I'm all but convinced it is. I don't want to believe this because to do so means that my family members are in a cult and because I love them I need to do everything in my power to get them out of it. I don't want to believe that I was in a cult or that some of my family still are in a cult so please, help me CMV that Mormonism is a cult! Edited to add the BITE model requirements for being a cult with my thoughts, just for clarification sake: Behavior control: 1. Regulate individual’s physical reality - seems unclear. 2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates- yes 3. When, how and with whom the member has sex -yes to an extent 4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles - yes 5. Regulate diet - food and drink, hunger and/or fasting -yes 6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep -sort of? 7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence - yes 8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time -yes, in a few ways, not across the board. 9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet - oh god Yes. 10. Permission required for major decisions -yes. 11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors -yes. 12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative -yes 13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think -yes 14. Impose rigid rules and regulations -yes 15. Instill dependency and obedience - yes 16. Threaten harm to family and friends -yes 17. Force individual to rape or be raped -in the past, yes. Nowadays I don't think so. 18. Instill dependency and obedience - yes 19. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment - in the past yes. I'll post the rest in replies as I think it's too long...	CoyotePatronus	5	5	[ { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dt6onpu", "score": 11, "text": "As far as I know Mormons are allowed to associate with non-Mormons and are not limited in the information they can receive, nor are “sinners” publicly punished or humiliated, nor does the president (is that the correct term?) of the M...	[ { "author": "wanaktos", "id": "dt6oibn", "score": 9, "text": "I think you'll have to elaborate more on why exactly you consider Mormonism to be a cult rather than linking a list of cult characteristics and expecting us to connect the dots. As it is, there's not really much of an argument to respond ...	[ "dt6onpu", "dt6putc", "dt6qkwm", "dt6rib7", "dt6rwwb" ]	[ "dt6oibn", "dt6qbgp", "dt6qoyp", "dt6qzd6", "dt6rdlw" ]
CMV: Pro-plant people's attempts to end meat will ultimately fail. Yes, show me the nth article, paper, or journal, that talks about how harmful meat is to the environment, or how it is resource or land inefficient compared to plant, or how we livestock uses as high as 80% of water, feed, and land used for food. None of matters, and I think that it will end in failure. I say because not only are pro-plant people going against the lobbyist, the "pseudo" scientist in favor of meat, and the cooperations of the industry, but you are fighting against human nature itself. you are fighting against several centuries and generations of cultures and ideologies of people eating lumps of animal tissues and fats. You are trying to upheave a global industry that is worth at least several millions of dollars. You are trying every combination of supplement and Vegetale to match the nutritional value of a slab of meat. It's one thing to say how supposedly horrible meat is, it is another thing to actually make it happen. I feel that trying to end meat is like trying tear out and change the foundation of a house; I mean, you can do it, but it will destroy (or at least disrupt) everything on it in the process. Also, I feel that those trying to end meat can act as bad as those who try to support it. At the very least, tearing down any pro-meat argument by calling it biases, corporate lies, or outright propaganda are not going to create change.	people in here don't seem to understand that eating meat is literally part of our nature and can't be as easily changed like societal structures --- People in here don't seem to understand that ~~eating meat~~ having slaves is literally part of our nature and can't be as easily changed like societal structures. People in here don't seem to understand that ~~eating meat~~ oppressing woman is literally part of our nature and can't be as easily changed like societal structures. People in here don't seem to understand that ~~eating meat~~ racial discrimination is literally part of our nature and can't be as easily changed like societal structures.	>The number of U.S. consumers identifying as vegan grew from 1% to 6% between 2014 and 2017, a 600% increase, according to GlobalData. [Source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2018/11/02/picturing-a-kindler-gentler-world-vegan-month/) It's not going to happen over night. Numbers are still small but right now about 1 in 10 of young people are full time vegans and 30% at least part time vegetarians. Popularity is on the rise and it will take decades and generations but it's not impossible that in 30 years half of population is at least part time vegetarians. --- Isn't a part time vegetarian also known as an omnivore?	19ad82f	CMV: Pro-plant people's attempts to end meat will ultimately fail.	Yes, show me the nth article, paper, or journal, that talks about how harmful meat is to the environment, or how it is resource or land inefficient compared to plant, or how we livestock uses as high as 80% of water, feed, and land used for food. None of matters, and I think that it will end in failure. I say because not only are pro-plant people going against the lobbyist, the "pseudo" scientist in favor of meat, and the cooperations of the industry, but you are fighting against human nature itself. you are fighting against several centuries and generations of cultures and ideologies of people eating lumps of animal tissues and fats. You are trying to upheave a global industry that is worth at least several millions of dollars. You are trying every combination of supplement and Vegetale to match the nutritional value of a slab of meat. It's one thing to say how supposedly horrible meat is, it is another thing to actually make it happen. I feel that trying to end meat is like trying tear out and change the foundation of a house; I mean, you can do it, but it will destroy (or at least disrupt) everything on it in the process. Also, I feel that those trying to end meat can act as bad as those who try to support it. At the very least, tearing down any pro-meat argument by calling it biases, corporate lies, or outright propaganda are not going to create change.	Reddit-Arrien	2	2	[ { "author": "RhinoxMenace", "id": "kik90bh", "score": -2, "text": "people in here don't seem to understand that eating meat is literally part of our nature and can't be as easily changed like societal structures", "timestamp": 1705652148 }, { "author": "havaste", "id": "kik9gq3", ...	[ { "author": "Z7-852", "id": "kik3p7m", "score": 11, "text": ">The number of U.S. consumers identifying as vegan grew from 1% to 6% between 2014 and 2017, a 600% increase, according to GlobalData.\n\n[Source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2018/11/02/picturing-a-kindler-gentler-world-veg...	[ "kik90bh", "kik9gq3" ]	[ "kik3p7m", "kik4rvw" ]
CMV: A Major Reason South Park gets away with mocking LGBT but Chappelle doesn't because Chappelle's black and the backlash against him is rooted in racism So there's a couple other things at play. Firstly South Park is animated and character driven so it's taken less seriously. Also Chapelle is no fan of the media and Comedy Central while South Park played ball. Over the past decade since twitter and increased trans visibility there have been several storylines in SP that are blantantly transphobic. They makeup a small portion of their body of work. The exact same thing is true of Chappelles body of work since 2016. Both have been sympathetic to trans as well. Nobody mentioned here has any hatred towards transpeople. The difference is that South Park is portraying white culture and Chappelle isn't. In the past several years South Park has received nothing but praise in the media except for a minor issue over portraying Macho Man Randy Savage as a woman. Chappelle on the other hand has received nothing but ridicule from liberal media over the several specials while material on trans makes up a small portion of his total content. Except for the latest special. A middle aged black guy onstage is instantly more threatening to those who aren't his fans than white kids playing in snow. When he rails against white culture it's instantly threatening. During the half of the show that was pure comedy, LGBT content made up about half of the jokes. The rest were about Clifford. The media doesn't talk about Clifford. 8:46 occurred during civil unrest and reminded me of the radio personality who took to the airwaves to quell the MLK riots. I forget his name. Chappelle did receive praise for that from liberal media--he should. He might have helped put out some fires. Chappelle punches up against Hollywood and White America. Using trans identifying people as a vehicle to do this is genius. South Park has used similar flipped power dynamic before. Thsts what makes for good social commentary. Straying from the issue slightly. The liberal media created a false equivalence with the focus on StopAsianHate. When I checked statista, my media fact checking source, I saw that while there was a drastic increase in anti-asian hate crimes it was an increase from less than 100 to just over 200 in NYC. There's tons of violent crimes in NYC in a given year like tens of thousands. In Chicago there were 104 people shot, mostly black, during the 4th of July weekend and it didn't make news outside of Chicago. These were not hate crimes to be clear but I'm just comparing a single day to a year to show the spin. There was a concerted effort to stop any popular support for BLM. Back to the point. The media, govt, has always hated black people and they pretend to care about LGBT. The media only carries about cash and clicks.	Can you explain what exactly you mean with South Park "getting away with it" while Chappelle doesn't? How are you quantifying this? --- Overwhelmingly positive reviews of South Park in the media and amongst the net and negative ones towards Dave. I said that. --- That is not a good metric, though - there are many more factors that go into reviews than just this one issue...	How wonderful for Chapelle to start off a whole slew of pointless oppression Olympics. Thanks dude, please run away again and hide or whatever you did once the success of your mid-00's show got too heavy. I don't know anyone who isn't aware of South Park's transphobia. It's been a staple of the show for almost 25 years at this point. Wow, South Park being edgy and dumb? Color me shocked. Honestly I am more surprised that this show whose cultural relevance peaked back when people were still talking about cheesey poofs is still on the air than anything else. Milquetoast centrist dribble that exemplifies the Gen X cynicism we all grew up in. The rest of your post appears to strongly conflate being trans with being white for some weird reason. Mocking trans people is not "punching up" at white people. That's horseshit. --- I'm not saying that. I didn't mean to imply that at all. There's cultural reasons for there being more openly trans white people than black trans. Specifically social liberalism when it's their kids. This is less true for blacks. So both in total numbers and per capita there's more openly trans white people and LGBT. --- > I'm not saying that. I didn't mean to imply that at all. "Chappelle punches up against Hollywood and White America. Using trans identifying people as a vehicle to do this is genius." So you no longer think this is genius?	q5ssbo	CMV: A Major Reason South Park gets away with mocking LGBT but Chappelle doesn't because Chappelle's black and the backlash against him is rooted in racism	So there's a couple other things at play. Firstly South Park is animated and character driven so it's taken less seriously. Also Chapelle is no fan of the media and Comedy Central while South Park played ball. Over the past decade since twitter and increased trans visibility there have been several storylines in SP that are blantantly transphobic. They makeup a small portion of their body of work. The exact same thing is true of Chappelles body of work since 2016. Both have been sympathetic to trans as well. Nobody mentioned here has any hatred towards transpeople. The difference is that South Park is portraying white culture and Chappelle isn't. In the past several years South Park has received nothing but praise in the media except for a minor issue over portraying Macho Man Randy Savage as a woman. Chappelle on the other hand has received nothing but ridicule from liberal media over the several specials while material on trans makes up a small portion of his total content. Except for the latest special. A middle aged black guy onstage is instantly more threatening to those who aren't his fans than white kids playing in snow. When he rails against white culture it's instantly threatening. During the half of the show that was pure comedy, LGBT content made up about half of the jokes. The rest were about Clifford. The media doesn't talk about Clifford. 8:46 occurred during civil unrest and reminded me of the radio personality who took to the airwaves to quell the MLK riots. I forget his name. Chappelle did receive praise for that from liberal media--he should. He might have helped put out some fires. Chappelle punches up against Hollywood and White America. Using trans identifying people as a vehicle to do this is genius. South Park has used similar flipped power dynamic before. Thsts what makes for good social commentary. Straying from the issue slightly. The liberal media created a false equivalence with the focus on StopAsianHate. When I checked statista, my media fact checking source, I saw that while there was a drastic increase in anti-asian hate crimes it was an increase from less than 100 to just over 200 in NYC. There's tons of violent crimes in NYC in a given year like tens of thousands. In Chicago there were 104 people shot, mostly black, during the 4th of July weekend and it didn't make news outside of Chicago. These were not hate crimes to be clear but I'm just comparing a single day to a year to show the spin. There was a concerted effort to stop any popular support for BLM. Back to the point. The media, govt, has always hated black people and they pretend to care about LGBT. The media only carries about cash and clicks.	StoopSign	3	3	[ { "author": "blatant_ban_evasion_", "id": "hg7oxqo", "score": 11, "text": "Can you explain what exactly you mean with South Park \"getting away with it\" while Chappelle doesn't? How are you quantifying this?", "timestamp": 1633948100 }, { "author": "StoopSign", "id": "hg7pjbi", ...	[ { "author": "Narrow_Cloud", "id": "hg7oz4u", "score": 2, "text": "How wonderful for Chapelle to start off a whole slew of pointless oppression Olympics. Thanks dude, please run away again and hide or whatever you did once the success of your mid-00's show got too heavy.\n\nI don't know anyone who is...	[ "hg7oxqo", "hg7pjbi", "hg7prw3" ]	[ "hg7oz4u", "hg7pg9r", "hg7q2yk" ]
CMV: There is no point in being proud of your sexuality or race. Gay pride or black pride are something you’re born as. It took you no effort to be the way you are. So there’s no point in being proud. Basically I don’t think there’s any point in being proud of your sexuality or race. It took no effort to be who you naturally are. It’s not an accomplishment, hence no need to be proud. This also applies to the whole fat pride stuff. I shouldn’t be proud of giving in and just eating a bunch of shitty food and becoming fat. It’s easy. It takes no effort. If your goal was to put on weight, then fine, be proud. But there’s no point in being proud of something that is incredibly easy and takes no effort, or is just natural to who you are. EDIT: This blew up more than I thought. I’ve gotta leave this thread soon. It’s been a great conversation, and while my mind may not have been changed, it’s been for sure nudged a little bit in your direction.	It's not that sort of 'pride'. People aren't using the word in that sense. In the context of, for example, gay pride, people that say they are 'proud to be gay' are not saying they have accomplished some sort of feat in being born gay. Obviously that would be ridiculous. They mean it in the sense that they are confident and happy to be openly gay in a world where many people believe they shouldn't be. It's a gesture of defiance against intolerance: you have to see it in that context. For more info, refer to the almost identical thread posted in this subreddit 40 minutes before yours. --- Your point about being gay in a world many believe they shouldn’t be is irrelevant now. Gay people are easily and happily accepted into society. There is intolerance but it’s so minuscule that it doesnt need a movement about it. What we’re seeing more now, is intolerance towards straight and white people. Like when Leslie Jones tweeted that “white people shit”, or an entire tv show discriminating against white people (Dear White People). Or when buzzfeed write an article calling for us to “ban straight people”. The intolerance has broadly switched with celebrities left and right coming out against white and straight, or skinny people. Why is there no straight, or white pride movement? In an age where straight or white people are discriminated against equally, or even more than gay and colores people, why is the idea of being proud of being straight or white so abhorrent. I’m not proposing a straight pride movement, I don’t think there’s any pride to be had in any sexuality or race. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that the movement exists due to the intolerance against gay or colored people, when clearly there is more or the same amount of intolerance towards straight and white people. --- > Gay people are easily and happily accepted into society. Gay people have only JUST began to be accepted into some societies, we're definitely not, by any means, way past that and that discrimination against homosexuals is a thing of the past. > The intolerance has broadly switched with celebrities left and right coming out against white and straight, or skinny people. This is not a current epidemic. Sounds like you're suffering from a victim complex to me. > or white pride movement There is. They're called white supremacists. --- > What we’re seeing more now, is intolerance towards straight and white people. Like when Leslie Jones tweeted that “white people shit”, or an entire tv show discriminating against white people (Dear White People). Or when buzzfeed write an article calling for us to “ban straight people”. Did you not read the start of that paragraph. Perhaps I exaggerated saying they’re “coming out left and right”, but you can’t deny that we’re seeing negativity towards white and straight people dramatically increase. --- > you can’t deny that we’re seeing negativity towards white and straight people dramatically increase. That's...true. And it's not great. But it's a dramatic increase to "perceptible". If I were to just put some arbitrary numbers on it for an analogy, it's like you've noticed that animosity towards gay people has decreased from 100 to 40, and animosity towards white people has increased from 0.5 to 4, and concluded that white people are now more oppressed than gay people.	Should Usain Bolt be proud of running faster than people who worked harder than him? He was born fast. Shouldn't he be proud of that? --- You’re making it sound as if Usain Bolt didn’t put any effort into running fast. Usain Bolt has said before that what he has has come from hard work. And he should be proud of his hard work. Other people can be just as proud. It’s not a question of the degree to which he has worked hard, as coming second through hard work is just as worthy of pride as coming first. The difference is, is that being how you are born, has not come through hard work, it’s just how you are, and thus, deserves no pride. --- He's put in some hard work but slower people have put in much more. Should he be only proud of how much work he put in or how fast he is (which is only slightly due to hard work)? You say second should be as proud, how about billionth place? Besides, some people are born with more will power and ability to put in hard work. Should I really be any less proud of being born tall than being born with the ability to easily make effort? --- >Should I really be any less proud of being born tall than being born with the ability to easily make effort? A) Those two aren’t anywhere near the same thing. You shouldn’t be proud of your height. As far as I know, nothing in my DNA gives one the ability to work hard. B) I, and many other people, find it incredibly difficult to work hard. I can’t concentrate for long periods of time, and hate having to work hard. But I’ve put in effort, and through that, I’ve made many accomplishments all of which I’m proud of. And if you come last, and you got there, despite putting in your hardest effort, despite trying as hard as you can, then it’s fair to say that you should be proud of yourself. Your achievement isn’t coming last, it’s all the effort you’ve put in. --- Why do you say nothing in your DNA gives you the ability to work hard? Obviously it's some combination of genes and environment you were born with. Just because we haven't isolated them yet doesn't make them less real. You should be proud of everything that makes you you. Your hard work, your laziness. Things that you slowly learn, things that come easily to you. Your name, your birthday, your country, your taste in beer, everything. It's all you.	8o7qus	CMV: There is no point in being proud of your sexuality or race. Gay pride or black pride are something you’re born as. It took you no effort to be the way you are. So there’s no point in being proud.	Basically I don’t think there’s any point in being proud of your sexuality or race. It took no effort to be who you naturally are. It’s not an accomplishment, hence no need to be proud. This also applies to the whole fat pride stuff. I shouldn’t be proud of giving in and just eating a bunch of shitty food and becoming fat. It’s easy. It takes no effort. If your goal was to put on weight, then fine, be proud. But there’s no point in being proud of something that is incredibly easy and takes no effort, or is just natural to who you are. EDIT: This blew up more than I thought. I’ve gotta leave this thread soon. It’s been a great conversation, and while my mind may not have been changed, it’s been for sure nudged a little bit in your direction.	HurricaneSYG	5	5	[ { "author": "FaerieStories", "id": "e01ar6r", "score": 29, "text": "It's not that sort of 'pride'. People aren't using the word in that sense. In the context of, for example, gay pride, people that say they are 'proud to be gay' are not saying they have accomplished some sort of feat in being born g...	[ { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "e01cfvr", "score": 1, "text": "Should Usain Bolt be proud of running faster than people who worked harder than him? He was born fast. Shouldn't he be proud of that?", "timestamp": 1528026443 }, { "author": "HurricaneSYG", "id": "e01cnfu", "sco...	[ "e01ar6r", "e01bbej", "e01cf3p", "e01citi", "e01dlh7" ]	[ "e01cfvr", "e01cnfu", "e01d2p7", "e01dayj", "e01djx4" ]
CMV: Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is kinda trash and should not be held in high regard Trigger warnings: If you aren't familiar with the book it contains a lot of racism, violence, and even genocide. And when I say violence, I mean the worst, gory violence you have ever heard. I can appreciate the dedication McCarthy put into writing it (learning spanish, traveling the route, etc..), and the flow/prose of it itself. The reason I read this book was because I enjoyed McCarthy's The Road, which I loved the writing in. In Blood Meridian, that writing is still there. But there comes a point where the content of a story is so shitty that even amazing writing and dedication can't overcome. I'm sure Hitler made some mechanically good speeches, and his paintings might be good, but his ideas are so evil that we rightfully don't give his arts any praise. That's how I feel about Blood Meridian (not necessarily McCarthy, "Hitler" in this analogy would be the content of the book). My familiarity with the book: I read half of it (iirc part 14, when the gang leaves Chihuahua city and a bounty is put on Glanton's Head). I also watched Wendigoon's entire youtube video on it, which is where my knowledge of the 2nd half of the book comes from. I noticed there were a number of errors in Wendigoon's video about the 1st half (saying Toadvine and the Kid woke up in the hotel when really they woke up in the mud, saying the kid lied about being robbed to captain White when really he was robbed before meeting the ranchers, neglecting to mention the ex-slaver hermit had tore out one of his slaves heart's and kept as a souvenir while speculating that he was probably a pedophile because he otherwise lacked any moral issues...there might have been more but that's what I can remember now), but overall his explanation and analysis of the 1st half seemed good, so I more or less trust what he says about the 2nd half. That said, I'm definitely open to the possibility that he got stuff wrong about the 2nd half, which could change my view of the book. My issue with the book: At best its pointless, nihilistic commentary on an evil world. At worst, it glorifies the evil portrayed. I had to stop reading halfway through because of all the senseless violence. I wanted to stop reading after the gang murdered the peaceful Indian tribe they came across after leaving Chihuahua the 1st time, but I kept reading a bit more to see if things would get better or if there was some point McCarthy was building to. As far as I can tell, there was no greater point, and things definitely did not get better. The entire book is a slog of senseless, pointless violence. When he goes into such great detail to describe the violence, without any accompanying voice or text to say it is wrong, it comes across as glorying it. Maybe McCormac didn't mean to glorify it, but its ripe for the picking for anyone who might revel in the racism or violence, and those who do could easily think the author is intending to write it for their pleasure. The worst part is the characters. At least in, "The Road," the main characters were good. At least in Game of Thrones there were good characters to root for. In this story, everyone is evil, including the kid. Wendigoon makes an argument that the kid might be good or nuetral; that he didn't partake in the bloodshed because he wasn't described as doing so. But I think in all likelihood he did partake. The book says, "the gang" attacked and scalped the indians, and the kid was part of the gang. Further, if a member of the gang wasn't joining in, I think Glanton would take issue with that or at least remark on it. The only line that suggests the Kid might not have is near the end when the Judge refers to the Kid, "your muteness," but I think this is just referring to not killing his fellow gang-members when he pulled the arrow to do it. Potential counter-arguments: The book does make a statement against evil by making the characters hate the judge: The judge is only portrayed as evil because he turned against the gang (and Tobin hates him for what he does to children). The scalping and murdering of innocents was still fine in their eyes, which in many cases included children and women. The book makes a greater point about Good men needing to stand up to evil: This is the point that Wendigoon makes for the story. His evidence is the final scene where the Kid can choose to dance or not, he chooses not to dance and so dies while evil always dances (the judge) so good men need to choose to dance or engage in life to face evil. My issue is: if that was the point McCarthy wanted to make he should have shown a good guy standing up to evil, and he should have shown them being rewarded for doing so. If the good guys standing up to evil just die without accomplishing anything, its no different than the symbolism of the kid choosing not to dance and thus dying. But I'm not sure we even see any good guys standing up to evil in the book. Even the indians are portrayed as evil savages. It's a great rendition of what happened, and we should know what happened evil or not: Then read a history book, where the headhunting gang isn't portrayed as bad-ass protagonists. Change my View: Why should Blood Meridian be highly regarded? Why does it deserve the title, "The American Novel."	Blood Meridian is so shocking and disgusting because it is a portrayal of a real moment in American history. McCarthy’s prose is unflinching. He somehow manages to capture the absolute brutal depravity of scalp hunting while taking the reader on an equally intense tour of the beauty of the frontier. This book isn’t meant to be a narrative about good triumphing over evil, because that’s not how life worked then or now. It’s easily one of the most beautiful and reverent novels I’ve ever read, even though it’s hard to read at times because of the sheer brutality. For what it’s worth, I quit halfway through on my first reading around the same part as you. A few years later, I came back and started over. I’m so glad I did. As far as I’m concerned, the ending is some of the most lyrical and shocking writing I’ve ever read. It was well worth the ugliness. Also, if you haven’t read Moby Dick there’s a lot in Blood Meridian that will be lost on you. It’s not required reading, but highly suggested. --- I don't think scaling is beautiful. Why depict the scalping if he wants to depict the beauty of the frontier? Or if he wants to depict life during that time why pick a group of headhunters to focus on? I have not read Moby Dick, so maybe I'm missing something from that reference? --- >Why depict the scalping if he wants to depict the beauty of the frontier? Because it serves to show the stark contrast between the beauty of the land and the savagery and exploitation happening within it. One of the themes of the book is the erosion of the innocence that only exists in lands untouched by civilization which is summed up in the last page of the book which depicts men drilling for oil.	This is utterly pointless with you only having read half the book. It’s widely regarded as a classic and possibly the finest American novel of the last 50 years. Read the whole thing and then make a judgment. Seems really simple. --- If you all can change my view that it is worthy of finishing the read, I might do that. But considering how bad the first half is I don't think its worth my time to read. --- But that’s a completely different CMV, no? If you’d written, “The first half of Blood Meridian is trash and should not be held in high regard” that’s fine; you read that half, so we can try to convince you the second half is worth it. Nobody can change your view that the full book is trash if you are completely unfamiliar with the entire latter half of it, though. I hope I’m making sense here.	1js0qzw	CMV: Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is kinda trash and should not be held in high regard	Trigger warnings: If you aren't familiar with the book it contains a lot of racism, violence, and even genocide. And when I say violence, I mean the worst, gory violence you have ever heard. I can appreciate the dedication McCarthy put into writing it (learning spanish, traveling the route, etc..), and the flow/prose of it itself. The reason I read this book was because I enjoyed McCarthy's The Road, which I loved the writing in. In Blood Meridian, that writing is still there. But there comes a point where the content of a story is so shitty that even amazing writing and dedication can't overcome. I'm sure Hitler made some mechanically good speeches, and his paintings might be good, but his ideas are so evil that we rightfully don't give his arts any praise. That's how I feel about Blood Meridian (not necessarily McCarthy, "Hitler" in this analogy would be the content of the book). My familiarity with the book: I read half of it (iirc part 14, when the gang leaves Chihuahua city and a bounty is put on Glanton's Head). I also watched Wendigoon's entire youtube video on it, which is where my knowledge of the 2nd half of the book comes from. I noticed there were a number of errors in Wendigoon's video about the 1st half (saying Toadvine and the Kid woke up in the hotel when really they woke up in the mud, saying the kid lied about being robbed to captain White when really he was robbed before meeting the ranchers, neglecting to mention the ex-slaver hermit had tore out one of his slaves heart's and kept as a souvenir while speculating that he was probably a pedophile because he otherwise lacked any moral issues...there might have been more but that's what I can remember now), but overall his explanation and analysis of the 1st half seemed good, so I more or less trust what he says about the 2nd half. That said, I'm definitely open to the possibility that he got stuff wrong about the 2nd half, which could change my view of the book. My issue with the book: At best its pointless, nihilistic commentary on an evil world. At worst, it glorifies the evil portrayed. I had to stop reading halfway through because of all the senseless violence. I wanted to stop reading after the gang murdered the peaceful Indian tribe they came across after leaving Chihuahua the 1st time, but I kept reading a bit more to see if things would get better or if there was some point McCarthy was building to. As far as I can tell, there was no greater point, and things definitely did not get better. The entire book is a slog of senseless, pointless violence. When he goes into such great detail to describe the violence, without any accompanying voice or text to say it is wrong, it comes across as glorying it. Maybe McCormac didn't mean to glorify it, but its ripe for the picking for anyone who might revel in the racism or violence, and those who do could easily think the author is intending to write it for their pleasure. The worst part is the characters. At least in, "The Road," the main characters were good. At least in Game of Thrones there were good characters to root for. In this story, everyone is evil, including the kid. Wendigoon makes an argument that the kid might be good or nuetral; that he didn't partake in the bloodshed because he wasn't described as doing so. But I think in all likelihood he did partake. The book says, "the gang" attacked and scalped the indians, and the kid was part of the gang. Further, if a member of the gang wasn't joining in, I think Glanton would take issue with that or at least remark on it. The only line that suggests the Kid might not have is near the end when the Judge refers to the Kid, "your muteness," but I think this is just referring to not killing his fellow gang-members when he pulled the arrow to do it. Potential counter-arguments: The book does make a statement against evil by making the characters hate the judge: The judge is only portrayed as evil because he turned against the gang (and Tobin hates him for what he does to children). The scalping and murdering of innocents was still fine in their eyes, which in many cases included children and women. The book makes a greater point about Good men needing to stand up to evil: This is the point that Wendigoon makes for the story. His evidence is the final scene where the Kid can choose to dance or not, he chooses not to dance and so dies while evil always dances (the judge) so good men need to choose to dance or engage in life to face evil. My issue is: if that was the point McCarthy wanted to make he should have shown a good guy standing up to evil, and he should have shown them being rewarded for doing so. If the good guys standing up to evil just die without accomplishing anything, its no different than the symbolism of the kid choosing not to dance and thus dying. But I'm not sure we even see any good guys standing up to evil in the book. Even the indians are portrayed as evil savages. It's a great rendition of what happened, and we should know what happened evil or not: Then read a history book, where the headhunting gang isn't portrayed as bad-ass protagonists. Change my View: Why should Blood Meridian be highly regarded? Why does it deserve the title, "The American Novel."	RedditExplorer89	3	3	[ { "author": "senatorbolton", "id": "mlixm0e", "score": 5, "text": "Blood Meridian is so shocking and disgusting because it is a portrayal of a real moment in American history. McCarthy’s prose is unflinching. He somehow manages to capture the absolute brutal depravity of scalp hunting while taking t...	[ { "author": "rhdkcnrj", "id": "mlivu2v", "score": 8, "text": "This is utterly pointless with you only having read half the book. \n\nIt’s widely regarded as a classic and possibly the finest American novel of the last 50 years. Read the whole thing and then make a judgment. Seems really simple.", ...	[ "mlixm0e", "mlizfph", "mlj0s0n" ]	[ "mlivu2v", "mliw7ia", "mliwl7o" ]
CMV: Abortion is not murder It's not genocide either. If a person has sex the risk of conceiving a child does not mandate you to having to have a child. Its your body you can't force someone to use your body. You should not be able to connect tubes to me circulating my blood etc to keep you alive for 9 months etc it's monstrous. This also assumes that you are not forced or acknowledge that he continues wearing the agreed condom during climax. While medicine and birthing technologies have exponential improved there are still major risks and permenant damage is not that uncommon during child birth. All my interactions on the anti choice side have typically been the religious who think you add magic, soul or akin mugafin to this fetus? That they can't look after themselves and you need to look after the weak. This is nonsensical and is just adding special rules for special "people" as they want beyond a person's rights to overrule your own. Having an abortion is not the removal of the fetus or what they call a life? It's the removal of a pregnancy that is unwanted. If the fetus can live outside the person, I have no issue to it being alive as long as it's a similar risk as current abortion practice.	18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. In a strictly technical sense- since abortion is legal, it's not murder by exclusion [manslaughter ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/manslaughter) is a good case though But that then raises the question on why it's legal to use the age of a human to discriminate against them the same legal protections afforded to a human of another age when immutable characteristics are supposedly protected ----- which would immediately open the act up for a charge of murder if a good argument in favor of broadly violating some civil rights, but only for a certain class of person can't be presented..... which I'd challenge anyone to present, on camera, with their name and employer boldly printed on screen with them. Because the world deserves to know who that person is and who gives them money. --- You can only murder a human who has legal personhood. Since murder is a legal term… so is personhood. According to the law you only obtain personhood if you are “born alive”	Your claim is that abortion =/= murder. That whatever murder is; abortion is not that. You've then made a series of points / arguments that explain things like why abortions happen, what's wrong with various anti-abortion arguments and those who espouse them, and some light ethical positions... but no where do you actually explain why abortion isn't murder. Maybe the best way to approach the discussion would be for you to provide us an example of something that is murder, and explain why? That might help illustrate how abortion is different from murder. --- That's my mistake but to clarify and add murder is a legal term.	19a4hxz	CMV: Abortion is not murder	It's not genocide either. If a person has sex the risk of conceiving a child does not mandate you to having to have a child. Its your body you can't force someone to use your body. You should not be able to connect tubes to me circulating my blood etc to keep you alive for 9 months etc it's monstrous. This also assumes that you are not forced or acknowledge that he continues wearing the agreed condom during climax. While medicine and birthing technologies have exponential improved there are still major risks and permenant damage is not that uncommon during child birth. All my interactions on the anti choice side have typically been the religious who think you add magic, soul or akin mugafin to this fetus? That they can't look after themselves and you need to look after the weak. This is nonsensical and is just adding special rules for special "people" as they want beyond a person's rights to overrule your own. Having an abortion is not the removal of the fetus or what they call a life? It's the removal of a pregnancy that is unwanted. If the fetus can live outside the person, I have no issue to it being alive as long as it's a similar risk as current abortion practice.	Iwinloser	2	2	[ { "author": "Choice_Anteater_2539", "id": "kiimnsg", "score": 2, "text": "18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. \n\nIn a strictly technical sense- since abortion is legal, it's not murder by exclusion \n\n[manslaughter ...	[ { "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep", "id": "kiigw8j", "score": 11, "text": "Your claim is that abortion =/= murder. That whatever murder is; abortion is not that. \n\nYou've then made a series of points / arguments that explain things like why abortions happen, what's wrong with various anti-abortion ...	[ "kiimnsg", "kiiszj8" ]	[ "kiigw8j", "kiiiz15" ]
CMV: People concerned about cultural appropriation aren't actually that worried about the "appropriation"part. Many people say cultural appropriation is wrong because it is disrespectful. The idea seems to be that by "appropriating" things from other cultures, we are robbing them of their uniqueness and we're treating their sense of self as a commodity. I understand and broadly agree with this point of view, but it seems to me that this standard is not evenly applied. For example, ancient civilisations are appropriated (in the West) all the time, and nobody seems to mind that much. A few examples: A kid can dress as an Egyptian mummy for Halloween, and not register a complaint. Thor is one of the most popular Marvel characters, despite once being a very sacred religious icon. Many government buildings in the Western world have columns that are directly taken from ancient Roman and Greek architecture. Our numerals are ancient Arabic and Roman, much of our philosophy is from ancient Greece, and primitive [scalpels](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727750-200-scalpels-and-skulls-point-to-bronze-age-brain-surgery/) have been found in ancient Turkey. These are all things that were taken by Western civilisation from other cultures and used selfishly, but nobody really minds. I've never heard of a popular protest against any of these things, which I suspect is mostly because the cultures they're taken from are dead or very, very old. If "appropriation" is the core thing people oppose, these examples show that they don't oppose it across the board. To suggest that cultural appropriation is okay in the above cases because the civilisation being appropriated is old or no longer exists sets a low moral standard. We shouldn't consider things wrong only because there are people alive today who might be upset by them. The wrongness of cultural appropriation should be objective and shouldn't be tied to the existence (or non existence) of the culture being appropriated. These thoughts lead me to think that people who object to cultural appropriation aren't being consistent and therefore that it's not a pressing issue. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Are you really saying that if I'm not upset about what the Romans stole from the Gauls that I can't be upset about what a mugger stole from me? People believe that they are being harmed by their culture being appropriated. No Odin-worshipping Norsemen feel they are being harmed by the portrayal of Thor. Being concerned over living peoples feelings rather than those who have been dead for centuries is in no way inconsistent. --- But isn't that just hammering home the point that it's not the appropriation itself that's the issue, but the offence people feel as a result? I'm sure a lot of Odin-worshipping Norsemen would be offended if they still existed. If the offence is the problem, then surely we can find a way to help people use parts of other cultures respectfully? If there's never a way to use things from another culture respectfully, then I'd suggest that we're being confronted with unrealistic standards. People aren't going to stop appropriating things from other cultures; but they can be taught to do it an a more nuanced way. EDIT: I just noticed I said 'hammering home' while talking about Thor and it amused me. --- <it's not the appropriation itself that's the issue, but the offence people feel as a result> This is true for most potentially offensive things, not just cultural appropriation. It's why hardly anyone raises their voice if two gay people jokingly call each other "faggot" or two buddies call each other "asshole". Both words are offensive, but people won't always take offense. We care when other people are being hurt.	We’re not robbing the uniqueness. The bringing of black People from slave to citizen was an exercise in growth. A good way to remember the13th, 14th, and 15th is to ask yourself how does one become a citizen. First, stop being a slave, second become naturalized, and third get the vote. Blacks, again, had to do through the same growth socially, politically, and economically. And it happened in that order. The 1920s was social, 1960s was political, 1980s - stalled with economics. But economics is key to secure the first two. Look at Jim Crow. Policy modeled after a cartoon character. The only value blacks had, now, to whites. Langston Hughes wrote on this and talked about how whites would go to blacks neighborhoods for entertainment on the weekends. Funny enough, speakeasies were integrated. Blacks went along with it because money. And so it went with music - which has a deep culture of pain in Jazz and Blues. Which was co-opted by whites. 1960s, then the 1990s blacks develop a deep sense of themselves and start to push back at the inequality they feel. Their culture is one of pain and segregation. So you start to see rap music. Which again is co-opted and is now about bitches and hoes. Sagging pants- because LA county prison pants didn't fit. Sticker on brim of hat. It's nice to have nice things and be poor. This is evidence of it. Just about every black cultural attachment has been marketed. AND THEYRE NOT GETTING RICH! They're still being shot by cops. You might say ' but Jay-Z. Outlier. 99 problems. Whites take the culture, make it theirs, but there is no thought as to why it exists. There is a celebration of pain. And like in the 1920s, there are plenty of entertainers willing to take white money. Every suburban mom buying their kid an iPhone and putting lil who gives a fuck on it. Cultural appropriation is about taking something constructed by segregation by those who historically constructed segregation and turning it into a hollow fashion statement. Can’t get a bank loan, but you like the music I make...but then you trash it by rolling in your dad’s Mustang blasting it pretending to be a tough guy. --- >And so it went with music - which has a deep culture of pain in Jazz and Blues. Which was co-opted by whites. Jazz is the product of two distinct cultures merging. European melodies, harmonies, tuning and instruments merging with African swing beat. Same for blues. The swing beat then merged with the folk and country tradition to become rock and roll--which itself is distinct from blues and jazz. Rock and Roll music then merged with eastern traditions, and instruments, to create pyschedelic rock which itself gave way to things like dance music. At the same time the flattening of the swing beat and prominence of 4:4 in rock and roll as well as its pop formula (verse,chorus etc etc) came back and was incorporated into Motown music. The experimental nature of pyschedelic rock--which was influenced by the improvisational factor of jazz---led to explorations of new recording techniques. These included drum looping, sampling, reversing certain parts, pushing reverb amongst other things. Hip-Hop used these same techniques whilst taking samples from (mainly) motown music which itself was heavily influenced by the structures, choruses and patterning of country and folk. The rapping itself was derived from two things: the beat generation, who developed rhythmic word patterning, incoporation of slang, sexual language, performance poetry and rejected standard narrative form Annnnd jamaican rapping which began in the 1960's. There's a back and forth here that makes it impossible really to say who was appropriating who...Seems to me that the appropriators quickly become the appropriatees. If it wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around listening to djembes. Also US rap music emerged in the late seventies, not the nineties. --- Those in power demanded Blacks acculturate. I think Senator Grayson said something to that affect in the 1840s. Paternalism. But again, this isn’t about where it derives - what caused what, it’s about taking culture because it is perceived as ‘black’, then cheapening it/ commercializing it. Imagine you have a rose bush. It’s a bush that your grandfather planted. He taught you how to plant and you’re able to supply a lot of food for your family. But this single rose bush is a symbol of what your grandfather taught you. It is one thing that you are most proud of. Then some teenagers piss on it. Or the city tears it out citing eminent domain so they can put a light pole in. Not a perfect analogy because it doesn’t capture centuries of abuse, pain, and systemic discrimination. But to take something - one thing - then see it turn into a cheap novelty. Or wearing shirts with split slides, neck line, and arms and shoddily sewing in cloth to make it fit because you’re so tremendously poor and it’s all your family can afford ( your money is no good at goodwill/ charities ). It becomes an adaptation amongst your segregated community. But some fashionista sees it as a marketable statement; like a Che Guevara t-shirt. This style explodes amongst the youth culture and goes for upwards of $50. You can’t afford the symbol of your abject poverty. Those who can are descendants of those who engineered you into that poverty. The system they claim they’re not responsible for, but benefit from.	8o8da6	CMV: People concerned about cultural appropriation aren't actually that worried about the "appropriation"part.	Many people say cultural appropriation is wrong because it is disrespectful. The idea seems to be that by "appropriating" things from other cultures, we are robbing them of their uniqueness and we're treating their sense of self as a commodity. I understand and broadly agree with this point of view, but it seems to me that this standard is not evenly applied. For example, ancient civilisations are appropriated (in the West) all the time, and nobody seems to mind that much. A few examples: A kid can dress as an Egyptian mummy for Halloween, and not register a complaint. Thor is one of the most popular Marvel characters, despite once being a very sacred religious icon. Many government buildings in the Western world have columns that are directly taken from ancient Roman and Greek architecture. Our numerals are ancient Arabic and Roman, much of our philosophy is from ancient Greece, and primitive [scalpels](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727750-200-scalpels-and-skulls-point-to-bronze-age-brain-surgery/) have been found in ancient Turkey. These are all things that were taken by Western civilisation from other cultures and used selfishly, but nobody really minds. I've never heard of a popular protest against any of these things, which I suspect is mostly because the cultures they're taken from are dead or very, very old. If "appropriation" is the core thing people oppose, these examples show that they don't oppose it across the board. To suggest that cultural appropriation is okay in the above cases because the civilisation being appropriated is old or no longer exists sets a low moral standard. We shouldn't consider things wrong only because there are people alive today who might be upset by them. The wrongness of cultural appropriation should be objective and shouldn't be tied to the existence (or non existence) of the culture being appropriated. These thoughts lead me to think that people who object to cultural appropriation aren't being consistent and therefore that it's not a pressing issue. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	acurrantafair	3	3	[ { "author": "garnteller", "id": "e01f89b", "score": 15, "text": "Are you really saying that if I'm not upset about what the Romans stole from the Gauls that I can't be upset about what a mugger stole from me?\n\nPeople believe that they are being harmed by their culture being appropriated. No Odin-...	[ { "author": "anonoman925", "id": "e03awu0", "score": 1, "text": "We’re not robbing the uniqueness. \n\nThe bringing of black People from slave to citizen was an exercise in growth. A good way to remember the13th, 14th, and 15th is to ask yourself how does one become a citizen. First, stop being a sl...	[ "e01f89b", "e01fvw7", "e01g5fl" ]	[ "e03awu0", "e03ei8f", "e03gs34" ]
CMV: People concerned about cultural appropriation aren't actually that worried about the "appropriation"part. Many people say cultural appropriation is wrong because it is disrespectful. The idea seems to be that by "appropriating" things from other cultures, we are robbing them of their uniqueness and we're treating their sense of self as a commodity. I understand and broadly agree with this point of view, but it seems to me that this standard is not evenly applied. For example, ancient civilisations are appropriated (in the West) all the time, and nobody seems to mind that much. A few examples: A kid can dress as an Egyptian mummy for Halloween, and not register a complaint. Thor is one of the most popular Marvel characters, despite once being a very sacred religious icon. Many government buildings in the Western world have columns that are directly taken from ancient Roman and Greek architecture. Our numerals are ancient Arabic and Roman, much of our philosophy is from ancient Greece, and primitive [scalpels](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727750-200-scalpels-and-skulls-point-to-bronze-age-brain-surgery/) have been found in ancient Turkey. These are all things that were taken by Western civilisation from other cultures and used selfishly, but nobody really minds. I've never heard of a popular protest against any of these things, which I suspect is mostly because the cultures they're taken from are dead or very, very old. If "appropriation" is the core thing people oppose, these examples show that they don't oppose it across the board. To suggest that cultural appropriation is okay in the above cases because the civilisation being appropriated is old or no longer exists sets a low moral standard. We shouldn't consider things wrong only because there are people alive today who might be upset by them. The wrongness of cultural appropriation should be objective and shouldn't be tied to the existence (or non existence) of the culture being appropriated. These thoughts lead me to think that people who object to cultural appropriation aren't being consistent and therefore that it's not a pressing issue. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Are you really saying that if I'm not upset about what the Romans stole from the Gauls that I can't be upset about what a mugger stole from me? People believe that they are being harmed by their culture being appropriated. No Odin-worshipping Norsemen feel they are being harmed by the portrayal of Thor. Being concerned over living peoples feelings rather than those who have been dead for centuries is in no way inconsistent. --- But isn't that just hammering home the point that it's not the appropriation itself that's the issue, but the offence people feel as a result? I'm sure a lot of Odin-worshipping Norsemen would be offended if they still existed. If the offence is the problem, then surely we can find a way to help people use parts of other cultures respectfully? If there's never a way to use things from another culture respectfully, then I'd suggest that we're being confronted with unrealistic standards. People aren't going to stop appropriating things from other cultures; but they can be taught to do it an a more nuanced way. EDIT: I just noticed I said 'hammering home' while talking about Thor and it amused me. --- You talk like anyone against cultural appropriation is advocating for a complete separation of cultures- but only a very extreme, very small group of people is saying that there is no way to use anything from another culture respectfully. Most people who are against cultural appropriation are fine with anything that’s done with respect. Example: little to know one is saying Americans should stop eating Mexican food, because the food is appreciated and everyone knows it’s originally Mexican. People against cultural appropriation will disapprove of an American dressing up as a Mexican, because this is often a racist stereotype played of for laughs.	We’re not robbing the uniqueness. The bringing of black People from slave to citizen was an exercise in growth. A good way to remember the13th, 14th, and 15th is to ask yourself how does one become a citizen. First, stop being a slave, second become naturalized, and third get the vote. Blacks, again, had to do through the same growth socially, politically, and economically. And it happened in that order. The 1920s was social, 1960s was political, 1980s - stalled with economics. But economics is key to secure the first two. Look at Jim Crow. Policy modeled after a cartoon character. The only value blacks had, now, to whites. Langston Hughes wrote on this and talked about how whites would go to blacks neighborhoods for entertainment on the weekends. Funny enough, speakeasies were integrated. Blacks went along with it because money. And so it went with music - which has a deep culture of pain in Jazz and Blues. Which was co-opted by whites. 1960s, then the 1990s blacks develop a deep sense of themselves and start to push back at the inequality they feel. Their culture is one of pain and segregation. So you start to see rap music. Which again is co-opted and is now about bitches and hoes. Sagging pants- because LA county prison pants didn't fit. Sticker on brim of hat. It's nice to have nice things and be poor. This is evidence of it. Just about every black cultural attachment has been marketed. AND THEYRE NOT GETTING RICH! They're still being shot by cops. You might say ' but Jay-Z. Outlier. 99 problems. Whites take the culture, make it theirs, but there is no thought as to why it exists. There is a celebration of pain. And like in the 1920s, there are plenty of entertainers willing to take white money. Every suburban mom buying their kid an iPhone and putting lil who gives a fuck on it. Cultural appropriation is about taking something constructed by segregation by those who historically constructed segregation and turning it into a hollow fashion statement. Can’t get a bank loan, but you like the music I make...but then you trash it by rolling in your dad’s Mustang blasting it pretending to be a tough guy. --- >And so it went with music - which has a deep culture of pain in Jazz and Blues. Which was co-opted by whites. Jazz is the product of two distinct cultures merging. European melodies, harmonies, tuning and instruments merging with African swing beat. Same for blues. The swing beat then merged with the folk and country tradition to become rock and roll--which itself is distinct from blues and jazz. Rock and Roll music then merged with eastern traditions, and instruments, to create pyschedelic rock which itself gave way to things like dance music. At the same time the flattening of the swing beat and prominence of 4:4 in rock and roll as well as its pop formula (verse,chorus etc etc) came back and was incorporated into Motown music. The experimental nature of pyschedelic rock--which was influenced by the improvisational factor of jazz---led to explorations of new recording techniques. These included drum looping, sampling, reversing certain parts, pushing reverb amongst other things. Hip-Hop used these same techniques whilst taking samples from (mainly) motown music which itself was heavily influenced by the structures, choruses and patterning of country and folk. The rapping itself was derived from two things: the beat generation, who developed rhythmic word patterning, incoporation of slang, sexual language, performance poetry and rejected standard narrative form Annnnd jamaican rapping which began in the 1960's. There's a back and forth here that makes it impossible really to say who was appropriating who...Seems to me that the appropriators quickly become the appropriatees. If it wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around listening to djembes. Also US rap music emerged in the late seventies, not the nineties.	8o8da6	CMV: People concerned about cultural appropriation aren't actually that worried about the "appropriation"part.	Many people say cultural appropriation is wrong because it is disrespectful. The idea seems to be that by "appropriating" things from other cultures, we are robbing them of their uniqueness and we're treating their sense of self as a commodity. I understand and broadly agree with this point of view, but it seems to me that this standard is not evenly applied. For example, ancient civilisations are appropriated (in the West) all the time, and nobody seems to mind that much. A few examples: A kid can dress as an Egyptian mummy for Halloween, and not register a complaint. Thor is one of the most popular Marvel characters, despite once being a very sacred religious icon. Many government buildings in the Western world have columns that are directly taken from ancient Roman and Greek architecture. Our numerals are ancient Arabic and Roman, much of our philosophy is from ancient Greece, and primitive [scalpels](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727750-200-scalpels-and-skulls-point-to-bronze-age-brain-surgery/) have been found in ancient Turkey. These are all things that were taken by Western civilisation from other cultures and used selfishly, but nobody really minds. I've never heard of a popular protest against any of these things, which I suspect is mostly because the cultures they're taken from are dead or very, very old. If "appropriation" is the core thing people oppose, these examples show that they don't oppose it across the board. To suggest that cultural appropriation is okay in the above cases because the civilisation being appropriated is old or no longer exists sets a low moral standard. We shouldn't consider things wrong only because there are people alive today who might be upset by them. The wrongness of cultural appropriation should be objective and shouldn't be tied to the existence (or non existence) of the culture being appropriated. These thoughts lead me to think that people who object to cultural appropriation aren't being consistent and therefore that it's not a pressing issue. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	acurrantafair	3	2	[ { "author": "garnteller", "id": "e01f89b", "score": 15, "text": "Are you really saying that if I'm not upset about what the Romans stole from the Gauls that I can't be upset about what a mugger stole from me?\n\nPeople believe that they are being harmed by their culture being appropriated. No Odin-...	[ { "author": "anonoman925", "id": "e03awu0", "score": 1, "text": "We’re not robbing the uniqueness. \n\nThe bringing of black People from slave to citizen was an exercise in growth. A good way to remember the13th, 14th, and 15th is to ask yourself how does one become a citizen. First, stop being a sl...	[ "e01f89b", "e01fvw7", "e01gfwl" ]	[ "e03awu0", "e03ei8f" ]
CMV: My teen spends much more time Online than IRL, and I believe it's an unhealthy balance that will impact his future relationships. As a parent, I'm concerned about my 13yo son's social engagements, which is mostly online, through gaming. He has friends from school, but rarely sees them after school or on the weekends outside of school. I worry about the long-term effects on his social and emotional development as a person spending so much time online. I'm in my late 40s, and grew up in a time before smartphones and online communities. In my experience in-person interactions benefited me greatly: getting a deeper understanding of friends through nonverbal cues, a sense of true connection with friends when you're just hanging out, and the opportunity for more meaningful conversations when there are fewer distractions around. These things seem to be missing in my son's online interactions, which are often limited to in-game discussions about strategy, or even which game to play next, and then lack any in-depth (or even mundane talk) that happens naturally when you spend time together face-to-face. Also, he ends up meeting a variety of online-only friends and those relationships are more fleeting and never get that deep and real. I think spending more time with fewer, but real in person friends would be better for his social development. He'd have more opportunities to learn social skills - listening, empathy, resolving conflicts, social cues, etc. I advocate for a much more balanced approach, ideally splitting his social time equally between online and offline. We already don't allow him to play games during the weekdays when school is on. And I'd do more to encourage and allow him and his friends to get together in person more.	You are correct and incorrect. You are correct in your concerns, you are incorrect in saying it’s abnormal. The reality is all kids during this period have this problem. It’s a societal problem not your kids individual failure --- ∆ Your comment made me realize that there's a broader societal problem and if I were to try to change something in my son's life I should think about creating these third space for my son and his friends to hang out in. Small example is that he had, at 13, a birthday get together at a bowling alley, and it's something I can do more of, not just at a birthday. --- When I was 13 (35 now) we would go meet up at an internet Cafe or do Lan parties. Letting your son know it's cool for his friends to bring their computer rigs and monitors, set up an extra powerbar/desk if you have room, provide some snacks and "fun" foods like tacos or nachos or whatever your guys like. I went over to my friend's all the time and his folks set up a space for us to game and also keep an eye on us. Having that extra place to go hang out with friends was amazing, especially because I didn't have a computer at first and my friend basically caught me up. I have great memories of that time, and it can lead into more outdoorsy adventures, by offering "Hey you guys can game but the snow is great want to go sledding?" Etc., when we were already visiting. I have no idea if that's feasible in your space/place, but letting your son know his hobbies are important and letting him know his friends are welcome to come over and play too, regardless of how much space. (three of us crowded a kitchen table for months at first) Good luck, sound like a good dad. Hope my rambling helps a little	Are you really saying that you can't have a meaningful conversation unless it's in person? Whilst literally on the internet trying to discuss your kid and his relationship with his friends? Do you see how silly that is? Also, have you been outside recently? What are you expecting your 13 year old kid and his friends to go and do? Everything is covered in cars and roads, loitering is literally illegal in a bunch of places, nothing is walkable and riding your bike anywhere is half likely to get you killed by some moron in a giant truck, like, what do actually expect him to do? --- I think you can have meaningful conversations online. I just don't observe it happening (he often games with his door open and is open to us hearing what he's up to). We live in a place where there's walkable parks, and I offer to take him to the mall to meet up with friends, or go to movies, and encourage him to make plans to meet up with other friends. --- Don't you think maybe he's having those deeper conversations when you're not listening? Or that maybe the conversations you were having when you were 13 weren't quite as deep as you remember them being? Also, playing games and talking/thinking about strats and tactics with his buddies is great, and arguably more useful to his cognitive ability than doing some kind of pewee sports leage or whatever, half of the teenagers I come across in videogames are screaming racial slurs and insults at everyone, he sounds like he's probably a good kid. And going to a mall is going to rot his brain far more than playing videogames with his buddies, I really don't think you have anything to worry about.	19a0ir3	CMV: My teen spends much more time Online than IRL, and I believe it's an unhealthy balance that will impact his future relationships.	As a parent, I'm concerned about my 13yo son's social engagements, which is mostly online, through gaming. He has friends from school, but rarely sees them after school or on the weekends outside of school. I worry about the long-term effects on his social and emotional development as a person spending so much time online. I'm in my late 40s, and grew up in a time before smartphones and online communities. In my experience in-person interactions benefited me greatly: getting a deeper understanding of friends through nonverbal cues, a sense of true connection with friends when you're just hanging out, and the opportunity for more meaningful conversations when there are fewer distractions around. These things seem to be missing in my son's online interactions, which are often limited to in-game discussions about strategy, or even which game to play next, and then lack any in-depth (or even mundane talk) that happens naturally when you spend time together face-to-face. Also, he ends up meeting a variety of online-only friends and those relationships are more fleeting and never get that deep and real. I think spending more time with fewer, but real in person friends would be better for his social development. He'd have more opportunities to learn social skills - listening, empathy, resolving conflicts, social cues, etc. I advocate for a much more balanced approach, ideally splitting his social time equally between online and offline. We already don't allow him to play games during the weekdays when school is on. And I'd do more to encourage and allow him and his friends to get together in person more.	blueandyshores	3	3	[ { "author": "Km15u", "id": "kihomf4", "score": 478, "text": "You are correct and incorrect. You are correct in your concerns, you are incorrect in saying it’s abnormal. The reality is all kids during this period have this problem. It’s a societal problem not your kids individual failure", "times...	[ { "author": "FluffyRectum1312", "id": "kihqaq2", "score": 6, "text": "Are you really saying that you can't have a meaningful conversation unless it's in person? Whilst literally on the internet trying to discuss your kid and his relationship with his friends? Do you see how silly that is? \n\n\n\n\n...	[ "kihomf4", "kihuvgk", "kii2sjv" ]	[ "kihqaq2", "kihrj44", "kihtc6j" ]
CMV: Millenials disdain for Baby Boomers is misplaced and faintly ridiculous I frequently read posts from Millennial expressing anger about how much easier the Baby Boomer generation had it; how they are selfish for not retiring in droves in order to make room for younger workers; how they are ignorant fools for not understanding that it's harder for todays 20\- and 30\-somethings than it was in the 60s\-70s. I don't understand this. What makes millennials believe that, given the same circumstances growing up, they would make different choices that the members of the Baby Boom generation? Or it just an expression of anger not meant to be taken literally? Background: am in my early 40s, so am not really in either group. I had neither the benefit of the Baby Boomer economy, nor the tribal identity millennials get to enjoy.	> nor the tribal identity millennials get to enjoy. I want to understand what made you say this, before I give my answer. Why do you think millennials, [the most diverse](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180124_metro_millennialreport_pressrelease.pdf), [overworked](https://www.refinery29.com/overworked-millennials-work-ethic) American generation is playing "tribal identities" more so than any other generation. Enough so, that you felt the need to point it out. --- I am not of a generation that regularly gets adjectives applied to it, such as "overworked" or "diverse". Millennials are a widely studied social group, an object of fascination to itself, and to others. As are Baby Boomers, who were similarly self\-obsessed. Or another way of putting it, members of these generations tend to be very interested in talking about their roots, impact and future as a social group. I don't have that identity in common with others born around the same time as me. I suppose I am "Generation X" but no one really cares about Generation X, including members of Generation X. Due to demographics and timing we just aren't' as impactful and don't have a bond among us. Hope that clarifies enough. --- I think the biggest difference is that information is far more readily available, we as millenials are now able to see every tragedy in real time, we see the problems with the world and are seeing more and more come out about issues with government and multiple levels and illegal things that are being dismissed, and yet at the same time we have an unprecedented ability to communicate and voice our opinions and share with one another, we can more efficiently unite for better or worse than any other time in history, and that may only be more true for every next generation.	I think that's mostly a push back because of how much people criticize the Millenials. I rarely see millenials specifically talking shit about any generation, but it seems like dismissing millenials is a very very common thing for the previous generations. --- This is what I've mostly seen. There was a flurry of "why aren't millennials _____?" articles about buying cars, buying houses, having children, etc., especially a few years ago. A lot of the articles which I read were comparing millennials to previous generations and saying that they weren't achieving the "benchmarks" that their parents had. Enough of these articles placed the blame on "lazy millennials" and not on the vastly different economic climate that it created a fair amount of backlash. --- As a Gen Xer, there were just as many articles written about us and how lazy we were (to the point our entire generation got the nickname "Slackers". I think it is just a rite of passage for each generation to get called lazy by the previous generation who believe they had it harder.	8o15rf	CMV: Millenials disdain for Baby Boomers is misplaced and faintly ridiculous	I frequently read posts from Millennial expressing anger about how much easier the Baby Boomer generation had it; how they are selfish for not retiring in droves in order to make room for younger workers; how they are ignorant fools for not understanding that it's harder for todays 20\- and 30\-somethings than it was in the 60s\-70s. I don't understand this. What makes millennials believe that, given the same circumstances growing up, they would make different choices that the members of the Baby Boom generation? Or it just an expression of anger not meant to be taken literally? Background: am in my early 40s, so am not really in either group. I had neither the benefit of the Baby Boomer economy, nor the tribal identity millennials get to enjoy.	estheredna	3	3	[ { "author": "boundbythecurve", "id": "dzzvrc9", "score": 39, "text": "> nor the tribal identity millennials get to enjoy. \n\nI want to understand what made you say this, before I give my answer. Why do you think millennials, [the most diverse](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20...	[ { "author": "His_Voidly_Appendage", "id": "dzzvd8z", "score": 24, "text": "I think that's mostly a push back because of how much people criticize the Millenials. I rarely see millenials specifically talking shit about any generation, but it seems like dismissing millenials is a very very common thin...	[ "dzzvrc9", "dzzx7al", "e006jmn" ]	[ "dzzvd8z", "dzzvo09", "dzzyjvo" ]
CMV: Certain streamers on Twitch offer zero substance in terms of content except for their sexuality and at their most extreme should be treated as pornographers and be segregated from the general twitch streamer population into an adults only section of the site. With the creation of the IRL stream category twitch streamers have been untethered from actually delivering any content with substance. Not to say that this is true across the board, but this new genre is incredibly lucrative for young women who don't mind showing off a little skin in return for donations (which can be borderline softcore porn at times). Twitch's TOS states the minimum age for anyone to view the site is 13 with parental guidance. With the increasing ease that children can access the internet unbeknownst to their guardians I believe that these IRL streamers should be put in their own section of the site that is blocked off by tougher barriers to entry.	Provided they're not nude or engaging in sexual acts, what is the issue? It's not like children aren't exposed to scantly clad men/women when they go to the beach and/or pool. Twitch is entertainment, that's the goal of the service. If someone is entertaining others by the way they dress, how is that any different than entertaining others by the way they talk? --- >If someone is entertaining others by the way they dress, how is that any different than entertaining others by the way they talk? In what other medium can teenage kids talk to legal adults for the sole reason that the adult looks good? Hooters maybe? --- Anywhere they happen to be in proximity, if the kid has enough moxie. I'm an adult and I've been chatted up by extremely underage boys at the library and at a gaming convention. I did not encourage this nor was I the one who started the conversation. In both instances I wished they would go away and hit awkwardly on someone more legally appropriate, but they clearly did not see anything to deter them.	Could you maybe expand on why "showing off a little skin" necessitates that the video suddenly be deemed for "adults only"? Why should content guidelines for something like Twitch be more stringent than they are for movies, or for that matter for other streaming content services like YouTube? --- When you watch a movie, you watch it for the plot, the characters. When you listen to music, you listen for the beat or the vocals. What do you get from watching an IRL stream with a scantily clad woman and how does it differ from a non nude strip club? Teens are too young to be seeking (and paying for) the privilege of talking to these scantly clad women. Yes there are movies that should not be watched by children, that's why there is a rating system to keep those movies out of their hands. I believe these twitch streams should be subject to the same restrictions. --- >I believe these twitch streams should be subject to the same restrictions. But that's precisely the issue I see: you're not asking for the same restrictions. You're asking for significantly harsher restrictions, because you seem to be drawing an equivalence between scantily clad women on Twitch streams and the sort of nudity and sex which would make a movie deemed "adults only," i.e. rated "R." But the actual equivalence is between scantily clad women on Twitch and scantily clad women in movies, which would at best garner a PG-13 - the equivalent to which already appears to be in place on Twitch. So, again: what's the extra step that makes scantily clad women on Twitch so much more "adult" than scantily clad women in a movie or a music video?	794xx7	CMV: Certain streamers on Twitch offer zero substance in terms of content except for their sexuality and at their most extreme should be treated as pornographers and be segregated from the general twitch streamer population into an adults only section of the site.	With the creation of the IRL stream category twitch streamers have been untethered from actually delivering any content with substance. Not to say that this is true across the board, but this new genre is incredibly lucrative for young women who don't mind showing off a little skin in return for donations (which can be borderline softcore porn at times). Twitch's TOS states the minimum age for anyone to view the site is 13 with parental guidance. With the increasing ease that children can access the internet unbeknownst to their guardians I believe that these IRL streamers should be put in their own section of the site that is blocked off by tougher barriers to entry.	SillyMarbles	3	3	[ { "author": "MrGraeme", "id": "doz66zb", "score": 11, "text": "Provided they're not nude or engaging in sexual acts, what is the issue? It's not like children aren't exposed to scantly clad men/women when they go to the beach and/or pool.\n\nTwitch is entertainment, that's the goal of the service. I...	[ { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "doz6fn5", "score": 1, "text": "Could you maybe expand on why \"showing off a little skin\" necessitates that the video suddenly be deemed for \"adults only\"? Why should content guidelines for something like Twitch be more stringent than they are for movies,...	[ "doz66zb", "doz8ht1", "doz9dog" ]	[ "doz6fn5", "doz7ekc", "doz7xyx" ]
CMV: Polyamory relationships and marriage should be normalized I understand why some areas can’t handle legalizing it, like areas where women are seen as less than / places where sex education is low, but this is not the case everywhere. I don’t know everything about every country, but why not Canada, South America, Australia, East Asia or Europe? And while I’m not poly myself, all the arguments against it seem to be education problems rather than poly problems. They can sometimes be used against mono relationships and make sense in a reversed context, for example “I don’t support monogamy because it’s just a choice from a failing poly-lationship” and so on. Maybe somethings not clicking for me, I’m open to CMV.	Why does the state need to be involved? There would be no added tax benefit to a second wife. So why does the state need to approve? Nobody is stopping you from doing the ceremony you want, wearing rings and living together. --- Because they are already involved with 2 person marriages. It makes a statement for that to be the only option. But yeah working out the marriage benefits for even 3 people would be complicated. --- There is no way the government would make any above or beyond what exists for two people. At that point your just asking for the government to approve something just out of habit. --- Well, it will involve a lot of change. It won’t happen soon but is it not the right thing to do? That’s what I’m wondering --- It's not an anything to do. It doesn't help anyone. --- Well there’s no “reason” for marriage anyway. People just want to. I’m still unable to see why some people can’t, other then divorce and benefits being complicated to fix. Edit to add: It’s not like the current system of laws are perfect anyway, but my whole point with the marriage is being mistaken as an “all of nothing” attitude when I just think marriage options should be available --- Marriage is more a formal declaration than a type of relationship. Marriage is important for things like rights, inheritance etc. If your spouse dies, the state can easily give rights to you. If it's just your girlfriend or boyfriend, how can the state and civil servants, who don't know you personally well enough to say how serious your relationship was, hand over important rights and assets? Now imagine a situation where someone in a 3-person relationship suddenly dies. If they're married, who gets what? Who gets custody of any children, especially if not everyone lives together or later divorces? Who gets the house, and the car, and the savings accounts? Who gets the power of attorney? Who gets to decide if life support machines get turned off? What happens if both spouses disagree on decisions like that? It defeats the point of marriage from the point of view of the State because the entire reason is to make it clear who is in a relationship with whom and who they trust with everything.	Relationships? Sure. No problem. Marriage? Oh jeez. So many legal and tax issues would result in partnerships between 3 or more people when so many things are designed to function as exclusively 2-person. I'm not a lawyer but just thinking about it gives me a sympathetic headache for the people who would have to rework everything to fit group marriages. --- What legal issues do you foresee? --- There's a long list of rights/privileges afforded to spouses but a few: military benefits, sponsored immigration, parenting rights, child support/custody, spousal medical decisions, and the big one that I least understand but know would be the biggest headache: Taxes. --- And how do you see these being negatively affected by having an extra partner in the mix? --- Let me ask you a question instead so I know where you're coming from here: Would you set a limit on the number of potential spouses? --- No. I would say that I believe most of the benefits or burdens which come to rise as a result of marriage can be just as easily applied or divided amongst another or several spouses. --- Okay. How would you handle a custody agreement during a 100-person divorce with 37 children?	ga5dlq	CMV: Polyamory relationships and marriage should be normalized	I understand why some areas can’t handle legalizing it, like areas where women are seen as less than / places where sex education is low, but this is not the case everywhere. I don’t know everything about every country, but why not Canada, South America, Australia, East Asia or Europe? And while I’m not poly myself, all the arguments against it seem to be education problems rather than poly problems. They can sometimes be used against mono relationships and make sense in a reversed context, for example “I don’t support monogamy because it’s just a choice from a failing poly-lationship” and so on. Maybe somethings not clicking for me, I’m open to CMV.	heeess	7	7	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "foxlrh8", "score": 10, "text": "Why does the state need to be involved? There would be no added tax benefit to a second wife. So why does the state need to approve? \n\nNobody is stopping you from doing the ceremony you want, wearing rings and living togeth...	[ { "author": "RadgarEleding", "id": "foxlxxq", "score": 3, "text": "Relationships? Sure. No problem.\n\nMarriage? Oh jeez. So many legal and tax issues would result in partnerships between 3 or more people when so many things are designed to function as exclusively 2-person.\n\nI'm not a lawyer but j...	[ "foxlrh8", "foxoumh", "foxp8y7", "foxq4tl", "foxr5j2", "foxretf", "foxx1u8" ]	[ "foxlxxq", "foxm33f", "foxn1x0", "foxojq3", "foxouxm", "foxp72q", "foxpa3y" ]
CMV: If you enjoy playing MMORPG games, you are a capitalist at heart. The emphasis on this CMV is the wording " at heart " MMORPG = massive multilayer online role playing game. The essential goal In all mmorpgs is to get the highest level, prestige, or conquer the most difficult gaming content with other players (usually what is known as a guild). These guilds are usually in competition with each other to achieve the highest levels of the game. Every race or class starts with different advantages and disadvantages and this effects the level or game play. Now there is a whole other factor to this game which I will equivalent to inheritance. Most end game players that reach the higher points of the game decide that they want to try a new class or race. Well cool your main character can send the new character money/items or whatever to get a leg up or make things easier. My point is that mmo players have a capitalistic heart IF they enjoy these sort of games.	> The essential goal In all mmorpgs is to get the highest level, prestige, or conquer the most difficult gaming content with other players (usually what is known as a guild). Many people play games, including MMORPGs, for other reasons. For example, some people may prefer to explore a fantasy landscape, immerse themselves in a story, role-play, or simply master some small corner of the game (become excellent at crafting). It seems that not all of these are even as tangentially related to competition as your examples. --- But while exploring is it not a goal for most players to progress their characters? --- No; it's a means to an end. Let's say I see a really cool thing I want to explore, but the zone is level 50 and I'm level 10. Now I have motivation to go and progress my character, with the goal being to experience the content. There are some people who just want to watch numbers go up. I won't dispute that those people exist. But they're not the whole of the MMO experience. For instance, I play Star Trek Online, even though I have a pretty high distaste for free-to-play MMOs, because other than, apparently, the VR bridge crew game (which I don't have the hardware for yet, or the money to buy said hardware), it's one of the best ways to explore the Star Trek universe in an interactive fashion, and that's something I want to do in a video game at the moment. Right now, I really want to fly a Galaxy-class cruiser, like the Enterprise D from TNG, but I can't actually get that ship without saving up 40k dilithium and getting promoted to Captain (level 30); so I have a goal to go out and do missions and earn dilithium and get my Enterprise to fly around and explore. But my progression isn't a goal for the sake of the goal, and while I might achieve my goal faster if I were just given an Enterprise at the start, I'd be happy. So actually, it's capitalism that's holding me back from my goal in this MMO, but I'm playing anyway because I don't want to not do this thing just because there's a roadblock. EDIT: some important qualifiers	That's not really accurate. A game has codified rules and a participant agrees to play by those rules, even to their disadvantage in terms of morality. You see this often in MMOs where people will complain about price gouging in the auction house. The first rule of capitalism dictates that the value of an item is what someone thinks its worth. Yet there are an abundance of individuals who say "No it's not right to undercut" or "No it's an easy item to get people who charge X are assholes." Clearly there is a substantial dissonance since the most capitalistic component of an MMO, the auction house is often the most divisive part of MMOs.How people approach it from a moral standpoint despite knowing that it's a game. If people were really capitalists they would universally opportunistically ignore any moral argument concerning playing a game, save for cheating at that game because that would render the games value irrelevant. They often know that despite the fact that the "Assholes" are playing by the rules, they find it morally repugnant. --- >agree to play by those rules Isn't this the same as laws? I suppose nobody when they are first born "agree" though. --- >Isn't this the same as laws? So extrapolating your example. Every person in the U.S. loves capitalism because they live here? Because I can tell you that is a slippery slope and 100% false.	7so3i0	CMV: If you enjoy playing MMORPG games, you are a capitalist at heart.	The emphasis on this CMV is the wording " at heart " MMORPG = massive multilayer online role playing game. The essential goal In all mmorpgs is to get the highest level, prestige, or conquer the most difficult gaming content with other players (usually what is known as a guild). These guilds are usually in competition with each other to achieve the highest levels of the game. Every race or class starts with different advantages and disadvantages and this effects the level or game play. Now there is a whole other factor to this game which I will equivalent to inheritance. Most end game players that reach the higher points of the game decide that they want to try a new class or race. Well cool your main character can send the new character money/items or whatever to get a leg up or make things easier. My point is that mmo players have a capitalistic heart IF they enjoy these sort of games.	mergerr	3	3	[ { "author": "ThatSpencerGuy", "id": "dt666i2", "score": 19, "text": "> The essential goal In all mmorpgs is to get the highest level, prestige, or conquer the most difficult gaming content with other players (usually what is known as a guild). \n\nMany people play games, including MMORPGs, for other...	[ { "author": "championofobscurity", "id": "dt66i68", "score": 12, "text": "That's not really accurate. A game has codified rules and a participant agrees to play by those rules, even to their disadvantage in terms of morality.\n\nYou see this often in MMOs where people will complain about price gougi...	[ "dt666i2", "dt68ksh", "dt6ap2p" ]	[ "dt66i68", "dt68pih", "dt6cm8s" ]
CMV: Depression is the worst of all maladies. I see the error of my ways! No more, please, no more! First of all, if anyone who is reading this is depressed, please seek out a professional and information pertaining to the illness, through people, books, videos, etc... As long as there's life, there's hope. I, like many of you I suspect, have experienced depression. It takes away the zest for life and replaces it with an infatuation with death. We find ourselves in the valley of shadow and death. There are different ways of responding to this crisis: isolating ourselves, drinking to numb, lamenting our fate, etc. Sometimes this illness robs something that cannot be replicated in this world, a human being with a name, an individual with a unique story with themselves as the protagonist. We may be quite similar to those that are, were, and will be, but we are, and I really hate to fucking say this, special snowflakes. Every being is different from another due to the number of myriad variables involved. Depression rarely comes into existence out of a vacuum. There needs to be a catalyst to summon it. A common one is illness Whether physical or mental, an illness can be made unbearable due to depression. In fact, depression may be the only thing making it such a burden in the first place. Suppose I was diagnosed with some sort of malady, yet despite this, was happy as a clam! My quality of life would still be better than the individual ensnared by depression, for I would love my existence rather than loathe it. My argument is that depression is the final arbiter as to whether anything is good or bad. People can merrily go on their way after being gutted by a thug. It would be difficult to maintain such a cheery disposition, mind you, but not impossible. Individuals diagnosed with a life threatening illness can be of a happy disposition while a person of both great wealth and health wallows in unhappiness. There are many other illustrations to adequately convey my point. Nothing is bad until we make it so, except depression. By our very nature we cannot be both happy and sad. Depression is the antithesis of joy. Any feeling may accompany these two, but the two in question cannot accompany each other. EDIT: To further help illustrate my point, a quote from the Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and Stoic. > “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” With other evils, you can persist to be either content or happy no matter how great this evil is. Incredibly difficult? Fuck, I imagine so! Depression by its very nature cannot coexist with joy though. There is no such thing as a happy depressed person. It is, quite literally, impossible. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Depression is awful, that is correct. I would argue that Alzheimer's is much worse though. Depending on how it comes through, it is entirely possible you notice your own downward spiral. You can tell that you aren't remembering things, or that you can't put together sentences correctly. Heck, Alzheimer's can make your brain literally forget how to use muscles. Your arms may be perfectly strong for lifting a box or opening a door, but if you fall your body can't figure out how to use them to stand up. It is a slow, slow fall, where you can tell what's happening to you but can't do anything about it. Depression on the other hand, is treatable. --- Alzheimer's is really fucking shitty. I had a relative diagnosed with it and I suspect you know someone with it. However, one can have Alzheimer's yet still be happy. The same cannot be said of depression. --- You're really mistaking "being sad" for "depression" here. If all you're saying is that being emotionally miserable is the most emotionally miserable thing there is... you're basically stating a tautology. But "depression" is its own disease, and that misunderstanding is the reason you're having a difficult time with this discussion.	Depression is treatable, while many other diseases aren't. Many people with depression and cancer have expressed the claim that if their cancer gets worse they may kill themselves or wish to be euthanized; surely for them the cancer is worse. And consider the horrible disease [epidermolysis bullosa.](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/epidermolysis-bullosa/symptoms-causes/syc-20361062) There is no cure, no effective treatment. Your skin is torn and blistered by the least bit of friction - swallowing may be painful because every bit of food that goes down too hard puts a new blister into your esophagus. You have to walk but that can blister your feet. Everything hurts. --- > Depression is treatable, while many other diseases aren't. Many people with depression and cancer have expressed the claim that if their cancer gets worse they may kill themselves or wish to be euthanized; surely for them the cancer is worse. Depression is treatable, yes, which is very fortunate. While it exercises control over the individual though, it can be a hellish experience. As to those who suffer from cancer, do they choose death because of the physical pain cancer is capable of inducing or the depression that arises from it? Can one be simultaneously be happy and/or content while in physical pain? > And consider the horrible disease epidermolysis bullosa. There is no cure, no effective treatment. Your skin is torn and blistered by the least bit of friction - swallowing may be painful because every bit of food that goes down too hard puts a new blister into your esophagus. You have to walk but that can blister your feet. Everything hurts. Again, what I said concerning physical pain and happiness applies here. There are likely individuals of the media, or interviewed by the media, with similar maladies that maintain a state of contentment or joy. It wouldn't be easy to do so, but history has number of such cases I suspect. --- I mean literally who say they'd want to die if the cancer gets worse but not if the depression gets worse, so clearly the cancer is worse for them than the depression. Depression is often low energy and inability to take full pleasure but not actual suffering. Other conditions often have much more prominent suffering.	79320r	CMV: Depression is the worst of all maladies.	I see the error of my ways! No more, please, no more! First of all, if anyone who is reading this is depressed, please seek out a professional and information pertaining to the illness, through people, books, videos, etc... As long as there's life, there's hope. I, like many of you I suspect, have experienced depression. It takes away the zest for life and replaces it with an infatuation with death. We find ourselves in the valley of shadow and death. There are different ways of responding to this crisis: isolating ourselves, drinking to numb, lamenting our fate, etc. Sometimes this illness robs something that cannot be replicated in this world, a human being with a name, an individual with a unique story with themselves as the protagonist. We may be quite similar to those that are, were, and will be, but we are, and I really hate to fucking say this, special snowflakes. Every being is different from another due to the number of myriad variables involved. Depression rarely comes into existence out of a vacuum. There needs to be a catalyst to summon it. A common one is illness Whether physical or mental, an illness can be made unbearable due to depression. In fact, depression may be the only thing making it such a burden in the first place. Suppose I was diagnosed with some sort of malady, yet despite this, was happy as a clam! My quality of life would still be better than the individual ensnared by depression, for I would love my existence rather than loathe it. My argument is that depression is the final arbiter as to whether anything is good or bad. People can merrily go on their way after being gutted by a thug. It would be difficult to maintain such a cheery disposition, mind you, but not impossible. Individuals diagnosed with a life threatening illness can be of a happy disposition while a person of both great wealth and health wallows in unhappiness. There are many other illustrations to adequately convey my point. Nothing is bad until we make it so, except depression. By our very nature we cannot be both happy and sad. Depression is the antithesis of joy. Any feeling may accompany these two, but the two in question cannot accompany each other. EDIT: To further help illustrate my point, a quote from the Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and Stoic. > “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” With other evils, you can persist to be either content or happy no matter how great this evil is. Incredibly difficult? Fuck, I imagine so! Depression by its very nature cannot coexist with joy though. There is no such thing as a happy depressed person. It is, quite literally, impossible. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	AnEwokRedditor	3	3	[ { "author": "karnim", "id": "doyuqlk", "score": 1, "text": "Depression is awful, that is correct. I would argue that Alzheimer's is much worse though. Depending on how it comes through, it is entirely possible you notice your own downward spiral. You can tell that you aren't remembering things, or t...	[ { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "doypzzd", "score": 8, "text": "Depression is treatable, while many other diseases aren't.\nMany people with depression and cancer have expressed the claim that if their cancer gets worse they may kill themselves or wish to be euthanized; surely for them the cancer ...	[ "doyuqlk", "doyvek9", "doyyx5f" ]	[ "doypzzd", "doysttd", "doyu363" ]
CMV: We should be more tolerant of false nuclear attack alarms. After the Hawaiian false missile alert, there have been many calls for reform to prevent such false alarms in the future. The alarm was disruptive, and caused many people to speed; there could be some traffic fatalities next time. Nevertheless, anything that makes it harder to issue false alarms will likely also make it harder to issue correct alarms. The rate of false alarms is so low that I must regard them as inadequately sensitive. If anything we should be increasing our ability to issue such alerts which will presumably increase the rate of false alarms. The correct number of false alarms nationwide per year to minimize fatalities (assuming an average 0.1% chance yearly of a nuclear attack against the US) is presumably closer to 1 than to 0. CMV.	I think this depends a lot on _why_ a false alarm was issued - if the false alarm was issued because someone misidentified a potential threat then that is one thing, but if some just sat on the button then that is another. Do we know the cause of the false alarm yet? --- Supposedly it wasn't a misidentified threat (which I think there should be more of) but rather an experienced employee clicking through the program to make sure it was working correctly and accidentally hit the alert button instead of the test button. --- Well, for a case like that, I think it is fair to be critical of the failure and argue that steps need to be taken to prevent it. The issue with false alarms is that if they happen _too_ often, people ignore them and we run into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario - people will assume that _real_ alarms are just false ones which defeats the point of the system. When was the last time that you took a car alarm or fire alarm seriously? If it is _that_ easy for someone to issue a false alarm by mistake, then we should encourage those systems to be upgraded and installed with fail-safes to prevent false alarms due to user error. We shouldn't be tolerant of a system that issues a false alarm because someone misclicked. This wasn't someone erring on the side of caution - this was plain old human error. --- >he issue with false alarms is that if they happen too often, people ignore them and we run into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario - people will assume that real alarms are just false ones which defeats the point of the system. When was the last time that you took a car alarm or fire alarm seriously? My understanding is that fire alarms (despite/because of) their false alarm rate and/or their drill rate increase survival during fires. I wonder whether perhaps the optimum rate of false alarms would be somewhere between the car alarm and fire alarm rates - so something like 2/city per year? Of course the false alarm rate should actually be lower than this 2/city/year because of the likelihood of car accidents, but surely 1/nation/decade is too low. >then we should encourage those systems to be upgraded and installed with fail-safes to prevent false alarms due to user error. Do you have good examples of fail safes that don't risk delaying the issuance of a true alarm? >this was plain old human error. Sure, and failing to alarm or failing to alarm quickly enough might also be plain old human error. --- Seriously it isn't hard to design a better user interface than [this godawful piece of garbage](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/16/that-was-no-wrong-button-in-hawaii-take-a-look/?utm_term=.df3b1d8bd483) Maybe you'd have something with clearly labeled buttons, and then a confirmation screen which says exactly what you're doing. For a real alert it might have a red flashing border, and for a test a green border, as an additional visual cue.	It SHOULD be hard to issue a correct alarm. People's lives will depend on acting immediately and with purpose. In a real version of what happened, they'd have 20 minutes to save themselves, basically. We simply cannot afford for people to spend the first 10 of those 20 minutes trying to figure out if this one is another false alarm. A false alarm leads to people doubting a real alarm, and that is wholly unacceptable. --- Isn't drilling/false alarms (as we have for fire alarms) better than not issuing an alarm when an attack occurs or delaying such an alarm? --- There are drills, but they are usually informed. The broadcasts say "this is a test" and such. But this happened because the actual alarm and test alarm were next to each other on the same drop-down with no second step verification. It takes 3 button presses to delete a show from my PVR, it should take at least that to issue a nuclear warning. --- >There are drills, but they are usually informed. Er, my claim is there should be uninformed drills without any indication there is a test. Practicing wrong means doing wrong in the actual event. --- That is going to put people in danger. I've seen this first hand with hurricane evacuation orders. When the city issues the orders too quickly and the damage isn't severe, people choose not to evacuate when the danger is _real_ and people die. If you make people believe there is danger when there is not, then the next time you claim there is danger they are less likely to believe you and a non-zero percent will ignore your order.	7so3vf	CMV: We should be more tolerant of false nuclear attack alarms.	After the Hawaiian false missile alert, there have been many calls for reform to prevent such false alarms in the future. The alarm was disruptive, and caused many people to speed; there could be some traffic fatalities next time. Nevertheless, anything that makes it harder to issue false alarms will likely also make it harder to issue correct alarms. The rate of false alarms is so low that I must regard them as inadequately sensitive. If anything we should be increasing our ability to issue such alerts which will presumably increase the rate of false alarms. The correct number of false alarms nationwide per year to minimize fatalities (assuming an average 0.1% chance yearly of a nuclear attack against the US) is presumably closer to 1 than to 0. CMV.	GnosticGnome	5	5	[ { "author": "Ansuz07", "id": "dt6663d", "score": 6, "text": "I think this depends a lot on _why_ a false alarm was issued - if the false alarm was issued because someone misidentified a potential threat then that is one thing, but if some just sat on the button then that is another.\n\nDo we know th...	[ { "author": "scottevil110", "id": "dt66yax", "score": 4, "text": "It SHOULD be hard to issue a correct alarm. People's lives will depend on acting immediately and with purpose. In a real version of what happened, they'd have 20 minutes to save themselves, basically. We simply cannot afford fo...	[ "dt6663d", "dt66avh", "dt66hhk", "dt68d5q", "dt695la" ]	[ "dt66yax", "dt68jp9", "dt69cnx", "dt69ic9", "dt6a3ks" ]
CMV: We should be more tolerant of false nuclear attack alarms. After the Hawaiian false missile alert, there have been many calls for reform to prevent such false alarms in the future. The alarm was disruptive, and caused many people to speed; there could be some traffic fatalities next time. Nevertheless, anything that makes it harder to issue false alarms will likely also make it harder to issue correct alarms. The rate of false alarms is so low that I must regard them as inadequately sensitive. If anything we should be increasing our ability to issue such alerts which will presumably increase the rate of false alarms. The correct number of false alarms nationwide per year to minimize fatalities (assuming an average 0.1% chance yearly of a nuclear attack against the US) is presumably closer to 1 than to 0. CMV.	It SHOULD be hard to issue a correct alarm. People's lives will depend on acting immediately and with purpose. In a real version of what happened, they'd have 20 minutes to save themselves, basically. We simply cannot afford for people to spend the first 10 of those 20 minutes trying to figure out if this one is another false alarm. A false alarm leads to people doubting a real alarm, and that is wholly unacceptable. --- Isn't drilling/false alarms (as we have for fire alarms) better than not issuing an alarm when an attack occurs or delaying such an alarm? --- There are drills, but they are usually informed. The broadcasts say "this is a test" and such. But this happened because the actual alarm and test alarm were next to each other on the same drop-down with no second step verification. It takes 3 button presses to delete a show from my PVR, it should take at least that to issue a nuclear warning.	I think this depends a lot on _why_ a false alarm was issued - if the false alarm was issued because someone misidentified a potential threat then that is one thing, but if some just sat on the button then that is another. Do we know the cause of the false alarm yet? --- Supposedly it wasn't a misidentified threat (which I think there should be more of) but rather an experienced employee clicking through the program to make sure it was working correctly and accidentally hit the alert button instead of the test button. --- Well, for a case like that, I think it is fair to be critical of the failure and argue that steps need to be taken to prevent it. The issue with false alarms is that if they happen _too_ often, people ignore them and we run into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario - people will assume that _real_ alarms are just false ones which defeats the point of the system. When was the last time that you took a car alarm or fire alarm seriously? If it is _that_ easy for someone to issue a false alarm by mistake, then we should encourage those systems to be upgraded and installed with fail-safes to prevent false alarms due to user error. We shouldn't be tolerant of a system that issues a false alarm because someone misclicked. This wasn't someone erring on the side of caution - this was plain old human error.	7so3vf	CMV: We should be more tolerant of false nuclear attack alarms.	After the Hawaiian false missile alert, there have been many calls for reform to prevent such false alarms in the future. The alarm was disruptive, and caused many people to speed; there could be some traffic fatalities next time. Nevertheless, anything that makes it harder to issue false alarms will likely also make it harder to issue correct alarms. The rate of false alarms is so low that I must regard them as inadequately sensitive. If anything we should be increasing our ability to issue such alerts which will presumably increase the rate of false alarms. The correct number of false alarms nationwide per year to minimize fatalities (assuming an average 0.1% chance yearly of a nuclear attack against the US) is presumably closer to 1 than to 0. CMV.	GnosticGnome	3	3	[ { "author": "scottevil110", "id": "dt66yax", "score": 4, "text": "It SHOULD be hard to issue a correct alarm. People's lives will depend on acting immediately and with purpose. In a real version of what happened, they'd have 20 minutes to save themselves, basically. We simply cannot afford fo...	[ { "author": "Ansuz07", "id": "dt6663d", "score": 6, "text": "I think this depends a lot on _why_ a false alarm was issued - if the false alarm was issued because someone misidentified a potential threat then that is one thing, but if some just sat on the button then that is another.\n\nDo we know th...	[ "dt66yax", "dt68jp9", "dt69cnx" ]	[ "dt6663d", "dt66avh", "dt66hhk" ]
CMV: I don’t think a totalitarian regime can be enforced in the United States as it is in this point in time. It’s a pretty common point of conversation in my social circle (we’re all liberals on the West Coast, but we have pretty diverse views in general). To preface, none of us are arguing that it absolutely cannot happen, but I’m not convinced that it can be enforced. I think that, even if, say, Jan 6 went differently, the United States wouldn’t become a dictatorship. I’m also not a polisci major, nor that involved in politics. Here is my reasoning, please educate me, show me why I should be more concerned: 1. “The constitution, without people agreeing to follow it, is meaningless. If the government decides to stop following it, nothing is stopping them.” Sure. But the same goes for an insurrection. An insurrection, without a body to support it, is baseless. 2. “It’s happened in history. All it requires is a small group of loyalists.” Maybe in the 19th century. People often cite Germany as an example. Few issues with this: The same Germany that was going through the worst period of instability in its entire history? With a disarmed military and no economy? The US is not comparable. We have the Internet. Everything is immediately accessible to the entire world with a tap. An insurrection would make national news instantly, and would appear on Reddit likely even before then. That’s a massive game-changer. People are informed. Information is everything. There are states in the US larger than the entirety of Germany (and most totalitarian regimes for that matter). There are 50 states in total. The US is massive. How will your localized coup in DC affect people in LA? 3. “They can declare martial law and deploy the military.” This one is anecdotal for me. I am a servicemember. I’ve worked in a joint environment and a lot of airmen, seamen, Soldiers and marines for a little while now. People forget that there are people behind the uniform. The bulk of the force is below the age of 30. How are the same people who are by and large liberal-leaning or moderate going to shoot at Americans for a politician they, by and large, agree is useless at best? There are a few proud boys and tankies who slipped through the cracks, and a few people who just wanna see everything burn. But is that a good representation of the average servicemember? Absolutely not. But hypothetically, say that a few infantry battalions here and there, somehow without falling apart and losing most of their people, join the insurrectionists. With what logistic support? The US military is an incredibly complex machine with a million tiny moving parts. It’s held together by gorilla glue and duct tape, which works maybe 70% of the time when everyone does their job. If someone doesn’t? Watch what happens. Who will pay them? Who will process the payments? All those benefits? Food and ammunition? You can’t use the military if you can’t compensate them, and if you’re going to make them shoot at Americans, you’d better offer a damn good alternative to the good deal we’re getting now. That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs can accomplish that? You think most of those guys will get off their couch when the day comes? How many will turn tail the second they come face to face with a pissed off National Guard? They’re dollar tree revolutionaries with delusions of grandeur. They couldn’t even occupy a building for one day. That’s his master plan? That’s the best he can do? I’m not convinced, but I’m not college-educated. I’m open to seeing why I’m wrong, and why I should be more worried about this guy. Because right now, he just looks like a toddler desperately flailing its arms for attention, not the Saddam Hussein of America.	>…as it is in this point in time This is the key phrase here. I agree with you, it wouldn’t work now; but the question you should be asking is, how long would that take to change? The national opinion of something like Jan 6 is already more dangerous than it was on Jan 6, and who would have even imagined that happening four years before that? The speed of the change is frightening, although it isn’t guaranteed to get worse if we work to prevent it. --- Absolutely. We should curb every attempt, however small, quickly and effectively. My point is that I don’t believe Don getting elected in 2024 will be the end of democracy in the US. He may well try, if he wins, but he will almost certainly not succeed. --- He already tried to end democracy (alternate electors, coercing GA, inciting mob violence). Him winning would be a major crisis, because it would be a pass for that behavior and saying the rules don't matter, that elections don't matter. You could say its the voter's fault, but he never even won the popular vote once, honestly its the fault of the system and cowardly Republicans who can't admit the emperor has no clothes.	He almost had the entire government murdered. --- Killing a room full of people is easy. One guy and a full magazine can do that. Happens in the US all the time. Controlling a country of over 300 million people across half a continent is entirely different, don’t you think? Doubt you read the entire post that fast. Please see my points. --- Since I can't top level comment agree with you, I'd say you are right. If you plan on being a dictator the first thing you need to do is undermine the courts, and while some can say Trump did that, the justices Trump appointed are loyal to corporations and various "causes", not Trump himself. The CIA, NSA, FBI, IRS, and ALL the federal agencies, HATE. HIS. GUTS. The very second that the military (of which he canned a large amount of upper brass), got a valid excuse to drop a JDAM on him, they would. (maybe not that extreme, but you get my point). He's popular with people who aren't aware of how things work. Love them or hate them, the "administrative" state is what keeps things working. Erdogan, Bibi, Xi, Putin, even Kim have a network of friends in all these places. Trump doesn't have any at all.	199zdti	CMV: I don’t think a totalitarian regime can be enforced in the United States as it is in this point in time.	It’s a pretty common point of conversation in my social circle (we’re all liberals on the West Coast, but we have pretty diverse views in general). To preface, none of us are arguing that it absolutely cannot happen, but I’m not convinced that it can be enforced. I think that, even if, say, Jan 6 went differently, the United States wouldn’t become a dictatorship. I’m also not a polisci major, nor that involved in politics. Here is my reasoning, please educate me, show me why I should be more concerned: 1. “The constitution, without people agreeing to follow it, is meaningless. If the government decides to stop following it, nothing is stopping them.” Sure. But the same goes for an insurrection. An insurrection, without a body to support it, is baseless. 2. “It’s happened in history. All it requires is a small group of loyalists.” Maybe in the 19th century. People often cite Germany as an example. Few issues with this: The same Germany that was going through the worst period of instability in its entire history? With a disarmed military and no economy? The US is not comparable. We have the Internet. Everything is immediately accessible to the entire world with a tap. An insurrection would make national news instantly, and would appear on Reddit likely even before then. That’s a massive game-changer. People are informed. Information is everything. There are states in the US larger than the entirety of Germany (and most totalitarian regimes for that matter). There are 50 states in total. The US is massive. How will your localized coup in DC affect people in LA? 3. “They can declare martial law and deploy the military.” This one is anecdotal for me. I am a servicemember. I’ve worked in a joint environment and a lot of airmen, seamen, Soldiers and marines for a little while now. People forget that there are people behind the uniform. The bulk of the force is below the age of 30. How are the same people who are by and large liberal-leaning or moderate going to shoot at Americans for a politician they, by and large, agree is useless at best? There are a few proud boys and tankies who slipped through the cracks, and a few people who just wanna see everything burn. But is that a good representation of the average servicemember? Absolutely not. But hypothetically, say that a few infantry battalions here and there, somehow without falling apart and losing most of their people, join the insurrectionists. With what logistic support? The US military is an incredibly complex machine with a million tiny moving parts. It’s held together by gorilla glue and duct tape, which works maybe 70% of the time when everyone does their job. If someone doesn’t? Watch what happens. Who will pay them? Who will process the payments? All those benefits? Food and ammunition? You can’t use the military if you can’t compensate them, and if you’re going to make them shoot at Americans, you’d better offer a damn good alternative to the good deal we’re getting now. That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs can accomplish that? You think most of those guys will get off their couch when the day comes? How many will turn tail the second they come face to face with a pissed off National Guard? They’re dollar tree revolutionaries with delusions of grandeur. They couldn’t even occupy a building for one day. That’s his master plan? That’s the best he can do? I’m not convinced, but I’m not college-educated. I’m open to seeing why I’m wrong, and why I should be more worried about this guy. Because right now, he just looks like a toddler desperately flailing its arms for attention, not the Saddam Hussein of America.	HungHeadsEmptyHearts	3	3	[ { "author": "Kerostasis", "id": "kihgp4e", "score": 49, "text": ">…as it is in this point in time \n\nThis is the key phrase here. I agree with you, it wouldn’t work now; but the question you should be asking is, how long would that take to change? The national opinion of something like Jan 6 is a...	[ { "author": "GludiusCranium", "id": "kihfnrr", "score": 1, "text": "He almost had the entire government murdered.", "timestamp": 1705608594 }, { "author": "HungHeadsEmptyHearts", "id": "kihfvv0", "score": 2, "text": "Killing a room full of people is easy. One guy and a full m...	[ "kihgp4e", "kihh53h", "kihnuqn" ]	[ "kihfnrr", "kihfvv0", "kihhfov" ]
CMV: I don’t think a totalitarian regime can be enforced in the United States as it is in this point in time. It’s a pretty common point of conversation in my social circle (we’re all liberals on the West Coast, but we have pretty diverse views in general). To preface, none of us are arguing that it absolutely cannot happen, but I’m not convinced that it can be enforced. I think that, even if, say, Jan 6 went differently, the United States wouldn’t become a dictatorship. I’m also not a polisci major, nor that involved in politics. Here is my reasoning, please educate me, show me why I should be more concerned: 1. “The constitution, without people agreeing to follow it, is meaningless. If the government decides to stop following it, nothing is stopping them.” Sure. But the same goes for an insurrection. An insurrection, without a body to support it, is baseless. 2. “It’s happened in history. All it requires is a small group of loyalists.” Maybe in the 19th century. People often cite Germany as an example. Few issues with this: The same Germany that was going through the worst period of instability in its entire history? With a disarmed military and no economy? The US is not comparable. We have the Internet. Everything is immediately accessible to the entire world with a tap. An insurrection would make national news instantly, and would appear on Reddit likely even before then. That’s a massive game-changer. People are informed. Information is everything. There are states in the US larger than the entirety of Germany (and most totalitarian regimes for that matter). There are 50 states in total. The US is massive. How will your localized coup in DC affect people in LA? 3. “They can declare martial law and deploy the military.” This one is anecdotal for me. I am a servicemember. I’ve worked in a joint environment and a lot of airmen, seamen, Soldiers and marines for a little while now. People forget that there are people behind the uniform. The bulk of the force is below the age of 30. How are the same people who are by and large liberal-leaning or moderate going to shoot at Americans for a politician they, by and large, agree is useless at best? There are a few proud boys and tankies who slipped through the cracks, and a few people who just wanna see everything burn. But is that a good representation of the average servicemember? Absolutely not. But hypothetically, say that a few infantry battalions here and there, somehow without falling apart and losing most of their people, join the insurrectionists. With what logistic support? The US military is an incredibly complex machine with a million tiny moving parts. It’s held together by gorilla glue and duct tape, which works maybe 70% of the time when everyone does their job. If someone doesn’t? Watch what happens. Who will pay them? Who will process the payments? All those benefits? Food and ammunition? You can’t use the military if you can’t compensate them, and if you’re going to make them shoot at Americans, you’d better offer a damn good alternative to the good deal we’re getting now. That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs can accomplish that? You think most of those guys will get off their couch when the day comes? How many will turn tail the second they come face to face with a pissed off National Guard? They’re dollar tree revolutionaries with delusions of grandeur. They couldn’t even occupy a building for one day. That’s his master plan? That’s the best he can do? I’m not convinced, but I’m not college-educated. I’m open to seeing why I’m wrong, and why I should be more worried about this guy. Because right now, he just looks like a toddler desperately flailing its arms for attention, not the Saddam Hussein of America.	>That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs can accomplish that? You think most of those guys will get off their couch when the day comes? How many will turn tail the second they come face to face with a pissed off National Guard? They’re dollar tree revolutionaries with delusions of grandeur. They couldn’t even occupy a building for one day. That’s his master plan? That’s the best he can do? It has been said that [3.5%](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world) of a population is enough to radically change government policy through nonviolent means. Simply put, you don't actually need that many people to take and hold power. Particularly if you are willing to resort to violence. The goal for Trump on Jan 6th wasn't to take and hold the US capitol, it was to disrupt. Stop the count, force legislators out. If Pence flees the capitol (or worse), then certification falls to Grassley, a Trump die hard. If certification doesn't start back up until the 7th, maybe they aren't allowed to do it anymore. The goal is to make the situation untenable. Make things confusing. If Grassley declares Trump the winner, then who is the actual president? You'd think Biden, but who knows at that point. Who does the national guard listen to? Or the secret service? Or the armed forces. What if the supreme court weighs in? All of these are very low probability, I'll certainly grant you. Jan 6th was a last grasp, but that is because Trump is incompetent at many things beyond simply being a populist demagogue. The risk isn't that someone comes and takes power violently, it is that you use enough violence in enough places that the people are willing to accept a bad outcome or a dictatorial mindset in order to return stability. If you look at the fall of the roman republic, it was a series of crisis' that built upon one another until people were willing to ditch the old system for one that gave stability. --- That’s an interesting point actually. Would it apply to the US? As a disruption tactic it was surely successful. I feel like the US is just too large to collapse completely under the weight of one election though. When your largest economic hubs are mostly blue, I don’t see how the country would tolerate a right-wing takeover without ripping itself apart first. --- That’s likely what would happen though - if an authoritarian far right government actually took nominal control over the federal government you probably would see lots of blue states and blue cities refuse to recognize the authority of the new government, and there would be a wildly chaotic period of, say, national guards being given conflicting orders by liberal governors and the new dictatorial president, and police departments (which even in large liberal cities skew very conservative) being forced to pick sides. It would lead to chaos and likely open fighting in some areas, as well as stochastic domestic terrorism. That’s the true danger of another Jan 6 style event. It’d be incredibly destabilizing and likely very destructive and bloody, and in the aftermath of that things likely would get worse because many people who don’t support authoritarianism now might be willing to support it down the line in exchange for a return to something resembling stability. Also, just as a note “would it apply to the US” is a bad question to ask - if it’s happened to another group of people or country elsewhere in the world, it can happen here too under the right set of circumstances. Americans aren’t special or resistant to problems that have happened elsewhere, and part of the reason we’ve gotten to this point is that a lot of people hand wave away the GOP’s slide away from democracy because they believe the US is “special” or “exceptional” and bad things that have happened elsewhere couldn’t possibly happen here. That’s dangerous thinking, don’t do it.	I’d argue the internet isn’t educating as you claim. Sure accurate information is there, but so is inaccurate info and it’s only getting worse with AI. I’d also argue that it’s not just a bunch of rednecks who support trump. My husband works for a local government in an extremely liberal place. Your garbage man, your road workers, your wastewater treatment plant workers… they are majority trump supporters. I use to work for the county too, saw the same thing. I work at a hospital now, lots of college educated folks there… I’m surprised everyday by nurses and DOCTORS who are pro trump. People who are immigrants. The people working your city’s infrastructure get off the couch everyday. Just because they aren’t vocal, doesn’t mean much. Same with the military. You claim that they will potentially disband, and I don’t agree. They have power in their position, it’s why they tolerate food stamps today. On the promise they will have more in the future. No one is giving up power, they’ll just use it to get what they need and feel they deserve. Not to be bleak, just saying, I think you’d be shocked at how deep these sentiments run. People want change, and trump is that if not much else. I’m personally not a trump supporter btw, just have to deal with them on a daily basis through work. --- I may have understated how many people support him on a political level. That’s on me. I think the majority are surface-level, though. I don’t believe even a small fraction would actually keep it up the second bullets started flying. But that’s a big hypothetical I’m banking on, so although you haven’t changed my original view, it’s definitely worth a second thought. !delta --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ohmira ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ohmira)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	199zdti	CMV: I don’t think a totalitarian regime can be enforced in the United States as it is in this point in time.	It’s a pretty common point of conversation in my social circle (we’re all liberals on the West Coast, but we have pretty diverse views in general). To preface, none of us are arguing that it absolutely cannot happen, but I’m not convinced that it can be enforced. I think that, even if, say, Jan 6 went differently, the United States wouldn’t become a dictatorship. I’m also not a polisci major, nor that involved in politics. Here is my reasoning, please educate me, show me why I should be more concerned: 1. “The constitution, without people agreeing to follow it, is meaningless. If the government decides to stop following it, nothing is stopping them.” Sure. But the same goes for an insurrection. An insurrection, without a body to support it, is baseless. 2. “It’s happened in history. All it requires is a small group of loyalists.” Maybe in the 19th century. People often cite Germany as an example. Few issues with this: The same Germany that was going through the worst period of instability in its entire history? With a disarmed military and no economy? The US is not comparable. We have the Internet. Everything is immediately accessible to the entire world with a tap. An insurrection would make national news instantly, and would appear on Reddit likely even before then. That’s a massive game-changer. People are informed. Information is everything. There are states in the US larger than the entirety of Germany (and most totalitarian regimes for that matter). There are 50 states in total. The US is massive. How will your localized coup in DC affect people in LA? 3. “They can declare martial law and deploy the military.” This one is anecdotal for me. I am a servicemember. I’ve worked in a joint environment and a lot of airmen, seamen, Soldiers and marines for a little while now. People forget that there are people behind the uniform. The bulk of the force is below the age of 30. How are the same people who are by and large liberal-leaning or moderate going to shoot at Americans for a politician they, by and large, agree is useless at best? There are a few proud boys and tankies who slipped through the cracks, and a few people who just wanna see everything burn. But is that a good representation of the average servicemember? Absolutely not. But hypothetically, say that a few infantry battalions here and there, somehow without falling apart and losing most of their people, join the insurrectionists. With what logistic support? The US military is an incredibly complex machine with a million tiny moving parts. It’s held together by gorilla glue and duct tape, which works maybe 70% of the time when everyone does their job. If someone doesn’t? Watch what happens. Who will pay them? Who will process the payments? All those benefits? Food and ammunition? You can’t use the military if you can’t compensate them, and if you’re going to make them shoot at Americans, you’d better offer a damn good alternative to the good deal we’re getting now. That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs can accomplish that? You think most of those guys will get off their couch when the day comes? How many will turn tail the second they come face to face with a pissed off National Guard? They’re dollar tree revolutionaries with delusions of grandeur. They couldn’t even occupy a building for one day. That’s his master plan? That’s the best he can do? I’m not convinced, but I’m not college-educated. I’m open to seeing why I’m wrong, and why I should be more worried about this guy. Because right now, he just looks like a toddler desperately flailing its arms for attention, not the Saddam Hussein of America.	HungHeadsEmptyHearts	3	3	[ { "author": "GuyWhoIsIncognito", "id": "kihh63p", "score": 188, "text": ">That’s really it. Say Trump decides to be the next Hitler. With whose support? The Proud Boys? Lol. Across 50 states? People don’t realize what a massive logistical task that is. You really think a group of rednecks with ARs c...	[ { "author": "ohmira", "id": "kihhwnx", "score": 42, "text": "I’d argue the internet isn’t educating as you claim. Sure accurate information is there, but so is inaccurate info and it’s only getting worse with AI. \n\nI’d also argue that it’s not just a bunch of rednecks who support trump. My husband...	[ "kihh63p", "kihim53", "kihlpr4" ]	[ "kihhwnx", "kihjp4m", "kihjs66" ]
CMV: Feminism would be more widely adopted with men (and more successful) if it wasn't called "feminism" Names matter...a lot. Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities they have as men. But, the name "feminism", to many men, makes it sound like the movement is for women, not for them. They feel excluded. They feel the need to assert that they have problems too -- that they also struggle with issues related to being men (eg: higher suicide rates, for example). The name is the biggest reason why more men don't identify as feminists. The Civil Rights Movement did well in a large part because it's hard to argue that you "don't believe in civil rights". Disagreeing with civil rights just sounds ridiculous. If "feminism" was rebranded to "The Gender Rights Movement" or something similar, it'd be impossible for people to disagree with (after all, don't we all want more rights, regardless of gender?). More men would be on board and ultimately, our society would change faster. Same goes for Black Lives Matter...there's a reason why people always object with "All Lives Matter". It's not untrue that Black Lives Matter, but that doesn't change how people react to the name. Feminism suffers from a marketing/branding problem which is hurting its overall success. CMV :)	The 'bad' connotations of feminism didn't spring up out of nothing the instant the word was coined. They were crafted by the people against feminism before those 'misunderstandings' existed. Since they were made specifically to counter feminism, they will be made against it regardless of what the 'name' of feminism is. --- The bad connotations of feminism spring out of feminist activists who are instead of fighting for equal rights, are fighting for extra privilege. --- It's more true that the anti feminist outrage machine likes to spin feminist positions to make them seem like they are fighting for extra privileges. --- I'd add to this...my premise is that the anti-feminist outrage machine wouldn't exist (or would be much tamer/smaller) if they were fighting against "gender rights". Something neutral and inclusive-sounding is REALLY hard to argue against. --- > Something neutral and inclusive-sounding is REALLY hard to argue against. yea, but it may be too inclusive for its own good. What if I want different rights depending on your gender ? I'm fighting for "gender rights", just "gender differentiated right", while you're for "gender equality rights". Then we both use the same word for opposite point of view, and the word loose its meaning. Feminism is a pretty good word, as it present clearly the view: "we want more rights for woman". You can be pro or anti feminist for different reasons, but at least you agree on the definition as it is precise enough.	Your premise is that people would have trouble rejecting a movement based on it's name, right? But most feminists already reject the "equalist," "egalitarian," or so-called "humanist" movements, even though they might have more inviting names than feminism. These groups are easy to reject in spite of their names because it's clear from context they exist in relation and opposition to feminism. If we started a Gender Rights group, then MRAs and their sympathizers will intuitively understand that GR is oppositional to MRA. Black Lives Matter and Feminism are important names because they draw attention to the problem. Civil rights groups have tried to raise awareness of institutional racism, but without something fairly ostentatious, the terms of debate have gotten muddied. Civil rights leaders talking about the crack epidemic, for instance, would have to begin by conceding that crack is bad. Whether or not it's bad has no impact on how many POC are killed by the police every year, which the name Black Lives Matter draws immediate attention to. --- You're right-- people do reject groups with neutral names...but that doesn't mean that the name has no effect at all. One common objection of BLA is that "all lives matter". This kind of objection sounds to me like people feel alienated by the name. --- > This kind of objection sounds to me like people feel alienated by the name. This kind of objection sounds like people who either don't want to or can't contemplate the problem of police violence against black people...or don't think it's a problem. The moment you call it 'All Lives Matter', it's no longer about a pressing and real problem. And a moment's research tells you that the implied next line after BLM is 'as much as anyone else's'. People who get offended by the name (because they're misinterpreting the meaning by adding on 'more than anyone else's') are not engaging their brains or they're lacking empathy. --- exactly right. I think there are solutions to people being dismissive that go beyond "well, they're stupid". I suspect people see the name, and that gives them ammunition to nitpick and find things they don't like. --- TBH I think most were always going to create their own ammunition. Backlash against the BLM name is a symptom not a cause.	7smupi	CMV: Feminism would be more widely adopted with men (and more successful) if it wasn't called "feminism"	Names matter...a lot. Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities they have as men. But, the name "feminism", to many men, makes it sound like the movement is for women, not for them. They feel excluded. They feel the need to assert that they have problems too -- that they also struggle with issues related to being men (eg: higher suicide rates, for example). The name is the biggest reason why more men don't identify as feminists. The Civil Rights Movement did well in a large part because it's hard to argue that you "don't believe in civil rights". Disagreeing with civil rights just sounds ridiculous. If "feminism" was rebranded to "The Gender Rights Movement" or something similar, it'd be impossible for people to disagree with (after all, don't we all want more rights, regardless of gender?). More men would be on board and ultimately, our society would change faster. Same goes for Black Lives Matter...there's a reason why people always object with "All Lives Matter". It's not untrue that Black Lives Matter, but that doesn't change how people react to the name. Feminism suffers from a marketing/branding problem which is hurting its overall success. CMV :)	rmhildebrandt	5	5	[ { "author": "Burflax", "id": "dt5wevv", "score": 21, "text": "The 'bad' connotations of feminism didn't spring up out of nothing the instant the word was coined.\n\nThey were crafted by the people against feminism before those 'misunderstandings' existed.\n\nSince they were made specifically to co...	[ { "author": "OfficialAltRight", "id": "dt5yrq0", "score": 6, "text": "Your premise is that people would have trouble rejecting a movement based on it's name, right? But most feminists already reject the \"equalist,\" \"egalitarian,\" or so-called \"humanist\" movements, even though they might have m...	[ "dt5wevv", "dt5x8v7", "dt5xih4", "dt5xocg", "dt5y14n" ]	[ "dt5yrq0", "dt62kyk", "dt643y8", "dt672xy", "dt67cgn" ]
CMV: Feminism would be more widely adopted with men (and more successful) if it wasn't called "feminism" Names matter...a lot. Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities they have as men. But, the name "feminism", to many men, makes it sound like the movement is for women, not for them. They feel excluded. They feel the need to assert that they have problems too -- that they also struggle with issues related to being men (eg: higher suicide rates, for example). The name is the biggest reason why more men don't identify as feminists. The Civil Rights Movement did well in a large part because it's hard to argue that you "don't believe in civil rights". Disagreeing with civil rights just sounds ridiculous. If "feminism" was rebranded to "The Gender Rights Movement" or something similar, it'd be impossible for people to disagree with (after all, don't we all want more rights, regardless of gender?). More men would be on board and ultimately, our society would change faster. Same goes for Black Lives Matter...there's a reason why people always object with "All Lives Matter". It's not untrue that Black Lives Matter, but that doesn't change how people react to the name. Feminism suffers from a marketing/branding problem which is hurting its overall success. CMV :)	The 'bad' connotations of feminism didn't spring up out of nothing the instant the word was coined. They were crafted by the people against feminism before those 'misunderstandings' existed. Since they were made specifically to counter feminism, they will be made against it regardless of what the 'name' of feminism is. --- The bad connotations of feminism spring out of feminist activists who are instead of fighting for equal rights, are fighting for extra privilege. --- It's more true that the anti feminist outrage machine likes to spin feminist positions to make them seem like they are fighting for extra privileges.	> Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities they have as men. Ok, it's not that I disagree here, but I kinda feel like you're not telling the whole story. If we take the men opposing the feminism, not necessarily men in general, you're probably right that by and large they don't hate women. Truly, I don't think they do. What a great many of them do like, however, is as little change as possible. They do not like challenges to the status quo, or to themselves, and are annoyed by what feminism is trying to say about our society and the current state of gender relations. It makes them from uncomfortable to angry That does not make them receptive to feminism, whatever the name. > The name is the biggest reason why more men don't identify as feminists. Here, I need to disagree. The biggest reason some men don't identify as feminism is because of what feminism says, not because of what it's called. In fact, I think the name is easily fourth on the list of reason people oppose feminism. It's a convenient "gotcha", granted, but isn't the actual problem. > The Civil Rights Movement did well in a large part because it's hard to argue that you "don't believe in civil rights". Disagreeing with civil rights just sounds ridiculous. That's a bit of a revisionist narrative, that also manages to obfuscate a lot of the struggles. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't all pink unicorns and rainbows. We can say, in retrospect, that it worked (because people worked very hard, not because they picked a good name). However, you'd be hard pressed to say it, while it was going on, that it was going to be a slam dunk. People certainly opposed it, despite the name, and if I'm being honest I can see a parallel between the criticisms against it then and those against feminism now ("It going too fast", "It alienates moderates", "I don't like the methods", etc.). The same kind of rose colored analysis comes up when people discuss the 1st and 2nd waves of feminism in order to use the memory as a bit of a shield. It's just a way to take movements "mellowed" by time, stand on what it acquired with sweat and tears, and pretend like they'd stand with the actual iteration if only the cause was just enough ("like back then"). I don't really buy it. Sure, maybe a few would, but by and large I think people that espouse these narratives are the very same that, going back in time, would oppose women voting and the end of segregation. --- ∆ well said. I agree that the name perhaps isn't the biggest reason (but, with issues such as this, I think it's impossible to say which factors really are the biggest). How much the name matters, we'll never know. For example, whether the stock symbol of a company is pronounceable has an effect on how well the stock does (eg: "GOOG" vs "IBM") [[https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-secret-science-of-stock-symbols]] In this case, the pronounceability shouldn't matter...but it does. What should matter to the stock price is the actual results of these comanies. The hard work of hundreds or thousands of employees...but...what also matters is the ticker symbol...even though it shouldn't. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Madplato ([56∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Madplato)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "Madplato" } DB3PARAMSEND)	7smupi	CMV: Feminism would be more widely adopted with men (and more successful) if it wasn't called "feminism"	Names matter...a lot. Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities they have as men. But, the name "feminism", to many men, makes it sound like the movement is for women, not for them. They feel excluded. They feel the need to assert that they have problems too -- that they also struggle with issues related to being men (eg: higher suicide rates, for example). The name is the biggest reason why more men don't identify as feminists. The Civil Rights Movement did well in a large part because it's hard to argue that you "don't believe in civil rights". Disagreeing with civil rights just sounds ridiculous. If "feminism" was rebranded to "The Gender Rights Movement" or something similar, it'd be impossible for people to disagree with (after all, don't we all want more rights, regardless of gender?). More men would be on board and ultimately, our society would change faster. Same goes for Black Lives Matter...there's a reason why people always object with "All Lives Matter". It's not untrue that Black Lives Matter, but that doesn't change how people react to the name. Feminism suffers from a marketing/branding problem which is hurting its overall success. CMV :)	rmhildebrandt	3	3	[ { "author": "Burflax", "id": "dt5wevv", "score": 21, "text": "The 'bad' connotations of feminism didn't spring up out of nothing the instant the word was coined.\n\nThey were crafted by the people against feminism before those 'misunderstandings' existed.\n\nSince they were made specifically to co...	[ { "author": "Madplato", "id": "dt60aei", "score": 14, "text": "> Most men that are against feminism, by and large, don't hate women. They would want equality for men and women. If they have a daughter, wife, mother, sister etc, they want these women to be treated well and have the same opportunities...	[ "dt5wevv", "dt5x8v7", "dt5xih4" ]	[ "dt60aei", "dt61ejt", "dt61r8h" ]
CMV: We should stop debating and start shaming I only mean this in the context of certain views which I will elaborate on below In the context of bigoted or hateful views (racist, homophobic, sexist views) I think a lot of people think that they can change people’s minds with logical arguments. But I think this is often based on the assumption that the person reached their conclusion through logical reasoning, so if you explain to them why it isn’t logical you can change their minds. But most bigoted views are often irrational and not based on any logical reasoning. Like for example, someone thinking all gay people are predators will often not have developed that viewpoint through evidence. Because there isn’t any. That viewpoint will be formed through prejudices, and then propaganda that affirms their prejudices. Trying to deconstruct the propaganda often won’t change their minds because it’s not about the actual content of the propaganda. The basis for why they believe the propaganda IS their prejudices. And they often believe that it must be true if they’ve seen so much of it. Debating often won’t end up changing their minds and might actually reinforce their viewpoint if you treat it as a viewpoint worthy of debating. Because you’re affirming the possibility that it might be true. I think the only actual method that could get people to change their minds is weaponizing shame and disgust. It might be the only thing that actually gets them to consider the fact that their views might be completely irrational and shameful and begin to reassess those views. They might not respond to logic, but they might respond to an ‘ew wtf’. Arguing that something is irrational only goes so far because you have to prove that it’s irrational, but this automatically gets you like 10 steps farther because it actually points out how irrational and shameful that view is. Even if they don’t change their views completely it might get them to reassess whether the view is something they should say in public. Obviously this isn’t something I want to do though, it is responding to hate with hate which isn’t exactly fun, so I came here to see other sides before I actually start doing it.	You will never change someone's mind by shaming them. It won't get them to reassess their stances, it'll just drive them further into whatever their stance is, because its the only place they feel is safe, and its the only place they receive validation from. If one's only contact with another "side" is negative and adversarial, they will necessarily see everything from that "side" as an enemy. Shame is used as a tactic to shut people out entirely. Its used to shut people up, not to spark conversation, and definitely not to change minds. (I'm not personally of the opinion that people should spend time trying to convince their local Nazi or Hamasnik of anything, either. I think shaming them is fine. I just acknowledge that this particular strategy leads to silence, not changed minds.) --- For sure you can. When it’s smart and actually weaponizing shame and disgust directed at their views. Maybe not if it’s directed at them as a person. Like if someone told my argument was weird that might actually make me reassess my argument. --- Ugh, this view is so weird. >Like if someone told my argument was weird that might actually make me reassess my argument. You're just saying this because it supports your current narrative. It's easy to say things when you've created the preconceived conclusion in your head. --- No I genuinely do think that. Why would I have this viewpoint if I didn’t think it would work on me lol? It would at least make me reassess why it was called weird or why they think that. Which is a step to examining your own beliefs. --- Doesn't seem like it worked on you. --- Well ya because I know the reason why you said that already --- So? I thought shaming should work, but apparantly you're able to discern the reasoning behind it so why can't others? I don't know if it's just an unwillingness to look beyond your own preconceptions or that you're just desperate to prove a point, but it's been proven time and again that negative reïnforcement does not work in changing peoples minds. It might change one or two in a hundred or something because they're easily influenced into following the pack, but for anyone with a mind of their own, you'll just push them away. --- Ya I said it would at least make me reassess the reason why they called me weird. I know the reason here. I wouldn’t know outside of this context why someone called my argument weird, so I would be forced to assess it. You aren’t talking about what you think you’re talking about. This isn’t what negative reinforcement means. Negative reinforcement involves removing an unpleasant stimulus. It doesn’t just mean anything negative. Also even then, negative reinforcement still works. Not better than positive reinforcement but it still works. It’s why you’re fast to put your seatbelt on to get it to stop beeping. --- >Ya I said it would at least make me reassess the reason why they called me weird. I know the reason here. I wouldn’t know outside of this context why someone called my argument weird, so I would be forced to assess it. But you're not reassessing it seems, it seems you're retreating further back into your argument. >You aren’t talking about what you think you’re talking about. This isn’t what negative reinforcement means. Negative reinforcement involves removing an unpleasant stimulus. It doesn’t just mean anything negative. Also even then, negative reinforcement still works. Not better than positive reinforcement but it still works. It’s why you’re fast to put your seatbelt on to get it to stop beeping. Negative reïnforcement works when there is a tangible and unavoidable negative to 'reïnforce' it. This doesn't work in opinionland because as you're demonstarting, you can just deflect and retreat into your argument and tell the other side off. It. doesn't. work. --- I don’t know how else to say this. When someone calls my arguments weird I wouldn’t know the reason which causes me to look for the reason. I know the reason here which means I’m not assessing it. And no. What you’re talking about ISN’T negative reinforcement. Just calling an argument weird isn’t negative reinforcement. Look up the definition of negative reinforcement because this isn’t it. The definition actually matters if you’re trying to argue that it’s been proven not to work. If it did actually mean what you think it means, even debating someone would also classify as negative reinforcement. --- >I don’t know how else to say this. When someone calls my arguments weird I wouldn’t know the reason which causes me to look for the reason. I know the reason here which means I’m not looking for it. I have some bad news for you. So will the bigots. "You're just saying that because you were brainwashed in college. You're just saying that to appease the wokies and keep your job. You're just saying that because you're possessed. You're just saying that because you follow the crowd" They will, with all the certainty you just displayed argue they too know that the true reason you're mocking them isn't a reasoned idea; after all you can't articulate it and must resort to mockery. The real reason is whatever best supports their worldview already. Look I think mocking can be effective; but it's a tool in a kit that can't win alone. So you keep mocking and I'll keep reasoning and someone else will crack jokes at their expense and eventually we might make headway. But abandoning the screwdriver and the saw for a sledgehammer only approach will never build you a house.	The best rebuttal I can think of is this: Shaming doesn’t work against people who are disgusted with your worldview and who think they and their viewpoints/lifestyles are are fundamentally better than yours. Shaming only “works” (and even then, by no means reliably for the goal of positive change) when the targets of that shaming are fundamentally unsatisfied with or ashamed of themselves. You can maybe shame a fat person skinny if they’re unhappy being fat, and you maybe can shame a socially inept outcast into dipping a toe if they’re unhappy being socially outcast. But you cannot shame someone who views you as fundamentally beneath them. --- I understand what you mean. But if they truly think this there’s nothing that would change their minds. If they’re disgusted with your worldview, debating them wouldn’t work either. I think at least with this point it’s using shame against shame. It might actually be more effective because they might consider why someone they feel is beneath them feels the same way about them. Idk tho when it involves this because it is already extremely difficult to change their minds in any way. --- >But if they truly think this there’s nothing that would change their minds. well, talking to them and explaining your own POV certainly does more than shaming them --- I really don’t think it does though with extreme views. They’re based in hate and don’t have an intellectual basis. Sometimes they only respond to a language they can understand. Like if you take a Nazi, do you really think you could actually change their minds by just calmly explaining your side of things? Like I think calling their views weird actually does more here --- >Like I think calling their views weird actually does more here ok. so you call them weird, they ask why, and then you... arent allowed to tell them why their views are weird. becausethat would be having a discussion, and we cant have that >If my arguments had no intellectual basis I would honestly want to be shamed for that. I would want to know that, you know? yeah but how would you know? all you know is youre being insulted, you dont know the reason for it. --- You can tell them why if they ask. If they ask why they likely aren’t trying to debate with you. But if they have a counter argument the back and forth of trying to debate them on why the view is weird likely wouldn’t work. The shame can be enough sometimes. I had someone tell me one view I had was bigoted and lacked any intellectual basis and I still think about it lmao --- if you tell them why, you are literally having a debate with them. you said something, they asked a question, you responded --- So me asking a question to my friends means I’m trying to debate them? Me asking a clarifying question in class is trying to debate my teacher? You’re talking about a discussion, not a debate --- if after you answered the question they agree with you, congratulations having a calm conversation worked if they dont agree with, then by definition there are arguments on both sides that arent the same, so you have a debate, again by definition --- They might agree or just not respond. The only thing the one person is doing is saying ‘your argument is weird’, which is hard to argue is even an argument- that’s just a statement. And then clarifying that statement and flaking as soon as they actually try to counter argue. How someone chooses to respond doesn’t mean you’re getting into a debate. --- if you flake instead of starting a debate, you cannot "stop debating" because you never started	1jr5nwa	CMV: We should stop debating and start shaming	I only mean this in the context of certain views which I will elaborate on below In the context of bigoted or hateful views (racist, homophobic, sexist views) I think a lot of people think that they can change people’s minds with logical arguments. But I think this is often based on the assumption that the person reached their conclusion through logical reasoning, so if you explain to them why it isn’t logical you can change their minds. But most bigoted views are often irrational and not based on any logical reasoning. Like for example, someone thinking all gay people are predators will often not have developed that viewpoint through evidence. Because there isn’t any. That viewpoint will be formed through prejudices, and then propaganda that affirms their prejudices. Trying to deconstruct the propaganda often won’t change their minds because it’s not about the actual content of the propaganda. The basis for why they believe the propaganda IS their prejudices. And they often believe that it must be true if they’ve seen so much of it. Debating often won’t end up changing their minds and might actually reinforce their viewpoint if you treat it as a viewpoint worthy of debating. Because you’re affirming the possibility that it might be true. I think the only actual method that could get people to change their minds is weaponizing shame and disgust. It might be the only thing that actually gets them to consider the fact that their views might be completely irrational and shameful and begin to reassess those views. They might not respond to logic, but they might respond to an ‘ew wtf’. Arguing that something is irrational only goes so far because you have to prove that it’s irrational, but this automatically gets you like 10 steps farther because it actually points out how irrational and shameful that view is. Even if they don’t change their views completely it might get them to reassess whether the view is something they should say in public. Obviously this isn’t something I want to do though, it is responding to hate with hate which isn’t exactly fun, so I came here to see other sides before I actually start doing it.	Squirrelpocalypses	11	11	[ { "author": "Squidmaster129", "id": "mlc5gfz", "score": 7, "text": "You will never change someone's mind by shaming them. It won't get them to reassess their stances, it'll just drive them further into whatever their stance is, because its the only place they feel is safe, and its the only place t...	[ { "author": "ElephantNo3640", "id": "mlc6go0", "score": 7, "text": "The best rebuttal I can think of is this: \n\nShaming doesn’t work against people who are disgusted with your worldview and who think they and their viewpoints/lifestyles are are fundamentally better than yours. \n\nShaming only “wo...	[ "mlc5gfz", "mlc6exw", "mlc8n25", "mlc9rfu", "mlcakn8", "mlcbw4l", "mlcct07", "mlceysm", "mlcibqv", "mlcjhr8", "mlcl899" ]	[ "mlc6go0", "mlcgsxm", "mlcj1f4", "mlcn4dc", "mld0084", "mld0qhe", "mld2gzw", "mld31sm", "mld5j7f", "mld8twb", "mld9hm7" ]
CMV: Using different statistical standards for False Accusations vs Rape accusations creates a misleading narrative. The numbers we use for false accusations statistics and the numbers we use for rape statistics are predicated on completely different standards of measurement. This is not commonly understood causing people to interpret them on the same scale, leading to false premises and incorrect arguments. The result of this is a false narrative that false accusations are rare relative to rape. While we can debate what "rare relative to means", the intent here is a ballpark idea not a semantics battle.   False accusations are only considered such IF reported, IF investigated, IF proven, and IF proven for the same crime. This doesn't include the false accusations that are never reported, never investigated, never proven conclusively, or are reported for higher crimes but convicted for lower crimes. With so many hurdles to clear to be considered a false accusation, this number is of course seen as low. 2% doesn't sound like much. This is consistent between statistical citations and use in common parlance.   However rape statistics are measured based on reports and often include estimations well beyond reporting as well. If we look at Rainn.org for example, which is cited constantly, we see that they list 310 rape reports but cite that the overall number is 1,000 rates in the top graph: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system . Unlike false accusations they do not have to go through the report process, the investigation process, be proven as the same crime as the report, or be conclusively proven at all for the rape statistic to be considered valid. This is consistent between statistical citations and use in common parlance.   This is a severe problem that causes a giant corruption in the overall picture painted and obfuscates at least a few reasons it's so hard to solve the rape issue. To understand how big of a difference this makes lets use those mentioned numbers from Rainn.org on rape. They say out of 1,000 rapes 310 are reported and only 6 result in incarceration. Going by the same standards as false accusations, proven and jailed rape cases is ALSO roughly 2%. That's one proven falsely accused report for every rape report that is proven for jail time. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system . So if you use the same statistical standards for both we see how dangerous the situation actually is regarding potentially prosecuting innocents. A 50/50 chance is pretty atrocious.   So we can see that that 2% proven false reporting number does not necessarily mean false accusations are rare. Otherwise we'd have to say rape was rare, and I don't see anyone saying that. IMO this is what happens when statistics are misused or done/targeted improperly, you either end up with bad statistics or you follow a bad premise to a misleading conclusion.     Those are my assertions with the information I've found. I'm glad to see other arguments or studies that perhaps look at things in different ways. I do however reserve the right to be critical of them and prompt discussion about them.     EDIT: Well, it's been a busy night, I will return tomorrow and continue the conversation as I have time. Remember, this isn't about what the numbers say, the numbers for the sake of this post are purely illustrative even though I used real numbers with citation by necessity of the conversation. The point of the OP is that comparing related statistics derived by different methods will cause inaccurate results that present a false narrative....it's not focused on what that narrative is. I'm making no assertions about false report rates or rape rates or etc. There are many potential results of this that don't necessarily mean that the proper methodology results in 50/50 false report to conviction ratio, such as the Rainn statistics in this case having some sort of an issue or it may simply be illustrative of just how hard it is to properly convict a rapist in such commonly hearsay situation. Or perhaps other explanations. But again, those speculations are not my focus, just that using two standards for comparison between false reports and rape statistics will make the results inaccurate in some way...creating a false narrative.	Are you arguing the statistics for rape are false, because they’re based on self reporting? Reporting is different from accusing. There’s not much reason to lie on anonymous surveys — some people do, but statisticians have ways to account for that. Or do think there are more false accusations than we realize? False accusations of rape occur as frequently as that for other crimes, so I’d be unclear on why wed expect to see false accusations occurring more frequently than they do for things like assault and theft. --- > There’s not much reason to lie on anonymous surveys This makes ZERO sense. What do you think would happen if I took an anonymous survey of inmates and asked them if they were innocent? Would they all suddenly fess up to their crimes because the survey was anonymous?	> A 50/50 chance is pretty atrocious. Can you clarify this one? What are you implying that there is a 50/50 change of, and where does that number come from? --- > A 50/50 chance is pretty atrocious. > > > > Can you clarify this one? What are you implying that there is a 50/50 change of, and where does that number come from? Rainn.org, which I cited, states that out of 1,000 rapes 310 are reported and only 6 result in incarceration. 6 /310 = 0.01935 or just under 2% of all reports resulting in the conviction and incarceration. This uses the same mathematical standards on the conviction and incarceration status for rape as is used for false reporting. 2% is also the accepted rate of False Reporting, ergo if 6 convictions happened 6 false reports also happened. Thus the 50/50 number.	9436xy	CMV: Using different statistical standards for False Accusations vs Rape accusations creates a misleading narrative.	The numbers we use for false accusations statistics and the numbers we use for rape statistics are predicated on completely different standards of measurement. This is not commonly understood causing people to interpret them on the same scale, leading to false premises and incorrect arguments. The result of this is a false narrative that false accusations are rare relative to rape. While we can debate what "rare relative to means", the intent here is a ballpark idea not a semantics battle.   False accusations are only considered such IF reported, IF investigated, IF proven, and IF proven for the same crime. This doesn't include the false accusations that are never reported, never investigated, never proven conclusively, or are reported for higher crimes but convicted for lower crimes. With so many hurdles to clear to be considered a false accusation, this number is of course seen as low. 2% doesn't sound like much. This is consistent between statistical citations and use in common parlance.   However rape statistics are measured based on reports and often include estimations well beyond reporting as well. If we look at Rainn.org for example, which is cited constantly, we see that they list 310 rape reports but cite that the overall number is 1,000 rates in the top graph: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system . Unlike false accusations they do not have to go through the report process, the investigation process, be proven as the same crime as the report, or be conclusively proven at all for the rape statistic to be considered valid. This is consistent between statistical citations and use in common parlance.   This is a severe problem that causes a giant corruption in the overall picture painted and obfuscates at least a few reasons it's so hard to solve the rape issue. To understand how big of a difference this makes lets use those mentioned numbers from Rainn.org on rape. They say out of 1,000 rapes 310 are reported and only 6 result in incarceration. Going by the same standards as false accusations, proven and jailed rape cases is ALSO roughly 2%. That's one proven falsely accused report for every rape report that is proven for jail time. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system . So if you use the same statistical standards for both we see how dangerous the situation actually is regarding potentially prosecuting innocents. A 50/50 chance is pretty atrocious.   So we can see that that 2% proven false reporting number does not necessarily mean false accusations are rare. Otherwise we'd have to say rape was rare, and I don't see anyone saying that. IMO this is what happens when statistics are misused or done/targeted improperly, you either end up with bad statistics or you follow a bad premise to a misleading conclusion.     Those are my assertions with the information I've found. I'm glad to see other arguments or studies that perhaps look at things in different ways. I do however reserve the right to be critical of them and prompt discussion about them.     EDIT: Well, it's been a busy night, I will return tomorrow and continue the conversation as I have time. Remember, this isn't about what the numbers say, the numbers for the sake of this post are purely illustrative even though I used real numbers with citation by necessity of the conversation. The point of the OP is that comparing related statistics derived by different methods will cause inaccurate results that present a false narrative....it's not focused on what that narrative is. I'm making no assertions about false report rates or rape rates or etc. There are many potential results of this that don't necessarily mean that the proper methodology results in 50/50 false report to conviction ratio, such as the Rainn statistics in this case having some sort of an issue or it may simply be illustrative of just how hard it is to properly convict a rapist in such commonly hearsay situation. Or perhaps other explanations. But again, those speculations are not my focus, just that using two standards for comparison between false reports and rape statistics will make the results inaccurate in some way...creating a false narrative.	Ralathar44	2	2	[ { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "e3hylxv", "score": 4, "text": "Are you arguing the statistics for rape are false, because they’re based on self reporting? Reporting is different from accusing. There’s not much reason to lie on anonymous surveys — some people do, but statisticians have ways to acco...	[ { "author": "ThatSpencerGuy", "id": "e3hxszz", "score": 5, "text": "> A 50/50 chance is pretty atrocious. \n\nCan you clarify this one? What are you implying that there is a 50/50 change of, and where does that number come from? ", "timestamp": 1533244364 }, { "author": "Ralathar44", ...	[ "e3hylxv", "e3i3o7c" ]	[ "e3hxszz", "e3hy0ky" ]
CMV: It's selfish for a mother to choose formula feeding without at least attempting to breast feed. While I agree that fed is best, I find it incredibly selfish that many moms go straight to formula feeding their newborns without even attempting to breast feed. There are of course exceptions to this including a whole score of medical issues, prior inability to breast feed other children, or an extended NICU stay, so my statement only applies to mothers who are able to breast feed, or at least able attempt to, but don't in favor of formula feeding. "Breast milk contains antibodies that help your baby fight off viruses and bacteria. Breastfeeding lowers your baby's risk of having asthma or allergies. Plus, babies who are breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months, without any formula, have fewer ear infections, respiratory illnesses, and bouts of diarrhea." [Source](http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/nursing-basics) Science has shown time and time again that breast milk is better for infants than formula, yet many mothers still choose formula over breast milk for non-medical reasons. I believe that this is inherently selfish, change my view. Edit: Source Edit 2: I failed to mention the option of combination feeding in my original post, so I'll add that here. With combination feeding a mother can give her baby the benefits of having breast milk as often as possible and use formula when it's not convenient to breast feed or pump. I believe this is a viable, non-selfish, option in addition to exclusively breast feeding. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Can I ask why you chose to frame the issue in the judgemental tone of "selfishness"? Do you find that binary ultimatums are in anyway useful for analysing circumstances and evaluating outcomes? Why isn't sufficient to say that parents should educate themselves as best they are able and come to a decision based on their circumstances, the information they have, and the best outcome for both the mother and child? Why ya gotta be so judgy? --- Because I find it selfish... mothers are free to do what they like in regards to feeding their child, and I am free to judge them. But honestly, I don't want to be so judgy about it, which is why I'm asking people to change my view. --- Why be judgy at all? You don't know anyone's full circumstances. They are raising their child in the way that they feel is best. You may raise your child in the way you feel is best. Everyone does things which are better but not best in some aspects of their life. Don't have the top rated carseat because you wanted to eat more than rice and beans that month? selfish. Didn't stay home with your kid and instead went back to work? Selfish. Stayed home with your kid instead of contributing to the household income? Selfish. Want to stop feeling judgy? Just stop then. Different people lead different lives with different circumstances. It is just as easy to assume the best of them than the worst. See someone feeding their child from a bottle? instead of feeling judgy, just assume its pumped milk. Or assume that they are a combination feeder. or assume that they aren't the parent but a different care giver. or assume that they experienced sexual assault earlier in their life and have very complicated emotions when it comes to bodily access - even by their own child. Assume whatever you want that makes you able to move on. Because any one of those things could be true. Assuming that someone does it for purely selfish reasons is just as much of an assumption as anything else. And honestly, with the pressure surrounding motherhood and breastfeeding these days, its much easier for a mother to laugh it off and give a flippant reason than it is to admit she "failed" at something that the internet says is easy and berates her for not being able to do. You have the capacity to be kind, and the capacity to not judge. Just choose it.	> so my statement only applies to mothers who are able to breast feed, or at least able attempt to, but don't in favor of formula feeding. Single mother who has to use formula for economic reasons. Not everyone has the time to pump, ability to store milk post-pumping, and transport said milk. I’ve read horror stories about the TSA throwing away milk for example, no place to pump, etc. It seems like there is an economic privilege to being able to pump. Tl:dr, in some cases earning more money to pay for the baby is superior to spending the time pumping. --- Breast milk is free and so is a breast pump if you have insurance thanks to Obama. Places of work are required by law to provide time and space for mothers to pump, also thanks to Obama. I failed to mention the option of combination feeding in my original post, so I'll add that here. With combination feeding a mother can give her baby the benefits of having breast milk as often as possible and use formula when it's not convenient to breast feed or pump. I believe this is a viable, non-selfish, option in addition exclusively breast feeding. --- While the regulations under the ACA regarding breastfeeding at work are certainly a step in the right direction, there are employers who are exempt from these requirements: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs73.htm	6q4jwg	CMV: It's selfish for a mother to choose formula feeding without at least attempting to breast feed.	While I agree that fed is best, I find it incredibly selfish that many moms go straight to formula feeding their newborns without even attempting to breast feed. There are of course exceptions to this including a whole score of medical issues, prior inability to breast feed other children, or an extended NICU stay, so my statement only applies to mothers who are able to breast feed, or at least able attempt to, but don't in favor of formula feeding. "Breast milk contains antibodies that help your baby fight off viruses and bacteria. Breastfeeding lowers your baby's risk of having asthma or allergies. Plus, babies who are breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months, without any formula, have fewer ear infections, respiratory illnesses, and bouts of diarrhea." [Source](http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/nursing-basics) Science has shown time and time again that breast milk is better for infants than formula, yet many mothers still choose formula over breast milk for non-medical reasons. I believe that this is inherently selfish, change my view. Edit: Source Edit 2: I failed to mention the option of combination feeding in my original post, so I'll add that here. With combination feeding a mother can give her baby the benefits of having breast milk as often as possible and use formula when it's not convenient to breast feed or pump. I believe this is a viable, non-selfish, option in addition to exclusively breast feeding. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Trancespire	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dkujfld", "score": 7, "text": "Can I ask why you chose to frame the issue in the judgemental tone of \"selfishness\"?\n\nDo you find that binary ultimatums are in anyway useful for analysing circumstances and evaluating outcomes?\n\nWhy isn't sufficient to say that pa...	[ { "author": "Huntingmoa", "id": "dkuh81p", "score": 9, "text": "> so my statement only applies to mothers who are able to breast feed, or at least able attempt to, but don't in favor of formula feeding.\n\nSingle mother who has to use formula for economic reasons. Not everyone has the time to pump, ...	[ "dkujfld", "dkujkfx", "dkuk9ku" ]	[ "dkuh81p", "dkuhm33", "dkui1uz" ]
CMV: a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for genocide I can't get the thought out of my head that a vote for Biden is a vote for genocide. I voted for him in 2020. He wasn't someone I was excited about, but Trump was actively working to destroy rights that are important to me and people I care about, so I went out and voted for Biden, and I was happy that he won. But I don't know if I can do it again. Not because Biden hasn't delivered on his promises to forgive $10,000 of student debt or to make Roe "the law of the land" or to protect trans people. I'm disappointed about all of that. But mostly it's because I am abjectly horrified about what is happening in Gaza. A genocide is unfolding and Biden is endorsing it. He's funding it. He's bombing Yemen about it. How can I live with myself if I cast a vote for someone who is supporting and funding a literal genocide? I'm really hoping somebody can help me with this, because I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. I don't want Trump to win. I'm queer and I have a uterus, so it's not in my own self-interest to vote for him, and that isn't what my CMV is about. But I don't think my conscience will allow me to cast a vote for genocide, either. I often justify my vote as "harm reduction" when I'm not thrilled about the Democratic candidate, but I really don't think I can make that argument in 2024. A LOT of harm is being done, and I don't think my conscience will allow me to endorse it with my vote. Can you change my view?	Do you believe any other politician would behave differently? Who would you vote for? Do you think that voting for a situation at home matters more than foreign policy? There are many factors who which can influence your decisions. As meme able as it sounds if rather a genocide under Biden than under Trump. --- I'm not entirely sure what Trump (or another Republican candidate) would want to do re: Israel. I'm not really considering voting for another candidate. I'm considering not voting, for the first time since I have been eligible. To me, casting a vote for Joe Biden would be an endorsement of what he is doing - funding and enabling a genocide. Joe Biden might be the "best" option. But I don't know if I can vote for the "best" option when the "best" option still includes genocide. Does that make sense? --- It’s an understandable qualm, but it is ultimately counterproductive. Not voting to absolve you of responsibility for the actions of your government. Think about if everybody who thought like you just gave up and went home and didn’t vote. All of the “pro-genocide” voters would still be voting for genocide, so that wouldn’t be fixed, but all of the domestic issues you mentioned would also get worse. Not voting is sticking your head in the sand. The better approach is to vote for the best option, and be as involved politically as you can. Attend protests, call your representatives, get other people to call their representatives, etc. etc. Take every action you can to move the country forward, instead of giving up your voice so that you get to avoid feeling complicit when the country moves backwards.	There is not a single politician that can win a national election that will not continue the same foreign policy positions once in power. --- Right. This makes me not want to vote for anyone. --- That is a perfectly valid stance, nothing wrong with that if that’s how you feel.	199yzwr	CMV: a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for genocide	I can't get the thought out of my head that a vote for Biden is a vote for genocide. I voted for him in 2020. He wasn't someone I was excited about, but Trump was actively working to destroy rights that are important to me and people I care about, so I went out and voted for Biden, and I was happy that he won. But I don't know if I can do it again. Not because Biden hasn't delivered on his promises to forgive $10,000 of student debt or to make Roe "the law of the land" or to protect trans people. I'm disappointed about all of that. But mostly it's because I am abjectly horrified about what is happening in Gaza. A genocide is unfolding and Biden is endorsing it. He's funding it. He's bombing Yemen about it. How can I live with myself if I cast a vote for someone who is supporting and funding a literal genocide? I'm really hoping somebody can help me with this, because I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. I don't want Trump to win. I'm queer and I have a uterus, so it's not in my own self-interest to vote for him, and that isn't what my CMV is about. But I don't think my conscience will allow me to cast a vote for genocide, either. I often justify my vote as "harm reduction" when I'm not thrilled about the Democratic candidate, but I really don't think I can make that argument in 2024. A LOT of harm is being done, and I don't think my conscience will allow me to endorse it with my vote. Can you change my view?	dubious_unicorn	3	3	[ { "author": "Such-Lawyer2555", "id": "kihcowv", "score": 28, "text": "Do you believe any other politician would behave differently? Who would you vote for?\n\n\nDo you think that voting for a situation at home matters more than foreign policy? There are many factors who which can influence your deci...	[ { "author": "Signal_Palpitation_8", "id": "kihdsaf", "score": 2, "text": "There is not a single politician that can win a national election that will not continue the same foreign policy positions once in power.", "timestamp": 1705607973 }, { "author": "dubious_unicorn", "id": "kihe5...	[ "kihcowv", "kihdst7", "kihfs3l" ]	[ "kihdsaf", "kihe51f", "kihevj5" ]
CMV: Golf is ridiculously overrated 1. Golf has a high prestige (sometimes arrogance) attached to it. 2. It is very popular - that is, it is a general sport unlike say Kayacking. However, it merits none of these qualities (especially when compared to alternative extra curricular activities/hobbies/sports). You're great at golf? Great, you are good at putting a ball into a hole with a stick. It's a completely untransferable skill. There is no real physicality required. No real teamwork skills developed. It is crazy expensive compared to alternative activities, and I'm sorry, if someone is great at golf I think good for them but I don't really see anything to be impressed by. In other sports you can challenge your character, skill level, get physically fit or strong. Even in other relaxing sports. Even in chess at least you are developing your cognitive skills (for free!). Now I'm am not saying it is a bad thing to do. It is good but we have limited time on the earth and I just can't see the appeal of golf compared to most alternatives. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something!	> You're great at golf? Great, you are good at putting a ball into a hole with a stick. It's a completely untransferable skill Don’t you think that with this way of looking at things, you can make almost every hobby and sport sounds stupid? Oh you are good at video games? Am I supposed to be impressed by your ability to sit on chair and aim pixels ? Oh you’re great at basketball? Great I needed someone skilled at throwing ball in a net to build my house… oh wait I didn’t! My point is that it’s easy to present games and sport as stupid but it’s not really specific to golf. --- I’m not fully convinced by OP, but you’re totally missing his point. There are teamwork and hand-eye coordination for both basketball and video games. Cardio vascular health for basketball and problem solving for computer games. You haven’t listed any portable skills for golf. --- Golf improves hand eye coordination, flexibility and strength (less so than other sports, but strength is required to get maximum output). Also requires problem solving in evaluating the various factors such as distance, angles, condition of the ground (length of grass, dampness etc), any obstacles, verticality and slope of where you're trying to land the shot, for which you have to apply adjustments in club selection, power, spin etc. I would also suggest that golf in particular tests your patience.	>CMV: Golf is ridiculously overrated This is your subjective opinion attacking others subjective opinions. You dont like golf. That is completely fine. Other people like golf, that is also fine. I cant reason you out of a position you didnt reason yourself into in the first place. --- I mean he wrote in this sub for people to change his view… he gave his reasons why he thinks it’s over rated I’m sure he’s looking for other reasons he’s not aware of to change his mind. --- I dont think this is something people can really change his mind about. He needs to fundementally change how he frames it. Instead of thinking that golf is bad and everyone is suffering some sort of shared mental delusion about how great it is, he needs to frame it as not everyone likes the same things and sometimes thats completely OK. Different strokes for different folks man.	1jqf7sk	CMV: Golf is ridiculously overrated	1. Golf has a high prestige (sometimes arrogance) attached to it. 2. It is very popular - that is, it is a general sport unlike say Kayacking. However, it merits none of these qualities (especially when compared to alternative extra curricular activities/hobbies/sports). You're great at golf? Great, you are good at putting a ball into a hole with a stick. It's a completely untransferable skill. There is no real physicality required. No real teamwork skills developed. It is crazy expensive compared to alternative activities, and I'm sorry, if someone is great at golf I think good for them but I don't really see anything to be impressed by. In other sports you can challenge your character, skill level, get physically fit or strong. Even in other relaxing sports. Even in chess at least you are developing your cognitive skills (for free!). Now I'm am not saying it is a bad thing to do. It is good but we have limited time on the earth and I just can't see the appeal of golf compared to most alternatives. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something!	LostSignal1914	3	3	[ { "author": "Galious", "id": "ml6ibmv", "score": 60, "text": "> You're great at golf? Great, you are good at putting a ball into a hole with a stick. It's a completely untransferable skill\n\nDon’t you think that with this way of looking at things, you can make almost every hobby and sport sounds st...	[ { "author": "yumdumpster", "id": "ml6hdia", "score": 43, "text": ">CMV: Golf is ridiculously overrated\n\nThis is your subjective opinion attacking others subjective opinions. \n\nYou dont like golf. That is completely fine. Other people like golf, that is also fine. \n\nI cant reason you out of a p...	[ "ml6ibmv", "ml6mcna", "ml71g0g" ]	[ "ml6hdia", "ml6iza8", "ml6jpeg" ]
CMV: An act should not be considered a crime unless a human other than the perpetrator is harmed in the act. There are a lot of "victimless crimes" that are considered morally reprehensible but don't harm (indirectly or directly) another human. Here are some examples: Animal Cruelty & Bestiality The act of personal drug use Incest between consenting adults Trespassing on undeveloped land Prostitution between consenting adults Homelessness I would like to note that crimes which very indirectly harm another human being (stealing from wealthy persons, tax evasion which worsens the health of a country's population as a whole) should be considered a crime. I personally believe that the a legal system ought to have three primary goals: 1) Discourage and punish acts which degrade overall well-being of "every human other than the actor" 2) Protect a person's freedom to do any action they wish that does not degrade the overall well-being of "every human other than the actor" 3) Try to improve the overall well-being of humanity Victimless crimes are expressions of freedom that do not degrade the overall well-being of humanity, and considering them as crimes go against goals 2 and 3. This is especially true considering that going after "victimless" crimes uses up resources that could go to other means of improving the overall well-being of humanity.	How about attempts? If I shoot a gun at your general direction with 100% intent to kill, and I miss the target, should that not be a crime? The only reason you are alive is because of luck. Should laws really allow those who are morally culpable to escape the punishment simply because they are lucky? Punishing attempts fulfills your three requirements. 1. Attempting to kill someone certainly may lead to degrading someone's well being. 2. A person should not have the freedom to kill someone and rely on luck not to actually accomplish the job. 3. Putting people in jail that think that killing others is a way to solve problems would improve humanity. --- Let's say that A shoots a gun at B with "100% intent to kill" but misses. Person C is the only other person present. From my perspective, B and to a lesser extent C will almost certainly be aware of this act and likely will suffer psychologically as a consequence of this act, which will effect their overall well-being. However, if B and C are unaware of A's action, no harm is done to anyone and said attempt should not be prosecuted. In addition, A's action to shoot a gun at someone (Assuming B&C being unaware of said action and thus not affected) and miss, regardless of intent, is an action that does not degrade the overall-well being of humanity and A should be free to do it (if B and C are aware and thus psychologically harmed though, that is a crime) in light of the slippery slope argument. With that said, I also do believe that a legal system should not act on potential likelihoods that someone may commit a crime in the future. --- > likely will suffer psychologically as a consequence of this act If you're counting psychological suffering as harm, then you agree that suicide should be illegal, right? Their families will be devastated. Or drug use that's harmful to the user? More of the same.	Isn't that the definition of a crime? Some human is affected negatively by the other person's act. Kick over a tombstone, someone, somewhere, is negatively affected by that act. They have to pay to have it fixed, or suffer an emotional trauma by that act. Rob a store, the cashier is traumatized. The owner is hurt monetarily by that act. Kill a dog and the owner feels real loss or pain. Crime is a crime Because it hurts someone. --- "Kick over a tombstone" -- If no one is ever aware at the fact that the tombstone was knocked over and no action is taken, not a crime "Kill a dog" -- If it is someone else's dog -- yeah that's a crime and should be considered property damage. If it is your own dog or a random feral dog, there are likely no effects on other human beings and thus not a crime. There are numerous instances of things widely considered to be "crimes" (such as those in my main post above), that do not effect others, and there also are edge cases of "crimes" that typically harm others but don't in particular instances that should not be acted upon or considered as "crimes" in those particular instances. --- The next day when the caretaker worker discovers the vandalism it's considered a crime. If there's ctv around the cemetery and police investigate it's an active criminal investigation. Once the family is notified they're the hurt party. It's a crime to the dog, an actual living being that's capable of being hurt. Anyone that hurts an animal should be executed, IMO. Everything you listed is considered a crime to someone. Doesn't matter if you specifically don't see it as one.	10sd79e	CMV: An act should not be considered a crime unless a human other than the perpetrator is harmed in the act.	There are a lot of "victimless crimes" that are considered morally reprehensible but don't harm (indirectly or directly) another human. Here are some examples: Animal Cruelty & Bestiality The act of personal drug use Incest between consenting adults Trespassing on undeveloped land Prostitution between consenting adults Homelessness I would like to note that crimes which very indirectly harm another human being (stealing from wealthy persons, tax evasion which worsens the health of a country's population as a whole) should be considered a crime. I personally believe that the a legal system ought to have three primary goals: 1) Discourage and punish acts which degrade overall well-being of "every human other than the actor" 2) Protect a person's freedom to do any action they wish that does not degrade the overall well-being of "every human other than the actor" 3) Try to improve the overall well-being of humanity Victimless crimes are expressions of freedom that do not degrade the overall well-being of humanity, and considering them as crimes go against goals 2 and 3. This is especially true considering that going after "victimless" crimes uses up resources that could go to other means of improving the overall well-being of humanity.	cantheevilman	3	3	[ { "author": "deep_sea2", "id": "j70sfym", "score": 2, "text": "How about attempts?\n\nIf I shoot a gun at your general direction with 100% intent to kill, and I miss the target, should that not be a crime? The only reason you are alive is because of luck. Should laws really allow those who are moral...	[ { "author": "GTAOChauffer", "id": "j70tlf7", "score": 2, "text": "Isn't that the definition of a crime? Some human is affected negatively by the other person's act. Kick over a tombstone, someone, somewhere, is negatively affected by that act. They have to pay to have it fixed, or suffer an emotiona...	[ "j70sfym", "j70tqx9", "j70ymlg" ]	[ "j70tlf7", "j70u4d7", "j70uiss" ]
CMV: In self defense, the defender should have significantly more leeway in using force even if it turns out to be excessive. To be clear, I'm only talking about cases where the threat is still active. If someone's running away you obviously shouldn't be able to shoot them in the back. But if someone punches you and is still an active threat to you, you should be able to stab/shoot them to neutralize them. A punch can easily escalate into a full blown beating, and %99 of people can't really fight after taking a punch. If someone's untrained even a single punch can leave them defenseless against an attacker who may decide to severely injure or kill them. I guess what I'm trying to say here is you shouldn't be under any obligation to take even a single punch from someone and leave yourself defenseless and should be able to use even lethal force against unarmed people to avoid that. This obviously raises the question of whether one should be able to use lethal force against someone approaching them with the intent of assaulting them. I'll bite the bullet here and say yes, they should be allowed to do that. As I said before, you should be under no obligation to take even a single punch from someone who intends on assaulting you. You may claim that this would let people kill toddlers for punching them in the leg or such but I don't think that's a valid argument. I simply think what's considered as excessive force should be significantly higher. You could claim this is open to abuse legally, but I don't really think it's more open to abuse than our current self defense laws. The threat of severe retaliatory force would simply make people much less likely to consider starting violent altercations in most situations.	What's the national context here? What you're proposing is actually the law in much of the US; my understanding is that, especially in Stand Your Ground states, you can in fact use pretty much any degree of force to respond to lethal force (which, to the best of my knowledge, can include unarmed attacks). [Major caveat: "my understanding" is very limited.] --- I'm not from the US and the country I live in requires matching force for any defense to be considered self defense. For example, if someone's on top of you and choking you out, and you use a knife to slash/stab them in the chest you're using excessive force even if you didn't start/provoke the fight. This was from a legal case example I've found online. You're supposed to slice them in the legs/arms before escalating to lethal force. --- >This was from a legal case example I've found online. That seems weird, do you have a link?	So, George Floyd should have used a gun on Derek, under your use of force argument? How would that have ended? And who would have been the 'good' guy? And, similarly, should everyone and anyone afraid of being targeted by cops have the leeway to use a machine gun against them, as per your disproportionate response argument? Would Justice be served, or would it instead become a game of he-shot, she-bazooka'ed theatrics? At what point does self-defense argument descend into violence exacerbating excuse? --- [removed] --- [removed]	q5e0jr	CMV: In self defense, the defender should have significantly more leeway in using force even if it turns out to be excessive.	To be clear, I'm only talking about cases where the threat is still active. If someone's running away you obviously shouldn't be able to shoot them in the back. But if someone punches you and is still an active threat to you, you should be able to stab/shoot them to neutralize them. A punch can easily escalate into a full blown beating, and %99 of people can't really fight after taking a punch. If someone's untrained even a single punch can leave them defenseless against an attacker who may decide to severely injure or kill them. I guess what I'm trying to say here is you shouldn't be under any obligation to take even a single punch from someone and leave yourself defenseless and should be able to use even lethal force against unarmed people to avoid that. This obviously raises the question of whether one should be able to use lethal force against someone approaching them with the intent of assaulting them. I'll bite the bullet here and say yes, they should be allowed to do that. As I said before, you should be under no obligation to take even a single punch from someone who intends on assaulting you. You may claim that this would let people kill toddlers for punching them in the leg or such but I don't think that's a valid argument. I simply think what's considered as excessive force should be significantly higher. You could claim this is open to abuse legally, but I don't really think it's more open to abuse than our current self defense laws. The threat of severe retaliatory force would simply make people much less likely to consider starting violent altercations in most situations.	corvusfamiliaris	3	3	[ { "author": "quantum_dan", "id": "hg4un3j", "score": 11, "text": "What's the national context here? What you're proposing is actually the law in much of the US; my understanding is that, especially in Stand Your Ground states, you can in fact use pretty much any degree of force to respond to lethal...	[ { "author": "ApocalypseYay", "id": "hg4uunu", "score": 2, "text": "So, George Floyd should have used a gun on Derek, under your use of force argument? How would that have ended? And who would have been the 'good' guy? \n\nAnd, similarly, should everyone and anyone afraid of being targeted by cops ha...	[ "hg4un3j", "hg4wft4", "hg4xeqx" ]	[ "hg4uunu", "hg4z2yd", "hg4zp0m" ]
CMV: There should be no difference between taxes on Capital Gains and Earned Income I'm in the US so my opinion only really relates to the tax policy here. I feel that the preference in our tax system for capital gains instead of ordinary income is an unfair susbidy towards the rich, who earn the majority of the capital gains. I would be ok with only taxing real capital gains (meaning over and above inflation, so if you buy a stock at $100 and sell one year later at $103 and inflation was 3%, you would not have any gain to pay taxes on). I've seen arguments that treating capital gains differently from earned income encourages investment, but I don't see the need to subsidize investing in the stock market over working or any other thing people choose to do with their money. Furthermore, treating capital gains differently from income encourages the rich to try to classify their income as capital gains (see carried interest for hedge fund managers). _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Well I hope to maybe help you see why the capital gains incentive is good. ”I feel that the preference in our tax system for capital gains instead of ordinary income is an unfair susbidy towards the rich, who earn the majority of the capital gains.” So I won’t debate that the “rich” (depending on your definition of rich obviously) do benefit the most from capital gains. What I want to change your view on is that it “unfair”. So a few points here to maybe consider: 1) A lot of this has to do with the fact that most middle class people will try to “flip” their investments too quickly, and end up getting taxed for a short term investment (with is taxed at the ordinary income tax rate). While larger companies or “richer” people have longer term investments that actually take advantage of the capital gains tax. It’s not unfair, it’s just that normal people either get bad advice or are ignorant to the tax code. 2) We already have a progressive tax rate for the capital gains rate based on your income. So richer people actually pay a higher capital gains tax anyway compared to their more modest counterparts. ”I would be ok with only taxing real capital gains (meaning over and above inflation, so if you buy a stock at $100 and sell one year later at $103 and inflation was 3%, you would not have any gain to pay taxes on). “ If you did this, you would effectively be taking away a lot of incentive to invest. This actually helps businesses because sometimes their projected return on investment isn’t high enough to get investors to buy in. So the tax incentive sweetens the deal for investors, which ends up being good for everyone. ”I've seen arguments that treating capital gains differently from earned income encourages investment, but I don't see the need to subsidize investing in the stock market over working or any other thing people choose to do with their money.” I really hope you can consider this a bit more. while these people do benefit from the capital gains tax at a higher overall amount, the benefit that comes from promoting investing actually helps out us normal folk a lot more than if we just taxed their income that they hide in some foreign country anyway. When they invest it does create jobs, there’s a direct correlation between the two. ”Furthermore, treating capital gains differently from income encourages the rich to try to classify their income as capital gains (see carried interest for hedge fund managers).” Well yes they do take advantage of the tax break but that’s the incentive to get them to invest instead of just jumping into a sea of gold coins like Scuge McDuck and saying fuck the rest of us lol. It helps things run a bit more smoothly when the rich will just invest instead of trying to collect their taxes and disperse the love. If we can give them incentive to do it then it’s a good idea, it won’t stop them from being rich if we get rid of the incentive to invest. I’m on my phone but I can add links for everything when I get home --- So I'm curious to see some links regarding your second point. Basically when you invest in the stock market, unless you are buying into an IPO or secondary offering you aren't giving money to a company to invest. I don't see why that is preferable to spending the money on any product where the proceeds of that purchase will benefit the seller. And the incentives to earn more money through investment are still there. I'm not advocating a 100% tax, rather a tax on profits that is in line with the taxes people pay on wages. --- Even after the IPO, a company’s stock price is useful to them. They can use the stock as compensation to acquire highly talented people to work for them. They can issue more shares, diluting their current shares in circulation, to raise more money to fund expansion. That’s more effective when the stock price is high. In some cases, you can collateralize your stock against debt, which is more beneficial when the stock price is high. It’s secondary to actual operations, but it is still very important. One big example is Tesla. They have used their high share price to raise additional funds through dilution and debt to fund the development of the model 3, build out the gigafactory, acquire solar city, and continue to fund operations through a substantial cash burn. If not for their high stock price, Tesla would have died years ago.	The difference between wages and investment is that wages are always positive. Investments carry a risk of losing the initial investment, so the incentives are inherently different, which I think is why it makes sense to tax it differently. Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a justification of the specific rates currently used, nor should it justify and loopholes or tricky accounting. But it does make sense to give special treatment to incentivize given the risk involved. --- Why should the fact that you can lose money investing mean that you are subject to a different tax on the gains? I understand offsetting gains with losses, but why incentivize it in the first place? You are likely to lose money buying a lottery ticket, but winnings are taxed as earned income. Why should capital gains be treated differently? --- Because investing in companies is good for the economy as a whole. It's something that the government wants to happen, so they add extra incentives.	7908o0	CMV: There should be no difference between taxes on Capital Gains and Earned Income	I'm in the US so my opinion only really relates to the tax policy here. I feel that the preference in our tax system for capital gains instead of ordinary income is an unfair susbidy towards the rich, who earn the majority of the capital gains. I would be ok with only taxing real capital gains (meaning over and above inflation, so if you buy a stock at $100 and sell one year later at $103 and inflation was 3%, you would not have any gain to pay taxes on). I've seen arguments that treating capital gains differently from earned income encourages investment, but I don't see the need to subsidize investing in the stock market over working or any other thing people choose to do with their money. Furthermore, treating capital gains differently from income encourages the rich to try to classify their income as capital gains (see carried interest for hedge fund managers). _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	dew89	3	3	[ { "author": "TylerDurden626", "id": "doy8zeh", "score": 5, "text": "Well I hope to maybe help you see why the capital gains incentive is good. \n\n*”I feel that the preference in our tax system for capital gains instead of ordinary income is an unfair susbidy towards the rich, who earn the majority ...	[ { "author": "themcos", "id": "doy7hu5", "score": 16, "text": "The difference between wages and investment is that wages are always positive. Investments carry a risk of losing the initial investment, so the incentives are inherently different, which I think is why it makes sense to tax it different...	[ "doy8zeh", "doy9qt7", "doykm0z" ]	[ "doy7hu5", "doy7pyh", "doy7vi3" ]
CMV: Ben Shapiro will become President of the US He's a genius; his IQ is probably over 150; he graduated cum laude with his JD from Harvard at age 22--surpassing his peers by 5 years; he's never lost a debate; one or more people in Congress watch his fans' "thug life" videos; and he is very transparent with his facts and is always willing to engage in argument or an exchanging of ideas. He seems to have accrued sufficient wealth and networked enough contacts to kick off a political campaign--not that it would be difficult for him otherwise; people watch him speak just to listen to him articulate intelligently and destroy opposing arguments with a refreshing array of facts.	He might get into congress but I think he has said too many inflammatory things. A quick google and you find dumb shit like >If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If your child majors in English, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. Tell Billy to major in math. LGBT rights are going to become more and more mainstream in the next 8 years (probably when he would run) and these comments are too blatantly homophobic and transphobic for the mass audience to swallow. It's going to come up a lot that so many candidates in 10-ish years will have lived their whole lives online. The chance of candidate nudes, sexts, dumb collage pictures are roughly 90%. I know hat has given me pause to get involved in local politics. And if the Daily Wire's blatantly racist Columbus day cartoon is anything to go off he will keep toeing lines until he steps fully in shit. I also put a 10% chance he gets stuffed in a locker by Chelsea Manning in the next year and is never heard from again. --- Do you know what Ben's views are on LGBT rights? Or rights of any person in any relationship, for that matter (same view)? --- I pasted a quote of him talking about the "MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA". He's also pretty on the record against Tran-gender people. He also claimed a judge might be "using the power of his gavel to justify his sex life." I am sure he'll say in the wonderful Libertarian way "Everyone is free to do what they want, I just want LESS government, that means I am MORE tolerant." But I don't think someone who has such easily googled quotes on LGBT people will get far in an election. --- No, you are mischaracterizing his words and wrongfully defaming him. He's [not against transgender people](https://youtu.be/hbTwoLah2VY), and his on personal relationships are, "the government has no business in interfering with people's personal relationships" (also referring to marriage). His views on forced speech is clear: the government should not be allowed to censor our thoughts. If he sees 'a man over there', he wants to be able to say "that man over there" without fear of being punished. If the person looks like a man, he wants to be able to freely refer to them as a man. Likewise, if there's a brunette with dyed blonde hair, he will probably say, "that blonde over there". You think using your words. To censor our words is to censor our thoughts. He doesn't care if the person is transgender or not. If they are, he has no problem with them. I don't think you understand that when he says "militant homosexual agenda", the government is using tyrannical force (i.e., if you refuse to comply, they will eventually arrest you, and if you refuse to be detained, they'll point a gun at you) [creating tax benefits for people to be gay.](https://youtu.be/1rQ_mphb7HU) --- I think you missed u/Tuesdaythe5th ‘s point. There are probably good reasons why Shapiro said what he did. As you elaborate, he is not against transgender people. But that’s entirely irrelevant. In a national election, no will care about the nuance. They will take the short blurb and form their entire opinion based on that and similar soundbites. Shapiro taking the time to explain his position will sail over the general public’s heads. Because of that, the ods os him winning a presidential election are slim to none. One counter argument that you may or may not be considering is the election of Donald Trump. While he did manage to get elected after questionable quotes and recordings, [people don’t like him anymore](http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx). The next election is likely to veer away from polarizing, filterless candidates next time, which further hampers Shapiro from winning a nomination, let alone winning the presidency.	Do you think that the conservative base is ready to vote for a Jewish man? --- Yes --- Why would you think that? The conservative base is very white and rural, a group usually not fond of Jewish people. --- > Why would you think that? Conservatives are not the alt-right. He's also more of a libertarian. Many classical liberals would essentially agree with him on most things. > very white and rural, a group usually not fond of Jewish people. Source? --- > very white and rural, a group usually not fond of Jewish people. > Source? Ben Shapiro has written so himself in the National Review. [Source](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435527/donald-trumps-anti-semitic-supporters) "Donald Trump's nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork" "there is a significant core of Trump support that not only traffics in anti-Semitism but celebrates it" etc.	7sid0b	CMV: Ben Shapiro will become President of the US	He's a genius; his IQ is probably over 150; he graduated cum laude with his JD from Harvard at age 22--surpassing his peers by 5 years; he's never lost a debate; one or more people in Congress watch his fans' "thug life" videos; and he is very transparent with his facts and is always willing to engage in argument or an exchanging of ideas. He seems to have accrued sufficient wealth and networked enough contacts to kick off a political campaign--not that it would be difficult for him otherwise; people watch him speak just to listen to him articulate intelligently and destroy opposing arguments with a refreshing array of facts.	PLEASE_USE_LOGIC	5	5	[ { "author": "Tuesdaythe5th", "id": "dt54j9o", "score": 18, "text": "He might get into congress but I think he has said too many inflammatory things. A quick google and you find dumb shit like \n\n>If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsori...	[ { "author": "VernonHines", "id": "dt4yv84", "score": 11, "text": "Do you think that the conservative base is ready to vote for a Jewish man?", "timestamp": 1516747068 }, { "author": "PLEASE_USE_LOGIC", "id": "dt4z1zh", "score": 2, "text": "Yes", "timestamp": 1516747258 ...	[ "dt54j9o", "dt54oln", "dt5593j", "dt55qwl", "dt58wie" ]	[ "dt4yv84", "dt4z1zh", "dt4z94y", "dt4zg4k", "dt4zmgo" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something. So you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your solution is to bully children into fitting into the norms? How about if we're talking about left handed kids? Should parents "do what's necessary" to prevent their kids from writing with their left hand? This may seem like a flippant example, but it's literally what used to happen. And the impact on everyone else of a kid writing with their left hand is precisely the same as if they are trans. Bullying your own child, and not accepting them for who they are, is the definition of bad parenting. --- [deleted] --- >left hands don't have issue, left hands in my culture is a sign of creativity, which is desirable. In YOUR culture, but that is not to say ever culture had the same view. You know the Latin word for left? Sinister. Right is dexter . To be ambidextrous was to be seen as having two right hands. Being left-handed was for a long time, undesirable and something kids were forced out of.	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- >I am against bad parenting skills, who push their kids or introduce the idea of trans to young kids There's a trans activist (assigned male at birth) who grew up in Texas, in a Christian family. They spanked the child whenever she said she was a girl or put on girl's clothes or played with girl's toys. They took her to conversion therapy. Guess what, she's still trans. Why do you think trans people have a higher suicide rate?	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "FluffyEmu5811", "id": "j70nosv", "score": 127, "text": "I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something.\n\nSo you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your soluti...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j70nosv", "j70ofku", "j70pc2g" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70nl2e" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	Do you have any evidence for your view? --- It is my best guess. that's why I said "mostly". If you have any statistic/survey on exactly the reason why people are/turn trans. That will def change my view. --- >If you have any statistic/survey on exactly the reason why people are/turn trans. That will def change my view. We don't know the causes of gender identity/being trans yet, but there's evidence that there is a significant genetic component. Here's a twin study that shows that the chances of two identical twins both being trans if one was were significantly higher than in fraternal twins: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2013.750222 Obviously twins have the same parents, so if it was parenting we'd not expect to see these results.	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- I think the age to introduce people to the idea of trans is whenever. It's not complicated. 'They were born a guy but they are a girl now'. What happens when the kid has a trans relative, are the parents supposed to cut off all contact? What happens when someone's parents are trans, are they just not supposed to tell their kids? I don't think the kids who are constantly pushed into doing stuff they don't want to do because other people want them to conform to stereotypes that are becoming increasingly unpopular would think that your position is 'good for everyone'.	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "j70nazv", "score": 25, "text": "Do you have any evidence for your view?", "timestamp": 1675402306 }, { "author": "kagekyaa", "id": "j70ns5w", "score": -13, "text": "It is my best guess. that's why I said \"mostly\". If you have any statistic...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j70nazv", "j70ns5w", "j70qefl" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70nl5q" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- So your definition of "bad parenting skills" includes not teaching your kid traditional gender roles, but it doesn't include physical abuse as a method of keeping them cis? Also: > who push their kids or introduce the idea of trans to young kids Trans acceptance didn't become widespread (and still isn't, in most of the world) until the past couple of years. How can you think that most trans kids are trans because their parents pushed them into it, if the vast majority of parents either didn't know about, care about, or were actively against the idea of being trans until very recently?	Why not post in /r/askreddit and see what type of upbringings people had? Then, you may get a view from this platform and maybe even encourage you to delve deeper and see where global statistics might bring this opinion --- I prefer this sub, so many smart people, and since trans is trending now, I think this is the best time to change my view. --- For me, the main thing is with any bold claims like the one you are making, you need statistical analysis of multiple families and people to back this up. Otherwise, it is an assumption that can lead to prejudice and futher discrimination against a group of people	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ { "author": "PoppersOfCorn", "id": "j70n3yq", "score": 9, "text": "Why not post in /r/askreddit and see what type of upbringings people had? Then, you may get a view from this platform and maybe even encourage you to delve deeper and see where global statistics might bring this opinion", "timest...	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70tqs1" ]	[ "j70n3yq", "j70ngo6", "j70nxzu" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	> If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. conversion therapy's been tried. Trying to pressure kids into being cisgender isn't a novel idea. kids for which parents are not accepting of their identity are higher at risk for health issues your approach would increase the risk of suicide for transgender teens. emphasizing biological sex roles doesn't magically prevent gender dysphoria. --- my view is focused on parenting. So, which one is worse parents who Accept kid feeling about their gender identity, knowing their kid will have a hard future, or parents who try their best to avoid it? --- Punishing children for being gender non-conforming is absolutely worse. It doesn't make kids gender conforming and it's horrible for their mental health. Being LGBTQ+ is hard enough already. Having trauma over being punished by your parents for it is even worse. I'd also like to point out that the majority of small children who are gender non-conforming don't grow up to be trans. The majority of gender non-conforming young children become more gender conforming by age 14. Only about 27% of gender non-conforming children grow up to be trans adults. Gender non-conforming children do tend to grow up to be gay/lesbian though. So emphasizing gender roles to small children most likely wouldn't do anything useful. These kids are most often gay but not trans already.	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- At what age did you learn about being a boy or a girl? How is adding “some people are neither, some people feel different inside than what they seem like on the outside” bad parenting? Also are you saying that trans people exist because their parents taught them about trans people existing? You totally failed to respond to the above comment, so I’ll try to restate it: some trans people had parents who are vehemently against them being trans, never talked to them about being trans, and completely disowned them for being trans. How is this good?	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "TripRichert", "id": "j70pk4e", "score": 5, "text": "> If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens.\n\nconversion therapy's been tried. Trying to pressure kids into being cisgender isn't a novel idea.\n\nkids for which parents ar...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j70pk4e", "j70ss35", "j70u068" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70npof" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	I mean I get where you’re coming from but it’s absolutely absurd to suggest that transgenderism is solely, or primarily, derived from poor parenting. There’s all sorts of biological factors at play that determine whether someone will experience the notion of incongruity between their chromosomal sex and gender identity, not to mention the social influences that can condition our brains in such a way. I think immediately jumping to affirm young children when they express characteristics typically associated with the opposite gender is questionable, but that particular situation is incredibly rare and will not have a huge weighting on the statistics you cite. Parenting is indisputably a major element in the transition process. The level of support, or lack thereof, that trans children receive from their parents has a massive impact on their likelihood of developing anxiety, depression and resorting to self harm or even suicide. However, the suggestion that the root cause of all that is ‘bad parenting skills’ is not grounded in any sort of fact whatsoever. --- I’ll supplement this with a scientific study as you requested. Studies from the National Center for Biotechnology Information conducted brain scans of men, women, and biological men identifying as women. They found that the predicted sex of these transgender women, based off the scans, was a pretty even 50/50 split between male and female, compared to 90% accuracy when predicting the sex of cisgender men and women. This means that, though chromosomally male, the brain structure of these transgender women resembled that of a biological woman 50% of the time. This would seem to suggest that one's 'mental' gender, or sense of gender identity, may not be congruent with their chromosomal sex. Therefore, the root cause of transgenderism can likely be attributed to the structure of the brain. --- share me the link of the study please? this is basically say, trans brain is not normal? --- Trans people have brains that are normal. They just have brains that are normal for their gender and not their sex. AKA a trans woman has a female brain but a male body. Both the brain and the rest of body would be fine if they weren't in the same body. Unfortunately the mismatch does cause some issues. https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0056/ea0056s30.3	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- >I am against bad parenting skills, who push their kids or introduce the idea of trans to young kids There's a trans activist (assigned male at birth) who grew up in Texas, in a Christian family. They spanked the child whenever she said she was a girl or put on girl's clothes or played with girl's toys. They took her to conversion therapy. Guess what, she's still trans. Why do you think trans people have a higher suicide rate? --- I am aware of that. That's why I said "mostly" in my view. If you can provide a survey/stats on why people are / turn trans, that will def change my view.	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	4	4	[ { "author": "SnuckPremise", "id": "j711t89", "score": 1, "text": "I mean I get where you’re coming from but it’s absolutely absurd to suggest that transgenderism is solely, or primarily, derived from poor parenting. There’s all sorts of biological factors at play that determine whether someone will ...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j711t89", "j7123yt", "j71anq9", "j71cyr5" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70nl2e", "j70nywv" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	Trans people will have a poor quality of life because of gender roles Solution: force gender roles upon all children Result: A never-ending cycle of people with a lower quality of life due to gender roles You want to support the very thing that gives these people a poor quality of life in the first place? What about: Discourage gender roles Thus, help remove societal pressures that punish people for making life choices that hurt nobody Trans kids (along with literally everyone else) live a freer life Obviously it's not this simple. There are stuggles we will face if we pursue the second option that we would not face if we chose the first. But the second option, in my mind, is a solution- there is a destination; an end-game, where the first option is instead a self-perpetuating problem that hinders society's ability to progress. For values we should encourage as a society, I choose the second. I will always choose liberty over deliberately conditioning people to be certain way or to think or do certain things. Why don't you? If someone's gender is so heavily tied to the way they are raised (as you seem to think), then why do gender roles exist at all? The bigger impact gender roles have on a child's identification, the more of a social construct gender is. And why should such social constructs exist? To avoid disrupting those who believe it isn't a social construct? But then if they believe gender isn't a social construct, then they should be absolutely fine with removing societial pressures as, according to them, they have no impact anyway. How many trans people are advocating in support of gender roles? Why do you claim it is better for trans people when trans people (who themselves lived all these experiences) are trying to tell you otherwise? --- Gender roles is very very very very important. I don't say forces to all children, that's a strong word. if children have mental issue, then parents should have a different approach. my view is, if kid wants TO BE the opposite sex, or unicorn, or wolf, then parents who let their kids do that because they prioritize their kid's feeling is bad parenting. Parents should prioritize their kid's future, then kid's feeling. --- Why do you think gender roles are important? --- from the basic biology, male is physically stronger, like to fix stuff, thats why we have male dominated field, and female is more about people, that's why we have female dominated field, etc. anyway, the view that I want to change is about parenting, and few people already change my view, maybe you can add more? --- You're assuming that there's some kind of intelligence designing humanity for a specific purpose and a specific social order. I don't believe that's true. I think we evolved via natural selection and that evolution via natural selection is a force of nature without intelligence. Humans adapted our society to the quirks of our biology, but that doesn't mean that those quirks have a meaning. Which also means that I think society and gender roles an change. With the current rise in technology, physical strength means a lot less. A machine can be far stronger than any human, man or woman. If we want men to still be able to contribute to society, we have to give men value beyond carrying heavy objects.	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- >I am against bad parenting skills, who push their kids or introduce the idea of trans to young kids There's a trans activist (assigned male at birth) who grew up in Texas, in a Christian family. They spanked the child whenever she said she was a girl or put on girl's clothes or played with girl's toys. They took her to conversion therapy. Guess what, she's still trans. Why do you think trans people have a higher suicide rate? --- I am aware of that. That's why I said "mostly" in my view. If you can provide a survey/stats on why people are / turn trans, that will def change my view. --- What are you aware of? Do you think parents should hit their kid for saying they're trans? Why do you think trans people have higher suicide rates? What would stats for "why" someone is trans look like? They just are. There is no why.	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	5	5	[ { "author": "WowSocietySucks", "id": "j70slxj", "score": 3, "text": "Trans people will have a poor quality of life because of gender roles\n\nSolution: force gender roles upon all children\n\nResult: A never-ending cycle of people with a lower quality of life due to gender roles\n\nYou want to suppo...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j70slxj", "j70zuyy", "j712wok", "j71dwa0", "j71ee7n" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70nl2e", "j70nywv", "j70oa3j" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	For one, you seem to be under the impression that being trans is a choice. I would encourage you to talk to trans people - this is not the case. Many, if not most, trans people spent a great amount of time questioning themselves, due to the discrimination you cite yourself. Basically, if I understand your view - you recognize that trans people face discrimination and hardships in life. Therefore, parents should make their kids not trans. This presupposes the ability for parents to choose their children's identity - something that they simply cannot do. Parents cannot make their children cis, much as they cannot make them straight. What they can do is punish them for being trans or gay - which simply makes things worse for the child. --- I talk to them, they mostly talk about their experience and feeling. They made their decision to fight most people's subjective reality, that's why I said they are a warrior, a brave one. is it a hard decision? you know that trans stats is bad, then, should parents prioritize their kid's feeling? let them be the opposite sex? knowing the stats? or try to emphasize biological sex? if at the end, when the kid becomes an adult, the adult still trans, then everything is good. Parents should support their decision. but when kid is still kid, parents should do their best so their kid doesn't have a HARD future. --- Pretty much everything you've said here could equally apply to gay people. Gay people are in for more hardship in life than straight people, and whether one is gay is just as changeable and affected by upbringing as being trans is (that is to say not at all changeable, gender identity and sexuality both crystallise very early on and can't be changed). Would you advocate for parents to try to bully their kids into the closet so they can avoid discrimination later on? Even though doing so will undoubtedly cause a great deal of pain for them and those close to them their entire lives?	Do you have any evidence for your view? --- It is my best guess. that's why I said "mostly". If you have any statistic/survey on exactly the reason why people are/turn trans. That will def change my view. --- "Mostly" is a bit of a weasel word but what do you think of the many trans people who are still trans despite their parents efforts?	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "Judge24601", "id": "j70rz8s", "score": 10, "text": "For one, you seem to be under the impression that being trans is a choice. I would encourage you to talk to trans people - this is not the case. Many, if not most, trans people spent a great amount of time questioning themselves, due t...	[ { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "j70nazv", "score": 25, "text": "Do you have any evidence for your view?", "timestamp": 1675402306 }, { "author": "kagekyaa", "id": "j70ns5w", "score": -13, "text": "It is my best guess. that's why I said \"mostly\". If you have any statistic...	[ "j70rz8s", "j70yllu", "j715bxm" ]	[ "j70nazv", "j70ns5w", "j70ocqc" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something. So you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your solution is to bully children into fitting into the norms? How about if we're talking about left handed kids? Should parents "do what's necessary" to prevent their kids from writing with their left hand? This may seem like a flippant example, but it's literally what used to happen. And the impact on everyone else of a kid writing with their left hand is precisely the same as if they are trans. Bullying your own child, and not accepting them for who they are, is the definition of bad parenting. --- [deleted] --- >more like try your best to emphasize their biological sex. This is literally why suicide rates are higher for trans people. They're a lot lower in trans kids who are encouraged to be and accepted as the gender they want to be. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33275858/ or literally talk to any trans person. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that trans people go through troubles therefor we should discourage their existence. The reality is people already discourage their existence and that's why they face a lot of those troubles. --- [deleted] --- Gender dysphoria is a real thing, we know because it’s been well studied over decades and supported by brain scans. Wanting to be a wolf or unicorn is not the same, because that’s just mental illness or weirdo attention seeking behavior. There’s no science that shows people can be imaginary animals in their brain but mot body	I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense? Plenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to conform to the stereotypes of their birth sex. It doesn't work to make them not trans. Hell, it doesn't even work for cis kids. --- [deleted] --- At what age did you learn about being a boy or a girl? How is adding “some people are neither, some people feel different inside than what they seem like on the outside” bad parenting? Also are you saying that trans people exist because their parents taught them about trans people existing? You totally failed to respond to the above comment, so I’ll try to restate it: some trans people had parents who are vehemently against them being trans, never talked to them about being trans, and completely disowned them for being trans. How is this good? --- it is bad parenting because what kind of parent push/their kid to future bad situations. it is not about the kid's feeling, but the kid's future. "Also are you saying that trans people exist because their parents taught them about trans people existing?" never say this. bad parenting because parents neglect their kid or just don't do enough to prevent the hard future. disowned your children is bad, no matter what. --- So what exactly is your view? Should parents try to discourage their kids from being trans or not?	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	5	5	[ { "author": "FluffyEmu5811", "id": "j70nosv", "score": 127, "text": "I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something.\n\nSo you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your soluti...	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "j70mswc", "score": 71, "text": "I do want to point out, your argument is literally 'trans people get discriminated against, so we need to discriminate against them more'. How does that make any sense?\n\nPlenty of trans kids had parents that constantly pushed them to...	[ "j70nosv", "j70ofku", "j70tpxb", "j711ori", "j72d4js" ]	[ "j70mswc", "j70nafb", "j70npof", "j70p5ar", "j70q1es" ]
CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard. technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something. So you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your solution is to bully children into fitting into the norms? How about if we're talking about left handed kids? Should parents "do what's necessary" to prevent their kids from writing with their left hand? This may seem like a flippant example, but it's literally what used to happen. And the impact on everyone else of a kid writing with their left hand is precisely the same as if they are trans. Bullying your own child, and not accepting them for who they are, is the definition of bad parenting. --- [deleted] --- >more like try your best to emphasize their biological sex. This is literally why suicide rates are higher for trans people. They're a lot lower in trans kids who are encouraged to be and accepted as the gender they want to be. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33275858/ or literally talk to any trans person. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that trans people go through troubles therefor we should discourage their existence. The reality is people already discourage their existence and that's why they face a lot of those troubles.	Do you have any evidence for your view? --- It is my best guess. that's why I said "mostly". If you have any statistic/survey on exactly the reason why people are/turn trans. That will def change my view. --- The simplified answer to why trans people are trans is because their brain/emotions do not fit their physical selves. Pre transition, a transgender man literally feels like he’s a man living in a woman’s body. These feelings are so powerful that they affect everyday life, and that’s why that person decides to start living as a man—for his outside to fit his inside.	10sc4gf	CMV: trans's parent has bad parenting skills. But, they are too small in number which will not become the standard.	technically I have 2 views here, feel free to change either one: 1. The reason why transgender exists is mostly because of bad parenting / parenting skills. The transgender statistic is bad: Higher suicide rate, more discrimination, etc. Every Transgender is basically a warrior, they are fighting (intentional or not) most people's subjective reality, and in some parts of the world, it is even harder to fight. So, parents who know these facts (or not), should prepare / already prepare their kids to avoid this kind of problem. one way is to emphasize biological sex roles. If a kid is a certain sex, then do parenting with that in mind. For example, if a kid is a male, then do mostly boy's stuff. if a kid is a girl, do mostly girl's stuff.If a kid wants to be the opposite sex, parents should do what's necessary to prevent that to happens. similar to when a kid wants to be a unicorn, or a wolf. parents should find a way to not make their kids a wolf or unicorn. in my view, if parents just let their kids do that, it is bad parenting. Parents should do their best to NOT guide their kids to obvious future problems. 2. This kind of Bad parenting is small in number. So, It will not become the standard. as per the description of CMV, let's have conversations. feel free to ask for clarification etc. EDIT: looks like my understanding of transgender is bad. I blame the media because even the transgender in media sometimes say transman are man, when literally only the brain is man, and the body is still female. people need to emphasize the "brain" part. so, if we normalize the idea that transwoman are transwoman, which is female brain, male body, I think people will accept it faster. then parent/family can adjust their parenting style, so no more forcing, just acceptance. accept that your kid is not normal / special.	kagekyaa	3	3	[ { "author": "FluffyEmu5811", "id": "j70nosv", "score": 127, "text": "I've seen some hot takes, but this is quite something.\n\nSo you're acknowledging here that some people don't fit into traditional gender stereotypes. But instead of thinking that maybe these stereotypes are inadequate, your soluti...	[ { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "j70nazv", "score": 25, "text": "Do you have any evidence for your view?", "timestamp": 1675402306 }, { "author": "kagekyaa", "id": "j70ns5w", "score": -13, "text": "It is my best guess. that's why I said \"mostly\". If you have any statistic...	[ "j70nosv", "j70ofku", "j70tpxb" ]	[ "j70nazv", "j70ns5w", "j70qtlc" ]
CMV: I am against the death penalty. As I see it, the death penalty is more about revenge than about justice, which can be quite harmful : "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Justice isn't about feelings, it's about getting to the truth and doing something about it in a humane way. Personally, I believe that criminals who commit major offenses should spend their whole life in prison. That way they can actually think about what they did and actually suffer the consequences of their actions by being deprived of their freedom. Sentencing them to death is just giving them a way out. I also don't believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for other potential offenders. Moreover, justice systems all over the world are rarely foolproof; the evidence found isn't always representative of what truly happened. Cases are rarely black and white with a 100% certitude of guilt. An innocent person can be sentenced to death, and it has happened. The risks are just too high. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	So I am against the death penalty in developed, first-world nations, but would not oppose it certain other situations. Are there times and places where you would support the death penalty? --- No, I oppose the death penalty in all cases, I apologize if that wasn't clear. You are correct, my argument is centered around first-world nations, and more specifically countries in which justice is based on facts and evidence presented in court, and where defendants have a right to a lawyer and the right to defend themselves and to argue their case in front of an unbiased judge and an unbiased system (some countries aren't considered first-world per se but have adopted this system). Countries like these have adopted a fair and just system, and the objective of my post was to try to understand why they might still resort to such a capital punishment. --- Situation: You are on an island with limited resources and technology inhabited by only 100 people. Steve has murdered and stolen multiple times. You locked him up once in a shitty bamboo dungeon but he escaped into the jungle. He snuck back to your camp and murdered again, after which he has been caught. What do you do to Steve? (I'm against the death penalty in real life but I would defs kill Steve)	You talk about justice being about humane consequences, not about feelings, and not just revenge. But you say: >That way they can actually think about what they did and actually suffer the consequences of their actions by being deprived of their freedom. Life in prison and the death penalty have the same societal effect(a criminal is removed), so the rational, non-feelings effect of both is the same. But wanting someone to suffer seems to bring feelings and revenge into the equation. Thinking about your actions has no effect on society if the prisoner in there for life, it simply brings unnecessary harm to them, for the sake of punishment and revenge(presuming they would rather die if given the choice). How would you feel about an optional death penalty? Say once a criminal is sentenced to life without parole they are given the option between rotting in a cell or dying? This would have the same effect on society, no unjust deaths, and could potentially reduce costs as they wouldn't receive the same appeals a death row prisoner receives. Granted, this may reduce the punishment aspect of justice, but in my opinion that is pointless as it will have no tangible effect on society. Granted I believe criminal justice should be primarily about improving and guarding society as a whole. We may fundamentally disagree on what role justice should have. --- ∆ Your post convinced me that perhaps there should be an optional death penalty where the choice is left to the convicted and made me see things from another perspective. I do feel, however, that they can contribute to society even behind bars, they can for example sow clothes for the unfortunate, prepare food for shelters. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/7nkedocye ([16∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/7nkedocye)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	942u7o	CMV: I am against the death penalty.	As I see it, the death penalty is more about revenge than about justice, which can be quite harmful : "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Justice isn't about feelings, it's about getting to the truth and doing something about it in a humane way. Personally, I believe that criminals who commit major offenses should spend their whole life in prison. That way they can actually think about what they did and actually suffer the consequences of their actions by being deprived of their freedom. Sentencing them to death is just giving them a way out. I also don't believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for other potential offenders. Moreover, justice systems all over the world are rarely foolproof; the evidence found isn't always representative of what truly happened. Cases are rarely black and white with a 100% certitude of guilt. An innocent person can be sentenced to death, and it has happened. The risks are just too high. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	slowdownyourneighbor	3	3	[ { "author": "CuriousCommitment", "id": "e3hubmy", "score": 1, "text": "So I am against the death penalty in developed, first-world nations, but would not oppose it certain other situations. Are there times and places where you would support the death penalty?", "timestamp": 1533241484 }, { ...	[ { "author": "7nkedocye", "id": "e3hv6ti", "score": 16, "text": "You talk about justice being about humane consequences, not about feelings, and not just revenge. But you say:\n>That way they can actually think about what they did and actually suffer the consequences of their actions by being deprive...	[ "e3hubmy", "e3hv6el", "e3hx3yf" ]	[ "e3hv6ti", "e3hw7rr", "e3hw8ik" ]
CMV: Becoming a police officer should mimic the process of becoming a firefighter. Firefighters tend to be pretty chill, and not just because people who want to be firefighters are chill people. It's the process that weeds out a lot of bad apples. Let me explain. In California, becoming a firefighter in a city is incredibly competitive. There's lots of applicants with Fire Science degrees, and many have worked shit hours with shit pay as EMTs/paramedics. So you have people willing to sacrifice years of hard work to become a firefighter, because it both has a great pay and a lot of respect. The process was similar with police officers. Make becoming a police officer very selective, with good pay. Have a new role, "Police Assistant" or something that does traffic management, private security, mental health services, whatever, that replaces some of the workload of police officers. Out of that applicant pool, those with good references and experiences can become a police officer, which has a pay similar to firefighters.	In California becoming a police officer is NOT incredibly competitive. Therein lies your problem. If you can make being a police officer more like being a firefighter then you might have a good idea, but until then you've got the supply problem and that supply surplus is what enables a great hiring and filter process. --- But making it more competitive and increasing the pay could increase the applicant pool. Make being a police officer glamorous again, almost to the level of an FBI agent. --- The problem is the lead time. You can make it more competitive sure, then you're severely understaffed for a while trying to change the image and glamourous. That leads to overworked cops and the perception of the job being endless and you burn out cops faster than you can hire "good" candidates and eventually you either end up without a police force because everyone quits due to the pressure of the understaffed job or you give up and slacken the standards, returning to the current problem except your core is weaker	[removed] --- I think having the police force break down would likely lead to vigilantism. Which over time would become very similar to the mob / cartel ‘protecting you’. --- We already have that with the cops as it is. They get bribed & bought out by the rich/private companies to do their bidding & beat the ones they assume can't afford their protection. Only difference is the lay man can't buy the police force.	10s59es	CMV: Becoming a police officer should mimic the process of becoming a firefighter.	Firefighters tend to be pretty chill, and not just because people who want to be firefighters are chill people. It's the process that weeds out a lot of bad apples. Let me explain. In California, becoming a firefighter in a city is incredibly competitive. There's lots of applicants with Fire Science degrees, and many have worked shit hours with shit pay as EMTs/paramedics. So you have people willing to sacrifice years of hard work to become a firefighter, because it both has a great pay and a lot of respect. The process was similar with police officers. Make becoming a police officer very selective, with good pay. Have a new role, "Police Assistant" or something that does traffic management, private security, mental health services, whatever, that replaces some of the workload of police officers. Out of that applicant pool, those with good references and experiences can become a police officer, which has a pay similar to firefighters.	seaneihm	3	3	[ { "author": "iamintheforest", "id": "j6zp2jq", "score": 3, "text": "In California becoming a police officer is NOT incredibly competitive. Therein lies your problem.\n\nIf you can make being a police officer more like being a firefighter then you might have a good idea, but until then you've got th...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "j6zl6o5", "score": 571, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1675383750 }, { "author": "YouJustNeurotic", "id": "j6zml58", "score": 22, "text": "I think having the police force break down would likely lead to vigilantism. Which over time would bec...	[ "j6zp2jq", "j708zeq", "j7110no" ]	[ "j6zl6o5", "j6zml58", "j6zp24r" ]
CMV: Kanye West is a good producer, an influential individual, and a mediocre rapper / lyricist, whose music is consistently entertaining, but rarely ever rises to a truly artistic level I should preface this by saying that I’ve never been a huge fan of Kanye. I’ve heard all of his music and have enjoyed most of it without ever being truly impressed. His production is always astounding, and the music itself is almost always delightful to hear, but his lyrics hardly ever have anything interesting to say, and are far below the level of someone like Kendrick Lamar. This is not to say that the two should be compared, but when Kanye is often called “the greatest artist of our generation” or “the greatest rapper of our time,” I can’t help but be irked. With the exception of The College Dropout and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, I’ve always seen Kanye’s lyrics (and frankly, public image) to be half-assed, pretentious, and narcissistic. Perhaps it’s just a matter of personal preference, but nevertheless, I want to understand why so many people think his music is so impressive.	I wonder if you've thought about this, but is Kendrick Lamar's public persona one of the reasons you evaluate his lyricism so much more favorably? If Kanye weren't such a clown would that close the gap and, when taken together with his production, elevate him in your mind? --- That’s probably fair. Kanye often comes off as a classless buffoon in his public life. But even if I knew nothing of Kanye’s persona, it wouldn’t change the fact that I just don’t feel like he has anything to say. He likes to stir controversy (both publicly and in his lyrics), but it never serves a higher purpose. He just plainly doesn’t have the same level of mindfulness and the same level of things to say that Kendrick has always had. --- Well I would say that's largely because Kanye is not as thoughtful and smart a person outside of making music as Kendrick seems to be. That said, there are a few reasons why I disagree with your conclusions. Genius comes in many forms. Bob Dylan is a genius, but his music is technically and sonically average. That's part of the reason people can sings his songs better than he can. Madonna is a different type of genius in that she really expanded the bounds of how music sounds, and how female artists are viewed. Kanye is kinda somewhere in the middle, but his greatest strengths really have been changing the culture in myriad ways. His antics aside, he has been really influential in music and outside of music. In was largely him to expanded the bounds of where rap was going in the late 90's and early 00's. He kinda made it okay for people who weren't poor and from the streets to make music that wasn't solely about the desperate circumstances they overcame to become rich. He was basically a Black nerd when it wasn't necessarily acceptable and profitable to be a Black nerd. He talked about college rather than crack. His debut album was rejected many times over, and was only released because they wanted to keep him as a producer. At the time he was often the bridge between artists like Talib Kweli, who made smarter conscious hip-hop, and artists like Cam'Ron, who made more typical street music. Later you'd see him doing the same across genres. Crossovers obviously existed before, but he was among the first to integrate different artists and types of music so seamlessly and without affect. Most rappers at the time would only work with an R&B singer, or other rappers. Kanye was, and would go on to work with people like John Mayer, Jon Brion, Adam Levine, Daft Punk, and Paul McCartney. He made a lot of them cool(er). Kanye recognized the sweeping talent of a guy like Brion, who was scoring films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Now Brion works with people like Beyonce. Prior to working with Kanye in 2015, McCartney hadn't had a top 10 hit since 1989. Most rappers were doing clothing lines at the time; Kanye did fashion. He was starting trends, including started one of the most successful sneaker lines Adidas has ever had. I could go on, but I will keep in fairly short. Despite being a jackass and a narcissist, he is a big reason why music today sounds the way it does, and why artists like Childish Gambino, Chance the Rapper, and many, many others are making music. For that, we should be thankful, and cognizant of his unique and special talents. The sad part is that he is such a mess of a person these days that days that he is making people forget what made him so special.	"rises to a truly artistic level" is this really the goal post you are defending? The music Kanye makes isn't art? --- That’s probably not the best way to phrase it. I just think he’s often proclaimed as some kind of instantly-legendary artist, whereas I find his music to be consistently entertaining, but never impressive in the way that people find it. His music is like the Marvel movie franchise - consistently well-made on a technical level, consistently entertaining, but not amazing filmmaking. It’s fun, it’s not Citizen Kane. --- And do you think all art can be measured objectively? If so how, if not then what about your view do expect us to change?	8o3x55	CMV: Kanye West is a good producer, an influential individual, and a mediocre rapper / lyricist, whose music is consistently entertaining, but rarely ever rises to a truly artistic level	I should preface this by saying that I’ve never been a huge fan of Kanye. I’ve heard all of his music and have enjoyed most of it without ever being truly impressed. His production is always astounding, and the music itself is almost always delightful to hear, but his lyrics hardly ever have anything interesting to say, and are far below the level of someone like Kendrick Lamar. This is not to say that the two should be compared, but when Kanye is often called “the greatest artist of our generation” or “the greatest rapper of our time,” I can’t help but be irked. With the exception of The College Dropout and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, I’ve always seen Kanye’s lyrics (and frankly, public image) to be half-assed, pretentious, and narcissistic. Perhaps it’s just a matter of personal preference, but nevertheless, I want to understand why so many people think his music is so impressive.	jacksonrees	3	3	[ { "author": "RustyRook", "id": "e00h6vt", "score": 3, "text": "I wonder if you've thought about this, but is Kendrick Lamar's public persona one of the reasons you evaluate his lyricism so much more favorably? If Kanye weren't such a clown would that close the gap and, when taken together with his p...	[ { "author": "cupcakesarethedevil", "id": "e00h5aw", "score": 2, "text": "\"rises to a truly artistic level\" is this really the goal post you are defending? The music Kanye makes isn't art?", "timestamp": 1527977102 }, { "author": "jacksonrees", "id": "e00hf2i", "score": 0, "...	[ "e00h6vt", "e00hloq", "e00jhce" ]	[ "e00h5aw", "e00hf2i", "e00hmd7" ]
CMV: I don't see why (strictly legally speaking) United should have settled with Dr. Dao From a PR perspective, sure I see why. But I don't see how they did anything wrong from a legal perspective. They in fact barely did anything at all. Person was on their plane > They asked person to leave their plane > Person refused to leave their plane > United calls the police That's the end of United's actions there. Anything that followed was the actions of the police. Suppose I invite someone into my home, and then an hour later tell them to leave and they refuse. If I call the cops to have them removed and the cops end up hurting that person, am I then responsible for the cops' actions? Shouldn't the police have been sued, rather than United? All of the bad stuff happened as a result of their actions, not those of United. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Legally Citizens United has a bigger responsibility of care than you in your private home because they are a business. Also you are conflating civil and criminal issues. A civil issue arises here when someone is hurt on your property, the surrounding context doesn't matter, you are responsible for all people injured on your property regardless if they are breaking the law or not. That's why the infamous My dog mauled a burglar and now I'm getting sued type cases come up a lot. People don't understand that you are not allowed to harm someone wrongfully just because they are breaking the law. The criminal issue, is that this individual is trespassing after you asked them to leave. That's why the police got involved. But you are still on the hook for a civil dispute because how they hurt themselves was entirely preventable, you and the police were both just impatient in this case. --- > People don't understand that you are not allowed to harm someone wrongfully just because they are breaking the law. I can understand that, but in this case isn't it the police that did the harm, and not my dog or something else under my control? --- Except the police were only there because United called them. Had the police followed Dr Dao, or been called to the plane for some other reason, it would have been fine. But the police were there at the invitation and under the guidance of United. --- but following the same logic, if the police shoot an unarmed person during an altercation, and they were there to begin with because I called 911, I'd be responsible in civil court and could be sued by the dead person's family members. --- That’s only the case if they were harmed on your property.	It was not the police. It was the Chicago Department of Aviation officers. They were put on leave though I'm not sure what their ultimate fate was. The point is that the airline called them to forcibly drag a paying customer from a flight to seat their own employees last minute. The Aviation Officers are meant to detain threats until police arrive. Not to drag people respectfully declining to be removed from their flight. Also worth noting is that if you are bumped off a flight they HAVE to compensate you up to a certain amount and United did not reach that amount when asking for volunteers before choosing at random. In fact if he was expected to arrive a day late he should have been compensated up to 1,350. United only offered up to 400. --- They didn't demand the person be forcibly removed though right? They just wanted him removed. Isn't there fault with the passenger for not complying with orders from the police? Isn't that illegal and clearly breaking the law? I'm failing to arrive at a point where he is deserving of thousands, possibly millions, of dollars. --- > They didn't demand the person be forcibly removed though right? They just wanted him removed. That's a really naive viewpoint. When you bring the police in to settle a dispute, you know that violence is on the table. The police will get their way no matter what it takes, up to shooting someone. That's why United brought the police in, in the first place, because they would do whatever it took to get the guy off their plane. So, by bringing the police in, they are responsible for putting a violent resolution on the table. --- But that would mean if there is an unruly customer in a restaurant and the police mess up in removing them, the restaurant could be sued --- Restaurants handle unruly customers all the time without engaging the police. All customer service organizations do that. Generally the only time police are called in is when the situation looks like it's getting out of control and might become dangerous. That was certainly not the case with United. Here they called in force because they didn't want to have to deal with the situation.	7sg5nz	CMV: I don't see why (strictly legally speaking) United should have settled with Dr. Dao	From a PR perspective, sure I see why. But I don't see how they did anything wrong from a legal perspective. They in fact barely did anything at all. Person was on their plane > They asked person to leave their plane > Person refused to leave their plane > United calls the police That's the end of United's actions there. Anything that followed was the actions of the police. Suppose I invite someone into my home, and then an hour later tell them to leave and they refuse. If I call the cops to have them removed and the cops end up hurting that person, am I then responsible for the cops' actions? Shouldn't the police have been sued, rather than United? All of the bad stuff happened as a result of their actions, not those of United. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ZeusThunder369	5	5	[ { "author": "championofobscurity", "id": "dt4gqxb", "score": 8, "text": "Legally Citizens United has a bigger responsibility of care than you in your private home because they are a business.\n\nAlso you are conflating civil and criminal issues.\n\nA civil issue arises here when someone is hurt on y...	[ { "author": "Snivellus-Snapes", "id": "dt4jfj7", "score": 5, "text": "It was not the police. It was the Chicago Department of Aviation officers. They were put on leave though I'm not sure what their ultimate fate was.\n\nThe point is that the airline called them to forcibly drag a paying customer fr...	[ "dt4gqxb", "dt4h60k", "dt4hsqs", "dt4i4t7", "dt4lsbp" ]	[ "dt4jfj7", "dt4lmdg", "dt4tlie", "dt4xqro", "dt4y0jp" ]
CMV: Romantic comedies no longer have the ability to offer modern Hollywood and the movie industry a unique experience. # Introduction This was inspired by my SO's recent demand of the genre and her demand for me to view them with her. I'm not going to argue that the impact that Rom-Coms have had throughout the span of the movie industry has been astronomic, not only for the development of (hybrid) genres but also the progression of screenwriting. # The Problem However, after watching multiple movies in this genre over the last several years. I've noticed the lack of characteristic and diversity. This includes factors such as cinematography, a sense of character, relevance to modern society and overall soundtrack. Now obviously the genre is vast and subjective, but I'm talking about the stereotypical, more romantic leaning style of movie rather than the balance that we generally find in the majority of movies. Earlier Rom-Coms managed to strike a balance between romance, intelligence and wise insight into how we as humans actually act. I feel this has been diminished by repetitive formulas, which feel like a requirement or a checklist that studios have to follow, as well as big named actors that have failed to bring anything new to the table. This is where I go a bit heavy on terminology so apologies if it is difficult to understand, but it's there to prove my point. First up, the majority of films in the genre follow the same media conventions as others, whether this is due to the actual format is subjective in my opinion. # Now what do i mean by this? Well for instance, we can see with Propp's character theory that we have very typical character roles and duties that must be followed. For example, we have: * Hero \- Protagonist of the movie, it is common to have either sex be presented this role in the medium * Princess \- The character that needs saving. In this case it's their equal's affection that they require to be free, can again be either sex. * Donor \- The character that aids the protagonist in completing their quest through guidance or objects, they commonly introduce the protagonist to the princess or/and give guidance to the hero when they're at their lowest point (this will be explained further in the next media theory (character is also typically the same sex as the hero)). * Villain / False Hero \- This is the one I have the most of a problem with, we all know what a villain is so no need to explain that. However the false hero is a role that sees the character originally appear to not be destructive in the aid of the hero role, but then be a critical opposing force in the hero's quest. This will always be the state of mind of the princess, or a boyfriend/girlfriend's wedding that the hero needs to crash, bugs me so bad. The other media convention I wanted to discuss is the linear narrative that the majority of these movies abide by, to sum up a linear narrative, it really just means that the sequence of events in the movie happen chronologically, so things like flashbacks in the middle of a movie would be non-linear/disjointed narrative. This creates a mundane and straightforward chronicle. # Improvements? How do I think that movie studios could improve this? Include more striking visuals, produce a genuinely unique soundtrack and include some more taboo or unfamiliar topics that we face as a society. Many movies in the genre have attempted to do this before, but it always feels forced and artificial. Finally, some intelligent screenwriting that can divert from the genre tropes and typical media theory we find in each text. I want to love this genre, so if you can change my view of the mediocrity of the genre then I'm happy to listen and discuss. Thanks for reading :) I'm open to answer all comments, I also hope that the format and size of my CMV was enjoyable to read, was structured effectively and also made sense (being a Media student has given me the curse of attempted perfection). Let me know if I made any mistakes regarding spelling or punctuation.	I'm going to disprove you by a "single counter example" argument: Deadpool was visually striking, had a unique soundtrack, included taboo and unfamiliar subjects and was a Romcom thus showing that it was already done and it was a really popular film too. --- Well, I'd say you're half right.. I loved deadpool the first time I saw it, but I had to analyse the movie for my media exam, this led to me watching the film twice. I'm going to argue the points made and explain why my views changed. Visuals - while the CGI was quite impressive considering the budget of the film, the visuals were always going to be inferior to competing movies. The film acknowledges this and wears it like a badge of honour. Soundtrack - was it unique? That's fairly subjective to be fair, I think deadpool 2 had a unique soundtrack, with the holy shitballs and funny dubstep scenes that were parody. Deadpool just didn't catch on well enough with me except for .... WHAM! (Whammmmm) Taboo subjects - the only real striking topics I remember was that Wade hated what he looked like and that paranoia scene was a great display of that, apart from that? We've had sex jokes before, we've had references they were all just amplified And finally.... Rom-Com - it's definitely not a romantic movie, you can say it's a spoof of one, But I think that might be a tad overboard. Romance is nowhere in this film and I couldn't care for Vanessa as a character. This was mainly due to her being made to be boring and lack personality, which was fine by me until i was made to sympathise with her in the 2nd movie. It's definitely a comedy though, I laughed a lot. A hybrid genre of action and comedy. --- Deadpool is a romantic comedy, it was just primarily targeted at young men rather than women. Vanessa is a fantasy girlfriend to many young men, the same way Colin Firth (or whoever else) is a fantasy boyfriend. To cite Gone Girl, Vanessa is the 'Cool Girl'.	Just a quick question, what do you think of "Silver Linings Playbook"? That was a relatively recent Romantic Comedy that seems to deliver on "taboo topics", visuals, and a unique soundtrack. Also, is just a great general movie. --- Δ In my honest opinion, I loved the topic coverage and the soundtrack. However, the visuals I felt were jarring in the sense that you had some very unbalanced cinematography at play. While I love Bradley Cooper, I felt he was miscast and was cast due to the success of "The Hangover". I thought Jennifer Lawrence had some good moments, however I felt like the wonky script overshadowed that. All in all I felt like it was a good flick, not memorable, but had enough refreshment with its themes of mental illness to keep me interested, will re-watch it again. Thanks :) --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/KevinWester ([68∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/KevinWester)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	942m33	CMV: Romantic comedies no longer have the ability to offer modern Hollywood and the movie industry a unique experience.	# Introduction This was inspired by my SO's recent demand of the genre and her demand for me to view them with her. I'm not going to argue that the impact that Rom-Coms have had throughout the span of the movie industry has been astronomic, not only for the development of (hybrid) genres but also the progression of screenwriting. # The Problem However, after watching multiple movies in this genre over the last several years. I've noticed the lack of characteristic and diversity. This includes factors such as cinematography, a sense of character, relevance to modern society and overall soundtrack. Now obviously the genre is vast and subjective, but I'm talking about the stereotypical, more romantic leaning style of movie rather than the balance that we generally find in the majority of movies. Earlier Rom-Coms managed to strike a balance between romance, intelligence and wise insight into how we as humans actually act. I feel this has been diminished by repetitive formulas, which feel like a requirement or a checklist that studios have to follow, as well as big named actors that have failed to bring anything new to the table. This is where I go a bit heavy on terminology so apologies if it is difficult to understand, but it's there to prove my point. First up, the majority of films in the genre follow the same media conventions as others, whether this is due to the actual format is subjective in my opinion. # Now what do i mean by this? Well for instance, we can see with Propp's character theory that we have very typical character roles and duties that must be followed. For example, we have: * Hero \- Protagonist of the movie, it is common to have either sex be presented this role in the medium * Princess \- The character that needs saving. In this case it's their equal's affection that they require to be free, can again be either sex. * Donor \- The character that aids the protagonist in completing their quest through guidance or objects, they commonly introduce the protagonist to the princess or/and give guidance to the hero when they're at their lowest point (this will be explained further in the next media theory (character is also typically the same sex as the hero)). * Villain / False Hero \- This is the one I have the most of a problem with, we all know what a villain is so no need to explain that. However the false hero is a role that sees the character originally appear to not be destructive in the aid of the hero role, but then be a critical opposing force in the hero's quest. This will always be the state of mind of the princess, or a boyfriend/girlfriend's wedding that the hero needs to crash, bugs me so bad. The other media convention I wanted to discuss is the linear narrative that the majority of these movies abide by, to sum up a linear narrative, it really just means that the sequence of events in the movie happen chronologically, so things like flashbacks in the middle of a movie would be non-linear/disjointed narrative. This creates a mundane and straightforward chronicle. # Improvements? How do I think that movie studios could improve this? Include more striking visuals, produce a genuinely unique soundtrack and include some more taboo or unfamiliar topics that we face as a society. Many movies in the genre have attempted to do this before, but it always feels forced and artificial. Finally, some intelligent screenwriting that can divert from the genre tropes and typical media theory we find in each text. I want to love this genre, so if you can change my view of the mediocrity of the genre then I'm happy to listen and discuss. Thanks for reading :) I'm open to answer all comments, I also hope that the format and size of my CMV was enjoyable to read, was structured effectively and also made sense (being a Media student has given me the curse of attempted perfection). Let me know if I made any mistakes regarding spelling or punctuation.	Bradalam	3	3	[ { "author": "swaffel_me_zachtjes", "id": "e3i95wd", "score": 1, "text": "I'm going to disprove you by a \"single counter example\" argument: Deadpool was visually striking, had a unique soundtrack, included taboo and unfamiliar subjects and was a Romcom thus showing that it was already done and it w...	[ { "author": "KevinWester", "id": "e3humyt", "score": 3, "text": "Just a quick question, what do you think of \"Silver Linings Playbook\"? That was a relatively recent Romantic Comedy that seems to deliver on \"taboo topics\", visuals, and a unique soundtrack. Also, is just a great general movie. ", ...	[ "e3i95wd", "e3i9z6o", "e3k5elz" ]	[ "e3humyt", "e3hv9cb", "e3hv9zz" ]
CMV: There isn't sufficient evidence to believe God (or the Gods) speak to mankind. I am a Deist Universalist. I used to be a Brighamite Mormon. My faith tradition taught the Bible, Christianity, and modern-day prophets who receive revelation from God. If God is speaking, why is He not clear? Why are there so many denominations of Christianity? Why are there so many religions? Why are religious people seemingly no wiser and no more ethical than their secular counterparts? The only way I can figure it, is that God (or the gods): 1. Doesn't interact with us in any knowable way; religions and spiritual experiences are manmade. 2. Guides larger communities in different ways according to their particular needs/framework, but doesn't give clear individual direction to many. 3. Purposefully creates confusion by withholding information from some and spreading information to many different groups in different ways; spiritual experiences are intentionally misleading/unclear. In my mind, a Good and All-Loving Creator would only do #1, as #2 and #3 treat certain individuals unfairly vs. others. And for context, that Benevolent Creator would also create a way (afterlife) to make unfair and unjust things in this life right.	Why not take just take this argument one step further and just say there isn’t sufficient evidence that God even exists at all outside the confines of your own mind? If you believe God exists without evidence, then why not believe God also speaks to humans without evidence? --- Deism: The Big Bang doesn't have a causal explanation. I choose to believe in the Uncaused Causer (Cosmological argument) as the source of the Universe and life. Why? Universalism: Because I hope for an afterlife that makes up for the injustices of Earthy existence AND allows me to see my loved ones once more. --- > The Big Bang doesn’t have a causal explanation. Yet. This is a god of the gaps argument and as explanations for things we don’t understand go, it’s a maximally unparsimonious one. > I choose to believe in the Uncaused Causer (Cosmological argument) as the source of the Universe and life. Symmetrically, you might just as well choose to believe god is talking to you through clergy and books about American Israelites written by known huckster. > Universalism: Because I hope for an afterlife that makes up for the injustices of Earthy existence AND allows me to see my loved ones once more. Is believing in things because you would like them to be true any more reasonable than believing in them because a book said so?	I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s another angle to consider. If God exists and communicate, why would we expect that communication to be simple, obvious, and universally understood? Think about how complex human relationships are miscommunication happens all the time, even when people are trying their best to be clear. If an all powerful being were to communicate with us, wouldn’t it make sense that the way we interpret that message would be influenced by culture, personal experience, and even our own biases? That could explain why religions and denominations differ so much. Also, the assumption that a loving God would only interact in a way that’s 100% fair and clear to everyone seems to put human expectations on something beyond us. If life itself is messy and full of uncertainty, why wouldn’t spiritual truth be a journey rather than a download? Maybe the search for meaning, rather than the instant clarity, is part of the point. --- I fully understand the direction you are going with this and very much appreciate it. I have a tendency to anthropomorphize God and view Him in a philosophical way. I imagine myself and my creation in my image (children), and would do everything in my power to speak to each of them. They would misunderstand me, but they would know I'm there. They would know I'm trying to communicate with them. I would hope that a loving God would at least make sure everyone knows He's reaching out and there for us when we need Him. --- I get that, and I think it’s a natural way to view things. But here’s a question, what if God is reaching out to everyone, just not in the same way you’d expect? If a parent speaks to each of their children in a way that makes sense to them, wouldn’t it make sense that God, who would be infinitely beyond us, might communicate in ways that are subtle, personal, and sometimes even indirect? Maybe some hear Him through religious experiences, others through philosophy, art, love, or even just an innate sense of purpose. If every person is different, why would God’s communication look the same for everyone?	1jqdm25	CMV: There isn't sufficient evidence to believe God (or the Gods) speak to mankind.	I am a Deist Universalist. I used to be a Brighamite Mormon. My faith tradition taught the Bible, Christianity, and modern-day prophets who receive revelation from God. If God is speaking, why is He not clear? Why are there so many denominations of Christianity? Why are there so many religions? Why are religious people seemingly no wiser and no more ethical than their secular counterparts? The only way I can figure it, is that God (or the gods): 1. Doesn't interact with us in any knowable way; religions and spiritual experiences are manmade. 2. Guides larger communities in different ways according to their particular needs/framework, but doesn't give clear individual direction to many. 3. Purposefully creates confusion by withholding information from some and spreading information to many different groups in different ways; spiritual experiences are intentionally misleading/unclear. In my mind, a Good and All-Loving Creator would only do #1, as #2 and #3 treat certain individuals unfairly vs. others. And for context, that Benevolent Creator would also create a way (afterlife) to make unfair and unjust things in this life right.	MMeliorate	3	3	[ { "author": "BootHeadToo", "id": "ml680k2", "score": 4, "text": "Why not take just take this argument one step further and just say there isn’t sufficient evidence that God even exists at all outside the confines of your own mind? If you believe God exists without evidence, then why not believe God ...	[ { "author": "DustHistorical5773", "id": "ml67m3f", "score": 9, "text": "I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s another angle to consider. If God exists and communicate, why would we expect that communication to be simple, obvious, and universally understood?\n\nThink about how complex h...	[ "ml680k2", "ml69io5", "ml6xkv4" ]	[ "ml67m3f", "ml68q4k", "ml69b2p" ]
CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate. Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	>liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives These numbers are a little misleading. They are true, but they don't give you the whole picture. Liberals are also far more likely to actually be the ones working for the charities than conservatives, and are far more willing to pay higher taxes in order to do charitable work (as a note this partially deals with the idea that many times the government can do a social program which would be more far reaching and efficient than a charity). >Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Well they often are about both. You see you can't really seperate social and economic issues. Issues like wages, redlining, who can be fired because of what. They all go hand in hand. Probably one of the core things to think about though is one of the fundamental liberal beliefs, free market economics and democracy/republics don't work well if people are being treated drastically differently socially. The less everyone is being given the same rights the less likely they are to have access to markets, and democratic processes , and the more we lose out on the value they bring to the table. > Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. Or you actually believe in the cause. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely people who virtue signal, but by far they make up a minority of the people involved. > At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Not sure how much you are paying attention but liberals do this stuff too all the time. In fact they are normally the ones to use the anti trust legislation we have, and they have drastically different views on what's needed in tax reform. Liberals don't inherently think cutting taxes is a good idea (hell even conservatives used to call that view "voodoo economics"). >Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Circles of influence. We can more likely effect that which we are closer to than another culture on the other side of the globe. >And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Ignore the loudmouth crackpots and talk to other liberal people. You will often find that most people have far more interesting and thoughtful things to say than those who are screaming the loudest. Don't get me wrong, you are always going to find crazy, fake, hypocritical liberals and conservatives, that just deals with being human. --- You wrote: "Well they often are about both. You see you can't really seperate social and economic issues. Issues like wages, redlining, who can be fired because of what. They all go hand in hand. Probably one of the core things to think about though is one of the fundamental liberal beliefs, free market economics and democracy/republics don't work well if people are being treated drastically differently socially. The less everyone is being given the same rights the less likely they are to have access to markets, and democratic processes , and the more we lose out on the value they bring to the table." Yes social and economic issues do go had in hand which is exactly my point. If you do not need help economically and can pay your rent and live a comfortable lifestyle then you don't need help! The reason gay marriage (and now transgender rights) are the biggest issues that attract the most attention is because they don't matter that much BUT they are super effective at demonstrating which side you are on. Hate to say it but where people urinate is a marginal issue when mortality rates have increased for the first time in industrialized history amongst white, poorly educated, rural Americans. Why does nobody ever protest about this and why is this issue largely ignored? As I said before it's all just so damned predictable. You wrote: "Ignore the loudmouth crackpots and talk to other liberal people. You will often find that most people have far more interesting and thoughtful things to say than those who are screaming the loudest. Don't get me wrong, you are always going to find crazy, fake, hypocritical liberals and conservatives, that just deals with being human." Thanks for saying and i wish this were true but this has not been my experience at least at universities. --- >Yes social and economic issues do go had in hand which is exactly my point. If you do not need help economically and can pay your rent and live a comfortable lifestyle then you don't need help! The reason gay marriage (and now transgender rights) are the biggest issues that attract the most attention is because they don't matter that much I think you need to look more closely at who is championing these changes. To be sure, average folk are willing to rally to a cause, but most people are not willing to lead a cause. So the causes that get discussed are the causes with folk who are willing to lead them and work to get other people involved. To a straight person, gay marriage isn't a big deal, but straight people aren't leading that cause. To a cis person, trans rights aren't a big deal, but cis people aren't leading that cause. To white people, racism isn't a big deal, but white people aren't leading that cause. To men, a little sexism just isn't that big of a deal, but men aren't leading that cause. You can say "these things aren't the big deal," because they are not the big deal to you. But to the people standing up to lead, they are; that's why these people spend so much time and energy working to rally people to their cause. If people want to talk about economics, them people who's biggest concern is economics need to step up and start championing that cause. The overwhelming majority of people I know who work for social justice issues also work for economic justice issues. Most consider the two to be deeply and inescapably entwined; that the only way to resolve economic issues it to resolve them for everyone, including Black people and queer people and trans people and women and nom-Christians and immigrants, etcetera. I just can't get over how often I see this argument that people should stop caring about the issues that most effect them in order to care about the issues that most effect you. If economics is the issue that most effects you, don't tell someone else that's the cause they need to fight for; fight for it yourself and be willing to out in all the time and effort and energy it takes to bring others into your cause.	> liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives Source? --- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html --- I counter with this, more recent, source: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/who-are-better-people-democrats-or-republicans/382116/	78v87x	CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate.	Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	bayes_net	3	3	[ { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dowwzwl", "score": 189, "text": ">liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives\n\nThese numbers are a little misleading. They are true, but they don't give you the whole picture. Liberals are also f...	[ { "author": "TheBorker", "id": "doww18e", "score": 7, "text": "> liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives\n\nSource?", "timestamp": 1509021551 }, { "author": "bayes_net", "id": "dowwdiw", "score": 0, "t...	[ "dowwzwl", "dox3knu", "doxes6d" ]	[ "doww18e", "dowwdiw", "dowwgce" ]
CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate. Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	>liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives These numbers are a little misleading. They are true, but they don't give you the whole picture. Liberals are also far more likely to actually be the ones working for the charities than conservatives, and are far more willing to pay higher taxes in order to do charitable work (as a note this partially deals with the idea that many times the government can do a social program which would be more far reaching and efficient than a charity). >Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Well they often are about both. You see you can't really seperate social and economic issues. Issues like wages, redlining, who can be fired because of what. They all go hand in hand. Probably one of the core things to think about though is one of the fundamental liberal beliefs, free market economics and democracy/republics don't work well if people are being treated drastically differently socially. The less everyone is being given the same rights the less likely they are to have access to markets, and democratic processes , and the more we lose out on the value they bring to the table. > Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. Or you actually believe in the cause. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely people who virtue signal, but by far they make up a minority of the people involved. > At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Not sure how much you are paying attention but liberals do this stuff too all the time. In fact they are normally the ones to use the anti trust legislation we have, and they have drastically different views on what's needed in tax reform. Liberals don't inherently think cutting taxes is a good idea (hell even conservatives used to call that view "voodoo economics"). >Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Circles of influence. We can more likely effect that which we are closer to than another culture on the other side of the globe. >And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Ignore the loudmouth crackpots and talk to other liberal people. You will often find that most people have far more interesting and thoughtful things to say than those who are screaming the loudest. Don't get me wrong, you are always going to find crazy, fake, hypocritical liberals and conservatives, that just deals with being human. --- You wrote: "Well they often are about both. You see you can't really seperate social and economic issues. Issues like wages, redlining, who can be fired because of what. They all go hand in hand. Probably one of the core things to think about though is one of the fundamental liberal beliefs, free market economics and democracy/republics don't work well if people are being treated drastically differently socially. The less everyone is being given the same rights the less likely they are to have access to markets, and democratic processes , and the more we lose out on the value they bring to the table." Yes social and economic issues do go had in hand which is exactly my point. If you do not need help economically and can pay your rent and live a comfortable lifestyle then you don't need help! The reason gay marriage (and now transgender rights) are the biggest issues that attract the most attention is because they don't matter that much BUT they are super effective at demonstrating which side you are on. Hate to say it but where people urinate is a marginal issue when mortality rates have increased for the first time in industrialized history amongst white, poorly educated, rural Americans. Why does nobody ever protest about this and why is this issue largely ignored? As I said before it's all just so damned predictable. You wrote: "Ignore the loudmouth crackpots and talk to other liberal people. You will often find that most people have far more interesting and thoughtful things to say than those who are screaming the loudest. Don't get me wrong, you are always going to find crazy, fake, hypocritical liberals and conservatives, that just deals with being human." Thanks for saying and i wish this were true but this has not been my experience at least at universities. --- I'm guessing you live in north carolina because the rest of the country doesn't really care much about the trans-bathroom thing, and nobody has talked about the duke lacrosse thing in a long time elsewhere. So within your own state take a look at moral mondays. It was a massive liberal protest in Raleigh every monday, and most of the protests centered around economic issues. The issues listed on the wikipedia page for moral monday are: fracking, cutting unemployment benefits, lowering income tax, the racial justice act, abortion (these two are the non-ecnomic issues), and public school funding. In my opinion, they are trying to fight for too many things at once, but that's not really the point. They are fighting for mostly the "boring" economic issues. I don't disagree that there are a lot of people who protest to be seen protesting (especially in the RTP area where I'm guessing you live), but it is by no means everybody. --- Good for them. That heartens me to hear that. I don't live in North Carolina but am currently living in Finland. --- The fact that you live in Finland may explain some of your misconceptions. Trans rights are far from the biggest issue with American liberals. There have been very few efforts on the part of the Democratic Party to really advance trans rights, while raising taxes and access to education was a big platform of the 2016 election. The places where people march against police are often the communities that have been devastated by the criminal justice system. For these people lowering the cost of college wont matter much if millions of their sons keep getting 10 years in prison for selling some drugs. Are LGBT rights important? Of course they are and it's not virtue signaling to say that. We shouldn't leave a certain group of people behind just because there aren't that many of them. To your point on the international human rights violations, outside of invading Pakistan theirs not much we can do. We tried going to a foreign country and lifting them out of misery in 2003 in Iraq and it was a miserable failure. For now we can just be resolved to end injustice at home.	> liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives Source? --- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html --- I counter with this, more recent, source: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/who-are-better-people-democrats-or-republicans/382116/ --- Does that actually dispute OP's claims though? It effectively says that slightly more people in blue states donate but they donate less overall than red states. Of course I think OP's link is probably more relevant anyway as it's focusing on donors themselves and not the states as a whole. --- >Does that actually dispute OP's claims though? Yes, he claimed that there was a disparity in the amount donated by both sides when in fact they are about the same.	78v87x	CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate.	Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	bayes_net	5	5	[ { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dowwzwl", "score": 189, "text": ">liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives\n\nThese numbers are a little misleading. They are true, but they don't give you the whole picture. Liberals are also f...	[ { "author": "TheBorker", "id": "doww18e", "score": 7, "text": "> liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives\n\nSource?", "timestamp": 1509021551 }, { "author": "bayes_net", "id": "dowwdiw", "score": 0, "t...	[ "dowwzwl", "dox3knu", "dox4ofe", "dox78bl", "doxddag" ]	[ "doww18e", "dowwdiw", "dowwgce", "dox0quz", "dox1kb6" ]
CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate. Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Let's take this a few points at a time > Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Occupy Wall Street was one of the biggest protests in recent memory. > Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. Are these not political platforms that people support in earnest? Why is the face value explanation insufficient here? > Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? We all put more focus on the problems happening around us even if there are objectively bigger issues going on worldwide. That's not weird or suspicious. We're not in Pakistan. What are you and I going to do about women's rights in Pakistan without making the US act as the world's policeman yet again? But more importantly, your line of reasoning relies on the faulty idea of collective hypocrisy. An individual person can be a hypocrite. A broad group full of internal disagreement cannot. We can take it as a given that when we try to judge half the political spectrum like it's one person, the result is going to look vague, inarticulate, and full of contradictions. I think what you're seeing is more indicative of a different problem, which is that any idiot with a tumblr account can be the face of the left, and that same person accusing the new Thor movie of not being trans inclusive is treated as news. --- 1) The biggest protests I know of were those at Trumps inauguration and shortly after. It was not occupy wall street. in fact occupy was pretty small by protest standards. 2) Not when we know that much of human behavior is signaling to others. Indeed most research shows that we are almost always unaware that we are even doing it. I don't think taking the views of people at face value is reasonable. I mean how many people do you think will admit to being racist 3) Your last point is true and it is often difficult to tell what 'most people' are doing. The loudmouths get all the press. --- If you go to the OWS wiki, you will find this information: 2,000+ marchers (march on police headquarters, October 2, 2011)[3] 15,000+ marchers (Lower Manhattan solidarity march, October 5, 2011)[4] 6,000+ marchers (Times Square recruitment center march, October 15, 2011)[5] 50,000–100,000 marchers (2012 May Day march on Wall St.) This does not include Occupy movements in other cities, such as Occupy Portland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Portland). Here is a list of Occupy movements worldwide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations The Occupy movement was an incredibly large movement that included not only marches but sit-ins and encampments. One caveat is that OWS was not an exclusively liberal movement, which actually gave the movement strength because income equality is a universally accepted idea. The means to get there is where we may disagree. Here are numbers for protests against Donald Trump: Presidential campaign Chicago protest 2,500+ Los Angeles protest 1,000–3,000 New York protest 1,500–2,000 Post-election Pre-inauguration 100,000+ Women's March 500,000+ (Washington, D.C.) 2–4 million (US) 4–5 million (world) I would say that makes this movement comparable. Now if you compare all of the anti-globalization movements worldwide to protests against Trump, the protests against Trump hardly compare. And actually, supporters and opposers of Trump alike can agree on many of the points of anti-globalization and anti-neoliberalism, especially after Trump withdrew from the TPP. I think that OWS was at it's heart an economic protest, and that this is a wonderful way to gather bipartisan support towards ideas that can benefit the greater good.	>Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives) Giving less to charity or volunteering less doesn't mean they care less. It is possible to care about systemic issues without working for charities. Volunteer time is an especially questionable conclusion as it depends heavily on what counrs as volunteering, and if somebody doesn't volunteer because they're protesting, they might get fewer hours. Beyond that, using population level statistics to assume the motives of individuals seems extremely imprecise. > the issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. So wait, nobody protested over the ACA repeal or net neutrality? Because those seem like economic issues. Further, you said it yourself: the issues you are suggesting people argue about are boring. There's no movement on them, though I am sure tax reform protests will occur when the Republicans hammer out a plan. So Democrats protest interesting (to them), relevant causes... and those happen to be social issues. That said, even if we take your argument at face value, it's basically just "protesting social issues only has to mean virtue signalling" which is as much an assumption as bad faith as saying "protesting economic issues has to mean wanting handouts." You are basically just assuming your argument here. >Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? The people protesting in the United States don't live in Pakistan, dom't know Pakistani culture, and can't really influence it. This is just basic whataboutism, like asking why somebody carss so much about a website regulating hate speech when China has a massive censor. (Also the Duke thing was the prosecutor being shitty and who hace you even talked to that supported it? Dude got disbarred). >This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. To an extent, how can you talk about any of these issues without making some people implicitly feel attacked, especially when there's huge value in convincing people that liberals want to attack them? I am not defending being a dick or needlessly hostile, but with constant arguments about how liberals do nothing but call people racists, how can you talk about systemic injustice without somebody accusing you of calling the police racists? How can you talk about LGBT rights withiut somebody assuming you think they hate gay people? Arguments on important topics make people angry, thag doesn't mean their point was solely to virtue signal by making people angrier. Overall it just seems like your points boil down to any disagreement with your ideal liberal must be due to virtue signalling rather than a sincere difference in opinion. Protesting social issues, must be virtue signalling. Something anywhere is worse than what they care about, virtue signalling. Some people feel threatened by their ideas, virtue signalling. There isn't any connective tissue between those ideas and virtue signalling, which makes me think it's simply that you just default to assuming bad faith. I can't really counter that except to say... don't? --- You wrote: "That said, even if we take your argument at face value, it's basically just "protesting social issues only has to mean virtue signalling" which is as much an assumption as bad faith as saying "protesting economic issues has to mean wanting handouts." You are basically just assuming your argument here." I think you mean that I am committing the 'begging the question' fallacy which is that my premise is my argument. Not sure how this is true. These are issues that don't require any sacrifice aside from mouthing off and signaling how good you are. Its no sweat off your back if you are for gay marriage but raising taxes might affect your lifestyle. I appreciate your detailed response but I really don't think you have responded to my argument. At least not in a way that I can understand. --- But "doesn't require as much personal sacrifice" is not connected to your premise that they're competitively virtue signalling, nor does it mean social issues aren't a way to help the "less fortunate" (societally). That is, your apparent standard that you must be personally harmed by policy you advocate for or else it's virtue signalling is pretty absurd and obviously untrue; for instance, I doubt you'd say people arguing for Net Neutrality are virtue signalling even though that policy helps them. So there has to be another, deeper assumption for why you view arguments for gay marriage as "mouthing off" rather than legitimate, and for why you assume bad faith in the people arguing for them.	78v87x	CMV: Social liberals are more interested in competitively signaling compassion than they are about actually helping those who are less fortunate.	Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less to charity and volunteer significantly less than conservatives). The issues that liberals predictably obsess over supports my view. Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones? Protesting against police brutality or marching for gay marriage is mostly about desperately signaling which group you belong to and showing everyone that you are really one of the ‘good ones’. At the same time, we almost never see protests on the boring issues like tax reform or anti-trust legislation. Why also are liberals so often silent on issues like women’s rights in Pakistan but go berserk over what are often dubious and unconfirmed reports of sexual harassment on college campuses? Is it because people might confuse your indignation over protecting women with bigotry and cultural insensitivity if you suggest another foreign (an oppressed) culture is oppressive of women but nobody will accuse you of bigotry when you go after some privileged white guys on the Duke Lacrosse team? This is also why liberal arguments and speech are riddled with the shaming of the uneducated and the explicit and implicit labeling of people with whom they disagree as racists, sexists or homophobes. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this does not work. It merely serves to highlight the fact that most liberals are less interested in convincing others than they are in signaling their own altruism. Talking about it the right way is a hell of a lot cheaper than actually doing something about it. Ultimately all of this virtue signaling leads to an arms race where people have to keep upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You compete over new things to call racist. Of course, this is also true of conservatives but I am a liberal so it seems to bother me more when this sort of self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy comes from the left. And I also realize that I am painting all liberals with this broad brush, but please… you all know what I am taking about and you know there’s a lot of truth in it. Come on CMV, convince me I’m wrong. I don’t like feeling this way about liberals but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	bayes_net	3	3	[ { "author": "Glory2Hypnotoad", "id": "dowy0w1", "score": 54, "text": "Let's take this a few points at a time\n\n> Why are most liberal protests about social issues rather than economic ones?\n\nOccupy Wall Street was one of the biggest protests in recent memory.\n\n> Protesting against police bruta...	[ { "author": "Milskidasith", "id": "dowwrfg", "score": 60, "text": ">Liberals claim to be champions of the underdog and to fight for the oppressed but how true is this? On the face of it most research shows that the opposite is actually true (e.g. liberals and liberal states give significantly less t...	[ "dowy0w1", "dox7rww", "doxgxum" ]	[ "dowwrfg", "dox2z6l", "dox3l46" ]
CMV: Assuming all dogs (and pets) are safe to touch and more specifically teaching kids that all dogs are safe to touch is wrong and dangerous. So this came up as part of an unpopular opinion post I had. Basically, someone said its a dog owners responsibility to keep kids away if theres a chance the dog might be unsafe because many kids are taught that “pets are safe”. I agree the owner should try their best to keep kids away from the dog if their dog is nervous, reactive, etc. to prevent a kid from getting hurt. The part I don’t understand is teaching kids “pets are safe”. The rest of the argument was basically people should be allowed to assume if someone has a dog out in public or are walking a dog, the dog is fine to touch and unsafe dogs shouldn’t be allowed out. Furthermore, regardless what a kid does to a dog, the dog shouldn’t react. When I was a kid I was told to never touch any strange animal EVER without permission. That includes wildlife, stray dogs/cats, leashed dogs, dogs in yards, animals in cages, etc. I get that dogs are adorable and there is a huge “dog” culture thing happening now especially online but it seems like a horrible idea to act like any dog you see will love you and your kid. I have two adult dogs that have had extensive training and experience around kids. If a kid asks I let him/her pet and cuddle my dogs for as long as they want. While they were in training I did not let kids pet them. Same goes for kids who don’t ask because the next dogs they run up to may not be safe. Despite my best efforts I’ve had kids throw handfuls of dirt/sand at my dogs, pull their tails, yank their collars, etc. Parents were either not around or did not care. Now expecting everyone to keep dogs indoors until full trained is not feasible because controlled socialization and new experience are a part of training. Excited puppies may mouth or jump on a kid. Some dogs get nervous around kids. Some dogs have sensitive areas they don’t like touched. Some dogs are skittish or reactive. Some have just never seen kids. The obvious solution for keep dogs and kids happy and safe is to keep both under control. Kids should be taught to ask if its okay to touch a dog and if they don’t listen their parents should hold their hand or have them in a stroller. I can’t see what benefit comes from adults and kids thinking pets are always safe to touch. Nor what detriment comes from teaching “pets are sometimes safe to touch but you must check” Tldr- assuming a dog on a leash (and other pets) are safe to touch just because they’re “pets” and then teaching children that same thing makes no sense.	owners of dogs should always train dogs to not harm humans (unless thats their specific job), so a dog who bites a human is either badly trained or handled poorly, how to handle a dog is something you teach a kid so they know how to safely touch a dog/warning signs how a dog should behave when confronting humans especially children is something an owner should do. if it bites despite training euthanize it. most kids will not approach an aggressive dog even without training to spot tells --- I think you are missing the point. Yes, owners of dogs should strive to train their dogs to not harm humans. However, as OP stated, new pets may not be trained yet. Does that mean you can't take them to the dog park? No. It just means that children need to be more aware before petting it. >if it bites despite training euthanize it. Would you say the same for a human? If you get into a fight at school and punch someone, do you need to be put on the death sentence? So yes, an owner needs to train their dog. But that is a process, and children need to realize that not all dogs are fully trained. --- if a human breaks the law they go to jail, biting someone is assault, so they would be punished and rehabilitated. a dog is just an animal, there is no animal jail, if training doesn't work its not safe to be around people, and thus should be put down. if you properly teach a child signs of dog behavior the child will notice if a dog doesn't deal with human contact well, almost no dog goes from complete calm to biting without signs. --- >if you properly teach a child signs of dog behavior the child will notice if a dog doesn't deal with human contact well, almost no dog goes from complete calm to biting without signs. You are arguing OP's point here. Both training the dog and educating the child on the dangers of petting untrained dogs is important. --- the distinction is in that most dogs when properly approached are safe (or will warn of their danger), and thus parents are correct in allowing their children to play with them, its essentially the difference between telling your child don't approach the black man vs only approach the black men in these circumstances , one makes black man sound scary the other makes him sound safe when approached properly, and how you influence your child has impact in how he behaves later, if hes attacked in the first scenario it reinforces black men are scary while in the second its a learning event, what went wrong, the emphasis isn't on the black man/dog its on the interaction . --- Why are you comparing black men to dogs? I understand what you're trying to say but honestly, why not just say "stranger" instead of "black man?" The way you're talking here makes it sound like you believe black men are more dangerous than other humans. correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get from the language you are using.	I may be reading too much into your argument , it seems like saying someone should never touch a dog without permission and if the dog bites someone or cause someone harm that did not first obtain permission the dog / owner bear no responsibility. In most cases, there is some responsibility shared between both parties. It is going to depend on the context where more blame is placed. Am I out for a walk with my dog on leash and a kid runs up and yanks it’s tail and my dog retaliates. That’s not my fault. I take my dog who is aggressive towards kids to a three year olds birthday and he bites a kid who bent down to pet it. Then I’m the fucking idiot. Those are extremes but hopefully you can start to see my point. For some more reasonable examples, sometimes people bring their kids to a local dog park. Sometimes the kids are well supervised sometimes their not. If my dog can’t handle the presence of a well behaved kid, it’s my responsibility to take him out of that situation before something happens. If my non aggressive dog nips your kid because they are wildly running around and my dog is a herded then fuck off. If I bring my dog to a bar during the day where I know sometimes families come and a hang out. You’ve probably got a pretty even sharing of responsibility. I need to be more aware of my dog and his behavior and other people approaching even if they really should be checking first if it’s safe to approach. One last point is that it’s hard to get children under 4 or 5 to behave as their told 100% of the time. Even if we get adults to the point of 100% adherence to the check rule we still need to be aware of when it’s possible for a small child to approach unannounced and be in enough control of your dog that you can prevent any harm from coming to the child. For instance everyone knows that you need to be look both ways before crossing the street, but when driving in a residential neighborhood (also all the time) you need to be prepared for a child to run out in front of your car and be able to stop. --- Thats actually exactly what I was trying to say but you worded it much better so thank you! Its absolutely both peoples fault and both should be responsible, and depending on the situation on slightly more than the other. Someone was very passionately arguing that kids are taught that dogs are safe and specifically said it is up to me to keep kids away from my dogs and the dogs should not react regardless of what the kid does to it. I’m glad I’m not crazy... --- Okay sounds like we are in agreement. Even if it weren’t a matter of safety I still feel like it’s polite to ask someone before you just start touching their property anyway. --- !delta I was focused on dog and kid safety. I did not consider that dogs are technically property (by law). So someone messing with someones dog is the same as messing with their property without permission --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mynewaccount4567 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/mynewaccount4567)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	g9ryev	CMV: Assuming all dogs (and pets) are safe to touch and more specifically teaching kids that all dogs are safe to touch is wrong and dangerous.	So this came up as part of an unpopular opinion post I had. Basically, someone said its a dog owners responsibility to keep kids away if theres a chance the dog might be unsafe because many kids are taught that “pets are safe”. I agree the owner should try their best to keep kids away from the dog if their dog is nervous, reactive, etc. to prevent a kid from getting hurt. The part I don’t understand is teaching kids “pets are safe”. The rest of the argument was basically people should be allowed to assume if someone has a dog out in public or are walking a dog, the dog is fine to touch and unsafe dogs shouldn’t be allowed out. Furthermore, regardless what a kid does to a dog, the dog shouldn’t react. When I was a kid I was told to never touch any strange animal EVER without permission. That includes wildlife, stray dogs/cats, leashed dogs, dogs in yards, animals in cages, etc. I get that dogs are adorable and there is a huge “dog” culture thing happening now especially online but it seems like a horrible idea to act like any dog you see will love you and your kid. I have two adult dogs that have had extensive training and experience around kids. If a kid asks I let him/her pet and cuddle my dogs for as long as they want. While they were in training I did not let kids pet them. Same goes for kids who don’t ask because the next dogs they run up to may not be safe. Despite my best efforts I’ve had kids throw handfuls of dirt/sand at my dogs, pull their tails, yank their collars, etc. Parents were either not around or did not care. Now expecting everyone to keep dogs indoors until full trained is not feasible because controlled socialization and new experience are a part of training. Excited puppies may mouth or jump on a kid. Some dogs get nervous around kids. Some dogs have sensitive areas they don’t like touched. Some dogs are skittish or reactive. Some have just never seen kids. The obvious solution for keep dogs and kids happy and safe is to keep both under control. Kids should be taught to ask if its okay to touch a dog and if they don’t listen their parents should hold their hand or have them in a stroller. I can’t see what benefit comes from adults and kids thinking pets are always safe to touch. Nor what detriment comes from teaching “pets are sometimes safe to touch but you must check” Tldr- assuming a dog on a leash (and other pets) are safe to touch just because they’re “pets” and then teaching children that same thing makes no sense.	FuzzySandwich	6	5	[ { "author": "jumpup", "id": "fov86ue", "score": 0, "text": "owners of dogs should always train dogs to not harm humans (unless thats their specific job), so a dog who bites a human is either badly trained or handled poorly,\n\nhow to handle a dog is something you teach a kid so they know how to saf...	[ { "author": "mynewaccount4567", "id": "fovdg02", "score": 8, "text": "I may be reading too much into your argument , it seems like saying someone should never touch a dog without permission and if the dog bites someone or cause someone harm that did not first obtain permission the dog / owner bear...	[ "fov86ue", "fov9wce", "fovbyye", "fovck63", "fovf3lg", "fovfrqf" ]	[ "fovdg02", "fovfg8t", "foviglo", "fowblxw", "fowbni6" ]
CMV: a benevolent dictatorship is often a better form of government than a modern democracy. Obviously there are issues found in all forms of government, but I believe that a benevolent dictatorship, with Qaboos bin Said or France-Albert Rene being two of the best examples, in the long run does less damage and more benefit to the people as a whole than a democracy is capable of doing. Democracy often ends up being run by the rich and powerful for their favour and a new "royalty" is formed, take Bush or Clinton as an example where power stays in certain high ranking families and businesses. Democracies become less about what is right and more about who you are connected to. Often a misinformed group within the populace can prevent reform or advancement desired by the whole. Often in a democracy powerful originations like major world Faith's can hold an unpredictable away over a populace and results in various religious beliefs included in constitutions or political debate. Democracy results in political leaders constantly vying for re-election and as such they will often put the good of their constituents over the good of their nation as a whole. Benevolent dictatorships on the other hand are often associated with great cultural reform and advances in economy, healthcare and education, where the needs of the nation are put above the needs of the individual.	How do you ensure that a benevolent dictatorship remains benevolent? Even if run by an angel no person lives forever. So what happens when they die? or even if they just become non-benevolent? That's the real problem, so yeah if you can guarantee the dictatorship will remain benevolent sure it's pretty great, but in the real world that can't happen. --- If you take both the examples I made both men chose successors that were approved by the nation's representatives and in Rene's case he actually stepped down and let his rival take over. In essence it comes down to trusting your leadership and supporting the person who the entire nation is willing to come behind. I suppose worst case scenario is a brutal dictatorship, but ideally there are people invested in ensuring that doesn't happen, I.e. army and civil service, worst case scenario, isn't that the excuse for the second amendment? --- > and supporting the person who the entire nation is willing to come behind. The choosing of leaders by mass support of the populace is called "democracy." > but ideally there are people invested in ensuring that doesn't happen, I.e. army and civil service, The army in a dictatorship normally are cared for and supplied with necessities and luxuries by the dictator, not the people. Their loyalty is thus often to the status quo they are benefiting from and not to the people.	[removed] --- Ok I did laugh haha --- But tbh most modern day democratiea aren’t truly democratic	g9wdr6	CMV: a benevolent dictatorship is often a better form of government than a modern democracy.	Obviously there are issues found in all forms of government, but I believe that a benevolent dictatorship, with Qaboos bin Said or France-Albert Rene being two of the best examples, in the long run does less damage and more benefit to the people as a whole than a democracy is capable of doing. Democracy often ends up being run by the rich and powerful for their favour and a new "royalty" is formed, take Bush or Clinton as an example where power stays in certain high ranking families and businesses. Democracies become less about what is right and more about who you are connected to. Often a misinformed group within the populace can prevent reform or advancement desired by the whole. Often in a democracy powerful originations like major world Faith's can hold an unpredictable away over a populace and results in various religious beliefs included in constitutions or political debate. Democracy results in political leaders constantly vying for re-election and as such they will often put the good of their constituents over the good of their nation as a whole. Benevolent dictatorships on the other hand are often associated with great cultural reform and advances in economy, healthcare and education, where the needs of the nation are put above the needs of the individual.	Rustmallow	3	3	[ { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "fow09d7", "score": 12, "text": "How do you ensure that a benevolent dictatorship remains benevolent? Even if run by an angel no person lives forever. So what happens when they die? or even if they just become non-benevolent? \n\nThat's the real problem, so yeah if yo...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fovzs9t", "score": 3, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1588110412 }, { "author": "Rustmallow", "id": "fovztlz", "score": 2, "text": "Ok I did laugh haha", "timestamp": 1588110430 }, { "author": "Dupiee", "id": "fovzwed", "s...	[ "fow09d7", "fow0wdl", "fow1nfc" ]	[ "fovzs9t", "fovztlz", "fovzwed" ]
CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious' Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, an atheist does not. You have to be one or the other. --- I have to be one or the other? What if I don't care to consider this? --- That's what an atheist is. Imagine a rectangle, saying "I don't even think about circles and non-circles. I don't care which I am. The whole concept of circles is poorly defined and it has nothing to do with me, so therefore the concept of non-circles is also poorly defined and also has nothing to do with me." That rectangle is still a non-circle.	It sounds like you're agnostic, which means that you have no opinion on whether higher power(s) exist. Atheists are pretty clear that they definitely have an opinion that higher power(s) don't exist. --- Agnostics are atheists. They have no belief in deities, which is the definition of the word. --- I might be wrong. I thought atheist meant you don't believe in God and agnostic meant that you don't believe in God but are open to the idea.	q4yf1d	CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious'	Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "hdhdhjsbxhxh", "id": "hg233u7", "score": 1, "text": "A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, an atheist does not. You have to be one or the other.", "timestamp": 1633833410 }, { "author": "WizardScrumps", "id": "hg2562m", "score": 1, "text": "I have to...	[ { "author": "premiumPLUM", "id": "hg1vc2h", "score": 4, "text": "It sounds like you're agnostic, which means that you have no opinion on whether higher power(s) exist. Atheists are pretty clear that they definitely have an opinion that higher power(s) don't exist.", "timestamp": 1633829490 },...	[ "hg233u7", "hg2562m", "hg28l3n" ]	[ "hg1vc2h", "hg1x3ql", "hg1yuc8" ]
CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious' Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	> Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion I don't fully understand this sentence, particularly the "have formed an opinion that needed religion". But in general, what I don't understand is that I don't think you can just choose not to have a belief. Like, I would call myself an atheist, and I largely agree with most of what you said, except that I'm a person who thinks about things, and you certainly are too. I don't think you could have written this post without at least thinking about the concept of God. But despite that thought, I think you pretty clearly lack a belief in God, which by most definitions makes you an atheist, and i don't really think this is incompatible with anything else you wrote. --- I can't say I have a lack of belief in God because I don't know what God is. Describe what God is then demonstrate its existence within your definition then I will form an opinion. --- That's a dodge, using argumentative reasoning to hide behind. Do you believe in any god that has been defined by any known religion? If a god can be defined as something so broad as to allow for your belief in, would it be a god who'd either be worth worshipping or one that cares about being worshipped? If the answer to the first is "no," then congrats, you're an atheist. Yes, it's a very broad term as the only qualification is the lack of belief in a higher power. You've demonstrated quite thoroughly that you don't believe in any current explanations of a higher power. This makes you an atheist. Welcome to the club. If there was verifiable evidence of a god or gods, then there likely wouldn't be very many atheists outside of conspiracy theorists. I would like to say that there wouldn't be any, but we have verifiable proof that the earth is an oblate spheroid and yet there are flat-earthers.	It sounds like you're agnostic, which means that you have no opinion on whether higher power(s) exist. Atheists are pretty clear that they definitely have an opinion that higher power(s) don't exist. --- Agnostics are atheists. They have no belief in deities, which is the definition of the word. --- Break the words down. A=without, Gnostic=knowledge of the mystic, Thiesm=belief in God.	q4yf1d	CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious'	Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "themcos", "id": "hg1vlvl", "score": 8, "text": "> Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion\n\nI don't fully understand this sentence, particularly the \"have formed an opinion that needed religion\".\n\nBut in general, what I...	[ { "author": "premiumPLUM", "id": "hg1vc2h", "score": 4, "text": "It sounds like you're agnostic, which means that you have no opinion on whether higher power(s) exist. Atheists are pretty clear that they definitely have an opinion that higher power(s) don't exist.", "timestamp": 1633829490 },...	[ "hg1vlvl", "hg20nii", "hg2fxru" ]	[ "hg1vc2h", "hg1x3ql", "hg1z3sk" ]
CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious' Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	Atheist doesn’t mean non-religious, but it’s widely used like that in English, and English not having an official dictionary perpetuates it. The word comes from French word atheist (not Greek) and the official meaning of it is “Personne qui nie l’existence de toute divinité.” which translates roughly to “someone who rejects all existence of divinity” So in my opinion you’re completely right to feel what you feel. --- It's important to note that this is also how the term is used in philosophy of religion (and in theology) - in that context "being an atheist" implies having a belief in the proposition "There are no Gods." According to this academic definition OP isn't an atheist...	>I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. You sound like you're an Agnostic Atheist... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic\_atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) >Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with being an agnostic atheist, (I am one also) but this sounds incredibly close to how you describe your position.... In particular you feel that the "existence of a deity is unknowable in principle since" "Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance." --- [Agnostic atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) >Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( \| )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( \| )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( \| )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove \| v1.5)	q4yf1d	CMV: The term 'Atheist' is too vague and should not be conflated with 'non-religious'	Everything fundamental that I've ever accepted as truth (from the age of 5 when I stopped believing in Santa) has been rooted in demonstrable science. Faith based religion cannot provide something that would make me start to consider whether or not to accept it. It's a non-starter. It's no different to how I treat anything else. With that, I'm told by people that I am an Atheist. I also know some Atheists that have considered their stance on whether God is real, and have decided; 'No, I believe God isn't real' I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? Neither side of that argument can productively argue their stance. If you replace the argument of god for example, with anything faith based, I would treat it the same. So why is it that religion has a defined antithesis? It's almost as if you're obliged to consider religion in your life, but treat the consideration differently to anything else you can't prove. "I believe God isn't real" and "Why would I form an opinion on this?" are two different things that are both conflated as Atheism. But they're so different. Atheists have considered their stance against religion and have formed an opinion that needed religion, non-religious people just default to, gonna need some proof within a framework! Like everything else. I'm non-religious. I'm not an Atheist. CMV! Edit: You have all helped change my view to the extent that the term 'Atheist' is absolutely what I am, due to my beliefs related to the definition of the word (maybe potentially agnostic). But there are also extensions of that that will explain my beliefs more specifically, so thank you! The conflict that still exists in me is the idea that the belief in a God, whatever the definition, is still treated differently from the belief in anything else that isn't provable. If Religion is stories where the acceptance of them is faith based and you consider those stories equal to everything else that you can't demonstrate, there shouldn't be a label of Atheist or Agnostic. Unless you put a belief in God on a pedestal over anything else that fits the same scenario (Religious people using Atheist/Agnostic to explain others makes sense to me, but it shouldn't be something we're all expected to use or accept).	[deleted]	2	2	[ { "author": "Ostarah", "id": "hg2zf8b", "score": 4, "text": "Atheist doesn’t mean non-religious, but it’s widely used like that in English, and English not having an official dictionary perpetuates it. The word comes from French word atheist (not Greek) and the official meaning of it is “Personne qu...	[ { "author": "iwfan53", "id": "hg1v97z", "score": 22, "text": ">I do not form an opinion on something that has no evidence that exists within demonstration. I have not formed an opinion on whether God is, or isn't real, because why would I aspire to hold an absolute belief on anything without proof? ...	[ "hg2zf8b", "hg73438" ]	[ "hg1v97z", "hg1vak3" ]
CMV: At 27, it is not worth the time, effort, or money for me to seek to get a drunk in public incident expunged from my record when I was 18. edit: repost. My first title was a disgusting, confusing, word vomit. Age: 18 Freshman year in college. 1. Got arrested for Drunk in Public and underage possession of alcohol in Virginia (the underage possession was because there was alcohol in your system. Virginia counts your body as a container). 1. Lawyer got a deal where judge reserved judgement for a few months given no more incidents and completion of community service. 1. At second hearing after no more incidents and community service, recieved a "Nolle Prosequi" (from what I understand similar to dismissed, but means will not prosecute. Not worth it.) Since then (I'm 27 almost 28 now) I have graduated from college, grad school with masters, and am close to getting my PhD. I've never had any trouble with employers seeing my criminal record, or my SF-86 forms. I've never had trouble leasing an apartment from it, or getting a home loan when I bought my house 2 years ago. Since it was nolle prosequi from the court, I have the right to pay $100 to get the incident expunged (sealed from public record). $100 is annoying, but could be put into my budget and paid. I have no intention of seeking public office, or working for a company that cares I have a minor criminal record from when I was 18. I don't think that it's worth the time or money to seek expugement of this, I view it as a non issue. Change my view. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	If you; a) have a PhD and b) are working jobs that require an SF-86, you will make more than enough money to pay off the $100 to just put this behind you forever. >I have no intention of seeking public office, or working for a company that cares I have a minor criminal record from when I was 18. Okay? What's to say your opinion won't change in the future? What's to say the status quo won't change in the future, such that you no longer get to expunge the charge, and then you realize you'd like it to be expunged? You literally have to pay a pittance in return for basically absolute certainty that the issue won't come up again. There's no sense in being cheap, here; just pay up. --- > If you; a) have a PhD and b) are working jobs that require an SF-86, you will make more than enough money to pay off the $100 to just put this behind you forever. Not all PhD paying jobs are that much vs. a masters. And theres loans you gotta take out for school. It would be an annoyance. More annoying is who gets the money, and what they're charging me for. > You literally have to pay a pittance in return for basically absolute certainty that the issue won't come up again. There's no sense in being cheap, here I'm idealistic. I don't like being blackmailed, and I don't like the idea of my history going away because I have the money to pay it off. Besides, _I did it._ I was drunk in public. I was actually _hammered_ in public. It's a mistake I made. Why doesn't it belong on my record? --- I respect the idealism. But here is an idea that could put the idealism into practice. Whether or not you end up paying the $100 to expunge your record, do a small part to help balance the system. Make a personal goal to donate $100 each year to organizations that help balance the scale. There are a number of organizations that provide free loans to pay the bail of people who can't afford it, allowing them to keep jobs and fight charges they might have otherwise had to plea to. Put the idealism onto action.	This might have an impact if you cross borders. It will at the very least be annoying explaining the situation and having border security question you if you are ever detained. I might even pay it just to not be annoyed with job applications asking if you have a criminal record. --- Thanks for your point. I looked at [ez border crossing](https://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/prior-criminal-offenses/) and [wiki travel](https://wikitravel.org/en/Travelling_with_a_criminal_history) and it doesn't look like this is a problem for any countries (as a matter of fact United States is the most stringent I could find, but I'm a citizen). I don't think this would be a realistic concern. --- I was thinking it would be more along the lines of an annoyance. You will get to cross but it will take longer than a few minutes speaking with border secuirity. Here's a good summary of DUI's and how they affect Canadian border crossing. Lot's of it can translate to your situation. Unfortunately it looks like it's based off arrest record not the crime itself. [http://www.canadaduientrylaw.com/non-conviction.php](http://www.canadaduientrylaw.com/non-conviction.php)	942070	CMV: At 27, it is not worth the time, effort, or money for me to seek to get a drunk in public incident expunged from my record when I was 18.	edit: repost. My first title was a disgusting, confusing, word vomit. Age: 18 Freshman year in college. 1. Got arrested for Drunk in Public and underage possession of alcohol in Virginia (the underage possession was because there was alcohol in your system. Virginia counts your body as a container). 1. Lawyer got a deal where judge reserved judgement for a few months given no more incidents and completion of community service. 1. At second hearing after no more incidents and community service, recieved a "Nolle Prosequi" (from what I understand similar to dismissed, but means will not prosecute. Not worth it.) Since then (I'm 27 almost 28 now) I have graduated from college, grad school with masters, and am close to getting my PhD. I've never had any trouble with employers seeing my criminal record, or my SF-86 forms. I've never had trouble leasing an apartment from it, or getting a home loan when I bought my house 2 years ago. Since it was nolle prosequi from the court, I have the right to pay $100 to get the incident expunged (sealed from public record). $100 is annoying, but could be put into my budget and paid. I have no intention of seeking public office, or working for a company that cares I have a minor criminal record from when I was 18. I don't think that it's worth the time or money to seek expugement of this, I view it as a non issue. Change my view. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	NASM8bit	3	3	[ { "author": "r3dl3g", "id": "e3hoiob", "score": 6, "text": "If you; a) have a PhD and b) are working jobs that require an SF-86, you will make more than enough money to pay off the $100 to just put this behind you forever.\n\n>I have no intention of seeking public office, or working for a company th...	[ { "author": "linux_vegan", "id": "e3hnc4m", "score": 1, "text": "This might have an impact if you cross borders. It will at the very least be annoying explaining the situation and having border security question you if you are ever detained.\n\nI might even pay it just to not be annoyed with job app...	[ "e3hoiob", "e3hpd8n", "e3ljekk" ]	[ "e3hnc4m", "e3hnuig", "e3hodin" ]
CMV: Facebook feels like such an outdated and clumsy product. I don't know if it's the layout or if it's the stupid requirements such as asking people to use their real names or the lack of anonymity or the difficulty in joining groups...overall, Facebook feels like such a clumsy product compared to Reddit. And it feels like it's a normie cage. I donno...I am pretty pissed. I was just trying to create an account over there and they didn't let me use an abbreviation of my name as my user name because they require people to use their real name during sign up. I managed to sign up somehow. And then when I tried to join a couple of groups, it was required of me to answer a few questions. I was trying to join this group called 'Rant', and I was asked if I have a sense of humour, among other things. I am like, dude, wtf. Why are you making me jump through so many hoops to use your platform? You really think I have the time and the desperation to prove myself worthy of admission into a stupid group? Whereas, at Reddit, you join a group, and if the mods don't like you (I mean if you don't follow the subreddit's rules), they ban you. This works better imo. Have a pretty low estimation of Facebook tbh; maybe I haven't explored it enough but in my limited experience, they kinda pander to the lowest common denominator.	Those questions you have to answer are posted by the group, not required by Facebook. They ask questions like that to keep assholes out. They don't take long to answer and they are never difficult questions so if you are angry about them, then unfortunately you are the exact type they are trying to drive away. You use your real name etc. because Facebook is not Reddit. It is specifically made for like, the opposite of anonymity. It's a completely different kind of social media than you're looking for. It doesn't make it "outdated and clumsy," it makes it not your cup of tea. I could see how it's a bit outdated but that's because it's marketed towards your parents these days, not you. They don't want it updated. They want Facebook. --- > then unfortunately you are the exact type they are trying to drive away. Yep. They did a commendable job. --- Which shows they are functioning as intended. They don’t want accounts like yours, you experienced significant pain in trying to use their services and have therefore been dissuaded from using their service. They filtered you out without having to outright ban you. --- [deleted] --- >It is not a clumsy product, it is a clumsy interface with you as the product. Is this statement true? Yes or no?	Facebook and Reddit are not designed to work the same way for good reason. Facebook is designed primarily to connect you to people you know in real life and keep you updated on what they are up to. That's why they require your real name. Reddit is designed to connect you to people who share your interests. Facebook groups are not supposed to be just another version of subreddits. Because everyone has their real name on display, it is supposed to be connecting people far more than a subreddit. So some vetting makes sense if you are intended to make friends with the people in your group. Also, Facebook is designed primarily for older generations at this point. You say it's a normie cage - most Facebook users like it that way. They do pander to people without much internet experience - but that's not bad, it's just not for you. I think you just want a product more like Reddit, that fits your needs better. Nothing wrong with that, I agree, but that does not mean that Facebook is doing bad for it's intended audience and format. --- Yep, well-explained, thanks. They have over 2 billion users a month, so they must be doing something right I suppose, lol. Just not my cup of tea. --- It's not my cup of tea either, but I know several people who use it and enjoy it. Just different tastes, I guess. If my comment changed your view you can give it a delta using the rules in the sidebar! --- I thank you for your replies but your answers did not change my view so much as reaffirm them. You shared reasons for why Facebook is the way it is, not convince me that Facebook isn't what I originally said it is. --- How can you still believe that it is an outdated and clumsy product if it is working as intended for billions of users?	10rrd9k	CMV: Facebook feels like such an outdated and clumsy product.	I don't know if it's the layout or if it's the stupid requirements such as asking people to use their real names or the lack of anonymity or the difficulty in joining groups...overall, Facebook feels like such a clumsy product compared to Reddit. And it feels like it's a normie cage. I donno...I am pretty pissed. I was just trying to create an account over there and they didn't let me use an abbreviation of my name as my user name because they require people to use their real name during sign up. I managed to sign up somehow. And then when I tried to join a couple of groups, it was required of me to answer a few questions. I was trying to join this group called 'Rant', and I was asked if I have a sense of humour, among other things. I am like, dude, wtf. Why are you making me jump through so many hoops to use your platform? You really think I have the time and the desperation to prove myself worthy of admission into a stupid group? Whereas, at Reddit, you join a group, and if the mods don't like you (I mean if you don't follow the subreddit's rules), they ban you. This works better imo. Have a pretty low estimation of Facebook tbh; maybe I haven't explored it enough but in my limited experience, they kinda pander to the lowest common denominator.	Legitimate-Builder82	5	5	[ { "author": "lizardnizzard", "id": "j6xbw9e", "score": 25, "text": "Those questions you have to answer are posted by the group, not required by Facebook. They ask questions like that to keep assholes out. They don't take long to answer and they are never difficult questions so if you are angry about...	[ { "author": "DuhChappers", "id": "j6x3f8d", "score": 87, "text": "Facebook and Reddit are not designed to work the same way for good reason. Facebook is designed primarily to connect you to people you know in real life and keep you updated on what they are up to. That's why they require your real na...	[ "j6xbw9e", "j6xd18j", "j6yf3ck", "j6yftfi", "j6yqqei" ]	[ "j6x3f8d", "j6x4r09", "j6x51rr", "j6x60ch", "j6x650e" ]
CMV: Police officers are not out to harm African Americans and the majority of police killings are justified At face value, you'd think that they are, seeing their low percentage of the population (13%) compared to their being shot 23% of times. However if we look at the FBI statistics, raw data, we see that blacks are arrested for 29% of crime, but are only shot 23% of the time. It's even more damning if we factor in the violent crime rates of 40%. Blacks are actually under-represented in police shootings, and are less likely to be killed in custody than other races, whites per say. Looking at recent events that the BLM movement claim racism on, they are either justified or different to what BLM would tell you. They would have you believe that George Floyd was killed by asphyxiation, when reading the coroners report, no evidence is provided. There is more evidence, in fact, pointing towards it being a drug overdose as he had meth and fentanyl in his system at the time of death. I have heard that the second coroners report disagrees with this, however I am yet to find the actual report. Was George Floyd given the immediate medical treatment he probably needed? No. Should Chauvin have kneeled on his neck, even if it wasn't with a lot of pressure, for 7 minutes? Also probably no. But he was not killed by Chauvin. Another example is Rayshard Brooks. Rayshard was drunk one night, and somehow ended up asleep at the wheel in a drive through. Police were promptly called to the scene, where they attempted to reason with him to leave the vehicle as he was intoxicated and driving for 25 minutes. Once Rayshard finally left the vehicle, and was being detained, he grabbed the officers taser and fired it at him twice. The officer shot him, and Rayshard died. Rayshard grabbed an officer's weapon and fired it at him. Drunk or not, if he tased the officer, he could've taken his gun, and killed him and possibly civilians. The officer doesn't have time to think about alternatives, he has to act in the interest of public safety in a split second, and that was how it was done. Both of these events highlight how difficult a job as a police officer is, and how they can't be expected to make the right decisions every time. A few bad mistakes do not equate to racism. Sources (as of 2018 due to crime statistic availability) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-49 Coroners report: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf	[Here's the second report from the coroner](https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf) It says Chauvin was the cause of death. Have I changed your view? --- It names the drugs as a contributing factor. It does rule it a homicide, however I would disagree, it was poor performance on the officers part but not murder, he died or heart conditions and wasn't suffocated. --- You cite the other coroner’s report as a definitive authority; why discount this one? That looks like cherry picking to me.	Just to be clear, are you arguing that police shootings of individual African-Americans are justified because they commit more crimes in the aggregate? --- I mean that they are not killed disproportionately or more than any other population group, and most of these incidents are justified on the officers part. --- Why are the shootings justified?	hh3l6k	CMV: Police officers are not out to harm African Americans and the majority of police killings are justified	At face value, you'd think that they are, seeing their low percentage of the population (13%) compared to their being shot 23% of times. However if we look at the FBI statistics, raw data, we see that blacks are arrested for 29% of crime, but are only shot 23% of the time. It's even more damning if we factor in the violent crime rates of 40%. Blacks are actually under-represented in police shootings, and are less likely to be killed in custody than other races, whites per say. Looking at recent events that the BLM movement claim racism on, they are either justified or different to what BLM would tell you. They would have you believe that George Floyd was killed by asphyxiation, when reading the coroners report, no evidence is provided. There is more evidence, in fact, pointing towards it being a drug overdose as he had meth and fentanyl in his system at the time of death. I have heard that the second coroners report disagrees with this, however I am yet to find the actual report. Was George Floyd given the immediate medical treatment he probably needed? No. Should Chauvin have kneeled on his neck, even if it wasn't with a lot of pressure, for 7 minutes? Also probably no. But he was not killed by Chauvin. Another example is Rayshard Brooks. Rayshard was drunk one night, and somehow ended up asleep at the wheel in a drive through. Police were promptly called to the scene, where they attempted to reason with him to leave the vehicle as he was intoxicated and driving for 25 minutes. Once Rayshard finally left the vehicle, and was being detained, he grabbed the officers taser and fired it at him twice. The officer shot him, and Rayshard died. Rayshard grabbed an officer's weapon and fired it at him. Drunk or not, if he tased the officer, he could've taken his gun, and killed him and possibly civilians. The officer doesn't have time to think about alternatives, he has to act in the interest of public safety in a split second, and that was how it was done. Both of these events highlight how difficult a job as a police officer is, and how they can't be expected to make the right decisions every time. A few bad mistakes do not equate to racism. Sources (as of 2018 due to crime statistic availability) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-49 Coroners report: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf	Jezzaw21	3	3	[ { "author": "SorryForTheRainDelay", "id": "fw7p8v3", "score": 6, "text": "[Here's the second report from the coroner](https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf)\n\nIt says Chauvin was the cause ...	[ { "author": "smellslikebadussy", "id": "fw7orvv", "score": 6, "text": "Just to be clear, are you arguing that police shootings of individual African-Americans are justified because they commit more crimes in the aggregate?", "timestamp": 1593299175 }, { "author": "Jezzaw21", "id": "f...	[ "fw7p8v3", "fw7sb3w", "fw7tey8" ]	[ "fw7orvv", "fw7p0xn", "fw7p8ng" ]
CMV: Police officers are not out to harm African Americans and the majority of police killings are justified At face value, you'd think that they are, seeing their low percentage of the population (13%) compared to their being shot 23% of times. However if we look at the FBI statistics, raw data, we see that blacks are arrested for 29% of crime, but are only shot 23% of the time. It's even more damning if we factor in the violent crime rates of 40%. Blacks are actually under-represented in police shootings, and are less likely to be killed in custody than other races, whites per say. Looking at recent events that the BLM movement claim racism on, they are either justified or different to what BLM would tell you. They would have you believe that George Floyd was killed by asphyxiation, when reading the coroners report, no evidence is provided. There is more evidence, in fact, pointing towards it being a drug overdose as he had meth and fentanyl in his system at the time of death. I have heard that the second coroners report disagrees with this, however I am yet to find the actual report. Was George Floyd given the immediate medical treatment he probably needed? No. Should Chauvin have kneeled on his neck, even if it wasn't with a lot of pressure, for 7 minutes? Also probably no. But he was not killed by Chauvin. Another example is Rayshard Brooks. Rayshard was drunk one night, and somehow ended up asleep at the wheel in a drive through. Police were promptly called to the scene, where they attempted to reason with him to leave the vehicle as he was intoxicated and driving for 25 minutes. Once Rayshard finally left the vehicle, and was being detained, he grabbed the officers taser and fired it at him twice. The officer shot him, and Rayshard died. Rayshard grabbed an officer's weapon and fired it at him. Drunk or not, if he tased the officer, he could've taken his gun, and killed him and possibly civilians. The officer doesn't have time to think about alternatives, he has to act in the interest of public safety in a split second, and that was how it was done. Both of these events highlight how difficult a job as a police officer is, and how they can't be expected to make the right decisions every time. A few bad mistakes do not equate to racism. Sources (as of 2018 due to crime statistic availability) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-49 Coroners report: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf	Even if the first part of your CMV is true, that police officers are not out to harm African-Americans, that doesn't mean the second is true. Cops have looser regulations on firing their weapon than even soldiers at war do. For a cop, they can fire if they are scared, regardless of if the other person is armed or not. That's a pretty subjective line. They might be ruled "justified shootings" by a judge, but as we can see, that's changing. --- If you watch bodycam footage, police have to make a split second decision which isn't always the best one. This isn't a warzone, it's where civilians live and they must act with everyone in mind. I'm not familiar with the military regulations, so I can't comment on them, however they are much more well equipped than police, which bulletproof gear and better weapons, as well as armed vehicles. --- This is not true. I fought in Afghanistan (UK not us). A couple of years before me, guys went into combat with a heart place front and back. A plate about 10 inches square over your heart was the only bullet proof thing you had. The rest was just to keep your organs tucked in if you got shot. Seriously. The us police are hyper militarised. They have more fancy kit than we had in Afghanistan. We walked fucking everywhere. They turn up to protests in armoured convoys. We carried casualties for miles on fucking plastic sheets. With all that, our rules of engagement were much stricter. We had a requirement to issue a verbal warning, fire a warning shot and then engage unless there was an imminent threat to life. And that means somebody in the act or imminently shooting at you. The US police have no excuses. They are in a safe space, relatively speaking. Back up is not far away, hospitals are near by, and they are in control of which situations they enter and which they wait for backup. If you get shot in Afghanistan or Iraq, you may be getting strapped to the back of a land rover and driven for an hour. Split second decisions are hard, I know. But they are made harder by a culture that forces them to see themselves as some modern day sherrif rounding up outlaws in the wild West. In fact, split second decisions are rarely actually decisions. They are muscle memory. They are taught that every stop might be fatal, anybody within 20 feet could kill them in an instant, any non compliance could lead to you being killed in a struggle. When you rely on such simplistic mechanisms, any deviation is highly stressful, and so they do things like order somebody to put their hands on their head and then crawl to them- and then shoot them when they take their hands off their head in order to crawl. I suspect a large part of disproportionate killings of black people is down to this- police are mostly white, and so small differences in culture, social interaction and plain old distrust cause interactions to deviate from the narrow path of "acceptable" interactions police learn, and so they regularly spiral. You don't seem to engage with counter arguments, but in all my experience, the problem is clearly a huge cultural issue in the police - they are not sufficiently trained to actually deal with fluid situations, whilst being told how close they are to being murdered. Your entire argument about how blacks commit more crimes is a product of this - your essentially making the argument the police are so close to being murdered that it is a rational survival mechanism to simply use broad physical characteristics to warn them of danger. But they arent. There are many jobs which have higher mortality, more danger etc and they don't get a free pass, why do police?	[removed] --- However, george floyd did not die of a drug overdose. Any police officer will tell u kneeling on someones back, especially the neck, with all your body weight will suffocate someone. They're reaching for whatever they can to show what could have been a factor, but I dont believe for a second that he died of anything but asphyxiation --- He was screaming at the top of his lungs, interesting if his windpipe was blocked.	hh3l6k	CMV: Police officers are not out to harm African Americans and the majority of police killings are justified	At face value, you'd think that they are, seeing their low percentage of the population (13%) compared to their being shot 23% of times. However if we look at the FBI statistics, raw data, we see that blacks are arrested for 29% of crime, but are only shot 23% of the time. It's even more damning if we factor in the violent crime rates of 40%. Blacks are actually under-represented in police shootings, and are less likely to be killed in custody than other races, whites per say. Looking at recent events that the BLM movement claim racism on, they are either justified or different to what BLM would tell you. They would have you believe that George Floyd was killed by asphyxiation, when reading the coroners report, no evidence is provided. There is more evidence, in fact, pointing towards it being a drug overdose as he had meth and fentanyl in his system at the time of death. I have heard that the second coroners report disagrees with this, however I am yet to find the actual report. Was George Floyd given the immediate medical treatment he probably needed? No. Should Chauvin have kneeled on his neck, even if it wasn't with a lot of pressure, for 7 minutes? Also probably no. But he was not killed by Chauvin. Another example is Rayshard Brooks. Rayshard was drunk one night, and somehow ended up asleep at the wheel in a drive through. Police were promptly called to the scene, where they attempted to reason with him to leave the vehicle as he was intoxicated and driving for 25 minutes. Once Rayshard finally left the vehicle, and was being detained, he grabbed the officers taser and fired it at him twice. The officer shot him, and Rayshard died. Rayshard grabbed an officer's weapon and fired it at him. Drunk or not, if he tased the officer, he could've taken his gun, and killed him and possibly civilians. The officer doesn't have time to think about alternatives, he has to act in the interest of public safety in a split second, and that was how it was done. Both of these events highlight how difficult a job as a police officer is, and how they can't be expected to make the right decisions every time. A few bad mistakes do not equate to racism. Sources (as of 2018 due to crime statistic availability) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-49 Coroners report: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf	Jezzaw21	3	3	[ { "author": "mfDandP", "id": "fw7pari", "score": 1, "text": "Even if the first part of your CMV is true, that police officers are not out to harm African-Americans, that doesn't mean the second is true. Cops have looser regulations on firing their weapon than even soldiers at war do. For a cop, they...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fw7ozky", "score": 1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1593299297 }, { "author": "TacticalMustachio", "id": "fw7p82u", "score": 1, "text": "However, george floyd did not die of a drug overdose. Any police officer will tell u kneeling on someon...	[ "fw7pari", "fw7pv2y", "fw7vmpf" ]	[ "fw7ozky", "fw7p82u", "fw7pguf" ]
CMV: communism is a better alternative to what's happening in US. The average citizen pays so much in taxes and yet the morons at top cannot care less about us. Then there are guys like Elon musk, who are essentially modern day kings and rules don't apply to them. The amount of incompetence and unprofessionalism in the government almost makes me tear up, it almost feels like they are trying out trial and error economics while running the country. In contrast, communist leaders were the most serious and professional leaders I know from history. The way communism worked meant there were no shitty people like elon who could get rich via corporate ladders and get away with shady stuff. There was no corporate greed. There were no billionaires with unnecessary wealth. Ofcourse, it failed. It failed due to a combination of a lot of things but mainly because of lack of incentive for productivity at individual levels but atleast there were no shitty people running the country like a simulator. Atleast they had serious theoretical plans on paper unlike a certain orange man who is tariffing an island inhabited by Penguins. Everyday all I see is more shitty people climbing more corporate ladders, getting richer and getting away with more shady stuff. Meanwhile, I keep living paycheck to paycheck. In communism everybody would get a fair wage, I wouldn't have to lick boots of my managers. I just would have to comply.	Given you yourself admit that communism has never existed and not failed and admire USSR leaders, are you saying any of the above forms of failed communism would be better than what's happening in the US? --- My gripe is usually with the fact that there would be less "Elons and friends". We do not actually the full extent of economic damage and if it is worse than communism or not. On average day capitalism beats communism easy but not when it's run by inept wanna be dictators. I see bad people and rising income inequality everywhere and get carried into strange economic theories, idk maybe like the Russians in 1918? The revolution didn't happen by itself, people were frustrated and communism showed them something could fix their life. We know from history it did not work to their advantage. But apart from economics, it did bring many good things to society like equal rights for women. Communist had a paper theory atleast. The theory now being implemented in the US seems like "I am just having fun". Communism feels a better alternative than "I am just having fun". It also addresses my gripe with corporates and unnecessary wealth accumulation by bad people. I want to hear why this view of mine is not the answer to the problems US faces today. How is "I am having fun" better than a theory on paper. --- >On average day capitalism beats communism easy but not when it's run by inept wanna be dictators. >The theory now being implemented in the US seems like "I am just having fun". Communism feels a better alternative than "I am just having fun". You agree that capitalism generally produces better results. But there is no "central plan" of capitalism. The main idea behind capitalism is that people should just do what they can/what they feel like doing. If one guy wants to make donuts for a living, then he makes donuts for a living (or goes out of business if he has no customers). So it doesn't really make sense to say "at least communism is a plan"	>In contrast, communist leaders were the most serious and professional leaders I know from history. The way communism worked meant there were no shitty people like elon who could get rich via corporate ladders and get away with shady stuff. There was no corporate greed. There were no billionaires with unnecessary wealth. lolwut? That's just factually incorrect. --- Can you give me examples? I don't remember anyone behaving like elon from USSR. --- Stalin, Lenin. actually talk to people who are under communist rule -- USSR, North Korea. It sucks. This is an extremely awful take that misunderstands communism	1jqnzya	CMV: communism is a better alternative to what's happening in US.	The average citizen pays so much in taxes and yet the morons at top cannot care less about us. Then there are guys like Elon musk, who are essentially modern day kings and rules don't apply to them. The amount of incompetence and unprofessionalism in the government almost makes me tear up, it almost feels like they are trying out trial and error economics while running the country. In contrast, communist leaders were the most serious and professional leaders I know from history. The way communism worked meant there were no shitty people like elon who could get rich via corporate ladders and get away with shady stuff. There was no corporate greed. There were no billionaires with unnecessary wealth. Ofcourse, it failed. It failed due to a combination of a lot of things but mainly because of lack of incentive for productivity at individual levels but atleast there were no shitty people running the country like a simulator. Atleast they had serious theoretical plans on paper unlike a certain orange man who is tariffing an island inhabited by Penguins. Everyday all I see is more shitty people climbing more corporate ladders, getting richer and getting away with more shady stuff. Meanwhile, I keep living paycheck to paycheck. In communism everybody would get a fair wage, I wouldn't have to lick boots of my managers. I just would have to comply.	snow-raven7	3	3	[ { "author": "kikistiel", "id": "ml8cg1e", "score": 7, "text": "Given you yourself admit that communism has never existed and not failed and admire USSR leaders, are you saying any of the above forms of failed communism would be better than what's happening in the US?", "timestamp": 1743700406 ...	[ { "author": "Lumpy-Butterscotch50", "id": "ml8bgws", "score": 25, "text": ">In contrast, communist leaders were the most serious and professional leaders I know from history. The way communism worked meant there were no shitty people like elon who could get rich via corporate ladders and get away wi...	[ "ml8cg1e", "ml8fs6j", "ml8is1n" ]	[ "ml8bgws", "ml8bpvp", "ml8c5xg" ]
CMV: Police departments shouldn't be allowed to purchase liability insurance to cover inappropriate or illegal police behavior. Right now, in most US states, police departments are covered by liability insurance that covers any settlement or lawsuit costs they incur. Generally, insurance always results in some level of moral hazard, where the safety net of insurance results in more reckless behavior (for instance, one theory suggests that after car seat belts became mandatory, the total number of accidents reduced but the severity of accidents worsened, as people felt safer to drive recklessly). In this case, liability insurance almost entirely removes any personal accountability from police officers, which inevitably leads to misconduct and negligence. Police departments don't have any incentive to change or reform their procedures because they are never fully responsible for the consequences - right now the only thing that may nudge them to reform their practices is the insurance premium they pay and the annual increases if they have too many payouts. Often times, a police officer doesn't take the time to reevaluate their actions and consider the consequences, because it is multiple degrees removed and the consequences seem so distant from them personally. When there's no immediate personal liability, we can't expect them to always think 10 steps ahead and consider all ramifications - human biases will always trump rational thoughts. For example, Chicago has paid out more than half a billion in settlement and lawsuits as a result of police misconduct since 2004 and yet there's no significant improvement in the number of lawsuits filed against them. Taxpayers are funding these liability insurances that are essentially subsidizing police misconduct. If a police department has a lot of settlements in one year, the insurance premium increases, resulting in more taxpayer money wasted and no reform or improvements. Solution: remove organization-wide liability insurance for any behavior that is illegal or inappropriate (they can still have liability insurance for other areas like car accidents during a pursuit) and instead the individual police officers must be personally accountable for paying any settlements.	This wouldn’t solve the issue though. Instead of taxpayers spending a relatively small amount on liability insurance, they are now spending an outrageous amount on misconduct lawsuits. Without insurance, this would become a much larger burden on the taxpayer. --- I agree that it doesn't solve all the issues with police misconduct, but I don't see how allowing liability insurance is helping reduce misconduct? Without insurance, it becomes a larger burden on taxpayers because it should be a burden that needs to be fixed. What you're suggesting is that insurance is the perfect painkiller to suppress the pain, but leave the underlying problem as it is. Pain is a signal that something isn't working. Perhaps a compromise would be that first-time offenders are covered by insurance but a pattern of misconduct isn't tolerated. --- But think about the alternative. Inevitably, a city will end up paying millions and millions of dollars in legal fees. It won’t fix any misconduct, it will just make misconduct 15x more expensive and bankrupt a city every time it happens. Which is absolutely not practical --- You might have misunderstood my proposal. I think that the police officers should be personally liable for any legal fees and lawsuits they incur as a result of their personal negligence or misconduct. That doesn't put any burden on taxpayers. However, it will likely act as a disincentive for police officers that often resort to excessive force, negligence, and other lapses. --- Insurance attorney here. You are thinking about ending qualified immunity, not preventing insurance coverage for police departments. Think of it this way: Smith v LAPD and Smith v Officer Jones are two different things. LAPD is a city organization funded by taxpayer money. It uses such funds to pay the police, keep the lights on, pay legal fees and pay out jury verdicts/settlement. Officer Jones would not be paying for a verdict against LAPD. But if you sue Officer Jones, unless his conduct was outside of his official duties, he will claim qualified immunity and get the case tossed out. Also, if you sue Officer Jones and win, your verdict will likely be bound by Officer Jones's personal wealth. If you sue the LAPD, you verdict will be paid in full, either through an insurance policy or though tax money. You will want to sue the LAPD and Officer Jones jointly and severely.	Lack of insurance causes a moral hazard as departments are excessively incentivized to avoid behavior that draws expensive lawsuits even when such behavior is appropriate. If we want to shape police behavior we should use rules, not lawsuits. Lawsuits are just a way of compensating people who are harmed, not a way to punish bad behavior. We have criminal law to punish wrongdoing, not civil suits. --- [deleted] --- They've been tacked on to the tort system, weren't initially part of it, and are not an integral part. They may sometimes serve a reasonable purpose but in general we use administrative and criminal law to change behavior. Punitive damages are pretty random and arbitrary - they shouldn't be a first line method to shape behavior. --- If that were the case then tickets for traffic violations shouldn't deter anyone from breaking the law. The immediate financial punishment of a traffic ticket has been way more effective so far at disincentivizing illegal driving behavior. There is a theory that suggests that criminals don't always weigh in all the legal consequences because they are so distant and unlikely, but in societies where criminals are immediately executed or their hands are cut, the immediate threat of punishment is a bigger deterrent. This falls under the same biases that prevent most people from investing in their future since, for instance, the distant consequences of not having a pension aren't as urgent as purchasing the newest iPhone. --- >If that were the case then tickets for traffic violations shouldn't deter anyone from breaking the law. The immediate financial punishment of a traffic ticket has been way more effective so far at disincentivizing illegal driving behavior. What? No, that's the opposite of the conclusion you should draw. I'm telling you to give bad cops the equivalent of traffic tickets. A traffic ticket is something where you know the rules, and if you break them you know the penalty, and it's an immediate punishment. That's good. A civil lawsuit is totally different. A civil lawsuit is something where there are no rules, and anyone who thinks they've been hurt can sue you for anything. They need to convince a judge that their suit is vaguely similar to past suits that have been allowed, but that's as far as consistency goes. They need to convince a jury to be sympathetic to them, and that's pretty arbitrary - if you are accused by a cute white girl you're going to pay through the nose, but if you hurt someone who looks less sympathetic to a jury, don't worry. The tort system is pretty racist in this way, and thus incentivizes racism. A tort, you can settle (if the goal were punishment, that'd be corrupt), occurs years after the injury, has less to do with whether you did anything wrong than if the victim is angry with you, etc. Torts do very little to incentivize good behavior. Most European countries protect their doctors from torts; the US doesn't. US doctors do not behave any better than European doctors - they just practice more defensively and do a lot more paperwork.	hh2693	CMV: Police departments shouldn't be allowed to purchase liability insurance to cover inappropriate or illegal police behavior.	Right now, in most US states, police departments are covered by liability insurance that covers any settlement or lawsuit costs they incur. Generally, insurance always results in some level of moral hazard, where the safety net of insurance results in more reckless behavior (for instance, one theory suggests that after car seat belts became mandatory, the total number of accidents reduced but the severity of accidents worsened, as people felt safer to drive recklessly). In this case, liability insurance almost entirely removes any personal accountability from police officers, which inevitably leads to misconduct and negligence. Police departments don't have any incentive to change or reform their procedures because they are never fully responsible for the consequences - right now the only thing that may nudge them to reform their practices is the insurance premium they pay and the annual increases if they have too many payouts. Often times, a police officer doesn't take the time to reevaluate their actions and consider the consequences, because it is multiple degrees removed and the consequences seem so distant from them personally. When there's no immediate personal liability, we can't expect them to always think 10 steps ahead and consider all ramifications - human biases will always trump rational thoughts. For example, Chicago has paid out more than half a billion in settlement and lawsuits as a result of police misconduct since 2004 and yet there's no significant improvement in the number of lawsuits filed against them. Taxpayers are funding these liability insurances that are essentially subsidizing police misconduct. If a police department has a lot of settlements in one year, the insurance premium increases, resulting in more taxpayer money wasted and no reform or improvements. Solution: remove organization-wide liability insurance for any behavior that is illegal or inappropriate (they can still have liability insurance for other areas like car accidents during a pursuit) and instead the individual police officers must be personally accountable for paying any settlements.	an27725	5	5	[ { "author": "shaggy235", "id": "fw7g1by", "score": 2, "text": "This wouldn’t solve the issue though.\n\nInstead of taxpayers spending a relatively small amount on liability insurance, they are now spending an outrageous amount on misconduct lawsuits. Without insurance, this would become a much large...	[ { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "fw7ghln", "score": 6, "text": "Lack of insurance causes a moral hazard as departments are excessively incentivized to avoid behavior that draws expensive lawsuits even when such behavior is appropriate.\n\nIf we want to shape police behavior we should use rules, no...	[ "fw7g1by", "fw7ieyk", "fw7ispo", "fw7k3wr", "fw7q5tf" ]	[ "fw7ghln", "fw7i6wq", "fw7isvo", "fw7jls2", "fw7l6xr" ]
CMV: the asterisk in trans* is pointless and distracting. Right, so, I am ostensibly supportive of trans people. I'm onboard with genderfluidity as a general concept, I am not upset at any request to refer to someone by their preferred pronoun (well... maybe not "xe" for now, but that's another CMV), and I do recognise that I probably have some inherent transphobic beliefs. Nomi was quite possibly my favourite character in Sense8. This is a petty, lighthearted CMV: what's with the '\'? Is that meant to be a wildcard like in some programming languages, so that trans stands in for "transwoman" and "transman"? The descriptor "trans" by itself seems fine to me; it's ambiguous as to the gender of the person being represented by that label, just as "bisexual" or "queer" or (arguably) "gay" is; it doesn't need an asterisk to point out that fact! If anything, the asterisk looks a bit like a snowflake, and while I'm not personally about to set myself at harassing trans people for being "snecial snowflakes", it does seem like a bit of an invitation to do so for certain people.	Would the asterisk not be a placeholder betweens transgender and transsexual for someone that uses them as different terms? Using either term could be inaccurate or offensive to the wrong person, thus trans* for someone you know that identifies as trans-something or not-cis without more specificity. It's basically used to mean trans or trans-adjacent. Something that is not cis without listing out the entire spectrum. --- I'm interested in your point that it may be a placeholder between transgender and transsexual; to be completely honest, I've forgotten the difference! I think that "transgender" is the word to basically describe someone born into the wrong body, and "transsexual" explicitly refers to someone who has undergone surgery. Am I wrong? --- Transsexual is simply an archaic form of transgender. It’s since fallen out of favour.	http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/outward/2014/01/10/trans_what_does_it_mean_and_where_did_it_come_from/transposter900.jpg.CROP.promovar-medium2.jpg While the * can stand for transman or transwoman, there are a host of other terms that it also encompasses. If it were just transman and transwoman, then it might not be necessary, but when it is standing in for 20 or so other identities, it makes sense. --- That's an excellent response! Upvote!, in that the image directly addresses the question: What does the * mean? Hell, you get a Δ for showing me that the asterisk isn't necessarily a wildcard character representing "man" or "woman", but more like a flag which indicates, "hey, there's a lot more to this than you know. Check out out the fine print". --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/electronics12345 ([149∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/electronics12345)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	93zng0	CMV: the asterisk in trans* is pointless and distracting.	Right, so, I am ostensibly supportive of trans people. I'm onboard with genderfluidity as a general concept, I am not upset at any request to refer to someone by their preferred pronoun (well... maybe not "xe" for now, but that's another CMV), and I do recognise that I probably have some inherent transphobic beliefs. Nomi was quite possibly my favourite character in Sense8. This is a petty, lighthearted CMV: what's with the '\'? Is that meant to be a wildcard like in some programming languages, so that trans stands in for "transwoman" and "transman"? The descriptor "trans" by itself seems fine to me; it's ambiguous as to the gender of the person being represented by that label, just as "bisexual" or "queer" or (arguably) "gay" is; it doesn't need an asterisk to point out that fact! If anything, the asterisk looks a bit like a snowflake, and while I'm not personally about to set myself at harassing trans people for being "snecial snowflakes", it does seem like a bit of an invitation to do so for certain people.	almostambidextrous	3	3	[ { "author": "Generic_On_Reddit", "id": "e3h3upg", "score": 6, "text": "Would the asterisk not be a placeholder betweens transgender and transsexual for someone that uses them as different terms? Using either term could be inaccurate or offensive to the wrong person, thus trans* for someone you know ...	[ { "author": "electronics12345", "id": "e3h9f49", "score": 4, "text": "http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/outward/2014/01/10/trans_what_does_it_mean_and_where_did_it_come_from/transposter900.jpg.CROP.promovar-medium2.jpg\n\nWhile the * can stand for transman or transwoman, there are a host ...	[ "e3h3upg", "e3h9ksd", "e3hbs6c" ]	[ "e3h9f49", "e3hfjbb", "e3hfki3" ]
CMV:Pragmatically, I believe abortion should be legal, but not because I think it is morally right or the woman’s right to decide. • With regards to whether it is killing a person: I think there are convincing arguments on both sides of this debate, but I don’t think we will ever be able to come up with definitive objective criteria in characterizing when a fetus becomes a person, therefore I don’t think it should be used to make the decision as to whether it is legal. Because I don’t think this should be used as criteria to make the decision, I think we should look at the issue on a case by case basis in which objective criteria can be used to make the decision, such as the quality of life for the mother and future child. • With regards to whether it is morally right: I believe it is morally wrong to kill a person, but because I don’t believe we will ever be able to agree whether abortion is killing a person, I again don’t think this should be used as criteria for making the decision. • With regards to whether it should be the woman’s right to choose: I think it is unfortunate that evolution played out so that women have to bear the burden of enduring unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it is morally irresponsible to simplify the issue solely down to a matter of a woman’s choice about her body, because once she is pregnant, this is not just a matter of what she is doing with her body, there is a separate entity inside her (whether or not this is a person is still undetermined), and a father who was equally responsible for the conception. We should be taking the mother, the father, and the fetus into account. If, to the best of our and their judgement, both the woman and the fetus would be better off if she got an abortion (in the case of rape, young pregnancies, or unfit living conditions for a child), then I believe the abortion should be legal. • Finally, from a pragmatic standpoint, overpopulation is an increasing concern for humanity. I don’t believe we should be banning abortion in situations where the baby would be raised in unfit living conditions, because this world is already overpopulated and I don’t think we should be forcing more people into the world if, from birth, they are already deficient in the opportunities that babies from planned pregnancies are given. _____	>because I don’t believe we will ever be able to agree whether abortion is killing a person, I again don’t think this should be used as criteria for making the decision. I think you actually have to solve this issue first before moving to other reasons for abortion for two reasons: 1)Wouldn't reason dictate that we should err on the side of caution if you don't know if the fetus is a person? It would be tremendously amoral IMO to say that you might be killing someone but it doesn't matter because it's hard to decide and just sweep that under the rug and move on to other criteria. 2)You say we should take into account what is best for the fetus, but if you haven't decided that fetus=person then there is no real reason you should care about that. The decision of the mother(and possibly the father) would be the only real important aspect in that case. What's best for the fetus only would come into play if you consider it a person, so you have to decide that first. --- > Wouldn't reason dictate that we should err on the side of caution if you don't know if the fetus is a person? This is a really good point and i'll have to think about it more, but as of now, I agree with you that perhaps this does force us to err on the side of caution. For some reason I was thinking that the fact that the disagreement was unresolvable made it somewhat neutral in sum with the other considerations, but I now see that it's morally irresponsible to do so. ∆ >You say we should take into account what is best for the fetus, but if you haven't decided that fetus=person then there is no real reason you should care about that. I should have been more clear, I meant we should take into account the hypothetical life of the person that would result if we didn't kill the fetus, not the fetus at the current point in time. --- >For some reason I was thinking that the fact that the disagreement was unresolvable made it somewhat neutral in sum with the other considerations, but I now see that it's morally irresponsible to do so. Well, hang on. Just because people disagree about something isn't itself reason to err on one side, if that side isn't compelling. If you frame the question like this: Since some fetuses become mass serial killers, and we just can't tell which fetus will, it's better to err on the side of caution, and abort ALL fetuses. That could seem reasonable to somebody. So it still comes down to weighing the evidence. If erring on the side of caution to be against abortion in general makes sense to you, then i would say something has convinced you that side is more likely correct. Once you figure out why you think that way, you'll be a step closer to clearly understanding your feelings on this topic.	Clarifying question: Are you suggesting a system where only abortions that fit the criteria you give is legal, or where abortion is legal in general because it's worth it to protect those who fit the criteria? --- That's a good question. I'm inclined to argue for a system that only allowed abortions that fit the criteria, however I acknowledge that this would become philosophically messy because it would become a question of who and how we should decide which cases fit the criteria, which seems ambiguous and potentially dangerous. Therefore, I guess I'm arguing for it to be legal in general, but would be open to suggestions for the first option if you think we could establish objective criteria to categorize cases. --- No, I agree that any attempt at that kind of selective legalization would be messy and dangerous.	6pzxdq	CMV:Pragmatically, I believe abortion should be legal, but not because I think it is morally right or the woman’s right to decide.	• With regards to whether it is killing a person: I think there are convincing arguments on both sides of this debate, but I don’t think we will ever be able to come up with definitive objective criteria in characterizing when a fetus becomes a person, therefore I don’t think it should be used to make the decision as to whether it is legal. Because I don’t think this should be used as criteria to make the decision, I think we should look at the issue on a case by case basis in which objective criteria can be used to make the decision, such as the quality of life for the mother and future child. • With regards to whether it is morally right: I believe it is morally wrong to kill a person, but because I don’t believe we will ever be able to agree whether abortion is killing a person, I again don’t think this should be used as criteria for making the decision. • With regards to whether it should be the woman’s right to choose: I think it is unfortunate that evolution played out so that women have to bear the burden of enduring unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it is morally irresponsible to simplify the issue solely down to a matter of a woman’s choice about her body, because once she is pregnant, this is not just a matter of what she is doing with her body, there is a separate entity inside her (whether or not this is a person is still undetermined), and a father who was equally responsible for the conception. We should be taking the mother, the father, and the fetus into account. If, to the best of our and their judgement, both the woman and the fetus would be better off if she got an abortion (in the case of rape, young pregnancies, or unfit living conditions for a child), then I believe the abortion should be legal. • Finally, from a pragmatic standpoint, overpopulation is an increasing concern for humanity. I don’t believe we should be banning abortion in situations where the baby would be raised in unfit living conditions, because this world is already overpopulated and I don’t think we should be forcing more people into the world if, from birth, they are already deficient in the opportunities that babies from planned pregnancies are given. _____	thinkthink33	3	3	[ { "author": "XellosPY", "id": "dktl2sy", "score": 3, "text": ">because I don’t believe we will ever be able to agree whether abortion is killing a person, I again don’t think this should be used as criteria for making the decision.\n\nI think you actually have to solve this issue first before movi...	[ { "author": "todayisjuly27th", "id": "dktkb07", "score": 1, "text": "Clarifying question: Are you suggesting a system where only abortions that fit the criteria you give is legal, or where abortion is legal in general because it's worth it to protect those who fit the criteria?", "timestamp": 15...	[ "dktl2sy", "dktn4za", "dkufkqj" ]	[ "dktkb07", "dktkq1x", "dktlnw4" ]
CMV: Even God gives the prominent (e.g., people in Hollywood and Washington, D.C.) a pass no matter how evil they are I hope that everybody who has the privilege of fame and is abusing it is brought down by God swiftly and soon. There is a part of me, nonetheless, that believes that even God seems to love celebrities more just because He exalted them in the first place. I wish that I could believe that for some, fame is actually a curse or a punishment from God, and that it truly is their reward in full. I do not see fame for them in that way, and every celebrity who claims that he or she hates fame reminds me of the Bible verse, “It is good for nothing,” cries the buyer; [b]ut when he has gone his way, then he boasts.” I have struggled with this for a long time, and I see that celebrities didn’t—in general—get treated as regular people during the pandemic. It seems like more and more, even God is exalting the exalted and not punishing them for their sins (no matter if they as far as to pretend to fear Him for their own gain) and humbling the humble (no matter how long and diligently they have served Him, and then they have to pay for their and everybody else’s mistakes while the exalted get a pass as well as have others blamed for what they did). A couple of examples of this: 1) None of the people who were confirmed to be associated with Jeffrey Epstein have been punished really or at all in the least (maybe except for John Glenn, although certainly not in this life). Similarly, none of the people who are prominent politicians and have stolen classified documents (including one who was confirmed by a victim as well as Jeffrey Epstein‘s pilot to have been on a certain list) have been punished, where as the common civil servant would be sitting in prison for life. 2) If Bill Cosby were not Bill Cosby, the oral and secret agreement that he made with the previous prosecutor never would’ve been honored. In most cases, written agreements always take precedence over written agreements. Yet, the Scriptures say that God does not respect persons based on status. 3) Even people who claim to be apathetic about celebrities or even hate celebrities know deep in their heart that they would be very starstruck if they met one, and it is God who hardens and softens hearts.	Are we talking Christianity here? --- Generally, though I’d like to see it from any perspective. I’m willing to take worldviews are different than my worldview into account if they help inform my own. Even if an Atheist said to me, “Based on what I gather from your Scriptures, [whatever view],” I’d be willing to consider it. I can consider that non believers sometimes see things that believers do not see—and can even put believers to shame for not having seen it. God can use the Atheist as much as the believer. --- Unfortunately I can't believe that God approves of their behaviour. Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” -Matthew 19:21 --- Yet, quite a few rich have gotten into Heaven. I am not saying that most do. I’m not even saying that most celebrities do. Nonetheless, I really don’t see God changing the view of people about the celebrities inin this lifetime after the celebrities have passed away. For example, I still see that extremely-evil people like Charlie Chaplin have their names remembered fondly this day instead of spoken as bywords warnings—and Charlie Chaplin constantly used God’s name to blaspheme and tried to excuse that he groomed multiple girls — including his last wife, whom was 17 when they began dating. In his final words, he claimed that he gave his soul to God because his soul belongs to God. Not once, however, did he ever apologize for what he did to Mildred Harris, Lita Grey, and Oona O’Neill. Also, in the Book of Acts, quite a few prominent people are mentioned as having come to God. --- >I really don’t see God changing the view of people about the celebrities in this lifetime after the celebrities have passed away. Since your perspective is Christianity, it's worth considering what Jesus had to say about the rich and powerful. Time and again, when calling out people who would flaunt their social status, Jesus would use the phrase, "They have their reward." Consider what Jesus was doing: He was telling people that there's a balance between status in this world and status in the next. You may be able to abuse your wealth and power here, use deception to gain social status, and do all manner of questionable things to fill your life with earthly comforts, but to do that comes at a price. The price is an eternity of lesser status, separation from the wealth of Heaven, and a form of death more profound than the one caused by the failure of our bodies. As Jesus put it in its most dramatic form, "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mark 8:36) You can want your reward now, and God will give it to you. Or you can take your reward later, when it becomes infinitely more valuable. The mere fact that God offers rewards on earth is hardly proof that he gives miscreants a pass, since those rewards are ultimately poisoned pills.	OP, if you are truly a person of faith, then I urge you to stop vainly question God’s plan and instead put your faith in Him. It matters not what worldly success the Lord may seem to have bestowed on the wealthy and famous. Their riches are temporary and soon they will know the full everlasting richness of God’s wisdom and mercy. As so will you. Make sure you are straight with our Heavenly Father. Think not of people strange to you. --- The very reason why I even ask this question on this form is because I am trying to seek answers and see if I have the right perspective. If I am missing something, I want to know. It’s not just celebrities that I have in mind, either, by the way – I have seen where God seems to have rewarded people whom have used His name to persecute me and others. For example, I still think about a high-school teacher whom is brazenly Antisemitic, and I have not yet seen God punish her. When I confronted her for laughing with another student’s Antisemitism (which was a Nazi salute in the guise of satire), he or she told me, “I don’t see Jesus in you.” (I would subsequently come to find out that I am a Jewish believer in Jesus and that my family did lose relatives in the Holocaust.) When I told one of my parents what happened, the teacher gave a false apology and accused me of calling another student a Marxist. It turns out that somebody else jokingly called the other student “a Marxist” in an entirely-unrelated incident, and only years later did I figure out that the teacher was accusing me of being a Marxist and projecting onto me calling somebody else that. I have not yet seen her punished for using such an Antisemitic trope and projection against me—and this was done at a Christian school. In fact, the last that I knew anything about her, she was spouting off about God’s grace as if she actually believes in it. Incidentally, she may have well known that I am Jewish before I did, as I have even been told by others that I look Jewish (I never would’ve guessed before I found out, although I did begin to have some inklings that I’m Jewish in about 2007.) If I stood out as Jewish to her, that makes the Antisemitism in Jesus’s Name even worse. I have yet to see Jesus punish her for that. --- Do not look for God’s justice in this world. We will all come to know and understand His plan when we enter eternity and join Him. Again, focus on yourself, friend. Worry not about the sins of others. --- Δ. Fair enough. --- This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Schmurby changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	10rvpff	CMV: Even God gives the prominent (e.g., people in Hollywood and Washington, D.C.) a pass no matter how evil they are	I hope that everybody who has the privilege of fame and is abusing it is brought down by God swiftly and soon. There is a part of me, nonetheless, that believes that even God seems to love celebrities more just because He exalted them in the first place. I wish that I could believe that for some, fame is actually a curse or a punishment from God, and that it truly is their reward in full. I do not see fame for them in that way, and every celebrity who claims that he or she hates fame reminds me of the Bible verse, “It is good for nothing,” cries the buyer; [b]ut when he has gone his way, then he boasts.” I have struggled with this for a long time, and I see that celebrities didn’t—in general—get treated as regular people during the pandemic. It seems like more and more, even God is exalting the exalted and not punishing them for their sins (no matter if they as far as to pretend to fear Him for their own gain) and humbling the humble (no matter how long and diligently they have served Him, and then they have to pay for their and everybody else’s mistakes while the exalted get a pass as well as have others blamed for what they did). A couple of examples of this: 1) None of the people who were confirmed to be associated with Jeffrey Epstein have been punished really or at all in the least (maybe except for John Glenn, although certainly not in this life). Similarly, none of the people who are prominent politicians and have stolen classified documents (including one who was confirmed by a victim as well as Jeffrey Epstein‘s pilot to have been on a certain list) have been punished, where as the common civil servant would be sitting in prison for life. 2) If Bill Cosby were not Bill Cosby, the oral and secret agreement that he made with the previous prosecutor never would’ve been honored. In most cases, written agreements always take precedence over written agreements. Yet, the Scriptures say that God does not respect persons based on status. 3) Even people who claim to be apathetic about celebrities or even hate celebrities know deep in their heart that they would be very starstruck if they met one, and it is God who hardens and softens hearts.	Nickidewbear	5	5	[ { "author": "LoudTsu", "id": "j6xup50", "score": 1, "text": "Are we talking Christianity here?", "timestamp": 1675359625 }, { "author": "Nickidewbear", "id": "j6xvgr5", "score": 0, "text": "Generally, though I’d like to see it from any perspective. I’m willing to take worldvi...	[ { "author": "Schmurby", "id": "j6yr6gk", "score": 1, "text": "OP, if you are truly a person of faith, then I urge you to stop vainly question God’s plan and instead put your faith in Him. \n\nIt matters not what worldly success the Lord may seem to have bestowed on the wealthy and famous. Their rich...	[ "j6xup50", "j6xvgr5", "j6xw2sk", "j6xxo0m", "j6yeqiu" ]	[ "j6yr6gk", "j6ytcr3", "j6yufph", "j6zdowu", "j6zdqbk" ]
CMV: It's hypocritical to be offended by such epithets as r***, k, n**, and g, but not b**, sl, and w***. First, I apologize for all of the asterisks. I was once banned for a week in another sub for not using them, so now I'm conforming to Reddit protocol. I imagine everyone knows the words to which I'm alluding. Personally, I think context matters in terms of whether I'm offended by what someone says. I don't have absolute rules for any of these particular terms. However, it does seem to me that IF someone is going to be (almost always) offended by the use of any of the terms in the first group, THEN they should be consistent and be (almost always) offended by the epithets used for women. But this does not seem to be the case. An excellent example is when Meyers Leonard, a recent NBA player, called another person "k\\\ b\\\\" while streaming a video game on Twitch. Soon after doing that he found himself to no longer being playing in the NBA. But it wasn't because of the second half of that phrase. As far as I know, not one sports journalist, player, or pundit said anything at all about the second part. Instead, everyone was outraged, disappointed, and appalled by the first part. It seems like this is a good example of a double standard against women. Left leaning late night talk show hosts feel comfortable enough to say b\\\\ out loud on air in front of millions of people, which I hear one or two of them say at least once a week, but we know that if someone famous said k\\\* or sp\\ they would do a bit about it expressing how disappointed or shocked they are. I can think of a couple of counter-objections. First, some people might say that b\\\* or sl\\ can be applied to men as well as women. Effectively, then, it is stripped of its gender connotation. But this argument seems no better to me than when racists told me 40 years ago they used n\\\\\* for all races, even for white people. I don't think anyone buys that logic. And second, some will argue that such terms aren't as offensive because women as a group have not been oppressed as much as some races. Well, I'm not sure how to objectively measure that, but women have been kept out of jobs, positions of power, prevented from voting, harassed, molested, raped, and dismissed as unintelligent children for thousands of years. I'd rank that up there with any group's oppression. In sum, I'm not arguing here for censoring any of these words, but if someone is going to almost always be offended by the first group of words---and call for censorship or being cancelled---then it seems reasonable and consistent that they should also do so for the second group of words.	Bitch, slut, whore - those are words that imply you being a fuck because of things you do. They aren't seen as that of a problem cause no one is attacking whole group of people. If you call someone a whore, you aren't bringing down every woman - cause that epithet implies that this one differs. Kike, spic, nigger - those are words that attach negative value to an inherent characteristic of a person. They are seen as a problem because they don't differentiate. There are no actions that can make black person not a "nigger" because this epithet targets their race. If you don't believe this distinction, just see that sayings like "Every woman is a slut" do exist, while "All blacks are niggers" don't - cause former needs to be stretched to fit the whole group, while latter is by itself a slur targeting whole group. --- When I was younger, the same argument was made by racists (40 years ago). They would say that when they use racial slurs they didn't have in mind all black or brown people, just the ones who acted in a stupid manner. if that argument doesn't work for race, I'm not sure why it should for gender. --- > When I was younger, the same argument was made by racists (40 years ago). If it was, they wouldn't have been factually correct. Etymologically, the n-word is literally just based on the latin word for "black", and for hundreds of years, they have been used synonymously. The [Chris Rock routine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggas_vs._Black_People) is a neologism, an intentionally farcial statement. >if that argument doesn't work for race, I'm not sure why it should for gender. It does work for gender too. The C-word in the US is a perfect example of a slur for women that is treated as realtively taboo, exactly because it doesn't refer to stereotypes, but to women's bodies in general. (And in more british-inspired areas it is used synonymously with "dick" or "asshole", not as a slur) It's just that the ones that you listed, all happen to be very specifically behavior based. Also note that behavior-based ethnic slurs aren't neccessarily that taboo either. Calling a welsh person "sheepshagger" is bigoted too, but no one would censor it, like sh\\\\\\\*ger out of sensitivity. There is also a big difference in reclaimability. Consider the difference between the homophobic uses of "Queer", and the F-slur. The latter refers to a type of person directly, just like the n-word. But the former is an accusation of behavior, an accusation of being too weird, sticking out, making a scene, being non-conformist. That has an enormous potential for people using it for themselves to make an active statement about "Hey, what's wrong with any of those traits, yeah, they do fit me". The same thing is happening with words like "bitch" or "slut", that women use for themselves by proudly accepting the accusations that they imply. But anyone calling themsleves the F-slur, or the N-word, or any other inherently degrading slur, would have to be making an intentionally contradictory statement which has a lot less staying power.	Who do you think is not offended by being called a bitch, slut, or whore? --- That's true. But those terms are not nearly condemned as much as the others. With the example I gave of Meyers Leonard, for example, I challenge you to find one link or story in sports news in which anything is said about him calling another person b\\\\. I just went through the first page of a search and it wasn't even mentioned (only by page 2 did I see the full quote). Yet all of the stories focus on his apology to the Jewish community, how he offended Jews, and needed to grow as a result of saying k\\\. --- >That's true Then you recognize that people are* offended by them, and that your view is incorrect.	q4tuhv	CMV: It's hypocritical to be offended by such epithets as r***, k, n**, and g, but not b**, sl, and w****.	First, I apologize for all of the asterisks. I was once banned for a week in another sub for not using them, so now I'm conforming to Reddit protocol. I imagine everyone knows the words to which I'm alluding. Personally, I think context matters in terms of whether I'm offended by what someone says. I don't have absolute rules for any of these particular terms. However, it does seem to me that IF someone is going to be (almost always) offended by the use of any of the terms in the first group, THEN they should be consistent and be (almost always) offended by the epithets used for women. But this does not seem to be the case. An excellent example is when Meyers Leonard, a recent NBA player, called another person "k\\\* b\\\\" while streaming a video game on Twitch. Soon after doing that he found himself to no longer being playing in the NBA. But it wasn't because of the second half of that phrase. As far as I know, not one sports journalist, player, or pundit said anything at all about the second part. Instead, everyone was outraged, disappointed, and appalled by the first part. It seems like this is a good example of a double standard against women. Left leaning late night talk show hosts feel comfortable enough to say b\\\\ out loud on air in front of millions of people, which I hear one or two of them say at least once a week, but we know that if someone famous said k\\\* or sp\\ they would do a bit about it expressing how disappointed or shocked they are. I can think of a couple of counter-objections. First, some people might say that b\\\* or sl\\ can be applied to men as well as women. Effectively, then, it is stripped of its gender connotation. But this argument seems no better to me than when racists told me 40 years ago they used n\\\\\* for all races, even for white people. I don't think anyone buys that logic. And second, some will argue that such terms aren't as offensive because women as a group have not been oppressed as much as some races. Well, I'm not sure how to objectively measure that, but women have been kept out of jobs, positions of power, prevented from voting, harassed, molested, raped, and dismissed as unintelligent children for thousands of years. I'd rank that up there with any group's oppression. In sum, I'm not arguing here for censoring any of these words, but if someone is going to almost always be offended by the first group of words---and call for censorship or being cancelled---then it seems reasonable and consistent that they should also do so for the second group of words.	agonisticpathos	3	3	[ { "author": "poprostumort", "id": "hg0y3s6", "score": 3, "text": "Bitch, slut, whore - those are words that imply you being a fuck because of things you do. They aren't seen as that of a problem cause no one is attacking whole group of people. If you call someone a whore, you aren't bringing down ev...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg0x78r", "score": 9, "text": "Who do you think is not offended by being called a bitch, slut, or whore?", "timestamp": 1633813129 }, { "author": "agonisticpathos", "id": "hg0zwor", "score": -2, "text": "That's true. But those terms are not nea...	[ "hg0y3s6", "hg10cbb", "hg16o3m" ]	[ "hg0x78r", "hg0zwor", "hg10xnq" ]
CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also found out that he hasn't done this to just her, but to 4 other women. She doesn't feel safe going back to work. Do you think the boss should be fired or would you tell your wife/girlfriend/SO to suck it up? --- I'd be mad as Hell but you've twisted the scenario from what Louis CK did past the point of no return. Louis CK wasn't their boss. Just someone more influential than they, in their industry. And your definition of 'trapped' isn't really very honest. --- So in your view, a coworker should be allowed to sexually harass someone without consequence? If you've been physically shoved into a bathroom against your will, I think it's fair to presume you wouldn't be able to walk right out. --- > So in your view, a coworker should be allowed to sexually harass someone without consequence? that seems like a bit of an incendiary comment. I don't know how anyone could draw that conclusion honestly. --- Your argument is that Louis shouldn't have been punished right? Yet he has a history of sexual harassment of colleagues. So either you believe this or you're holding Louis to a different standard for some reason. --- > Yet he has a history of sexual harassment of colleagues Isn't that what we're here to discuss? Are you demanding I accept that as fact? --- In what world is masturbating in front of your coworkers not sexual harassment? I would get fired for doing what Louis CK did. --- In a world where you don't work with the person. This is more like 2 contractors in the same ecosystem that gather together frequently for conferences. It's just not the same. --- Except that one contractor could end the career of another contractor if he wanted to. And it's not like this behavior is acceptable outside of the professional realm, you shouldn't be whipping your dick out in front of your friends and neighbors either, unless they want you to. The power imbalance just adds to the immorality, it isn't required for Louis' actions to be wrong. Not to mention that two of the incidents described were on the sets of television shows. These people are coming together and working with each other throughout the week, it's much more comparable to an office than contractors that meet a few times a month. --- Can you point me toward a source to better understand his transgressions on the sets of TV shows? --- Are you heading towards suggesting that in some business environments (where sex isn't a function of the job) it should be acceptable for men to masturbate in front of female co-workers until commanded to stop? Shouldn't everyone be able to assume they won't ever see their co-workers masturbate until after they request it?	Can you define "punishment" for your purposes? That is, formally, "punishment" is something unpleasant delivered by an authority. The general public being mad at him is not a punishment. I would also argue employers deciding not to distribute his media/merchandise because they believe people will not buy it is a financial decision by a company, but am open to hearing thoughtful arguments to the contrary. So which authorities do you believe are punishing him and what are these punishments, specifically? --- My definition is "Authorities can stay out of it and let everyone decide for themselves". AND... that there's no need to include him in the Great Burning. I would say that if we did that then his career wouldn't become part of the Do You Support Women? question. Let's leave him out of this. I think that there's been an unhelpful band-wagoning when it comes to Louis CK. I'll never convince Love_shaq and she (/he) will never convince me. We just assess things differently. But I'd like to limit the influence of her perception. I'd like people to shrug at Louis CK and say "Shit, kinks are weird, huh? Glad we're discussing other peoples' kinks instead of mine" And then look at him much as we looked at him before. I was never a huge Louis CK fan. I'm more of a Bill Burr man myself (there's something about the unashamed way that he delivers his thoughts that just makes me laugh) and maybe that's part of the problem for Louis. If Bill Burr had done this, he'd be on stage right now giving his perspective in a hilarious way. But Louis CK is more affected by the views of others than Bill Burr will ever acknowledge. And my choice in comedians will always lean toward the ones who share their view and don't care if you differ. It makes good comedy. So - in a way - I think that Louis CK is a victim of his own feminism (I should have said 'need for approval'). He wants to be understood too much and his audience is more fickle in their faith than Bill Burr's audience who just love the honest blatantness of his views. --- But I am asking: exactly what you think should not happen to him because "doesn't deserve to be punished" is not clear to me. What punishments has he received so far that you disagree with? Or are you talking about hypothetical future punishments? --- I think his advertisers shouldn't be afraid of the ire of the mob if they work with him. I think that his consequences should be the same as Ansari's. A moment of public humiliation, an acknowledgment that this isn't abuse but is still sub-optimal behavior, and then a moving on. A forgiveness is missing here. --- Ok, I'm glad we clarified that. I don't agree that losing advertising is a punishment. It seems like a purely self-interested financial decision by companies. But if we set aside the concept of punishment to focus on exactly what you are advocating, that helps me understand you better. So what I hear you saying is that you think his advertisers, distributors, etc. should not cancel any of his releases or projects, regardless of their financial projections? That is, if it is their opinion that a project will lose money for them because people are mad at Louis CK and therefore won't buy/watch/attend, they should, on principle, support the projects anyway? What if it is their opinion that it is a legal (and, hence, financial) liability to cast him because they could be sued if he is accused of harassment on that set? Or do you disagree that companies make rational, self-interested, financial decisions? --- I'm suggesting that people are unduly mad at Louis CK and that is fucking with his career. Advertisers and network execs seem much less interested in taking a stand and much more interested in assessing which way the wind is blowing. I'm talking to the wind and saying you're blowing the wrong way. I assume corporations are blind money making psychopaths. It's the people, not the businesses, that dictate who should suffer. The businesses just listen and nod. --- I think we agree, then, that corporations are always going to act in their own financial interests, regardless of right and wrong ("blind money making psychopaths" seems about right). It sounds like what you are saying is that members of the general public should not be mad at Louis CK, and that everyone who liked his comedy before they knew about his private actions should continue to consume the media he generates at the same rate as before – not because you want to make a distinction between the person and his artistic product, but because you think people in general shouldn't be upset with him for his past behavior. Am I understanding you correctly? --- You are understanding me correctly. Do I think that expectations are moving to put more onus on 'understanding non-verbal cues' (god help us) but it's not fair to be litigating (in the court of public opinion) events from 15 years ago against mores that are being re-defined today. I just want a little forgiveness for his crassness and not to conflate him with the real nasty pieces of work. --- I see. It's hard for me to either agree or disagree with a statement about what other people's feelings should be (the "other people", "feelings", and "should" are all relevant there... if other people felt about things the way I think they should, the world would be... different). However, I think what you're trying to do is persuade people to share your beliefs, which is easier than asking them to change their feelings. From what you said, I'm not clear on the exact reasons you are giving to persuade people. Are you saying that a) what he did is importantly different from some other kinds of sexual harassment (and still would be if he did it today) or b) that in its historical context of 2002-2005 it would not have been considered sexual harassment? Or are you saying that c) it would have been seen as sexual harassment then but that so much time has passed he is effectively a different person and no longer responsible for those actions?	7s35n8	CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished	I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I_Guarantee_It	11	9	[ { "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby", "id": "dt1o8gm", "score": 17, "text": "Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also ...	[ { "author": "antedata", "id": "dt2gjfu", "score": 1, "text": "Can you define \"punishment\" for your purposes? That is, formally, \"punishment\" is something unpleasant delivered by an authority. The general public being mad at him is not a punishment. I would also argue employers deciding not to di...	[ "dt1o8gm", "dt274cr", "dt2ansm", "dt2e5cw", "dt2ej1n", "dt2h1la", "dt2iqpf", "dt2kmyq", "dt2rggj", "dt2vzlm", "dt2wzrd" ]	[ "dt2gjfu", "dt2ke10", "dt2l98o", "dt2m932", "dt2n2fg", "dt2nsa1", "dt2okp1", "dt2vvws", "dt2xlx1" ]
CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also found out that he hasn't done this to just her, but to 4 other women. She doesn't feel safe going back to work. Do you think the boss should be fired or would you tell your wife/girlfriend/SO to suck it up? --- I'd be mad as Hell but you've twisted the scenario from what Louis CK did past the point of no return. Louis CK wasn't their boss. Just someone more influential than they, in their industry. And your definition of 'trapped' isn't really very honest. --- > Louis CK wasn't their boss He was at least one woman's boss- he was a producer at the Chris Rock Show when he badgered a low level staffer into watching him jerk off. She did say yes, but not until he asked over and over again over time. She felt forced into it and a coworker of hers confirmed that he was aware of what happened. In another case, he was a guest star who asked a more senior staffer on Courtney Cox show to watch him jerk off. That woman said no. Both from the NYT story.	[removed] --- > He knew it was creepy and unwanted and part of that probably helped get him off. He was pushing against the boundaries of what's acceptable because he thought he could, and that probably turned him on more Maybe. But maybe not. Assuming we know his intentions is hard to do. There's lots of equally plausible ways to interpret a man pursuing his kinks (as there are a million different kinks). I hesitate to assume he was being predatory as he might well have been being kinda masochistic. --- I definitely get whiffs of self-shaming happening. Like he was cuckolding himself. What a Louis thing to do, also.	7s35n8	CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished	I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I_Guarantee_It	3	3	[ { "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby", "id": "dt1o8gm", "score": 17, "text": "Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also ...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dt1w9pw", "score": 3, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1516607764 }, { "author": "I_Guarantee_It", "id": "dt27idc", "score": 1, "text": "> He knew it was creepy and unwanted and part of that probably helped get him off. He was pushing against ...	[ "dt1o8gm", "dt274cr", "dt3w0ha" ]	[ "dt1w9pw", "dt27idc", "dt2hm1o" ]
CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also found out that he hasn't done this to just her, but to 4 other women. She doesn't feel safe going back to work. Do you think the boss should be fired or would you tell your wife/girlfriend/SO to suck it up? --- I'd be mad as Hell but you've twisted the scenario from what Louis CK did past the point of no return. Louis CK wasn't their boss. Just someone more influential than they, in their industry. And your definition of 'trapped' isn't really very honest. --- So in your view, a coworker should be allowed to sexually harass someone without consequence? If you've been physically shoved into a bathroom against your will, I think it's fair to presume you wouldn't be able to walk right out. --- > So in your view, a coworker should be allowed to sexually harass someone without consequence? that seems like a bit of an incendiary comment. I don't know how anyone could draw that conclusion honestly. --- Your argument is that Louis shouldn't have been punished right? Yet he has a history of sexual harassment of colleagues. So either you believe this or you're holding Louis to a different standard for some reason. --- > Yet he has a history of sexual harassment of colleagues Isn't that what we're here to discuss? Are you demanding I accept that as fact? --- In what world is masturbating in front of your coworkers not sexual harassment? I would get fired for doing what Louis CK did. --- In a world where you don't work with the person. This is more like 2 contractors in the same ecosystem that gather together frequently for conferences. It's just not the same. --- Except that one contractor could end the career of another contractor if he wanted to. And it's not like this behavior is acceptable outside of the professional realm, you shouldn't be whipping your dick out in front of your friends and neighbors either, unless they want you to. The power imbalance just adds to the immorality, it isn't required for Louis' actions to be wrong. Not to mention that two of the incidents described were on the sets of television shows. These people are coming together and working with each other throughout the week, it's much more comparable to an office than contractors that meet a few times a month. --- Can you point me toward a source to better understand his transgressions on the sets of TV shows? --- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html	>(Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) Woah woah woah, can you justify this for me? I realize this isn't part of your actual view, but it seems to be an important assumption that your actual view depends on, so I'd really like to understand what circles you're part of where this is the case. Who has the statement been generally accepted by? My impression has been the exact opposite, with most people who initially thought that Aziz's story doesn't belong in the #metoo movement being convinced that it does. --- This was my perception of the backlash against the Babe article. That Ansari was a bad date and a bad lover but that he wasn't abusive, just inelegant and regrettable. Why are you finding that people are coming to believe that this event does belong as part of the movement? --- I've mostly heard it talked about here on /r/CMV; I just did a quick search and found 5 posts on the topic. Three of the OPs gave out deltas, which isn't a particularly good ratio, but all them have many, many comments defending Grace and the story's inclusion in #metoo. Of course, CMVs mostly bring out people who hold the opposing view, so it's not exactly an unbiased sample of the general public. The only other place I've heard it talked about is on Twitter, where I've seen threads giving support and telling similar stories/experiences, and trying to explain how traumatizing they can be, even if the men didn't realize they were doing anything wrong. But again, maybe that says more about my filter bubble than it does about the general perception of the issue. I think if anything, the Aziz story is getting people to try and define what the #metoo movement is for, rather than trying to define Aziz's behavior as sexual assault. It certainly helped me clarify my own understanding of #metoo, which is that it has more to do with understanding the effect that these situations have on women, and less to do with trying to expose all the bad or scummy men. I don't think I've seen anyone discussing it outside of CMV or Twitter. I guess to most people, it's just not a very interesting subject. --- > It certainly helped me clarify my own understanding of #metoo, which is that it has more to do with understanding the effect that these situations have on women, and less to do with trying to expose all the bad or scummy men I agree and mentioned my own personal micro-enlightenment moment in my post (the Episodes episode). But I want to be careful about who gets burned along the way. Just 'looking at the big picture' while ignoring the individual injustices is not acceptable collateral damage. The movement should be about justice, and justice isn't selective. --- If you agree that it's about the women and not the men, then why doesn't the Aziz story belong? I still don't get that. Or are you saying that the stories belong, but the men's names should be censored to protect them? --- It's clearly about the men and their behavior or we wouldn't be naming (as you point out). But the forum of public opinion is a blunt instrument and justice is not served when momentum and 'the spirit of the moment' drive actions more than proportionality and sincere judgment. Free Louis CK!!! (I'm assuming Aziz has already been freed, though your view differs on that) > but the men's names should be censored to protect them? I wouldn't go that far. I just want the thought leaders to be more responsible and justice-centered in their responses. Validating women's perceptions that they should have been treated better isn't the only concern when we start getting into these more ambiguous cases. --- > It's clearly about the men and their behavior or we wouldn't be naming What was it you said you agree with, then? This is more for my own view at this point, so I won't blame you if you drop this thread, but we've reached different conclusions and I'd like to know if it's because we had different starting points or if it's something in-between. So, here's where I'm coming from. Aziz and Louis CK both did things that were morally wrong. I think traumatizing someone, whether you intended to or not, is a very Not Okay action, so anyone that does so should be made aware of how Not Okay it was. I might just be guessing at this point, but maybe you agree that what they did was wrong, but they could be told so in private rather than publicly? I don't think that's very efficient, given how many women have similar stories. And more importantly, it hasn't worked so far. The problem is much more broad than specific men doing bad things. There's a lack of communication around the issue, and #metoo is doing a great job at giving public examples of what behaviors are unacceptable. I think all men need to be a little more self-aware and considerate, and we need public examples in order to re-shape public opinions on sexual encounters, even consensual ones. Especially consensual ones. And if specific men are publicly shamed as a result, that doesn't need to be permanent. I think that people recognize that Louis CK wasn't treating women badly on purpose, and that it was an accident. I agree with you that I'd love to hear him talk about it, but I don't want to hear him defend himself (there are plenty of people doing that already). I'd rather hear him say, "What I did was stupid and wrong. I made many bad assumptions and was way out of line. I didn't realize exactly how bad my actions were, so I'm glad these women came forward. I am now more self-aware and will try to be more mindful in the future." And I didn't realize this until just now, but [he's pretty much said all that](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/arts/television/louis-ck-statement.html), so I really think he's already through the worst of the public backlash. --- ∆ i have to back out of my over-defense of CK. I needed to re-read about the on-set transgression. That does qualify as punishment-worthy. Thanks for the polite discussion! --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Gammapod ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Gammapod)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "Gammapod" } DB3PARAMSEND)	7s35n8	CMV: Louis CK doesn't deserve to be punished	I'd like to revisit the perception of Louis CK, in the light of the recently found limit of range of the #metoo movement (Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted) There has recently been a cultural consensus that men in power have been getting away with some shit that they should no longer be getting away with. It has been felt, with justification, that they've had the unexamined benefit of the status quo, to the detriment of others. Harvey Weinstein's downfall was a damn bursting and there has been the first wave of the conversation on the topic. The prosecution has made it's case. Well, today I'm using an alt account to be Louis CK's unrequested defense (my decision to use an Alt-Account is a comment on the heat this topic can generate). I should say that I don't know Louis CK (surprise!) and that I'm a well-off 50 year old white male. Full disclosure! So if you want to write off my opinions as Privileged And Meaningless then please do. You don't want to talk to me. I don't want to talk to you. Also, I've never personally stepped past my honest assessment of what my partner wants from me sexually. There's no direct defending-myself-ness to my opinions (though you may still reflexively conclude that I'm reflexively defending men in power because I relate to them) I think that Louis CK thought everyone was cool with what was going on. I think he's mortified that situations that he thought were Dirty, Sexy Experiences With Strangers, are now being portrayed as villainous and abusive. I can understand that people can feel regret about what they experienced with him, but I don't understand why everything that is said about the Aziz Ansari situation (It was just a bad sexual encounter, we all have them. You'll get over it) shouldn't also be said here. I just started watching the first series of Episodes and in episode 2 the woman running the department has just confessed in passing, and accidentally, that she's been sleeping with the studio executive. She seems kind of horrified with herself that it happened. It was played for laughs and cringes and was very pre #metoo but I watched it now with a much less neutral view of that relationship, and that's obviously great. Our culture benefits from a wider perception of the imbalance of that relationship. But that doesn't mean that consenting adults can't still have those relationships now and then, if they want. Assault and creepy are VERY different. Maybe I don't know every detail about the Louis CK situation but my understanding was that there was lead-in to the masturbation scenes and while those scenes fell under the "that escalated quickly" category, they weren't totally out of the blue and can't be considered assault unless we're stretching indeed. Yes, Louis CK had more pull in the industry (he had the status) but the women weren't powerless. In some cases they even out-numbered him, so mere laughter would probably have murdered any sexual direction Louis CK could have been trying to conjure. And they can't claim such innocence that they didn't think that going back to a hotel after the bars closed didn't portend a sexual advance or two. I want Louis CK to, one day, talk about this time of his life and to provide his perspective. I think many will relate to him and realize he wasn't terrible. He was just embarrassingly out of tune with the feelings of these women. Or, maybe he knew exactly how uncomfortable they were and just didn't care. But I don't believe that. Or dis-believe that it. I just can't know. But I do know it's possible that he didn't realize how un-sexual the scene was for them and so I won't judge him or support him being grouped into the Monster List. It's possible that the scenes could truly have felt consensual to him. Maybe he got off on his own vulnerability of being naked in front of women he barely knew. Maybe this, maybe that. But I don't know any reason why we should be strongly judgmental of him. We don't need to find an undeserving man to hang in order to broadcast the message that accepted behavior now emphasizes that you don't abuse your privileges for sexual advantage. The message is being pressed and there are enough villains to go around already. Or am I letting him off too lightly? Should Louis CK be shunned I'll be sleeping soon but hope to wake to an interesting discussion about responsibility and karma. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I_Guarantee_It	11	9	[ { "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby", "id": "dt1o8gm", "score": 17, "text": "Your wife/girlfriend/SO comes home from work crying her eyes out. You ask what's wrong. She tells you her boss trapped her in the bathroom and started masturbating in front of her and was too scared to tell him to stop. She's also ...	[ { "author": "Gammapod", "id": "dt29yqh", "score": 5, "text": ">(Aziz Ansari didn't need to be in the news, as has been generally accepted)\n\nWoah woah woah, can you justify this for me? I realize this isn't part of your actual view, but it seems to be an important assumption that your actual view d...	[ "dt1o8gm", "dt274cr", "dt2ansm", "dt2e5cw", "dt2ej1n", "dt2h1la", "dt2iqpf", "dt2kmyq", "dt2rggj", "dt2vzlm", "dt337bv" ]	[ "dt29yqh", "dt2efji", "dt2lu91", "dt2m4q1", "dt2o4sw", "dt2qhz2", "dt2uymv", "dt4dtsz", "dt4duwo" ]
CMV: There is no such thing as “Economically conservative, socially progressive” or “Socially conservative, economically progressive”. I often hear online, in media and from peers that they identify with X aspect of being progressive but not Y aspect. I think this is not possible. I will concede you could rephrase it as “ I identify with X aspect more than I identify with Y aspect”. A few examples of economic progressive/ social conservative i hear are: - increased public health investment. Whilst also wanting to restrict access of certain healthcare to minority groups. Or in some cases restricting “self-inflicted” issues from access. - increasing welfare payments but dictating that these are to be for those that “earn” it or insisting that all people who appear to be “overly reliant” on welfare are abusing the system. - pro-immigration but only for those who do it “legally” and “contribute” to your economy. But proceeding to direct their ire at those same immigrants for “taking jobs or houses”. Economic conservative / Social progressive: - happy for minority or disadvantaged groups to exist publicly but not willing for those groups to receive economic support to bring them level with other parts of society. - using government services and liking their value to society when they need them whilst begrudging taxation and public sector employees. - wanting housing to become more affordable but not at the expense of their asset values decreasing. To me these ideas are antithetical to progressive beliefs. Part of progressive beliefs is a redistribution of wealth to the poorest people and empowering them to self-determination. Protecting and empowering minorities even when those people are “unpopular” or a small group. Increasing public services for all people not just those who need it or deserve it. Using what privilege you have to support people who don’t. These two groups to me are actually just populist anti-billionaires who are interested in the part’s of progressive ideas that can be self-serving to secure their financial interests and prosperity in their personal lives. They are happy for progressive ideas so long as they are the beneficiaries of the ideas and are not “wasting” their money on people who they don’t identify with. Hopefully this idea makes sense. I am not casting a blanket moral judgement on these people. Maslow’s hierarchy in a struggling capitalist world seems to explain these ideas to me. People have to secure and more importantly perceive their needs met before they show interest in higher level idea’s.	This is ridiculous. You can definitely be socially progressive and economically conservative. That is the case with most Libertarians. There is nothing contradictory about holding those two positions, the examples you provided are weak straw man arguments at best --- I would argue that the libertarian idea to me, seems to be do what you want without hurting others. To me being progressive involves actively supporting disadvantaged and minority groups. Simply allowing other’s to exist whilst they suffer consequences of a system is not progressive to me. --- Why does libertarianism mean sitting by and allowing others to suffer the consequences of bad systems? Many libertarians advocate for the dismantling of systems that have disadvantaged minority groups, such as single-family zoning.	Economic conservativism and social progressiveness go hand in hand. It's cheaper to treat people early than it is to let it get out of hand. That's economically conservative. The modern North American right wing parties aren't economically conservative. They are exclusively socially regressive. The cruelty is the point. --- > It's cheaper to treat people early than it is to let it get out of hand. That's economically conservative. That's assuming the system works, and a lot of economic conservatives probably assume it wouldn't, regardless of any 'cruelty is the point'. --- They do a lot of assuming. It's a fact.	1jqb9w8	CMV: There is no such thing as “Economically conservative, socially progressive” or “Socially conservative, economically progressive”.	I often hear online, in media and from peers that they identify with X aspect of being progressive but not Y aspect. I think this is not possible. I will concede you could rephrase it as “ I identify with X aspect more than I identify with Y aspect”. A few examples of economic progressive/ social conservative i hear are: - increased public health investment. Whilst also wanting to restrict access of certain healthcare to minority groups. Or in some cases restricting “self-inflicted” issues from access. - increasing welfare payments but dictating that these are to be for those that “earn” it or insisting that all people who appear to be “overly reliant” on welfare are abusing the system. - pro-immigration but only for those who do it “legally” and “contribute” to your economy. But proceeding to direct their ire at those same immigrants for “taking jobs or houses”. Economic conservative / Social progressive: - happy for minority or disadvantaged groups to exist publicly but not willing for those groups to receive economic support to bring them level with other parts of society. - using government services and liking their value to society when they need them whilst begrudging taxation and public sector employees. - wanting housing to become more affordable but not at the expense of their asset values decreasing. To me these ideas are antithetical to progressive beliefs. Part of progressive beliefs is a redistribution of wealth to the poorest people and empowering them to self-determination. Protecting and empowering minorities even when those people are “unpopular” or a small group. Increasing public services for all people not just those who need it or deserve it. Using what privilege you have to support people who don’t. These two groups to me are actually just populist anti-billionaires who are interested in the part’s of progressive ideas that can be self-serving to secure their financial interests and prosperity in their personal lives. They are happy for progressive ideas so long as they are the beneficiaries of the ideas and are not “wasting” their money on people who they don’t identify with. Hopefully this idea makes sense. I am not casting a blanket moral judgement on these people. Maslow’s hierarchy in a struggling capitalist world seems to explain these ideas to me. People have to secure and more importantly perceive their needs met before they show interest in higher level idea’s.	AdOk1598	3	3	[ { "author": "dk07740", "id": "ml5ry9h", "score": 11, "text": "This is ridiculous. You can definitely be socially progressive and economically conservative. That is the case with most Libertarians. There is nothing contradictory about holding those two positions, the examples you provided are weak st...	[ { "author": "Fogl3", "id": "ml5rtpg", "score": 14, "text": "Economic conservativism and social progressiveness go hand in hand. It's cheaper to treat people early than it is to let it get out of hand. That's economically conservative. \n\n\nThe modern North American right wing parties aren't economi...	[ "ml5ry9h", "ml5v5lm", "ml5vk1w" ]	[ "ml5rtpg", "ml5t13p", "ml5t4di" ]
CMV: The United States should not defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. Taiwan has been a focal point of Chinese-American tension since the inception of the People’s Republic. I have read several articles arguing that we should defend Taiwan in the event of military invasion. Examples: https://time.com/6221072/why-protecting-taiwan-really-matters-to-the-u-s/ https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/03/american-power-and-the-defense-of-taiwan/ I think this would be a significant mistake for several reasons. 1.) A war between the United States and China could easily escalate into something terribly destructive. Both powers have nuclear weapons and the world’s strongest militaries. Millions of lives would be at risk from long-range bombers, drone strikes, cyber-espionage, and other irregular forms of warfare. While the United States may be physically safe from invasion, the damage could still be horrific. If we’re to fight such a war, it should be over a threat to the United States or its treaty-obligated allies. Not Taiwan. 2. Taiwan can defend itself. It is a highly developed economy with a strong military and impressive stockpile of weapons provided by the United States. China will need to cross a strait and then land troops on a handful of defended beaches. Airborne operations would need to contend with SAMs and other air defenses. The balance of force may change in China’s favor eventually, but it’s still dubious whether an invasion would succeed. 3. Taiwan, while important, is not absolutely essential to the United States. I understand the criticality of semiconductor manufacturing. It’s not worth a third World War, which would impoverish us with far greater efficiency than loss of semiconductors - assuming we would completely lose access. 4. The idea that China will continue to invade other countries (if we do not stop them in Taiwan) does not seem realistic. China has been the world’s foremost power for centuries. In many ways, the ascendancy of other powers has been an aberration. Never have the Chinese sought to extend their domination beyond their immediate sphere. History is no guarantee of the future. But I don’t think China has the ability to physically threaten the United States (outside of nuclear weapons or cyberwarfare). China may ascend to global hegemony, but as the United States demonstrated, that is not all it’s cracked up to be. 5. Our security umbrella is already vast. We have mutual defense agreements with many countries. I would argue we’re already overstretched as is without further commitments, and we can’t be sure of European material support. 6. China does have a legitimate claim to Taiwan. It wasn’t a province of imperial China for as long as, say, Gansu or Sichuan. However, it’s still been part of China for hundreds of years. A little over a third of Taiwan’s people favor closer relations with China, though of course most oppose closer political ties. (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/05/12/in-taiwan-views-of-mainland-china-mostly-negative/) Now, I don’t mean to say that China’s claim overrides Taiwan’s sovereignty or the democratic will of its people. What I mean to say is that the CCP has been signaling all its existence that they will take Taiwan back. We basically guarantee a fight if we commit ourselves to Taiwan’s defense. That said, I am open to changing my view firstly because on its face, allowing China to just seize Taiwan by coercion is a bad outcome. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it’s miserable for people in Taiwan who favor independence. In addition, many Americans are in favor of defending Taiwan. There are probably reasons out there I missed. (https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/2021%20Taiwan%20Brief.pdf). There is a case for intervention, and maybe I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Addendum: It is possible China will blockade the island to force its submission - I don’t think the United States should attempt to break a blockade militarily, either.	> It’s not worth a third World War, which would impoverish us with far greater efficiency than loss of semiconductors If we assume complete loss of taiwanese semiconductor capabilities - do you have a rough idea of what that would mean for the US? --- Likely a severe recession. But even if we defended Taiwan, its semiconductor manufacturing would likely be destroyed in the fighting. There’s no good way to prevent the loss even with a war. --- >But even if we defended Taiwan, its semiconductor manufacturing would likely be destroyed in the fighting. There’s no good way to prevent the loss even with a war. But that is, essentially, what the fight is for: protecting the semiconductor manufacturing. That is, quite literally, the #1 priority - even above protecting the government, I would assume. --- That’s a military impossibility without a ballistic interception system far beyond Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which is likely the best in the world. --- The US helped make that system. What if we supply them with a new, more technologically advanced system? That’s military support without direct military intervention. Seems like a reasonable middle ground.	Taiwan is the keystone in a broader US strategy to 'contain' China. It includes Japan South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Abandonning Taiwan is just throwing away half a Centuary of geopolitics that the US has already paid for with several wars. --- If our strategy was to contain China, it seems we failed spectacularly, as they have become the world’s second greatest power. I’m perfectly willing to throw away bad geopolitics, especially if it leads to conflicts like Vietnam. --- Well China relies on the United States and while you could say the United States relies on China, I do think if there were to be a rift, China would feel it harder. So they cannot really have large spheres of influence outside of their country (except maybe North Korea which whatever) but I do know they are buying land in Africa or something however, China knows they have 0 way of winning a war against the United States so the probability they are even going to attempt to invade Taiwan is asinine as they might as well be committing suicide --- China could certainly exercise a greater sphere of influence. They have done so in the past, during the Tang and Ming dynasties. I also think they could win a prolonged war with the United States. That doesn’t mean a ground invasion. It means a war of attrition until they can seize Taiwan. The Pacific cuts two ways. It’s difficult for either power to reach the other. --- During the tang and Ming dynasty. Two dynasties that predate the United States? Also, if they attack Taiwan, it will not be just the United States. They are going to have trade halted from the EU and the United States and then they have all this product and no way to sell it and they will run out of so much money fast. Their weaponry, aircraft, and navy is not remotely as strong as the United States. They would need to get Russia involved which, I don’t personally know if they would considering they are so weakened from Ukraine and it’s not like Russia and China are the strongest Allies ever. They are either running out of money and launching nukes, and if they launch any nukes they literally just decided to blow their entire country off the face of the map, or they surrender because they don’t want to lose every human being alive in their country. The only way they win is if they get a weakened Russia on their side for a war they really have never involved themselves in and also spend resources away from a war that they are in current battle with.	1991a6d	CMV: The United States should not defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.	Taiwan has been a focal point of Chinese-American tension since the inception of the People’s Republic. I have read several articles arguing that we should defend Taiwan in the event of military invasion. Examples: https://time.com/6221072/why-protecting-taiwan-really-matters-to-the-u-s/ https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/03/american-power-and-the-defense-of-taiwan/ I think this would be a significant mistake for several reasons. 1.) A war between the United States and China could easily escalate into something terribly destructive. Both powers have nuclear weapons and the world’s strongest militaries. Millions of lives would be at risk from long-range bombers, drone strikes, cyber-espionage, and other irregular forms of warfare. While the United States may be physically safe from invasion, the damage could still be horrific. If we’re to fight such a war, it should be over a threat to the United States or its treaty-obligated allies. Not Taiwan. 2. Taiwan can defend itself. It is a highly developed economy with a strong military and impressive stockpile of weapons provided by the United States. China will need to cross a strait and then land troops on a handful of defended beaches. Airborne operations would need to contend with SAMs and other air defenses. The balance of force may change in China’s favor eventually, but it’s still dubious whether an invasion would succeed. 3. Taiwan, while important, is not absolutely essential to the United States. I understand the criticality of semiconductor manufacturing. It’s not worth a third World War, which would impoverish us with far greater efficiency than loss of semiconductors - assuming we would completely lose access. 4. The idea that China will continue to invade other countries (if we do not stop them in Taiwan) does not seem realistic. China has been the world’s foremost power for centuries. In many ways, the ascendancy of other powers has been an aberration. Never have the Chinese sought to extend their domination beyond their immediate sphere. History is no guarantee of the future. But I don’t think China has the ability to physically threaten the United States (outside of nuclear weapons or cyberwarfare). China may ascend to global hegemony, but as the United States demonstrated, that is not all it’s cracked up to be. 5. Our security umbrella is already vast. We have mutual defense agreements with many countries. I would argue we’re already overstretched as is without further commitments, and we can’t be sure of European material support. 6. China does have a legitimate claim to Taiwan. It wasn’t a province of imperial China for as long as, say, Gansu or Sichuan. However, it’s still been part of China for hundreds of years. A little over a third of Taiwan’s people favor closer relations with China, though of course most oppose closer political ties. (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/05/12/in-taiwan-views-of-mainland-china-mostly-negative/) Now, I don’t mean to say that China’s claim overrides Taiwan’s sovereignty or the democratic will of its people. What I mean to say is that the CCP has been signaling all its existence that they will take Taiwan back. We basically guarantee a fight if we commit ourselves to Taiwan’s defense. That said, I am open to changing my view firstly because on its face, allowing China to just seize Taiwan by coercion is a bad outcome. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it’s miserable for people in Taiwan who favor independence. In addition, many Americans are in favor of defending Taiwan. There are probably reasons out there I missed. (https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/2021%20Taiwan%20Brief.pdf). There is a case for intervention, and maybe I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Addendum: It is possible China will blockade the island to force its submission - I don’t think the United States should attempt to break a blockade militarily, either.	byzantiu	5	5	[ { "author": "AleristheSeeker", "id": "kiaxuap", "score": 12, "text": "> It’s not worth a third World War, which would impoverish us with far greater efficiency than loss of semiconductors\n\nIf we assume complete loss of taiwanese semiconductor capabilities - do you have a rough idea of what that wo...	[ { "author": "fghhjhffjjhf", "id": "kiawwlk", "score": 42, "text": "Taiwan is the keystone in a broader US strategy to 'contain' China. It includes Japan South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Abandonning Taiwan is just throwing away half a Centuary of geopolitics that the US has alr...	[ "kiaxuap", "kiayurq", "kiazwov", "kib1fxs", "kib7pkv" ]	[ "kiawwlk", "kiax95f", "kiaxrr6", "kiayhrw", "kiazdwm" ]
CMV: The selective animal protein/ product (meat and co.) consumption is irrational, outdated and wasteful. Greetings Firstly i would like to mention that i eat meat and in broad sense see nothing wrong with it (when not done excessively and when the items vary enough) ethically and in (near) future will not stop it, so "why not go vegan" argument is futile. Although i agree that we are eating meat too often and in too big portions. What i meant under title is: we should be eating much higher variety of meat and animal products from insects to guineapigs and dogs. Why? Firstly we have the chance and animals; to diversify the "cattle" to lessen the strain on land; while most of us have never killed an animal themself, nor butchered or hunted one, not even went fishing, and for most the meat and products "grows" in supermarkets i see no moral or "eww, yucky" reason why not add the other animals into realistic and farmed options; aka steak is steak. For the argument on insects: many have much higher protein per cent compared to same amount of a la beef and to grow them takes less resources and time. And taste argument is moot cause seasoning is the key anyhow, no matter what you eat. For the argument on "guineapigs and dogs" one might say that "how can you eat dog when you have a pet dog". Well, the emotional connection doesn't involve entire species. It's like why keep animals in ranges, not in cages when we eat them? Why offer them somewhat better quality life, why eat game? I think my rant made sense. Does it seem reasonable wish? Edit: changed cat to guineapig, cause it was made as a random example non-common animal, not as my ideal option for non-common meat. And you really liked the cat too much.	Not entirely. Cows, pigs, chickens etc. have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to produce more, better food at lower costs. Cats and dogs, however, have been bred to have characteristics that you would want in a pet (e.g being friendly) --- That and economy of scale: raising 1000 cows is cheaper than raising 250 cows, 250 rhinos, 250 horses and 250 kangaroos.	I'd just like to know what the benefit would be from using cats and dogs as a food source. It seems like they would be much more difficult to raise, and much more expensive to feed considering they are both carnivorous. It seems to be rational to focus meat production on large, economically profitable animals like cattle. --- Not to rise, but not not eating them. Cats and dogs were just random example.	93z7ll	CMV: The selective animal protein/ product (meat and co.) consumption is irrational, outdated and wasteful.	Greetings Firstly i would like to mention that i eat meat and in broad sense see nothing wrong with it (when not done excessively and when the items vary enough) ethically and in (near) future will not stop it, so "why not go vegan" argument is futile. Although i agree that we are eating meat too often and in too big portions. What i meant under title is: we should be eating much higher variety of meat and animal products from insects to guineapigs and dogs. Why? Firstly we have the chance and animals; to diversify the "cattle" to lessen the strain on land; while most of us have never killed an animal themself, nor butchered or hunted one, not even went fishing, and for most the meat and products "grows" in supermarkets i see no moral or "eww, yucky" reason why not add the other animals into realistic and farmed options; aka steak is steak. For the argument on insects: many have much higher protein per cent compared to same amount of a la beef and to grow them takes less resources and time. And taste argument is moot cause seasoning is the key anyhow, no matter what you eat. For the argument on "guineapigs and dogs" one might say that "how can you eat dog when you have a pet dog". Well, the emotional connection doesn't involve entire species. It's like why keep animals in ranges, not in cages when we eat them? Why offer them somewhat better quality life, why eat game? I think my rant made sense. Does it seem reasonable wish? Edit: changed cat to guineapig, cause it was made as a random example non-common animal, not as my ideal option for non-common meat. And you really liked the cat too much.	Koolnu	2	2	[ { "author": "knortfoxx", "id": "e3h0be6", "score": 3, "text": "Not entirely. Cows, pigs, chickens etc. have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to produce more, better food at lower costs. Cats and dogs, however, have been bred to have characteristics that you would want in a pet (e.g being ...	[ { "author": "GuavaOfAxe", "id": "e3h0g31", "score": 1, "text": "I'd just like to know what the benefit would be from using cats and dogs as a food source. It seems like they would be much more difficult to raise, and much more expensive to feed considering they are both carnivorous. It seems to be r...	[ "e3h0be6", "e3h0vv6" ]	[ "e3h0g31", "e3h0zpg" ]
CMV: People in America over criticize the rich. No. I'm not talking about the people who actually fuck up regularly by using questionable exploits to avoid taxation, mistreat their employees as pawns, etc. We as a society need someone to blame. The problem is we see Problem ( X ) and assume that Rich Person ( Y ) should be using their money to solve it and make the world a better place or they're evil. How many times have you used your extra income for other purposes besides immediately donating when a problem arises in your City / State? Yeah I thought so. Sure, rich people can afford to assist people, but this fundamental assumption that you must become a saint in direct correlation to increasing wealth is too high of a standard. None of us who are not in the 1% qualify as judge & jury to them ( unless you are in a political position which directly impacts taxes or other big business related bills ). The fact that I see post after post about the problems with rich people in our society, it all being a pyramid scheme, how we need a revolution, or how much the rest of us DESERVE a significant increase in income makes my head hurt. Life doesn't owe you or me or anyone else a damn thing. I'm not a pull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of person and I understand that people are born into shitty circumstances. That's completely justified to want a change. On the other hand if you are in the middle class and find your life so difficult that it is always the fault of the rich for your problems or not being in the 1% club.....I'm sorry but get over yourself. We all want money because it can create opportunities but don't want to work hard for it or better ourselves in any way. Keep blaming someone who happened to be luckier or worked their way up to the top, I'll be focusing on chasing my aspirations and defying my socioeconomic shackles through sweat while you're at it. "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” -Frederick Douglas	How much do people in America criticize the rich? How much should they criticize the rich? And how do you come up with an objective quantitative answer to these questions? --- Great response and I understand why my logic is flawed now. It truly is subjective to each of our individual realities. --- So I've changed your view? --- That you have and given me a better understanding of my actual stance --- Really. These simple questions changed your view?	A MAJOR part of the problem is that the rich essentially control the government via campaign contributions. So who do you think ends up writing all of the laws and policy, that end up benefiting the rich? The rich do, via their lobbyists. So people are tired of feeling like they don’t have a voice, and that the government only serves monied interests. Thus, criticism of the rich is totally valid, when a lot of the problems people face happen precisely because the government is only working to serve the rich. --- I understand where you're coming from and agree mostly, but I don't think the government only works to serve the rich --- They largely do. Again, who do you think finances all of their election campaigns? It’s the rich do. It’s why people like Bernie Sanders are such a phenomenon, because his campaign was largely funded by a grassroots effort. Lower class people will get a bone thrown their way from time to time to keep them from rebelling, but the government largely serves the interests of their wealthy donors. Furthermore is the issue of diminishing marginal utility. There are only so many things that a person can buy or consume to improve their quality of life, and eventually accumulating any additional wealth is just keeping score so you can stick measure with other rich people. Can you not see how this would be frustrating to people who are struggling. If we are on an island with limited resources, and you are starving, and I continue to hoard more food than I could ever possibly consume myself, just because I can, and want to be able to brag about how much food I have, don’t you think your anger towards me would be justified? --- Yeah I can understand that --- Then is your view changed that criticism of the rich is valid? If not, what would outtake to change you view?	g9p0pk	CMV: People in America over criticize the rich.	No. I'm not talking about the people who actually fuck up regularly by using questionable exploits to avoid taxation, mistreat their employees as pawns, etc. We as a society need someone to blame. The problem is we see Problem ( X ) and assume that Rich Person ( Y ) should be using their money to solve it and make the world a better place or they're evil. How many times have you used your extra income for other purposes besides immediately donating when a problem arises in your City / State? Yeah I thought so. Sure, rich people can afford to assist people, but this fundamental assumption that you must become a saint in direct correlation to increasing wealth is too high of a standard. None of us who are not in the 1% qualify as judge & jury to them ( unless you are in a political position which directly impacts taxes or other big business related bills ). The fact that I see post after post about the problems with rich people in our society, it all being a pyramid scheme, how we need a revolution, or how much the rest of us DESERVE a significant increase in income makes my head hurt. Life doesn't owe you or me or anyone else a damn thing. I'm not a pull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of person and I understand that people are born into shitty circumstances. That's completely justified to want a change. On the other hand if you are in the middle class and find your life so difficult that it is always the fault of the rich for your problems or not being in the 1% club.....I'm sorry but get over yourself. We all want money because it can create opportunities but don't want to work hard for it or better ourselves in any way. Keep blaming someone who happened to be luckier or worked their way up to the top, I'll be focusing on chasing my aspirations and defying my socioeconomic shackles through sweat while you're at it. "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” -Frederick Douglas	Valiant_Enigma	5	5	[ { "author": "SwivelSeats", "id": "foupqds", "score": 1, "text": "How much do people in America criticize the rich?\n\nHow much should they criticize the rich?\n\nAnd how do you come up with an objective quantitative answer to these questions?", "timestamp": 1588088349 }, { "author": "[de...	[ { "author": "3720-To-One", "id": "fouranj", "score": 4, "text": "A MAJOR part of the problem is that the rich essentially control the government via campaign contributions.\n\nSo who do you think ends up writing all of the laws and policy, that end up benefiting the rich?\n\nThe rich do, via their l...	[ "foupqds", "foupzto", "fouqzsa", "fourdzv", "foutxht" ]	[ "fouranj", "fourob2", "fousf8h", "fousldg", "fousu74" ]
CMV: I disagree with the notion that drunk consent is not consent Many high school sex-ed classes in the U.S. these days teach that "drunk consent is not consent." I understand this to mean that if two people consensually engage in intercourse and one (or both?) parties is inebriated, the event is tantamount to rape. It seems many people of my age group subscribe to this belief, and will avoid sex when alcohol is involved because they think it's wrong (and they have my utmost respect for having compassion and doing what they believe is right!) While I deeply believe that having the clear consent of both parties during sexual activities is vital, I don't really see why inebriation should make this consent any less "valid." A drunk person who fully consents to sex, does so because they're interested in it at the time, just like a sober person who consents. To be clear, what I'm saying applies to cases of obvious, affirmative consent -- for example, taking advantage of a drunk person who is too catatonic to say "no" is a terrible thing to do. An important caveat here is that protection be used during the drunken intercourse. I do believe that "drunk consent is not consent" applies in the case of unprotected sex. This is because unprotected sex has the potential for lots of consequences that could persist long after the encounter is over, and I fully see that drunk people may not have the ability to accept these consequences at the time. So given consequences of unprotected sex are irrelevant with this caveat, I don't really see why a drunk person consenting to sex is different than a drunk person consenting to, say, riding a roller-coaster, or watching a scary movie? These are also experiences that have the ability to be intense, but we don't think it's immoral to allow drunk people to engage in them. Looking forward to hearing people's perspectives! EDIT: added elaboration	I'm having a hard time parsing the dichotomy in your view here. You acknowledge that drunk people may not be capable of consenting to the long term consequences of unprotected sex. By that measure, they are equally incapable of consenting to shorter term consequences. And if they can't consent to all that, it's illogical to my mind to then say they're capable of consent to any part of it. --- Just so we're on the same page, what sort of shorter term consequences are you referring to? I think an issue arises with the view that drunk people can't consent to the possibility of any negative experience at all. This sort of implies we shouldn't allow drunk people into nightclubs cause they might find the loud noise overwhelming, or even into restaurants cause they might not like the food. --- [removed] --- I agree the world isn't binary, but you're also implicitly drawing a line here -- it's not actually a fact that a bad sex experience and a bad culinary experience should be treated differently by law and society. Obviously sex has a greater potential to be traumatic than bad sushi does, but how do you actually draw a line on what's a high enough potential that drunk people shouldn't be able to choose it for themselves? I suppose the crux of my belief here, is that it isn't other people's job to shield drunk people from having bad experiences while drunk. When someone chooses to get drunk, they accept the risk that it might not be a good experience (just an LSD user accepts the risk they might have a bad trip). Drunkenness impairs the human ability for long-term planning, hence why I think long-term consequences should be a caveat. But a drunk person still responds to present experience much like a sober person -- they will still avoid unpleasant things in the moment. --- >how do you actually draw a line on what's a high enough potential that drunk people shouldn't be able to choose it for themselves? By coming to a conclusion through discussion like adults. That's how all laws are (or should be) formed. >I suppose the crux of my belief here, is that it isn't other people's job to shield drunk people from having bad experiences while drunk. It's as much about protecting the drunk person's partner as it is protecting the drunk one. >But a drunk person still responds to present experience much like a sober person -- they will still avoid unpleasant things in the moment. Incorrect; if you've ever hung with drunk people with issues you've seen immediately self-destructive behavior. You seem to be laboring under the assumption of "if they're too drunk to consent, I'd be able to tell", which isn't true. I happen to be blessed/cursed with a high alcohol tolerance. I don't get really drunk often, but I've seen videos where I seem 1-2 drinks in by normal standards but I have no recollection of being in that place and doing the thing in the video (talking to friends, navigating home, opening door in one shot, cooking food, etc.). I wouldn't fault a stranger from thinking I was sober enough to consent, if I did that sort of thing wasted. However, if I woke up in a strange bed the next day with minimal or no recollection of what went on and a person saying they had sex with me, I could easily see me suspecting something. The fact of the matter is, drunk people, even if they got that way of their own volition, are a vulnerable population until they sober up. We shouldn't allow people to take advantage of them just because of their choice, and it's safer and easier for all parties involved to just assume a visibly drunk stranger is too drunk to consent than to go through a long he-said-she-said. People get their teeth out and drugged up for it of their own volition, but there's a reason that all documents are signed before it starts and why anything they sign until they sober up is not legally binding. And by "they accept the risk of it being a bad experience", are you implying that anything people can convince them to do is perfectly acceptable? I've helped drunk people home who would verbally agree to pretty much anything, or who always answered "yes" to every question I asked (including their apartment number). Do both of those cases count as consent?	Drunk consent is not consent when you've just met somebody. End of story there. It does get more complicated and into a gray area when people are in relationships, know each other, have planned to drink and have sex, and when both parties are equally drunk. But, I think it's a good rule of thumb that if someone is really drunk, especially if they seem like they may be blacked out and are repeating the same story or words, if they are slurring, if they are uncoordinated, even if you are in a long-term relationship and you planned to drink and fuck all night, you should still just not go there. I was with a boyfriend for 7 years, we would get drunk and have sex all the time in college. I said that to someone on Reddit during a similar conversation and they said that we were mutually raping each other for years. That's fucking ridiculous. It was always completely consensual. But, schools are educating people to err on the side of caution because when it comes to consent, erring on the side of caution is always the right way to go. Your brains are not fully developed at the age at which they are teaching you this. The kind of nuance that comes with understanding consent isn't necessarily something that younger people can fully navigate or understand. And that's why it's important to teach young people that drunk sex is not consent. When they are older and with someone that they know and trust, and want to talk about how to navigate drinking and sex, they can do that. But kids and younger people aren't ready for that kind of thing. As with everything else in the whole world, it's a lot more complicated than what they teach in school. There are many gray areas in life. But if someone is shit-faced, don't ever have sex with them. End of story. Even if you're married and you're both alcoholics lol. --- [deleted] --- Right, but married people can get drunk and have sex and if no one says it's rape, it's not considered rape. Same with strangers. Someone has to say that it was rape for rape to exist. So what I'm saying is just err on the side of caution with strangers because you are less likely to understand their boundaries. Drinking isn't what defines rape. Someone's saying it's rape is what defines rape. --- [deleted] --- So you're saying that if somebody maintains that they gave consent, and that they felt violated and absolutely no way, and that they had a great time and would love to do it again, that can still be considered rape? Like if both people say that? If everyone walks away completely happy? I'm saying practically nobody would ever find out if that was the case. Like it a would still need to be reported right? I mean maybe there are cases where you wouldn't actually need victims to report. Like if a frat house like drugs,a group of girls and it makes it into the news or something. CP for sure. But unless it makes it into the news, or someone reports it, I don't understand how law enforcement would ever be involved in the first place. Like the law surely isn't saying that every single time a married couple gets drunk and has great sex, that's automatically rape. That would be insane.	sme8kj	CMV: I disagree with the notion that drunk consent is not consent	Many high school sex-ed classes in the U.S. these days teach that "drunk consent is not consent." I understand this to mean that if two people consensually engage in intercourse and one (or both?) parties is inebriated, the event is tantamount to rape. It seems many people of my age group subscribe to this belief, and will avoid sex when alcohol is involved because they think it's wrong (and they have my utmost respect for having compassion and doing what they believe is right!) While I deeply believe that having the clear consent of both parties during sexual activities is vital, I don't really see why inebriation should make this consent any less "valid." A drunk person who fully consents to sex, does so because they're interested in it at the time, just like a sober person who consents. To be clear, what I'm saying applies to cases of obvious, affirmative consent -- for example, taking advantage of a drunk person who is too catatonic to say "no" is a terrible thing to do. An important caveat here is that protection be used during the drunken intercourse. I do believe that "drunk consent is not consent" applies in the case of unprotected sex. This is because unprotected sex has the potential for lots of consequences that could persist long after the encounter is over, and I fully see that drunk people may not have the ability to accept these consequences at the time. So given consequences of unprotected sex are irrelevant with this caveat, I don't really see why a drunk person consenting to sex is different than a drunk person consenting to, say, riding a roller-coaster, or watching a scary movie? These are also experiences that have the ability to be intense, but we don't think it's immoral to allow drunk people to engage in them. Looking forward to hearing people's perspectives! EDIT: added elaboration	CinnabarEyes	5	5	[ { "author": "PupperPuppet", "id": "hvw38op", "score": 36, "text": "I'm having a hard time parsing the dichotomy in your view here. You acknowledge that drunk people may not be capable of consenting to the long term consequences of unprotected sex. By that measure, they are equally incapable of con...	[ { "author": "8Ariadnesthread8", "id": "hvw4itp", "score": 9, "text": "Drunk consent is not consent when you've just met somebody. End of story there. It does get more complicated and into a gray area when people are in relationships, know each other, have planned to drink and have sex, and when both...	[ "hvw38op", "hvw3yiq", "hvw4yrc", "hvwaqcx", "hvwcmbv" ]	[ "hvw4itp", "hvw4tjd", "hvw5aml", "hvw5okk", "hvw6jcz" ]
CMV African Americans in the USA have themselves to blame for Police violence So I belive that in the USA at least the reason that there's violence against black Americans and admittedly bad shoots isn't because of racism which if it ever is undeniably is illegal and immoral but I say the real reason that there is police violence against them is because they commit 51% of violent crime despite being 13% of the population, they commit 38% of robbery and 42% of rape. Blacks commit so much crime in the US in proportion to their population size that I'm genuinely not surprised the police shoot them in most situations. Edit: I was thinking purely statistical and assuming that the reason blacks were commiting more crime was purely due to them and their own fault. I know I was wrong and really the reasons that they commit more violent crime is due to the history and segregation of black communities not trusting the authority for legitimate reasons and being kept down. Really even if the police nowadays aren't racist which I believe they aren't for the most part the fact remains that most of these stats stem from history and enviroment and infact were black people to have had the same past and advantages as white americans they would have the same statistics. I was definitely wrong but I'm happy to have really found the whole story and atleast from now I can try to just hold no racial biases in cases such as these.	While I don't entirely disagree with you, when you consider the reasons why African Americans commit more crime than other people, it comes down to discrimination in the past - segregation and discrimination post-slavery means that African Americans disproportionately live in poor areas, and therefore are more likely to commit crime. Also, the reason African Americans are more hostile towards police than other people is due to cultural ideas that were originally caused by genuine discrimination against African Americans. --- I don't see the link between living in a poor area and commiting crime there are plenty more ways to earn money than just crime and violent crime like murder doesn't earn money --- I don't entirely know why poverty causes crime, but they are unquestionably linked. Also, you ignored that it's a result of cultural ideas that you can't really blame African Americans for today --- While I don't entirely agree I will admit that I do understand it as a social issue now more than a racial one so ∆ to the degree that I think it is enviroment --- Right. The environment that makes black genetically inferior to other races as is what you said in another comment thread?	Ok, I'm going to just focus on one bit of what you said. Data has shown that police encounters with black people are more likely to result in violence even in the context of non violent crime. You yourself suggest that this is the case -- in fact, you are saying that the population statistics on violent crime justify blanket use of force against black suspects. A black person has as much influence on that statistic as anyone else (basically zero) But, you are saying that they should be at a greater risk of being shot by police because of that statistic, that they have nothing to do with. Men commit far more violent crimes than women. Do men deserve to get shot by the police? I'm guessing you're a conservative, politically. I can find a lot of unfavorable statistics about conservatives -- I won't insult you by citing them. Do you think you deserve to be preemptively judged based on them? --- I understand where you are coming from but I believe op is saying that if you are in a confrontation where it is very likely that the other person is armed and might shoot you, if they do anything that looks like reaching for a weapon, then you are more likely to shoot them than you are if you don’t think they are likely to shoot you. --- And why do police think black people are so likely to shoot them? And haven't we seen plenty of cases where the cop ended up being at no risk of being shot? --- Because of the statistics that op has quoted. As far as later being proven that there was no risk, when you are in that situation where you could possibly die(wether the risk is real or imagined) I would prioritize my life over a suspects. Their skin color doesn’t matter, what matters is if they cooperate with what the cops are saying and they don’t make the cop jumpy. It’s that simple. --- So again, because of a statistical bias, you're saying that police should have carte blanche to kill anyone they want? I doubt you'd agree that police should start rounding up men because they are more likely to commit crimes. I doubt you'd agree that police should kill men during any domestic dispute since they're more likely to rape. You're totally okay with this bias when it comes to race because I'm assuming you aren't affected by it. It's very easy for me to turn that logic back onto you where you would be the recipient of harsh treatment by police. Would you support it then? > what matters is if they cooperate with what the cops are saying and they don’t make the cop jumpy. It’s that simple. No it isn't.	93yrja	CMV African Americans in the USA have themselves to blame for Police violence	So I belive that in the USA at least the reason that there's violence against black Americans and admittedly bad shoots isn't because of racism which if it ever is undeniably is illegal and immoral but I say the real reason that there is police violence against them is because they commit 51% of violent crime despite being 13% of the population, they commit 38% of robbery and 42% of rape. Blacks commit so much crime in the US in proportion to their population size that I'm genuinely not surprised the police shoot them in most situations. Edit: I was thinking purely statistical and assuming that the reason blacks were commiting more crime was purely due to them and their own fault. I know I was wrong and really the reasons that they commit more violent crime is due to the history and segregation of black communities not trusting the authority for legitimate reasons and being kept down. Really even if the police nowadays aren't racist which I believe they aren't for the most part the fact remains that most of these stats stem from history and enviroment and infact were black people to have had the same past and advantages as white americans they would have the same statistics. I was definitely wrong but I'm happy to have really found the whole story and atleast from now I can try to just hold no racial biases in cases such as these.	peeps3298	5	5	[ { "author": "knortfoxx", "id": "e3gwcda", "score": 5, "text": "While I don't entirely disagree with you, when you consider the reasons why African Americans commit more crime than other people, it comes down to discrimination in the past - segregation and discrimination post-slavery means that Afric...	[ { "author": "garnet420", "id": "e3gwlki", "score": 8, "text": "Ok, I'm going to just focus on one bit of what you said.\n\nData has shown that police encounters with black people are more likely to result in violence even in the context of non violent crime.\n\nYou yourself suggest that this is the ...	[ "e3gwcda", "e3gwigb", "e3gwsvc", "e3gwz1b", "e3h39s3" ]	[ "e3gwlki", "e3gwxcw", "e3gyc3s", "e3gyrwl", "e3gznsf" ]
CMV African Americans in the USA have themselves to blame for Police violence So I belive that in the USA at least the reason that there's violence against black Americans and admittedly bad shoots isn't because of racism which if it ever is undeniably is illegal and immoral but I say the real reason that there is police violence against them is because they commit 51% of violent crime despite being 13% of the population, they commit 38% of robbery and 42% of rape. Blacks commit so much crime in the US in proportion to their population size that I'm genuinely not surprised the police shoot them in most situations. Edit: I was thinking purely statistical and assuming that the reason blacks were commiting more crime was purely due to them and their own fault. I know I was wrong and really the reasons that they commit more violent crime is due to the history and segregation of black communities not trusting the authority for legitimate reasons and being kept down. Really even if the police nowadays aren't racist which I believe they aren't for the most part the fact remains that most of these stats stem from history and enviroment and infact were black people to have had the same past and advantages as white americans they would have the same statistics. I was definitely wrong but I'm happy to have really found the whole story and atleast from now I can try to just hold no racial biases in cases such as these.	While I don't entirely disagree with you, when you consider the reasons why African Americans commit more crime than other people, it comes down to discrimination in the past - segregation and discrimination post-slavery means that African Americans disproportionately live in poor areas, and therefore are more likely to commit crime. Also, the reason African Americans are more hostile towards police than other people is due to cultural ideas that were originally caused by genuine discrimination against African Americans. --- > live in poor areas, and therefore are more likely to commit crime [The link between poverty and crime is specious at best.](http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-poverty-and-crime/) > Land, McCall, and Cohen 1990 collected data on the homicide rates of cities, standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), and states for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980. In each year they included all 50 states and every city and SMSA included in the census. They then looked at how well the following 11 variables predicted crime variation between these areas: population size, population density, percent black, percentage aged between 15 and 29, percent divorced, percent of kids without two parents, median family income, the poverty rate, income inequality, the unemployment rate, and whether or not the city/SMSA/State was in the south. All of these variables were entered into a single regression model, meaning that the estimated effect size for each variable held all other 10 variables constant. This analysis thus produced 9 total models explaining crime variation in cities, SMSAs, and states, across 3 decades. Across these 9 models, race was a better predictor of homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income, in 7, or 78%, cases, and a better predictor than income inequality in 8, or 89%, cases. Thus, over 3 decades of very large data sets, race was pretty consistently a better predictor of homicide rates than economic variables were. > the reason African Americans are more hostile Again its not so cut and dry. [Racial differences in time preference.](http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/06/11/racial-differences-in-self-control/) > Michel (1958) conducted the first ever marshmallow type experiment on a sample of 53 children aged 7-9 living in Trinidad. He found Black children had less self-control than Asian children. > Herzberger and Dweck (1978) looked at a sample of 100 4rth grade American school children and found that Blacks had lower self-control than Whites even after controlling for socio-economic status. And: Racial differences in psychopathy: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00029-0 --- Why does this website with a clearly racist agenda keep popping up on CMV? --- Is the data false? --- Let me ask you, do you think black people are genetically inferior to other races and genetically predisposed to violence? --- The data would suggest that and the reason for that I believe is due to lower IQ and black people do on average have a lower IQ --- So no, that's not actually what the data points to. If you look into any substantial paper on IQ difference one of the biggest factors is actually economic outcome of the individual. On average people that are living upper middle class lives will have a higher IQ then ones that are living in poverty and this can be said for any person regardless of race. So what happens with this is; because the black community is so disproportionately affected by poverty their IQ scores will be lower and that's where this "data" comes from. This is also the same with violent crime, you have higher rates of crime the higher the poverty levels get. Adjust the crime stats so they follow levels of income and suddenly Hispanic crime rates are exactly the same as white crime rates, and black crime rates come down to a margin of error. Even though people try and spin it as a race thing, it's not, it's an economic thing in both situations.	Ok, I'm going to just focus on one bit of what you said. Data has shown that police encounters with black people are more likely to result in violence even in the context of non violent crime. You yourself suggest that this is the case -- in fact, you are saying that the population statistics on violent crime justify blanket use of force against black suspects. A black person has as much influence on that statistic as anyone else (basically zero) But, you are saying that they should be at a greater risk of being shot by police because of that statistic, that they have nothing to do with. Men commit far more violent crimes than women. Do men deserve to get shot by the police? I'm guessing you're a conservative, politically. I can find a lot of unfavorable statistics about conservatives -- I won't insult you by citing them. Do you think you deserve to be preemptively judged based on them? --- I understand where you are coming from but I believe op is saying that if you are in a confrontation where it is very likely that the other person is armed and might shoot you, if they do anything that looks like reaching for a weapon, then you are more likely to shoot them than you are if you don’t think they are likely to shoot you. --- And why do police think black people are so likely to shoot them? And haven't we seen plenty of cases where the cop ended up being at no risk of being shot? --- Because of the statistics that op has quoted. As far as later being proven that there was no risk, when you are in that situation where you could possibly die(wether the risk is real or imagined) I would prioritize my life over a suspects. Their skin color doesn’t matter, what matters is if they cooperate with what the cops are saying and they don’t make the cop jumpy. It’s that simple. --- So again, because of a statistical bias, you're saying that police should have carte blanche to kill anyone they want? I doubt you'd agree that police should start rounding up men because they are more likely to commit crimes. I doubt you'd agree that police should kill men during any domestic dispute since they're more likely to rape. You're totally okay with this bias when it comes to race because I'm assuming you aren't affected by it. It's very easy for me to turn that logic back onto you where you would be the recipient of harsh treatment by police. Would you support it then? > what matters is if they cooperate with what the cops are saying and they don’t make the cop jumpy. It’s that simple. No it isn't. --- Actually I am affected by it. Why would you assume that I am not? And the scenarios you are describing are just not the same thing. --- No you aren't. I'm assuming you aren't because of your callous attitude towards it. And why aren't they the same thing? You're saying police should be able to act based off of statistics whether they're right or wrong.	93yrja	CMV African Americans in the USA have themselves to blame for Police violence	So I belive that in the USA at least the reason that there's violence against black Americans and admittedly bad shoots isn't because of racism which if it ever is undeniably is illegal and immoral but I say the real reason that there is police violence against them is because they commit 51% of violent crime despite being 13% of the population, they commit 38% of robbery and 42% of rape. Blacks commit so much crime in the US in proportion to their population size that I'm genuinely not surprised the police shoot them in most situations. Edit: I was thinking purely statistical and assuming that the reason blacks were commiting more crime was purely due to them and their own fault. I know I was wrong and really the reasons that they commit more violent crime is due to the history and segregation of black communities not trusting the authority for legitimate reasons and being kept down. Really even if the police nowadays aren't racist which I believe they aren't for the most part the fact remains that most of these stats stem from history and enviroment and infact were black people to have had the same past and advantages as white americans they would have the same statistics. I was definitely wrong but I'm happy to have really found the whole story and atleast from now I can try to just hold no racial biases in cases such as these.	peeps3298	7	7	[ { "author": "knortfoxx", "id": "e3gwcda", "score": 5, "text": "While I don't entirely disagree with you, when you consider the reasons why African Americans commit more crime than other people, it comes down to discrimination in the past - segregation and discrimination post-slavery means that Afric...	[ { "author": "garnet420", "id": "e3gwlki", "score": 8, "text": "Ok, I'm going to just focus on one bit of what you said.\n\nData has shown that police encounters with black people are more likely to result in violence even in the context of non violent crime.\n\nYou yourself suggest that this is the ...	[ "e3gwcda", "e3gwsy0", "e3gx4j5", "e3gxg1m", "e3gzuyq", "e3h051c", "e3hac5b" ]	[ "e3gwlki", "e3gwxcw", "e3gyc3s", "e3gyrwl", "e3gznsf", "e3h47uu", "e3h4iz3" ]
CMV: Hating on people who take refuse the COVID-19 Vaccine makes you part of the problem Especially online I've noticed it's become very accepted to refer to people who refuse the vaccine as "idiots", "deliberately selfish", or even going as far as too make light of, or even act as if it's good when these people get sick and die. This is an unprecedented rejection of modern medicine in such a dire circumstance. Roughly 1/3 Americans have refused the vaccine. If you actually cared about the general wellbeing or your community you would not make light of this situation or use it as opportunity to insult others from some kind of moral high ground. You should want to understand why people are acting this way and what can be done to change it. Nobody has been convinced to take the vaccine by being called an idiot. Nobody. In fact you further tell these people this shows you don't want to listen to them, and consequently stops any chance of ever reaching them. To make matters worse you make light of them dying? Saying they deserved it? You in effect displayed to them you that you literally don't care about their life. Why would they ever listen to anything you say after that? "Have you ever talked to an anti-vaxxer? They're deranged! Reason doesn't work! I spent all summer trying to convince my uncle/coworker/friend to take it and they wouldn't because of something they read on \random right leaning online media\. You should know reasoning doesn't work, don't tell me to try to "see their perspective" when they believe in false things and are hurting others!" There have always been a small group of antiscientific folk who have hated vaccines and spout nonsense off about vaccines causing autism, or that vaccines contain heavy metals. A certain portion of these people are likely unreachable with any kind of reason, though I genuinely believe the "too far gone" types are a small group. On the other hand the situation with the COVID vaccine is different. A common favorite onion article is the school shootings article titled "No way to prevent this says only country where this regularly happens". We are the only country with such a high vaccination refusal. There is something sociological going on here. There is a reason we are in some collective hysteria about this. Many people I've met that express vaccine skepticism are actually otherwise reasonable people regarding other things. By refusing to acknowledge there is some collective issue and insulting people you actually heighten the tension between these two camps in society. If you don't understand why people are acting this but instead choose to stir the pot you are making things worse. This is a stupid time to claim the moral high ground, ripping on unvaccinated people is a gigantic circlejerk that can do nothing but worsen this problem. Maybe start asking why it is media is so able to propel people to irrational behavior, how it is even mundane yet serious things like public health become political spectacle, and why so many people in this country have a distrust of the medical industry. I hate that it matters, but I know it does so I'll say it: I got the vaccine immediately, I almost signed up for trials, I encourage others to get the vaccine. I'm not proposing some "enlightened centricism", I'm saying that your analysis of "they don't get it because they're stupid, so I'll call them stupid", is bad and is worsening the problem. Update: While I still generally feel the same I have given two deltas, one for someone that argued that expressing extreme opposition to antivaxxers could make politicians comfortable with forcing them to act. I agree that this could possibly work in this case, I don't necessarily love the implication of using this tactic over social issues, but it's possibly practical. Similarly someone pointed out a successful anti smoking ad campaign in Scandinavia that used shame, so I concede that it's possible shame is an a more effective social motivator than I thought. Though I do hold do still hold the belief that this is somewhat different psychologically due to the political character this issue has taken, but this is wasn't my delta point. I concede that while our philosophies of how to handle social issues are different and I don't think people are acting this way in a very strategic manner, I still could see how their is a practical application at this point. Admittedly you may notice I ignored the posts about HermanCainAward users changing their mind, you're all correct that me saying nobody has been convinced by shame wasn't true, but that's still a small number of people, and honestly I really can't verify whether what some random reddit users say about their vax status or previous opinions was true, or even in good faith. Also a lot of you really thought you had slam dunk by comparing antivaxers to drunk drivers, child abuser, and murders. I admittedly did have to think about the drunk driving one, I gave a pretty thorough response to u/GreenMissile800 that I stand by. I'm happy to continue the conversation. The other comparisons were not so spot on, holding an irrational belief or refusing to acknowledge reason or facts is not the same as deliberately engaging in behavior where the intent is to cause harm. You don't accidentally murder someone, you were trying to cause harm. I've never met an IRL antivaxxer that wants other to get sick and die, you do hear stories of people knowingly and carelessly spreading it, even to high risk folks, I still think that's different than murder/child abuse, but I also do think that's really fucked up for them to do and people should feel free to react accordingly. I also want to clarify the point that I don't want store owners to bend to people that won't get vaxed or wear masks, and I don't think anyone should stand around and let someone scream and them and call them an "idiot sheep" or something, that's definitely not what I'm advocating for here. You absolutely should demand respect from people and set boundaries you enforce.	I think you’re talking some sense, but are confusing cause and effect here. There have been several researchers that have argued what you have: essentially deriding or arguing with vaccine hesitant people or vaccine skeptics makes them dig in their heels more. And that makes sense. I think you’re also right about there being “something sociological” going on in this country that causes the high degree of vaccine skepticism and resistance. I don’t think, though, that making fun of vaccine skeptics is the primary driver of vaccine resistance or that it drives up numbers of people who won’t ever get the vaccine. I think the sociological phenomenon you hypothesized already existed in this country in the increasing amounts of anti-intellectual culture and hardline, even toxic, individualism that we’ve been seeing over the last 30 years or so. I think the numbers reflect that, too— if anti-vaccination pressure and derision were driving vaccine hesitancy you’d see more of an even split between eg political parties, across genders, etc, when it comes to anti-vaccine stances. That hasn’t happened, though— instead, flower children aside, you see the highest levels of vaccine resistance in one political alignment, and one or two demographics within that alignment, and that alignment adopted as part of its identity anti-intellectualism and a pretty extreme strain of individualism far before COVID became a thing. I also want to say a word on “politicizing” COVID and vaccination. I think that criticism is largely bullshit. An administration’s policy setting and implementation in response to a worldwide health emergency, or any emergency, is absolutely the proper subject of political debate. The idea that we should criticize flailing or denialism of that emergency as inadequate responses because it “politicizes” something is just baseless and not how democratic government is supposed to work. So the tl;dr is that I agree that making fun of, or deriding, or whatever of vaccine hesitant people isn’t very productive, but I think it’s more symptomatic of preexisting social tensions than it is a primary driver of people avoiding vaccination. --- It’s common knowledge that belittling and insulting people in order to try and change their mind will rarely be effective. What works to change people’s minds is reasonable discussion where you acknowledge their perspectives, address their concerns, and respect that they have a different perspective, different life experiences and different opinions from yours without dehumanizing or insulting them. That’s the only way to change someone’s mind. Sure, you can peer pressure some people into some things, but that won’t change their view. --- There are some cases though - one of the Scandinavian countries ran antismoking campaigns focused on shaming smokers (people think you smell, etc) and found more success than health-based campaigns.	[removed] --- Just say you didn't read my post --- [removed]	q4s63v	CMV: Hating on people who take refuse the COVID-19 Vaccine makes you part of the problem	Especially online I've noticed it's become very accepted to refer to people who refuse the vaccine as "idiots", "deliberately selfish", or even going as far as too make light of, or even act as if it's good when these people get sick and die. This is an unprecedented rejection of modern medicine in such a dire circumstance. Roughly 1/3 Americans have refused the vaccine. If you actually cared about the general wellbeing or your community you would not make light of this situation or use it as opportunity to insult others from some kind of moral high ground. You should want to understand why people are acting this way and what can be done to change it. Nobody has been convinced to take the vaccine by being called an idiot. Nobody. In fact you further tell these people this shows you don't want to listen to them, and consequently stops any chance of ever reaching them. To make matters worse you make light of them dying? Saying they deserved it? You in effect displayed to them you that you literally don't care about their life. Why would they ever listen to anything you say after that? "Have you ever talked to an anti-vaxxer? They're deranged! Reason doesn't work! I spent all summer trying to convince my uncle/coworker/friend to take it and they wouldn't because of something they read on \random right leaning online media\. You should know reasoning doesn't work, don't tell me to try to "see their perspective" when they believe in false things and are hurting others!" There have always been a small group of antiscientific folk who have hated vaccines and spout nonsense off about vaccines causing autism, or that vaccines contain heavy metals. A certain portion of these people are likely unreachable with any kind of reason, though I genuinely believe the "too far gone" types are a small group. On the other hand the situation with the COVID vaccine is different. A common favorite onion article is the school shootings article titled "No way to prevent this says only country where this regularly happens". We are the only country with such a high vaccination refusal. There is something sociological going on here. There is a reason we are in some collective hysteria about this. Many people I've met that express vaccine skepticism are actually otherwise reasonable people regarding other things. By refusing to acknowledge there is some collective issue and insulting people you actually heighten the tension between these two camps in society. If you don't understand why people are acting this but instead choose to stir the pot you are making things worse. This is a stupid time to claim the moral high ground, ripping on unvaccinated people is a gigantic circlejerk that can do nothing but worsen this problem. Maybe start asking why it is media is so able to propel people to irrational behavior, how it is even mundane yet serious things like public health become political spectacle, and why so many people in this country have a distrust of the medical industry. I hate that it matters, but I know it does so I'll say it: I got the vaccine immediately, I almost signed up for trials, I encourage others to get the vaccine. I'm not proposing some "enlightened centricism", I'm saying that your analysis of "they don't get it because they're stupid, so I'll call them stupid", is bad and is worsening the problem. Update: While I still generally feel the same I have given two deltas, one for someone that argued that expressing extreme opposition to antivaxxers could make politicians comfortable with forcing them to act. I agree that this could possibly work in this case, I don't necessarily love the implication of using this tactic over social issues, but it's possibly practical. Similarly someone pointed out a successful anti smoking ad campaign in Scandinavia that used shame, so I concede that it's possible shame is an a more effective social motivator than I thought. Though I do hold do still hold the belief that this is somewhat different psychologically due to the political character this issue has taken, but this is wasn't my delta point. I concede that while our philosophies of how to handle social issues are different and I don't think people are acting this way in a very strategic manner, I still could see how their is a practical application at this point. Admittedly you may notice I ignored the posts about HermanCainAward users changing their mind, you're all correct that me saying nobody has been convinced by shame wasn't true, but that's still a small number of people, and honestly I really can't verify whether what some random reddit users say about their vax status or previous opinions was true, or even in good faith. Also a lot of you really thought you had slam dunk by comparing antivaxers to drunk drivers, child abuser, and murders. I admittedly did have to think about the drunk driving one, I gave a pretty thorough response to u/GreenMissile800 that I stand by. I'm happy to continue the conversation. The other comparisons were not so spot on, holding an irrational belief or refusing to acknowledge reason or facts is not the same as deliberately engaging in behavior where the intent is to cause harm. You don't accidentally murder someone, you were trying to cause harm. I've never met an IRL antivaxxer that wants other to get sick and die, you do hear stories of people knowingly and carelessly spreading it, even to high risk folks, I still think that's different than murder/child abuse, but I also do think that's really fucked up for them to do and people should feel free to react accordingly. I also want to clarify the point that I don't want store owners to bend to people that won't get vaxed or wear masks, and I don't think anyone should stand around and let someone scream and them and call them an "idiot sheep" or something, that's definitely not what I'm advocating for here. You absolutely should demand respect from people and set boundaries you enforce.	dednbloted	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg0nbvi", "score": 103, "text": "I think you’re talking some sense, but are confusing cause and effect here. There have been several researchers that have argued what you have: essentially deriding or arguing with vaccine hesitant people or vaccine skeptics makes them...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg0kvv2", "score": -6, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1633807729 }, { "author": "dednbloted", "id": "hg0l17k", "score": 1, "text": "Just say you didn't read my post", "timestamp": 1633807791 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": ...	[ "hg0nbvi", "hg174b0", "hg2j9fa" ]	[ "hg0kvv2", "hg0l17k", "hg0laas" ]
CMV: The trouble young men are having with dating right now is exaggerated and mostly caused by stunted social development rather than anything young women are doing. It has become common in certain online circles to complain about how many young men are single. It does seem to be true that singleness among young men is particularly high right now, but the reasons for this are not what many dejected young men say they are. Those in the so-called "manosphere" or the various "pilled" communities generally blame women for their singleness. They accuse women of "hypergamy", IE dating men of higher social status than themselves. They accuse women of having unrealistic standards and say most women will only date a man who is over 6 feet tall with an income above 100,000 dollars. Some end up just hating women in general. I do not think these people are correct. What I see is a generation of young men who, relative to previous generations, rarely go out of the house and rarely socialize with women in real life. So many young Gen Z men are socially and even physically under-developed because their primary sources of recreation and socialization have been virtual for their whole lives. When you talk to these young men in real life it is clear that they have not developed the social skills and hobbies necessary to interact normally and healthily with women they're attracted to. Moreover, the way these young men talk about women online makes it absolutely clear that they do not regularly interact with a variety of women in real life and do not have a realistic understanding of women. To put it simply, most women are not interested in dating socially awkward and physically under-developed men who spend all day on the Internet. I think we can all understand that and accept it as normal. How big is this problem really? Online, it's huge. In real life, I don't think it's all that serious. The great majority of these dejected young men eventually grow up, acquire real life jobs and hobbies, and learn to interact with women like human beings. Once they do that, they generally find women much more interested in them and live a perfectly normal life.	You are only half correct. The fundamental issue is a catch 22. If you are male with the 6 6's then you really don't need a personality or skill with interacting with women. They will just throw themselves at you. You identify the problem with young men as a lack of practice/skill in interacting with women. How do you get practice interacting with women? You interact with women. How do you get women to interact with you? Have the 6 6's. The young men can go out to where they would have real life interactions with women, but women don't want to interact with them. So they don't actually get the practice interacting with women. So they never get better so they keep being repulsive to women, so they don't actually interact with women, so they never get practice interacting so they keep being repulsive so they don't get the interactions, so they don't get practice. Young men need the interactions with women to practice interacting with women before they can start interacting with women. Do you see the problem here? The "break out of the cycle" available to young men is to have the extraordinary aspects that they complain have become requirements. --- You don't have to be tall or rich to interact with women. Want a simple guide? Join a book club and engage with the whole group. Don't go in with the goal of trying to date the women there, just go there to meet people. Get to know the people there and become a presence in their lives. Things will start to snowball from there. --- What a well-adjusted mindset. Too bad our entire generation was socialized online and therefore don’t know how to interact with the world without screens as a buffer.	Most young men are having those issues, and most young men aren’t socially awkward or underdeveloped (at least compared to female counterparts) I think one big misconception in this conversation is that women are at FAULT or doing something wrong in the scenario. They aren’t in the wrong, but men still have to cope with their decisions The troubles aren’t exaggerated, that doesn’t mean women need to modify their behavior or change anything --- > Most young men are having those issues I disagree. I believe that most of the young men who are VERY ONLINE are having those issues, but it is not as common in the general population --- You beat me to it.	1991b9g	CMV: The trouble young men are having with dating right now is exaggerated and mostly caused by stunted social development rather than anything young women are doing.	It has become common in certain online circles to complain about how many young men are single. It does seem to be true that singleness among young men is particularly high right now, but the reasons for this are not what many dejected young men say they are. Those in the so-called "manosphere" or the various "pilled" communities generally blame women for their singleness. They accuse women of "hypergamy", IE dating men of higher social status than themselves. They accuse women of having unrealistic standards and say most women will only date a man who is over 6 feet tall with an income above 100,000 dollars. Some end up just hating women in general. I do not think these people are correct. What I see is a generation of young men who, relative to previous generations, rarely go out of the house and rarely socialize with women in real life. So many young Gen Z men are socially and even physically under-developed because their primary sources of recreation and socialization have been virtual for their whole lives. When you talk to these young men in real life it is clear that they have not developed the social skills and hobbies necessary to interact normally and healthily with women they're attracted to. Moreover, the way these young men talk about women online makes it absolutely clear that they do not regularly interact with a variety of women in real life and do not have a realistic understanding of women. To put it simply, most women are not interested in dating socially awkward and physically under-developed men who spend all day on the Internet. I think we can all understand that and accept it as normal. How big is this problem really? Online, it's huge. In real life, I don't think it's all that serious. The great majority of these dejected young men eventually grow up, acquire real life jobs and hobbies, and learn to interact with women like human beings. Once they do that, they generally find women much more interested in them and live a perfectly normal life.	Grandemestizo	3	3	[ { "author": "AdFun5641", "id": "kib7rkj", "score": 12, "text": "You are only half correct. The fundamental issue is a catch 22.\n\nIf you are male with the 6 6's then you really don't need a personality or skill with interacting with women. They will just throw themselves at you.\n\nYou identify t...	[ { "author": "Dyeeguy", "id": "kiaxwug", "score": 11, "text": "Most young men are having those issues, and most young men aren’t socially awkward or underdeveloped (at least compared to female counterparts) \n\nI think one big misconception in this conversation is that women are at FAULT or doing som...	[ "kib7rkj", "kibbj97", "kibhqfd" ]	[ "kiaxwug", "kiaz2xl", "kiaz8j4" ]
CMV: Society needs to get back to ignoring speech someone doesn't like instead of trying to get them fired or cancelled. There are exceptions to this and that is if they are in a position of power and authority and their speech indicated they are negatively impacting groups of people in their lives due to being the owner of a business, a politician, or a person of legal authority. With in that exception it needs to be clearly targeted towards individuals and jokes don't count and opinions that don't convey intent to discriminate or harm don't count. As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. "Person A said something that really hurt me and I didn't like it and don't want people to say those things about people like me or people like my friend but that's their right to their opinion and I am going to move on and just block them and ignore them since they don't know me and I don't know them so they don't have any real consequence over my life". This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired". EDIT- I am only talking about not trying to get someone fired from a job or kicked out of school, not saying people shouldn't rebuttal or reply back. EDIT 2- I'm a leftist btw idk if that matters but yeah lol.	>As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. People absolutely do have the right to move on and ignore it if they want to. And they also have the freedom to challenge it, criticise it, mock it or disparage it. They, too, have freedom of speech. As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it? --- > As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it? I don't think people fully understand what I am saying, I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech. People are free to respond criticize and everything else. --- > I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech. Can you think of any speech a person could make that should get them fired? Calling for a second holocaust for an extreme example? If there are exceptions like this where it is okay to fire someone, and I think you believe there are from what else I've read in this thread, then let me ask you this: Who should decide what those exceptions are? The status quo is that each individual gets to decide for themselves what those exceptions are. What is the authority you propose to take over that, and why is it better than letting people deicide for themselves?	[deleted] --- I don't mean peoples shouldn't speak out if they have an issue with something, but they should be willing to debate and converse not try and ruin someone's life or career based on what they say. There is no free speech if saying an unpopular opinion means you are risking employment. --- > not try and ruin someone's life or career based on what they say in your view, is a boycott protected speech under the 1st amendment?	q4r1f1	CMV: Society needs to get back to ignoring speech someone doesn't like instead of trying to get them fired or cancelled.	There are exceptions to this and that is if they are in a position of power and authority and their speech indicated they are negatively impacting groups of people in their lives due to being the owner of a business, a politician, or a person of legal authority. With in that exception it needs to be clearly targeted towards individuals and jokes don't count and opinions that don't convey intent to discriminate or harm don't count. As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. "Person A said something that really hurt me and I didn't like it and don't want people to say those things about people like me or people like my friend but that's their right to their opinion and I am going to move on and just block them and ignore them since they don't know me and I don't know them so they don't have any real consequence over my life". This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired". EDIT- I am only talking about not trying to get someone fired from a job or kicked out of school, not saying people shouldn't rebuttal or reply back. EDIT 2- I'm a leftist btw idk if that matters but yeah lol.	Andalib_Odulate	3	3	[ { "author": "LetMeNotHear", "id": "hg0fjf9", "score": 331, "text": ">As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you.\n\nPeople absolutely do have the right to...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hg0dthh", "score": 39, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1633804552 }, { "author": "Andalib_Odulate", "id": "hg0epc9", "score": -10, "text": "I don't mean peoples shouldn't speak out if they have an issue with something, but they should be will...	[ "hg0fjf9", "hg0g2o9", "hg0m5n9" ]	[ "hg0dthh", "hg0epc9", "hg0f7qf" ]
CMV: Catholic Saints are equivalent to pagan minor gods So I have seen a lot of people saying that Christianity is a polytheist religion because of Trinity. While I do not disagree, I find the cult of saints to be even more related to polytheism, although never discussed. Catholics (I'm not sure about the other Christian denominations since I live in a catholic country) pray to saints. They are usually patron of something (a city, a disease, a craft). They are under the authority of God, but many people who encounter a specific issue will adress their prayers to the relevant Saint, and not to God directly. Many people pray to Maria too, who is not God either. They also pray to statues and other representations of these saints, which can easily be considered idolatry. To me there is no difference with pagan minor gods. They are also specialized in a specific area (a craft, a disease, a city,...) and are put under the authority of a leader god (Zeus, Odin, Shiva,...). They are prayed in a similar way than saints. I do not see a difference between praying to a minor god under the rule of a chief god, or pray to a Saint under the rule of God. The only difference would be that minor god may have more individual power than saints, but that doesn't make the cult of Saint any less polytheist. I'm Jewish, which can explain my narrow vision of what is monotheistic and what is not. I am not passing a judgment of value on Christianity or polytheism, I'm just curious because this aspect is never mentioned and I'm open to debate :)	All the praying to saints you talk about is asking for intercession. Catholics do not pray for help from saints by asking the saints to use their powers(they don’t have any) they pray to ask for intercession and an eventual answer from God. Saints have certain things they protect/pray for, but still aren’t the ones carrying out the miracles only God is. https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints --- But then why not pray to God directly? --- > But then why not pray to God directly? That is of course a valid question. But the fact that Catholic believers ask the saints merely to intercede/mediate on their behalf, would mean that your main claim of equivalence between the two concepts, is inaccurate. You said: > They are prayed in a similar way than saints. That doesn't appear to be the case according the linked page.	"I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High". (Psalm 81/82:6, quoted in John 10:34) The saints, by taking part in God's divine nature, have become like him to an extent. They are comparable with lower-case gods, who have a limited, but supernatural nature and deserve veneration for that. Idolatry would be treating the saints with the adoration that God (upper-case, the metaphysically fundamental being) alone deserves, because the saints depend on him for their deification and can only intercede for us by praying to Him. There is a clear distinction between veneration (dulia) and adoration (latria). Although the saints are comparable with the pagan minor gods, Catholics do not adore them as the pagans did, being mindful of the fact that there is only one God. --- Regardless of the idolatry part (it is idolatry by Jewish standards but I guess Jewish standards are narrow) doesn't the cult of saints make Catholicism a polytheist religion? --- No. There is one God, who we can share in to an extent as part of growing in holiness. John 14:23 describes how this happens: God dwells in the souls of saints by grace. It is possible to become god-like by being united to the one God. By sharing in the one God, we can become like him although remaining distinct. This process begins in the Christian life on Earth and is completed in heaven. This is how we interpret the Psalm verse in my top comment. Notice the difference between God (the fundamental being, pure actuality) and god (a being with supernatural powers). Saints provide miracles for us only by the power of God, not by their own power. There is one God who is completely independent of others, and other supernatural beings (saints and angels) who depend on Him and could be called gods. They are neither God, nor god by their own power, so all veneration given to them is indirectly given to one God.	g9l470	CMV: Catholic Saints are equivalent to pagan minor gods	So I have seen a lot of people saying that Christianity is a polytheist religion because of Trinity. While I do not disagree, I find the cult of saints to be even more related to polytheism, although never discussed. Catholics (I'm not sure about the other Christian denominations since I live in a catholic country) pray to saints. They are usually patron of something (a city, a disease, a craft). They are under the authority of God, but many people who encounter a specific issue will adress their prayers to the relevant Saint, and not to God directly. Many people pray to Maria too, who is not God either. They also pray to statues and other representations of these saints, which can easily be considered idolatry. To me there is no difference with pagan minor gods. They are also specialized in a specific area (a craft, a disease, a city,...) and are put under the authority of a leader god (Zeus, Odin, Shiva,...). They are prayed in a similar way than saints. I do not see a difference between praying to a minor god under the rule of a chief god, or pray to a Saint under the rule of God. The only difference would be that minor god may have more individual power than saints, but that doesn't make the cult of Saint any less polytheist. I'm Jewish, which can explain my narrow vision of what is monotheistic and what is not. I am not passing a judgment of value on Christianity or polytheism, I'm just curious because this aspect is never mentioned and I'm open to debate :)	judicorn99	3	3	[ { "author": "pinhead_larry38", "id": "fou0pxl", "score": 11, "text": "All the praying to saints you talk about is asking for intercession. Catholics do not pray for help from saints by asking the saints to use their powers(they don’t have any) they pray to ask for intercession and an eventual answer...	[ { "author": "Alnitak21045", "id": "fotzpli", "score": 1, "text": "\"I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High\". (Psalm 81/82:6, quoted in John 10:34)\n\nThe saints, by taking part in God's divine nature, have become like him to an extent. They are comparable with lower-case...	[ "fou0pxl", "fou1hkk", "fou35d6" ]	[ "fotzpli", "fotzxnn", "fou0dbm" ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.