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: Islam is a violent religion which regularly violates human rights
\*\*Summary of my position at bottom\*\*
I believe that Islam is a violent religion. Call me racist. I'm not. Call me islamophobic. I am in fact against Islamic authority on the basis that it is a violent religion which commits human rights violations regularly. That said, I do not hate muslims. I do not hate anyone. I don't think it matters, but to get some perspective on my worldview, I grew up in the Western world, was raised Roman Catholic, but have left that religion and can probably be called an agnostic buddhist. Now I will argue my position.
First of all, the theory of abrogation, which means that later verses of the Quran which contradict early passages replace those early passages, as supported by 2:106, and 16:101. People often say that the Quran is a book which advocates peace, but there are later passages within it that advocate violence and abrogate prior peaceful passages. If the theory of abrogation, which is supported by the Quran itself, is to be accepted, the true meaning of the Quran advocates for violence, and this message is not corrected through abrogation by later verses of the Quran. For example, Quran 9:5 abrogates prior peaceful passages.
Secondly, let's compare the founder of Christianity with the founder of Islam. (Jesus vs Muhammad). Jesus advocated peace, love, community, and sacrifice, and regularly practiced these values until he sacrificed himself out of love for his people. Muhammad advocated for similar values while encouraging violence, and partaking in it himself. We get this information from the Hadith and Sira literature. He raped a 9 year old girl, abused his wife, cursed Christians and Jews, kept and traded slaves and sex slaves, committed adultery, war crimes, murder and caravan robbery specifically in Ibn Ishaq 428. He advocated peace, practiced violence, and was a hypocrite who committed horrible crimes.
\*\*\* So far I have argued that the founder of Islam is evil, as is the intended message of Islam. Any further argumentation for my position will be evidence that Islamic authority, not the religion in itself, regularly commits human rights violations. You can choose to change my view on Islam itself, or on Islamic authority, or both. \*\*\*
Let's take a look at countries with large muslim influence:
\-Only 13 / 48 muslim majority countries do not criminalize homosexuality, and even these countries often deny LGBT rights and ban cross dressing as an example.
\-0 / 48 countries have legal same sex marriage.
\-40 / 43 muslim countries listed in the OECD index high / very high discrimination against women.
\-Only 8 of 34 muslim countries on the Gender Gap Index are in the top 100 countries with the lowest gender disparity.
\-Only 9/47 muslim countries got higher than 10/16 on religious freedom and freedom of expression according to the Freedom House "2015 Freedom in the World" report, while 7 countries scored only a 1 or 2 on this index.
According to an article in the Guardian from 2017: "In Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, homosexuality is still punishable by death, under sharia law. The same applies in parts of Somalia and northern Nigeria. In two other countries – Syria and Iraq – the death penalty is carried out by non-state actors, including Islamic State. "
So basically, muslim countries don't have the best record for human rights violations.
Currently there are at least 50 illegal sharia courts being run in England, at the least. This is an example of Islamic authority breaking the law and spreading its own authority where it does not belong. Islam encourages death for those who leave the faith (death for apostates), which is a punishment these Sharia courts would have to take out, meaning these Sharia courts in England, and elsewhere around the globe put people in legitimate danger.
To sum: Muhammad was evil, the message of the Quran is evil, muslim countries regularly violate human rights, and Islamic authority is currently spreading around the globe and this is negative and puts muslims in danger.
Change my view. | To try to change your view, I'm going to ignore religion. You might think "How can we talk about Islam without talking about religion?" but really this is a question of politics. No religion embraces human rights by our modern standards. Pretty much every religion predates modernity and modern ethics.
But I think it's very wrong or misplaced to be disgusted by the Muslim worlds political culture. Because of a pretty straight forward reason, they lack political self determination. Dictatorships always vilify and target groups to distract from their tyranny, this is true for literally every dictatorship. Putin encourages intense homophobia. Similar with people like Franco or Mussolini. But when a group of people overthrow their tyranny and have some level of democracy and self determination, they begin to embrace the idea that all people are equal, and this can take a really really really long time. Like, how long ago was the US Constitution written? How long did slavery last? How long did segregation last? It took time but the desire of self determination and taking control of their own destiny meant that equality would some day be achieved.
So when we're talking about the political culture of the Islamic world, Islam has less to do with the problem and a stronger emphasis needs to be put on things like Western intervention (Sykes/Picot aggreement, Belfour Decleration, Cold War policies, Iraqi invasion) as well as the constant wars, and it has been well documented how war can turn any society into what could be described as savages. You remember Northern Ireland in the 80's? The Basque region? Shit was ugly.
I wouldn't want to live in the Islamic world as a queer person. But it's not like the individual Muslims voted for the dictators and tyrants that created these laws, and frankly there's still a lot of parts of the Western world where I don't want to hang out in either. If democracy can come to the Middle East, if there can be some political self determination, then the Muslim world will "catch up" in terms of civil rights to the West. And I put the terms "catch up" in quotations because we aren't as far ahead as we think we are. Like my country (Australia) only just decided to let gay people to get married.
---
!delta You haven’t really changed my mind that Islam is violent and that Islamic authority regularly commits human rights violations, but you have introduced a new idea I have not yet considered, which is the idea of political self determination. I don’t think I realized just how much of the Muslim world is controlled by dictatorship and not ethically elected powers.
---
In addition to that, there have been good examples of muslim countries evolving similarly to western ones. Tunisia, for instance, had a peaceful revolution in terms of personal freedom and women's rights, legalising abortion before France did.
You made a good point with your research to prove that muslim majority countries are extremely conservative. However, we have to take into account the fact that this conservatism was often backed by western powers. The best example would be Saudi Arabia, which wasn't even a country 200 years ago. The place was a desert ruled by warlords until Britain allied with one of the bigger tribes, ensuring it's supremacy. The House of Saud then took up and promoted an extremely conservative branch of Islam in order to expand it's influence. The ideology of the Islamic State, salafism, is basically ultra-conservative Saudi Islam paid for by American oil money.
I feel that rather than Islam causing conservatism, conservatism is common in he region and was exacerbated in the many conflicts for power, and that an opportunistic clergy sided with the powerful as usual. | I know several devout muslims who are intelligent, open-minded, tolerant people. They feel no contradiction between their muslim identity and their tolerance.
Do they just... for some reason not count, to you? How do you explain them?
---
My argument is that Islam is violent, and Islamic authority regularly violates human rights. I never said Muslims are violent. In fact, every Muslim I personally know is very kind, tolerant, and awesome. I don’t believe they follow Islam devoutly or as it is meant to be understood.
---
So because governments that have Muslims in them are violent that means that Islam is violent? Governments under other religions can be just as violent. And who decides the correct way to follow Islam? Like heaps of Catholics have disagreed with the clergy and even the Pope at times, becuase they're free thinking adults who can come to their own understanding of the faith, even though the "rules" say that the Pope has the last word. And the Qaran says over and over that understanding God is about a personal journy through the Qaran, not following someone else as they tell you what God is. | 93w195 | CMV: Islam is a violent religion which regularly violates human rights | \*\*Summary of my position at bottom\*\*
I believe that Islam is a violent religion. Call me racist. I'm not. Call me islamophobic. I am in fact against Islamic authority on the basis that it is a violent religion which commits human rights violations regularly. That said, I do not hate muslims. I do not hate anyone. I don't think it matters, but to get some perspective on my worldview, I grew up in the Western world, was raised Roman Catholic, but have left that religion and can probably be called an agnostic buddhist. Now I will argue my position.
First of all, the theory of abrogation, which means that later verses of the Quran which contradict early passages replace those early passages, as supported by 2:106, and 16:101. People often say that the Quran is a book which advocates peace, but there are later passages within it that advocate violence and abrogate prior peaceful passages. If the theory of abrogation, which is supported by the Quran itself, is to be accepted, the true meaning of the Quran advocates for violence, and this message is not corrected through abrogation by later verses of the Quran. For example, Quran 9:5 abrogates prior peaceful passages.
Secondly, let's compare the founder of Christianity with the founder of Islam. (Jesus vs Muhammad). Jesus advocated peace, love, community, and sacrifice, and regularly practiced these values until he sacrificed himself out of love for his people. Muhammad advocated for similar values while encouraging violence, and partaking in it himself. We get this information from the Hadith and Sira literature. He raped a 9 year old girl, abused his wife, cursed Christians and Jews, kept and traded slaves and sex slaves, committed adultery, war crimes, murder and caravan robbery specifically in Ibn Ishaq 428. He advocated peace, practiced violence, and was a hypocrite who committed horrible crimes.
\*\*\* So far I have argued that the founder of Islam is evil, as is the intended message of Islam. Any further argumentation for my position will be evidence that Islamic authority, not the religion in itself, regularly commits human rights violations. You can choose to change my view on Islam itself, or on Islamic authority, or both. \*\*\*
Let's take a look at countries with large muslim influence:
\-Only 13 / 48 muslim majority countries do not criminalize homosexuality, and even these countries often deny LGBT rights and ban cross dressing as an example.
\-0 / 48 countries have legal same sex marriage.
\-40 / 43 muslim countries listed in the OECD index high / very high discrimination against women.
\-Only 8 of 34 muslim countries on the Gender Gap Index are in the top 100 countries with the lowest gender disparity.
\-Only 9/47 muslim countries got higher than 10/16 on religious freedom and freedom of expression according to the Freedom House "2015 Freedom in the World" report, while 7 countries scored only a 1 or 2 on this index.
According to an article in the Guardian from 2017: "In Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, homosexuality is still punishable by death, under sharia law. The same applies in parts of Somalia and northern Nigeria. In two other countries – Syria and Iraq – the death penalty is carried out by non-state actors, including Islamic State. "
So basically, muslim countries don't have the best record for human rights violations.
Currently there are at least 50 illegal sharia courts being run in England, at the least. This is an example of Islamic authority breaking the law and spreading its own authority where it does not belong. Islam encourages death for those who leave the faith (death for apostates), which is a punishment these Sharia courts would have to take out, meaning these Sharia courts in England, and elsewhere around the globe put people in legitimate danger.
To sum: Muhammad was evil, the message of the Quran is evil, muslim countries regularly violate human rights, and Islamic authority is currently spreading around the globe and this is negative and puts muslims in danger.
Change my view. | antoniofelicemunro | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Trotlife",
"id": "e3ggw2a",
"score": 101,
"text": "To try to change your view, I'm going to ignore religion. You might think \"How can we talk about Islam without talking about religion?\" but really this is a question of politics. No religion embraces human rights by our modern standa... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "e3ghack",
"score": -5,
"text": "I know several devout muslims who are intelligent, open-minded, tolerant people. They feel no contradiction between their muslim identity and their tolerance. \n\nDo they just... for some reason not count, to you? How do you expl... | [
"e3ggw2a",
"e3ghpmq",
"e3gzmrc"
] | [
"e3ghack",
"e3ghi98",
"e3ghs5y"
] |
CMV: Communism would have been seen much, MUCH more favorably if there wasn’t a serious discrimination and antagonization of religion, religious people and clergy
I speak this from personal (Yugoslav) experience: Tito’s Partisans killed many, *many* priests (Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim imams) throughout Yugoslavia in WWII, robbed many churches, stole and destroyed icons and holy relics and, after the war, turned many churches and mosques into stables or even night clubs. Montenegro is a famous example of crimes committed by Partisans in which almost every Orthodox priest over [this vast territory](https://www.worldometers.info/img/maps/montenegro_road_map.gif) was killed. Catholic priests were also killed in Croatia in great numbers.
Now, the main justification Tito and his Committee used is that the Catholic Church in Croatia almost completely supported the Croat-nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis - Ustaše, who committed a large-scale genocide against Serbs, Jews and Romani in Croatia and Bosnia, killing at least 400,000 people in the camps because they were Serbs, Jews and Romani. The same justification went for the murder of Orthodox priests who mostly favoured the Serbian nationalists (Chetniks) who also (though less enthusiastically and mostly because they hated communists) collaborated with the Nazis, and killed tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, wanting a homogenous Serbia, cleaned of Muslims and Croats. This idea that all Orthodox priests collaborated with the Nazis, Fascists and Chetniks causes such outrage in my own community that I genuinely find it unbelievable. The most middle ground I can find is that the priests mostly favored the Chetniks because the Chetniks were nominally religious - not that they knew about the killings of the Muslims. Whatever the case was, it is genuinely impossible every single priest was a war criminal, nor is the destruction and looting of monasteries and churches that so many people saw as sacred and cultural treasures for hundreds (if not a thousand years) justifiable - Partisans did this because they had (most of them) an intolerance towards religion).
Now, what I wrote here is minuscule to the level of suffering the Ustashe and the Chetniks caused throughout Yugoslavia - Croatian and Serbian nationalism (looking up to these two groups) is what lead to the Yugoslav Wars which ruined Yugoslavia. Partisans freed Yugoslavia, engaged in rapid development and education of the population. And, despite these war crimes against during and some after the war, Yugoslavia was probably a communist country the *most* tolerant to religion out of all others - even later in Tito’s life, the harsh treatment of religion started to ease. But these humiliations and memories remained - to this very day, many Croats and Serbs, and their priests, favor the Ustashe and Chetniks, many of them merely out of spite to the Communists. As I said, this can all be considered as reasons that lead to the breakup of Yugoslavia.
We can talk about the things the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Communist Bulgaria and Romania did to religion - the Communist Albania was the only state in the history of mankind that outright banned religion as an institution. North Korea to this very day is intolerant. Cambodia is…the most egregious example.
And, as I said, Yugoslavia was the most tolerant of all communist countries. Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as countries, had genuine advancements in society we today would desperately need, but the mistreatment of religion was what stained any useful policy associated with them for good, in the minds of most religious people.
What is it that the conservatives in USA and European countries fear the most whenever religion is limited? Communism. Why are many humanitarian policies rejected? Because they remind people of communism. Why is any criticism of religion seen as a prerequisite for religious persecution? Because of the fear of communism. Why are many religious afraid of changing the *status quo* with beneficial policies that promise to take care of everyone’s well-being? Because most of them associate those promises with communism that persecuted the religious.
If the Communists were more tolerant of religion (thus causing much less victims of it) I genuinely believe it would be more sympathetic to most believers who would not reject it outright nor go all over to the far-right because of the fear of communism. | Except it goes against the very idea of Communism. Marx called for abolition of three institutions, as being necessary to achieve Communism:
Family - which he linked to passing of private property from one generation to the next
Religion - which he saw as an institution responsible for placating the working class into inaction, aka “the opium of the masses”
And the state - which he saw as the tool of the capitalist class to protect private property
Abolition of these institutions are part of the foundation of Marxist Socialism.
---
Were people discouraged from getting married and having children, and was marriage banned? Were all state parties, elections and state borders abolished?
---
>Were people discouraged from getting married and having children, and was marriage banned?
This is an incredibly dishonest argument. You're asking if some of the most extreme possibilities happened and then claiming something is good because it wasn't that. Despite the rights granted to women on paper in the USSR, there was still a strong element of pre-Communist gender roles, and that was before abortion got banned for two decades in the USSR (1936-1955).
>Were all state parties, elections
This is also an incredibly dishonest argument. The existence of elections means nothing. The quality means everything. Even North Korea has elections and a legislature, yet its democracy is a complete sham. China has voting and a legislature, yet its democracy is worse than a joke.
---
I didn’t mean to be dishonest, I wasn’t even. The person above said marriage and state (along with religion) were to be abolished according to Marx for the benefit of humankind (to reach Communism). In theory, all three should have been discouraged, yet neither of these institutions were treated as harshly as religion, meaning the abolishing of any of them is not an inherent goal, nor was it in the mind of most Communists.
---
So to explain this properly, Marx believed that industrialization was going to lead to societal collapse, in that collapse, his view was that when society would be rebuilt those three pillars would need to be prevented from forming again.
The problem with Marx's ideas was that his followers saw WW1 happen, viewed it as this great collapse he predicted, and then the communist revolution he predicted didn't happen. Family, religion and state were still going along.
So the idea shifted from "waiting for the collapse" to "We need to encourage this collapse" and Communism became about utilizing revolution and uprising, then directing it to tear down these institutions to allow the dream communist society to be built upon the ashes. You see this is Russia as the Bolsheviks led the revolution.
All of the major communist nations completely failed, they all turned into authoritarian regimes, but under the ideals of Marx, still tried to shatter these foundations, by restricting religion, removing inheritance, and trying to restructure the state. All failed because in Marx's views these institutions failing would be a natural reaction to the industrialization of the world, not be forced apart.
Marx's views that Family, Religion, and State were unneeded or even could be removed, were the biggest flaws with the theory all together. People care more about their immediate family, their religious backgrounds and personal liberties then they care for the majority of strangers and that caused their attempts to usurp them to fail at every angle. | It depends where you were. American communists back in the early 20th century tended to be religious because people tended to be religious.
Given this, you would expect the US to have viewed communism much more favorably than places with the serious discrimination issues like China and Cambodia.
However, communism is basically a curse word in contemporary America.
To me, this is a natural experiment which indicates that religious antagonization doesn't play a particularly important role.
You know what does? Propaganda. The US was excellent at using propaganda until fairly recent history where now instead it's essentially that the US is excellent at producing gullible citizens. Sort of shot ourselves in the foot there.
Anyways, there's a reason we call it the red scare!
---
>You know what does? Propaganda. The US was excellent at using propaganda until fairly recent history where now instead it's more that the US is excellent at producing gullible citizens. Sort of shot ourselves in the foot there.
>Anyways, there's a reason we call it the red scare!
What about the Holodomor? The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? The USSR's economic mismanagement? The lack of democracy?
The US without a doubt used propaganda just as much as the Soviets did, but if you're going to dismiss people's fears of Communism as being entirely from the US, and not the atrocities and failures of communist countries, you're going to need a lot more than a claim with virtually nothing to back it up.
---
Do you believe that I believe those were good things or that they didn't adversely impact the perception of communism?
Part of propaganda is ensuring the horrors committed by your opposition are amplified and those committed by those you're aligned with are justified. "Propaganda" doesn't necessarily mean "lies", there just has to be a narrative.
---
>Do you believe that I believe those were good things or that they didn't adversely impact the perception of communism?
What I said was based on what you said - which was that the fear of communism in the US resulted from propaganda, the implication being that it just resulted from that.
>Part of propaganda is ensuring the horrors committed by your opposition are amplified and those committed by those you're aligned with are justified. "Propaganda" doesn't necessarily mean "lies", there just has to be a narrative.
And you still haven't changed your argument beyond what it originally was - saying that propaganda rather than the actions and atrocities of communist countries are the reason Communism is feared so much. You're still making an extraordinary claim that the fear of Communism resulted more from something other than its failures and atrocities by claiming that propaganda is the reason.
---
>What I said was based on what you said - which was that the fear of communism in the US resulted from propaganda, the implication being that it just resulted from that.
That's just a misinterpretation of what I said. In no way did I imply propaganda was the *sole* factor, merely that it was an important factor and OP's idea about religious persecution by commies was not.
Do you think the average American knew anything about international affairs besides who we were at war with? Given the knowledge of the average American today with full access to the internet I find that prospect extremely doubtful.
>you still haven't changed your argument beyond what it originally was
Yea, why would I? You've misinterpreted my position... I'm not claiming what you appear to believe I'm claiming. | 1jprjy1 | CMV: Communism would have been seen much, MUCH more favorably if there wasn’t a serious discrimination and antagonization of religion, religious people and clergy | I speak this from personal (Yugoslav) experience: Tito’s Partisans killed many, *many* priests (Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim imams) throughout Yugoslavia in WWII, robbed many churches, stole and destroyed icons and holy relics and, after the war, turned many churches and mosques into stables or even night clubs. Montenegro is a famous example of crimes committed by Partisans in which almost every Orthodox priest over [this vast territory](https://www.worldometers.info/img/maps/montenegro_road_map.gif) was killed. Catholic priests were also killed in Croatia in great numbers.
Now, the main justification Tito and his Committee used is that the Catholic Church in Croatia almost completely supported the Croat-nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis - Ustaše, who committed a large-scale genocide against Serbs, Jews and Romani in Croatia and Bosnia, killing at least 400,000 people in the camps because they were Serbs, Jews and Romani. The same justification went for the murder of Orthodox priests who mostly favoured the Serbian nationalists (Chetniks) who also (though less enthusiastically and mostly because they hated communists) collaborated with the Nazis, and killed tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, wanting a homogenous Serbia, cleaned of Muslims and Croats. This idea that all Orthodox priests collaborated with the Nazis, Fascists and Chetniks causes such outrage in my own community that I genuinely find it unbelievable. The most middle ground I can find is that the priests mostly favored the Chetniks because the Chetniks were nominally religious - not that they knew about the killings of the Muslims. Whatever the case was, it is genuinely impossible every single priest was a war criminal, nor is the destruction and looting of monasteries and churches that so many people saw as sacred and cultural treasures for hundreds (if not a thousand years) justifiable - Partisans did this because they had (most of them) an intolerance towards religion).
Now, what I wrote here is minuscule to the level of suffering the Ustashe and the Chetniks caused throughout Yugoslavia - Croatian and Serbian nationalism (looking up to these two groups) is what lead to the Yugoslav Wars which ruined Yugoslavia. Partisans freed Yugoslavia, engaged in rapid development and education of the population. And, despite these war crimes against during and some after the war, Yugoslavia was probably a communist country the *most* tolerant to religion out of all others - even later in Tito’s life, the harsh treatment of religion started to ease. But these humiliations and memories remained - to this very day, many Croats and Serbs, and their priests, favor the Ustashe and Chetniks, many of them merely out of spite to the Communists. As I said, this can all be considered as reasons that lead to the breakup of Yugoslavia.
We can talk about the things the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Communist Bulgaria and Romania did to religion - the Communist Albania was the only state in the history of mankind that outright banned religion as an institution. North Korea to this very day is intolerant. Cambodia is…the most egregious example.
And, as I said, Yugoslavia was the most tolerant of all communist countries. Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as countries, had genuine advancements in society we today would desperately need, but the mistreatment of religion was what stained any useful policy associated with them for good, in the minds of most religious people.
What is it that the conservatives in USA and European countries fear the most whenever religion is limited? Communism. Why are many humanitarian policies rejected? Because they remind people of communism. Why is any criticism of religion seen as a prerequisite for religious persecution? Because of the fear of communism. Why are many religious afraid of changing the *status quo* with beneficial policies that promise to take care of everyone’s well-being? Because most of them associate those promises with communism that persecuted the religious.
If the Communists were more tolerant of religion (thus causing much less victims of it) I genuinely believe it would be more sympathetic to most believers who would not reject it outright nor go all over to the far-right because of the fear of communism. | A_Child_of_Adam | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Viciuniversum",
"id": "ml1h1tv",
"score": 3,
"text": "Except it goes against the very idea of Communism. Marx called for abolition of three institutions, as being necessary to achieve Communism: \n\nFamily - which he linked to passing of private property from one generation to the next ... | [
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"id": "ml1fw35",
"score": 5,
"text": "It depends where you were. American communists back in the early 20th century tended to be religious because people tended to be religious.\n\nGiven this, you would expect the US to have viewed communism much more favorably than places ... | [
"ml1h1tv",
"ml1kb8k",
"ml1lv0p",
"ml1mjpq",
"ml1s297"
] | [
"ml1fw35",
"ml1j4ur",
"ml1jvxc",
"ml1mmm8",
"ml1oo7c"
] |
CMV: PC culture really isn’t so bad, and I’m curious as to why so many people have such an aversion to being politically correct.
Political correctness - as I understand it - is the practice of filtering public speech to remove words and phrases that are generally considered offensive or harmful.
First of all, I highly value free discussion and open dialogue. I think it’s vitally important that people should be able to voice their opinions and have a civilized conversation without worrying about being attacked for controversial views. This is a great way for us to maintain open minded as a culture.
I don’t think being PC or expecting political correctness violates this idea at all, because in my view, it’s more important to ensure that no one feels attacked or unwelcome, which is likely to create further divisiveness rather than improving openness. It used to be that people in certain groups were berated just for existing, so I feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to berate someone for exacerbating that existing tension.
And just to clarify, I’d never claim that PC culture doesn’t go too far at times, but I’m not defending people who take it beyond my definition, I’m only defending what I feel PC means. On the whole, it does much more good than harm. | I think PC culture at times attacks the ideology at times and pushes a idea that people should always look for things to be offended of or to become hyper sensitive to topics and retreat to a language that censors the real world or agrees with theirs.
It also isolates people from sharing with different cultures.
Saying happy holidays vs merry Christmas for CE (common era) vs (AD) Anno domini. I don't care if people use one or the other, but people getting offended when people say merry Christmas sounds like a baby whining. It's not offensive but people turn it into something offensive.
When you want to make a claim, it's important to be aggressive at times and say it as it. Islam is not a religion of peace, it leads to violations in human rights and executions in Islamic theocracies.
This statement is aggressive but necessary, especially if you're talking about human lives, if we shy from the truth and try to play to people's egos or sensitivity, people die.
Edit:Just as I write that I already see a CMV for how Islam violates human rights haha.
---
I see your point, but I don’t see how being PC means I can’t say exactly what I’m thinking. I can say whatever I want, and be as specific as possible, just without saying something that is offensive. I don’t think it’s offensive to say for example “such and such practice in islam or other religious group is not something I agree with, and I feel it violates human rights.”
---
> don’t see how being PC means I can’t say exactly what I’m thinking.
Huh? But that's exactly what you yourself cited in your OP.
>Political correctness - as I understand it - is the practice of filtering public speech to remove words and phrases that are generally considered offensive or harmful.
What did you think that that meant? It means exactly what you just said: You're not allowed to say certain things.
The problem is who decides what's verboten and what's not. Why can't I say "Women are sometimes irrational due to their physiology" ? Because that's offensive to women. But is it untrue? Not long ago it was not only acceptable to point this out but was almost celebrated by the media. Anybody who knows any women can testify that during their menstrual cycle they most certainly can be irrational as a result of their physiology. Does this mean that all women are irrational? No. Does it mean that women are incapable of being reasonable? No. So what does it mean? It doesn't "mean" anything: It's simply an observation that was commonly accepted globally in disparate cultures without contact for thousands of years. We have no problem saying that women are more empathetic than men due to their physiology but as soon as it's something less complimentary then it's forbidden to be spoken. Why is that? PC culture. Even women 50 years ago would have agreed that women *can* be irrational during their menstrual cycle. For tens of thousands of years this was something that distinguished women from men and we celebrated that difference. Now we have to pretend that women and men are identical. That's a direct result of PC indoctrination. | So it goes too far but it’s still better than free speech which you totally agree with except when you don’t.
I’m a bit vague on what exactly your view is.
---
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, I’ll try to rephrase:
It doesn’t go too far if it’s simply an avoidance of words that are well known to be offensive, controversial, or provocative. That’s what I understand PC to be, and that’s what I support.
I support free speech, but my point is that if words are used divisively, they can easily be detrimental to the goal of free speech (at least in my view): open, all-inclusive dialogue. If we just decide not to use words that will only stir up controversy, we’re much less likely to alienate people from that dialogue.
---
Who decides what those words are? What if there’s disagreement? How do we define offense? Why should someone’s offense prevent others from open dialogue? Is it just words? What about ideas? Can I talk about evolution? What about FBI crime data? Can I say Fuck the Police?
If we don’t allow speech that is hateful to us, then we don’t allow freedom of speech. If we don’t allow people to say things we don’t like without creating unnecessary taboos, it becomes very easy for entire avenues of discussion and knowledge to be stunted, if not lost.
There will always be penalties socially for being an asshole, but PC is beyond that. It doesn’t prevent meanness: in fact, it can promote it. It doesn’t promote open and comfortable dialogue: it prevents it. It is a political act of suppressing what is inconvenient for certain groups’ political ends. | 93vyaz | CMV: PC culture really isn’t so bad, and I’m curious as to why so many people have such an aversion to being politically correct. | Political correctness - as I understand it - is the practice of filtering public speech to remove words and phrases that are generally considered offensive or harmful.
First of all, I highly value free discussion and open dialogue. I think it’s vitally important that people should be able to voice their opinions and have a civilized conversation without worrying about being attacked for controversial views. This is a great way for us to maintain open minded as a culture.
I don’t think being PC or expecting political correctness violates this idea at all, because in my view, it’s more important to ensure that no one feels attacked or unwelcome, which is likely to create further divisiveness rather than improving openness. It used to be that people in certain groups were berated just for existing, so I feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to berate someone for exacerbating that existing tension.
And just to clarify, I’d never claim that PC culture doesn’t go too far at times, but I’m not defending people who take it beyond my definition, I’m only defending what I feel PC means. On the whole, it does much more good than harm. | jaelenchrysos | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Dafkin00",
"id": "e3ge9y3",
"score": 1,
"text": "I think PC culture at times attacks the ideology at times and pushes a idea that people should always look for things to be offended of or to become hyper sensitive to topics and retreat to a language that censors the real world or agrees... | [
{
"author": "palsh7",
"id": "e3ge0mp",
"score": 2,
"text": "So it goes too far but it’s still better than free speech which you totally agree with except when you don’t.\n\nI’m a bit vague on what exactly your view is.",
"timestamp": 1533182527
},
{
"author": "jaelenchrysos",
"id": "... | [
"e3ge9y3",
"e3genq9",
"e3gj7un"
] | [
"e3ge0mp",
"e3geyr5",
"e3gfodd"
] |
CMV: Caller ID spoofing should be made entirely illegal.
Caller ID spoofing is the practice of transmitting digital information with a phone call representing a number as the dialing number other than that which is actually the dialing number.
I believe this practice should be made entirely illegal, and that either the accurate calling number, or else no number, must be transmitted.
Spoofing is overwhelmingly used by scammers and spammers, and is a major technique of fraud. While some users have an interest in spoofing which is more legitimate, those interests can generally be accommodated through just blocking caller ID (displaying no number).
Because spoofing is so prevalent in illegal and deceptive activity, and because it is inherently deceptive, and because the legitimate users of the service have a non-deceptive alternative, I believe spoofing should be banned, and that the government should promulgate regulations to telecommunications companies banning the practice entirely.
_____
> *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!* | [It already is illegal](https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/spoofing-and-caller-id) per the FCC. From their site:
>Under the Truth in Caller ID Act, FCC rules prohibit any person or entity from transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongly obtain anything of value.
The problem is that people who are scammers are _already_ engaging in illegal and unethical actions and have systems in place to protect themselves (like shell companies or working from overseas). People willing to break the law to get your cash are not worried about breaking minor laws (like caller ID spoofing) to help further that cause.
---
I want to remove the intent requirement. I want it to be illegal to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information for ANY reason.
As to people breaking the law regardless, my proposal was that the regulation would go against the phone companies. Verizon and T-Mobile aren't going to risk their licenses and massive fines for some spammers.
---
Intent matters. Lots of my friends, when they call me, have incorrect caller ID. For example, the name will be a parent or someone they share a cell phone plan with.
They aren’t intending to defraud, but they are sending incorrect information. They just never bothered to set it up correctly. | It's my understanding that this is more of a technical issue. Because of the wide variety of service providers, you pretty much are relying on them to provide the proper information. I think it a very large task to utterly remove this and require somehow verifiable information.
Wouldn't it just be easier to assume that the data is spoofed in the first place?
---
Can you elaborate on the technical aspect of it? There's a whole variety of service providers sure, but they're all under pretty strict government regulation, no?
My idea was that the regulation would be targeted at phone companies. They'd be prohibited from allowing their customers to spoof. For instance, if my company has been allocated only the 111-155 exchanges in the 212 area code, I know any customer of mine can't possibly be calling from 212-777-7777. So I can't allow them to broadcast that as their caller ID.
Am I misunderstanding how this works?
---
I'm no expert, but I believe that this is the case:
The problem isn't Verizon (assuming that that is the NY provider).
The problem is that Verizon receives and incoming call from a source that is eligible to make an incoming call. Since you can take your number with you, even if Verizon "owns" the 155 exchange, they get legitimate outside calls from 212-155-xxxx. It could be a T-Mobile customer in the apartment next to you. It could be a spoofer in Russia. How can Verizon tell the difference? | 78p5gr | CMV: Caller ID spoofing should be made entirely illegal. | Caller ID spoofing is the practice of transmitting digital information with a phone call representing a number as the dialing number other than that which is actually the dialing number.
I believe this practice should be made entirely illegal, and that either the accurate calling number, or else no number, must be transmitted.
Spoofing is overwhelmingly used by scammers and spammers, and is a major technique of fraud. While some users have an interest in spoofing which is more legitimate, those interests can generally be accommodated through just blocking caller ID (displaying no number).
Because spoofing is so prevalent in illegal and deceptive activity, and because it is inherently deceptive, and because the legitimate users of the service have a non-deceptive alternative, I believe spoofing should be banned, and that the government should promulgate regulations to telecommunications companies banning the practice entirely.
_____
> *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!* | huadpe | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "dovj7w9",
"score": 658,
"text": "[It already is illegal](https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/spoofing-and-caller-id) per the FCC. From their site:\n\n>Under the Truth in Caller ID Act, FCC rules prohibit any person or entity from transmitting misleading or inaccurate ... | [
{
"author": "garnteller",
"id": "dovjfmn",
"score": 28,
"text": "It's my understanding that this is more of a technical issue. Because of the wide variety of service providers, you pretty much are relying on them to provide the proper information. I think it a very large task to utterly remove thi... | [
"dovj7w9",
"dovjbo1",
"dovjycx"
] | [
"dovjfmn",
"dovjq0a",
"dovkd9z"
] |
CMV: Mechanical keyboards make bad gaming keyboards.
My son has gotten two Corsair keyboards with different kinds of key actions on them (one was his first purchase and one was to get one with a smaller footprint). He mostly plays games, so I helped him research them and look up recommendations from his favorite YouTubers.
The newest one has keys with lots of travel and his small hands tend to push sideways as well as down, making the key stick as it depresses. I've typed on them and found them to be a lot of finger work to type on.
I've used Apple's thin keyboards for years and love their short, fast travel and feel (not the butterfly switch keyboards through, eew).
Why wouldn't someone want the fastest response with the least effort in a gaming keyboard. Why are mechanical keyboards, as loud and requiring the most work, considered superior? | Some mechanical keyboards have analogue keys instead of normal keys. This allows your computer to detect the partial pressing of a key. Meaning that if you partially press a key you, for example, walk forward slowly and if you fully press it you walk forward at full speed. This is a very useful feature when trying to position yourself in a very precise spot in games.
​
Now, not all mechanical keyboards have this, not even most. But it's something you cannot get on those slim keyboards. But yes, other than that it's purely personal preference.
---
Yes, both of his don't require full presses to activate. One you can feel it about halfway down, one you cannot. It's definitely more travel than my Mac keyboards. I hadn't heard about analogue keys though, that's at least very useful.
∆
---
You could additionally look into Topre keyboards, where you can select the travel time needed until actuation.
---
Actuation isn't really the issue, but bottoming out the key is. Unless you train yourself not to bottom out keys, you aren't really gaining speed.
---
Gaming switches activate at the top of the travel, so you don't have to bottom out the keys. So you are gaining a tiny amount of speed. Is it worth it, probably not. The advantage of mechanicals is the "feel" and you don't have to slam the key all the way down to register the key. | Mechanical keyboards are not necessarily more work to press. The light switches are very easy to press, easier than most scissor (?) switches on flat keyboards I've used. A keyboard with red switches require basically the same effort as my surface type cover keyboard, which is pretty light already.
​
> making the key stick as it depresses
This should not happen. I've never had this happen with my keyboard and it's definitely a production error. Rubberdomes are much more prone to this than spring keys
​
Also, mechanical keyboards usually activate when the key is depressed halfway, so travel time usually is not an issue.
​
Chiefly, and this is the main reason I prefer mechanical keyboards, I think the high-profile keys are more precise. It's much easier to properly hit a distinct and large key than to press a key on a thin keyboard; this may be up to familiarity though.
---
When you type or game, do you not press all the way down when you hit the keys or are you used to just activating the keys at the right depth?
The keys are sticking for my son mostly because of his age and angle he's trying to quickly press keys next to each other with as little hand movement as possible. I don't have that issue, but I recognize the effort he's trying to put into little movements.
I liken the response time to old Atari and NES controller buttons vs new console A-X buttons and d-pads. They've gotten smaller and shorter travel as components have gotten smaller and I think they are generally well liked because of it.
---
>When you type or game, do you not press all the way down when you hit the keys or are you used to just activating the keys at the right depth?
I do, but the signal is sent before the key hits the stop, so how far I press it beyond the trigger doesn't affect the responsiveness.
> The keys are sticking for my son mostly because of his age and angle he's trying to quickly press keys next to each other with as little hand movement as possible.
TBH I don't understand this one. Adjacent keys never touch in a properly functioning keyboard, and even if I apply force nearly tangentially I can't get them to stick.
I would guess the actual response time of a thin keyboard is the same as from a mechanical keyboard. The keys depress as easily in my experience. I would assume that it mostly comes down to the quality of the product, which might explain why apple keyboard outperform cheap high-profile keyboards, but mechanical keyboards are generally very high quality.
---
Maybe the key isn't "sticking" as much as the wrong, frenetic force is being applied :) It's just not something that happens with low profile keys. He's trying to roll the tips of his fingers across the tops his hands are just too small for that; like heal toe shifting a car. He's just too small to do it. I honestly don't think there is fault in the keyboard.
---
Huh, maybe it's harder for small hands to activate the keys.
Another thing I just realized is that the keys on mechanical keyboards have a continuous force, whereas there's usually a threshhold for flat keys beyond which they fall down. I wouldn't say one or the other is inherently superior, but this may be another point of opinion which makes you prefer flat keys over high-profile keys | g9m9nk | CMV: Mechanical keyboards make bad gaming keyboards. | My son has gotten two Corsair keyboards with different kinds of key actions on them (one was his first purchase and one was to get one with a smaller footprint). He mostly plays games, so I helped him research them and look up recommendations from his favorite YouTubers.
The newest one has keys with lots of travel and his small hands tend to push sideways as well as down, making the key stick as it depresses. I've typed on them and found them to be a lot of finger work to type on.
I've used Apple's thin keyboards for years and love their short, fast travel and feel (not the butterfly switch keyboards through, eew).
Why wouldn't someone want the fastest response with the least effort in a gaming keyboard. Why are mechanical keyboards, as loud and requiring the most work, considered superior? | ColossusOnTwoWheels | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "JohnReese20",
"id": "fou5z2a",
"score": 6,
"text": "Some mechanical keyboards have analogue keys instead of normal keys. This allows your computer to detect the partial pressing of a key. Meaning that if you partially press a key you, for example, walk forward slowly and if you fully ... | [
{
"author": "Zyrithian",
"id": "fou6mmo",
"score": 13,
"text": "Mechanical keyboards are not necessarily more work to press. The light switches are very easy to press, easier than most scissor (?) switches on flat keyboards I've used. A keyboard with red switches require basically the same effort as... | [
"fou5z2a",
"fou68we",
"fou8dx3",
"fou9nun",
"foutmgz"
] | [
"fou6mmo",
"fou7h3b",
"fou882d",
"fou9gvs",
"fouci0u"
] |
CMV: Universal healthcare is not the solution to America's healthcare problem
I've seen many people advocating for the implementation of universal healthcare, citing massive hospital bills as their reason. However, from what I've seen, these huge bills are due to health insurance companies' unwillingness to pay what's charged by the hospital, so the hospital has to overcharge to make back their costs. So instead of having the government pay the bills, why not bring the costs back down to sane levels?
Cash-based hospitals, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (detailed in this article: [https://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/](https://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/)), seem like the best option. They remove the necessity of health insurance altogether, potentially allowing employers to offer larger salaries rather than health benefits. With this extra income, people could start a savings account with which to cover any unexpected health issues. | With national healthcare, you are knocking out insurance companies, tons of administrative overhead, you’re gaining better buying power, and you’re cutting down on a ton of training fees since everyone isn’t using a different system. You’d also likely be catching disease earlier because people are more willing to go to the doctor and all medical records could be accessible by any doctor you see. Also, companies would save money that could then be what they pay in taxes. It’s better for most people and businesses. Lower cost per person, better care, and more healthy people.
---
You're also removing the element of choice from the process. As we've all seen with the DMV, government agencies tend to be slow and inefficient, due to lack of competition. With cash-only hospitals, they would be in competition with each other to be the most efficient and cheapest. The cost would be higher than national healthcare, yes, but the quality would be higher as well.
---
Hospitals and GPs are already in competition with each other, and could remain so under single payer insurance.
The government needn't actually run any healthcare providers, but rather just act as the insurance company. Since there would be no more in/out of network issue, you could providers shop just like if we had all cash-only hospitals.
Meanwhile, the government is in a far better position to negotiate a better price than any given individual. | So instead of $40K being paid out by your insurance and you paying maybe a $6K out of pocket deductible, The patient is required to pay $19K in cash upfront to have a necessary surgery?
How is this better exactly?
---
You're not taking into account the tens of thousands of dollars that the patient would have to pay in insurance premiums (whether by monthly payments or as paycheck deductions in exchange for health benefits). Due to expensive surgeries being as rare as they are, the vast majority of people would be in a better place on this new system than with insurance.
An example case would be a minor injury whose cost in a cash-only environment would be $2k. With insurance in play, the hospital would likely charge upward of $10k, if not more. In a cash-only system, the patient would pay $2k. In an insurance-based system, they would pay their deductible, as well as the cost of their premiums.
---
So what happens to those of us who get cancer at 26, and have to have expensive tests done and doctors visits multiple times a year for the rest of their lives to ensure that cancer stays away? And on top of that have to pay for any medical related issues their three kids end up having?
Do you think a person in that scenario is better paying cash for all this rather than insurance premiums and deductibles? | ipnr52 | CMV: Universal healthcare is not the solution to America's healthcare problem | I've seen many people advocating for the implementation of universal healthcare, citing massive hospital bills as their reason. However, from what I've seen, these huge bills are due to health insurance companies' unwillingness to pay what's charged by the hospital, so the hospital has to overcharge to make back their costs. So instead of having the government pay the bills, why not bring the costs back down to sane levels?
Cash-based hospitals, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (detailed in this article: [https://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/](https://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/)), seem like the best option. They remove the necessity of health insurance altogether, potentially allowing employers to offer larger salaries rather than health benefits. With this extra income, people could start a savings account with which to cover any unexpected health issues. | The_1_Bob | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Rkenne16",
"id": "g4ky749",
"score": 1,
"text": "With national healthcare, you are knocking out insurance companies, tons of administrative overhead, you’re gaining better buying power, and you’re cutting down on a ton of training fees since everyone isn’t using a different system. You’... | [
{
"author": "Herdnerfer",
"id": "g4kvg4t",
"score": 4,
"text": "So instead of $40K being paid out by your insurance and you paying maybe a $6K out of pocket deductible, The patient is required to pay $19K in cash upfront to have a necessary surgery? \n\nHow is this better exactly?",
"timestamp":... | [
"g4ky749",
"g4kym48",
"g4l2fxp"
] | [
"g4kvg4t",
"g4kwfgs",
"g4kws1h"
] |
CMV: While far from perfect, most Western nations treat their Muslim minorities better then Muslim nations treat their Christian minorities.
It’s something no scholar, the left leaning ones at least, wants to reckon with and something I didn’t appreciate until recently. Most Muslim countries have an ugly spirit of Islamic populism, highly masculine, that wants a revitalization of Islamic practice in their country through strict adherence of the old ways and, most importantly, reminding non Muslims what their place is in the social hierarchy.
Here’s a few examples from all over the world.
(Late 90’s - 2016) Indonesia - Ahok, a loudmouth Chinese-Christian politician, was run out of office and sentenced to jail time on a trumped charge of blasphemy against the Quran. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims attended public, in some cases racist rallies against both Christianity in Indonesia and Ahok more broadly. The blasphemy law in theory is applicable to any of indonesias five recognized religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity and Islam) but you can guess how many times a Muslim has been charged with blasphemy against a Christian.
(2011-2014) Egypt - After the fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, Muslim citizens rioted, robbed, vandalized property, murdered, raped and kidnapped many members of the small, highly Islamized, Christian population known as the Copts. Even now they’re still persecuted.
(1990’s to Present) Palestine - What few Christian Palestinians that are left are caught between an oppressive Israeli government and an increasingly radicalized Islamic majority society that views Christians and Jews with the same amount of loathing.
Turkey - even the most secularized and western of the Muslim majority nations still has a virulent strain of anti-Americanism and anti-western thought running through its politics. Which filters down to its few Christian minorities that weren’t wiped out or expelled during the violent transition from the Ottoman Empire to nation-state of the 20th century.
It’s stuff like this that makes people nervous about letting migrants into Europe. It’s stuff like this that explains why Muslim immigrants in Europe harbor far deeper and more ugly anti-Semitic feelings despite being one or even two generations removed from their country of origin. No Muslim in the West would willingly trade places or situations to live in like their Christian counterparts in the East. | Why don’t you think a left leaning scholar would recognize this? What left scholar has been avoiding this?
---
The sheer amount of well cited papers on google when googling “islamophobia west” or “islamophobia Israel” vs “anti-Christian Muslim nations” and you’ll see what I mean.
There’s voluminous papers devoted to it and to harshly scrutinizing the “root sin” of our hateful anti-Muslim ways. Usually stretching back centuries. There’s an exception with a book like “European Muslim Antisemitism: why young urban males say they don’t like Jews” but even that has far less citations then one paper on islamophobia in the west.
That means far less scholars are interested in engaging with works that challenge the “oh woe is us in the west, complicit in the violent islamophobia of the 21st century!” strain of thinking in institutions of higher learning.
---
>The sheer amount of well cited papers on google when googling “islamophobia west” or “islamophobia Israel” vs “anti-Christian Muslim nations”
Well yeah, they're speaking about what's more relevant and local to them...
---
According to many protests on the Left the concept of human rights and religious freedom doesn’t end at a border or with what concerns you or not. *You* have a moral obligation to care.
---
I think you're being a little more confrontational then is really warranted here. Remember, this is meant to be a discussion, not a debate.
It's basic sense that it's easier to research things that are happening near to you, and it's basic human nature that it's more likely for people to be interested in things that directly impact them. So of course there are *more* papers on islamophobia in the west than anti-Christian sentiments in the middle east.
That doesn't automatically translate to "left-leaning scholars ignore and/or avoid this topic".
---
Why so many papers about Israeli anti-Muslim sentiment, history and politics? That’s equally far away, about an equally foreign country and yet there seems to be more of a focus on one middle eastern countries human rights violations vs another’s.
---
Well, for what it's worth, there are only 31,200 results for "islamaphobia in israel" on Google Scholar. There are 358,000 results for "anti christianity in muslim countries". There are, interestingly, only 47,000 results for "islamaphobia in christian countries". | Western nations are not "Christian nations".
---
yeah sure, just go ahead and erase 100s of years of european culture
---
Yeah, there's nothing to European culture over the past several hundred years other than 'Christianity'.
---
christianity is a pretty huge institution in european history. Its like saying iran isnt a muslim natioan
---
No, it's not like that, because Iran is a theocracy. It's literally called "The Islamic Republic of Iran". It's a non-democratic regime governed by religious leaders according to their version of Islamic doctrine.
No modern Western nation is a "Christian republic" and the principle of separation of church and state is common among most Western democratic states.
---
Many european nations still have their sect of christianity as their state religion, its just not enforced in the slightest. Most constitutional monarchies in western europe have a state religion
---
>It's just not enforced in the slightest.
Bingo. | 1l8xdc3 | CMV: While far from perfect, most Western nations treat their Muslim minorities better then Muslim nations treat their Christian minorities. | It’s something no scholar, the left leaning ones at least, wants to reckon with and something I didn’t appreciate until recently. Most Muslim countries have an ugly spirit of Islamic populism, highly masculine, that wants a revitalization of Islamic practice in their country through strict adherence of the old ways and, most importantly, reminding non Muslims what their place is in the social hierarchy.
Here’s a few examples from all over the world.
(Late 90’s - 2016) Indonesia - Ahok, a loudmouth Chinese-Christian politician, was run out of office and sentenced to jail time on a trumped charge of blasphemy against the Quran. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims attended public, in some cases racist rallies against both Christianity in Indonesia and Ahok more broadly. The blasphemy law in theory is applicable to any of indonesias five recognized religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity and Islam) but you can guess how many times a Muslim has been charged with blasphemy against a Christian.
(2011-2014) Egypt - After the fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, Muslim citizens rioted, robbed, vandalized property, murdered, raped and kidnapped many members of the small, highly Islamized, Christian population known as the Copts. Even now they’re still persecuted.
(1990’s to Present) Palestine - What few Christian Palestinians that are left are caught between an oppressive Israeli government and an increasingly radicalized Islamic majority society that views Christians and Jews with the same amount of loathing.
Turkey - even the most secularized and western of the Muslim majority nations still has a virulent strain of anti-Americanism and anti-western thought running through its politics. Which filters down to its few Christian minorities that weren’t wiped out or expelled during the violent transition from the Ottoman Empire to nation-state of the 20th century.
It’s stuff like this that makes people nervous about letting migrants into Europe. It’s stuff like this that explains why Muslim immigrants in Europe harbor far deeper and more ugly anti-Semitic feelings despite being one or even two generations removed from their country of origin. No Muslim in the West would willingly trade places or situations to live in like their Christian counterparts in the East. | soozerain | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "mx86enh",
"score": 392,
"text": "Why don’t you think a left leaning scholar would recognize this? What left scholar has been avoiding this?",
"timestamp": 1749660076
},
{
"author": "soozerain",
"id": "mx881zv",
"score": 162,
"text": "The sheer amo... | [
{
"author": "OrnamentalHerman",
"id": "mx880s2",
"score": 10,
"text": "Western nations are not \"Christian nations\".",
"timestamp": 1749660537
},
{
"author": "DefinitionOk9211",
"id": "mx897t5",
"score": -3,
"text": "yeah sure, just go ahead and erase 100s of years of europe... | [
"mx86enh",
"mx881zv",
"mx88hpz",
"mx890uc",
"mx8a3fw",
"mx8azng",
"mx8dv5k"
] | [
"mx880s2",
"mx897t5",
"mx89hid",
"mx8az75",
"mx8bm6b",
"mx8cscv",
"mx8d7we"
] |
CMV: Joe Biden is not a decent man.
Joe Biden is not a decent man. Let’s set the record straight.
• blamed his wife’s fatal accident on the truck driver, then slandered him for decades about being an alcoholic; in reality, the accident was her fault and he was not drunk at the time - he was a teetotaler
• has been caught plaigiarizing his entire life, including in law school and during his failed 1988 presidential campaign
• smeared Anita Hill and castigated her during her testimony in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Whatever happened to “believe all women” ?????????????
• refuses to interact with or acknowledge his 7th grandchild, Navy Joan
• [cheated on his wife](https://nypost.com/2020/08/17/jill-bidens-ex-husband-accuses-her-of-having-affair-with-joe-biden/) with “Doctor” Jill, according to Jill’s ex-husband
• carries a rosary around in his pocket to virtue signal, while supporting legislation completely opposed by the Catholic Church
• cleared over [20 confirmed lies](https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/28/here-are-the-20-biggest-whoppers-biden-told-during-his-debate-with-trump/) during the last debate
- he and his inner circle have lied about his deteriorating mental condition for over 4 years. We knew it when he hid in the basement during all of 2020, but he made the representation to the entire world since then that he was “fit for duty.” He risked the security of our nation and the world out of pride.
- blamed the death of Beau for why he didn’t run in 2016, when it turns out, as he just admitted, that it was because the “Democrat” party passed him over to select Hillary instead.
- literally touted Kamala Harris as a DEI hire on the White House website, and now denies it since it is politically inconvenient for her.
I’m sure I’ve left some out, but these are the low-hanging fruit.
Also, don’t waste your time with the “what about Trump” responses. This CMV is about challenging the narrative that Joe is a “good, decent man,” which he demonstrably is not. It’s not about comparing presidents. | Theres no point in arguing joe is or is not a good man, the entire point is that compared to trump he is a saint, if you made a list about trump listing every single unethical thing you could find id be 30% done reading it, not typing this
---
It appears you are not staying on topic. My post is about Joe personally, not as a politician. What another politician does is completely irrelevant. He’s not even running for office.
---
>My post is about Joe personally, not as a politician.
if that’s the case, why include points about his actions in a senate confirmation hearing and at a presidential debate? | You already posted this same post before
---
Mods removed it and told me to repost it since there was allegedly another post of the same “topic” during the same 24 hr period. So I complied.
---
There was another post live at the time, yes.
Please keep in mind that, regardless of the previous removal reason, *you will be held to the strictures of Rule B. We expect you to award deltas this time.* | 1ec3ndw | CMV: Joe Biden is not a decent man. |
Joe Biden is not a decent man. Let’s set the record straight.
• blamed his wife’s fatal accident on the truck driver, then slandered him for decades about being an alcoholic; in reality, the accident was her fault and he was not drunk at the time - he was a teetotaler
• has been caught plaigiarizing his entire life, including in law school and during his failed 1988 presidential campaign
• smeared Anita Hill and castigated her during her testimony in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Whatever happened to “believe all women” ?????????????
• refuses to interact with or acknowledge his 7th grandchild, Navy Joan
• [cheated on his wife](https://nypost.com/2020/08/17/jill-bidens-ex-husband-accuses-her-of-having-affair-with-joe-biden/) with “Doctor” Jill, according to Jill’s ex-husband
• carries a rosary around in his pocket to virtue signal, while supporting legislation completely opposed by the Catholic Church
• cleared over [20 confirmed lies](https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/28/here-are-the-20-biggest-whoppers-biden-told-during-his-debate-with-trump/) during the last debate
- he and his inner circle have lied about his deteriorating mental condition for over 4 years. We knew it when he hid in the basement during all of 2020, but he made the representation to the entire world since then that he was “fit for duty.” He risked the security of our nation and the world out of pride.
- blamed the death of Beau for why he didn’t run in 2016, when it turns out, as he just admitted, that it was because the “Democrat” party passed him over to select Hillary instead.
- literally touted Kamala Harris as a DEI hire on the White House website, and now denies it since it is politically inconvenient for her.
I’m sure I’ve left some out, but these are the low-hanging fruit.
Also, don’t waste your time with the “what about Trump” responses. This CMV is about challenging the narrative that Joe is a “good, decent man,” which he demonstrably is not. It’s not about comparing presidents. | Holiday-Tie-574 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "naterator012",
"id": "lex6uk7",
"score": 9,
"text": "Theres no point in arguing joe is or is not a good man, the entire point is that compared to trump he is a saint, if you made a list about trump listing every single unethical thing you could find id be 30% done reading it, not typing... | [
{
"author": "unbotheredotter",
"id": "lex5wxo",
"score": 34,
"text": "You already posted this same post before",
"timestamp": 1721936155
},
{
"author": "Holiday-Tie-574",
"id": "lex63tr",
"score": -8,
"text": "Mods removed it and told me to repost it since there was allegedly... | [
"lex6uk7",
"lexa80k",
"lexe2df"
] | [
"lex5wxo",
"lex63tr",
"lex6fsd"
] |
CMV: The Social "Progress" is a meaningless buzzword that appeals to a watered down version of dialectical materialism in order to claim that the speaker’s political positions are both right and metaphysically necessary
“Progress” is a meaningless buzzword that appeals to a watered down version of dialectical materialism in order to claim that the speaker’s political positions are both right and metaphysically necessary. It is similar to dialectical materialism since it postulates a universe where there are sequential social orders each of which is overthrown by the next but unlike dialectical materialism it doesn’t postulate any dort of mechanism of which this would occur. The notion of “progress” seems to only postulate this metaphysical notion because it doesn’t see it sufficient to merely claim that it is morally justified but rather sees a need to postulate a fatalistic universe where the victory of the speaker is inevitable and determined by the fundamental nature of the universe. One could additionally bring up the is-ought problem with the notion of “progress” when it is postulated in such a metaphysical manner.
_____
> *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 don't see why "progress" implies that the speaker's values are metaphysically necessary; could you expound on that?
I see the word usually used in a moral sense: We're moving toward a more moral society in some value-driven sense, or we're moving away from it (regression). It does presuppose the speaker's values are right, but no more than most other attempts to apply moral values to policy.
---
I think there is a major implication that progress is inevitable though. It might just be the word itself but I think the concept is borrowed from Marxism (although most people who claim to be on the side of progress are not actually marxists)
---
Wait. So you claim that because people espouse views described as "progressive", that they believe that progress is, in fact 'inevitable', and that they therefore subscribe to a Marxian ideal, even though they aren't marxists or even socialists that a marxist would recognize as such?
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but that's really what it sounds like. I would answer with this: Have you watched/listened to Trump's campaigns? Politicians and people who have *causes* learn quickly that to keep people involved, they have to *speak* as if the intended result is inevitable - regardless of what it is. But let there be a challenge to something that's already established, you'll see them quickly enough talk about how those progressive values are in danger of reactionary overthrow and a return to historical "badness".
I don't believe most *actually* believe "progress" is inevitable in any way, and certainly not in the sense of Dialectical Materialism, where social progress is seen as an inevitable outcome of conflicts. Most modern "progressives" are certainly afraid of 'backsliding' as it were.
Instead, they use the word "progressive" to describe social advancement towards some goal, usually one percieved by the person speaking as "moral" or "better", but certainly not to suggest inevitability. You might google "war on women" and look at some of the political links for re-assurance that, for example, progressive feminists do not *actually believe* that such progress is inevitable, inescapable, or the necessary outcome of conflicts. | You could progress along any number of vectors, the only absolute is change from the previous position. That's why progressives are opposed to conservatives.
---
So in this case "progress" is only defined by challenging the status quo in any way including getting rid of gay marriage and things like that?
---
Sort of, but progress is along the same course. Getting rid of gay marriage would be regressive at this point since it's going back to where we came from. That could change in the future though, for example getting rid of marriage itself might be considered progressive. | 61hcw0 | CMV: The Social "Progress" is a meaningless buzzword that appeals to a watered down version of dialectical materialism in order to claim that the speaker’s political positions are both right and metaphysically necessary | “Progress” is a meaningless buzzword that appeals to a watered down version of dialectical materialism in order to claim that the speaker’s political positions are both right and metaphysically necessary. It is similar to dialectical materialism since it postulates a universe where there are sequential social orders each of which is overthrown by the next but unlike dialectical materialism it doesn’t postulate any dort of mechanism of which this would occur. The notion of “progress” seems to only postulate this metaphysical notion because it doesn’t see it sufficient to merely claim that it is morally justified but rather sees a need to postulate a fatalistic universe where the victory of the speaker is inevitable and determined by the fundamental nature of the universe. One could additionally bring up the is-ought problem with the notion of “progress” when it is postulated in such a metaphysical manner.
_____
> *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!* | suwaii | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "dfejvnl",
"score": 5,
"text": "I don't see why \"progress\" implies that the speaker's values are metaphysically necessary; could you expound on that?\n\nI see the word usually used in a moral sense: We're moving toward a more moral society in some value-driven se... | [
{
"author": "skunkardump",
"id": "dfem4d0",
"score": 1,
"text": "You could progress along any number of vectors, the only absolute is change from the previous position. That's why progressives are opposed to conservatives.",
"timestamp": 1490477816
},
{
"author": "suwaii",
"id": "df... | [
"dfejvnl",
"dfejzgq",
"dfeum0e"
] | [
"dfem4d0",
"dfeouue",
"dfepcjl"
] |
CMV: Relationships are not worth it for men
How are relationships worth it for men? Its a whole bunch of BS and time money effort rejection self improvement. And your prize if you succeed and get a girl to agree to a relationship with you? You can't sleep with anyone else! Like what??
Why would any man with options trade having sex with multiple women to give one (1) girl princess treatment? Like make it make sense.
I get being in love and I assure you I have been in love but love is a mutual benefit there needs to be something else. Like we men actually know romance we grew up and saw all the way and methods to be romantic to a woman. But umm how does a woman be romantic to a man? I ask this because most women do not know.
I'm just being frank but consistent sex is by far the the biggest benefit for men in relationships but now that situationships exist like what really is the net benefit that men get from a full blown relationship?
Ah yes, children right? A man needs a woman if he decides to have children. Wait a sec, men can't really decide to have children they need the consent of a woman. So actually men cant (and shouldn't) really be the ones to decide if they should have children. In fact only 40% of men in history have procreated while 80% of women have. So a man can't really plan his life around having children because odds are: he isn't. And in the case of divorce usually the father doesn't even get custody.
So I've been in wonderful loving relationships and I genuinely love the idea of romance and relationships but logically it makes little sense to me. Maybe I'm missing a key part of the puzzle but atp someone will really have to sell me on the idea of being in a relationship with women. | Have you ever considered that maybe people’s partners *do* want to sleep with them? That many people in fulfilling relationships have a similar libido to their partners, and are able to have sex as much as they want to.
You seem to value sex very highly in a relationship, and you acknowledge that a loving relationship is something you appreciate. If you had a partner who wanted sex as much as you do, and you both were therefore able to be satisfied with each other, would you view that relationship as “worth it” by your standards?
---
I don't value sex highly my last ex had a way higher sex drive than me
---
> You can’t sleep with anyone else!
> Why would any man with options trade [away] having sex with multiple women
> consistent sex is by far the biggest benefit for men
Tell me again that you don’t value sex highly. It very much reads to me like it’s the primary thing you care about in regard to women. The crux of your argument is literally that you think being in a relationship means less sex and more baggage, and that it isn’t logical to do so.
---
Your jumping the gun here I can think the primary advantage to being in a relationship with a women is sex and then also not valuing relationships for men. That straight adds up if you think about it for more than a few seconds.
The crux of my argument is the benefits (mostly sex to me) is not worth the investment. Where is the flaw in logic may I ask? Maybe if I actually valued sex more I wouldn't be making this post
---
> The crux of my argument is the benefits (mostly sex to me) is not worth the investment. Where is the flaw in logic may I ask?
The flaw is that a relationship can be much more than sex. Having a partner in life who can support and assist you is extremely valuable even when you don't have sex with them. That you think the benefits of a romantic relationship are mostly sex means you are ignoring the bulk of the benefits.
Plus, even if you only consider sex why do you think being single is better? I can get sex how I like it from someone experienced pleasing me just by asking, why would I want to go back to dating or bar-hopping? Plus with the right partner you can still invite new partners into the bedroom if you want! | My wife and I have been together for about 15 years. Together, we have built a life for ourselves and made far more progress on our life goals than either of us could have made on our own. We are partners in all things.
That is far more valuable to me than sex with random people.
---
My wife died four years ago, from cancer. I'm almost 47. Every relationship ends in pain, eventually.
There does not seem to be a point in me trying to develop another relationship on that level, knowing how it will eventually end for either one of us. Anything I would have had her as a partner for, I've either lost all interest in, or have good friends that can take those roles.
A serious, monogamous, nesting style relationship is something I have no interest in.
---
I'm very sorry to hear about your loss. I can only imagine how tough that is.
I don't agree with the mindset you've adopted, but having not gone through that pain I'm not going to lecture you.
---
It's the worst club in the world to be a member of, and the goal of everybody that wants a relationship. Head over to /r/Widowers to find plenty of people that sound like me (and quite a few that don't, to be fair).
But after having been through it.... Yeah, every relationship will eventually end in pain. Every single one. The type of pain differs a bit, as does the length and depth. But every relationship ends in pain for at least one person involved.
Anything that can be found inside a committed relationship like you have, actually can be found outside of one, too.
---
So avoid the joy bc in the end it will hurt?
Pitiful | 1ebcs5u | CMV: Relationships are not worth it for men | How are relationships worth it for men? Its a whole bunch of BS and time money effort rejection self improvement. And your prize if you succeed and get a girl to agree to a relationship with you? You can't sleep with anyone else! Like what??
Why would any man with options trade having sex with multiple women to give one (1) girl princess treatment? Like make it make sense.
I get being in love and I assure you I have been in love but love is a mutual benefit there needs to be something else. Like we men actually know romance we grew up and saw all the way and methods to be romantic to a woman. But umm how does a woman be romantic to a man? I ask this because most women do not know.
I'm just being frank but consistent sex is by far the the biggest benefit for men in relationships but now that situationships exist like what really is the net benefit that men get from a full blown relationship?
Ah yes, children right? A man needs a woman if he decides to have children. Wait a sec, men can't really decide to have children they need the consent of a woman. So actually men cant (and shouldn't) really be the ones to decide if they should have children. In fact only 40% of men in history have procreated while 80% of women have. So a man can't really plan his life around having children because odds are: he isn't. And in the case of divorce usually the father doesn't even get custody.
So I've been in wonderful loving relationships and I genuinely love the idea of romance and relationships but logically it makes little sense to me. Maybe I'm missing a key part of the puzzle but atp someone will really have to sell me on the idea of being in a relationship with women. | blopiter | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Darkdragon902",
"id": "lervd4z",
"score": 13,
"text": "Have you ever considered that maybe people’s partners *do* want to sleep with them? That many people in fulfilling relationships have a similar libido to their partners, and are able to have sex as much as they want to.\n\nYou seem ... | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "lertql8",
"score": 40,
"text": "My wife and I have been together for about 15 years. Together, we have built a life for ourselves and made far more progress on our life goals than either of us could have made on our own. We are partners in all things.\n\nThat is far m... | [
"lervd4z",
"lerwa65",
"les0afn",
"les5nrd",
"lesjurh"
] | [
"lertql8",
"lerufx2",
"leruqmw",
"lervrnj",
"lerw64k"
] |
CMV: Entrenchment of power is bad and must be avoided as much as possible
Okay, you know that the saying that goes that power tends to entrench itself in government systems and people craving it would like to seek such positions to ensure that they will be there for a long time. It must be avoided because it will lead to backsliding.
​
To avoid this, all terms in governmental office, including the lowest staffer must be subject to strict term limits of 1 non renewable term not lasting more than 5 days with the period between elections remaining the same (4 years) to prevent entrenchment of power.
​
Additionally, the age limit for such offices would be changed from the minimum age of 25 for congressmen and 35 for president to 0 for minimum age to 21 for the maximum age needed to stand for election to those offices to remove connections that would tempt people to abuse the system.
​
CMV | The parties aren't just going to dissolve just because they can't do anything for four years. Instead, all the issues of four years will be compiled, the most urgent first, and laws are drafted. They're just drafted without any public debate or input.
Then, being the only large organizations capable of doing so, more or less random teenagers are selected and promoted for office by the parties, primarily based on their ability to say yes as fast as possible. For five days then, all the law changes that must be done to keep the nation functional, all the acts that must be signed, would be pushed through rapidfire, no debate, no readings, just nod off everything as fast as possible.
This is not a healthy way to govern a nation, but under your proposal would be the only way to keep its laws, budgets, and agencies functional and to prevent a total breakdown of the state.
---
Well, better than the current system
---
Better for who? | So we’d do an election every 5 days? How would that work?
---
No government for 4 years, then hold an election for a government with a single term of 5 days.
---
Why have a government at all if we can get by just fine without it for the vast majority of the time? | 14r103q | CMV: Entrenchment of power is bad and must be avoided as much as possible | Okay, you know that the saying that goes that power tends to entrench itself in government systems and people craving it would like to seek such positions to ensure that they will be there for a long time. It must be avoided because it will lead to backsliding.
​
To avoid this, all terms in governmental office, including the lowest staffer must be subject to strict term limits of 1 non renewable term not lasting more than 5 days with the period between elections remaining the same (4 years) to prevent entrenchment of power.
​
Additionally, the age limit for such offices would be changed from the minimum age of 25 for congressmen and 35 for president to 0 for minimum age to 21 for the maximum age needed to stand for election to those offices to remove connections that would tempt people to abuse the system.
​
CMV | Cheemingwan1234 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Sayakai",
"id": "jqr258r",
"score": 1,
"text": "The parties aren't just going to dissolve just because they can't do anything for four years. Instead, all the issues of four years will be compiled, the most urgent first, and laws are drafted. They're just drafted without any public deba... | [
{
"author": "Dave-Again",
"id": "jqq3dtq",
"score": 3,
"text": "So we’d do an election every 5 days? How would that work?",
"timestamp": 1688536108
},
{
"author": "Cheemingwan1234",
"id": "jqq3m0e",
"score": 1,
"text": "No government for 4 years, then hold an election for a g... | [
"jqr258r",
"jqr52ov",
"jqtwiww"
] | [
"jqq3dtq",
"jqq3m0e",
"jqq3wip"
] |
CMV: Debates are useless and don't try to actually find a solution or a middle ground.
I watched this debate between Benny Morris and Mehdi Hasan recently about the Israel and Palestine conflict, expecting them to eventually reach a middle ground together, but that never came. Instead, they fought for their side until the end and never even a single time conceded to the other person or came to the conclusion that they were both correct on anything. The same thing can be seen with every single one of those Jubilee videos on YouTube no one comes out the other side of them with a different view or perspective, they stick to their original beliefs.
In my view, that makes these debates ultimately a waste of time. Nothing of substance was gained from participating in them, and even less substance was gained by watching them. As a viewer, all I get is a sense that there is no middle ground because these people who know far more than me about it, and actively want a solution for this issue, are failing to find one. So that ultimately makes these events completely worthless.
To me it seems like it's just an ideological boxing match made to stroke the ego of the people participating. I think they're useless and really shouldn't be done any more. | Nobody enters a debate with the notion that their view may be wrong, and the point of debates arent to reach a middle ground. If someone does want to challenge their own views, they would ask a question, or at least state that their view is open to change.
The purpose of a debate is:
a. (In some forms) to show intellectual competence (ex: presidential debates)
b. Give the necessary context and information to bring the 3rd party to your side.
---
I could see that, but basically everyone in the audience has a pre-existing bias especially in our modern world and especially for the debates I mentioned. So ultimately, they leave with their biases confirmed or thinking that the person who was debating for them is intellectually incompetent. I don't think it's providing any value for anyone really.
---
Good debates promote intellectual honesty and rigour, which can be very valuable both for the debators and the audience. Unfortunately the standards for most debates popular today are extremely low and they favor cheap tactics and don't disqualify participants for logical fallacies, which indeed makes them more akin to screaming matches. It's a pity, because competitive debating, for example Oxford style, can show people how two perspectives might clash while still being internally consistent and that the world is not black and white. The winner of a debate is traditionally the one with the better arguments not the one who is better at manipulating people's emotions, but you're right that today it is most often not the case. | Often, debates are not to convince the other debater, they are to convince the audience.
---
Yeah, but even then, at least for the debates I mentioned in the post, not a single person in the comments, the audience or the friends I spoke to about it afterwards found any clarity for the other side. It just seemed to reinforce their own views to them to see them articulated so well by someone.
---
Even if it just makes people think about the matter rather than just blindly believing, isn't that valuable on its own? | 1l8qjnz | CMV: Debates are useless and don't try to actually find a solution or a middle ground. | I watched this debate between Benny Morris and Mehdi Hasan recently about the Israel and Palestine conflict, expecting them to eventually reach a middle ground together, but that never came. Instead, they fought for their side until the end and never even a single time conceded to the other person or came to the conclusion that they were both correct on anything. The same thing can be seen with every single one of those Jubilee videos on YouTube no one comes out the other side of them with a different view or perspective, they stick to their original beliefs.
In my view, that makes these debates ultimately a waste of time. Nothing of substance was gained from participating in them, and even less substance was gained by watching them. As a viewer, all I get is a sense that there is no middle ground because these people who know far more than me about it, and actively want a solution for this issue, are failing to find one. So that ultimately makes these events completely worthless.
To me it seems like it's just an ideological boxing match made to stroke the ego of the people participating. I think they're useless and really shouldn't be done any more. | CypherTripOnSunset | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "katilkoala101",
"id": "mx6nh2q",
"score": 38,
"text": "Nobody enters a debate with the notion that their view may be wrong, and the point of debates arent to reach a middle ground. If someone does want to challenge their own views, they would ask a question, or at least state that their... | [
{
"author": "onetwo3four5",
"id": "mx6n3on",
"score": 35,
"text": "Often, debates are not to convince the other debater, they are to convince the audience.",
"timestamp": 1749642569
},
{
"author": "CypherTripOnSunset",
"id": "mx6nhmq",
"score": 1,
"text": "Yeah, but even then... | [
"mx6nh2q",
"mx6oh8z",
"mx6p2te"
] | [
"mx6n3on",
"mx6nhmq",
"mx6nu8b"
] |
CMV: Labels like “boomer” or “karen” or any other labels (eg. “woke”) used to generalize a group of people are always problematic & counterproductive
We are a species that relies on pattern recognition to process the information around us. As a natural consequence, to try and understand, interpret, & navigate our various social milieus we tend to group (seemingly) similar people together & apply labels to them to simplify and make our understanding of the world more manageable.
While somewhat inevitable, we should fight & question this impulse whenever possible because the consequence of oversimplification leads to all forms of prejudice, xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, classism, etc that we encounter on this planet.
I suspect “Boomer”, “karen” & certain other labels get a pass because they are generally associated with those in a position of power. It is therfore perceived as justice to generalize these groups together in order to attack them in a simple/manageable way.
My issue is these labels are still prejudice, plain and simple, and therefore will always lead to injustice.
Society is infinitely complex, & flippantly applying labels (positive OR negative) to every group of people different from you that you don’t understand amounts to nothing more than ignorance & laziness at best, intolerance at worst, & worse still, hate.
Do the work of trying to understand the people different from you. Don’t settle for generalizations when you could learn a bit more, stretch a bit further, and characterize something with more fairness and detail.
Of course it is always a moving target and increasingly complex task, but we have to resist the urge to generalize whenever possible.
Our society, always full of various & changing backgrounds & circumstances, absolurely depends on it more and more each day. We must strive for our discourse to be ever sharper, more intelligent, more tolerant, less fearful, more informed, less ignorant, more patient, and more kind if we ever hope to keep a society churning full of diverse individuals.
| Is it actually the pattern-seeking behavior that you object to, or is it the misapplication of the pattern where it doesn't fit?
Is it OK to call someone a "Karen" when they are actually being extremely entitled, over-assertive, assuming authority they don't actually have, inserting themselves into situations they should stay out of, etc.? Or is it only bad when we do that to a white woman that doesn't actually meet that description?
---
I would argue flippantly using any labels is problematic because it’s prone to error. Doesn’t matter who you apply it to because you cannot fairly encapsulate someone with a label like Karen and expect to capture any meaningful aspect of their behavior
---
I disagree. Like you said, we are pattern-recognizing creatures. We can accurately identify a pattern of behaviors or attitudes and call them out with a pejorative term. A pejorative might be mean, might be negative, but that doesn't mean it can't be accurate and can't be an effective way of calling out something that's bad.
---
We can identify patterns of behavior to a certain degree, but I would not say accurately. We can do the best we can. We should always try to do better and be more accurate. Karen is vague, and in my opinion in the scheme of things breaks down to prejudice & all sorts of other problems of perception.
---
Calling someone a Karen is no different than calling someone an asshole. You're commenting on their behavior.
This is not at all comparable to calling someone a boomer as an insult, because there is objective criteria that defines a boomer (literally being a member of the Baby Boomer generation.)
---
I do see the distinction here, boomer does have an objective criteria.
I still argue there’s a problem with how the whole generation is generalized. Just cuz ur 70 doesn’t make you this or that.
My problem isn’t labels. My problem is lazily throwing labels around for people you have a problem with just because you lack the energy/intelligence/integrity to do the work of understanding the problem in depth.
---
Drop a delta if your view changed. | > My issue is these labels are still prejudice, plain and simple, and therefore will always lead to injustice.
How do labels lead to injustice? What injustice is occurring?
---
You ascribe a label to someone, and that label carries the baggage of everything else that is associated with it, which I argue the individual being labeled never deserves. Not fully.
---
...isn't this equally true of literally all names/labels?
My name's Bruce, oh I didn't know your high school bully was also called Bruce? Yeah I'm french, oh you think the French are very sexy?
Can you name a sign term that doesn't utilise associated meaning?
---
I would say yes any label is subject to bias/generalizations. I’m not sure “bruce” or “french” come charged with such broad generalizations or assumptions as Karen, but yes I think any label is subject to problems if it generalizes one person into some group
My point is push further, avoid flippantly using a label if you can use some better descriptor instead
---
What's the injustice has occurred though? You haven't identified any harm that wouldn't equally apply to any term.
---
My first comment was an attempt to answer this, so I’ll try again.
The injustice would be when you call someone a Karen based own judgement they may not actually possess all the traits that have been associated with Karen. Maybe their personality is prickly and maybe you caught them being rude, but does that necessarily mean they’re entitled? Tough to say. My point is the label is ultimately vague
---
I think alot of your view is based on the projection of what you believe happens.
You make a scenario in your mind where one person does X and the other person feels Y and you decide that that's bad.
Your view is Tautological at best. | 1eaf3ca | CMV: Labels like “boomer” or “karen” or any other labels (eg. “woke”) used to generalize a group of people are always problematic & counterproductive | We are a species that relies on pattern recognition to process the information around us. As a natural consequence, to try and understand, interpret, & navigate our various social milieus we tend to group (seemingly) similar people together & apply labels to them to simplify and make our understanding of the world more manageable.
While somewhat inevitable, we should fight & question this impulse whenever possible because the consequence of oversimplification leads to all forms of prejudice, xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, classism, etc that we encounter on this planet.
I suspect “Boomer”, “karen” & certain other labels get a pass because they are generally associated with those in a position of power. It is therfore perceived as justice to generalize these groups together in order to attack them in a simple/manageable way.
My issue is these labels are still prejudice, plain and simple, and therefore will always lead to injustice.
Society is infinitely complex, & flippantly applying labels (positive OR negative) to every group of people different from you that you don’t understand amounts to nothing more than ignorance & laziness at best, intolerance at worst, & worse still, hate.
Do the work of trying to understand the people different from you. Don’t settle for generalizations when you could learn a bit more, stretch a bit further, and characterize something with more fairness and detail.
Of course it is always a moving target and increasingly complex task, but we have to resist the urge to generalize whenever possible.
Our society, always full of various & changing backgrounds & circumstances, absolurely depends on it more and more each day. We must strive for our discourse to be ever sharper, more intelligent, more tolerant, less fearful, more informed, less ignorant, more patient, and more kind if we ever hope to keep a society churning full of diverse individuals.
| Landa_Chuy | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "AcephalicDude",
"id": "lel137p",
"score": 23,
"text": "Is it actually the pattern-seeking behavior that you object to, or is it the misapplication of the pattern where it doesn't fit?\n\nIs it OK to call someone a \"Karen\" when they are actually being extremely entitled, over-assertive... | [
{
"author": "Kazthespooky",
"id": "lel35c5",
"score": 4,
"text": "> My issue is these labels are still prejudice, plain and simple, and therefore will always lead to injustice.\n\n\nHow do labels lead to injustice? What injustice is occurring?",
"timestamp": 1721760002
},
{
"author": "La... | [
"lel137p",
"lel5i7s",
"lel6962",
"lel8c6i",
"lesqfhu",
"let2xu9",
"leve8nh"
] | [
"lel35c5",
"lel6ebd",
"lel6tkc",
"lel8zic",
"lel9fh3",
"leljnpd",
"lell5d3"
] |
CMV: It should be illegal to rent out living spaces to others.
It should be illegal to buy a property and rent it out to others, or taxed so heavily that it's not profitable at all. If you own residential property, you MUST live in it yourself. I believe this is the sole reason that houses get continually more expensive to buy, rent is skyrocketing and this behavior drastically increases the wealth gap and homelessness.
The wealthy scoop up all the houses and then rent it out to people who are building no equity and only paying the rich to make them richer. Landlords then have no reason to ever sell the property as long as its profitable, or the neighborhood otherwise becomes a total dump and unprofitable.
I'm not saying renting should be illegal, as obviously its usually cheaper to rent than to buy. Renting should only be legal in developments specifically designed for renting (eg apartments / or specific communities) and municipalities should regulate and limit the number of "rentable" units in the city.
I think we will eventually be in a state where there is no buyable property left for an average person looking to buy a home. Real estate will only be traded between the rich as an "investment". There are plenty of other investments available (stocks, REITS, etc). Real estate should be available for people who actually need a place to live.
​
Buying real state just to rent it is similar to scalping in my opinion. Rich people buy all the stock so that supply is limited and prices sky rocket. | Most people can’t afford to buy a place, especially with a 20% down payment. So you want all the people who rent (theoretically, poor people) to live in a slum city together? That’s what it sounds like.
---
> Most people can’t afford to buy a place
The point of my argument is that this would reduce the price of housing, and therefore allow a lot more people to "afford to buy a place". The reason they can't afford it is because all the properties are scooped up by the rich and inflated.
---
A simpler solution would just be to restrict the number of properties that someone can own. They can own one to live in, and one more that they are allowed to rent, and that's it. That stops people from turning into real estate moguls who make a living off of rent and buying and selling houses, which pushes up the prices. | Limiting the properties which are available to rent would drive the price of rentals up based upon the simple supply/demand principle.
This could also increase homelessness and/or allow renters to save less to potentially own in the future.
---
Right, but its balanced by the fact that when landlords suddenly have to sell all their properties, there would be a large supply of houses on the market. Supply/Demand would mean they are drastically decreased in price and more people could afford to buy rather than rent.
---
Which drives down the value of homes, which drives down property taxes collected, which destroys state and local government revenue streams. | l03w9n | CMV: It should be illegal to rent out living spaces to others. | It should be illegal to buy a property and rent it out to others, or taxed so heavily that it's not profitable at all. If you own residential property, you MUST live in it yourself. I believe this is the sole reason that houses get continually more expensive to buy, rent is skyrocketing and this behavior drastically increases the wealth gap and homelessness.
The wealthy scoop up all the houses and then rent it out to people who are building no equity and only paying the rich to make them richer. Landlords then have no reason to ever sell the property as long as its profitable, or the neighborhood otherwise becomes a total dump and unprofitable.
I'm not saying renting should be illegal, as obviously its usually cheaper to rent than to buy. Renting should only be legal in developments specifically designed for renting (eg apartments / or specific communities) and municipalities should regulate and limit the number of "rentable" units in the city.
I think we will eventually be in a state where there is no buyable property left for an average person looking to buy a home. Real estate will only be traded between the rich as an "investment". There are plenty of other investments available (stocks, REITS, etc). Real estate should be available for people who actually need a place to live.
​
Buying real state just to rent it is similar to scalping in my opinion. Rich people buy all the stock so that supply is limited and prices sky rocket. | ohThisUsername | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Aaaaaaandyy",
"id": "gjrcbcx",
"score": 10,
"text": "Most people can’t afford to buy a place, especially with a 20% down payment. So you want all the people who rent (theoretically, poor people) to live in a slum city together? That’s what it sounds like.",
"timestamp": 1611004400
... | [
{
"author": "cprmauldin",
"id": "gjrcbbk",
"score": 4,
"text": "Limiting the properties which are available to rent would drive the price of rentals up based upon the simple supply/demand principle. \n\nThis could also increase homelessness and/or allow renters to save less to potentially own in the... | [
"gjrcbcx",
"gjrdczh",
"gjrglwx"
] | [
"gjrcbbk",
"gjrd6gv",
"gjrdnw5"
] |
CMV: Dave Rubin is intellectually dishonest.
Dave Rubin gives puff interviews to people he apparently disagrees with, but never challenges them. But preaches that other people have to change their minds. (I am in favor of changing one's mind, look at this subreddit this is in).
The best evidence he gives as being a (classical) liberal is he says "I'm a classical liberal."
There are criticisms of Republicans that have nothing to do with Trump that get lightly covered.
For some reason he insists that SJW's are the biggest problem to society. Not stagnant wages, not climate change, not automation changing the nature of employment. Even though SJW's have no political power at all and Obama has [spoken against it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIqTgGsl9YM).
The anti-SJW niche is very popular (and profitable) but every issue has been discussed ad nauseam by other channels and Rubin brings nothing to the discussion.
So my view is that Dave Rubin is intellectually dishonest because his priorities are aligned with profiting from a niche, not helping discussion.
I am okay with echo chambers existing and being profitable. We should be honest about what they are.
I think that political correctness is an unnecessary weight on one's ability to think clearly, and SJWs are more incorrect than correct.
CMV
Edit: He is more probing than I initially thought.
Edit 2: My problem has nothing to do with the guests he has on. The SJW obsession is my biggest problem by fair.
Edit 3: Being an unaggressive interviewer is fine - as long as facts (not ideologies) are preserved. I don't always agree with him stylistically, but it is less deceptive than I initially thought.
_____
> *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!* | Dave Rubin is an interviewer who fosters an space that allows people to present all sides of their argument. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about that.
He also points out the various parts of the left that he sees as toxic, as well as the parts of the right that he sees as toxic. That is not intellectually dishonest.
Both of those actions foster discussion.
---
I gave a delta about his probing ability, but I wish he probed more.
Yeah, PC stuff is bad, but other issues matter. He is soft on the right.
---
He's soft on the right in your estimation because you are From the left. A right winger would watch an interview with a left winger and say the same thing.
It's just your perspective, I'm not American and so a bit more removed and Dave treats everyone the same. As long as they are polite he lets them have their say.
He's not a tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow or bill o'reilly who attempts to tear down interviewees. He's a more traditional interviewer who tries to give his interviewees the chance to best describe their position and let viewers make decisions based off that.
---
You don't have to tear down someone to scrutinize opinions.
---
The point is that he is equally lenient to both left and right wing speakers, it's an interview style, where you make the other person comfortable and explore their viewpoint. Then you let the viewer decide if what they are saying is good.
---
Does he have lefties on more than I think? Lefties that don't merely rip on political correctness?
---
Off the top of my head, Hillary Rosen, Michael Ian Black, the climate change scientist I can the remember the name of, Roseann Barr - and these people are *heavily* to the left. I had a very strong objection to some of the things they said, but you don't see me taking this out on Rubin or calling him dishonest for not criticizing them enough. | Dave Rubin is a leftist who presents all sides of the argument. If you hate that he allows right wingers to speak, that's just too bad. Dave Rubin allows people he disagrees with on his channel. If that's intellectual dishonesty, then that's intellectual dishonesty.
If your argument is that everyone should only allow the far left to speak, then you're invincible. Well played.
---
Not at all. Letting everyone speak is a good thing, but his lack of follow up questions and clarifiers is a problem.
---
Rubin's interviews are often over 40 minutes long. Do you really think he doesn't ask follow up questions? What does he do for over 40 minutes? He clarifies what he means.
---
Again, I'm fine with letting people have their say, but he very rarely addresses obvious points of disagreement. Having these points clarified would be helpful.
---
> but he very rarely addresses obvious points of disagreement. Having these points clarified would be helpful
You should listen to his interview with Lauren Southern and try to tell me this. It would be quite the exercise in mental gymnastics.
---
A soft ∆
[So I re-watched it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrQ533YfuGc) and annotated a lot of it, for myself mostly. I found it mixed. There were a few places that he didn't dig deep. But good enough to Delta.
10:40 LS says that Milo was taken down with a coordinated attack (on the right?) and DR asked about the Conspiracy. And LS backed off a bit.
13:31 a libertarian point about govt. Some evidence he is far more centrist than he lets on.
15:30 did not divert into anything about Native Americans. Probably helpful for the conversation.
17:30 Talked about Trudeau being a joke. Other people's policies are tricky, but this would require more evidence. It looks like he's sitting at an approval rating in the 40s, and his stance of marijuana should be a point of agreement.
21:00 An extraordinary claim? That Rubin was a bit too gentle on.
25:00 Prophets of Doom podcast has nothing to do with Muslim's in Europe, but Rubin could not have actually known that. He probably should know Luten is [25% Muslim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton#Religion).
30:00 Makes the good distinction between Islam and Muslims. A point that should be driven home as much as possible.
33:00 Details about vetting would have been helpful.
33:50 EU pessimism is a lot more center/right than left.
34:45 DR suggested that Turkey's Wall with a war torn nation with a lot of problems was comparable to a Wall between the US and Mexico.
35:00 Thumbs up for saying Erdogan is an asshole.
37:00 LaPenn's party history is worthy of note.
37:50 Split between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism went undressed - maybe for the sake of conversation flow.
39:30 Rather extreme social safety net claim. I'm not an expert but Canada does spend money [on their children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Canadian_federal_budget).
41:00 Rather odd claim that decreasing birth rates are a function of taxes.
42:00 A big assimilation questions went unaddressed.
43:00 Another claim about safety net stuff that went unaddressed.
44:00 This might be unintentional, but DR made himself look a little bad about the claim he hasn't changed his mind in 29 years.
46:00 I'm in college (in the PNW) and I've never heard of anyone use a trigger warning. The PC issue is blown out of proportion.
48:00 long talks about protests that turn to riots. I'm pro-protest, but very against riots. The [Milwakee riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Milwaukee_riots) were no joke, but had nothing to do with nominal democrats.
50:00 Bounty's from BLM? That's an extraordinary claim. Answered with a "yeah"
51:00 Claims about liberal cities being shitholes, this is untrue if you pay any attention to the coasts.
53:00 "Give them opportunities" details matter a lot here. Did not ask for any.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/activatedalmondz ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/activatedalmondz)).
^[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": "activatedalmondz"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 6jbsmb | CMV: Dave Rubin is intellectually dishonest. | Dave Rubin gives puff interviews to people he apparently disagrees with, but never challenges them. But preaches that other people have to change their minds. (I am in favor of changing one's mind, look at this subreddit this is in).
The best evidence he gives as being a (classical) liberal is he says "I'm a classical liberal."
There are criticisms of Republicans that have nothing to do with Trump that get lightly covered.
For some reason he insists that SJW's are the biggest problem to society. Not stagnant wages, not climate change, not automation changing the nature of employment. Even though SJW's have no political power at all and Obama has [spoken against it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIqTgGsl9YM).
The anti-SJW niche is very popular (and profitable) but every issue has been discussed ad nauseam by other channels and Rubin brings nothing to the discussion.
So my view is that Dave Rubin is intellectually dishonest because his priorities are aligned with profiting from a niche, not helping discussion.
I am okay with echo chambers existing and being profitable. We should be honest about what they are.
I think that political correctness is an unnecessary weight on one's ability to think clearly, and SJWs are more incorrect than correct.
CMV
Edit: He is more probing than I initially thought.
Edit 2: My problem has nothing to do with the guests he has on. The SJW obsession is my biggest problem by fair.
Edit 3: Being an unaggressive interviewer is fine - as long as facts (not ideologies) are preserved. I don't always agree with him stylistically, but it is less deceptive than I initially thought.
_____
> *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!* | KingMelray | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "djd4axy",
"score": 4,
"text": "Dave Rubin is an interviewer who fosters an space that allows people to present all sides of their argument. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about that. \n\nHe also points out the various parts of the left that he sees as toxic, a... | [
{
"author": "activatedalmondz",
"id": "djd2mqs",
"score": 5,
"text": "Dave Rubin is a leftist who presents all sides of the argument. If you hate that he allows right wingers to speak, that's just too bad. Dave Rubin allows people he disagrees with on his channel. If that's intellectual dishonesty,... | [
"djd4axy",
"djd5ebs",
"djd8vf0",
"djddxmb",
"djdeipi",
"djdh0in",
"djdqegq"
] | [
"djd2mqs",
"djd2vma",
"djd2zq7",
"djd32ow",
"djd35ic",
"djd563x",
"djd56br"
] |
CMV: The 2nd Amendment enables the police state, it does not protect our other rights.
One argument for the Second Amendment is that it is used to protect against government overreach. Correlation implies otherwise: the US has more guns than our peer countries but we also have more people imprisoned and killed by the government. Police in the US have more impunity to search, detain, and use force than peer countries. By peer countries, I mean high income, Democratic countries including Western Europe, the anglosphere, Japan... I'm sure there's more.
I believe this is causative. In other countries, there is little worry that police at a traffic stop or serving a warrant will be faced with a gun. Many countries don't arm patrol officers, and those countries have fewer police killed on duty.
As a result of the real threat faced by police, they are increasingly heavily armed. They are quick to use escalating force out of a sense of personal safety. The US courts have protected these police powers.
The idea I've seen is that if police try to infringe on rights, the gun will save you. It will not. The police will kill you, and then use your death as reason to limit rights to be free of search and seizure and free from government violence. | The 2nd amendment is not for individual instances of a rouge cop infringing on someone's rights. In 99% of cases it's not in your best interest to resist cops, even if they are unjustified. You have a higher chance of getting justice by complying and sueing later, than if you resist then the court uses the video evidence of you resisting as their justification for shooting/fearing for their lives.
That's different from the entire police force being used to say round up people to put them in camps. At that point if you are going to resist, it's ALL or NOTHING. But regardless of whether the 2nd amendment is there, guns exist and will always exist; they're not going away, so it's in people's best interest to be able to defend themselves against criminals who also have guns.
---
It didn't save the Japanese during WWII.
It didn't save Blacks from mass incarceration. Ask the Black Panthers how much their guns protected them.
It gives more firepower to the police that enables them.
In the case the government wants to round up a disfavored group, the guns are more likely to be used to assist the government. The government can't do it without public support, guns or not.
---
>Ask the Black Panthers how much their guns protected them.
Meanwhile the Black Panthers carried long arms when protesting or to let police know where was an armed threat around them during arrests to keep them from overstepping.
The thing that put this to a stop, at least in California, was the Mulford Act which outlawed public carry.
The second amendment itself wasn't what killed the practice of the community looking after its own, the subverting the 2nd amendment is what did it. | If you are off work today and celebrating the 4th of July, you can thank all those citizens who possessed guns.
---
Canada was off on July 1st. They didn't use guns.
---
July 1st isn’t July 4th. Canada is not the United States. You really look stupid. | 14qk1vp | CMV: The 2nd Amendment enables the police state, it does not protect our other rights. | One argument for the Second Amendment is that it is used to protect against government overreach. Correlation implies otherwise: the US has more guns than our peer countries but we also have more people imprisoned and killed by the government. Police in the US have more impunity to search, detain, and use force than peer countries. By peer countries, I mean high income, Democratic countries including Western Europe, the anglosphere, Japan... I'm sure there's more.
I believe this is causative. In other countries, there is little worry that police at a traffic stop or serving a warrant will be faced with a gun. Many countries don't arm patrol officers, and those countries have fewer police killed on duty.
As a result of the real threat faced by police, they are increasingly heavily armed. They are quick to use escalating force out of a sense of personal safety. The US courts have protected these police powers.
The idea I've seen is that if police try to infringe on rights, the gun will save you. It will not. The police will kill you, and then use your death as reason to limit rights to be free of search and seizure and free from government violence. | HappyChandler | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Patrickodang",
"id": "jqnidd1",
"score": 21,
"text": "The 2nd amendment is not for individual instances of a rouge cop infringing on someone's rights. In 99% of cases it's not in your best interest to resist cops, even if they are unjustified. You have a higher chance of getting justice... | [
{
"author": "CoffeeWillMakeMePoop",
"id": "jqnflkf",
"score": -2,
"text": "If you are off work today and celebrating the 4th of July, you can thank all those citizens who possessed guns.",
"timestamp": 1688488726
},
{
"author": "HappyChandler",
"id": "jqngk6y",
"score": 4,
"t... | [
"jqnidd1",
"jqnkl9p",
"jqnpty8"
] | [
"jqnflkf",
"jqngk6y",
"jqnh1xu"
] |
CMV: Trying to "solve" global warming is unrealistic, and plans should only be made to survive it
First off, yes, I think that global warming is real. But from what I have seen of how factories work and how resources are used, I think it is unfair to blame corporations for "ruining Earth". Sure, yes, they are causing environmental problems, and yes, there are researches into how to produce with less harm to the environment, but I think that whining that corporations are purposefully prioritizing profits over the environment is kind of misunderstanding the point of corporations. They are an organization created to make more money, that's their job. Expecting corporations to take hits and cause their shares to fall because of some moral imperatives is like expecting a banker to do a fireman's job. They are already doing the best they can realistically do, and to do any more would simply destroy the economy. The issue isn't what people are doing, but because of how the world is. The Earth is a shitty, sensitive system that breaks too easily. I feel like people these days seem to think that all problems originate from people being jerks, without realizing that sometimes reality is just limiting. If living normally and expanding human civilization causes the Earth to be affected this badly, then I highly doubt it would be possible for us to fix that problem and still remain as a species that is growing. The only way out of this is to just utilize Earth's resource to the best of our abilities, and live with the consequences, because there is no way for us to stop consequences from happening without stopping production.
EDIT: I should also add that I think that trying to impose too much regulations on corporations will only serve to hurt ourselves, and make the world as a whole "poorer".
EDIT 2: In light of the main thing seeming to be the question of mitigating global warming VS mitigating the effect of global warming, I think I should lay my cards on the table. I think something that would convince me would be arguments on why it is more efficient to mitigate global warming itself, rather than mitigating the effects it would have on us.
_____
> *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 should also add that I think that trying to impose too much regulations on corporations will only serve to hurt ourselves, and make the world as a whole "poorer".
Many regulations result in Humanity or Civilizations being less capable of production- as they have to compromise. But, it's sometimes at the sacrifice of living conditions, envoirmental protection or some other greater good.
A world that is really good at making money, isn't necessarily a world where everyone benefits from that- even in the sense of having more materials.
---
Well, how can we really tell that it will give us more total production? That's really all it boils down to. I'm saying that the way we're trying to conserve the Earth right now would only just be like expending energy and resources into a problem that is too big for us to fix, and it would be a better investment to figure out how to weather through it.
---
I think we've already looked into the "weathering through it" strategy. After a certain point, we can't. You would have cascading ecological collapse. We simply wouldn't be able to grow food at the scale needed to feed 7+ billion.
There's also the absurdly high cost of relocating 100s of millions who live on coastlines that would be destroyed by rising tides. | You're right that corporations are not evil. They are by nature a-moral entities that seek out profit. Corporations would happily try to save the world if it was the most profitable avenue. This is why we need to make it the most profitable avenue through regulation. If we created a carbon tax that proportionally charged users for negative externality of climate change you'd see massive investment in renewables and energy saving measures overnight.(For example, consider what california's fuel economy standards did to the auto industry) Even without regulation, we're already seeing huge growth in the efficiency of solar panels and battery power.
And so what if our productivity is hit in the short term? Western civilization is already ridiculously wealthy. why not take a hit to that for something more sustainable?
While China is the biggest emitter right now, if you look at it historically, the US and western europe are responsible for far more emissions. Also, if we start to develop a sustainable energy system, China and India will follow along. Keep in mind, China is the biggest investor in solar energy in the world.
There's also no reason we can't continue to grow. We simply need to innovate new energy sources without massive externalities. It's simply an unfortunate coincididince of history that our most promising fuel source, coal and oil, has turned out to have this big negative impact. As I've said, solar has the potential to catch up quickly to take a large load of our power, and improved battery technology will make it much more reliable. Furthermore, I'm a big advocate of nuclear power, although I know it's popularity makes it unlikely it will grow. In a few decades, if we invest enough effort, we can have fusion power which could easily run our civilization with effectivly no impact on the environment.
I think you're being unduely pessimistic. You're assuming that imrpvoing humanity will always be in conflict with sustianing the environment. This doesn't have to be the case. Think of global warming as an unforseen sideeffect that we simply have to do our best to manage.
---
Did I just stumble upon someone who realizes a carbon tax would be the simplest, most efficient solution ever? It's the kind of things taxes were designed for (as opposed to a way of raising revenue). Too bad its anathema to politicians.
---
Sounds like an issue in incentive to me if people aren't willing to implement it... Taxes are great in theory but they offend human greed, which is a fact of life in modern society. I don't think any policies that involve inconveniencing people will fly unless it's something high stake like bureaucracy. | 6je7u2 | CMV: Trying to "solve" global warming is unrealistic, and plans should only be made to survive it | First off, yes, I think that global warming is real. But from what I have seen of how factories work and how resources are used, I think it is unfair to blame corporations for "ruining Earth". Sure, yes, they are causing environmental problems, and yes, there are researches into how to produce with less harm to the environment, but I think that whining that corporations are purposefully prioritizing profits over the environment is kind of misunderstanding the point of corporations. They are an organization created to make more money, that's their job. Expecting corporations to take hits and cause their shares to fall because of some moral imperatives is like expecting a banker to do a fireman's job. They are already doing the best they can realistically do, and to do any more would simply destroy the economy. The issue isn't what people are doing, but because of how the world is. The Earth is a shitty, sensitive system that breaks too easily. I feel like people these days seem to think that all problems originate from people being jerks, without realizing that sometimes reality is just limiting. If living normally and expanding human civilization causes the Earth to be affected this badly, then I highly doubt it would be possible for us to fix that problem and still remain as a species that is growing. The only way out of this is to just utilize Earth's resource to the best of our abilities, and live with the consequences, because there is no way for us to stop consequences from happening without stopping production.
EDIT: I should also add that I think that trying to impose too much regulations on corporations will only serve to hurt ourselves, and make the world as a whole "poorer".
EDIT 2: In light of the main thing seeming to be the question of mitigating global warming VS mitigating the effect of global warming, I think I should lay my cards on the table. I think something that would convince me would be arguments on why it is more efficient to mitigate global warming itself, rather than mitigating the effects it would have on us.
_____
> *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!* | Mattykitty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "koda1k",
"id": "djdky74",
"score": 11,
"text": "> I should also add that I think that trying to impose too much regulations on corporations will only serve to hurt ourselves, and make the world as a whole \"poorer\".\n\nMany regulations result in Humanity or Civilizations being less cap... | [
{
"author": "ackyou",
"id": "djdl95z",
"score": 4,
"text": "You're right that corporations are not evil. They are by nature a-moral entities that seek out profit. Corporations would happily try to save the world if it was the most profitable avenue. This is why we need to make it the most profitable... | [
"djdky74",
"djdph59",
"djdq559"
] | [
"djdl95z",
"djdlz50",
"djdpem0"
] |
CMV: Minimum Wage makes jobs less accessible and is harmful
I accept this view may be flawed because so many people believe raising minimum wage makes sense, and I am essentially the only person I know who is firmly against it. So perhaps I am missing some arguments/information.
My view is that minimum wages, especially raising them beyond a certain amount, does more harm to employees and employers alike.
This is for two main reasons.
Employers cannot afford employees because they don't have job openings that, if fulfilled, increase the employer's revenue by the same amount they would have to pay the employee. Let's say I want to hire a salesperson to sell my product, but they're not making me 15 bucks an hour, so I am at a net loss for hiring this person. Therefore, I won't hire them to begin with. This effect in a broader scope, means less jobs, and more unemployment in cities with higher minimum wages, which is what we've already seen in places that implemented a higher minimum wage. This is just one way to hollow out your local economy, because (mostly small to medium) businesses will have to fire people or move elsewhere.
Employees can't find any jobs to get the experience to get jobs. If you find a job that only pays you 5 bucks an hour, it is likely because that job doesn't require the skills that would justify a higher pay. There are many people in the world without skills, especially very young people. They need to acquire skills in order to be eligible for decent paying jobs. This is also something internships are for, for example. The whole point is that you work for a shitty pay to get some skills, even if they are very basic such as discipline, time management, responsibility, accountability, consistency, and things like that. This way, you can become a more competent person/worker and become eligible for better jobs that pay more than 15 bucks an hour. If you put up a minimum wage, especially high ones like 15 bucks an hour, you will make these "starter jobs" completely unavailable to those who desperately need to learn some skills and get some experience. Ultimately, you get paid what you're worth. If someone is paying you less, quit and find a job who's willing to pay you what you're worth. Even though 5 bucks per hour may not pay your bills, 0 bucks an hour because you can't find a job is still a lot worse.
Summarizing, minimum wages, even though they seem virtuous, are hurting both the employer and the employees, and as extension the entire economy, and ultimately lead to more unemployment and lower accessibility to jobs.
​
Edit: trying to reply to everyone but it's a lot, so I'll have to take a break, it's challenging to keep up. I will try to get back to everyone though in a timely manner! Thanks for trying to change my view and for being willing to discuss this (mostly) civilly with me :) | To one of your points....
Say you have a job *x* that pays $8/hr and requires certain basic skills that most people can easily acquire or already have and then raise the pay to $16/hr for the same exact job, you haven’t changed the skills. The same unskilled workers can apply for and do the job because the only thing that’s changed is the hourly rate. An increase in pay doesn’t mean that the job will require more advanced (for lack of a better word) skills, it simply means the job pays more.
---
You're correct but this doesn't address my point. You're assuming the worker that is doing that job is making the business more than $16 an hour, otherwise any sensible business would fire that person and remove the job. If you make a net loss through your employees, you stop employing them, because your goal as a business is at the very least to break even, if not make a profit.
My point takes it from the perspective of a business, which creates jobs that are meant to be paid less than the employee-to-be would earn the business, otherwise there's no point in creating that job in the first place.
---
If a company cant afford to pay its employees a liveable wage, they arent a successful business.
Additionally, i dont think you understand how these businesses operate. Do you really think an unskilled laborer makes their employer less than $16/hr? Thats wild man. I think you need some experience as a manager so you can see how little of a company's revenue goes towards labor in a typical fast food/carryout resturaunt. | [deleted]
---
I agree with you that "skills" is overly simplistic wording for what is essentially supply and demand. To clarify, if you have skills in something that there is no demand for, you are out of luck. So I guess I should have said "skills in demand" instead of just "skills". Does it make more sense with that rewording?
---
[deleted] | ipcyhf | CMV: Minimum Wage makes jobs less accessible and is harmful | I accept this view may be flawed because so many people believe raising minimum wage makes sense, and I am essentially the only person I know who is firmly against it. So perhaps I am missing some arguments/information.
My view is that minimum wages, especially raising them beyond a certain amount, does more harm to employees and employers alike.
This is for two main reasons.
Employers cannot afford employees because they don't have job openings that, if fulfilled, increase the employer's revenue by the same amount they would have to pay the employee. Let's say I want to hire a salesperson to sell my product, but they're not making me 15 bucks an hour, so I am at a net loss for hiring this person. Therefore, I won't hire them to begin with. This effect in a broader scope, means less jobs, and more unemployment in cities with higher minimum wages, which is what we've already seen in places that implemented a higher minimum wage. This is just one way to hollow out your local economy, because (mostly small to medium) businesses will have to fire people or move elsewhere.
Employees can't find any jobs to get the experience to get jobs. If you find a job that only pays you 5 bucks an hour, it is likely because that job doesn't require the skills that would justify a higher pay. There are many people in the world without skills, especially very young people. They need to acquire skills in order to be eligible for decent paying jobs. This is also something internships are for, for example. The whole point is that you work for a shitty pay to get some skills, even if they are very basic such as discipline, time management, responsibility, accountability, consistency, and things like that. This way, you can become a more competent person/worker and become eligible for better jobs that pay more than 15 bucks an hour. If you put up a minimum wage, especially high ones like 15 bucks an hour, you will make these "starter jobs" completely unavailable to those who desperately need to learn some skills and get some experience. Ultimately, you get paid what you're worth. If someone is paying you less, quit and find a job who's willing to pay you what you're worth. Even though 5 bucks per hour may not pay your bills, 0 bucks an hour because you can't find a job is still a lot worse.
Summarizing, minimum wages, even though they seem virtuous, are hurting both the employer and the employees, and as extension the entire economy, and ultimately lead to more unemployment and lower accessibility to jobs.
​
Edit: trying to reply to everyone but it's a lot, so I'll have to take a break, it's challenging to keep up. I will try to get back to everyone though in a timely manner! Thanks for trying to change my view and for being willing to discuss this (mostly) civilly with me :) | Falxhor | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "RooDooDootDaDoo",
"id": "g4j6gye",
"score": 5,
"text": "To one of your points....\n\nSay you have a job *x* that pays $8/hr and requires certain basic skills that most people can easily acquire or already have and then raise the pay to $16/hr for the same exact job, you haven’t changed ... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4j6sc2",
"score": 11,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599645627
},
{
"author": "Falxhor",
"id": "g4j6xxk",
"score": 0,
"text": "I agree with you that \"skills\" is overly simplistic wording for what is essentially supply and demand. To clar... | [
"g4j6gye",
"g4j6r2p",
"g4j9kcj"
] | [
"g4j6sc2",
"g4j6xxk",
"g4j72qf"
] |
CMV: I am concerned with the shift or trend towards globalization and a one-world culture and nation
I am speaking out as an American citizen but I noticed that due to the influence of the Internet, more people are being swayed by social change movements and intergovernmental organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I noticed that things like diversity, inclusion, and equity are being promoted with the goal of a unified one-world culture and government where people in current African countries, the Middle East, and parts of central and east Asia could enjoy the same constitutional rights and liberties as US citizens.
Proponents of a one-world state argue that among other things, a one-world nation can defend more rights, freedoms, and opportunities for more of the global population than having numerous nations with various wealth and income disparities. Also in speaking of income and wealth disparity, unification of the worlds nations can alleviate economic inequality more effectively and productively through more targeted efforts of income and wealth redistribution. In addition, a one world currency that goes a step further than the regional euro currency would "level the playing field" for currency use and international trade.
While a one-world nation sounds nice and all, the idea of a one-world culture and nation sounds like a scary precedent for an abuse of power. I also notice that conservatives tend to be more nationalist and isolationist whereas liberals and progressives tend to be more embracing of globalization and a unified state and culture. With a one-world nation, tyranny becomes more likely through a one-world government having more control over social liberties than a smaller national superpower like the current USA.
I have no issues with supporting women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities in terms of providing equal access and freedom from marginalization and discrimination. I also have no issue with the transition to a "cashless society" as long as individual privacy rights are preserved through government regulation. What I am against is any trend or movement that brings us closer to a one-world unified government and culture. I think there is a need to maintain cultural heterogeneity and diversity as well as having separate nations.
If NGOs like the UN and WHO want to ensure universal human rights are applied to all member states, they can **and did** create a universal declaration of human rights and support initiatives to promote, life, liberty, property rights, and equal opportunity for all human citizens without the need of a one-world unified government and culture. The concern is less of cultural unification and more of potential tyranny that comes from a powerful one-world state. | Why, exactly, do you think that having a single unified government would inevitably lead to an international (but isn't there only one nation?) ID in the form of microchips?
Honestly I think your random complaint about the possibility of the Anti-Christ speaks more to the reasoning behind your beliefs than anything. You sound exactly like my mom and grandpa do when we talk about this, and their motivations are explicitly religious is nature; their preacher told them to be wary of a new world order, a one world government, led by the Anti-christ, and so they assume the only people that would want one world government would be the antichrist.
---
> antichrist
Okay, the religious argument we can throw out. But any global elite who wishes to use their power to commit tyranny can be empowered to do so through integration of governments thorough organizations like the UN. It's already happening in some extent from abusive autocrats who wish to use smartphone and other IoT technologies to marginalize and oppress people. What I don't want is a one-world nation that can automate this tyranny using technology.
---
Why is it any better for individual governments to 'automate this tyranny through technology'? Why is your complaint about one world governments and not tyranny?
---
> Why is it any better for individual governments to 'automate this tyranny through technology'? Why is your complaint about one world governments and not tyranny?
I believe that one world governments have more prime for abuse of power than our existing legal system for international matters. At least by limiting this to individual governments, it doesn't affect all of humanity.
---
Okay, but that still means the actual issue is tyranny. One world governments also have more prime for doing good in the world.
---
> One world governments also have more prime for doing good in the world.
I mention this in my thread.
>Proponents of a one-world state argue that among other things, a one-world nation can defend more rights, freedoms, and opportunities for more of the global population than having numerous nations with various wealth and income disparities. Also in speaking of income and wealth disparity, unification of the worlds nations can alleviate economic inequality more effectively and productively through more targeted efforts of income and wealth redistribution. In addition, a one world currency that goes a step further than the regional euro currency would "level the playing field" for currency use and international trade.
What do you think? Is there anything you would like to add on that supports your counterargument?
---
Lack of war. No need for a large standing army. Weapons development and manufacture can be significantly reduced. Our best minds in a variety of fields can stop worrying about how best to kill people and start worrying about how best to improve lives. People who would manufacture weapons can instead manufacture things that will make their communities better off. We can work on improving infrastructure rather than blowing it up. | Your 4th paragraph came out of nowhere for me. Are you saying this would 100% happen, or just that it could happen?
---
I believe that *this can happen if the right conditions are met*. With how countries suggested the use of smartphone apps for contact tracing and other matters during the 2020 pandemic, it makes me wonder if we are close to a one-world government.
---
How are the two things related though? A country could implement microchip tracing just as easily as a one world government. And a one world government could as just as easily not implement it. It’s just a really random policy to bring up, that’s not inherently easier or more likely with a one world government
---
> that’s not inherently easier or more likely with a one world government
Yeah, a microchip tracing policy may be harder to implement in a large one-world nation.
---
Yeah so what do they have to do with each other? Paragraph 4 just seems like an unrelated bad thing
---
Disregard paragraph 4. I'll delete it soon.
---
>comments
Don't delete it if that's what you feel.
It is so hard for me to believe you guys are just reaching these conclusions...you are VERY late to the show!!! | 14qjy1a | CMV: I am concerned with the shift or trend towards globalization and a one-world culture and nation | I am speaking out as an American citizen but I noticed that due to the influence of the Internet, more people are being swayed by social change movements and intergovernmental organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I noticed that things like diversity, inclusion, and equity are being promoted with the goal of a unified one-world culture and government where people in current African countries, the Middle East, and parts of central and east Asia could enjoy the same constitutional rights and liberties as US citizens.
Proponents of a one-world state argue that among other things, a one-world nation can defend more rights, freedoms, and opportunities for more of the global population than having numerous nations with various wealth and income disparities. Also in speaking of income and wealth disparity, unification of the worlds nations can alleviate economic inequality more effectively and productively through more targeted efforts of income and wealth redistribution. In addition, a one world currency that goes a step further than the regional euro currency would "level the playing field" for currency use and international trade.
While a one-world nation sounds nice and all, the idea of a one-world culture and nation sounds like a scary precedent for an abuse of power. I also notice that conservatives tend to be more nationalist and isolationist whereas liberals and progressives tend to be more embracing of globalization and a unified state and culture. With a one-world nation, tyranny becomes more likely through a one-world government having more control over social liberties than a smaller national superpower like the current USA.
I have no issues with supporting women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities in terms of providing equal access and freedom from marginalization and discrimination. I also have no issue with the transition to a "cashless society" as long as individual privacy rights are preserved through government regulation. What I am against is any trend or movement that brings us closer to a one-world unified government and culture. I think there is a need to maintain cultural heterogeneity and diversity as well as having separate nations.
If NGOs like the UN and WHO want to ensure universal human rights are applied to all member states, they can **and did** create a universal declaration of human rights and support initiatives to promote, life, liberty, property rights, and equal opportunity for all human citizens without the need of a one-world unified government and culture. The concern is less of cultural unification and more of potential tyranny that comes from a powerful one-world state. | OverallMatter454 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "jqnfnje",
"score": 26,
"text": "Why, exactly, do you think that having a single unified government would inevitably lead to an international (but isn't there only one nation?) ID in the form of microchips? \n\nHonestly I think your random complaint about the possibil... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "jqnhb7s",
"score": 13,
"text": "Your 4th paragraph came out of nowhere for me. Are you saying this would 100% happen, or just that it could happen?",
"timestamp": 1688489437
},
{
"author": "OverallMatter454",
"id": "jqnhp48",
"score": 0,
"text": "... | [
"jqnfnje",
"jqngaph",
"jqnh161",
"jqnhem9",
"jqnhlpu",
"jqnhztn",
"jqnk5we"
] | [
"jqnhb7s",
"jqnhp48",
"jqnirnb",
"jqnj14x",
"jqnj57g",
"jqnjisr",
"jqqcbwm"
] |
CMV: I am concerned with the shift or trend towards globalization and a one-world culture and nation
I am speaking out as an American citizen but I noticed that due to the influence of the Internet, more people are being swayed by social change movements and intergovernmental organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I noticed that things like diversity, inclusion, and equity are being promoted with the goal of a unified one-world culture and government where people in current African countries, the Middle East, and parts of central and east Asia could enjoy the same constitutional rights and liberties as US citizens.
Proponents of a one-world state argue that among other things, a one-world nation can defend more rights, freedoms, and opportunities for more of the global population than having numerous nations with various wealth and income disparities. Also in speaking of income and wealth disparity, unification of the worlds nations can alleviate economic inequality more effectively and productively through more targeted efforts of income and wealth redistribution. In addition, a one world currency that goes a step further than the regional euro currency would "level the playing field" for currency use and international trade.
While a one-world nation sounds nice and all, the idea of a one-world culture and nation sounds like a scary precedent for an abuse of power. I also notice that conservatives tend to be more nationalist and isolationist whereas liberals and progressives tend to be more embracing of globalization and a unified state and culture. With a one-world nation, tyranny becomes more likely through a one-world government having more control over social liberties than a smaller national superpower like the current USA.
I have no issues with supporting women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities in terms of providing equal access and freedom from marginalization and discrimination. I also have no issue with the transition to a "cashless society" as long as individual privacy rights are preserved through government regulation. What I am against is any trend or movement that brings us closer to a one-world unified government and culture. I think there is a need to maintain cultural heterogeneity and diversity as well as having separate nations.
If NGOs like the UN and WHO want to ensure universal human rights are applied to all member states, they can **and did** create a universal declaration of human rights and support initiatives to promote, life, liberty, property rights, and equal opportunity for all human citizens without the need of a one-world unified government and culture. The concern is less of cultural unification and more of potential tyranny that comes from a powerful one-world state. | Why, exactly, do you think that having a single unified government would inevitably lead to an international (but isn't there only one nation?) ID in the form of microchips?
Honestly I think your random complaint about the possibility of the Anti-Christ speaks more to the reasoning behind your beliefs than anything. You sound exactly like my mom and grandpa do when we talk about this, and their motivations are explicitly religious is nature; their preacher told them to be wary of a new world order, a one world government, led by the Anti-christ, and so they assume the only people that would want one world government would be the antichrist.
---
> antichrist
Okay, the religious argument we can throw out. But any global elite who wishes to use their power to commit tyranny can be empowered to do so through integration of governments thorough organizations like the UN. It's already happening in some extent from abusive autocrats who wish to use smartphone and other IoT technologies to marginalize and oppress people. What I don't want is a one-world nation that can automate this tyranny using technology.
---
The UN can't even enforce its declarations. How is it enabling anyone's tyranny? | Your 4th paragraph came out of nowhere for me. Are you saying this would 100% happen, or just that it could happen?
---
I believe that *this can happen if the right conditions are met*. With how countries suggested the use of smartphone apps for contact tracing and other matters during the 2020 pandemic, it makes me wonder if we are close to a one-world government.
---
How are the two things related though? A country could implement microchip tracing just as easily as a one world government. And a one world government could as just as easily not implement it. It’s just a really random policy to bring up, that’s not inherently easier or more likely with a one world government | 14qjy1a | CMV: I am concerned with the shift or trend towards globalization and a one-world culture and nation | I am speaking out as an American citizen but I noticed that due to the influence of the Internet, more people are being swayed by social change movements and intergovernmental organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I noticed that things like diversity, inclusion, and equity are being promoted with the goal of a unified one-world culture and government where people in current African countries, the Middle East, and parts of central and east Asia could enjoy the same constitutional rights and liberties as US citizens.
Proponents of a one-world state argue that among other things, a one-world nation can defend more rights, freedoms, and opportunities for more of the global population than having numerous nations with various wealth and income disparities. Also in speaking of income and wealth disparity, unification of the worlds nations can alleviate economic inequality more effectively and productively through more targeted efforts of income and wealth redistribution. In addition, a one world currency that goes a step further than the regional euro currency would "level the playing field" for currency use and international trade.
While a one-world nation sounds nice and all, the idea of a one-world culture and nation sounds like a scary precedent for an abuse of power. I also notice that conservatives tend to be more nationalist and isolationist whereas liberals and progressives tend to be more embracing of globalization and a unified state and culture. With a one-world nation, tyranny becomes more likely through a one-world government having more control over social liberties than a smaller national superpower like the current USA.
I have no issues with supporting women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities in terms of providing equal access and freedom from marginalization and discrimination. I also have no issue with the transition to a "cashless society" as long as individual privacy rights are preserved through government regulation. What I am against is any trend or movement that brings us closer to a one-world unified government and culture. I think there is a need to maintain cultural heterogeneity and diversity as well as having separate nations.
If NGOs like the UN and WHO want to ensure universal human rights are applied to all member states, they can **and did** create a universal declaration of human rights and support initiatives to promote, life, liberty, property rights, and equal opportunity for all human citizens without the need of a one-world unified government and culture. The concern is less of cultural unification and more of potential tyranny that comes from a powerful one-world state. | OverallMatter454 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "jqnfnje",
"score": 26,
"text": "Why, exactly, do you think that having a single unified government would inevitably lead to an international (but isn't there only one nation?) ID in the form of microchips? \n\nHonestly I think your random complaint about the possibil... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "jqnhb7s",
"score": 13,
"text": "Your 4th paragraph came out of nowhere for me. Are you saying this would 100% happen, or just that it could happen?",
"timestamp": 1688489437
},
{
"author": "OverallMatter454",
"id": "jqnhp48",
"score": 0,
"text": "... | [
"jqnfnje",
"jqngaph",
"jqohhvb"
] | [
"jqnhb7s",
"jqnhp48",
"jqnirnb"
] |
CMV: A computer cannot infringe privacy
Basically the title. Privacy is defined as "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed *by other people*". I think a lot of the recent hubbub over the NSA and general surveillance, along with corporations logging and utilizing data for various means, is irrational and unwarranted simply because none of these things are actually infringements of privacy. No other person in all likelihood will ever listen to your phone calls or look at your search history or anything like that, because honestly nobody really cares about you as an individual, all of the "surveillance" is totally automated. Yes, if your behavior is particularly reminiscent of a terrorist or something, there is a small chance that your right to privacy might be infringed upon. But the likelihood of this for any single person is absolutely infinitesimal to the point of being negligible even in the case of government surveillance, and forget about the stuff corporations do
_____
> *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!* | http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927
>At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls of their current or former spouses and lovers in the past decade, according to the intelligence agency's internal watchdog.
How would you feel if a computer was used by an ex lover of yours who was abusive to track you down and monitor your activity? You don't need to be a terrorist.
And if ten were caught, a lot more probably were not caught.
---
This is a good argument that I didn't really think about, but it isn't a flaw in the system so much as a flaw in the users, they were still breaking the rules. I do think that this is something that should probably be policed heavier internally by the NSA, but again it isn't a problem with what the NSA's doing so much as a misuse of it.
---
The problem is that whether or not this is how the system is *intended* to be used, this *is* how the system is being used. Its a system in two parts -- the technology (whose abilities limit what is *possible*) and the people (whose behavior dictates what actually happens). The problem is that within any large system, people will generally be the weakest point (its why social engineering is such an effective hacking technique), which is why we can't really rely on humans behaving "correctly" here. Besides even if the rules indicated that people within the system weren't allowed to look at this data, there will always be people outside of the system that won't follow those rules and attempt to gain access. **There's no such thing as a people-proof system. **
Stating that it isn't the technology itself that's violating your privacy is, in my view, splitting hairs, and not in the spirit of what you are actually posing. Yes, technology is inanimate and until this data is observed, your privacy hasn't been affected. But the important question to ask is whether this technology increases the *potential* that your privacy will be violated.
And the answer in my view is yes. Even if you're not targeted in particular (because as you say, nobody cares about you that much) there's nothing to say that hacker's won't break into the NSA tomorrow and release your information to the world (and even if you don't have anything you'd like to keep private, there are plenty of people for whom even innocent things could be significantly damaging to their careers and personal relationships, or even put them in physical danger). | Phones, computers, cameras and other devices are just more convenient tools of observation like human sense organs.
"Privacy vs security" is another topic and I think no, undermining human rights in the name of security covers incompetence and power abuse.
---
But observation also implies the involvement of an actual human, something absent in these cases
---
No, a human directed observation | 6j9p9t | CMV: A computer cannot infringe privacy | Basically the title. Privacy is defined as "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed *by other people*". I think a lot of the recent hubbub over the NSA and general surveillance, along with corporations logging and utilizing data for various means, is irrational and unwarranted simply because none of these things are actually infringements of privacy. No other person in all likelihood will ever listen to your phone calls or look at your search history or anything like that, because honestly nobody really cares about you as an individual, all of the "surveillance" is totally automated. Yes, if your behavior is particularly reminiscent of a terrorist or something, there is a small chance that your right to privacy might be infringed upon. But the likelihood of this for any single person is absolutely infinitesimal to the point of being negligible even in the case of government surveillance, and forget about the stuff corporations do
_____
> *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!* | cryomancer27 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Nepene",
"id": "djcpxzm",
"score": 7,
"text": "http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927\n\n>At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls o... | [
{
"author": "barebooh",
"id": "djcm8x9",
"score": 1,
"text": "Phones, computers, cameras and other devices are just more convenient tools of observation like human sense organs.\n\"Privacy vs security\" is another topic and I think no, undermining human rights in the name of security covers incompet... | [
"djcpxzm",
"djcto0d",
"djdccg4"
] | [
"djcm8x9",
"djcmc9q",
"djcmntn"
] |
CMV: The success of a person in a libertarian society would be determinated by birth rather than drive or talent.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any libertarian books/position papers/whatever. All my informations about their philosophy comes from discussion with other reddit-users. If i'm wrong about something, please correct me.
My picture of what a libertarian society would look like: Very few taxes and regulations. Most of the taxes go into the military and justice system. The only job the government has is to ensure nobody breaks the rules and to defend the country. Almost all services (fire fighter, healthcare, roads, education, public transpotation, etc) are run by private companies you specifically need to hire. Parents basically own their children.
Now, to have a baseline to compare this to, my personal idea of what a perfect society would look like: High taxes, especially for people that earn very much. Education is free and mandatory. Indispensable services are owned by the government and either free or very cheap. Having a health insurance is mandatory. Tight regulation to ensure worker and comsumer safety. If you fail to properly care for your children the state will take them away from you.
Now, my argument: It's very easy to stay on top if your born there in a liberterian society, but it's very hard to leave the bottom. People with rich, caring parents will have access to the best education. They will always have access to the best doctors and be safe and protected at all times, ensuring they reach the adult age with intact body and mind. The lack of an inheritance tax ensures that they have later access to their parents wealth and businesses. You only need to be very average to be able to thrife under those circumstances.
What happens if your born to poor or abusive parents? Well, you have a much higher chance of dying before you're even able to make your own decisions. Your parents can't feed you? Well, you either find something or starve. Your parents can't afford to pay the firefighters? Well, be careful that you don't burn to death. You get sick? Well, fucking pray it's nothing too serious.
Even if you manage to reach adult age without becoming asocial, dead or a cripple, you now either have a sucky education or none at all (your parents couldn't afford a better one and didn't want to take a debt, you couldn't take a debt because you weren't an adult). Good luck getting a decent job with those requirements.
To comparison, what would happen in my baseline society: Rich and poor people get basically the same education. Both get protected from harm almost equally good. If you get sick, the mandatory insurance pays the cost in most cases. Poor parents get child allowance, so they are always able to feed you, buy you clothes etc. If they refuse to do so, you get new parents.
Change my view, reddit.
_____
> *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!* | One reason many libertarians, such as myself, want to limit government power is because when government is big, corporations and other organizations can buy out officials and use them to get their way in the business world. A lot of regulations are sponsored by corporations because they're trying to push out smaller competitors. If government is limited, then the mom and pop businesses have a fighting chance. That's just to address your claim that those who start off poor would do worse in a libertarian society.
I'm going to try and address your other topics. Libertarians often don't like the idea of government being so involved with education because it impedes on the educator's creativity and impedes on people choosing their form of education. Milton Friedman gave an example in his book where someone in New York was trying to provide cheap (I believe it was free) education to underprivileged students, and it seemed to be very beneficial until the government shut his operation down.
There are a lot of other topics that you addressed but I don't want to make this post too long! I'm willing to discuss further though if you want
---
Okay, I can understand you concern about the regulations. Government corruption is a very real problem that should be addressed. My problem is that simply removing all regulations isn't a sensible decision. Some of them may be abusive and prevent new competitors from entering the market, but others genuinly protect the health of employees and consumers. I'm afraid of the consequences that a removal of those will provoke.
About the choice and creativity in education: Those things only really matter to you if you can afford them and if your parents make the correct decision for you. Many people wouldn't be able to afford high-quality eduation and would have to send them to get a lower-quality school, leading to a smaller chance of success in life for the child. Also, it might be at times difficult for parents to properly judge the relevance of the topics and the quality of the teachers. With a central, government organized education system you can at least be sure that the topics teached and the training of the teachers is halfway decent.
---
Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes, people often assume all libertarians want to eliminate all government altogether, and I assume this is why you came to the conclusion that I believe all regulations should be removed. Sure there are standards and regulations that are helpful and not oppressive, like maintaining a clean restaurant, but there are regulations that have big corporation's name all over it, Monsanto is one such company who had the opportunity to sway the law in their favor. Limiting government power would mean limiting the corporation's ability to influence law (because they would have no power to abuse), it doesn't mean that all regulations would immediately be taken off.
For your education claims, if you can provide some peer reviewed papers I would be more interested in leaning towards your way of thinking, but there are plenty of examples where government hurts more than it helps. Let's use district boundaries as an example. I know plenty of students who were forced to go to below par public school instead of a better one, some of which are actually closer to where they live, because of arbitrary district lines. Let's say we meet in the middle and say that public school is a necessity, I would still say limiting government is necessary to allow people to choose what option is best for them. If public schools were then to receive funding based on the students that attended their school, they would be forced to compete and hire better faculty.
---
Okay, I can follow you with the regulations, but by decreasing the power of the government, don't you equally decrease their power to create good reglementations? Even if you don't totally eleminate the government influence on the workplace, you still cull both helpful and harmful rules.
> Let's say we meet in the middle and say that public school is a necessity, I would still say limiting government is necessary to allow people to choose what option is best for them. If public schools were then to receive funding based on the students that attended their school, they would be forced to compete and hire better faculty.
Okay, I can agree to that. I'm still reluncent to give you a delta, because all you did was water down the definition of liberterianism to "wants to lower the government influence", which can mean literally anything depending how much influence the government currently has.
---
If regulation is created it should be created out of genuine concern for safety, rather than from an outside interest group trying to use government to increase their business. I used this example for another reply, but I'll use it here. Let's try to look at it using bailouts as an example. Big corrupt businesses and banks were bailed out, so now they get to continue their failed and corrupt business practices because government gave them a safety net.
I didn't really water down the libertarian definition, it's just a huge misconception that all libertarians want to completely eliminate government. The only universal belief I've found among libertarians is that they believe in limited government, the believe of how limited government should be ranges from libertarian to libertarian.
---
Okay, so you think bailout are conceptually flawed and should be compleatly eliminated? Don't you think there might be some situations in which it has worse macro-economic consequences to let a business die than to save it? I don't know particulary much about economics, but if bailouts are really never a good idea for society at large, shouldn't all people that understand economics be on the barricades every time one happens?
> The only universal belief I've found among libertarians is that they believe in limited government
What I try to say is that all "believing in a limited government" really means is that you think that the government shouldn't make rules about certain aspects of society. I don't think anybody would disagree with that statements, so following your definition everybody is a libertarian.
---
Don't criticize libertarianism and free-market advocates if you admit that you don't know much about economics.
---
I criticize libertarianism in a specific point that is unrelated to economics.
---
But by not understanding the economics you don't understand the view that is behind it.
Nothing is divorced from economics. Economics is why people make decisions, about anything. If there was no monetary system, there would still be economics because people still weigh factors when making decisions.
Bureaucracy creates waste. Necessarily.
Corruption in a smaller government is less damaging. So if you can't stop corruption (we can't), then how else would you limit it? | then how did wealthy people ever begin to exist?
---
I'm not sure what you mean. Of course it is *theoretically possible* to rise to the top of society, it's just insanely difficult and you need tons of luck to do it.
---
there's not a lot of room up at the top of society
how do you propose we decide who belongs up there?
---
Hard work, dedication and talent.
---
>talent
hmmm that sounds an awful lot like genetic luck :(
>Hard work
what if someone is genetically predisposed to be lazy?
---
> hmmm that sounds an awful lot like genetic luck :(
Maybe. But you can't totally eleminate luck as a factor. You can try to minimize it as much as possible, but there will always be a bit you can't control.
> what if someone is genetically predisposed to be lazy?
I... I don't know if that's even an actual thing. Even if, you can overcome most character elements that nature or nurture gave you.
---
>you can overcome most character elements that nature or nurture gave you.
character development does not happen in a vacuum.
---
Do you think the universe is predeterminated?
---
even if it isn't what makes you think free will exists?
let's assume that the universe is indeterministic. each atomic interaction in your brain is run on true probability (quantumism) rather than true certainty (newtonianism). let's say that each atom has an equal chance of being in one of six states. the probability distribution for a single **truly random** atom will look like [this.](http://i.imgur.com/BifB67e.png) it's just as likelt to be in state 1 as it is in state 4.
but that's only one atom! our brains have billions to the billions of atoms! well as we add in more and more **truly random** atoms into a system like this: [2 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/6Y2uXk6.png),[3 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/PZEbg0g.png), [4 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/8j11O3k.png), [10 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/wo6hIk0.png), [100 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/HBV0anT.png), [500 atoms](http://i.imgur.com/6GvUTkP.png). what do we start to see?
a system of **truly random** atoms that is very unlikely to do anything other than very close to one state. that actually means an ant has more free will that us. and we have more free will than God. | 61ach0 | CMV: The success of a person in a libertarian society would be determinated by birth rather than drive or talent. | Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any libertarian books/position papers/whatever. All my informations about their philosophy comes from discussion with other reddit-users. If i'm wrong about something, please correct me.
My picture of what a libertarian society would look like: Very few taxes and regulations. Most of the taxes go into the military and justice system. The only job the government has is to ensure nobody breaks the rules and to defend the country. Almost all services (fire fighter, healthcare, roads, education, public transpotation, etc) are run by private companies you specifically need to hire. Parents basically own their children.
Now, to have a baseline to compare this to, my personal idea of what a perfect society would look like: High taxes, especially for people that earn very much. Education is free and mandatory. Indispensable services are owned by the government and either free or very cheap. Having a health insurance is mandatory. Tight regulation to ensure worker and comsumer safety. If you fail to properly care for your children the state will take them away from you.
Now, my argument: It's very easy to stay on top if your born there in a liberterian society, but it's very hard to leave the bottom. People with rich, caring parents will have access to the best education. They will always have access to the best doctors and be safe and protected at all times, ensuring they reach the adult age with intact body and mind. The lack of an inheritance tax ensures that they have later access to their parents wealth and businesses. You only need to be very average to be able to thrife under those circumstances.
What happens if your born to poor or abusive parents? Well, you have a much higher chance of dying before you're even able to make your own decisions. Your parents can't feed you? Well, you either find something or starve. Your parents can't afford to pay the firefighters? Well, be careful that you don't burn to death. You get sick? Well, fucking pray it's nothing too serious.
Even if you manage to reach adult age without becoming asocial, dead or a cripple, you now either have a sucky education or none at all (your parents couldn't afford a better one and didn't want to take a debt, you couldn't take a debt because you weren't an adult). Good luck getting a decent job with those requirements.
To comparison, what would happen in my baseline society: Rich and poor people get basically the same education. Both get protected from harm almost equally good. If you get sick, the mandatory insurance pays the cost in most cases. Poor parents get child allowance, so they are always able to feed you, buy you clothes etc. If they refuse to do so, you get new parents.
Change my view, reddit.
_____
> *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!* | BlitzBasic | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "hippokuda",
"id": "dfcyf3s",
"score": 22,
"text": "One reason many libertarians, such as myself, want to limit government power is because when government is big, corporations and other organizations can buy out officials and use them to get their way in the business world. A lot of reg... | [
{
"author": "TheFinalArgument1488",
"id": "dfd0efb",
"score": -2,
"text": "then how did wealthy people ever begin to exist?",
"timestamp": 1490380051
},
{
"author": "BlitzBasic",
"id": "dfd0o60",
"score": 8,
"text": "I'm not sure what you mean. Of course it is *theoretically ... | [
"dfcyf3s",
"dfcznec",
"dfd0bqi",
"dfd1kk8",
"dfd3ius",
"dfd3xm2",
"dfdab0t",
"dfdacos",
"dfdcotj"
] | [
"dfd0efb",
"dfd0o60",
"dfd3px5",
"dfd3zeh",
"dfd4730",
"dfd4czi",
"dfd55b8",
"dfd586n",
"dfd6c3f"
] |
CMV: If you engage in the sexual behavior of a sexuality - you are that sexuality.
Hey guys,
I’ve seen it come up a couple of times in comments and shows (thinking Tiger King) where someone says “oh, they aren’t gay - they just did all that gay stuff for x reason.” Or something along those lines.
In my opinion, this is making sexuality into a bigger identity than it is. While there are certain cultures around the public aspect of sexual identities, the reality is that a sexual identity only impacts your attraction, and acts in the bedroom.
In short, if you do sexual acts with a man and you’re a man - you’re gay. If you do sexual acts with a woman and you’re a woman - you’re lesbian. If you engage in a threesome with multiple genders, you’re bi/pansexual.
In short, the act defines the identity, not the other way around.
It’s worth saying I’m not a believer in the biological aspect of sexuality - people like to engage in sex with other people (or they don’t) and the reason behind it is literally a dumb debate that neither verifies the sexuality as “legitimate” or “worthy” of consideration. People born on earth get to do whatever they want with their genitals - besides the obvious criminal acts regarding the ability to consent of which you must be 18 or older to - after that point it’s whatever you want.
EDIT 1: I believe sexuality is fluid. You can be homosexual, then decide to be heterosexual. You just can't ever say "oh I was heterosexual the whole time," because I believe that's being dishonest, and makes the entire discussion of sexuality way less honest and way less fluid than it SHOULD be.
EDIT 2: Power and influence is coming up a lot. It's worth noting the entirety of human civilization has been dominated by monotheistic religions that typically fight against any form of gender fluidity or sexual fluidity. You don't have to be in the Middle East, or Prison to be in a structure of power and influence that determines your sexual preferences.
EDIT 3: Biological Naturalism / "You were born that way" is not a convincing argument. It's a defensive one that's been adopted by people who believe it's convincing typically to a type of abusive person or culture. It isn't. If people can't respect your personal choice as your personal choice, deflecting it to biological reasons isn't going to convince them of anything. In a modern society, the spectres of gender and sexual identity are heavily influence by what I mentioned in EDIT 2.
EDIT 3B: Holy fuck guys. Okay, Biology IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. I don't give a shit how you feel you came to your own personal sexual/gender identity. I think someone who woke up this morning wanting it and someone who has wanted one or the other since they were three are both allowed to be who they are. Furthermore, when it comes to Discrimination - you can only meaningfully engage in legal protection. Your gender and sexual identity SHOULD be legally protected. Full stop. If you need a basis, it isn't in biology, it's in freedom and bodily autonomy. I am not fucking responding to this dumb shit anymore.
EDIT 4: Hi folks, so we are talking about legal situations only in this thread. If you are raped, or coerced into a sexual act it isn't covered in your identity / sexuality. That was actually kind of the point of the original post. If you were willing at one point to engage in an act with consent then you shouldn't act like it wasn't/isn't part of who you are.
EDIT 5: I have awarded a delta to the person who pointed out that a period of time to determine when someone’s fluid sexuality changes is indeterminate and perhaps successfully challenges a part of my beliefs. It raised the point of language not being at the right level. I’d prefer highly specific sexual situations (I.e. being monogamous within a marriage, etc) to be better defined within a sexuality.
EDIT 6; I’ve responded to nearly all these arguments and some of you are getting repetitive and circular. Please read some of my responses and ALL the edits before commenting.
FINAL EDIT: hey guys since everyone still active is complaining about the fact that I’ve edited so many times I guess you all will have to wait until my next CMV. There’s one delta here. If you don’t like my view that’s the point of the sub. If you don’t like my edits then maybe realize that people can re-explain, better explain, and answer the most common responses without needing to respond to everyone as in THE RULES OF THE SUB so enjoy being a bunch of upset angry assholes. Try to change that view. | I disagree. Is someone who enjoys sexual activity and craves it suddenly asexual if they choose to be celibate? Is a bi person no longer bi because they've gotten married and would never cheat?
The sexuality is separate from the actions one chooses to take.
Now of course if someone repeatedly chooses to take actions that contradict their stated sexuality that may be some evidence that they're either lying to themselves or others about their sexuality but still, sexuality and sexual activity are different
---
So let me park on this, and I'll edit my original.
Sexuality is totally fluid. You can be homosexual for a time. Then heterosexual exclusively. You can be pansexual, then just homosexual. I don't think you are locked into one identity or another, but I don't think you can say "no I was never homosexual" if you actually engaged in that behavior at that time.
---
>Sexuality is totally fluid. You can be homosexual for a time. Then heterosexual exclusively. You can be pansexual, then just homosexual. I don't think you are locked into one identity or another, but I don't think you can say "no I was never homosexual" if you actually engaged in that behavior at that time.
How long is "a time" here? If go without sex for a day am I asexual? A week? A year?
Suppose your spouse is in the military and deployed overseas for a year. Nothing changes in the way you feel or your desire to have sex with them. But they're gone and inaccessible, so you have no sex for a year. At what point within that do you become asexual?
Or if a year isn't long enough, let's suppose that your spouse is falsely convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to life in prison. Nothing changes in the way you feel or your desire to have sex with them. But they don't get conjugal visits. When do you become asexual? Even if you can't give me a specific day, your framework suggests that there must be one. And the weirdest part of this is that your sexuality now depends on something totally outside your control (whether or not the prison allows conjugal visits). If they allow them, they've made you homosexual/heterosexual again. If they prohibit them, they've made you asexual. You have no agency in defining your own sexuality. | >If you engage in a threesome with multiple genders, you’re bi/pansexual.
I'm glad you mentioned this, I really wonder how many people who claim to be pansexual are just saying it for the "woke" points and have never done anything with a trans person. This would be a very hard thing to measure because it's kind of unknowable outside of polls and even in polls, those who identify as pansexual are likely going to claim they've done *something* sexual with a trans person, again, just for woke points.
So I guess I'm asking if you've heard or read anything about this distinction in terms of how many people are actually pansexual in practice?
---
Pansexuality has nothing to do with trans people. Bisexuality is inclusive of both trans and non-binary people.
Source: am bi, I don’t know anyone pansexual or bisexual who claims that only pansexuals can like trans people.
---
I guess you're technically right, but I would need to see data on how many bisexual people are willing to date trans people. I guess some people consider trans-men/women to be included under "bisexual" but I would need to see a poll or something. | kzv1cf | CMV: If you engage in the sexual behavior of a sexuality - you are that sexuality. | Hey guys,
I’ve seen it come up a couple of times in comments and shows (thinking Tiger King) where someone says “oh, they aren’t gay - they just did all that gay stuff for x reason.” Or something along those lines.
In my opinion, this is making sexuality into a bigger identity than it is. While there are certain cultures around the public aspect of sexual identities, the reality is that a sexual identity only impacts your attraction, and acts in the bedroom.
In short, if you do sexual acts with a man and you’re a man - you’re gay. If you do sexual acts with a woman and you’re a woman - you’re lesbian. If you engage in a threesome with multiple genders, you’re bi/pansexual.
In short, the act defines the identity, not the other way around.
It’s worth saying I’m not a believer in the biological aspect of sexuality - people like to engage in sex with other people (or they don’t) and the reason behind it is literally a dumb debate that neither verifies the sexuality as “legitimate” or “worthy” of consideration. People born on earth get to do whatever they want with their genitals - besides the obvious criminal acts regarding the ability to consent of which you must be 18 or older to - after that point it’s whatever you want.
EDIT 1: I believe sexuality is fluid. You can be homosexual, then decide to be heterosexual. You just can't ever say "oh I was heterosexual the whole time," because I believe that's being dishonest, and makes the entire discussion of sexuality way less honest and way less fluid than it SHOULD be.
EDIT 2: Power and influence is coming up a lot. It's worth noting the entirety of human civilization has been dominated by monotheistic religions that typically fight against any form of gender fluidity or sexual fluidity. You don't have to be in the Middle East, or Prison to be in a structure of power and influence that determines your sexual preferences.
EDIT 3: Biological Naturalism / "You were born that way" is not a convincing argument. It's a defensive one that's been adopted by people who believe it's convincing typically to a type of abusive person or culture. It isn't. If people can't respect your personal choice as your personal choice, deflecting it to biological reasons isn't going to convince them of anything. In a modern society, the spectres of gender and sexual identity are heavily influence by what I mentioned in EDIT 2.
EDIT 3B: Holy fuck guys. Okay, Biology IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. I don't give a shit how you feel you came to your own personal sexual/gender identity. I think someone who woke up this morning wanting it and someone who has wanted one or the other since they were three are both allowed to be who they are. Furthermore, when it comes to Discrimination - you can only meaningfully engage in legal protection. Your gender and sexual identity SHOULD be legally protected. Full stop. If you need a basis, it isn't in biology, it's in freedom and bodily autonomy. I am not fucking responding to this dumb shit anymore.
EDIT 4: Hi folks, so we are talking about legal situations only in this thread. If you are raped, or coerced into a sexual act it isn't covered in your identity / sexuality. That was actually kind of the point of the original post. If you were willing at one point to engage in an act with consent then you shouldn't act like it wasn't/isn't part of who you are.
EDIT 5: I have awarded a delta to the person who pointed out that a period of time to determine when someone’s fluid sexuality changes is indeterminate and perhaps successfully challenges a part of my beliefs. It raised the point of language not being at the right level. I’d prefer highly specific sexual situations (I.e. being monogamous within a marriage, etc) to be better defined within a sexuality.
EDIT 6; I’ve responded to nearly all these arguments and some of you are getting repetitive and circular. Please read some of my responses and ALL the edits before commenting.
FINAL EDIT: hey guys since everyone still active is complaining about the fact that I’ve edited so many times I guess you all will have to wait until my next CMV. There’s one delta here. If you don’t like my view that’s the point of the sub. If you don’t like my edits then maybe realize that people can re-explain, better explain, and answer the most common responses without needing to respond to everyone as in THE RULES OF THE SUB so enjoy being a bunch of upset angry assholes. Try to change that view. | Inferno_Zyrack | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "tbdabbholm",
"id": "gjpx9kk",
"score": 18,
"text": "I disagree. Is someone who enjoys sexual activity and craves it suddenly asexual if they choose to be celibate? Is a bi person no longer bi because they've gotten married and would never cheat?\n\nThe sexuality is separate from the act... | [
{
"author": "RIPBernieSanders1",
"id": "gjpxpkk",
"score": 1,
"text": ">If you engage in a threesome with multiple genders, you’re bi/pansexual.\n\nI'm glad you mentioned this, I really wonder how many people who claim to be pansexual are just saying it for the \"woke\" points and have never done an... | [
"gjpx9kk",
"gjpzvuq",
"gjqkten"
] | [
"gjpxpkk",
"gjpy9w8",
"gjpz6fs"
] |
CMV: Taxation is not theft.
Let's talk about property for a moment. Property is no tangiable quality of the physical world, but a human concept. If I gift an object to a friend, no scientist in this world would be able to see any difference before and after. The only thing that changed is our view on the object.
So, who defines what property is and how it works? Well, society, and because all current societies rely on a state, that state. This state can define the qualities and mechanics of property however he wants. If he makes "you have to give a certain portion of your property to a certain organization at a point in time" to a quality of property, that's a legitimate definition.
So, taxation isn't theft, because the tax you have to pay is, by the rules of property in your state, not yours to begin with. The state just takes money he owns from you.
_____
> *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!* | For the sake of this discussion, let's define "theft" as the "unjust taking of another's property". (Technically, theft is defined as the "illegal" taking of another's property, but in this case your point is trivially true. Laws are defined by the state, and if the state defines theft in such a way as to exclude the taking of part of your property as "taxes", then taxation is not theft. But this hardly leads to an insightful discussion ... )
I think the problem with your argument is that it opens up the door to tyrannical societies/states: If the rules of property in your state said that you had to give the state *all* your money, perhaps leaving you with a pittance on which you can survive, then this would be legitimate by your reasoning simply because that's how the state defined it. But it's fairly clear that such a situation is unjust.
I actually agree with your headline, but I disagree with the argument that you're using to defend it.
---
"Just" and "unjust" are moral questions. They depend entirely on your point of view. If your moral framework defines taxes as "unjust", I can't argue with that. But at that point, all you're saying is "I personally consider taxes to be a bad thing" which is true, but hardly an insightful observation.
---
So after appropriately defining "theft" in order to make this a nontrivial question, one must define "unjust". Clearly, there are different ethical frameworks under which to define justice. Under some moral frameworks and fact sets, taxation is unjust and therefore theft; under others it is just and therefore not theft. So the best answers we can get to our original question are things like,
1. From a consequentialist point of view, taxes are just and therefore not theft because taxation allows for correction of market failures and for redistribution of money to those with a larger marginal utility per dollar.
2. From a consequentialist point of view, taxes are unjust and therefore are theft because government spending is less efficient than market spending, and because taxation reduces productivity and therefore quality of life.
3. From a deontological point of view, taxes are just and therefore are not theft because the consensual taking of property is just and taxpayers have entered an unwritten contract with their government that includes consent to taxation.
4. From a deontological point of view, taxes are unjust and therefore are theft because the nonconsensual taking of property is unjust and taxpayers have not consented to the taking of property by the government.
Taxation is theft according to 2 and 4, but I don't think an argument exists that definitively proves one of these responses superior to all the others.
| > If I gift an object to a friend, no scientist in this world would be able to see any difference before and after. The only thing that changed is our view on the object.
I don't understand this point. A scientist first sees the object in my hands then me saying things and then passing it from my hands to my friends and then finally the object is in her hands.
How can a scientist not see the difference?
> because the tax you have to pay is, by the rules of property in your state, not yours to begin with.
By the same rules of property of the state, before I pay taxes the money is under my ownership. The transfer is involuntarily on my part, regardless of what the person getting the object says, and generally this would fall under the definition of theft.
---
> I don't understand this point. A scientist first sees the object in my hands then me saying things and then passing it from my hands to my friends and then finally the object is in her hands.
What I mean is that the scientist can't determinate who own the object with the informations he can get out of the object itself. Yes, it's possible to trace back the chain of ownership changes to determinate the current owner, but none of those ownership changes actually impact the object on any measureable level. Only what people think about the object has changed.
> The transfer is involuntarily on my part
You agreed to following rules of your state, you so agreed that parts of your property change ownership at times.
---
> but none of those ownership changes actually impact the object on any measureable level. Only what people think about the object has changed.
Thief is not dependent a property of the object.
Could you give an example of theft and explain how it is different from government taxation?
> You agreed to following rules of your state, you so agreed that parts of your property change ownership at times.
When did I explicitly agree? If its so onerous to decline an agreement, am I really voluntarily agreeing to it? | 6j8whj | CMV: Taxation is not theft. | Let's talk about property for a moment. Property is no tangiable quality of the physical world, but a human concept. If I gift an object to a friend, no scientist in this world would be able to see any difference before and after. The only thing that changed is our view on the object.
So, who defines what property is and how it works? Well, society, and because all current societies rely on a state, that state. This state can define the qualities and mechanics of property however he wants. If he makes "you have to give a certain portion of your property to a certain organization at a point in time" to a quality of property, that's a legitimate definition.
So, taxation isn't theft, because the tax you have to pay is, by the rules of property in your state, not yours to begin with. The state just takes money he owns from you.
_____
> *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!* | BlitzBasic | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "YourFurryFriend1",
"id": "djcltpd",
"score": 3,
"text": "For the sake of this discussion, let's define \"theft\" as the \"unjust taking of another's property\". (Technically, theft is defined as the \"illegal\" taking of another's property, but in this case your point is trivially tru... | [
{
"author": "caw81",
"id": "djcfnc6",
"score": 7,
"text": "> If I gift an object to a friend, no scientist in this world would be able to see any difference before and after. The only thing that changed is our view on the object.\n\nI don't understand this point. A scientist first sees the object i... | [
"djcltpd",
"djcz8gh",
"djd1q0j"
] | [
"djcfnc6",
"djcfw5c",
"djcg6os"
] |
CMV: Holocaust denial should be a perfectly acceptable viewpoint
I should preface this by saying I am not a holocaust denier, nor do I think it is even a remotely logical viewpoint.
In saying that, I don’t think it should be so outrageous that people have that opinion. I see a lot of censorship of holocaust denial and particularly on reddit, why though?
Who exactly are they doing harm to? I can see how maybe some people who were affected by the holocaust may be upset about it, but i don’t believe somebody being upset is a good enough reason to censor an opinion. After all, they aren’t doing it to upset people, they have their evidence (albeit, faulty evidence), they really do believe this.
I feel like they should be put in the same category as flat earthers, just a bunch of idiots given no credence. What harm are they doing anyways?
Edit: I think im done responding now, Im hearing repeating arguments now. Consider my view partially changed. I see both sides and im a bit indifferent, still not quite sure if I think it should be censored though. | Holocaust denial is often strongly motivated by antisemitism.
People are trying to rewrite history to deny the crimes of people of similar ideology to themselves.
Thinking elitist scientists are lying to you is very different than thinking that historical accounts of the holocaust are just part of a large conspiracy to render sympathy for the Jewish people.
---
But the root of where it comes from doesn’t really matter. Its the effect of it. And i dont believe this theory is really affecting anything. Much like flat earth theory its certainly not going to grow.
---
>Much like flat earth theory its certainly not going to grow.
This is factually false. Flat earth theory was founded in 1800 and was niece community for hundreds of years but saw a huge boom in early 2000s. It have been steadily gained support around the globe and have now more members than ever.
Flat earth theory is certainly growing.
---
It can only grow so big though, there will never be a time again where flat earth theory is a common belief. Unless somehow humans go extinct and have to start all over again
---
>It can only grow so big though, there will never be a time again where flat earth theory is a common belief. Unless somehow humans go extinct and have to start all over again
But it can grow enough that it starts enabling other, more insidious ideas. Have you watched Beyond the Curve? It seems pretty clear after watching that that Flat Earthers co-exist pretty heavily with other forms of conspiracy theorists, like anti-vaxxers. And so, while Flat Earth is a perfectly harmless, although crazy, movement in isolation, when it starts enabling and giving space to truly harmful movements (anti-vaxxing) it does in fact become dangerous.
The same can be said for Holocaust denial. There's nothing inherently dangerous about willfully and for your own personal sake ignoring a historical event, but Holocaust denial doesn't exist in a vacuum. People who have that belief also spread anti-science propaganda, try to rewrite history, and all of it with the intent of hiding the crimes of their own ideology. If they manage that, it'll be easier for them to argue that nationalism is not a harmful path, and that nazism itself is not. So Holocaust denial is a way of trying to hide a horrific crime.
And that's harmful. | I don't think most people care what thoughts people have. They care about how those thoughts manifest into actions and behaviors.
Thinking x race of people are bad isn't doing any harm. Treating x race worse because the person thinks they're bad is doing harm.
Therefore people who censor or are in favor of censoring holocaust denial fear that it gives way to more holocaust denialism.
For example, you say flat earthers are idiot's. But there's a lot of them. I can't tell you if the movement is growing, but look at anti-vaxxers and Qanon believers. Letting these conspiracy theories fester causes tangible harm. We can debate how best to snuff them out. But censorship seems to be one of the more effective and popular ways.
I'm not in favor of never discussing it or raising questions about it. But I'm also highly skeptical of bad faith actors who pretend they're "just asking questions". Those people often refuse to acknowledge any evidence, or they'll cherry pick evidence.
Why Reddit or companies censor it is a different story though. (Bad publicity).
---
So what harm do you believe holocaust denial manifests into?
---
Stuff like [this](https://www.cufi.org/one-third-of-americans-dont-believe-6-million-jews-were-murdered-during-the-holocaust/)
> 31 percent of the Americans surveyed, and 41 percent of millennials within that group, do not believe that 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust and think the real death toll is at least 2 million lower.
People hear arguments about wooden doors and such, and think "well, I'm sure the holocaust happened, but maybe that guy has a point about the numbers lol idk" and then either don't have the time or inclination to go diving into the history to get their head around it.
---
So who does that harm?
---
Holocaust survivors for one, who see their experience minimized/trivialized.
Also it kind of hurts us in general. Do you enjoy living in a world where you can be never be 100% sure of anything because there's just so much bullshit and misinformation flying around? Well, this is a part of it. | ipaytn | CMV: Holocaust denial should be a perfectly acceptable viewpoint | I should preface this by saying I am not a holocaust denier, nor do I think it is even a remotely logical viewpoint.
In saying that, I don’t think it should be so outrageous that people have that opinion. I see a lot of censorship of holocaust denial and particularly on reddit, why though?
Who exactly are they doing harm to? I can see how maybe some people who were affected by the holocaust may be upset about it, but i don’t believe somebody being upset is a good enough reason to censor an opinion. After all, they aren’t doing it to upset people, they have their evidence (albeit, faulty evidence), they really do believe this.
I feel like they should be put in the same category as flat earthers, just a bunch of idiots given no credence. What harm are they doing anyways?
Edit: I think im done responding now, Im hearing repeating arguments now. Consider my view partially changed. I see both sides and im a bit indifferent, still not quite sure if I think it should be censored though. | BhCtqclsm | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "TripRichert",
"id": "g4iwyw9",
"score": 10,
"text": "Holocaust denial is often strongly motivated by antisemitism. \n\nPeople are trying to rewrite history to deny the crimes of people of similar ideology to themselves.\n\nThinking elitist scientists are lying to you is very different ... | [
{
"author": "TunaCatz",
"id": "g4iwnxr",
"score": 6,
"text": "I don't think most people care what thoughts people have. They care about how those thoughts manifest into actions and behaviors.\n\nThinking x race of people are bad isn't doing any harm. Treating x race worse because the person thinks t... | [
"g4iwyw9",
"g4ix4hn",
"g4ixwzv",
"g4ixzta",
"g4iydnn"
] | [
"g4iwnxr",
"g4iwtst",
"g4ix1p4",
"g4ixb29",
"g4ixf8q"
] |
CMV: The two senators from each state must be elected at the same time
I'm not saying that staggered Senate elections should be abolished. Continue renewing one-third of the Senate every two years, but do so with both senators from one-third of the states. This would allow for equal representation of both parties in this elected body, regardless of the party majority in the House of Representatives.
I believe this would be beneficial to the American republic, as it would strengthen the purpose of the Senate as a deliberative body and avoid a “Tyranny of the Majority”.
I would like a debate on the idea itself, without addressing the political feasibility of implementation (constitutional amendment) and practical details on how to reorder the electoral cycle for the new model. Therefore, I propose an imagination exercise such as "What if it were like this?".
Change my view. | >I'm not saying that staggered Senate elections should be abolished. Continue renewing one-third of the Senate every two years, but do so with both senators from one-third of the states. This would allow for equal representation of both parties in this elected body, regardless of the party majority in the House of Representatives....
I believe this would be beneficial to the American republic, as it would strengthen the purpose of the Senate as a deliberative body and avoid a “Tyranny of the Majority”.
I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence in the first paragraph or how it would do the latter paragraph. Can you explain, please?
---
The idea is that the opposition and government in each state (generally from the two main parties) can be represented by one senator each. So let's say that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives and the president is also from the same party. The system I am proposing would tend to almost always guarantee that a senator from each party would be elected to represent the state. Consequently, we would have a perfect political balance in the Senate.
---
>The system I am proposing would tend to almost always guarantee that a senator from each party would be elected to represent the state.
Explain how.
You have two Senate seats. You have four primaries. You have a D and an R for one seat and a D and an R for the other in the general election.
How do you guarantee voters don't vote in both Ds or both Rs? | I'm not sure how I understand the problem you are trying to address, nor how this addresses it
---
The idea is that the opposition and government in each state (generally from the two main parties) can be represented by one senator each. So let's say that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives and the president is also from the same party. The system I am proposing would tend to almost always guarantee that a senator from each party would be elected to represent the state. Consequently, we would have a perfect political balance in the Senate.
---
As you’ve explained it that does not follow at all. | 1eaiakq | CMV: The two senators from each state must be elected at the same time | I'm not saying that staggered Senate elections should be abolished. Continue renewing one-third of the Senate every two years, but do so with both senators from one-third of the states. This would allow for equal representation of both parties in this elected body, regardless of the party majority in the House of Representatives.
I believe this would be beneficial to the American republic, as it would strengthen the purpose of the Senate as a deliberative body and avoid a “Tyranny of the Majority”.
I would like a debate on the idea itself, without addressing the political feasibility of implementation (constitutional amendment) and practical details on how to reorder the electoral cycle for the new model. Therefore, I propose an imagination exercise such as "What if it were like this?".
Change my view. | Unlucky_Fisherman_11 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"id": "lelp9gt",
"score": 2,
"text": ">I'm not saying that staggered Senate elections should be abolished. Continue renewing one-third of the Senate every two years, but do so with both senators from one-third of the states. This would allow for equal representation of both p... | [
{
"author": "down42roads",
"id": "lelp3g2",
"score": 12,
"text": "I'm not sure how I understand the problem you are trying to address, nor how this addresses it",
"timestamp": 1721766890
},
{
"author": "Unlucky_Fisherman_11",
"id": "lelqdnv",
"score": -5,
"text": "The idea is... | [
"lelp9gt",
"lelqs2a",
"leluy7d"
] | [
"lelp3g2",
"lelqdnv",
"lelqnxi"
] |
CMV: Unregulated psychedelic use is dangerous for the neurodivergent community
For context, I have a slight background in the mental health industry (1 year working as a nurse tech in a psychiatric hospital/rehab). I was a teenager in the mid 2010's, and a lot of my friends from that time period identify as autistic to some degree, diagnosed or not. I do not personally, but I have been diagnosed with ADHD and I personally identify as a recovering drug addict.
Almost all of those same friends have a history of substance abuse. I do as well. Particularly, many of these people used psychedelics (sometimes on a monthly basis, but in more extreme cases, some of them took psychsedelic drugs every week). Besides the psychedelic drugs in question (Shrooms, LSD, research chemicals meant to mimic LSD, DMT) every single one of these people took other substances such as marijuana, molly, MDMA, cocaine, and for a couple of people, meth. Unsurprisingly (to me), many of us found ourselves in jail, prison, tragic circumstances, unhealthy relationships and underemployment.
I am of the belief that neurodivergent people who use/abuse psychedelic substances to cope with their disorders are harming themselves more than helping themselves. These substances can cause the users to lose touch with reality, a reality many users already struggle with. Many of my friends from this time period primarily learned about psychedelics on reddit, a site which often sings the praises of these substances to the point where I feel my neurodivergent friends were marketed to at impressionable stages of adolescence. Neurodivergent people seem to struggle more in life than neurotypical people, and I believe psychedelic use adds another hurdle for them to jump over.
On a more personal note, the reason I bring this up is because it's a belief I've wrestled with for a long time. I recognize the therapeutic possibilities in these substances, but due to their illegality, I believe there's huge risk in neurodivergent people attempting to satiate their symptoms with psychedelics. I generally hold more liberal views, but as I age, I grow more conservative in my stance on drugs. I feel the new me argue with the old me about this, so I wanted to see if anybody could steer me differently. | Well, using any substance to cope with a disorder is unhealthy.
But I think if someone is using psychedelics intentionally and responsibly, it’s not a huge issue, right? And ND people don’t inherently lack the ability to use substances responsibly, though we might be more prone to addicted behavior.
Personally I’ve used shrooms and cannabis, and I have a prescription for the latter. I don’t use them to cope necessarily, but I have found that they alleviate some of my bad symptoms.
There are many ND people who have ended up in tragic circumstances due to substance use, and there are many (many more, I would guess) who haven’t.
---
My friends and I thought we were being responsible; but looking back, driving on a lightless street while tripping acid isn't responsible.
That's the issue in my opinion, if a teenager gets away with something once, they may think they are being responsible. But if they die the second time they try it, it's too late to learn that responsibility is subjective.
In tandem with this, these drugs alter perception by definition. How can an impressionable autistic teenager tripping on acid make the judgement of what is responsible or not?
---
Oh, I thought you meant the neurodivergent community in general, rather than just ND teenagers. But even as a kid, I wouldn’t think it’s *responsible* to drive anywhere tripping. Sure, I might figure I can get away with it, but responsible? Absolutely not.
I guess I can’t speak much on that because I only started using substances at age 23 or so. So in my own experience as someone with ADHD, autism and PMDD, ND people can absolutely use psychedelics responsibly. Teenagers really shouldn’t be using things like that while their brains are still in development, and I would hope an adult would intervene. But that’s true of teenagers in general, not just ND teens.
Do you have these same views for adults who only use these substances in safe environments at appropriate times?
---
I tend to think most people use acid as teenagers; that may be my bias as I experienced that
If adults use them, I still think theres danger. Moreso, the emerging of dormant schizophrenia from psychedelic use. However, adults smoke cigarettes every day and I definitely feel that is way worse and I'd never say they can't do that.
---
I didn't use any psychedelics until I was an adult, same goes for most people I know. Most of those people are also neurodivergent and I don't think any of us would say psychedelics have impacted our lives in a negative way. | They are regulated, by the law.
Are you saying that people should regulate their own use of psychedelics? Or that if they were ever made legal, that it would be dangerous for neurodivergent people?
---
I'm saying that because they are illegal (in the United States), nobody is stopping a neurodivergent teenager with access to these substances from taking 100 tabs of acid in one setting and effectively losing their mind (this happened to a friend of mine)
Maybe unregulated is the wrong word for my title. I would trust therapeutic use of these in a clinical/medical setting, but due to illegality that seems impossible, especially for people under 18.
---
If the law is trying to stop EVERYONE having access to 100 or any tabs of acid, how can they stop neurodivergent people more exclusively?
I guess the question should be how do we better assist people with mental health conditions (and everyone) so they are less likely to turn to psychedelics?
---
I know people diagnosed with depression in some states can't buy a gun. Maybe screening?
As far as the second point goes, I'm all for it. I wish we could change society on that level, but some people would rebel against tolerance in any situation.
---
But NO ONE can really buy psychedelics legally? You can buy a gun legally in certain circumstances. What would the screening achieve? "You're fit to go buy illegal drugs"
And rebel against tolerance for what? | 1l8g3bl | CMV: Unregulated psychedelic use is dangerous for the neurodivergent community | For context, I have a slight background in the mental health industry (1 year working as a nurse tech in a psychiatric hospital/rehab). I was a teenager in the mid 2010's, and a lot of my friends from that time period identify as autistic to some degree, diagnosed or not. I do not personally, but I have been diagnosed with ADHD and I personally identify as a recovering drug addict.
Almost all of those same friends have a history of substance abuse. I do as well. Particularly, many of these people used psychedelics (sometimes on a monthly basis, but in more extreme cases, some of them took psychsedelic drugs every week). Besides the psychedelic drugs in question (Shrooms, LSD, research chemicals meant to mimic LSD, DMT) every single one of these people took other substances such as marijuana, molly, MDMA, cocaine, and for a couple of people, meth. Unsurprisingly (to me), many of us found ourselves in jail, prison, tragic circumstances, unhealthy relationships and underemployment.
I am of the belief that neurodivergent people who use/abuse psychedelic substances to cope with their disorders are harming themselves more than helping themselves. These substances can cause the users to lose touch with reality, a reality many users already struggle with. Many of my friends from this time period primarily learned about psychedelics on reddit, a site which often sings the praises of these substances to the point where I feel my neurodivergent friends were marketed to at impressionable stages of adolescence. Neurodivergent people seem to struggle more in life than neurotypical people, and I believe psychedelic use adds another hurdle for them to jump over.
On a more personal note, the reason I bring this up is because it's a belief I've wrestled with for a long time. I recognize the therapeutic possibilities in these substances, but due to their illegality, I believe there's huge risk in neurodivergent people attempting to satiate their symptoms with psychedelics. I generally hold more liberal views, but as I age, I grow more conservative in my stance on drugs. I feel the new me argue with the old me about this, so I wanted to see if anybody could steer me differently. | Late_Ambassador7470 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "faux-fox-paws",
"id": "mx4htdi",
"score": 5,
"text": "Well, using any substance to cope with a disorder is unhealthy.\n\nBut I think if someone is using psychedelics intentionally and responsibly, it’s not a huge issue, right? And ND people don’t inherently lack the ability to use subst... | [
{
"author": "Spontanudity",
"id": "mx4hf25",
"score": 2,
"text": "They are regulated, by the law.\n\nAre you saying that people should regulate their own use of psychedelics? Or that if they were ever made legal, that it would be dangerous for neurodivergent people?",
"timestamp": 1749605139
}... | [
"mx4htdi",
"mx4j8me",
"mx4le4x",
"mx4m9zp",
"mx57kpn"
] | [
"mx4hf25",
"mx4idhk",
"mx4jy3w",
"mx4knha",
"mx4lwse"
] |
CMV: The United States should Decriminalize all drugs as well as prostitution.
Admittedly, these are two seperate issues at face value, but really I think their both connected in a big government way. And they have similar positive arguments from me.
To begin, bodily autonomy is an important human right. It's galling to think of the government telling us we can't use our bodies as we please, whether for financial gain or not. Furthermore, there are many ways to harm the body; not wearning sunscreen, eating lots of cake, driving recklessly and being unlucky, smoking perfectly legal cigarettes, ect etc. I don't think drawing a moral line in the sand is anything but arbitrary.
Second, as far as both of these go they lead to plenty of non-violent offenders going through the justice system, some even spending many years in prison. This costs a lot of tax dollars for a non-violent morally ambiguous crime.
Third, where violence is coming in, much could be avoided by decriminalization. If people aren't making deals in dark alleyways and have no recourse to call for help, becuase they too are commiting a crime, then it can only help with safety. I can only cite saftey on prostitution, but if you take a look at The Bunny Ranch and how they have benifited from the transparency of their job and the precautions they can take to protect each other.
But take a look at this article and see how the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did a great deal of good for them. https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening
Fourth, and what I think is most important, we can then do proper scientific studies on drugs that show promise, like marijuana. There is lots of movement toward thinking that it may help a myriad of illnesses, but without proper doubleblind studies, we're doing medicine a disservice.
Fifth, my plan would be to tax the pot (and whatever else they decide to sell) and prostitution just like everything else. Then instead of jailing these non-violent drug offenders, where we'll likely just perpetuate, if not worsen their issue, we take this new money (from the taxes) and we offer and provide treatment. If the government sells hard drugs every dose should come with a pamphlet. | Decriminalize or legalize? If you want tax dollars you'll need full legalization not just decriminalization.
---
Well, I would like to legalize prostitution and pot. I'd defer to medical experts on the rest
---
I think decriminalizing panders to the emotions that just disapprove of prostitution and drugs out of some sort of moral reasoning, and want to limit it in a way. Legalizing just allows you to do so much more. I mean... I see no advantage of decriminalizing, it just seems like a half-baked compromise. | Specifically for prostitution though, decriminalization would mean support for an industry that is currently ripe with abuse. It's the same sort of reasoning that the government doesn't allow individuals to pay other people for organs - it just enables for the exploitation of desperate people, being put into immoral situations. And encourages terrible things like human trafficking, which *will* occur if the industry continues to be extremely profitable.
Now obviously having it criminalized doesn't get rid of it or make it any better really - if anything it just means that a lot of the abuses are pushed into the shadows. Instead what a lot of people have advocated for - including myself - is to make prostitution legal but make buying a prostitute illegal, which is an attempt to punish the people feeding into the industry, but still allow for people within it who are likely being forced or exploited to have avenues for recourse.
This might be a slightly aside from the main point of your argument but I thought it was worth getting into a little bit.
---
But have you seen the interviews with the women who work in the brothels out in Nevada? Sure they could be full of shit and lying their asses off, but I have to go with the word that people give. They say they love their work, they are safe, they are protected, and they get to decide morals for themselves. Morals are subjective, and just because one woman feels it's wrong to sell time with her vagina doesn't mean she should get to speak for me. And you're right that it won't stop the industry, so the best we can do is make safe dorm type places for women to work, with security, or something, because the more taboo the easier to continue the trafficking.
---
I haven't seen those specific interviews, but a few women willing to say positive things about the industry doesn't really change the reality of it being an extremely abuse riddled, exploitive system that fundamentally has never occurred without being abusive and exploitative.
Just like some children who grow up in abusive homes will grow up to say that they don't think that there was anything wrong with the way their parents disciplined them. I'm not commenting at all on the realities of their situations per say but I am going to say that as a society we shouldn't encourage child abuse or prostitution just because some people say they have positive encounters with it (which they absolutely do for both cases).
It's a pretty complex issue but [this](http://www.imnotamotivationalspeaker.com/challenging-prostitution/) is a pretty well cited reference for why legalized prostitution is a bad idea, specifically comparing places that have gone that route to other places, as well as dispelling a lot of other notions about the sex industry. Now, like I said, my answer to this isn't to make prostitution illegal, only to make buying prostitutes illegal. | 60y909 | CMV: The United States should Decriminalize all drugs as well as prostitution. | Admittedly, these are two seperate issues at face value, but really I think their both connected in a big government way. And they have similar positive arguments from me.
To begin, bodily autonomy is an important human right. It's galling to think of the government telling us we can't use our bodies as we please, whether for financial gain or not. Furthermore, there are many ways to harm the body; not wearning sunscreen, eating lots of cake, driving recklessly and being unlucky, smoking perfectly legal cigarettes, ect etc. I don't think drawing a moral line in the sand is anything but arbitrary.
Second, as far as both of these go they lead to plenty of non-violent offenders going through the justice system, some even spending many years in prison. This costs a lot of tax dollars for a non-violent morally ambiguous crime.
Third, where violence is coming in, much could be avoided by decriminalization. If people aren't making deals in dark alleyways and have no recourse to call for help, becuase they too are commiting a crime, then it can only help with safety. I can only cite saftey on prostitution, but if you take a look at The Bunny Ranch and how they have benifited from the transparency of their job and the precautions they can take to protect each other.
But take a look at this article and see how the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did a great deal of good for them. https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening
Fourth, and what I think is most important, we can then do proper scientific studies on drugs that show promise, like marijuana. There is lots of movement toward thinking that it may help a myriad of illnesses, but without proper doubleblind studies, we're doing medicine a disservice.
Fifth, my plan would be to tax the pot (and whatever else they decide to sell) and prostitution just like everything else. Then instead of jailing these non-violent drug offenders, where we'll likely just perpetuate, if not worsen their issue, we take this new money (from the taxes) and we offer and provide treatment. If the government sells hard drugs every dose should come with a pamphlet. | slytherin-by-night | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "super-commenting",
"id": "dfa8wg9",
"score": 2,
"text": "Decriminalize or legalize? If you want tax dollars you'll need full legalization not just decriminalization.",
"timestamp": 1490225126
},
{
"author": "slytherin-by-night",
"id": "dfa95r3",
"score": 2,
"text... | [
{
"author": "allsfair86",
"id": "dfaadr5",
"score": 7,
"text": "Specifically for prostitution though, decriminalization would mean support for an industry that is currently ripe with abuse. It's the same sort of reasoning that the government doesn't allow individuals to pay other people for organs ... | [
"dfa8wg9",
"dfa95r3",
"dfarknt"
] | [
"dfaadr5",
"dfacbj0",
"dfai9zz"
] |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender and people that get upset about it are just trying to be victims.
I posted two statements in one and will explain both individually.
*there is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender* the vast majority of people (especially in Western culture) are not in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, and even within those that are, people that are gender non-conforming are a small minority. These people makeup such a small percentage of the population that they are rare. Given this assuming someone that presents as male/female is assuming something that is going to be the case in 90%+ of instances, so assuming that someone falls into the largest category is not wrong, but is safe. For most of modern history (correct me if I am wrong on that) and majorly observable instances of society, we have only known two genders (though evidence suggest some societies recognize a third, i.e. Thailand ladyboys and in South America some cultures historically recognized transgender people). It is therefore most likely that we only understand two and expect two, and most likely that they are what they were assigned as birth. So it seems that if someone presents male or female it is fair to assume that they are male or female. Given that these are likely to be the vast majority of experiences (I am assuming here someone that is MTF being called male rather than someone that looks like a MTF but wants to be called male) it seems fair that someone would assume gender based on what is observable.
*people that get upset are being over sensitive * I know that it is not many that truly get upset about this. On reddit it looks like a huge swath of the population thanks to things like r/TumblrInAction but I know they are the minority. Thanks to this and other times it seems that these people are wanting to yell at anyone, and are playing victim when they aren’t understanding the other.
I will gladly explain more as needed and look forward to replies. | There's a implicit assumption that there are many people who will be **absolutely outraged** if you accidentally misgender them. That is not the case. This is a fantasy of right-wing "cringe" compilations.
If you do it on purpose to be an asshole, then yes you are an asshole. But if you do it on accident, no is going to cancel you. At worst they politely correct you.
---
That’s what it seems in the general, real population. It would be terrible to intentionally miss gender someone but accidentally assuming something doesn’t seem to bad.
---
A lot of people have already effectively made the point that trans people don't actually get outraged at being accidentally misgendered, at least not usually. But there are a couple of points you should consider:
1. There is this sorta newish concept called micro-aggressions. They are generally considered minor annoyances and such that, when considered as a single event, should not and would not be thought of as a big deal. Being accidentally misgendered typically falls under this category. But you must understand that when you are perpetually surrounded by people who are constantly misgendering you and constantly doing or saying things that are triggering bouts of gender dysphoria, even if it's not intentional, can really grate on your nerves and wear you down over time. Not everyone has healthy coping mechanisms, and eventually, it can become like the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. Most cis people vastly overestimate their ability to identify or "clock" trans people at a glance. They THINK they know what trans people are "supposed to" look like, but the reality is that there are just as many gender non-conforming cis people out there as trans people, if not more, and there are A LOT of trans people who pass as cis. This leads to a lot of confirmation bias in regards to the use of pronouns. So for the majority of trans people, you will end up using their preferred pronouns without having to be asked at all simply because you didn't know they were trans. Pre-transition trans people don't like being misgendered, of course, but they aren't going to expect people to know that without being asked to use different pronouns first. So the trans people whose preferred pronouns aren't as clear are typically just the ones who are visibly gender non-conforming due to still being early in their transition, and it is these people who are unfortunately the most vulnerable to abuse as well as most often victims of intentional misgendering, which is why my first point is important. | The VAST majority of trans people do not use “did you just assume my gender” seriously. It’s a meme that was made up by cis gender folks. Trans people do have a right to feel sensitive about their gender and how they are perceived but that is usually not reflected with outrage. They will either ignore it or correct you. This issue is basically made up by people who are transphobic (not saying you are). And if you find someone who does make a big deal of it and is super angry and rude, that’s not because they’re trans, that’s just because they’re an asshole.
Also, your phrasing is confusing so I just want to make sure you understand that mtf means male to female, so she would want to be perceived as a woman.
---
I guess I am realizing that I wasn’t asking to *change my view * so much as help develop my view. So thanks!
---
No problem! If I helped you change/develop your view I would love a delta! | ip7kqb | CMV: There is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender and people that get upset about it are just trying to be victims. | I posted two statements in one and will explain both individually.
*there is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender* the vast majority of people (especially in Western culture) are not in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, and even within those that are, people that are gender non-conforming are a small minority. These people makeup such a small percentage of the population that they are rare. Given this assuming someone that presents as male/female is assuming something that is going to be the case in 90%+ of instances, so assuming that someone falls into the largest category is not wrong, but is safe. For most of modern history (correct me if I am wrong on that) and majorly observable instances of society, we have only known two genders (though evidence suggest some societies recognize a third, i.e. Thailand ladyboys and in South America some cultures historically recognized transgender people). It is therefore most likely that we only understand two and expect two, and most likely that they are what they were assigned as birth. So it seems that if someone presents male or female it is fair to assume that they are male or female. Given that these are likely to be the vast majority of experiences (I am assuming here someone that is MTF being called male rather than someone that looks like a MTF but wants to be called male) it seems fair that someone would assume gender based on what is observable.
*people that get upset are being over sensitive * I know that it is not many that truly get upset about this. On reddit it looks like a huge swath of the population thanks to things like r/TumblrInAction but I know they are the minority. Thanks to this and other times it seems that these people are wanting to yell at anyone, and are playing victim when they aren’t understanding the other.
I will gladly explain more as needed and look forward to replies. | TallBoiPlanks | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "dudemanwhoa",
"id": "g4ide9m",
"score": 581,
"text": "There's a implicit assumption that there are many people who will be **absolutely outraged** if you accidentally misgender them. That is not the case. This is a fantasy of right-wing \"cringe\" compilations. \n\nIf you do it on purpo... | [
{
"author": "Prestigious-Menu",
"id": "g4ievd1",
"score": 217,
"text": "The VAST majority of trans people do not use “did you just assume my gender” seriously. It’s a meme that was made up by cis gender folks. Trans people do have a right to feel sensitive about their gender and how they are perceiv... | [
"g4ide9m",
"g4idxf3",
"g4ipz39"
] | [
"g4ievd1",
"g4ighcm",
"g4igsvz"
] |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender and people that get upset about it are just trying to be victims.
I posted two statements in one and will explain both individually.
*there is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender* the vast majority of people (especially in Western culture) are not in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, and even within those that are, people that are gender non-conforming are a small minority. These people makeup such a small percentage of the population that they are rare. Given this assuming someone that presents as male/female is assuming something that is going to be the case in 90%+ of instances, so assuming that someone falls into the largest category is not wrong, but is safe. For most of modern history (correct me if I am wrong on that) and majorly observable instances of society, we have only known two genders (though evidence suggest some societies recognize a third, i.e. Thailand ladyboys and in South America some cultures historically recognized transgender people). It is therefore most likely that we only understand two and expect two, and most likely that they are what they were assigned as birth. So it seems that if someone presents male or female it is fair to assume that they are male or female. Given that these are likely to be the vast majority of experiences (I am assuming here someone that is MTF being called male rather than someone that looks like a MTF but wants to be called male) it seems fair that someone would assume gender based on what is observable.
*people that get upset are being over sensitive * I know that it is not many that truly get upset about this. On reddit it looks like a huge swath of the population thanks to things like r/TumblrInAction but I know they are the minority. Thanks to this and other times it seems that these people are wanting to yell at anyone, and are playing victim when they aren’t understanding the other.
I will gladly explain more as needed and look forward to replies. | The word you’re looking for is “rare” or “unusual”. Just sayin, “weird” and “abnormal” absolutely do carry undertones of, well, aversion and discomfort in every day use. Saying something is “unusual” means exactly what you described in a numeric sense and no more.
Tbh, I’m not sure you tried very hard to hide the fact that you do indeed find nonbinaries weird. That word popped in your head for a reason, and it wasn’t because they are “rare”.
Of course, I could be wrong about that, but I’m still gonna tell you what I thought when I read what you wrote.
I’ve never met a non-binary who got mad about that. That’s a daily occurrence for them, they don’t spend every day mad at the rest of the human race for being different from them. They’re just... people bro.
Edit: trying to figure out why people think I’m upset lol
---
Thanks for that! I genuinely was trying to think that but couldn’t get that word into my head and I see why my wording would be problematic.
---
I have to agree with the top commenter here. You've gone to great lengths to paint yourself as a kind person looking for help with understanding things, but you don't seem to have spent more than a few seconds thinking about words that mean 'different'.
If you genuinely want to find kinder words, and you're able to type this post on Reddit, you're able to skim through your mental dictionary to do the work. Knowing that you're not good at something can't be an excuse to abdicate any responsibility to give it a go.
Top commenter is also right on nobody really getting outraged. You don't need to ask every new person which gender they identify with. You can make things easier for trans people by finding ways to quietly and casually indicate your own identity, which makes it clear that it's fine for anyone else to declare their own. The easiest is in an email signature:
Best wishes
John Doe
*he / him / his*
---
Or I can ask people to help with words and admit that I wasn’t equipped at the time with the appropriate words, acknowledging my failures and not making the same mistake again?
---
Learning and asking for advice is always acceptable in my book. If I were you though, I’d edit your original text and put in one of the suggestions you received. | There's a implicit assumption that there are many people who will be **absolutely outraged** if you accidentally misgender them. That is not the case. This is a fantasy of right-wing "cringe" compilations.
If you do it on purpose to be an asshole, then yes you are an asshole. But if you do it on accident, no is going to cancel you. At worst they politely correct you.
---
That’s what it seems in the general, real population. It would be terrible to intentionally miss gender someone but accidentally assuming something doesn’t seem to bad.
---
Then what is the point of the post? There's a lot of stuff on here about trans people being "overly sensitive" and "abnormal" and if you misgender them it's their fault. It feels like a motte-and-bailey argument, where you are strident about how misgendering people is ok and everyone is just offended, but when challenged, it's only in limited circumstances that no one is actually upset by.
---
The problem with making generalizations like "no-one is *actually* outraged if you misgender them" is that other people can just post stuff like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb6OpRfyLFo) and say "well - there's an exception that proves you wrong", and your whole argument is weakened.
---
How much mileage are transphobes going to get out of that person? I've seen people link that video coutless times. I knew what it was before I clicked through.
In the age of the internet you can choose your reality: if you want to hate group X of millions of people, find the .001% that are the most objectionable. Then you can look at one of them a day until you are convinced they are all like that.
In actual reality with actual Trans people, 99.9% of the time no one is going to get mad at an honest mistake. Even in this clip, this is obviously a heated situation before the clip starts, so it's not like she went from 0 to 60 because of it. | ip7kqb | CMV: There is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender and people that get upset about it are just trying to be victims. | I posted two statements in one and will explain both individually.
*there is nothing wrong with assuming someone’s gender* the vast majority of people (especially in Western culture) are not in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, and even within those that are, people that are gender non-conforming are a small minority. These people makeup such a small percentage of the population that they are rare. Given this assuming someone that presents as male/female is assuming something that is going to be the case in 90%+ of instances, so assuming that someone falls into the largest category is not wrong, but is safe. For most of modern history (correct me if I am wrong on that) and majorly observable instances of society, we have only known two genders (though evidence suggest some societies recognize a third, i.e. Thailand ladyboys and in South America some cultures historically recognized transgender people). It is therefore most likely that we only understand two and expect two, and most likely that they are what they were assigned as birth. So it seems that if someone presents male or female it is fair to assume that they are male or female. Given that these are likely to be the vast majority of experiences (I am assuming here someone that is MTF being called male rather than someone that looks like a MTF but wants to be called male) it seems fair that someone would assume gender based on what is observable.
*people that get upset are being over sensitive * I know that it is not many that truly get upset about this. On reddit it looks like a huge swath of the population thanks to things like r/TumblrInAction but I know they are the minority. Thanks to this and other times it seems that these people are wanting to yell at anyone, and are playing victim when they aren’t understanding the other.
I will gladly explain more as needed and look forward to replies. | TallBoiPlanks | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "TheseVirginEars",
"id": "g4ik185",
"score": 402,
"text": "The word you’re looking for is “rare” or “unusual”. Just sayin, “weird” and “abnormal” absolutely do carry undertones of, well, aversion and discomfort in every day use. Saying something is “unusual” means exactly what you descri... | [
{
"author": "dudemanwhoa",
"id": "g4ide9m",
"score": 581,
"text": "There's a implicit assumption that there are many people who will be **absolutely outraged** if you accidentally misgender them. That is not the case. This is a fantasy of right-wing \"cringe\" compilations. \n\nIf you do it on purpo... | [
"g4ik185",
"g4ik9n9",
"g4iv5qq",
"g4iwbnd",
"g4iwpjw"
] | [
"g4ide9m",
"g4idxf3",
"g4ieea5",
"g4igdsm",
"g4igrtt"
] |
CMV: The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and the discussions surrounding gun control also apply to hacking tools.
I once had to give a presentation about [Metasploit](https://www.metasploit.com/), and whether it was ethically correct for the creator to make it free and open-source, available to everyone. And in researching this I realized that there were a lot of parallels between the arguments for or against hacking tools being readily available and the arguments for or against gun control. I'll just list a few quickly:
>Pro GC: Guns are built with the sole purpose of killing, it makes sense to restrict their availability while it wouldn't make sense to restrict, say, kitchen knives.
Hacking tools are built to attack. They have legitimate security uses, notably in "red teaming" or "penatration testing" where ethical hackers are hired to attempt to break through an organization's security system. But these tools are, ultimately, offensive software built to attack another person's computer. If you buy the above argument, then it makes sense to restrict hacking tools while it wouldn't make sense to restrict other software.
>Anti GC: Criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter the laws on them. Why restrict them from our citizens?
This has been proven true in the world of hacking tools. [Cobalt Strike](https://www.cobaltstrike.com/) is one of the most popular malware Command and Control (C2) tools out there, and the company that sells it vets buyers and ensure that they are ethical hacking organizations. It's probably the best example of a hacking tool that tries to restrict itself to ethical uses. However, malicious hackers have found ways to patch out the Digital Rights Management (DRM) portions of the software in much the same way that video game pirates patch the DRM out of video games before redistributing the cracked copies. Cobalt Strike is one of the most popular tools for ethical hacking, and also one of the most popular tools for unethical hacking. Malicious actors are still able to access cracked versions of Cobalt Strike, so why restrict the software for everyone? (Edit: I mean in a legal sense, obviously Cobalt Strike has DRM to sell the software for money. But this example shows that trying to restrict the tool to ethical hackers won't work with our current technology.)
I could go on, but I think these two examples demonstrate the parallels. And I want to see an argument on why my view should be changed here because I realize that my own feelings on these two are inconsistent: I am against legally restricting access to hacking tools, but I'm generally in favor of moderate gun control laws, especially the ones we already have in many places like background checks for people who purchase firearms. So have at it: is there an argument for why the discussion surrounding the second amendment and the discussion surrounding gun control shouldn't also apply to hacking tools?
EDIT: I have awarded two deltas! One because guns are designed specifically to kill, hacking tools aren't. So gun control may not be an apt comparison, though hacking tools can still cause damage and even death. (Pacemakers and insulin pumps often have wireless capabilities now.) The second was the realization that, if you read the 2A as only dealing with weapons intended to cause physical harm, then hacking tools generally don't fall under them. This does create a grey area for software explicitly designed to tamper with personal medical devices like the aforementioned pacemakers, but that's a court case for the record books when it comes up. | You talk about the ways these things might be analogous, but note that your views are inconsistent. I'm struggling to understand - what view it is that you mean for us to change?
As for why Cobalt Strike is restricted - it's their IP, and presumably their business model is the product and assist in its use for pen testing.
The government does not restrict ownership of hacking tools, which is the key disanalogy with gun ownership. Restrictions come from IP owners - just like you can legally buy mp3s, or illegally pirate them.
---
>what view it is that you mean for us to change?
I'm asking why we shouldn't put guns and hacking tools in the same box as far as regulations are concerned? One's a physical weapon, the other is a cyber weapon.
>The government does not restrict ownership of hacking tools, which is the key disanalogy with gun ownership.
(EDIT: phrasing) And I agree with that regulation style, but should it be that way? It seems to conflict with the idea of treating hacking tools as weapons under the 2A.
---
>I'm asking why we shouldn't put guns and hacking tools in the same box as far as regulations are concerned? Ones a physical weapon, the other is a cyber weapon.
You've answered your own question.
You have the right to shoot someone for attacking your person. You don't have the right to shoot someone for attacking your bank account (stealing from you.)
The courts agree that robbery constitutes a harm against a person and there are penalties and remedies to that, but they think that it is a legal difference between physical harm. | Fun one.
* The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.
* Being hacked is *most likely* not going to be life threatening, being shot, most likely is.
* Firearms are physical, hacking tools are digital. Two entirely different medium where one can much more easily be regulated while the other can freely be distributed with a 11 year old's understanding of anonymity on the internet.
* The only ethical purpose of a gun is to defend yourself or others - while there are multiple ethical uses for hacking tools.
All in all, it's apples and oranges to me.
---
>The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.
I'm not entirely sure that applies to most tools, especially malware payloads designed specifically to run on a target's computer.
>Being hacked is most likely not going to be life threatening, being shot, most likely is.
Good call. There are still edge cases. Though I realize hacking tools aren't designed specifically to kill, so that may negate the "gun control" part of this post. !delta for that. Still, I assume that the 2A applies to nonlethal weapons as well, like tasers and clubs, and whatever regulations apply to them would appear to apply to hacking tools. (Though I'm not a lawyer and don't know the case law around nonlethals.)
>Firearms are physical, hacking tools are digital. Two entirely different medium where one can much more easily be regulated while the other can freely be distributed with a 11 year old's understanding of anonymity on the internet.
I don't think that applies to the underlying philosophy of how we should approach weapons getting into the hands of average people from a legal standpoint. The medium isn't that important.
>The only ethical purpose of a gun is to defend yourself or others - while there are multiple ethical uses for hacking tools.
I can't think of any others. The tools are built for either testing your own security or for attacking someone else. (If you want to argue education and training in cybersecurity is valid, I'd ask whether that implies guns or tasers in a training environments means we shouldn't regulate them in other settings.)
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/StrangerThanGene ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/StrangerThanGene)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 14pxt2n | CMV: The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and the discussions surrounding gun control also apply to hacking tools. | I once had to give a presentation about [Metasploit](https://www.metasploit.com/), and whether it was ethically correct for the creator to make it free and open-source, available to everyone. And in researching this I realized that there were a lot of parallels between the arguments for or against hacking tools being readily available and the arguments for or against gun control. I'll just list a few quickly:
>Pro GC: Guns are built with the sole purpose of killing, it makes sense to restrict their availability while it wouldn't make sense to restrict, say, kitchen knives.
Hacking tools are built to attack. They have legitimate security uses, notably in "red teaming" or "penatration testing" where ethical hackers are hired to attempt to break through an organization's security system. But these tools are, ultimately, offensive software built to attack another person's computer. If you buy the above argument, then it makes sense to restrict hacking tools while it wouldn't make sense to restrict other software.
>Anti GC: Criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter the laws on them. Why restrict them from our citizens?
This has been proven true in the world of hacking tools. [Cobalt Strike](https://www.cobaltstrike.com/) is one of the most popular malware Command and Control (C2) tools out there, and the company that sells it vets buyers and ensure that they are ethical hacking organizations. It's probably the best example of a hacking tool that tries to restrict itself to ethical uses. However, malicious hackers have found ways to patch out the Digital Rights Management (DRM) portions of the software in much the same way that video game pirates patch the DRM out of video games before redistributing the cracked copies. Cobalt Strike is one of the most popular tools for ethical hacking, and also one of the most popular tools for unethical hacking. Malicious actors are still able to access cracked versions of Cobalt Strike, so why restrict the software for everyone? (Edit: I mean in a legal sense, obviously Cobalt Strike has DRM to sell the software for money. But this example shows that trying to restrict the tool to ethical hackers won't work with our current technology.)
I could go on, but I think these two examples demonstrate the parallels. And I want to see an argument on why my view should be changed here because I realize that my own feelings on these two are inconsistent: I am against legally restricting access to hacking tools, but I'm generally in favor of moderate gun control laws, especially the ones we already have in many places like background checks for people who purchase firearms. So have at it: is there an argument for why the discussion surrounding the second amendment and the discussion surrounding gun control shouldn't also apply to hacking tools?
EDIT: I have awarded two deltas! One because guns are designed specifically to kill, hacking tools aren't. So gun control may not be an apt comparison, though hacking tools can still cause damage and even death. (Pacemakers and insulin pumps often have wireless capabilities now.) The second was the realization that, if you read the 2A as only dealing with weapons intended to cause physical harm, then hacking tools generally don't fall under them. This does create a grey area for software explicitly designed to tamper with personal medical devices like the aforementioned pacemakers, but that's a court case for the record books when it comes up. | hilfigertout | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Mashaka",
"id": "jqkhdmh",
"score": 3,
"text": "You talk about the ways these things might be analogous, but note that your views are inconsistent. I'm struggling to understand - what view it is that you mean for us to change?\n\nAs for why Cobalt Strike is restricted - it's their IP, a... | [
{
"author": "StrangerThanGene",
"id": "jqkfe2g",
"score": 51,
"text": "Fun one.\n\n* The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.\n* Being hacked is *most... | [
"jqkhdmh",
"jqki9wv",
"jqkmis3"
] | [
"jqkfe2g",
"jqkh2zp",
"jqkh5g7"
] |
CMV: The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and the discussions surrounding gun control also apply to hacking tools.
I once had to give a presentation about [Metasploit](https://www.metasploit.com/), and whether it was ethically correct for the creator to make it free and open-source, available to everyone. And in researching this I realized that there were a lot of parallels between the arguments for or against hacking tools being readily available and the arguments for or against gun control. I'll just list a few quickly:
>Pro GC: Guns are built with the sole purpose of killing, it makes sense to restrict their availability while it wouldn't make sense to restrict, say, kitchen knives.
Hacking tools are built to attack. They have legitimate security uses, notably in "red teaming" or "penatration testing" where ethical hackers are hired to attempt to break through an organization's security system. But these tools are, ultimately, offensive software built to attack another person's computer. If you buy the above argument, then it makes sense to restrict hacking tools while it wouldn't make sense to restrict other software.
>Anti GC: Criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter the laws on them. Why restrict them from our citizens?
This has been proven true in the world of hacking tools. [Cobalt Strike](https://www.cobaltstrike.com/) is one of the most popular malware Command and Control (C2) tools out there, and the company that sells it vets buyers and ensure that they are ethical hacking organizations. It's probably the best example of a hacking tool that tries to restrict itself to ethical uses. However, malicious hackers have found ways to patch out the Digital Rights Management (DRM) portions of the software in much the same way that video game pirates patch the DRM out of video games before redistributing the cracked copies. Cobalt Strike is one of the most popular tools for ethical hacking, and also one of the most popular tools for unethical hacking. Malicious actors are still able to access cracked versions of Cobalt Strike, so why restrict the software for everyone? (Edit: I mean in a legal sense, obviously Cobalt Strike has DRM to sell the software for money. But this example shows that trying to restrict the tool to ethical hackers won't work with our current technology.)
I could go on, but I think these two examples demonstrate the parallels. And I want to see an argument on why my view should be changed here because I realize that my own feelings on these two are inconsistent: I am against legally restricting access to hacking tools, but I'm generally in favor of moderate gun control laws, especially the ones we already have in many places like background checks for people who purchase firearms. So have at it: is there an argument for why the discussion surrounding the second amendment and the discussion surrounding gun control shouldn't also apply to hacking tools?
EDIT: I have awarded two deltas! One because guns are designed specifically to kill, hacking tools aren't. So gun control may not be an apt comparison, though hacking tools can still cause damage and even death. (Pacemakers and insulin pumps often have wireless capabilities now.) The second was the realization that, if you read the 2A as only dealing with weapons intended to cause physical harm, then hacking tools generally don't fall under them. This does create a grey area for software explicitly designed to tamper with personal medical devices like the aforementioned pacemakers, but that's a court case for the record books when it comes up. | I certainly agree that there are parallels, but the very obvious difference *as it pertains to the second amendment* is that I can't imagine a court ruling that hacking tools are considered "arms" in such a way as to be covered by the second amendment. If the second amendment didn't exist and we were discussing gun control (or lack thereof) without a constitutional protection, the parallel would be a lot stronger. But right now the biggest defense of gun access is that it's been ruled as being protected by the constitution!
But if we take that out, I'd imagine the other big difference is there just isn't as much of a case for legitimate usage of hacking tools. I'd defend cyber security companies having access to these tools, because that's an important part of how they do their job. But why would a normal person need them? There isn't as strong of a case for stuff like self defense or hunting. You can kinda do mental gymnastics to make try and argue along those lines, but it's definitely a clearer argument with guns.
---
>the very obvious difference as it pertains to the second amendment is that I can't imagine a court ruling that hacking tools are considered "arms" in such a way as to be covered by the second amendment.
This is something I'm genuinely wondering how the courts will rule on. Especially with the constitution phrasing the 2A as "A well-regulated militia...". Cyberwarfare is a modern domain of war, and if you're a 2A proponent arguing that it was written as a safeguard against tyrannical government, then hacking tools in the hands of the people is what you'd want.
Personally, I could see a court ruling either way on this.
---
The Caetano decision recognized stun guns as arms. | Fun one.
* The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.
* Being hacked is *most likely* not going to be life threatening, being shot, most likely is.
* Firearms are physical, hacking tools are digital. Two entirely different medium where one can much more easily be regulated while the other can freely be distributed with a 11 year old's understanding of anonymity on the internet.
* The only ethical purpose of a gun is to defend yourself or others - while there are multiple ethical uses for hacking tools.
All in all, it's apples and oranges to me.
---
>The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.
I'm not entirely sure that applies to most tools, especially malware payloads designed specifically to run on a target's computer.
>Being hacked is most likely not going to be life threatening, being shot, most likely is.
Good call. There are still edge cases. Though I realize hacking tools aren't designed specifically to kill, so that may negate the "gun control" part of this post. !delta for that. Still, I assume that the 2A applies to nonlethal weapons as well, like tasers and clubs, and whatever regulations apply to them would appear to apply to hacking tools. (Though I'm not a lawyer and don't know the case law around nonlethals.)
>Firearms are physical, hacking tools are digital. Two entirely different medium where one can much more easily be regulated while the other can freely be distributed with a 11 year old's understanding of anonymity on the internet.
I don't think that applies to the underlying philosophy of how we should approach weapons getting into the hands of average people from a legal standpoint. The medium isn't that important.
>The only ethical purpose of a gun is to defend yourself or others - while there are multiple ethical uses for hacking tools.
I can't think of any others. The tools are built for either testing your own security or for attacking someone else. (If you want to argue education and training in cybersecurity is valid, I'd ask whether that implies guns or tasers in a training environments means we shouldn't regulate them in other settings.)
---
>I assume that the 2A applies to nonlethal weapons as well, like tasers and clubs
Tasers yes, clubs are too broad to be effectively legislated about. A baseball bat is a club.
Although 2nd amendment caselaw is a huge minefield of contradictions tbh. The law itself is poorly written- this isn't me disagreeing with the intent, it's confusingly worded. Commas in weird places. Clauses that may or may not be irrelevant. | 14pxt2n | CMV: The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and the discussions surrounding gun control also apply to hacking tools. | I once had to give a presentation about [Metasploit](https://www.metasploit.com/), and whether it was ethically correct for the creator to make it free and open-source, available to everyone. And in researching this I realized that there were a lot of parallels between the arguments for or against hacking tools being readily available and the arguments for or against gun control. I'll just list a few quickly:
>Pro GC: Guns are built with the sole purpose of killing, it makes sense to restrict their availability while it wouldn't make sense to restrict, say, kitchen knives.
Hacking tools are built to attack. They have legitimate security uses, notably in "red teaming" or "penatration testing" where ethical hackers are hired to attempt to break through an organization's security system. But these tools are, ultimately, offensive software built to attack another person's computer. If you buy the above argument, then it makes sense to restrict hacking tools while it wouldn't make sense to restrict other software.
>Anti GC: Criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter the laws on them. Why restrict them from our citizens?
This has been proven true in the world of hacking tools. [Cobalt Strike](https://www.cobaltstrike.com/) is one of the most popular malware Command and Control (C2) tools out there, and the company that sells it vets buyers and ensure that they are ethical hacking organizations. It's probably the best example of a hacking tool that tries to restrict itself to ethical uses. However, malicious hackers have found ways to patch out the Digital Rights Management (DRM) portions of the software in much the same way that video game pirates patch the DRM out of video games before redistributing the cracked copies. Cobalt Strike is one of the most popular tools for ethical hacking, and also one of the most popular tools for unethical hacking. Malicious actors are still able to access cracked versions of Cobalt Strike, so why restrict the software for everyone? (Edit: I mean in a legal sense, obviously Cobalt Strike has DRM to sell the software for money. But this example shows that trying to restrict the tool to ethical hackers won't work with our current technology.)
I could go on, but I think these two examples demonstrate the parallels. And I want to see an argument on why my view should be changed here because I realize that my own feelings on these two are inconsistent: I am against legally restricting access to hacking tools, but I'm generally in favor of moderate gun control laws, especially the ones we already have in many places like background checks for people who purchase firearms. So have at it: is there an argument for why the discussion surrounding the second amendment and the discussion surrounding gun control shouldn't also apply to hacking tools?
EDIT: I have awarded two deltas! One because guns are designed specifically to kill, hacking tools aren't. So gun control may not be an apt comparison, though hacking tools can still cause damage and even death. (Pacemakers and insulin pumps often have wireless capabilities now.) The second was the realization that, if you read the 2A as only dealing with weapons intended to cause physical harm, then hacking tools generally don't fall under them. This does create a grey area for software explicitly designed to tamper with personal medical devices like the aforementioned pacemakers, but that's a court case for the record books when it comes up. | hilfigertout | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "themcos",
"id": "jqkfrdm",
"score": 33,
"text": "I certainly agree that there are parallels, but the very obvious difference *as it pertains to the second amendment* is that I can't imagine a court ruling that hacking tools are considered \"arms\" in such a way as to be covered by the s... | [
{
"author": "StrangerThanGene",
"id": "jqkfe2g",
"score": 51,
"text": "Fun one.\n\n* The tool is inherently different. Guns are designed with an explicit purpose: to harm. Hacking tools are not inherently designed that way. So there is quite a divide regarding their utility.\n* Being hacked is *most... | [
"jqkfrdm",
"jqkhiil",
"jqngwj1"
] | [
"jqkfe2g",
"jqkh2zp",
"jqlx19o"
] |
CMV: T*'s pro-Christian, pro-Israel, and anti-DEI stances amount to reverse discrimination
After almost 4 months with T\*'s 47 reign, I keep asking myself trying to convince myself that the following is not true (call me naive, I guess). Isn't the administration's extreme pro-Israel, anti-DEI, and pro-Christianity stances just plain reverse discrimination?
Basically, anything seen as "non-Christian" or "against Israel" or "not white" is labeled as radical, undesirable, having no place in America, or to be against US' interests. Thus, this means that Islam/Palestine/much of the Arab world is seen automatically as sided against the US interests. So are the black, brown, and native communities.
However, don't dare call such stances extreme. The pendulum just swings just as extreme, but in the opposite direction. It is all reverse racism. | Can you articulate why you have that view and not just what your view is? What specifically is being done that is “reverse discrimination”? Can you lap top us what it is you mean when you use “reverse discrimination”?
---
Here it goes: I'm Hispanic. American (PuertoRican). All my life I've experienced systemic racism. In the military. In corporate Amer. In school. At college. Have been passed over for promotions being just as or more qualified than my peers (more relevant experience, just as good performance, higher academic achievement). And so on. So, that's what I'm basing my initial statement on. I have lived discrimination. With equal opportunity poli I've been able to have the law on my side when a federal contractor had to insist my employer match my salary to a peer less qualified, or when a superior tried to discriminate against me in the military. But now, the tortilla (no pun intended) us flipped, and my voice in the same situations would not have as much weight. You may say that we need to be a merit0based society (unless you are part of the curren administration's cabinet, I suppose -- no merit there whatsoever) and that, if I were to merit it, I would thrive. But that is being blind to the systemic racism in the country,
But I've digressed from the original point. If there was discrimination up until recently, what the country us experiencing now is it's reverse. Again, I'm using the terminology used by the administration itself.
---
I guess I'm confused. Anti-DEI sentiment is just the same plain old racism and discrimination as always. Same for pro-Israel sentiment - the zionist movement has ALWAYS been a racist colonial movement that prioritized white jews and christians (there are literally more Zionist Christians than there are Jewish people) over Arabs. So I don't get how any of the actions or sentiments from the current administration are "reverse" anything. It's just white supremacy all the way down and always has been. Trump doesn't have any new ideas, just extensions of the racism this country was founded on. | Why is it reverse discrimination, or reverse racism, rather than just regular discrimination and/or racism?
---
I'd have to posit that, since I'm basing a discriminatory system on what we have traditionally experienced in our society been deemed as "discrimination" (actions against minorities or benefiting a majority, or just leading to the unfair treatment based on race, ethnic, religious, gender, etc., unfortunately defaulting to black, brown, or non-Christian groups), the opposite swing of the pendulum would be reverse discrimination. Again, perhaps my view may be too simplistic.
---
But your first example is pro-Christian policies. That's one of the majority groups that typically receives favorable treatment. Similarly, the anti-Black policies that constitute DEI are of a piece with America's usual racist endeavors. Even with pro-Israel policies, those are aligned with American aims for nearly a century at this point. This is all just regular discrimination. If reverse discrimination is a thing, this ain't it. | 1l8hogi | CMV: T*'s pro-Christian, pro-Israel, and anti-DEI stances amount to reverse discrimination | After almost 4 months with T\*'s 47 reign, I keep asking myself trying to convince myself that the following is not true (call me naive, I guess). Isn't the administration's extreme pro-Israel, anti-DEI, and pro-Christianity stances just plain reverse discrimination?
Basically, anything seen as "non-Christian" or "against Israel" or "not white" is labeled as radical, undesirable, having no place in America, or to be against US' interests. Thus, this means that Islam/Palestine/much of the Arab world is seen automatically as sided against the US interests. So are the black, brown, and native communities.
However, don't dare call such stances extreme. The pendulum just swings just as extreme, but in the opposite direction. It is all reverse racism. | PR_Bella_Isla | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Colodanman357",
"id": "mx4v5ap",
"score": 4,
"text": "Can you articulate why you have that view and not just what your view is? What specifically is being done that is “reverse discrimination”? Can you lap top us what it is you mean when you use “reverse discrimination”?",
"timesta... | [
{
"author": "eggynack",
"id": "mx4ulvs",
"score": 12,
"text": "Why is it reverse discrimination, or reverse racism, rather than just regular discrimination and/or racism?",
"timestamp": 1749609839
},
{
"author": "PR_Bella_Isla",
"id": "mx4vqpr",
"score": -6,
"text": "I'd have... | [
"mx4v5ap",
"mx4z7ka",
"mx50nsh"
] | [
"mx4ulvs",
"mx4vqpr",
"mx4wa1a"
] |
CMV: humans are inherently evil because evil is what they tend to
*First, all things tend to their natural states. In other words, they tend towards the state of least effort.*
At room temperature and standard pressure, water tends to be liquid. It takes more effort to make it a gas or solid than to keep it a liquid.
Objects with mass tend towards gravity. It takes more effort to raise an object than to drop it.
A tiger tends to be predatory. It takes more effort for it to turn it vegan than for it let to hunt.
*Second, humans tend to evil; it takes more effort for humans to be good than to be evil.*
If you’re married, it takes more effort to remain faithful than to cheat when a very attractive woman is seducing you (lust).
If you’re obese, it takes more effort to go to the gym than to down 2 pizzas and play Fortnite on the couch (sloth).
If you’re passed for promotion, it takes more effort to acknowledge the promoted’s merits than to hate them for beating you (wrath, envy).
If you’re rich, it takes more effort to give away your wealth through building wells in Africa than to start a vintage Porsche collection (greed).
These are everyday examples that you or someone you know can probably identify with. Restraint from evil takes more effort than doing evil.
*I have demonstrated that all things tend towards their natural states - the states requiring the least effort. I have also demonstrated that evil human behaviour takes less effort than good behaviour - they tend to do evil. Therefore, the natural state of human is evil. In other words, humans are inherently evil*
| Wait, is eating pizza now EVIL? Is being jealous of a coworker EVIL? Is spending your own money EVIL?
When you set the bar on the literal floor for being evil, yes, every human will be constantly evil in your eyes. But that's a problem with your definition of evil rather than a problem with everybody being evil.
Like, I'd define EVIL way way wayyyyy more than your extremely weak, meant-to-prove-your-point bulletpoints. Like, murder is evil. Rape is evil. Torture is evil. Throwing a kitten in boiling water is evil. Starting a war is evil. Genocide is evil.
But you're over here talking about pizzas, promotions, and cars.
---
These are behaviours that aren’t restricted by laws so lots of people actually act on them. But yes, I think being envious, hateful, etc. to be bad.
---
Can you explain why? What moral framework led you to that conclusion?
---
The moral framework that greed leads to vast inequality. Gluttony leads to disease. Envy and wrath both lead to hate.
On greed: I think it’s wrong to buy a superyacht when you could help people in need. That’s just my opinion, and I know it’s not popular with American capitalists.
---
Why are you using your time to ever browse the internet or debate on Reddit when you could be building homes for poor people. Do you live dirt poor? Are you using a computer in a library right now? You could be buying mosquito nets for people in Africa saving lives. | Your examples are weak.
Being passed for promotion/being filthy rich aren’t average situations.
It’s patently false that it takes more effort to cheat than remain faithful. Being faithful is the default state; one has to choose to cheat.
Eating pizza (even as an obese person) is not an inherently evil action?
---
Yes, these are more benign examples. However I do believe humans and wider society would tend towards the Purge if laws to restrain crime didn’t exist.
---
The fact that society is civil *in reality* kind of disproved this fact, no?
---
Would we be civil without laws, law enforcement, and punishment for non compliance of laws?
---
What do you think motivates the passage of laws? | 1eb740i | CMV: humans are inherently evil because evil is what they tend to | *First, all things tend to their natural states. In other words, they tend towards the state of least effort.*
At room temperature and standard pressure, water tends to be liquid. It takes more effort to make it a gas or solid than to keep it a liquid.
Objects with mass tend towards gravity. It takes more effort to raise an object than to drop it.
A tiger tends to be predatory. It takes more effort for it to turn it vegan than for it let to hunt.
*Second, humans tend to evil; it takes more effort for humans to be good than to be evil.*
If you’re married, it takes more effort to remain faithful than to cheat when a very attractive woman is seducing you (lust).
If you’re obese, it takes more effort to go to the gym than to down 2 pizzas and play Fortnite on the couch (sloth).
If you’re passed for promotion, it takes more effort to acknowledge the promoted’s merits than to hate them for beating you (wrath, envy).
If you’re rich, it takes more effort to give away your wealth through building wells in Africa than to start a vintage Porsche collection (greed).
These are everyday examples that you or someone you know can probably identify with. Restraint from evil takes more effort than doing evil.
*I have demonstrated that all things tend towards their natural states - the states requiring the least effort. I have also demonstrated that evil human behaviour takes less effort than good behaviour - they tend to do evil. Therefore, the natural state of human is evil. In other words, humans are inherently evil*
| honeyetsweet | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "effyochicken",
"id": "leqnwc9",
"score": 18,
"text": "Wait, is eating pizza now EVIL? Is being jealous of a coworker EVIL? Is spending your own money EVIL? \n\nWhen you set the bar on the literal floor for being evil, yes, every human will be constantly evil in your eyes. But that's a p... | [
{
"author": "neofagalt",
"id": "leqn177",
"score": 6,
"text": "Your examples are weak. \n\nBeing passed for promotion/being filthy rich aren’t average situations. \n\nIt’s patently false that it takes more effort to cheat than remain faithful. Being faithful is the default state; one has to choose t... | [
"leqnwc9",
"leqo5gt",
"leqpc2n",
"leqqqlb",
"lequpvf"
] | [
"leqn177",
"leqnlpz",
"leqol2y",
"leqouw9",
"leqp2xl"
] |
CMV: Artificial intelligence will never be incomprehensibly smarter than humans
[There are a lot of predictions that Artificial intelligence (AI) will destroy us](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540). The theory goes that once it is invented, it will rapidly redesign itself, and after a few iterations of exponential growth; it will be super intelligent. It will be intelligent in a way we can't even comprehend.
My argument is that all thought must be a model of the world and as such there is a natural limit on how intelligent a mind can be, natural or otherwise. I think that instead of the intelligence growing exponentially without bound, it will approach a horizontal asymptote, a max theoretical intelligence. Further I think that humans are "reasonably" close to this level.
When I disagree with Steven Hawking, I worry... CMV
_____
> *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!* | While I will stop short of saying it's a certainty, I'll posit an argument: it's highly plausible that AI will be much smarter than humans. Here's why:
1. We can improve the technology significantly. If you, like me, had started using computers in the 1980s, you would recognize the changes in human technology over a very short period of time. Less than 200 years ago, we didn't even have self-propulsion (we could only use humans, animals or gravity). We didn't have convenient communication around the world. We didn't have the centralized repositories of information with instant access that we have now (we had libraries but you had to be near one or travel to one). There is no reason to believe that technology will not advance by at least that order of magnitude over the next 200 years.
2. Humans must learn. Computers can be programmed. We spend decades of our life getting educated. Computers can have "knowledge" transferred to them in a few minutes or hours. That means they can start usefully learning almost immediately, whereas humans generally don't start to do significant societally-advancing learning until at least the teenage years, and usually decades later.
---
1. We can improve technology, but there are limits. Take for example the speed of communication. We use to have to walk/run to wherever we wanted to send a message. Then We got faster when we learned to ride a horse. The we got cars. Then we got the telegraph. The telegraph happened right at the beginning of the explosion of modern technology, but we haven't really improved on its speed at all since then. We ran into the speed of light. The exponential growth hit the ceiling.
2. Growing up faster doesn't really change how smart you can be. You could know a lot about a lot of different things, but for any one topic most of the knowledge will be irrelevant.
---
While there are limits to the physical world one thing that isn't limited is creativity. The reason people put their hopes in AI is not because they think it will be able to change the laws of the universe but that it could be way more creative than we are. An unlimited creativity machine would surpass humans by a great deal. | >all thought must be a model of the natural world
What makes you think that? I can think of tons of impossible things.
---
Hmm... I do need to refine that stamen. Would you accept; To make a prediction about the world in the future, given limited information about the present, a model of the real world must be used.
---
There is more to thought than making predictions or modeling the natural world. What about mathmatical or engineering creativity? | 61a9ya | CMV: Artificial intelligence will never be incomprehensibly smarter than humans | [There are a lot of predictions that Artificial intelligence (AI) will destroy us](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540). The theory goes that once it is invented, it will rapidly redesign itself, and after a few iterations of exponential growth; it will be super intelligent. It will be intelligent in a way we can't even comprehend.
My argument is that all thought must be a model of the world and as such there is a natural limit on how intelligent a mind can be, natural or otherwise. I think that instead of the intelligence growing exponentially without bound, it will approach a horizontal asymptote, a max theoretical intelligence. Further I think that humans are "reasonably" close to this level.
When I disagree with Steven Hawking, I worry... CMV
_____
> *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!* | LineCircleTriangle | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PhotoJim99",
"id": "dfcx923",
"score": 13,
"text": "While I will stop short of saying it's a certainty, I'll posit an argument: it's highly plausible that AI will be much smarter than humans. Here's why:\n\n1. We can improve the technology significantly. If you, like me, had started... | [
{
"author": "Averlyn_",
"id": "dfcxq7q",
"score": 1,
"text": ">all thought must be a model of the natural world\n\nWhat makes you think that? I can think of tons of impossible things.",
"timestamp": 1490377087
},
{
"author": "LineCircleTriangle",
"id": "dfcy74t",
"score": 1,
... | [
"dfcx923",
"dfcxyx8",
"dfcygx9"
] | [
"dfcxq7q",
"dfcy74t",
"dfcyvfd"
] |
CMV: Artificial intelligence will never be incomprehensibly smarter than humans
[There are a lot of predictions that Artificial intelligence (AI) will destroy us](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540). The theory goes that once it is invented, it will rapidly redesign itself, and after a few iterations of exponential growth; it will be super intelligent. It will be intelligent in a way we can't even comprehend.
My argument is that all thought must be a model of the world and as such there is a natural limit on how intelligent a mind can be, natural or otherwise. I think that instead of the intelligence growing exponentially without bound, it will approach a horizontal asymptote, a max theoretical intelligence. Further I think that humans are "reasonably" close to this level.
When I disagree with Steven Hawking, I worry... CMV
_____
> *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!* | Our brain is a limit. Our brain can't be larger than our head. A computer could be as large as a building or a city. Our brains simply can't have the processing power of a computer the size of a city. Technology doesn't have the natural limit of a brain.
---
Why should we assume that bigger = more intelligent. My laptop is a quad core. It already has 4 times more computing power then I would need for any one task, so it is optimized to do more stuff at one time. but that is really more like having more brains, not more intelligent ones.
---
More computing power allows a system to analyse multiple variables and predict various outcomes simultaneously. This allows the system to have a greater variety of choices, answers, or predictions in a shorter amount of time. i think that the amount of forethought in a specific time-frame is a really good metric for measuring intelligence.
Even if a computer can't think beyond what a human can, it could certainly do it faster. | While I will stop short of saying it's a certainty, I'll posit an argument: it's highly plausible that AI will be much smarter than humans. Here's why:
1. We can improve the technology significantly. If you, like me, had started using computers in the 1980s, you would recognize the changes in human technology over a very short period of time. Less than 200 years ago, we didn't even have self-propulsion (we could only use humans, animals or gravity). We didn't have convenient communication around the world. We didn't have the centralized repositories of information with instant access that we have now (we had libraries but you had to be near one or travel to one). There is no reason to believe that technology will not advance by at least that order of magnitude over the next 200 years.
2. Humans must learn. Computers can be programmed. We spend decades of our life getting educated. Computers can have "knowledge" transferred to them in a few minutes or hours. That means they can start usefully learning almost immediately, whereas humans generally don't start to do significant societally-advancing learning until at least the teenage years, and usually decades later.
---
1. We can improve technology, but there are limits. Take for example the speed of communication. We use to have to walk/run to wherever we wanted to send a message. Then We got faster when we learned to ride a horse. The we got cars. Then we got the telegraph. The telegraph happened right at the beginning of the explosion of modern technology, but we haven't really improved on its speed at all since then. We ran into the speed of light. The exponential growth hit the ceiling.
2. Growing up faster doesn't really change how smart you can be. You could know a lot about a lot of different things, but for any one topic most of the knowledge will be irrelevant.
---
1. In fact, we have improved on the speed of the telegraph immensely. The length of time to get the beginning of a message somewhere may not be much better than it was, but the amount of message content we can send in a given amount of time is much, much higher. Thirty years ago I could move local content in the tens of kilobytes per second range - and that's local. Now I can move content from Australia to Canada in the tens to hundreds of megabytes per second. It really is quite a paradigm shift. I think you'd agree that the technology we use today is quite a bit more advanced than what we had at the beginning of the Morse code era.
2. If you mean raw intelligence, then no, learning is not relevant, but for intelligence to be useful, learning has to be performed. You can't use intelligence without base knowledge. Intelligence lets you stack knowledge upon knowledge, experience upon experience, and make deductions and inferences based on what came before. | 61a9ya | CMV: Artificial intelligence will never be incomprehensibly smarter than humans | [There are a lot of predictions that Artificial intelligence (AI) will destroy us](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540). The theory goes that once it is invented, it will rapidly redesign itself, and after a few iterations of exponential growth; it will be super intelligent. It will be intelligent in a way we can't even comprehend.
My argument is that all thought must be a model of the world and as such there is a natural limit on how intelligent a mind can be, natural or otherwise. I think that instead of the intelligence growing exponentially without bound, it will approach a horizontal asymptote, a max theoretical intelligence. Further I think that humans are "reasonably" close to this level.
When I disagree with Steven Hawking, I worry... CMV
_____
> *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!* | LineCircleTriangle | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "White_Knightmare",
"id": "dfczuhw",
"score": 10,
"text": "Our brain is a limit. Our brain can't be larger than our head. A computer could be as large as a building or a city. Our brains simply can't have the processing power of a computer the size of a city. Technology doesn't have the ... | [
{
"author": "PhotoJim99",
"id": "dfcx923",
"score": 13,
"text": "While I will stop short of saying it's a certainty, I'll posit an argument: it's highly plausible that AI will be much smarter than humans. Here's why:\n\n1. We can improve the technology significantly. If you, like me, had started... | [
"dfczuhw",
"dfd0jcp",
"dfd204i"
] | [
"dfcx923",
"dfcxyx8",
"dfcyxo2"
] |
CMV: American progressives don't seem to understand how important swing voters are
I see a lot of progressive minded people online that are either unwilling or unable to understand that a lot of people are not really that interested in politics, they care more about celebrity gossip or professional sports or just their own lives. The thing is though, that such people often vote and end up having opinions about the issues of the day. They are just unlikely to be swayed by arguments that point out how uninformed they are and/or actions which disrupt their lives and the lives of other unsuspecting people.
To illustrate this, here are two debates that I commonly see played out on this very sub (and I'm going to apologize in advance for a bit of strawmanning and oversimplification here).
One is that someone will say something like, "Progressives ought to stop calling people stupid if they want to have a hope of winning elections". Almost inevitably someone will respond with words to the effect of "Fuck 'em. I'm not going to coddle idiots that vote for Trump, or who don't realize that MAGA is Naziism!"
Another thing we have seen again and again over the last few days is someone will say, "Protesters that burn cars or block traffic play into the hands of their enemies". To which someone will surely respond, "The point of protest is to disrupt peace and make people feel uncomfortable. Anyone who doesn't realize that is an enabler of fascism".
In each case I feel like the progressive population of Reddit is simply flummoxed by people who have not taken a side in the issues of the day. And I sympathize too. Like, how could anyone be apathetic as we see the country careening towards authoritarianism and tyranny. What the hell is wrong with people who don't see the danger?
Nevertheless, it's imperative to grasp that such people - the swing vote - are the people who decide the outcome of each election and the general trajectory of the country at large. There are millions of people who voted for Obama and then Trump and then Biden and then Trump again. And, while such voting patterns are probably not indicative of a person with a great deal of intellectual fortitude, it doesn't change the fact that this is the demographic that truly matters in American politics - and NOT the MAGA faithful, nor the progressive activists.
And the sad part is that this swing demographic, which is by and large not very well educated and informed, is more and more turned off by a progressive movement that employs such catchphrases as, "educate yourselves!" or "Americans are dumb" or "This country is racist and sexist". There might be some truth to this (and not that much really) but they are not persuasive slogans. They sound arrogant and sanctimonious. They turn people off.
The MAGA movement on the other hand does a far better job at entertaining and pandering to the fence sitters. Throwing on a McDonald's apron, or dressing up like a garbage collector or talking to Joe Rogan for three and a half hours, that's the stuff that works, it makes the movement seem approachable and even relatable, especially when compared to an opponent that wants to insult the general population.
You don't have to like what I am saying. But I implore you to understand that it is true. Acceptance is the first step in learning how to play the game or knowing what game you are even playing.
The only other alternative I see is to just forgo elections altogether and initiate some kind of vanguard revolutions a la the Bolsheviks in 1917. I don't sincerely think that this would work in the United States but it would at least be ideologically consistent for a movement that considers most of their compatriots to be too stupid and too bigoted to appeal to, right?
Change my view.
| So MLK shouldnt have had the March to Washington? Ghandi shouldnt have protested Britain's occupation of India?
The only difference is we are so many decades out from men like them we know how it plays out and can see what they were fighting against. But the "swing voters" at the time fucking hated MLK Jr.
---
They did not hate him. And we can see that because what he did worked.
The March on Washington was peaceful. And so was everything that Gandhi did.
---
I think you're mistaken. We have polling on MLK's popularity during the civil rights movement. His most famous speech was in 1963 when about 2/3 of all Americans disapproved of him. | If what u yave written is true then fence sitters arent acrually fence sitters.
---
I see this response a lot.
Someone who purports to know more about the fence sitters than the fence sitters themselves. This sounds very arrogant and condescending.
The fact is that millions of people do switch their votes from party to party. And the fact is that more and more people without college degrees are abandoning the Democratic Party.
You can do what you want with that information.
---
It only shows that less and less people are fence sitters now.
Tell me whether following people are fence sitters
Prople who defend shooting a reporter for just doing her job
People who defend death of george flyod just because he might have taken some drugs
People who support a guy shooting climate change protestors only for protesting
People who get envious when some educated person tell them something.
From ehat i know, most fence sitters will easily shift to right if they see some minorities just peacefully ssking for something
If these have to cajoled rhen there is aomething fundamentally wrong with US
Moreover, intellectuals get demonised and mocked all the time to such an extent that pushing back against this narrative is considered an insult to uneducatwd people . Tell the meaninf of word "those who cant, teach" why isnt it considered an insilt
Qnd ur point of uneducated youngsters going towards it magan it shows that demonization of intellectualism has succeeddd. | 1l8f9a1 | CMV: American progressives don't seem to understand how important swing voters are | I see a lot of progressive minded people online that are either unwilling or unable to understand that a lot of people are not really that interested in politics, they care more about celebrity gossip or professional sports or just their own lives. The thing is though, that such people often vote and end up having opinions about the issues of the day. They are just unlikely to be swayed by arguments that point out how uninformed they are and/or actions which disrupt their lives and the lives of other unsuspecting people.
To illustrate this, here are two debates that I commonly see played out on this very sub (and I'm going to apologize in advance for a bit of strawmanning and oversimplification here).
One is that someone will say something like, "Progressives ought to stop calling people stupid if they want to have a hope of winning elections". Almost inevitably someone will respond with words to the effect of "Fuck 'em. I'm not going to coddle idiots that vote for Trump, or who don't realize that MAGA is Naziism!"
Another thing we have seen again and again over the last few days is someone will say, "Protesters that burn cars or block traffic play into the hands of their enemies". To which someone will surely respond, "The point of protest is to disrupt peace and make people feel uncomfortable. Anyone who doesn't realize that is an enabler of fascism".
In each case I feel like the progressive population of Reddit is simply flummoxed by people who have not taken a side in the issues of the day. And I sympathize too. Like, how could anyone be apathetic as we see the country careening towards authoritarianism and tyranny. What the hell is wrong with people who don't see the danger?
Nevertheless, it's imperative to grasp that such people - the swing vote - are the people who decide the outcome of each election and the general trajectory of the country at large. There are millions of people who voted for Obama and then Trump and then Biden and then Trump again. And, while such voting patterns are probably not indicative of a person with a great deal of intellectual fortitude, it doesn't change the fact that this is the demographic that truly matters in American politics - and NOT the MAGA faithful, nor the progressive activists.
And the sad part is that this swing demographic, which is by and large not very well educated and informed, is more and more turned off by a progressive movement that employs such catchphrases as, "educate yourselves!" or "Americans are dumb" or "This country is racist and sexist". There might be some truth to this (and not that much really) but they are not persuasive slogans. They sound arrogant and sanctimonious. They turn people off.
The MAGA movement on the other hand does a far better job at entertaining and pandering to the fence sitters. Throwing on a McDonald's apron, or dressing up like a garbage collector or talking to Joe Rogan for three and a half hours, that's the stuff that works, it makes the movement seem approachable and even relatable, especially when compared to an opponent that wants to insult the general population.
You don't have to like what I am saying. But I implore you to understand that it is true. Acceptance is the first step in learning how to play the game or knowing what game you are even playing.
The only other alternative I see is to just forgo elections altogether and initiate some kind of vanguard revolutions a la the Bolsheviks in 1917. I don't sincerely think that this would work in the United States but it would at least be ideologically consistent for a movement that considers most of their compatriots to be too stupid and too bigoted to appeal to, right?
Change my view.
| bluepillarmy | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "flairsupply",
"id": "mx49tq1",
"score": 20,
"text": "So MLK shouldnt have had the March to Washington? Ghandi shouldnt have protested Britain's occupation of India?\n\nThe only difference is we are so many decades out from men like them we know how it plays out and can see what they wer... | [
{
"author": "sumit24021990",
"id": "mx4a0s4",
"score": -10,
"text": "If what u yave written is true then fence sitters arent acrually fence sitters.",
"timestamp": 1749602554
},
{
"author": "bluepillarmy",
"id": "mx4awy1",
"score": 10,
"text": "I see this response a lot. \n\... | [
"mx49tq1",
"mx4ahn1",
"mx4b4c5"
] | [
"mx4a0s4",
"mx4awy1",
"mx4cl2p"
] |
CMV: The modern LGBT movement is ultimately harmful to the majority of those within the LGBT community
The modern LGBT movement is all about pride and flaunting your sexuality, which I feel is hurtful to LGBT individuals. The whole point of the LGBT movement should be about making it so our sexuality **doesn't** matter to people. It's also heavily politically charged and tends to disown anyone that doesn't have liberal beliefs, which is very dismissive of a large portion of the community. Because of these and other things, it generates a lot of unnecessary stereotypes and tiptoeing around LGBT individuals. Because the community disowns non-liberals, it's assumed that if you're LGBT that you're also liberal. Because it flaunts sexuality, it makes people's sexualities become their identities whether they want it to or not, all because of their peers, and it becomes all people can see in you once you make it known. The LGBT movement has transformed from "Just let us get married and not be discriminated against" to "yaaas bitch i love hillary and fucking members of the same sex" and it doesn't even seem to have any clear goals besides being a political agenda. It creates and encourages stereotypes which in the long term is harmful to individuals who don't fit in their box.
BONUS CMV: I also think adding the brown/black to the pride flag was stupid, as it took something that wasn't at all about race and made it about race.
EDIT: I don't get why this post is being downvoted, shouldn't the people who don't like the opinion I stated above be happy that I'm here to discuss it in a civil way? | Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it's all about flaunting sexuality?
---
Like, those under the LGB part of LGBT in the movement are all about "HEY EVERYONE I'M GAY" and a large group of the movement acts this way. This is especially a problem because most of the people I've met that are annoyed with LGB people is precisely for this reason.
---
In what way do they enact the "HEY EVERYONE I'M GAY" thing?
---
Well for one, I feel as though the whole making coming out an event where you gather people around as some kind of dramatic thing is a good example. Additionally, much of the community likes to bring up their sexuality a lot, at least in my experience. Some examples of this are things like YouTube channels where content centers around the creator's sexuality.
---
People make coming out a big deal because straight people treat it as a big deal. Are those YouTube channels about their sexuality, or about their love lives? In other words, if a straight person talked about the same things, would you view the content as being about their heterosexuality, or just about their lives?
---
>People make coming out a big deal because straight people treat it as a big deal.
In most cases, if the straight person isn't anti-gay they won't make it a big deal (though I suppose fruit flies are an example of what you're mentioning).
>Are those YouTube channels about their sexuality, or about their love lives?
I've seen channels that specifically centered their content around them being gay.
---
Can you give examples of the kind of things they talk about?
---
[This guy is a perfect example.](https://www.youtube.com/user/GayGod/)
---
Youtube channels are often based around topics. I don't see how a channel about being gay is any different than a channel about videogames, or even just one particular videogame. It's not gamers making everything about gaming, rather its a channel for people who want to hear about a game. Similarly, channels like the one you linked are for people who feel like watching videos about being gay, which is often young gay people who are just figuring themselves out and want to celebrate that finally they understand themselves for the first time in their lives. And then when the content gets repetitive they unsubscribe and the next cohort of young gays watches the channel for a while. | > The whole point of the LGBT movement should be about making it so our sexuality doesn't matter to people.
This doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Why is this a worthwhile goal?
> It's also heavily politically charged and tends to disown anyone that doesn't have liberal beliefs, which is very dismissive of a large portion of the community.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of LGBT people are liberal?
Can you understand and sympathize with the hostility towards non-liberal beliefs even if you disagree?
> Because it flaunts sexuality, it makes people's sexualities become their identities whether they want it to or not, all because of their peers, and it becomes all people can see in you once you make it known.
I don't understand this. I don't think many LGBT activists encourage people to see people as JUST their sexualities.
---
>This doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Why is this a worthwhile goal?
Let me clarify, I meant as in making it so it wasn't a big deal and it was just something people accepted as fact, rather than focusing on it. A society where being gay or whatever was normal and not seen as special or different or as a major defining factor in who you were.
>Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of LGBT people are liberal?
I don't care that a vast majority of them are liberal. That isn't the problem. The problem lies in them using their movement as liberal mouthpiece and creating an association of LGBT = liberal. I recognize that a majority are liberal, but it shouldn't even come up within the movement as it's irrelevant.
>Can you understand and sympathize with the hostility towards non-liberal beliefs even if you disagree?
When those beliefs are harmful towards people, absolutely. The problem is, not all non-liberals are super right wing religious nuts either, politics is a spectrum and generalizing the LGBT community as only existing on the left is harmful to the community as a whole.
>I don't understand this. I don't think many LGBT activists encourage people to see people as JUST their sexualities.
I don't think that's necessarily their goal, but with how flamboyant they are and with a vocal minority that likes to make everything about sexuality, it feels to me like that's what happens.
---
Look. If conservatives explicitly want to roll back LGBT rights and put us back in the closet why would any of us associate with them? The Republican Party platform explicitly endorses the removal of gag rights. It's entirely relevant because liberals are the ones who DONT want to remove LGBT rights. Not being killed and having rights is wnherently a political movement. So it's gonna be a liberal one.
---
Not all conservatives are inherently anti-gay. That is what you seem to be missing, I'm not saying you should go and befriend all gay-hating conservatives, I'm saying you shouldn't ostracize conservative LGBT people simply because they're conservative. Believe it or not, having a political affiliation does not automatically mean you adopt the platform of the party.
---
Conservatism is by definition against gay rights. Unless gay conservatives can somehow fight that stigma they're not getting accepted. We aren't gonna treat those who want to oppress us nicely.
---
There are plenty of gay Republicans that support LGBT rights. Hell, there are non-gay Republicans that support LGBT rights. Why is that a problem?
---
The Republican Party platform explicitly says they are anti LGBT. The log cabin republicans support LGBT rights in name only.
---
I didn't mention the log cabin. I know nothing about them. But if someone is a Republican and actively trying to help support LGBT rights, I see no problem with it.
---
There are no republicans doing that. Their party is explicelty against LGBT rights. That's a fact. They admit it. | 6jau8e | CMV: The modern LGBT movement is ultimately harmful to the majority of those within the LGBT community | The modern LGBT movement is all about pride and flaunting your sexuality, which I feel is hurtful to LGBT individuals. The whole point of the LGBT movement should be about making it so our sexuality **doesn't** matter to people. It's also heavily politically charged and tends to disown anyone that doesn't have liberal beliefs, which is very dismissive of a large portion of the community. Because of these and other things, it generates a lot of unnecessary stereotypes and tiptoeing around LGBT individuals. Because the community disowns non-liberals, it's assumed that if you're LGBT that you're also liberal. Because it flaunts sexuality, it makes people's sexualities become their identities whether they want it to or not, all because of their peers, and it becomes all people can see in you once you make it known. The LGBT movement has transformed from "Just let us get married and not be discriminated against" to "yaaas bitch i love hillary and fucking members of the same sex" and it doesn't even seem to have any clear goals besides being a political agenda. It creates and encourages stereotypes which in the long term is harmful to individuals who don't fit in their box.
BONUS CMV: I also think adding the brown/black to the pride flag was stupid, as it took something that wasn't at all about race and made it about race.
EDIT: I don't get why this post is being downvoted, shouldn't the people who don't like the opinion I stated above be happy that I'm here to discuss it in a civil way? | camalew | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "Arpisti",
"id": "djcv2g7",
"score": 1,
"text": "Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it's all about flaunting sexuality?",
"timestamp": 1498342930
},
{
"author": "camalew",
"id": "djcvoen",
"score": 1,
"text": "Like, those under the LGB part of LGBT in... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "djcvrb2",
"score": 4,
"text": "> The whole point of the LGBT movement should be about making it so our sexuality doesn't matter to people.\n\nThis doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Why is this a worthwhile goal? \n\n> It's also heavily politically char... | [
"djcv2g7",
"djcvoen",
"djcw5hk",
"djcw9my",
"djcwjlr",
"djcx1j3",
"djcyld2",
"djcz70h",
"djd5wfd"
] | [
"djcvrb2",
"djcw4cn",
"djcxoag",
"djczwql",
"djczzht",
"djd09xi",
"djd0e4u",
"djd0lg1",
"djd0tmv"
] |
CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska
I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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!* | Some people don't mind the cold and actually value the underpopulation. It's far more remote than the lower states - that is part of the appeal!
Your CMV would make sense if you said "it's a terrible idea for people *who don't like cold weather and rural areas* to live in Alaska."
---
!delta I suppose that it could have some appeal, to people who don't mind the cold as much as people. I still feel though that people ought to want to be around other people (as long as they're not turds).
---
Introverts like solitude. They might like creature comforts, too, but they like solitude.
Also, Alaska's not as wild and remote in places as you might think. Anchorage is a pretty decently-sized city, especially given its remoteness (remote cities tend to have more services than their size would suggest because there are not bigger alternatives nearby). In fact, if you plunked Anchorage in the northern plains/southern Canadian prairies it'd be bigger than any city in Saskatchewan, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
The climate is a challenge but some people really like cooler weather. Also, at times it's not that much warmer in the northern US plains than it is in Alaska. It can get to -40 there.
Finally, while the winter days are really short, the summer days are really long. Almost anywhere in Alaska you are going to have daylight past 10 pm from about May to August, and even longer further north, and the daylight is plentiful during the best weather, which is when it's most pleasant to be outside. | Can you clarify your view? Is it:
1\. "It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska."
OR
2\. "It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska."
---
I don't see why anyone would want to live in the cold, it's not a pleasant feeling, and that's universal.
---
> it's not a pleasant feeling, and that's universal.
Well that's certainly not true. Many people enjoy cold weather, some even prefer it over warm weather. If this is referring only to extreme cold (as in, dangerously cold) then I'd argue the same applies. We could say "it's a terrible idea to go sky diving" or "it's a terrible idea to go mountain climbing" or "it's a terrible idea to drive a car" as all of these are dangerous activities. Yet, many people do them and *enjoy* doing them. They simply take the necessary safety precautions when they do. Living someplace very cold is no different. | 619eu4 | CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska | I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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!* | Dat_Das | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Lmsaylor",
"id": "dfcv81j",
"score": 21,
"text": "Some people don't mind the cold and actually value the underpopulation. It's far more remote than the lower states - that is part of the appeal! \n\nYour CMV would make sense if you said \"it's a terrible idea for people *who don't like ... | [
{
"author": "EyeceEyeceBaby",
"id": "dfcvgmn",
"score": 5,
"text": "Can you clarify your view? Is it:\n\n1\\. \"It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska.\"\n\nOR\n\n2\\. \"It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska.\"",
"timestamp": 1490374605
},
{
"author": "Dat_Das",
"id": "... | [
"dfcv81j",
"dfcvhto",
"dfcwny9"
] | [
"dfcvgmn",
"dfcvkgl",
"dfcvs5m"
] |
CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska
I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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 you clarify your view? Is it:
1\. "It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska."
OR
2\. "It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska."
---
I don't see why anyone would want to live in the cold, it's not a pleasant feeling, and that's universal.
---
It really isn't universal. I very much enjoy cold temperatures and can't stand it when it gets hot. In my experience, when it gets cold it is easy to put on more layers and stay comfortable but when it gets too hot it is hard to cool off once you reach your bottom layer of clothes. Ideal temperatures for me are in the 60's, but given the choice between going hotter or colder, I will always choose colder. | Some people don't mind the cold and actually value the underpopulation. It's far more remote than the lower states - that is part of the appeal!
Your CMV would make sense if you said "it's a terrible idea for people *who don't like cold weather and rural areas* to live in Alaska."
---
!delta I suppose that it could have some appeal, to people who don't mind the cold as much as people. I still feel though that people ought to want to be around other people (as long as they're not turds).
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Lmsaylor ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Lmsaylor)).
^[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": "Lmsaylor"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 619eu4 | CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska | I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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!* | Dat_Das | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "EyeceEyeceBaby",
"id": "dfcvgmn",
"score": 5,
"text": "Can you clarify your view? Is it:\n\n1\\. \"It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska.\"\n\nOR\n\n2\\. \"It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska.\"",
"timestamp": 1490374605
},
{
"author": "Dat_Das",
"id": "... | [
{
"author": "Lmsaylor",
"id": "dfcv81j",
"score": 21,
"text": "Some people don't mind the cold and actually value the underpopulation. It's far more remote than the lower states - that is part of the appeal! \n\nYour CMV would make sense if you said \"it's a terrible idea for people *who don't like ... | [
"dfcvgmn",
"dfcvkgl",
"dfd0pmi"
] | [
"dfcv81j",
"dfcvhto",
"dfcvi5p"
] |
CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska
I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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!* | > On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
Which is it's biggest selling point. It'd be awesome to be able to go several months without seeing another human being.
---
To be honest, I disagree. That would suck.
---
As an agoraphobic introvert I disagree with you. It would be awesome to live alone. | Can you clarify your view? Is it:
1\. "It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska."
OR
2\. "It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska."
---
I don't see why anyone would want to live in the cold, it's not a pleasant feeling, and that's universal.
---
As a ginger im much more a winter/ cold weather person. I don't tan well and i prefer dark colored clothes. Its absolutely not universal. | 619eu4 | CMV: It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska | I don't see why anyone who has an alternative option would choose to live in *Alaska*. There are many states in the north of the main body of the United States that have the same wildlife and terrain, just without deadly cold winter temperatures. And the summers in Alaska. It's only like fifty degrees, and fall and spring are like a *normal* winter. And although a month-long day and a month-long night sound cool, that would be terrible for your biological clock. On a final note, it's very unpopulated.
_____
> *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!* | Dat_Das | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "SodaPalooza",
"id": "dfcv2uw",
"score": 11,
"text": "> On a final note, it's very unpopulated.\n\nWhich is it's biggest selling point. It'd be awesome to be able to go several months without seeing another human being.",
"timestamp": 1490374195
},
{
"author": "Dat_Das",
... | [
{
"author": "EyeceEyeceBaby",
"id": "dfcvgmn",
"score": 5,
"text": "Can you clarify your view? Is it:\n\n1\\. \"It's a terrible idea to live in Alaska.\"\n\nOR\n\n2\\. \"It's a terrible idea ***for me*** to live in Alaska.\"",
"timestamp": 1490374605
},
{
"author": "Dat_Das",
"id": "... | [
"dfcv2uw",
"dfcv70x",
"dfcvsq9"
] | [
"dfcvgmn",
"dfcvkgl",
"dfcw5w6"
] |
CMV: all holidays should be based on the day of the week and not calendar date
For context, tomorrow is the fourth of July and in the united states a lot of employers give that day off. However, because it's a Tuesday this year, many companies will not give the preceding Monday off. This means in order for someone to have a long weekend they need to use PTO. I think all holidays should be like memorial day, which is celebrated the last Monday of May, guaranteeing a three day weekend instead of having a random day off in the middle of the week. Having holidays be on set dates of the year (e.g. December 25th for Christmas) doesn't make sense and makes scheduling holiday travel unnecessarily inconvenient. | The Jewish calendar does not align with the modern calendar.
So, to be clear, do you think that Jewish New Year should not be set on the day of the Jewish New Year?
It is a Holiday, and you're saying "all Holidays" should be treated this way.
How does changing how we Jews celebrate our Holidays affect the 97.6% of people who aren't Jewish?
Or how about Eid al-Adha -- it's precise date is determined by when the new moon is sighted in Dhul-Hijjah. In other words, a changing astrological event determines this holiday that predates the USA by over a thousand years. Why should your belief about having holidays only on certain weeks of the year take precedence over hundreds of years of tradition and history?
I'm curious why you think your access to employer granted time off should trump literally every religious tradition present in the country?
Just missing some of that old-timey empire-centered oppression this July 4th?
---
Haha I definitely should clarify I'm referring specifically to when employers give paid time off for holidays not when the actual holidays take place themselves.
---
Some religious Jews are business owners. They are required to close their business on their holidays. Many of these give holiday pay to their employees on these days. | If we are trying to celebrate a historical event, it makes sense that we celebrate on the date that the event took place.
Like birthdays, for example. The date itself has meaning. Sure, we could celebrate your birthday on a more convenient day of the week, but the significance of that specific date is diminished.
If we celebrate on a different date, then there's a subtle mentality of "the convenience of the celebration is more important than honoring the event itself." And in some cases, people may not find that appropriate.
---
I half agree, I think birthdays are a good example because something actually changes (I.E. your age). But most other holidays that are given by companies are irrelevant to the specific day.
---
4th of July is the date that the country "ages", as it's a celebration of the date we declared Independence. It is, for all intents and purposes, the country's birthday. 7/4/1976 was the Bicentennial, for example, where we celebrated that the country has been around for 200 years, on that specific date. | 14pw5u7 | CMV: all holidays should be based on the day of the week and not calendar date | For context, tomorrow is the fourth of July and in the united states a lot of employers give that day off. However, because it's a Tuesday this year, many companies will not give the preceding Monday off. This means in order for someone to have a long weekend they need to use PTO. I think all holidays should be like memorial day, which is celebrated the last Monday of May, guaranteeing a three day weekend instead of having a random day off in the middle of the week. Having holidays be on set dates of the year (e.g. December 25th for Christmas) doesn't make sense and makes scheduling holiday travel unnecessarily inconvenient. | loverboyv | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"id": "jqk9zea",
"score": 2,
"text": "The Jewish calendar does not align with the modern calendar.\n\nSo, to be clear, do you think that Jewish New Year should not be set on the day of the Jewish New Year?\n\nIt is a Holiday, and you're saying \"all Holidays\" should be tre... | [
{
"author": "Azianese",
"id": "jqkdfcc",
"score": 1,
"text": "If we are trying to celebrate a historical event, it makes sense that we celebrate on the date that the event took place.\n\nLike birthdays, for example. The date itself has meaning. Sure, we could celebrate your birthday on a more conven... | [
"jqk9zea",
"jqkd2o0",
"jqke4e2"
] | [
"jqkdfcc",
"jqkdukq",
"jqkenfj"
] |
CMV: Limiting my privacy rights won't really affect me personally
Ok, so this isn't exactly the typical "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care." Even though I don't really do anything illegal/weird on the internet, I understand that if the government wanted to, they could definitely find stuff out about me that would sufficient in sabotaging my reputation, if not incriminating me. **However, my main point is, even though the government could find stuff to take me down with, why would they?**
Sure, if they specifically targeted me, they could do a lot of damage, but there's no reason for them to target me over 300 million other Americans. If the government wanted to abuse its power, I have faith that they would target many many people before targeting me. So I personally wouldn't really be affected.
Yes, there is the argument that even if my life wouldn't change, it's still something that I should argue for, but that's not what I'm talking about in this post. But even then, I feel like the backlash for privacy is kind of disproportional compared to some of the other political issues at hand.
_____
> *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!* | > However, my main point is, even though the government could find stuff to take me down with, why would they?
Bunch of reasons:
* Politics. If you ever get involved in something contentious that doesn't align with the current government, this could be used against you. Now maybe you don't intend to be the next Martin Luther King, but surely your interests align with some person like that. Then you should be concerned about such ways being used to take down the next MLK.
* Jobs. If the information is available it's likely that there will be many interested parties, willing to pay for it. Why wouldn't your employer want to know if you have any dirty secrets? And the current US administration would probably be sympathetic, given how they just OKed selling your browsing habits.
* Crime. If you can buy it legally, you can also buy it from Russia for bitcoin, and then run an extortion scheme. Don't want your wife to know about your adventures? It'll only be a few thousand (**edit:** in fact, with enough info they even know how much you can afford to pay)
* Relation to somebody else. Looking into people who are somehow related to terrorists is very logical. You could easily get investigated because your cousin or coworker are connected to something shady. Being investigated can mean phone calls from the authorities to various people like bosses. Just that can make you lose your job even if you come up clean.
* Internal misconduct. Bored employees trawl the database for cute girls and check on their friends, relatives and acquintances. They do favors to their friends. It's not impossible that your potential boyfriend/girlfriend/their relative happens to know a guy that can look into your history.
---
Eh, I don't think those are necessarily different.
For the politics and jobs case, once again, I specifically wouldn't stand out amongst anyone else though. Sure, I might have some stuff that'd look bad out of context, but no worse than anyone else. If someone wanted to target me about politics, they'd have to target half the entire US haha. I don't think an employer would be able to find anything that they wouldn't find in any of my competition.
Can you elaborate about the crime case; I'm not sure what you mean? I don't really buy stuff with bitcoin.
Re: Relation to somebody else - I guess that's possible, but again, the odds of that happening to me versus anyone else is pretty low.
Re: Internal misconduct - Again, I think I have safety in numbers here. I don't think anyone would find anything that would look that bad in comparison to anything they would see on anyone else.
---
Jobs - they can target anyone trying to apply for the job at same time
Politics - You won't be the guy to stand up against corrupcy , but the guy who would do it will be stopped. This gives government too high power. | Would your stance change if there's a new party in power that wants to criminalize some of your behaviours? What if a party in power decides to criminalize something that was not in their platform during the election?
---
Sure, they could, but then they'd have to criminalize a massive chunk of the US population. My point is that I'm not on the extreme end of anything that would set off any parties, so unless the government wants to jail half its population, I'm probably ok.
---
They wouldn't have to incarcerate you, but they'd have an excuse to if you're ever deemed dangerous to the current government. | 619jjk | CMV: Limiting my privacy rights won't really affect me personally | Ok, so this isn't exactly the typical "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care." Even though I don't really do anything illegal/weird on the internet, I understand that if the government wanted to, they could definitely find stuff out about me that would sufficient in sabotaging my reputation, if not incriminating me. **However, my main point is, even though the government could find stuff to take me down with, why would they?**
Sure, if they specifically targeted me, they could do a lot of damage, but there's no reason for them to target me over 300 million other Americans. If the government wanted to abuse its power, I have faith that they would target many many people before targeting me. So I personally wouldn't really be affected.
Yes, there is the argument that even if my life wouldn't change, it's still something that I should argue for, but that's not what I'm talking about in this post. But even then, I feel like the backlash for privacy is kind of disproportional compared to some of the other political issues at hand.
_____
> *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!* | owiseone23 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "dale_glass",
"id": "dfcr3wy",
"score": 14,
"text": "> However, my main point is, even though the government could find stuff to take me down with, why would they?\n\nBunch of reasons:\n\n* Politics. If you ever get involved in something contentious that doesn't align with the current go... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "dfcqp00",
"score": 1,
"text": "Would your stance change if there's a new party in power that wants to criminalize some of your behaviours? What if a party in power decides to criminalize something that was not in their platform during the election?",
"ti... | [
"dfcr3wy",
"dfcrup5",
"dfcsuf1"
] | [
"dfcqp00",
"dfcry02",
"dfcsh78"
] |
CMV: Universal Human Rights, Natural Rights, and God-given Rights Do Not Meaningfully Exist
I've held this opinion for a while and am curious if there are some ways to think about these kinds of rights (henceforth called Natural Rights for simplicity) in a coherent and meaningful way. A lot has been written about them and I haven't read most of it.
When people talk about rights, they're typically talking about one of several different things. I'll focus on legal rights and "natural rights". Legal rights arise out of a legal and political process and can be said to meaningfully exist. No problem there.
My contention is that "natural rights" are not meaningfully different from a completely subjective and personal opinion about what people should be able to do. When people say that people right to abortion, or guns, or free speech, or healthcare, there is no meaningful difference between that and saying "I personally believe that people should be able to do/have these things."
Sometimes people will appeal to a state of nature where people were able to do these things and anything they naturally do is a natural right. This is inconsistent with how actually people talk about rights because no one says people have a right to murder, steal, etc, even though those things are natural to humans. What natural human behaviors qualify as "rights" is completely a matter of subjective opinion and is not based on any objective "natural state." For a solid example of this, enslavement of others as property has been considered a natural right... until it wasn't. The reason for that change was because people's opinions on the acceptability of that practice changed. Primitive societies did not and do not recognize the same set of rights that we do today.
Sometimes people will appeal to empathy or human well-being or some utilitarian cause. Those are reasons for your subjective opinion, they do not translate to natural rights.
Can provide something that they think is a fundamental natural right, but is *not* something that they personally think people should be allowed to do or have?
When people say things like "Constitutional rights are based on natural rights", all that means is "Constitutional rights are based on what people think should be allowed." Specifically in this case the people who drafted and ratified those amendments. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all, but people want to believe that laws are based on something more solid than the opinions of people, and that is simply not the case.
For the religious, I can imagine a case for God-given rights specifically in the case of religious adherence. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about universal rights. | You're right that what is considered "natural rights" has obviously changed over time and is not completely agreed upon by everyone, but I would argue that they do meaningfully exist. Many human ideas, such as morality or ethics, all have very fuzzy edges. But most people would agree that they *do* exists, and will therefore should be attempted to be defined.
---
Ethics and morality are also things that are based on people's opinions, but I'll stick with rights. What is the meaningful difference between someone saying "people have a right to be nude at a beach" and "I think people should be allowed to be nude at a beach?
---
Slightly different approach to this question, but I believe that what makes something a right is that you can demand it of other people by force if necessary. E.g. if I'm being turned into a slave, I have a right to resist. If the government is cutting down on my right free speech, using force to undo/prevent that is morally good.
Being nude at the beach is not something you have a moral right to demand of other people. | So when Americans say rape should be punished and Iranians say gay sex should be punished, it's just different laws for different countries, no particular reason to favor one over the other?
---
People can have reasons for their opinions. But those reasons are not based on natural rights. What you call human rights are based on your opinion, not the other way around.
---
Are there any valid reasons to prefer banning rape over banning gay sex? Any valid reason would point to a human right.
Not counting arbitrary reasons like "rape is later in the alphabet" | 14pu6xe | CMV: Universal Human Rights, Natural Rights, and God-given Rights Do Not Meaningfully Exist | I've held this opinion for a while and am curious if there are some ways to think about these kinds of rights (henceforth called Natural Rights for simplicity) in a coherent and meaningful way. A lot has been written about them and I haven't read most of it.
When people talk about rights, they're typically talking about one of several different things. I'll focus on legal rights and "natural rights". Legal rights arise out of a legal and political process and can be said to meaningfully exist. No problem there.
My contention is that "natural rights" are not meaningfully different from a completely subjective and personal opinion about what people should be able to do. When people say that people right to abortion, or guns, or free speech, or healthcare, there is no meaningful difference between that and saying "I personally believe that people should be able to do/have these things."
Sometimes people will appeal to a state of nature where people were able to do these things and anything they naturally do is a natural right. This is inconsistent with how actually people talk about rights because no one says people have a right to murder, steal, etc, even though those things are natural to humans. What natural human behaviors qualify as "rights" is completely a matter of subjective opinion and is not based on any objective "natural state." For a solid example of this, enslavement of others as property has been considered a natural right... until it wasn't. The reason for that change was because people's opinions on the acceptability of that practice changed. Primitive societies did not and do not recognize the same set of rights that we do today.
Sometimes people will appeal to empathy or human well-being or some utilitarian cause. Those are reasons for your subjective opinion, they do not translate to natural rights.
Can provide something that they think is a fundamental natural right, but is *not* something that they personally think people should be allowed to do or have?
When people say things like "Constitutional rights are based on natural rights", all that means is "Constitutional rights are based on what people think should be allowed." Specifically in this case the people who drafted and ratified those amendments. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all, but people want to believe that laws are based on something more solid than the opinions of people, and that is simply not the case.
For the religious, I can imagine a case for God-given rights specifically in the case of religious adherence. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about universal rights. | Beyond_Reason09 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "DungPornAlt",
"id": "jqjxiea",
"score": 3,
"text": "You're right that what is considered \"natural rights\" has obviously changed over time and is not completely agreed upon by everyone, but I would argue that they do meaningfully exist. Many human ideas, such as morality or ethics, all... | [
{
"author": "LentilDrink",
"id": "jqjx9f5",
"score": 3,
"text": "So when Americans say rape should be punished and Iranians say gay sex should be punished, it's just different laws for different countries, no particular reason to favor one over the other?",
"timestamp": 1688417810
},
{
"... | [
"jqjxiea",
"jqjy22s",
"jqjzk02"
] | [
"jqjx9f5",
"jqjxos0",
"jqjzp7c"
] |
CMV: western society including social attitudes and economically will fall by the end of the 21st century and honestly I am just fine with that.
I think that the west is declining and its for the best. I am a 18 year old Russo-Irishman. I think that the east is rising both socially and economically. when I say the east I mean east of Poland to the tip of japan. So Asia, the middle east, and Russia. I feel that by 2025 either China, India, or Russia will be the dominant word power and all of those are eastern countries. I also think that we can see it taking effect right now. I mean South Korea is one of the most powerful countries on earth and they are literly just half of a small country. Imagine what China or India or god help us Russia would be like if they were as rich as South Korea. Now you could argue that South Korea is a westernized nation, and to some degree yes but that brings up my next point; Culture/social attitudes. Culturally traditionally "western" nations in Asia share very few of our values aside from capitalism. Russia, Asia, and the middle east are all very traditional countries/regions including Japan and South Korea. The large influence of immigrants from these places combined with the declining birth rates of white men and women, while the birth rates in these places are growing (except for Japan). Now that all sounds bleak but in all honesty, I actually love the idea of an eastern dominated world. Think about it, some of the greatest men, inventions, scientists, civilizations came from the east. I feel like if countries like India, China, and Russia all had enough money then they would be an unstoppable force of innovation. You can even see countries like South Korea and Japan doing this already. Here in the west however....40% of Americans are living with their parents. I also think a bigger influence of eastern culture would be for the best. Most of my fellow peers are fat, lazy, disrespectful, "bro", fuckboys who couldn't be responsible if they tried. They demean women and are obsessed with crushing "puss". And women have seemingly forgotten to be women. Why? because western culture teaches women that being a women I.e staying at home/ cooking providing for the family is weak and not as important as being a scientist or having a career. thats why we see so many foul mouthed/unfeminine women because they think thats how they have to act to feel empowered. In the east however mothers are usually the most respected people in society. especially in the middle east of all places. I fail to see how this wont happen by the end of the 21st century giving Asia and the middle Easts rapid economic growth and social influence. Or how an eastern dominated world would be bad. It would bring back more traditional families, women, and men as well. so Reddit.
CMV | Russia has declining birth rates, declining economy and pretty shocking mortality rates for men. What makes you think Russia is 'rising'?
---
they now have a lot of influence in Europe, they are setting up bases in Syria, so by extension the middle east, Iran is a huge part of this and speaking of which ounce they get their shit together they could also be pretty damn powerful. Russia is a fascinating county, they have never exactly been wealthy yet they have always been powerful. Are they economically strong? no really but they are becoming a world player on the stage again. Wealth isn't everything.
---
Russia's primary source of strength at the moment is Putin's government that crushes any and all sort of resistance. Once he dies, there is likely no one that can take over that can hold the country together.
Also, it's hard for me to believe that a country is "rising" when it is enacting social policy that is utterly regressive in nature. Two examples: the laws passed against homosexuality and the partial decriminalization of domestic violence. | Do you really think that women's right are protected by the countries you are talking about? Russia? India and the rest?
Is it respectful to a woman to state that her only place is in the kitchen caring for kids? WE respect you so much by restricting what you do seems like a hard sell.
Because I don't think that is.
---
Please explain whats wrong with caring for children and cooking? its actually the most important role in society. and as for those countries, in most of the middle east and India rape used to be punishable by castration. I think the idea of getting your penis cut off would work a lot better than "no means no" campaigns. no i do think that there should be no laws preventing women from doing whatever they want but there should be a lot more encouragement to raise a family.
---
Your ideas are more suited for the 1950's.
You don't respect women by only having their role in the kitchen.
| 616sxe | CMV: western society including social attitudes and economically will fall by the end of the 21st century and honestly I am just fine with that. | I think that the west is declining and its for the best. I am a 18 year old Russo-Irishman. I think that the east is rising both socially and economically. when I say the east I mean east of Poland to the tip of japan. So Asia, the middle east, and Russia. I feel that by 2025 either China, India, or Russia will be the dominant word power and all of those are eastern countries. I also think that we can see it taking effect right now. I mean South Korea is one of the most powerful countries on earth and they are literly just half of a small country. Imagine what China or India or god help us Russia would be like if they were as rich as South Korea. Now you could argue that South Korea is a westernized nation, and to some degree yes but that brings up my next point; Culture/social attitudes. Culturally traditionally "western" nations in Asia share very few of our values aside from capitalism. Russia, Asia, and the middle east are all very traditional countries/regions including Japan and South Korea. The large influence of immigrants from these places combined with the declining birth rates of white men and women, while the birth rates in these places are growing (except for Japan). Now that all sounds bleak but in all honesty, I actually love the idea of an eastern dominated world. Think about it, some of the greatest men, inventions, scientists, civilizations came from the east. I feel like if countries like India, China, and Russia all had enough money then they would be an unstoppable force of innovation. You can even see countries like South Korea and Japan doing this already. Here in the west however....40% of Americans are living with their parents. I also think a bigger influence of eastern culture would be for the best. Most of my fellow peers are fat, lazy, disrespectful, "bro", fuckboys who couldn't be responsible if they tried. They demean women and are obsessed with crushing "puss". And women have seemingly forgotten to be women. Why? because western culture teaches women that being a women I.e staying at home/ cooking providing for the family is weak and not as important as being a scientist or having a career. thats why we see so many foul mouthed/unfeminine women because they think thats how they have to act to feel empowered. In the east however mothers are usually the most respected people in society. especially in the middle east of all places. I fail to see how this wont happen by the end of the 21st century giving Asia and the middle Easts rapid economic growth and social influence. Or how an eastern dominated world would be bad. It would bring back more traditional families, women, and men as well. so Reddit.
CMV | Declanfeeney3 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dfc8afl",
"score": 7,
"text": "Russia has declining birth rates, declining economy and pretty shocking mortality rates for men. What makes you think Russia is 'rising'? ",
"timestamp": 1490330335
},
{
"author": "Declanfeeney3",
"id": "dfc8es7",
"sc... | [
{
"author": "Iswallowedafly",
"id": "dfc6x3v",
"score": 1,
"text": "Do you really think that women's right are protected by the countries you are talking about? Russia? India and the rest?\n\nIs it respectful to a woman to state that her only place is in the kitchen caring for kids? WE respect you s... | [
"dfc8afl",
"dfc8es7",
"dfca06k"
] | [
"dfc6x3v",
"dfc77cq",
"dfc7a9h"
] |
CMV: Extreme views / proposals, for example abolition of the police, do more harm than good for their associated political ideology by “damaging the brand”; moderates should accordingly do more to distance themselves from them.
*TL;DR hypothetical of my point: I like Rick and Morty. I am trying to convince friend who’s never watched it that, so far as things go, it’s a reasonably clever and funny show. My friend is hesitant because they’re mainly familiar with the stereotype of R&M fans being condescending, “you wouldn’t understand it” fanatics. Does it help my argument if there’s another fan on the next table over wearing a fedora and shouting “Pickle Rick!”? Is it a good idea for me to convince my friend that this guy doesn’t represent me or a typical viewer?*
In public discourse, “issues” are often discussed in quite black and white ways, but of course in reality specific view points are numerous and exist on more of a spectrum. For the main body of my post I'll draw on the BLM protests as an example of my broader point. It’s probably fair to say that left-leaning individuals are generally united in agreeing that police racism and brutality needs sorting out, but from person to person you’ll find a range of positions about how extreme the measures should be to address this. At the “softer” end of the scale people may suggest changes to certain policies to make it easier to push out “bad apple cops”, maybe some departmental restructuring and different training etc. At the most extreme end of the scale lie these more draconian suggestions, like how the police should be literally, [entirely abolished](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html), or [defunded to the point of being practically abolished]( https://peoplesbudgetla.com/), or the “All Cops Are Bastards” assertion. Indeed, “defund the police” and “ACAB” have become very prominent slogans. However I do not believe that the majority of the overall left (i.e. people who will vote democrat in November) think the police should be literally abolished, defunded by anything like 90%, or would agree that literally every single cop is a bastard of a human being. I would be incredibly surprised if these views, held wholeheartedly and genuinely, applied to anything more than a small (but vocal) minority. You may agree with these views, but my main point is that they are the extreme ones flying around.
The objective of any political discussion really should be to try and bring people “on side”. Most people are quite hard-lined to a political party or stance and are very unlikely to change that allegiance, but there are those in the middle with the capacity to swing. These are the critical people to appeal to in order to bring around a practical change via discussion, as drawing them in will enable e.g. a vote shift in the next election. It seems common sense that these people would be most receptive to an argument that extends more of a hand to the middle ground of a debate, perhaps one which is prepared to acknowledge the nuances and statistical abberations of a position, even if at the end of it you may still feel like it’s clear which side someone should fall on. However, the more that extreme political suggestions are dominating discussion, the easier it will be for the “other side” to point to yours and “prove” their stereotypes of you. For example, one right wing view of the left is one of naïve people who blindly support minority causes to the point where enacting those sentiments as policy would bring around dramatic and disastrous changes, ultimately leading to a greater degree of lawlessness and destabalisation. If I was right wing, and wanted to convince my undecided friend that the left are loony and that if they have their way crime will skyrocket, it is incredibly easy for me to do by showing them that the left **really are** suggesting that **the entire police should be abolished**.
These sorts of viewpoints will only appeal to people who are already relatively extreme. But it’s not just impotently preaching to the choir. In our very binary political society it’s undermining the image of a whole political half, more giving the opposition ammunition against us than it is presenting compelling arguments for them to have to deal with. It therefore creates a problem in our discourse when we don’t call out our own extremeists, and that we let these unhelpful slogans like “ACAB” out into the wild without particularly challenging them. I think we fail to do this for fear of being labelled socially problematic ourselves. And yes, the right has the same problem with the (I also believe minority) who shout equivalents like all protestors are rioters etc. But I also worry that we in the left are more hesitant to call out our sharper edges; really that’s for another discussion, I only bring it up here to add some context about why this bothers me and is an attitude that may ultimately favour the right.
Thanks for reading. | While I agree to some extent, they can also normalize less extreme proposals. Sure, "abolish the police" is an extreme proposal. But because of how extreme it is, stuff like "divest a little bit of money from policing into other community protection" feels more normal.
---
I can agree with that, but I suppose it would need to do a greater good in normalising those ideas than it does bad in stereotyping the overall left-wing position. And I'm not sure that's true...
---
It is, because the US became tribal like this *way* before 2020. Conservatives already thought that the left wing were all completely insane, immoral devil-worshippers long before anyone said "defund the police". This doesn't actually change anything at all in how the "brand" is seen by the people who aren't already in it.
---
It's not conservatives that I'd be trying to reach out to though. As I said in my post the majority of people are entrenched in a viewpoint already and probably not willing to shift. It's people down the middle who, though few, are by far the most important to target a conversation with. These people will likely not think too badly of either conservatives or liberals, or think equally badly of each, however you want to swing it.
Basically while most people are tribal I don't think all are, and this is about those in the middle. Brands can be damaged, or made more attractive to them.
---
But "the public debate" isn't actually what matters. November is what matters. (Voting in general, not just for president). How many people support a policy matters far less than how many people are willing to vote to ensure that policy.
If a moderate is turned away, but two more party loyalists actually bother voting (rather than staying home), that's a win.
In this way, targeting the few moderates is actually not a productive strategy. Targeting the base and ensuring that they actually vote is a far better use of one's time. "Preaching to the choir" and "drumming up the base" works. Why else do you think we're so divided as a nation??
If we drop away from politics, and go to your rick and morty context, money is all that matters in that scenario. If a would be fan is turned away, but two established fans each buy $300 of merch, that's a win. Making $500 each from 5 million fans is better than making $20 each for 10 million fans (exact numbers totally made up, but you see where I'm going). | >...it is incredibly easy for me to do by showing them that the left really are suggesting that the entire police should be abolished.
Who is the "left" here? Who is actually proposing *actual* abolishment of the police? Biden? No. Pelosi? No. Any democratic governor? No. State legislature? No. Anybody that actually has power to abolish the police? No. Randoms on twitter and people writing opinion pieces in the paper? Ok, there's someone.
The problem with the basis of this whole argument, is that anybody making it is not arguing in good faith if they attribute it to the whole "left". If they honestly believe they are, then they are just too uninformed, racist, dumb, etc. to meaningfully contribute to the conversation. Actual propositions for police reforms that have been proposed like, "8 Can't wait" or "Campaign Zero" do not *abolish* the police. They are proposing how we see crime prevention overall and proposing more effective ways to prevent crime.
So why should we cater our arguments to these kinds of people? Why don't we call out those obvious bad faith tactics? We don't we make people argue in reality?
---
You acknowledge that people are supporting these things. Clearly I agree with you that there aren't many, as that's the entire point of my post (that they are a minority).
The crux of it isn't so much that these arguments exist and that some people will always take them in bad faith, but that us moderates on the left should do more than we do to make it clear these extreme views are not what we're about. It could take a whole other thread to talk about this, but it does really feel like there's a shaming culture that exists in the left for people who don't subscribe to a viewpoint 100%.
Ultimately it's not to cater arguments to people who are already very set and can't distinguish different aspects of the left. As you say they're lost causes. It's the few centrists who exist who may shift the balance in your favour if you get them on side. They will absolutely be more receptive to middle-ground reasonings and arguments.
---
>The crux of it isn't so much that these arguments exist and that some people will always take them in bad faith, but that us moderates on the left should do more than we do to make it clear these extreme views are not what we're about.
The problem is, the people that take them in bad faith or just don't get it after its explained either can't get it, don't want to, or if they do, they don't care.
>It could take a whole other thread to talk about this, but it does really feel like there's a shaming culture that exists in the left for people who don't subscribe to a viewpoint 100%.
Its there on the right too. Its there for every view point no matter the side. Whole communities exist where that is the norm. What do you think happens to an atheist in a heavily religious and rural southern community? To someone having a baby out of wedlock? To people voting democrat? Those are just accepted as happening, but we ignore it because its not worth engaging with those people that will never argue in reality. The problem is the right's strategy of holding fringe views at the norm. They constantly make up strawmen to argue against and invent things like death panels in the ACA to argue against.
I just think a better strategy is point out that strategy and force people to argue in reality. Don't cater to ridiculous and bad faith arguments when its obvious they are just that.
---
I think I take your point, but still can't help but feel that your examples cater to pre-established, entrenched extremes locking horns (atheists in religious communities etc.). What happens when someone who isn't sure if christianity or atheism is for them, and they're looking to choose?
I know people IRL who genuinely are on the fence, and they're intelligent enough to know that the actual proposed policy for things is not e.g. "defund the police". But they will still see how prevalent the extreme views are, how much they appear to be accepted/not dismissed by the side those views would most represent, and use that as an indication for how likely a next democrat government would be to cater to them.
And I'm sure it does happen on both sides as well, but might it not be an advantage to for one to try and get ontop of it more? I'm not sure what is lost, particularly given that the extreme idealogues are probably the least likely people to be turned away from their party and vote for the other. I imagine it would be a net gain.
---
>But they will still see how prevalent the extreme views are, how much they appear to be accepted/not dismissed by the side those views would most represent, and use that as an indication for how likely a next democrat government would be to cater to them.
Isn't that just a bias in reporting. For networks like Fox News or the wack jobs on OANN, they intentionally play those views up. For everybody else, crazy sells. Bernie also didn't win the nomination. The most moderate of all moderate choices, Biden, won and the most progressive democrats were not happy with that. If they really believe that an elected democrat will cater to these extreme views when their voter base rejected them, then I don't think they have a real grasp on how politics works. | ip1112 | CMV: Extreme views / proposals, for example abolition of the police, do more harm than good for their associated political ideology by “damaging the brand”; moderates should accordingly do more to distance themselves from them. | *TL;DR hypothetical of my point: I like Rick and Morty. I am trying to convince friend who’s never watched it that, so far as things go, it’s a reasonably clever and funny show. My friend is hesitant because they’re mainly familiar with the stereotype of R&M fans being condescending, “you wouldn’t understand it” fanatics. Does it help my argument if there’s another fan on the next table over wearing a fedora and shouting “Pickle Rick!”? Is it a good idea for me to convince my friend that this guy doesn’t represent me or a typical viewer?*
In public discourse, “issues” are often discussed in quite black and white ways, but of course in reality specific view points are numerous and exist on more of a spectrum. For the main body of my post I'll draw on the BLM protests as an example of my broader point. It’s probably fair to say that left-leaning individuals are generally united in agreeing that police racism and brutality needs sorting out, but from person to person you’ll find a range of positions about how extreme the measures should be to address this. At the “softer” end of the scale people may suggest changes to certain policies to make it easier to push out “bad apple cops”, maybe some departmental restructuring and different training etc. At the most extreme end of the scale lie these more draconian suggestions, like how the police should be literally, [entirely abolished](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html), or [defunded to the point of being practically abolished]( https://peoplesbudgetla.com/), or the “All Cops Are Bastards” assertion. Indeed, “defund the police” and “ACAB” have become very prominent slogans. However I do not believe that the majority of the overall left (i.e. people who will vote democrat in November) think the police should be literally abolished, defunded by anything like 90%, or would agree that literally every single cop is a bastard of a human being. I would be incredibly surprised if these views, held wholeheartedly and genuinely, applied to anything more than a small (but vocal) minority. You may agree with these views, but my main point is that they are the extreme ones flying around.
The objective of any political discussion really should be to try and bring people “on side”. Most people are quite hard-lined to a political party or stance and are very unlikely to change that allegiance, but there are those in the middle with the capacity to swing. These are the critical people to appeal to in order to bring around a practical change via discussion, as drawing them in will enable e.g. a vote shift in the next election. It seems common sense that these people would be most receptive to an argument that extends more of a hand to the middle ground of a debate, perhaps one which is prepared to acknowledge the nuances and statistical abberations of a position, even if at the end of it you may still feel like it’s clear which side someone should fall on. However, the more that extreme political suggestions are dominating discussion, the easier it will be for the “other side” to point to yours and “prove” their stereotypes of you. For example, one right wing view of the left is one of naïve people who blindly support minority causes to the point where enacting those sentiments as policy would bring around dramatic and disastrous changes, ultimately leading to a greater degree of lawlessness and destabalisation. If I was right wing, and wanted to convince my undecided friend that the left are loony and that if they have their way crime will skyrocket, it is incredibly easy for me to do by showing them that the left **really are** suggesting that **the entire police should be abolished**.
These sorts of viewpoints will only appeal to people who are already relatively extreme. But it’s not just impotently preaching to the choir. In our very binary political society it’s undermining the image of a whole political half, more giving the opposition ammunition against us than it is presenting compelling arguments for them to have to deal with. It therefore creates a problem in our discourse when we don’t call out our own extremeists, and that we let these unhelpful slogans like “ACAB” out into the wild without particularly challenging them. I think we fail to do this for fear of being labelled socially problematic ourselves. And yes, the right has the same problem with the (I also believe minority) who shout equivalents like all protestors are rioters etc. But I also worry that we in the left are more hesitant to call out our sharper edges; really that’s for another discussion, I only bring it up here to add some context about why this bothers me and is an attitude that may ultimately favour the right.
Thanks for reading. | profheg_II | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "HotSauce2910",
"id": "g4h43oh",
"score": 5,
"text": "While I agree to some extent, they can also normalize less extreme proposals. Sure, \"abolish the police\" is an extreme proposal. But because of how extreme it is, stuff like \"divest a little bit of money from policing into other co... | [
{
"author": "letstrythisagain30",
"id": "g4h60iv",
"score": 1,
"text": ">...it is incredibly easy for me to do by showing them that the left really are suggesting that the entire police should be abolished.\n\nWho is the \"left\" here? Who is actually proposing *actual* abolishment of the police? Bi... | [
"g4h43oh",
"g4h4q08",
"g4h5my6",
"g4h61dq",
"g4h8bne"
] | [
"g4h60iv",
"g4h72hs",
"g4h83wa",
"g4h93zs",
"g4ha9e3"
] |
CMV: if it is racist to require an ID to vote, it is also racist to require an ID to buy a gun.
CMV: If it is racist to require voter ID, it is racist to require ID to buy (or OWN) a gun.
TLDR:
I think it follows (and welcome further discussion) that if we establish that we have some fundamental human rights, and a barrier is placed in order to prevent or limit the free and lawful exercise of those rights (namely voting and gun ownership), then that barrier is bad. I am of course discounting any free exercise which violates the non-aggression principle, as I think that is a reasonable standard. Then, it follows that any barrier, be set at a level that minimally affects people, and is sufficiently hard to do as to validate the need to do so (protect against children buying guns, or foreign nationals voting, or someone voting twice).
Having said that, I think that the requirement of an ID is reasonable for both cases, as it is a fair and reasonable standard that inhibits any illegal action by malicious actors. However, when you analyze how people get IDs, some will argue that it is unreasonable for people of color, rural people, or poor people to get an ID. As such, it is classist, racist etc. Fine, I can accept that premise, although I don't know how true it is. If you accept that premise, you must also accept that it applies to other areas of life, especially the constitutionally enumerated fundamental human rights.
Summarizing, if it's racist to require ID to vote, how is it not racist to require ID to own a gun?
I just don’t see a way out of this one. How can it be racist to require an ID to vote (18 yrs old citizen, not a felon), but it isn’t racist to require an ID to buy a gun? It’s almost the same requirements (18, not a felon), so I don’t see how you can call one racist and the other not.
I use those two as examples because they are both enumerated rights within the constitution.
To be clear, I don’t think it is fundamentally racist to require Identification in order to do either but there is a potentially disparate impact upon people of color with regard to getting ID. I think that both are important and serious enough rights to justify the need for identification. I also believe that if one is racist then the other must also be racist, which is the most important part of my cmv.
In order to change my view, you must be able to demonstrate to me that the two should be decoupled.
I am not going to be persuaded by the argument that a gun can kill someone but a vote is not deadly. A single vote has far reaching effects upon others, other nations, and has the potential to start a war, which could be more deadly than any weapon in any single persons hand.
I welcome the discussion!
Edit to add: Thanks to everyone for participating!
Edit to also add: I am not arguing that the laws were not initially designed to disenfranchise voting by minorities. When looking at the history of those laws, I can appreciate the argument that they were conceived in order to disenfranchise voting by non-white people. The same is true of gun control, it has racist roots going back to slave times, and the Jim Crow era. I would argue the same is true about ID requirements to buy a gun. I don't think that either one is racist TODAY, regardless of the original intent because of the ease of getting identification, but I maintain that if one IS racist, they both are racist.
My logic is as follows. It is racist to try and prevent someone from exercising a constitutional, god given, (or other) right based upon the color of their skin. Firearms and voting (amongst a slew of other rights) are constitutionally enumerated rights. Voter ID laws have (historically) been called racist because they are said to disenfranchise poor people and people of color based upon the ease or difficulty of attaining government Identification. As such, those laws are said to be racist. It then follows that if it is racist to require an ID for voting, it is also racist to require an ID to possess, carry, or purchase a gun; as it also disenfranchises some people from exercising a constitutional right on the basis of the ease or difficulty of getting Identification.
I have chosen not to include other privileges such as driving or buying alcohol, but I am sure some could make the case that ID overall is racist if it is racist in the case of voter ID laws.
I further argue that, in this day and age, where hacking and political malfeasance is such commonplace among rival state actors, and where the ease of access to ID is so high, that we should reevaluate those laws, and install them nation wide. We have a recent election (2000) that was decided by hundreds of votes, and there has been demonstrable vote buying in Texas in quantities exceeding that deficit. I concede that a world where we have ID requirements for gun purchases is a potentially safer one. I think the same holds true of voter Identification.
I would argue also, that although there may have been racist roots to the law, that it may have some validity, and that exploring a national identification program would be worthwhile, and would potentially eliminate the disparate impact upon non white and poor people. | The reason people say that voter ID is racist is because voter ID policies have been specifically passed by republican politicians with the express goal of making it harder for minorities to vote.
In north carolina, for example, when they wrote their voter ID law they requested a breakdown of what ID people in the state had by race. Then, with that information in hand, they created a voter ID law that included ID's most likely to be held by white voters, while excluding ID most likely to be held by black voters.
The practical implication of this, along with other things like closing polling places, registration offices and the very places minorities could get the proper ID, was that it became harder for minorities to vote, so less of them voted. It was a racist policy specifically designed to lower minority turnout so that republicans could win elections.
And it was a solution without a problem, because in person voter fraud does not exist in anything but the most fringe cases. Something like 0.000002% of votes since 2000, according to one study.
So yeah, if republicans created a law with the goal of preventing black people from owning guns, that law would probably also be pretty racist, I agree.
Oh wait, Ronald Reagan did that to stop the black panthers. Funny how that works.
---
So both are racist. Got it.
---
This isn't the argument of the post you replied to, but either way you should award a delta then, since you said in your original post:
>I don't think that either one is racist TODAY
and now you are saying they **are** (present tense not past tense) both racist. This is a changed view. | You still have to register to vote, which in itself is a way of checking if you are eligible to vote legally.
---
I have registered in multiple states (I move around a lot) and Identification is not required in most, nor the act of voting itself.
The baseline that I have seen is requiring a name, a last four and an address. Why should more be required for one than the other?
---
>Why should more be required for one than the other?
You can't kill a person with a ballot.
Edit: RIP my inbox. | kzljd8 | CMV: if it is racist to require an ID to vote, it is also racist to require an ID to buy a gun. | CMV: If it is racist to require voter ID, it is racist to require ID to buy (or OWN) a gun.
TLDR:
I think it follows (and welcome further discussion) that if we establish that we have some fundamental human rights, and a barrier is placed in order to prevent or limit the free and lawful exercise of those rights (namely voting and gun ownership), then that barrier is bad. I am of course discounting any free exercise which violates the non-aggression principle, as I think that is a reasonable standard. Then, it follows that any barrier, be set at a level that minimally affects people, and is sufficiently hard to do as to validate the need to do so (protect against children buying guns, or foreign nationals voting, or someone voting twice).
Having said that, I think that the requirement of an ID is reasonable for both cases, as it is a fair and reasonable standard that inhibits any illegal action by malicious actors. However, when you analyze how people get IDs, some will argue that it is unreasonable for people of color, rural people, or poor people to get an ID. As such, it is classist, racist etc. Fine, I can accept that premise, although I don't know how true it is. If you accept that premise, you must also accept that it applies to other areas of life, especially the constitutionally enumerated fundamental human rights.
Summarizing, if it's racist to require ID to vote, how is it not racist to require ID to own a gun?
I just don’t see a way out of this one. How can it be racist to require an ID to vote (18 yrs old citizen, not a felon), but it isn’t racist to require an ID to buy a gun? It’s almost the same requirements (18, not a felon), so I don’t see how you can call one racist and the other not.
I use those two as examples because they are both enumerated rights within the constitution.
To be clear, I don’t think it is fundamentally racist to require Identification in order to do either but there is a potentially disparate impact upon people of color with regard to getting ID. I think that both are important and serious enough rights to justify the need for identification. I also believe that if one is racist then the other must also be racist, which is the most important part of my cmv.
In order to change my view, you must be able to demonstrate to me that the two should be decoupled.
I am not going to be persuaded by the argument that a gun can kill someone but a vote is not deadly. A single vote has far reaching effects upon others, other nations, and has the potential to start a war, which could be more deadly than any weapon in any single persons hand.
I welcome the discussion!
Edit to add: Thanks to everyone for participating!
Edit to also add: I am not arguing that the laws were not initially designed to disenfranchise voting by minorities. When looking at the history of those laws, I can appreciate the argument that they were conceived in order to disenfranchise voting by non-white people. The same is true of gun control, it has racist roots going back to slave times, and the Jim Crow era. I would argue the same is true about ID requirements to buy a gun. I don't think that either one is racist TODAY, regardless of the original intent because of the ease of getting identification, but I maintain that if one IS racist, they both are racist.
My logic is as follows. It is racist to try and prevent someone from exercising a constitutional, god given, (or other) right based upon the color of their skin. Firearms and voting (amongst a slew of other rights) are constitutionally enumerated rights. Voter ID laws have (historically) been called racist because they are said to disenfranchise poor people and people of color based upon the ease or difficulty of attaining government Identification. As such, those laws are said to be racist. It then follows that if it is racist to require an ID for voting, it is also racist to require an ID to possess, carry, or purchase a gun; as it also disenfranchises some people from exercising a constitutional right on the basis of the ease or difficulty of getting Identification.
I have chosen not to include other privileges such as driving or buying alcohol, but I am sure some could make the case that ID overall is racist if it is racist in the case of voter ID laws.
I further argue that, in this day and age, where hacking and political malfeasance is such commonplace among rival state actors, and where the ease of access to ID is so high, that we should reevaluate those laws, and install them nation wide. We have a recent election (2000) that was decided by hundreds of votes, and there has been demonstrable vote buying in Texas in quantities exceeding that deficit. I concede that a world where we have ID requirements for gun purchases is a potentially safer one. I think the same holds true of voter Identification.
I would argue also, that although there may have been racist roots to the law, that it may have some validity, and that exploring a national identification program would be worthwhile, and would potentially eliminate the disparate impact upon non white and poor people. | Proper-Thought-2020 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "edwardlleandre",
"id": "gjokwxo",
"score": 451,
"text": "The reason people say that voter ID is racist is because voter ID policies have been specifically passed by republican politicians with the express goal of making it harder for minorities to vote.\n\nIn north carolina, for example... | [
{
"author": "TheFrogWife",
"id": "gjojq7w",
"score": 199,
"text": "You still have to register to vote, which in itself is a way of checking if you are eligible to vote legally.",
"timestamp": 1610938780
},
{
"author": "Proper-Thought-2020",
"id": "gjojxb8",
"score": 87,
"text... | [
"gjokwxo",
"gjpx2by",
"gjqgsil"
] | [
"gjojq7w",
"gjojxb8",
"gjok3zu"
] |
It's okay to be a woman against women's rights
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you?
In today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay at home mom (like in the 1950s).
Why would you want to have only one option and not both? I can't seem to think of any reason why limiting opportunities would be ideal.
---
There are a couple of reasons. First, I don't think a lot of decisions we make are motivated by greater options as much as they're motivated by culture and societal norms. To give an example. It's true that many women today still choose to be stay at home wives or mothers. But it's a lot harder when there's social pressure to go to college and get as much education as possible. I felt it and I don't personally know any young women my age who say they weren't pushed that way. Decades ago, the expectation was different. My grandmothers were not only married but had a few kids by the time they were around 20 or so. That was normal. It was expected. It was praised.
The second reason is a little more complicated and theoretical. It has to do with education and child rearing. I believe it's better for kids to be with their mothers when they're toddlers. Hard to do that if mothers are out making money. I had a different sort of experience because my mother worked in childcare at the time and my grandmothers and aunt could care for me when she couldn't, and they acted as second mothers. But it was good enough. Anyway, I think that's getting rarer and families are tending to leave their kids with paid strangers at very young ages when they can't even verbalized if someone is harming them.
---
So think of the world today as a giant high school. In the current high school 100% of the students are free to pursue intellectual opportunities like curing cancer, solving global warming, and inventing things that make our lives better. In your proposal, only 50% of the students will be allowed to do that and inevitably your overall achievements will suffer.
In my opinion, I don't think it's fair to rob the world of 1/2 of its intellectual power when it comes to the professional world. That would be doing mankind a disservice, in my view.
Agree?
---
Well this is an argument I actually have never heard before. (People usually get angry with me very quickly when I talk about this or change the subject). I think that's a good point. What I don't know is if on balance it does more harm than good (i.e. Do the grave social harms I perceive outweigh the loss to science, tech, etc or not). Anyway, you gave me something to think about, so I appreciate that. ∆
---
> What I don't know is if on balance it does more harm than good (i.e. Do the grave social harms I perceive outweigh the loss to science, tech, etc or not).
Women helped get the first space shuttle to orbit the earth. (Hidden Figures.) Women created bullet proof vests. Women created the Apgar test for newborns. Women created the first leukaemia, malaria, cancer and meningitis medicines. Women created the foundation technology for modern WiFi.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/66917-12-essential-modern-inventions-by-women-who-youve-probably-never-heard-of
Why would you want a world that limits 50% of its potential? Why would you want to live in a world where all those inventions, and future inventions, don't exist?
---
Well I would point out that the ladies from your Hidden Figures example didn't exactly live in a world of feminist triumph, but I definitely take your point. It would be difficult for me to say that I am against women being smart and creative. But women have always been smart and creative before feminism was ever heard of, haven't they? When haven't women - secretly or openly - been doing incredible things and advancing the world? Would it stop if we roll back women's rights? I don't know. I really don't. Of course, if you wan them to have credit for everything they do, that's something different.
---
> When haven't women - secretly or openly - been doing incredible things and advancing the world? Would it stop if we roll back women's rights?
Women have always been clever and creative. But only very recently (in terms of time) have they been allowed to express that publicly. Historically, advancements made by women have been far fewer because it was so much more difficult for them to actively pursue them. Many of the things they did discover or improve were either presented as though men invented them, or by women who presented themselves as men in order to avoid persecution. So yes, in a very big way it would stop if we rolled back women's rights. There is no other possible outcome in that respect if you restrict women's rights again.
To say it a different, more obvious way, think about slaves. Some of them were able to escape, invent things, etc. But by FAR the majority were oppressed, and not allowed to pursue any kind of creativity or innovation. No one will argue that by freeing them from slavery, African Americans have been able to pursue and live better lives. Granted this is a much more drastic example, but the treatment of women has, at times, been similar to slavery in many ways. | >I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
While you may feel that way, by advocating for a return to that system you are saying that "all women" should be happy with those limited roles.
If your preference is to stay at home and have your partner be the breadwinner that is absolutely something you can do. But you shouldn't be allowed to dictate that choice for everyone.
---
I explain why I feel it's more complicated than just saying it's a choice in my response to the previous comment. I think it should be responsive to your comment too.
---
It seems that you are using the term's "women's rights" in place of the ideal that children should be raised by stay at home moms.
Women's rights encompasses a wide variety of issues. Do you think women should be able to vote? To own property? Should they be able to leave the house without a male guardian? Should they have access to birth control?
---
I would correct myself to say I believe in the right to vote. I don't know anything about the male guardian thing in American history, but I could have missed something. Birth control mainly just bothers me because people use it to justify abortion. Property is interesting because I'm trying to think of a time when women didn't own it. I do know it was an issue if you were married and then divorced, of course, but I don't know about simple ownership being a "women's" rights issue. But I'm happy to learn.
---
> Birth control mainly just bothers me because people use it to justify abortion.
What? Birth control prevents a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with abortion. It is not used to justify abortion.
---
I agree with you but i cannot tell you how many times I have heard "well if you're against abortion you should be against birth control because the sperm is a life" or something idiotic along those lines.
---
So are you saying the existence and use of birth control bothers you, or the ignorant people who spread lies about birth control bother you? | 6155xj | It's okay to be a woman against women's rights |
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | amxoo | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "KevinWester",
"id": "dfbt8ep",
"score": 34,
"text": "Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you? \n\nIn today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay a... | [
{
"author": "tea_and_honey",
"id": "dfbtx6p",
"score": 11,
"text": ">I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).\n\nWhile you may feel tha... | [
"dfbt8ep",
"dfbtsbm",
"dfbv0pv",
"dfbwgij",
"dfbxksk",
"dfbz3fb",
"dfc54a0"
] | [
"dfbtx6p",
"dfbu140",
"dfbubv6",
"dfbw9r1",
"dfbxlyj",
"dfbxpwo",
"dfbxs3a"
] |
It's okay to be a woman against women's rights
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you?
In today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay at home mom (like in the 1950s).
Why would you want to have only one option and not both? I can't seem to think of any reason why limiting opportunities would be ideal.
---
There are a couple of reasons. First, I don't think a lot of decisions we make are motivated by greater options as much as they're motivated by culture and societal norms. To give an example. It's true that many women today still choose to be stay at home wives or mothers. But it's a lot harder when there's social pressure to go to college and get as much education as possible. I felt it and I don't personally know any young women my age who say they weren't pushed that way. Decades ago, the expectation was different. My grandmothers were not only married but had a few kids by the time they were around 20 or so. That was normal. It was expected. It was praised.
The second reason is a little more complicated and theoretical. It has to do with education and child rearing. I believe it's better for kids to be with their mothers when they're toddlers. Hard to do that if mothers are out making money. I had a different sort of experience because my mother worked in childcare at the time and my grandmothers and aunt could care for me when she couldn't, and they acted as second mothers. But it was good enough. Anyway, I think that's getting rarer and families are tending to leave their kids with paid strangers at very young ages when they can't even verbalized if someone is harming them.
---
So now woman who chose to be stay at home wives are under societal pressure to pursue a career, and that's bad, because it may skew their choice
Ans somehow is better when we go the other direction but on a much harder way, it's not only good to have pressure to be housewives (so it's not the pressure you're arguing again, it's th pressure against your preference!), but it's actually okey to strip the opportunity for those woman who do want to pursue a career.
So yeah, okey, you have to face some pressure to be a housewive but you can chose it, but that pressure is so unfathomable that.... It's better to go back when women n had to be dress up like men to be able to study? When women lived secret lives because they weren't allowed to do science or be doctors? Or when they got shunned and their works dismisses because they lacked a dick?
I'm a guy, I'm studying physics, and the amount of SHIT woman have had to take in science it's disgusting. So many missed opportunities and brilliant scientist were simply not taking seriously because they lacked a dick.
Marie fucking Curie managed to grab two Nobels, but she wasn't allowed to teach in her own country cause she lacked a dick. Noether's theorem plays a key role in modern physics and she had to teach for four years under his male colleague name before the faculty accepted her in the position cause she didn't had a dick.
I grew up in a much more traditional western country in South America, you know the whole 5 yards of traditional house composition. 6 in 10 woman have been victims of domestic violence and they often can't leave their partner because they lack the abilities to support herselfs and the kids because they were pressured to get married without an education.
---
Yes I think it would be better. That's my whole point. But very few people agree with me because my values are different.
And I'm saying I think women are being pressured to do something that is on the whole detrimental to society. I'm not against pressure just because it's pressure.
---
People don't disagree with you because your values are different. They disagree with you because your values violate their individual rights. | You are certainly welcome to have whatever view of gender roles that you want, as well as find abortion immoral, or whatever else. That is your right to think independently. I think Ali Wong's "Baby Cobra" did a hilarious job pushing on (one part) of [this idea.](http://www.vogue.com/article/ali-wong-baby-cobra-netflix-comedy-special)
>**You also joke about Lean In and how it ruined everything for women being able to stay home and watch Ellen. Have you turned off some women with that bit?**
> [Wong] I think most feminists are very smart. Most of them are on board, but I’ve had one woman walk out because she couldn’t handle it when I said that I thought feminism was the worst thing to happen to women. That’s bound to occur, but if you stay till the end of the show, then you understand the irony in all of it. I do think that desire to not work anymore, even for women who are feminists, is real. I’ve never seen a full episode of Ellen. I want to go to a farmers’ market. I want to bake a pie and knit a scarf every once in a while.
So the social change is one thing, but rights are a legal/political concept, as you well know. On what basis should we think of gender equality as not enshrined in law or as inimical to a just political society? Are you a natural rights theorist, or do you think that things were better and simpler in the time of your grandparents?
---
I'm not advancing a theory about how the law should respond to my idea of what's best for society. And I've never thought about whether or not I'm a natural rights theorist, honestly, but I think Locke makes some sense. I had a hard enough time realizing that I'm not a feminist and that patriarchy may not actually be evil.
---
I'm a bit puzzled by what you want your view changed on then. Do you want an argument that patriarchy is evil? Or that you should be a feminist?
One thing I can say is that the American feminist movement has made great success in getting women equality when they do things that men do: achieve in education, business, etc. It has been less successful at getting traditionally feminine activities, like care-work, to be recognized in society. Liberal feminists like Anne Marie Slaughter [have made equality between genders and in the policy world a priority](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/books/review/anne-marie-slaughters-unfinished-business-women-men-work-family.html?_r=0), her view is not just feminism focused on letting women succeed in all of the ways that men are valued. She notably criticized women for excluding men who were doing childcare, and proposed a more flexible Nordic model of parental leave, where parents choose how to divide paid time off, such that people with different priorities and views of gender roles may choose what to do. That's a complete rejection of patriarchy - but it isn't imposing a view that says women who do care work are faulty.
---
There's a lot of good discussion going on about this topic now and I think it's a good thing to consider. I just have to wonder if it really works very well. Men in my experience are sort of fragile when it comes to things like that and are quick to feel emasculated. But then again, that's why some people say we should just get rid of patriarchy and gender roles and have all kinds of fluidity. I don't really know. I have nothing to compare it to so I couldn't predict how it would turn out. I think certain cultures still have more of a village-like system where men and women each do a little of everything, but I don't know enough about what that looks like. Anyway, I think it's an interesting idea.
---
Look at [The World Economic Forum reports on the Global Gender Gap](http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/) - men are doing fine in places like Sweden, and women are doing well too - one reason is the social scripts are not as powerful and that people can choose how to organize their lives. 1950s style patriarchy is a total system that everyone is expected to fit, and social policy helped to enforce it. Modern states can be much more *fair* with regards to gender norms... they should be what people genuinely choose, not what is simply expected. | 6155xj | It's okay to be a woman against women's rights |
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | amxoo | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "KevinWester",
"id": "dfbt8ep",
"score": 34,
"text": "Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you? \n\nIn today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay a... | [
{
"author": "tunaonrye",
"id": "dfbu572",
"score": 2,
"text": "You are certainly welcome to have whatever view of gender roles that you want, as well as find abortion immoral, or whatever else. That is your right to think independently. I think Ali Wong's \"Baby Cobra\" did a hilarious job pushing o... | [
"dfbt8ep",
"dfbtsbm",
"dfbw930",
"dfbx8p3",
"dfc6hal"
] | [
"dfbu572",
"dfbuvg3",
"dfbvn6t",
"dfbwppc",
"dfbx807"
] |
It's okay to be a woman against women's rights
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you?
In today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay at home mom (like in the 1950s).
Why would you want to have only one option and not both? I can't seem to think of any reason why limiting opportunities would be ideal.
---
There are a couple of reasons. First, I don't think a lot of decisions we make are motivated by greater options as much as they're motivated by culture and societal norms. To give an example. It's true that many women today still choose to be stay at home wives or mothers. But it's a lot harder when there's social pressure to go to college and get as much education as possible. I felt it and I don't personally know any young women my age who say they weren't pushed that way. Decades ago, the expectation was different. My grandmothers were not only married but had a few kids by the time they were around 20 or so. That was normal. It was expected. It was praised.
The second reason is a little more complicated and theoretical. It has to do with education and child rearing. I believe it's better for kids to be with their mothers when they're toddlers. Hard to do that if mothers are out making money. I had a different sort of experience because my mother worked in childcare at the time and my grandmothers and aunt could care for me when she couldn't, and they acted as second mothers. But it was good enough. Anyway, I think that's getting rarer and families are tending to leave their kids with paid strangers at very young ages when they can't even verbalized if someone is harming them.
---
So think of the world today as a giant high school. In the current high school 100% of the students are free to pursue intellectual opportunities like curing cancer, solving global warming, and inventing things that make our lives better. In your proposal, only 50% of the students will be allowed to do that and inevitably your overall achievements will suffer.
In my opinion, I don't think it's fair to rob the world of 1/2 of its intellectual power when it comes to the professional world. That would be doing mankind a disservice, in my view.
Agree?
---
Well this is an argument I actually have never heard before. (People usually get angry with me very quickly when I talk about this or change the subject). I think that's a good point. What I don't know is if on balance it does more harm than good (i.e. Do the grave social harms I perceive outweigh the loss to science, tech, etc or not). Anyway, you gave me something to think about, so I appreciate that. ∆
---
Yea because your views are inherently absurd at its core. I have a hard time believing you actually have the qualifications you listed. You probably don't which may be why you have the views you do.
Nobody cares if you prefer the old system. That's such a regressive way at looking at things. Why shouldn't women work and be given the same rights and privileges as men? What makes women any less deserving or qualified than men?
I don't blame others for not taking you seriously. This is just ridiculous.
---
Oh honey, law school is filled with a lot of academically gifted but otherwise moronic individuals. They come fresh out of college and know nothing about the world because they have been in school all their lives. And they are arrogant and sociopathic to boot (not OP, just the average law student). These are the people running our country. I have no trouble believing she is in law school. I'm even wondering if I know her. | You are certainly welcome to have whatever view of gender roles that you want, as well as find abortion immoral, or whatever else. That is your right to think independently. I think Ali Wong's "Baby Cobra" did a hilarious job pushing on (one part) of [this idea.](http://www.vogue.com/article/ali-wong-baby-cobra-netflix-comedy-special)
>**You also joke about Lean In and how it ruined everything for women being able to stay home and watch Ellen. Have you turned off some women with that bit?**
> [Wong] I think most feminists are very smart. Most of them are on board, but I’ve had one woman walk out because she couldn’t handle it when I said that I thought feminism was the worst thing to happen to women. That’s bound to occur, but if you stay till the end of the show, then you understand the irony in all of it. I do think that desire to not work anymore, even for women who are feminists, is real. I’ve never seen a full episode of Ellen. I want to go to a farmers’ market. I want to bake a pie and knit a scarf every once in a while.
So the social change is one thing, but rights are a legal/political concept, as you well know. On what basis should we think of gender equality as not enshrined in law or as inimical to a just political society? Are you a natural rights theorist, or do you think that things were better and simpler in the time of your grandparents?
---
I'm not advancing a theory about how the law should respond to my idea of what's best for society. And I've never thought about whether or not I'm a natural rights theorist, honestly, but I think Locke makes some sense. I had a hard enough time realizing that I'm not a feminist and that patriarchy may not actually be evil.
---
I'm a bit puzzled by what you want your view changed on then. Do you want an argument that patriarchy is evil? Or that you should be a feminist?
One thing I can say is that the American feminist movement has made great success in getting women equality when they do things that men do: achieve in education, business, etc. It has been less successful at getting traditionally feminine activities, like care-work, to be recognized in society. Liberal feminists like Anne Marie Slaughter [have made equality between genders and in the policy world a priority](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/books/review/anne-marie-slaughters-unfinished-business-women-men-work-family.html?_r=0), her view is not just feminism focused on letting women succeed in all of the ways that men are valued. She notably criticized women for excluding men who were doing childcare, and proposed a more flexible Nordic model of parental leave, where parents choose how to divide paid time off, such that people with different priorities and views of gender roles may choose what to do. That's a complete rejection of patriarchy - but it isn't imposing a view that says women who do care work are faulty.
---
There's a lot of good discussion going on about this topic now and I think it's a good thing to consider. I just have to wonder if it really works very well. Men in my experience are sort of fragile when it comes to things like that and are quick to feel emasculated. But then again, that's why some people say we should just get rid of patriarchy and gender roles and have all kinds of fluidity. I don't really know. I have nothing to compare it to so I couldn't predict how it would turn out. I think certain cultures still have more of a village-like system where men and women each do a little of everything, but I don't know enough about what that looks like. Anyway, I think it's an interesting idea.
---
Look at [The World Economic Forum reports on the Global Gender Gap](http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/) - men are doing fine in places like Sweden, and women are doing well too - one reason is the social scripts are not as powerful and that people can choose how to organize their lives. 1950s style patriarchy is a total system that everyone is expected to fit, and social policy helped to enforce it. Modern states can be much more *fair* with regards to gender norms... they should be what people genuinely choose, not what is simply expected.
---
They're socialists right? I wonder how much that has to do with it. Anyway, I don't know. I wasn't fully linking economic issues with social ones (beyond my comments about wages and whatever else) but it might be a good thing to consider. ∆ | 6155xj | It's okay to be a woman against women's rights |
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | amxoo | 6 | 6 | [
{
"author": "KevinWester",
"id": "dfbt8ep",
"score": 34,
"text": "Can I ask *why* you would want to return to a world where men and women don't have equal opportunities? What is the benefit of that to you? \n\nIn today's world, if you want a career you can have one. If you don't, you can be a stay a... | [
{
"author": "tunaonrye",
"id": "dfbu572",
"score": 2,
"text": "You are certainly welcome to have whatever view of gender roles that you want, as well as find abortion immoral, or whatever else. That is your right to think independently. I think Ali Wong's \"Baby Cobra\" did a hilarious job pushing o... | [
"dfbt8ep",
"dfbtsbm",
"dfbv0pv",
"dfbwgij",
"dfc15ed",
"dfccffb"
] | [
"dfbu572",
"dfbuvg3",
"dfbvn6t",
"dfbwppc",
"dfbx807",
"dfbxlpe"
] |
It's okay to be a woman against women's rights
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | What's worse- the pressure to get a career or the inability to do so? In one scenario, people can make their life choices although one choice is slightly harder to do, in the other, there is only one choice. I don't see why anyone would prefer the latter.
And frankly, regardless of your personal opinion, I highly doubt the majority of women would want to be house wives, if they had the choice. It sounds good on paper, but picture your daily life: you're pretty much trapped in your home- you must get cabin fever within the month (I know I did when I was unemployed). You have to ask your husband for money whenever you want anything, which is humiliating, and means you probably won't be able to justify the stupid guilty pleasure purchases that we all need to make from time to time. And think about how much worse domestic abuse is when you are financially dependent on your spouse? That just sounds awful.
---
I can see your point on domestic abuse. Although I think it's sort of like "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to say that traditional gender roles are bad for that reason. But I think it's important.
And I don't know what the majority of women would want, that's true. But it's hard for me to believe that most women who lived that way were miserable (even though that's what I almost thought after I was forced to read things like The Yellow Wallpaper and The Awakening in high school).
And I don't think being a housewife means you have to live or feel like a prisoner, but your experience was what it was. I would think it could afford time to read, do charity work, develop hobbies, etc. and that the social good would outweigh temporary boredom. The system did work for years and the staying home part alone doesn't really seem to do any real, tangible harm in my view (in stark contrast to other forms of "oppression"). Δ
---
I actually am a stay at home Mom, and much of what was said above is true. It's a hard, thankless, stressful job. Mine are too young to talk to, so sometimes I go ages without any meaningful adult conversation if my Husband is particularly busy at work. You can't really understand that brand of mental torture until you undergo it.
But what I would like you to consider is this: I have a friend who has 2 boys. When they were little she stayed home with them for a time. She hated it, and there's a myriad of issues, mental health, bad marriage, ect ect, it doesn't matter, by the end I was checking on her every day to make sure she wasn't the next Andrea Yates.
I do understand where you are coming from, even though I don't agree. But for that reason, because not everyone is built to handle the stress of children even as a mother, I don't think making it a lawful issue is ok. | >I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
While you may feel that way, by advocating for a return to that system you are saying that "all women" should be happy with those limited roles.
If your preference is to stay at home and have your partner be the breadwinner that is absolutely something you can do. But you shouldn't be allowed to dictate that choice for everyone.
---
I explain why I feel it's more complicated than just saying it's a choice in my response to the previous comment. I think it should be responsive to your comment too.
---
It seems that you are using the term's "women's rights" in place of the ideal that children should be raised by stay at home moms.
Women's rights encompasses a wide variety of issues. Do you think women should be able to vote? To own property? Should they be able to leave the house without a male guardian? Should they have access to birth control? | 6155xj | It's okay to be a woman against women's rights |
Well the I tried to post this elsewhere to get the opinion of other women, but the mod booted me and stated this CMV would be more suitable. So I've copy/pasted my original post below.
Before I start I want to say that I don't mean to hurt or offend anyone, and I am being completely serious. I'm a 23 year old woman and I don't really believe in equal rights for women. To be clear, this belief is not for lack of an education. I graduated at the top of my undergraduate university class and I will soon have my law degree. I am fairly well-versed in modern and historical literature about First and Second Wave feminism and current women's rights issues, but I'm by no means a scholar. I just have my opinions.
I simply don't believe in equal rights between men and women.
That is NOT to say that I condone violence or hatred. But, although 1950s America had it's share of problems, I don't think a lack of rights for women was among them.
I don't feel women have total rights over their bodies when they are pregnant. Although I will be working (a lot) very soon, and want equal wages, I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).
I'm posting here because I can't discuss these things seriously with any of my peers. None of them agree with me, which is fine, but I also can't have productive conversation.
What I want to know is whether or not there are any other women (particularly ones like me, who are "liberal" in other areas) who secretly or not so secretly feel the same way.
Again, if this post irritated you, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to agitate; I simply wanted to start a conversation. I'd love to hear any comments or questions or general thoughts. | amxoo | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "superzipzop",
"id": "dfbuue3",
"score": 7,
"text": "What's worse- the pressure to get a career or the inability to do so? In one scenario, people can make their life choices although one choice is slightly harder to do, in the other, there is only one choice. I don't see why anyone woul... | [
{
"author": "tea_and_honey",
"id": "dfbtx6p",
"score": 11,
"text": ">I wouldn't have a problem returning to a system in which equal wages would be a non-issue (i.e. the world of my great-grandparents where men worked and women primarily cared for the home and the children).\n\nWhile you may feel tha... | [
"dfbuue3",
"dfbv7wv",
"dfdr3x3"
] | [
"dfbtx6p",
"dfbu140",
"dfbubv6"
] |
CMV: The Seth Rich Murder is not a Conspiracy
Disclaimer** all of the "infowars sources" is all segments from one interview, in which the main lawyer of the DNC Fraud lawsuit was interviewed, which was the only reason I have it in here at all. It is a good video**
Ok so basically I have found a bunch of facts from lawyers in ongoing cases, and from sources that I find more reputable than mainstream media that would say that believing that the DNC had involvement in the Seth Rich murder is in fact not a rightwing or internet hyped conspiracy. Towards the end I even have mainstream media saying incriminating truths.
Ok, so lets get into it. I'll make a column of facts, .
A lot of this is tied to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, ....
Facts:
1. The DNC Fraud Lawsuit was filed on June 28th, 2016 http://jampac.us/dnclawsuit/
2. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich
3. Shawn Lucas died in a fentanyl overdoseafter he served Washerman Schultz's secretary in an online video.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/04/dnc-lawsuit-process-server-shawn-lucas-has-died/
4. Seth Rich would have been a key witness in the case as he was the DNCs data analyzer.
(13:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM)
5. Lucas like Seth Rich was a potential key witness to the case (7:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM) according the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Plaintiff's lawyer (interviewed in the link)
4. The DNC Fraud Lawsuit Plaintiffs lawyers applied them for protection as their were multiple instances of breaking and entering, and strange threats, including one from a call that was traced back to Wasserman Schult'z Florida Office, and other more disturbing threats including violence and threats referencing a murdered local district prosecutor
https://medium.com/@zachhaller/plaintiffs-file-motion-for-protection-in-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-9f1845ab0593
https://www.facebook.com/pg/DNCfraudlawsuit/videos/?ref=page_internal
5. Julius Assange and the former Prime Minister of England both say that the DNC hacks was definitely not Russia on multiple occasions.
The prime minister goes on to say that it was a "disgruntled DNC insider who was 'motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" released the leaks, and NOT Russia.
http://www.snopes.com/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/
Thoughts:
I guess I think Seth could have been the leaker. He was the data anylasist, so he would have seen the truth, that Bernie had Hillary 7:1 from people under the age of 35, and that there was fraud and corruption going on that we will never even know about...
In the video where the lawyer for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit first asked for protection I thought it was just a PR stunt, or a plea for media attention. The second infowars interview just really changed my perspective, this guy actually looks scared. What do you guys think?
1st press release
https://www.facebook.com/pg/DNCfraudlawsuit/videos/?ref=page_internal
2nd Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM
Main Delta Change
So while I still think this story is not getting enough attention because of the political aspects of it, with the FBI and CIA and all of our intelligence agencies releasing specifics of how Russia got into the systems, and with them tying Guccifer to Russia, the claim that Russia for sure was not behind the DNC hack seems at this time to be false and even absurd without good proof.
Also someone mentioned that the "rigging" of the primary was not censored from the media and as I was looking at videos I found some good ones that showed this.
The main delta had to be retracted as the "17 intelligence agencies" story was a lie.
Edit: this has been debunked by NYT as propaganda, even though Politifact reported it as true quoting Hillary Clinton of all people. LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJhDasH1hE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqicxa6O4HA#t=182.0145468
Edit 4 7/10
Latest developments, gonna have to take back one of my delta's because the "17 intelligence agencies" was a lie, and in fact, the DNC never even allowed the FBI to investigate their servers. Instead they hired a third party company to "seal their leaks"
Looks like it was Seth Rich...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJhDasH1hE&list=PLBeDLbL2Rdxm4ASs1duR6DAFT5VKDj7pf&index=17
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/
most of amaleighs points still hold true (and others I delta'd), it's just that they no longer justify to me Seth Rich being a conspiracy theory. He seems to me much more likely to be the DNC leak, seeing that Assange and the Former British Ambassador seem to think that a "disgruntled DNC insider who was 'motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" released the leaks, and NOT Russia.
http://www.snopes.com/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/
(the snopes article is titled horrendously erroneously, but its content is decent.)
my last point will be there is a 15,000$ reward from Assange if the killer of Seth Rich is found, as well as a 100,000$ reward from a Republican.
So, yes, maybe it is a conspiracy theory, but... compared to the Russia dialogue I would say it looks like a plain and simple murder with political and finiancial (DNC fraud lawsuit) motives. As opposed to the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory.
Like here is the point, here I have tons of articles with clear facts, not from anonymous sources, video of security heads admitting they never saw the server. It went from 17 to 3 who have never even been in the server. What is more of a conspiracy? The Russia story which seems impossible due to the latest report
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/new-research-shows-guccifer-20-files-were-copied-locally-dnc-not-hacked-russians
or a plain and simple murdering a witness in a fraud lawsuit.
So whether or not the DNC was involved in Seth's death, to call that jump a conspiracy, when you are blaming Russia with zero evidence is insane!!
Here is Jimmy Dore's take on it which is an amazing video where the DHS claims it can't do warrents on "political associations" on camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6Z_BAGPqw&list=PLBeDLbL2Rdxklnv4Z3lxOFSlvco0eoslC&index=11
Here is the clear incentive to murder Seth Rich for political and financial reasons.
- People under the age of 35 voted for Bernie over Hillary 7:1 in the primaries, more than for Trump and Hillary combined.
- The person who would have been very privy to this information in the DNC would have been Seth Rich because he one of their data and polling analyzers, and would have had access to the computers.
The latest meta data concludes that the files were copied locally as the prime minister and Julius Assange have been saying, meaning that Russia was not involved and Seth Rich easily could have been.
A few months after the DNC Fraud lawsuits first hearing Seth Rich gets murdered as well as another potential key witness who was openly against DWS dies from a fentynal overdose. Not necessarily a murder but that is a very easy way to kill someone especially if they are an addict, just hire someone to sell them a bag with fentynal in it, they do their regular dose and die.
Sketchy Sidenote
- This is the DNC hired "family spokesperson" for Seth Riches family who threatens to sue any news organizations who report on his death.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/brad-bauman-seth-rich-dnc-family-democrat-pastorum-group-wikileaks/
another nail in the coffin.
DNC refuses to let investigators get Seth Riches computer. Lol. how much more obvious can this get
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/dnc-wont-release-evidence-of-seth-richs-wikileaks-ties/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/wasserman-schultz-threatened-police-chief-for-gathering-evidence-on-her-it-staffers-alleged-crimes/
it's very obvious if they were innocent they would be trying to help the investigation, not blocking it!. WOWW
Heres an article about Crowdstrike (the only company or organization to actually get into the DNC server, hired by the DNC having to retract their "collusion" stories.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-the-claim-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc-just-fall-apart/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#674de4e25cf6 | Your fact number 4 has literally 0 evidence behind it. You have nothing to tie Seth rich to the lawsuit. Fact number 5 is from info wars. Info wars is a far right conspiracy site run so Alex jones can sell supplements. It's not a valid source. Jones frequently lies. His lawyers argued in court that he can't be taken seriously because he's performance art.
---
the lawyer of the lawsuit states it in the video link. Wait I'll find an exact time key and edit it in
---
Why are you using infowars as a source? It is not a reliable source. Alex jones and info wars have lies nearly continuously since it's inception. This is a man who harasses the families of dead children.
---
no the lawyer has nothing to do with alex jones. I have linked just him he is the real lawyer. Jones is not in this video. His crony is interviewing but the interviewed is very real. My other links have proved this. But if you don't believe me I can link for you.
---
Please do. I believe absolutely nothing from info wars. It's all lies. Also why did you leave out the third drag Lucas was taking? Mixing drugs frequently has bad effects.
---
I have already explained many times why he had to use infowars, its either that or Fox, no liberal news will interview with him. They are censoring the entire case hoping it fizzles out.
---
Or maybe it's just BS? | I think you need to recognize that the plaintiffs in the DNC lawsuit probably aren't the most unbiased sources around, and you seem to be taking the things they say as gospel truth. For instance, I don't see any reason to think that Seth Rich would have been subpoenaed in the suit had he not died, nor would murdering a process server to try to get a suit dismissed be a logical course of action.
Those involved in the DNC suit frankly seem slightly unhinged. On top of the suit not seeming to have merit to begin with, being interviewed on InfoWars is not something a serious person would do. May I ask, do you consider it possible that those involved in the suit are "throwing things at the wall," so to speak, to try to generate publicity (and perhaps, money)?
---
I already stated that the only reason that they interviewed with Infowars was because no liberal news media would interview with them. They have been trying very hard, and they claim one of the reasons they want to be interviewed is because it makes them safer. I already said this though in a previous reply. I don't know if they are actually scared for their lives or not. But facts are facts, and threats have been made, and 3 people have died. For them to say they are scared seems reasonable. If no threats were proven and taken to judges, and people weren't suspiciously dying then yes, it would be an absurd ask. But that's not the case.
---
Is there any reason, apart from taking their word for it, to think that they are actually in danger?
>But facts are facts, and threats have been made, and 3 people have died.
Shawn Lucas, who was tangentially related to the suit. Seth Rich, who was unrelated. Who is the third?
---
The murders and deaths. And the lack of Mainstream news Coverage on the case. This is a huge case, whether there are murders or not. The DNC defense has already said politically incorrect words, claiming that there is "no legal requirement to be neutral" and that the "court has no jurisdiction over party affairs" that the DNC rule book "was a non-binding, non-contractual agreement" that if they wanted they could have just "gone into the backroom and smoked cigars and chose candidates that way"
Why is the media not covering that very statement????
Now, these aren't reasons for murder, but they are reasons why MSM isn't reporting the case, because it shows the truth about the DNC. But without the coverage, the lawyers and plaintiffs have no protection in case these threats are real.
But you know what is a reason for murder. If THe plaintiffs win the DNC could have to pay millions back to the people. Millions. Not to mention the political fallout.
---
The only death connected to the suit is that of Lucas, who was tangentially related to the suit and whose death was ruled an overdose, if I'm not mistaken. Rich was not related, except by the fact that he worked for the DNC.
>This is a huge case, whether there are murders or not. The DNC defense has already said politically incorrect words, claiming that there is "no legal requirement to be neutral" and that the "court has no jurisdiction over party affairs" that the DNC rule book "was a non-binding, non-contractual agreement"
Is it? Literally anyone can sue anyone else for anything. If anything, this would support the idea that the DNC case plaintiffs are actually bringing a frivolous case against the DNC to drag their names through the mud.
---
He was the DNC's primary data analysist who was a Bernie supporter, and was against money in politics. He was a key witness for sure. He was the man with the data and would have been a primary witness for both the defense and prosecution.
---
>He was the DNC's primary data analysist
That's actually [Andrew Therriault; he was in the news recently for contesting Clinton's claims that the DNC's data was bad.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-data-guru-denies-hillary-clintons-claim-she-inherited-nothing-from-dnc/) Rich's job was to use data to get more voters registered.
>who was a Bernie supporter
That's speculation. You claim we should take Kim Dotcom's word it's true, but I'd be inclined to not. Rich had also taken a job with the Clinton campaign when he was killed.
>and was against money in politics
This describes most Democrats. Including Clinton.
| 6ja882 | CMV: The Seth Rich Murder is not a Conspiracy | Disclaimer** all of the "infowars sources" is all segments from one interview, in which the main lawyer of the DNC Fraud lawsuit was interviewed, which was the only reason I have it in here at all. It is a good video**
Ok so basically I have found a bunch of facts from lawyers in ongoing cases, and from sources that I find more reputable than mainstream media that would say that believing that the DNC had involvement in the Seth Rich murder is in fact not a rightwing or internet hyped conspiracy. Towards the end I even have mainstream media saying incriminating truths.
Ok, so lets get into it. I'll make a column of facts, .
A lot of this is tied to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, ....
Facts:
1. The DNC Fraud Lawsuit was filed on June 28th, 2016 http://jampac.us/dnclawsuit/
2. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich
3. Shawn Lucas died in a fentanyl overdoseafter he served Washerman Schultz's secretary in an online video.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/04/dnc-lawsuit-process-server-shawn-lucas-has-died/
4. Seth Rich would have been a key witness in the case as he was the DNCs data analyzer.
(13:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM)
5. Lucas like Seth Rich was a potential key witness to the case (7:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM) according the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Plaintiff's lawyer (interviewed in the link)
4. The DNC Fraud Lawsuit Plaintiffs lawyers applied them for protection as their were multiple instances of breaking and entering, and strange threats, including one from a call that was traced back to Wasserman Schult'z Florida Office, and other more disturbing threats including violence and threats referencing a murdered local district prosecutor
https://medium.com/@zachhaller/plaintiffs-file-motion-for-protection-in-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-9f1845ab0593
https://www.facebook.com/pg/DNCfraudlawsuit/videos/?ref=page_internal
5. Julius Assange and the former Prime Minister of England both say that the DNC hacks was definitely not Russia on multiple occasions.
The prime minister goes on to say that it was a "disgruntled DNC insider who was 'motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" released the leaks, and NOT Russia.
http://www.snopes.com/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/
Thoughts:
I guess I think Seth could have been the leaker. He was the data anylasist, so he would have seen the truth, that Bernie had Hillary 7:1 from people under the age of 35, and that there was fraud and corruption going on that we will never even know about...
In the video where the lawyer for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit first asked for protection I thought it was just a PR stunt, or a plea for media attention. The second infowars interview just really changed my perspective, this guy actually looks scared. What do you guys think?
1st press release
https://www.facebook.com/pg/DNCfraudlawsuit/videos/?ref=page_internal
2nd Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB6NTyivM
Main Delta Change
So while I still think this story is not getting enough attention because of the political aspects of it, with the FBI and CIA and all of our intelligence agencies releasing specifics of how Russia got into the systems, and with them tying Guccifer to Russia, the claim that Russia for sure was not behind the DNC hack seems at this time to be false and even absurd without good proof.
Also someone mentioned that the "rigging" of the primary was not censored from the media and as I was looking at videos I found some good ones that showed this.
The main delta had to be retracted as the "17 intelligence agencies" story was a lie.
Edit: this has been debunked by NYT as propaganda, even though Politifact reported it as true quoting Hillary Clinton of all people. LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJhDasH1hE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqicxa6O4HA#t=182.0145468
Edit 4 7/10
Latest developments, gonna have to take back one of my delta's because the "17 intelligence agencies" was a lie, and in fact, the DNC never even allowed the FBI to investigate their servers. Instead they hired a third party company to "seal their leaks"
Looks like it was Seth Rich...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJhDasH1hE&list=PLBeDLbL2Rdxm4ASs1duR6DAFT5VKDj7pf&index=17
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/
most of amaleighs points still hold true (and others I delta'd), it's just that they no longer justify to me Seth Rich being a conspiracy theory. He seems to me much more likely to be the DNC leak, seeing that Assange and the Former British Ambassador seem to think that a "disgruntled DNC insider who was 'motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" released the leaks, and NOT Russia.
http://www.snopes.com/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/
(the snopes article is titled horrendously erroneously, but its content is decent.)
my last point will be there is a 15,000$ reward from Assange if the killer of Seth Rich is found, as well as a 100,000$ reward from a Republican.
So, yes, maybe it is a conspiracy theory, but... compared to the Russia dialogue I would say it looks like a plain and simple murder with political and finiancial (DNC fraud lawsuit) motives. As opposed to the whole "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory.
Like here is the point, here I have tons of articles with clear facts, not from anonymous sources, video of security heads admitting they never saw the server. It went from 17 to 3 who have never even been in the server. What is more of a conspiracy? The Russia story which seems impossible due to the latest report
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/new-research-shows-guccifer-20-files-were-copied-locally-dnc-not-hacked-russians
or a plain and simple murdering a witness in a fraud lawsuit.
So whether or not the DNC was involved in Seth's death, to call that jump a conspiracy, when you are blaming Russia with zero evidence is insane!!
Here is Jimmy Dore's take on it which is an amazing video where the DHS claims it can't do warrents on "political associations" on camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6Z_BAGPqw&list=PLBeDLbL2Rdxklnv4Z3lxOFSlvco0eoslC&index=11
Here is the clear incentive to murder Seth Rich for political and financial reasons.
- People under the age of 35 voted for Bernie over Hillary 7:1 in the primaries, more than for Trump and Hillary combined.
- The person who would have been very privy to this information in the DNC would have been Seth Rich because he one of their data and polling analyzers, and would have had access to the computers.
The latest meta data concludes that the files were copied locally as the prime minister and Julius Assange have been saying, meaning that Russia was not involved and Seth Rich easily could have been.
A few months after the DNC Fraud lawsuits first hearing Seth Rich gets murdered as well as another potential key witness who was openly against DWS dies from a fentynal overdose. Not necessarily a murder but that is a very easy way to kill someone especially if they are an addict, just hire someone to sell them a bag with fentynal in it, they do their regular dose and die.
Sketchy Sidenote
- This is the DNC hired "family spokesperson" for Seth Riches family who threatens to sue any news organizations who report on his death.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/brad-bauman-seth-rich-dnc-family-democrat-pastorum-group-wikileaks/
another nail in the coffin.
DNC refuses to let investigators get Seth Riches computer. Lol. how much more obvious can this get
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/dnc-wont-release-evidence-of-seth-richs-wikileaks-ties/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/wasserman-schultz-threatened-police-chief-for-gathering-evidence-on-her-it-staffers-alleged-crimes/
it's very obvious if they were innocent they would be trying to help the investigation, not blocking it!. WOWW
Heres an article about Crowdstrike (the only company or organization to actually get into the DNC server, hired by the DNC having to retract their "collusion" stories.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-the-claim-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc-just-fall-apart/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#674de4e25cf6 | bobdylan401 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "AnAntichrist",
"id": "djcpxjf",
"score": 4,
"text": "Your fact number 4 has literally 0 evidence behind it. You have nothing to tie Seth rich to the lawsuit. Fact number 5 is from info wars. Info wars is a far right conspiracy site run so Alex jones can sell supplements. It's not a vali... | [
{
"author": "abacuz4",
"id": "djcqkku",
"score": 8,
"text": "I think you need to recognize that the plaintiffs in the DNC lawsuit probably aren't the most unbiased sources around, and you seem to be taking the things they say as gospel truth. For instance, I don't see any reason to think that Seth R... | [
"djcpxjf",
"djcq0ra",
"djcq3zb",
"djcqcy0",
"djcr0m8",
"djcr32e",
"djcr66s"
] | [
"djcqkku",
"djcqo2i",
"djcqqgm",
"djcqt7j",
"djcqyc4",
"djcqzuc",
"djcr9ew"
] |
CMV: Using AI to win arguments ON REDDIT is wild. It needs to stop.
So I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but on one of my recent posts (about self improvement or something), I started seeing replies *ON OTHER SUBREDDITS (NOT HERE, EVER)* that were clearly written by AI.
You know the type…
*“You’re absolutely right to bring this up. But, here’s the deal:”*…
Then it continues with “And it’s not only about <point I made>, it’s also about <the same thing but rephrased>. It’s like <literally explaining the same thing it just explained>.
And then launches into this sterile statement with perfect structure, overly-manufactured empathy, and a fake open-ended question at the end like “Is it A <statement>, or is it B because <statement>? Perhaps if we <another statement>.”
That stuff has to stop (I’m talking only about other subreddits, not this one).
First off, the point of Reddit is for humans to communicate with each other. The entire point is to sharper your comms skills, not to outsource them to a language model. What’s the point of a well-reasoned rebuttal if someone just plugs it into AI and gets a tactically astute “take him down bro” reply?
It’s literally like going to the gym and watching someone do pull-ups *on-demand* instead of doing them yourself.
You know why? Because when you do pull-ups by yourself, if you recover and eat correctly, the following week you can do one extra pull-up. But if you watch someone do pull-ups on demand, you’re learning the technique but not improving yourself.
How the hell is your brain supposed to create a neural network for how to deal with communication if you always outsource the thinking part?
I get how this could be useful in sales (and believe me, I use the crap out of AI for Emails, objection handling, etc), but it doesn’t make sense to do it here.
For context (again), on my previous post, I saw replies from real people that genuinely tried to argue my point in the comments, because they had experience in the matter, and I got ther point. But then you got ChatGPT trying to “take me down” with cognitive dissonance and “please clarify the question, SIR.”
When’s this gonna end? | It's absolutely absurd to claim that people aren't learning or improving themselves with ai.
If I'd like I can become 100000% better at writing excel formulas with even a quick intro lesson from any LLM model. Likewise if a thing is accurate and an AI tells you it. It does not mean it did not happen.
>It’s literally like going to the gym and watching someone do pull-ups on-demand instead of doing them yourself.
How? At all? Using Ai is like going to the Gym and asking that guy about his pull up form.
>That stuff has to stop (I’m talking only about other subreddits, not this one).
>First off, the point of Reddit is for humans to communicate with each other. The entire point is to sharper your comms skills, not to outsource them to a language model.
That is not why I come to reddit, to improve my communication skills. I come to fill my social need/desire.
I also don't care if something is Ai as i'm doing this. If it is convincing enough, and I don't notice, then I couldn't possibly care.
>How the hell is your brain supposed to create a neural network for how to deal with communication if you always outsource the thinking part?
When you read... you think about the contents of the written word.
You spend a huge chunk of this complaining about formatting. Literally just asking it to write differently is all people need to do to create better outputs. People just don't do that. That is an argument for people to learn how to use Ai properly not to stop using it.
---
I feel that it devalues my point when an AI, that knows everything, can just blast every *muh dark psychology* trick in the book to beat anyone in a debate.
You’re only one “beat this guy in a debate” prompt away…
---
AI's aren't that clever. I doubt they default to applying dark psychology tricks and even if told to, can be far outmatched by someone with good rhetoric abilities and good research of the underlying topic. Humans can still out research AIs. | Counterpoint: If you lose an argument to AI you're not very good at arguing.
---
Wasn’t there a *very*
controversial study that found that AI was just better at arguing than people were?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01599-7
I believe Reddit is suing them.
---
Not **a study**!
Yes. Tbh the average redditor is someone who read 2 grades above level in primary school and thus thinks they're a genius. Most of y'all have the logical skills of a tree stump that sat near a primary school. | 1l83qz5 | CMV: Using AI to win arguments ON REDDIT is wild. It needs to stop. | So I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but on one of my recent posts (about self improvement or something), I started seeing replies *ON OTHER SUBREDDITS (NOT HERE, EVER)* that were clearly written by AI.
You know the type…
*“You’re absolutely right to bring this up. But, here’s the deal:”*…
Then it continues with “And it’s not only about <point I made>, it’s also about <the same thing but rephrased>. It’s like <literally explaining the same thing it just explained>.
And then launches into this sterile statement with perfect structure, overly-manufactured empathy, and a fake open-ended question at the end like “Is it A <statement>, or is it B because <statement>? Perhaps if we <another statement>.”
That stuff has to stop (I’m talking only about other subreddits, not this one).
First off, the point of Reddit is for humans to communicate with each other. The entire point is to sharper your comms skills, not to outsource them to a language model. What’s the point of a well-reasoned rebuttal if someone just plugs it into AI and gets a tactically astute “take him down bro” reply?
It’s literally like going to the gym and watching someone do pull-ups *on-demand* instead of doing them yourself.
You know why? Because when you do pull-ups by yourself, if you recover and eat correctly, the following week you can do one extra pull-up. But if you watch someone do pull-ups on demand, you’re learning the technique but not improving yourself.
How the hell is your brain supposed to create a neural network for how to deal with communication if you always outsource the thinking part?
I get how this could be useful in sales (and believe me, I use the crap out of AI for Emails, objection handling, etc), but it doesn’t make sense to do it here.
For context (again), on my previous post, I saw replies from real people that genuinely tried to argue my point in the comments, because they had experience in the matter, and I got ther point. But then you got ChatGPT trying to “take me down” with cognitive dissonance and “please clarify the question, SIR.”
When’s this gonna end? | ichfahreumdenSIEG | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "eggs-benedryl",
"id": "mx1owtf",
"score": 6,
"text": "It's absolutely absurd to claim that people aren't learning or improving themselves with ai. \n\nIf I'd like I can become 100000% better at writing excel formulas with even a quick intro lesson from any LLM model. Likewise if a thing... | [
{
"author": "NoEducation5015",
"id": "mx1nyro",
"score": 22,
"text": "Counterpoint: If you lose an argument to AI you're not very good at arguing.",
"timestamp": 1749574413
},
{
"author": "ichfahreumdenSIEG",
"id": "mx1oa1s",
"score": 0,
"text": "Wasn’t there a *very*\ncontro... | [
"mx1owtf",
"mx1q1xb",
"mx1qtge"
] | [
"mx1nyro",
"mx1oa1s",
"mx1omru"
] |
CMV: If you’re not vegan you are a bad person (for the most part)
It is my belief that if you’re not vegan you are an animal abuser and therefore a bad person. However I acknowledge outliers, specifically, this belief is for all people born and raised in the developed world who have access to the internet and have fully intact mental faculties, having their basic needs met. For example, if someone is just barely getting by they may be exempt from this depending on the severity of the situation (mental illness, financial instability, abuse, etc.). Under these conditions if you are not currently vegan in the year 2021, you are either:
1) Someone who knows that they abuse animals but does not care.
2) Someone who is wilfully ignorant of their abuse of animals.
3) Someone on the spectrum between 1 and 2.
Thus, you are either wilfully ignorant, or aware and simply lack empathy, or somewhere in between.
Edit: I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to argue with me, I will not be able to respond to any more points as it is bed time for this tired vegan. | [deleted]
---
Note that I said that if you are not vegan you are a bad person. I did not argue that if you are vegan you are automatically a good person. Furthermore, it comes down to accountability. If you have enough access to information and it does not impede your ability to live a healthy, practical life, then you should avoid its consumption if it is abusive. When you buy animal products you know for absolute certain there was a victim, or you ought to know (see wilful ignorance). However this is not the case for most other non-vegan products.
---
[deleted]
---
This logical fallacy is called an appeal to futility. Buying a Nintendo switch does not, to my knowledge, involve the exploitation, abuse, rape, torture, and/or murder of a sentient being. Just because you can’t solve all problems, doesn’t give you an excuse to ignore what is most easily and effectively solvable. Note that I said practical, not pleasurable.
---
[removed]
---
Citation needed.
---
[deleted]
---
Ignorance > wilful ignorance. Note that I am not arguing that being vegan by default makes you a good person. Merely that being not vegan makes you a bad person. Non-vegan products are not known to be abusive a priori and therefore the morality is on a spectrum between mere ignorance and wilful ignorance. Dead bodies and the products of such only exist on the spectrum of wilful ignorance.
---
I agree that somebody *could* be ignorant of the abuse that goes into our consumer electronics. But, at this point, you aren't, right? | Personally, I disagree with your overall view, but that's gonna be a really long discussion that I don't particularly want to get involved in.
That being the case, I instead want to bring up a specific example. Growing up, I had a pretty big back yard, so my family had some chickens. They were treated well, had a big backyard to roam around in and were basically pets with the added bonus of eggs. Now eating those eggs wouldn't be vegan, but there was no animal abuse involved whatsoever in the production of those eggs.
So, with that established, wouldn't the possibility of ethically sourced animal products be a pretty major hole in your view?
---
1. I was talking about people in the year 2021, not in years prior, for example when nutrition science and access to vegan alternatives were more scarce.
2. Chickens are abused because they have been selectively bred to lay hundreds of eggs per year, rather than there natural dozen or so. This genetic engineering causes pain and gives the animal an uncomfortable life for the sake of taste pleasure.
3. Even if the chickens laid 12 per year, it is a violation of the animal’s consent to eat its products, it is also unethical to breed into existence an animal for the sake of an exploitative relationship, instead of for the sake of unconditional love.
---
Well those chickens already exist, do they not? If the person raising the chickens had no part in the breeding of those chickens, wouldn't the ethical thing to do be to allow those chickens to live out their natural lives in as much comfort as possible?
As for your point of needing consent from the chicken to eat their eggs, I just disagree. If you don't remove the eggs from the coop, they're going to rot. I think leaving chickens in a coop full of rotten eggs would be a lot less ethical than just eating the eggs that would otherwise go to waste.
---
Actually chickens eat their eggs to regain nutrients they lose due to the violation of their reproductive system. Also you’ve implemented a black and white fallacy. Obviously you do not have to chose between consuming the chickens eggs and neglecting to clean your chicken coop.
---
If the chickens are already getting all of their necessary nutrients, why would they need to eat the eggs?
Also when chickens eat, they tend to be kinda messy. They're certainly not gonna eat everything in the egg, so after a while that'll definitely start smelling.
You can clear out the remains of the eggs after the chickens eat them, but you don't have the chicken's consent to do that, therefore it's immoral, right?
---
When you take care of a child for its own good to nurture and love it, you do not need its consent. When you involve the child in an exploitative relationship whereby your love is conditional inasmuch that child provides you with a product, you have entered an unethical relationship and a violation of bodily autonomy. Same as for the chicken.
---
My family had a hen that never produced a single egg. We provided her with the same care and love as all the other chickens.
So the way we raised those chickens was fine, going by your standard right? It wasn't conditional on anything.
---
Yeah that sounds pretty good to me, although the other chickens had their bodies exploited.
---
So this shows that ethical farming, the production of non-vegan food with no moral negatives is possible, does it not? | kztxlz | CMV: If you’re not vegan you are a bad person (for the most part) | It is my belief that if you’re not vegan you are an animal abuser and therefore a bad person. However I acknowledge outliers, specifically, this belief is for all people born and raised in the developed world who have access to the internet and have fully intact mental faculties, having their basic needs met. For example, if someone is just barely getting by they may be exempt from this depending on the severity of the situation (mental illness, financial instability, abuse, etc.). Under these conditions if you are not currently vegan in the year 2021, you are either:
1) Someone who knows that they abuse animals but does not care.
2) Someone who is wilfully ignorant of their abuse of animals.
3) Someone on the spectrum between 1 and 2.
Thus, you are either wilfully ignorant, or aware and simply lack empathy, or somewhere in between.
Edit: I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to argue with me, I will not be able to respond to any more points as it is bed time for this tired vegan. | Daedric21 | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gjprjo6",
"score": 8,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1610973898
},
{
"author": "Daedric21",
"id": "gjpsvei",
"score": 1,
"text": "Note that I said that if you are not vegan you are a bad person. I did not argue that if you are vegan you are ... | [
{
"author": "CyberneticWhale",
"id": "gjptwqv",
"score": 7,
"text": "Personally, I disagree with your overall view, but that's gonna be a really long discussion that I don't particularly want to get involved in.\n\nThat being the case, I instead want to bring up a specific example. Growing up, I had... | [
"gjprjo6",
"gjpsvei",
"gjpt0ge",
"gjptpf8",
"gjpubre",
"gjpv228",
"gjpvb20",
"gjpvxgt",
"gjq6wzv"
] | [
"gjptwqv",
"gjpuvtl",
"gjpvc0k",
"gjpwm69",
"gjpyo90",
"gjpz8nc",
"gjpzmna",
"gjq03u0",
"gjq0l4d"
] |
CMV: DoorDash and UberEats aren’t expensive
In fact, I’d argue they are super cheap for what they are: a personalized delivery service.
I get many people on here weren’t around pre-online delivery services, but if you told us in the 90s that we could put an order in from almost any restaurant and have somebody bring it right to our door, this would be viewed as a luxury service, and we would expect to have to pay accordingly.
There were some non-luxury versions of this, like ordering pizza, it’s understandable that these could be much cheaper because:
1) they typically were for larger pizza chains where the admin could be centralized.
2) pizza is super cheap already to make it bulk.
3) pizza travels well, so you can load up a single delivery driver with 10ish orders no problem.
4) demand for pizza is pretty wide, you could hire somebody to work near minimum wage, get a cheap car, and be assured that they’d be busy through dinner and into the evening.
While current delivery services can capture some of these efficiencies, it’s absolutely not the same, and we shouldn’t expect it to cost the same. And when they do try to (e.g. batched orders) it’s usually something people complain about, or happens because orders wouldn’t get accepted otherwise.
I find it annoying when people complain about how expensive or shitty UberEATs is. This is exactly what you should expect at the price point they offer their services at. They only exist because they’ve managed to take a luxury service and make it as affordable as possible such that many people can now opt to use it.
And the reality is, if these services made real efforts to address the most common complaints (drivers are unprofessional, poor customer service, scams do not get punished or refunded promptly, if at all), then they would necessarily need to increase their prices, because addressing all of those things either increases their staffing requirements, or decreases the number of available delivery persons by making the standards higher. And once that happens, the overwhelming majority of people complaining about it would just instead pick one of their cheaper competitors. They don’t bother to change because they correctly (in my opinion) have assessed that to do so would drive them out of business, as people would rather buy the cheap shit and complain about it instead of just getting the better service.
So yeah, throw this in with airlines as one of the things that everybody hates on without realizing that if it wasn’t the way that it is that most of the same people would never be able to afford it. | There are different ways “expensive” can be used. Here are a few:
Buying a $100,000 house is expensive because it’s a lot of money, even if it’s a great deal for that house. (Total Expenditure)
Buying a dozen eggs for $20 is expensive because that’s high relative to the market cost of eggs. (Market Value)
Always buying bottled water for $1 instead of using a refillable water bottle is expensive because it neglects a cheaper, similar option. (Viable Alternative)
Because “expensive” has multiple definitions, something can be cheap and expensive at the same time. The $100,000 house may be cheap on Market Value, and expensive on Total expenditure. The bottled water is cheap on Total Expenditure and expensive on Viable Alternative.
In general food delivery services are correctly priced, so they may be average (or even cheap!) on Market Value, while still being expensive on Viable Alternative.
---
Yeah, agreed on your characterization. I just think when most people complain about these services being expensive, what they’re really saying is “I shouldn’t be paying so much for the service I’m getting”. That’s the perspective I disagree with z
---
I feel like most of your responses are taking this form: "True, but what I *think* people mean is this other things that's false" But why do you think this? If people are saying something that could be interpreted in two ways, and one way is true and the other is false, why do you think they mean the false way?
I just feel like over and over in this thread you basically concede that it IS expensive, but insist that "most people" mean something else. But like ask "them" follow up questions. Do they think the drivers are overpaid? I doubt it! It seems more likely to me that they're just making the obviously correct observation that using these services would cause those meals to represent a disproportionate chunk of t their food budget. | Your argument is essentially that DoorDash and UberEats provide significant value relative to the cost.
However, your title says “DoorDash and UberEats aren’t expensive” - and they are. Just because you think something is worth the price doesn’t mean it isn’t expensive.
---
Usually when we say things are or aren’t expensive there’s an implicit assessment of their real vs perceived value.
A cheap car can cost $1000, which might be “expensive” to somebody living pay check to pay check, but nobody would say that it’s an expensive car.
I don’t disagree with your core argument, and agree that my title could have been worded better, I just don’t think that your description is what most people mean when they discuss its expensiveness.
---
House is expensive but also a decent investment yet alone good perveived utility as an home. | 1l7vjwn | CMV: DoorDash and UberEats aren’t expensive | In fact, I’d argue they are super cheap for what they are: a personalized delivery service.
I get many people on here weren’t around pre-online delivery services, but if you told us in the 90s that we could put an order in from almost any restaurant and have somebody bring it right to our door, this would be viewed as a luxury service, and we would expect to have to pay accordingly.
There were some non-luxury versions of this, like ordering pizza, it’s understandable that these could be much cheaper because:
1) they typically were for larger pizza chains where the admin could be centralized.
2) pizza is super cheap already to make it bulk.
3) pizza travels well, so you can load up a single delivery driver with 10ish orders no problem.
4) demand for pizza is pretty wide, you could hire somebody to work near minimum wage, get a cheap car, and be assured that they’d be busy through dinner and into the evening.
While current delivery services can capture some of these efficiencies, it’s absolutely not the same, and we shouldn’t expect it to cost the same. And when they do try to (e.g. batched orders) it’s usually something people complain about, or happens because orders wouldn’t get accepted otherwise.
I find it annoying when people complain about how expensive or shitty UberEATs is. This is exactly what you should expect at the price point they offer their services at. They only exist because they’ve managed to take a luxury service and make it as affordable as possible such that many people can now opt to use it.
And the reality is, if these services made real efforts to address the most common complaints (drivers are unprofessional, poor customer service, scams do not get punished or refunded promptly, if at all), then they would necessarily need to increase their prices, because addressing all of those things either increases their staffing requirements, or decreases the number of available delivery persons by making the standards higher. And once that happens, the overwhelming majority of people complaining about it would just instead pick one of their cheaper competitors. They don’t bother to change because they correctly (in my opinion) have assessed that to do so would drive them out of business, as people would rather buy the cheap shit and complain about it instead of just getting the better service.
So yeah, throw this in with airlines as one of the things that everybody hates on without realizing that if it wasn’t the way that it is that most of the same people would never be able to afford it. | AlHucs | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "calvinballing",
"id": "mwzwiz6",
"score": 1,
"text": "There are different ways “expensive” can be used. Here are a few:\n\nBuying a $100,000 house is expensive because it’s a lot of money, even if it’s a great deal for that house. (Total Expenditure)\n\nBuying a dozen eggs for $20 is ex... | [
{
"author": "Brainjacker",
"id": "mwzt6fl",
"score": 16,
"text": "Your argument is essentially that DoorDash and UberEats provide significant value relative to the cost.\n\nHowever, your title says “DoorDash and UberEats aren’t expensive” - and they are. Just because you think something is worth the... | [
"mwzwiz6",
"mx024ww",
"mx07gn2"
] | [
"mwzt6fl",
"mx03m8o",
"mx04k3m"
] |
CMV: Milo Yiannopoulos is the worst choice of a person to speak at Universities.
I think the fact that certain Universities knowingly allow someone who perpetuates hate speech, who has instigated attacks against individuals, and more importantly does not instill civil discussion is insane. I think bringing people with opposing views to liberal campuses is a good thing, but Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the worst people that could come speak. Instead, Universities should bring people who actually instill more civil discussion. Side note: I think that Milo should be able to express his views, and I do not think that protestors should stop someone from attending one of his free speech events. | I live in NJ. In 2014 students at Rutgers protested former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from speaking on campus to the point of her cancelling her appearance. It was not as extreme as this situation, but the point was made clear - her views were not welcome.
About a year later Barack Obama came to the school and claimed, "If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions. ... Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they're not making any sense." Smart words that apply to your view.
---
I agree with you, I think that's messed up and I think she should have been allowed to speak, and there is a much better response to that. To me it just seems like Milo has no place on college campuses because from my perspective, he is radical. Can you point out anything on the left side that is just as radical as Milo but on the left for some perspective?
---
I get where you're coming from with the purpose of Milo's speech being different; his whole schtick is to provoke these kind of responses. That being said, I don't that makes his speech illegitimate at all. I'm gonna draw a comparison that might seem silly at first, so I want to be clear that I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm only pointing to similarities between tactics.
Milo's use of peaceful (yet controversial) expressions of speech to intentionally provoke a more violent response from his opposition is an extremely persuasive form of protest pioneered by civil rights leaders like Ghandi and MLK. Again, Milo is obviously *not* Ghandi or MLK. They were inspirations who fought against a level of injustice within their societies unheard of in today's America. What made the MLK protests so effective is that they engaged in peaceful demonstrations to draw attention to how segments of society was treating them unfairly, and everyone watched while those same segments beat the fuck out of them for it. Before they provoked that violence a lot of people thought they were just whining, but afterwards it was hard to deny that they had a point. The tactic Milo using is the same, even if his rhetoric is not. Whether or not he's justified in using that form of protest against concepts like "political correctness" is entirely subjective, and a person's conclusion will largely depend on their own personal political beliefs. I would argue that free speech requires the acceptance of an expression of speech be independent from the acceptance of the speech being expressed. That is, if a form of protest is allowed when everyone agrees with the message, it should be allowed when everyone disagrees as well.
All the same, I'll try and explain why people on the right might see this form of provocative protest as justified. Like most disagreements in politics, the two sides tend to talk past each other when debating "political correctness". The reasonable portions of the right aren't concerned about dehumanizing statements getting called out, they're concerned that labels like "racist" or "misogynist" themselves can be used to dehumanize entire demographics. In other words, people aren't upset at the idea of *literally* punching a Nazi. They're worried precisely because everyone would love to punch a Nazi in the face, so labeling someone a Nazi is essentially a blank check for hatred and violence if the person applying the label actually means it. Same goes with racism, misogyny, and so on. There does seem to be a growing contingent of progressives who genuinely believe that half the people in this country are the absolute most vile things a person can be within their progressive worldview.
Milo is provoking violence, but his motive isn't to create problems where there aren't any. His intention is to show the people on the left that conservatives aren't just whining when they speak out against political correctness. He wants to demonstrate that there is a growing portion of society who use labels of bigotry to justify violence and hatred in the hopes that our society will reconsider how harmful the careless use of those labels can be. | From what I've witnessed, milo has never condoned any hate speech during his speeches. The only thing uncivil that happens sometimes during his speeches are the people who start yelling and rioting when he presents his opinions and facts/statistics. It's mostly the leftists who disagree with what he's saying who turn the speech "uncivil". So I don't think the speaker should be blamed for how the audience reacts. It's the audience who is uncivil. Milo is just sharing his opinion on a college campus which he has every right to do.
---
> The only thing uncivil that happens sometimes during his speeches are the people who start yelling and rioting
Singling out and mocking a transgender stuident isn't uncivil?
Calling a student a liar regarding her sexuality isn't uncivil?
Throwing a shitfit for being called out about aligning with anti-semites isn't uncivil?
What the fuck definition of "civil" are you operating on?
---
[deleted] | 5rr1zb | CMV: Milo Yiannopoulos is the worst choice of a person to speak at Universities. | I think the fact that certain Universities knowingly allow someone who perpetuates hate speech, who has instigated attacks against individuals, and more importantly does not instill civil discussion is insane. I think bringing people with opposing views to liberal campuses is a good thing, but Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the worst people that could come speak. Instead, Universities should bring people who actually instill more civil discussion. Side note: I think that Milo should be able to express his views, and I do not think that protestors should stop someone from attending one of his free speech events. | rectumpirate | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bnicoletti82",
"id": "dd9j4g7",
"score": 20,
"text": "I live in NJ. In 2014 students at Rutgers protested former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from speaking on campus to the point of her cancelling her appearance. It was not as extreme as this situation, but the point was made clea... | [
{
"author": "kkbolito",
"id": "dd9gkg9",
"score": 15,
"text": "From what I've witnessed, milo has never condoned any hate speech during his speeches. The only thing uncivil that happens sometimes during his speeches are the people who start yelling and rioting when he presents his opinions and facts... | [
"dd9j4g7",
"dd9lj5j",
"ddbxkxq"
] | [
"dd9gkg9",
"dd9hpmf",
"dd9jqlu"
] |
CMV: feminine jobs should get paid the same as masculine jobs (nurses and CEOs)
It would be better for everyone! People say they ‘respect’ people who are good at doing feminine jobs*; be it their mom or a single dad, or nurses.
But ‘respect’ doesn’t give you financial independence in a relationship. You cannot leave and never see the man again until the child turns 18. You have no control as the father can stay if they want, however they don’t need your approval to leave with no return.
(That being said, fathers have as much of a legal right on their children as mothers, but that’s a whole other thread)
But when a woman decides to have a baby she also falls in love- people aren’t made to be monogamous, you can try and CMV on that one too, but humans were monotonous when we only lived to 40, now we’re getting close to 100. That’s a long life. Room for more than one romance.
And if you believe in monogamy- go for it! But it should be a choice.
Women and men who are single parents don’t have that choice. They can’t just leave and go to a career when we’re older because they are at their prime for the career when they are younger.
And women have a biological clock
Who would you want to hire more in this economy:
A 20 year old man with no children,
A 20 year old single parent
But economy is a product of patriarchy, what would be the equivalent of economy in a matriarchal society?
Having a child means you have experience with care and nurture and it makes you better at your job- nurse, nanny, nursery teacher.
So there you are more likely to be hired- but paid less than the masculine alternative (doctor, professor) where you have to be disagreeable, a trait that is less likely found in women? Unfair surely?
People should get paid for doing feminine jobs* the same amount as masculine jobs (economically, not with respect as we live in a capitalist society)
*Idk what else to call them but what I mean by
‘Feminine jobs’ are jobs using oestrogen instead of testosterone
Eg: rearing a child, nursing, elementary teaching, the sex industry, journalists, authors, underwriters | You almost kinda have a point, sort of. Perhaps if your view was 'Traditionally feminine jobs pay less than traditionally masculine jobs of the same skill and value, and this should be addressed', or 'The job market discriminates against women because they are more likely to be absent to raise children'. You could even say 'Women are more likely to hold low-paying jobs such as nurses, and men are more likely to hold high-paying jobs such as Doctors, because of societal expectations and pressures'. Maybe even 'Capitalism makes it unreasonably difficult to start a career at an older age, and this disproportionately affects women'. You start to address some basic tenets of feminism, and then do a total 180 and say 'nurses are girls because they have estrogen and men are CEOs because they have testosterone, this is true and fine but let's give the ladies more munny for their babbies'.
---
These sound points which you have put into quotations are the main issues that I am trying to address, but instead of complain I want to find a solution.
If we value ‘oestrogen’ based jobs equally to ‘testosterone’ based jobs (maybe not with money but with another type of economy) then that would solve it, as men or women could choose to go into either sector and we could study the advanced uses of oestrogen as we have the advanced uses of testosterone (eg. Male dominated high tech jobs, coding, law, engineering etc.)
---
Okay but these jobs have nothing to do with whatever hormones people have, you see that right?
---
They do, if you have more oestrogen you are physically incline to raise children and nurture, if you have more testosterone you are physically inclined to be disagreeable.
---
I think you may be misunderstanding what traits are required to be successful in these male-dominated jobs. I work with a lot of executives, and none of the good ones are aggressive. They may be confident, but never aggressive. That includes women as well.
The goal here shouldn't be too reinforce gendered roles but to increase supports for parents. A shift to remote work will help considerably with this. Meanwhile, at my company (and others) we get that children will interrupt meetings at times.
A shift in work culture is much more possible than increasing salaries of roles to level it can't support. In theory, every job should generate it's salary back plus profit. If you double/triple a nurse's wage, then the only way that can be sustained is through either taxes or patients paying out of pocket. | There is no such thing as feminine jobs and masculine jobs. To classify jobs as being feminine and masculine is incredibly misogynistic.
---
Bullshit. Testosterone is a steroid - there are absolutely jobs that benefit from steroids.
---
The fact that you too are a misogynist doesn’t validate your comment.
---
"Man is stronger than woman, strength matters in some jobs" isnt misogyny
---
Yes it is. | iojc98 | CMV: feminine jobs should get paid the same as masculine jobs (nurses and CEOs) | It would be better for everyone! People say they ‘respect’ people who are good at doing feminine jobs*; be it their mom or a single dad, or nurses.
But ‘respect’ doesn’t give you financial independence in a relationship. You cannot leave and never see the man again until the child turns 18. You have no control as the father can stay if they want, however they don’t need your approval to leave with no return.
(That being said, fathers have as much of a legal right on their children as mothers, but that’s a whole other thread)
But when a woman decides to have a baby she also falls in love- people aren’t made to be monogamous, you can try and CMV on that one too, but humans were monotonous when we only lived to 40, now we’re getting close to 100. That’s a long life. Room for more than one romance.
And if you believe in monogamy- go for it! But it should be a choice.
Women and men who are single parents don’t have that choice. They can’t just leave and go to a career when we’re older because they are at their prime for the career when they are younger.
And women have a biological clock
Who would you want to hire more in this economy:
A 20 year old man with no children,
A 20 year old single parent
But economy is a product of patriarchy, what would be the equivalent of economy in a matriarchal society?
Having a child means you have experience with care and nurture and it makes you better at your job- nurse, nanny, nursery teacher.
So there you are more likely to be hired- but paid less than the masculine alternative (doctor, professor) where you have to be disagreeable, a trait that is less likely found in women? Unfair surely?
People should get paid for doing feminine jobs* the same amount as masculine jobs (economically, not with respect as we live in a capitalist society)
*Idk what else to call them but what I mean by
‘Feminine jobs’ are jobs using oestrogen instead of testosterone
Eg: rearing a child, nursing, elementary teaching, the sex industry, journalists, authors, underwriters | jopiepopiedopie | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Thwackey",
"id": "g4e9ve3",
"score": 2,
"text": "You almost kinda have a point, sort of. Perhaps if your view was 'Traditionally feminine jobs pay less than traditionally masculine jobs of the same skill and value, and this should be addressed', or 'The job market discriminates against ... | [
{
"author": "RooDooDootDaDoo",
"id": "g4e6xn3",
"score": 12,
"text": "There is no such thing as feminine jobs and masculine jobs. To classify jobs as being feminine and masculine is incredibly misogynistic.",
"timestamp": 1599524353
},
{
"author": "Access_Clear",
"id": "g4eily0",
... | [
"g4e9ve3",
"g4f5es7",
"g4f6qp3",
"g4f7cge",
"g4ghynw"
] | [
"g4e6xn3",
"g4eily0",
"g4eiqdt",
"g4ejf37",
"g4ejgdv"
] |
CMV: For some crimes, it should be mandatory to trial the offender as an adult
My country (and I believe several others in Europe) don't really have the provisions for a minor to be tried as an adult. And generally, I agree. If underage criminals can be tried as adults or juveniles for the same crime, it becomes very arbitrary because you know the system will make the most bullshit decisions on who should be tried as an adult.
Therefore, I believe in simply not giving the system a choice. Every minor who commits:
* r\*pe
* murder (first or second degree)
* t\*rture
should be tried as an adult. The reason I choose these crimes is because of their severity and simple black and white nature. There's no complexity to it. There's no "oh they stole those shoes because they wanted to fit in blah blah blah." You can't justify any of them except murder in self defense, which can still be applied in adult court. Any normal minor knows those are wrong, and it takes a very sick mind to commit them. Letting them get away with a pathetic juvie sentence is basically giving minors a pass on their first severe crime. Change my view. | If a ten year-old find their parent's gun and starts shooting it at their bullies because "that's what a vigilante does in the movies!" you think they ought to be tried on the same basis as a seventeen-year-old who brings a gun to school and shoots people because they want to see the world burn?
There's a reason trial as an adult is an option rather than a default: it's based not only on the nature of the crime, but on the age and maturity of the perpetrator, as well as other circumstances. Perhaps you could write a default law that would encompass these factors, and avoid the arbitrariness you're trying to address—but your "crime determines trial, regardless of age" system isn't it.
---
I mean there's the lower treshold where you cant trial someone at all because they are too young (not sure what the word is, here it's "strafmündigkeit"). I think this would be a case where it applies.
---
Every state has a different age cutoff for criminal responsibility. In many states, that age is 10. So the case put forth in the comment above could still have the child tried for a crime, depending on where it happens. | If a five year old is mad at their little brother, grabs a knife, and kills them, do you think that five year old should be tried for murder as an adult? That would be premeditated, so we're looking at murder 1 in the US, leading to life without parole or possibly execution. Does that seem like the best thing for society?
---
I don't agree with OP's view but I believe they are thinking of minors who have otherwise reached the age of criminal responsibility, so generally teenagers.
---
They're post said mandatory for every minor. They did not specify a difference due to age.
Had they proposed a difference due to age, I would have questioned how they determined the age at which it becomes automatic. | 1l81q9r | CMV: For some crimes, it should be mandatory to trial the offender as an adult | My country (and I believe several others in Europe) don't really have the provisions for a minor to be tried as an adult. And generally, I agree. If underage criminals can be tried as adults or juveniles for the same crime, it becomes very arbitrary because you know the system will make the most bullshit decisions on who should be tried as an adult.
Therefore, I believe in simply not giving the system a choice. Every minor who commits:
* r\*pe
* murder (first or second degree)
* t\*rture
should be tried as an adult. The reason I choose these crimes is because of their severity and simple black and white nature. There's no complexity to it. There's no "oh they stole those shoes because they wanted to fit in blah blah blah." You can't justify any of them except murder in self defense, which can still be applied in adult court. Any normal minor knows those are wrong, and it takes a very sick mind to commit them. Letting them get away with a pathetic juvie sentence is basically giving minors a pass on their first severe crime. Change my view. | EmployNormal1215 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Thumatingra",
"id": "mx1acfa",
"score": 7,
"text": "If a ten year-old find their parent's gun and starts shooting it at their bullies because \"that's what a vigilante does in the movies!\" you think they ought to be tried on the same basis as a seventeen-year-old who brings a gun to sc... | [
{
"author": "False_Appointment_24",
"id": "mx189ag",
"score": 3,
"text": "If a five year old is mad at their little brother, grabs a knife, and kills them, do you think that five year old should be tried for murder as an adult? That would be premeditated, so we're looking at murder 1 in the US, lead... | [
"mx1acfa",
"mx1axby",
"mx1g7ir"
] | [
"mx189ag",
"mx18sqy",
"mx1ao8i"
] |
CMV: Halal and Kosher meat will become illegal to produce, buy, and sell in the West in the coming century if not decades.
1. An increasing amount of people think that eating meat is wrong to begin with, and even more people think that the method of slaughter used when killing the animal is barbaric and unnecessarily tortures the animal even more than conventional slaughtering.
2. Attitudes towards religions (especially organized ones with complex laws, such as Orthodox Judaism and Islam) are increasingly more critical and/or hostile. This, coupled up with the decreasing influence of both Jewish PACS such as AIPAC and religiously Jewish people, will pave the way forward for a ban on Kosher and Halal meat. Muslims have no political say whatsoever in the West to begin with and hostility to Islam and what it advocates is also on the rise among both the right and the left.
As for those who counter with the argument,"There is freedom of religion in the West. Nothing of this sort will ever happen in the coming decades.", societies with a secular form of government have made illegal certain religious acts which society has deemed outrageous. A few examples that come to mind (particularly in the Western context) are the banning of the niqab and/or burqa in several European countries, not allowing Mormons to have multiple wives, and banning construction of new minarets.
_____
> *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!* | There's just no chance that Halal will be banned or if it is, that it will stay banned for long. Look at the [birth rates of Muslims](http://i.imgur.com/MWZL6gZ.png) in the Western world. In every one of these countries it is higher than non-Muslims.
On a long term view, Halal will simply not be banned due to these demographic markers. Kosher on the other hand, sure.
---
Your comment has come the closest to changing my view so far.
Although your chart clearly shows that Muslims have a higher birthrate than non-Muslims, there are a few other things to factor in here as well.
First, just because a group has more people does not mean that that group has more of a say in politics. I have yet to hear an appeal by any French politician towards the Muslim community for votes, even though they constitute 7.5% of the population, a critical portion of the vote you want in a close election. You can also look at the African-American community here in the U.S. They make up 13.2% of the population, almost double than that of Muslims in France, yet they are among the poorest and discriminated communities. As a sort of inverse example, Jews, for their limited numbers, have a much greater pull (particularly in the U.S.) than their numbers would suggest otherwise and are the wealthiest community in the U.S.
I would say that for Muslims to counter this, they would have to be more than 60% of the population.
Why I am skeptical of the fact that they will reach this mark in most countries is located in your chart as well. The birthrates of Muslims will decline more rapidly than the rates of non-Muslims, eventually coming to the same birthrate.
---
It's not about politics. It's about where money is. If I own a farm, and see that my potential customers are Muslims and non Muslims, with Muslims being 40%, I would supply halal. Here's why...
Muslims can not eat non-halal meat. Non-muslims can eat non-halal meat and halal meat. By suppling halal meat, I get that 40% of people (take +3% for any reason at all) and then change with the non-muslims. Out of that 60% I'm certain that a good chunk of them would take halal meat, simply because it is an option. You also forgot that Jews are allowed to eat halal, so we then open up to the Jewish community with the halal/kosher meats.
If this number is above 60% of the population, then I win cuz I got the most out of the people that I am serving | [deleted]
---
My point is that there is only freedom of religion if society deems the religion and its beliefs and practices tolerable. If there is something society cannot tolerate about a religion, it will work to ban that aspect of that religion at the least.
---
[deleted] | 6j9w7p | CMV: Halal and Kosher meat will become illegal to produce, buy, and sell in the West in the coming century if not decades. | 1. An increasing amount of people think that eating meat is wrong to begin with, and even more people think that the method of slaughter used when killing the animal is barbaric and unnecessarily tortures the animal even more than conventional slaughtering.
2. Attitudes towards religions (especially organized ones with complex laws, such as Orthodox Judaism and Islam) are increasingly more critical and/or hostile. This, coupled up with the decreasing influence of both Jewish PACS such as AIPAC and religiously Jewish people, will pave the way forward for a ban on Kosher and Halal meat. Muslims have no political say whatsoever in the West to begin with and hostility to Islam and what it advocates is also on the rise among both the right and the left.
As for those who counter with the argument,"There is freedom of religion in the West. Nothing of this sort will ever happen in the coming decades.", societies with a secular form of government have made illegal certain religious acts which society has deemed outrageous. A few examples that come to mind (particularly in the Western context) are the banning of the niqab and/or burqa in several European countries, not allowing Mormons to have multiple wives, and banning construction of new minarets.
_____
> *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!* | Positron311 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "activatedalmondz",
"id": "djcnchw",
"score": 8,
"text": "There's just no chance that Halal will be banned or if it is, that it will stay banned for long. Look at the [birth rates of Muslims](http://i.imgur.com/MWZL6gZ.png) in the Western world. In every one of these countries it is high... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "djcn8bi",
"score": 2,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1498331409
},
{
"author": "Positron311",
"id": "djcndjh",
"score": 0,
"text": "My point is that there is only freedom of religion if society deems the religion and its beliefs and practice... | [
"djcnchw",
"djcpyu2",
"djcrzrv"
] | [
"djcn8bi",
"djcndjh",
"djcntap"
] |
CMV: In the USA, pro-Palestine protests are largely useless
1. It's not a domestic problem. A lot of pro-Palestine protestors claim "Oh but they did this during the civil rights in the 1960s so we are justified also". No it's completely different, that was a literal domestic problem impacting US citizens directly. What is happening in Israel/Palestine has no direct bearing on US citizens lives (minus the few with family in the region)
2. Protestors are turning people away. Many time protests just make more people against the issue. For example, a freeway gets blocked by Pro-Palestinian protestors and now hundreds or thousands of people who were neutral are now against Palestine.
3. Do they really think a minority of people protesting is going to stop the US government from funding Israel?
| > It's not a domestic problem.
Vietnam
> Protestors are turning people away.
Allegedly moderate alleged majority never end up mattering, see 1963 Gallup poll: [[1]](https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2020/08/27/making-the-march-on-washington/)
> A 1963 Gallup poll found that only 23% of Americans who'd heard of the March had a positive view of it, and 60% believed “mass demonstrations by Negroes” were likely to hurt the cause of racial equality.
It didn't [[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
> A *minority* of people protesting is not going to stop the US government from funding Israel
Then stop demoralizing them
---
You are literally ignoring everything I said and are conflating literal domestic problems like Vietnam and the civil rights movement with what's happening in Palestine.
---
the us has a strong involvement in the issue, most protesters are trying to change usa foreign policy *about* isreal/palestine, theyre not demanding to change isreali policy, which we have no control over | Depends what the goal is. If the goal is to get the IDF out of Gaza, it's obviously pointless. Israel is going to do what it feels it needs to regardless of what anyone in the US does. If the goal is collective punishment of the Israeli people, then it can be effective in getting colleges to divest their Israeli investments. Divestment of random Israeli stocks won't do much to affect the war, but it will make the Israeli people poorer.
---
Divestment campaign is against manufacturers of weapons and military equipment, selling to Israel. If anyone, it will make American stock holders poorer, because Israel will buy elsewhere and start production at home.
Too many protests for too many causes diminished the value of protests to being a major annoyance.
---
Except, the divestment campaign is only against manufacturers of weapons and military equipment. The protestors want to divest from all Israeli companies. | 1eara0v | CMV: In the USA, pro-Palestine protests are largely useless | 1. It's not a domestic problem. A lot of pro-Palestine protestors claim "Oh but they did this during the civil rights in the 1960s so we are justified also". No it's completely different, that was a literal domestic problem impacting US citizens directly. What is happening in Israel/Palestine has no direct bearing on US citizens lives (minus the few with family in the region)
2. Protestors are turning people away. Many time protests just make more people against the issue. For example, a freeway gets blocked by Pro-Palestinian protestors and now hundreds or thousands of people who were neutral are now against Palestine.
3. Do they really think a minority of people protesting is going to stop the US government from funding Israel?
| InnerMixture1409 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Gamermaper",
"id": "lenknl5",
"score": -1,
"text": "> It's not a domestic problem. \n\nVietnam\n\n> Protestors are turning people away. \n\nAllegedly moderate alleged majority never end up mattering, see 1963 Gallup poll: [[1]](https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2020/08/27/making-the-march-... | [
{
"author": "WeirdDistance7353",
"id": "lenk6gn",
"score": -4,
"text": "Depends what the goal is. If the goal is to get the IDF out of Gaza, it's obviously pointless. Israel is going to do what it feels it needs to regardless of what anyone in the US does. If the goal is collective punishment of the... | [
"lenknl5",
"lenkyec",
"lenlvso"
] | [
"lenk6gn",
"lenkvax",
"lenlmu6"
] |
CMV: as a college graduate virgin I have no hope to have a proper social or sex life
I am a 24-year-old male college graduate having graduated a little before things started getting messy last year. I believe there is no way I can have a proper sex life or social life now that I am so old with so little social or sexual experiences. Money is not an issue for me, I make decent money and my family is rich but I never meet anyone in my day to day life. I have a lot of emotional issues and mental health issues which among other things come from being molested as a child. I believe a school context with forced interaction with the opposite sex is by far the best environment for one to grow comfortable with one's sexuality and to become social and learn to make friends. I squandered this stage in my life by focusing too much on my classwork and now I believe I am beyond any opportunities to become normal. I don't believe I have the ability to have irl friends (only internet friends) because of this, and more importantly I believe I am doomed to not be able to have what I see as an ideal sex life because of this. I have no opportunities to meet women in a regular unplanned context like I could in college and high school, so emotional connections are nearly impossible to make, and because I'm a virgin I need an emotional connection to be comfortable enough to have sex with someone, or really act sexually towards them at all. I don't necessarily think I'm gonna die a virgin, but I believe if I do not then I will meet a woman and have sex with her and then marry her and spend the rest of my life with her while being miserable and only staying with her because I believe I cannot do better. I want to be sexually promiscuous and have many partners and feel like I have options, instead of being forced to settle down out of fear, but I believe I cannot do this because I am too old to still be a virgin, and I have lost all such opportunities. I believe the social environment of college really was my last chance to come out of my shell and no matter what lifestyle changes I make I will never be able to make up for missing out on this. Please change my view, this fear depresses me horribly but I strongly believe that it is in fact the truth. | Only if you choose to do so. Online dating is a great way to meet people. Don't advertise that you're a virgin and don't let it get in your head. It's not a big deal and to the right person it won't matter. If someone judges you for it, drop them. There's nothing wrong with you.
---
Online dating is not a good way to meet people period. I have no clue why everyone seems to think that it actually works, it doesn't work and is the most horrific painful thing I have ever experienced.
---
Says the guy who has never given it a chance.
---
I just said I gave it a chance and it was one of the most horrific things I've ever experienced. I don't think I've been on the brink of years so long in my entire life. I tried getting drunk or high to so it but the end result is the same
---
"I haven't tried online dating. As far as I understand it it is absolutely hopeless unless you are already sexually active without using online dating."
This was copy and pasted from a reply you made to someone else.
---
Honestly I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. Maybe we can get more specific about what I have and have not done in online dating. I made an OkCuput profile a long time ago and never messaged anyone just sat there looking at the profiles crying for a few hours, I swiped a few times on Tinder and Bumble before the emotional pain was too much, I managed to send a few messages, but had to drink or smoke weed to cope with the pain of using them, and I had a few messages on bumble and I think one on Tinder and I just ignored them and cried about being a virgin and drank until I passed out
---
This post should show you that your problem has nothing to do with being a virgin, but rather your virginity is a symptom of whatever problems you have that make it unbearably painful for you to swipe on Tinder.
You got matches, so clearly people are interested in getting to know you/potentially fucking you, but you obviously have some mental health issues that you need to address (ideally with a professional) if you want to have any kind of relationship with somebody. | Have you tried online dating? I hear it’s just super.
---
I haven't tried online dating. As far as I understand it it is absolutely hopeless unless you are already sexually active without using online dating.
---
>As far as I understand it it is absolutely hopeless unless you are already sexually active without using online dating.
I don't know what made you think that, but it is absolutely not true. I know plenty of people who were virgins and met their eventual spouse on some sort of site or app. I met my wife on Coffee Meets Bagel and we were both virgins until we got married.
---
I don't want to marry the first person I have sex with either. Unless I can be polygamous that thought absolutely horrifies me. My fear is that because I'm such an old virgin I'm obligated to marry the first person I have sex with, as I said in the OP.
---
You clearly have other issues that need to be resolved first. Also you seem to be putting way too much emphasis on sex. If that is such a big deal to you, there are plenty of women who will bang you for the right price.
---
Huh? Why are you suggesting that? It won't help me
---
[removed] | kzja0b | CMV: as a college graduate virgin I have no hope to have a proper social or sex life | I am a 24-year-old male college graduate having graduated a little before things started getting messy last year. I believe there is no way I can have a proper sex life or social life now that I am so old with so little social or sexual experiences. Money is not an issue for me, I make decent money and my family is rich but I never meet anyone in my day to day life. I have a lot of emotional issues and mental health issues which among other things come from being molested as a child. I believe a school context with forced interaction with the opposite sex is by far the best environment for one to grow comfortable with one's sexuality and to become social and learn to make friends. I squandered this stage in my life by focusing too much on my classwork and now I believe I am beyond any opportunities to become normal. I don't believe I have the ability to have irl friends (only internet friends) because of this, and more importantly I believe I am doomed to not be able to have what I see as an ideal sex life because of this. I have no opportunities to meet women in a regular unplanned context like I could in college and high school, so emotional connections are nearly impossible to make, and because I'm a virgin I need an emotional connection to be comfortable enough to have sex with someone, or really act sexually towards them at all. I don't necessarily think I'm gonna die a virgin, but I believe if I do not then I will meet a woman and have sex with her and then marry her and spend the rest of my life with her while being miserable and only staying with her because I believe I cannot do better. I want to be sexually promiscuous and have many partners and feel like I have options, instead of being forced to settle down out of fear, but I believe I cannot do this because I am too old to still be a virgin, and I have lost all such opportunities. I believe the social environment of college really was my last chance to come out of my shell and no matter what lifestyle changes I make I will never be able to make up for missing out on this. Please change my view, this fear depresses me horribly but I strongly believe that it is in fact the truth. | [deleted] | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Pyroclasmic88",
"id": "gjo8w9d",
"score": 1,
"text": "Only if you choose to do so. Online dating is a great way to meet people. Don't advertise that you're a virgin and don't let it get in your head. It's not a big deal and to the right person it won't matter. If someone judges you for ... | [
{
"author": "zero-point_nrg",
"id": "gjo5mug",
"score": 2,
"text": "Have you tried online dating? I hear it’s just super.",
"timestamp": 1610931354
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gjo6hnb",
"score": 1,
"text": "I haven't tried online dating. As far as I understand it it is... | [
"gjo8w9d",
"gjo9v5s",
"gjob4mm",
"gjobuoj",
"gjofb32",
"gjoh178",
"gjormnw"
] | [
"gjo5mug",
"gjo6hnb",
"gjoabng",
"gjoar1l",
"gjoaxuu",
"gjob2dg",
"gjob845"
] |
CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist.
Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | [deleted]
---
You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID. You need it to get a bank account, government assistance, a job and so much more.
---
11% of americans have no government issued ID and it can cost 75-175 dollars to get one in many places. They might have other forms of ID which are acceptable for other purposes. Students and other young people don't usually need anything more than a student ID or a social security number to get a job and do most other things - these aren't acceptable for voting under voter ID laws. Elderly people might not have acceptable ID either, especially if they don't drive. Moreover, these laws are targeted, they aren't just "you need ID." When I was a student for example I remember that Pennsylvania passed a voter ID law specifically requiring the ID to have an expiration date as well as a photo. Student IDs usually have photos, but no expiration date. North Carolina had a voter ID law (that was eventually struck down) that prohibited state-issued benefit ID's and state employee ID's as voting IDs - guess which kind of IDs are disproportionately held by black people?
See [here](https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet) for more info | [deleted]
---
You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain how people go thru there lives with no ID.
---
But they do. Hundreds of thousands of people do live with no ID. I have no idea how they do it but do it they do | iovib9 | CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist. | Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | dj1greatest | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g6hyp",
"score": 100,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599579038
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g725d",
"score": 4,
"text": "You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g68yq",
"score": 73,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599578908
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g6qt2",
"score": -5,
"text": "You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain ho... | [
"g4g6hyp",
"g4g725d",
"g4g83yp"
] | [
"g4g68yq",
"g4g6qt2",
"g4g6v6q"
] |
CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist.
Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | [deleted]
---
You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain how people go thru there lives with no ID.
---
I can't recall the last time I needed to show my ID to anyone. If I didn't have a car I wouldn't need a drivers license. Plenty of people don't use banking services. | [deleted]
---
You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID. You need it to get a bank account, government assistance, a job and so much more.
---
[deleted] | iovib9 | CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist. | Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | dj1greatest | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g68yq",
"score": 73,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599578908
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g6qt2",
"score": -5,
"text": "You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain ho... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g6hyp",
"score": 100,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599579038
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g725d",
"score": 4,
"text": "You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID... | [
"g4g68yq",
"g4g6qt2",
"g4g7eam"
] | [
"g4g6hyp",
"g4g725d",
"g4g7mok"
] |
CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist.
Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | [deleted]
---
You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID. You need it to get a bank account, government assistance, a job and so much more.
---
There are currently over 3 million americans that do not have any form of ID. You says it's impossible to live without them but somehow 3 million are.
Here is an interesting article by NPR about IDs. It's pretty short but it talks about a senior lady who doesnt have an ID and cant possibly get one because she doesnt even have a birth certificate which is required to get an ID.
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id
A common group affected by ID laws are seniors. When they were born many weren't issued birth certificates and many of the ones who were were issued ones with typos or inaccuracies. In order to get an ID you need an accurate birth certificate. In order to get a birth certificate you need an ID. So these Americans are caught in a catch-22.
Another issue is that the most common form if ID is a driver's license and not many Americans drive. You can get other IDs from the DMV but wait times in many locations are extremely long. Also many in lower income locations are closing so many Americans dont have one within walking or even bus distance. So how is a person in that location who cant drive supposed to get to a DMV and get an ID? And if they somehow can find a way there can they afford the pay loss that comes with taking a whole day off? | [deleted]
---
You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain how people go thru there lives with no ID.
---
There are types of IDs that are acceptable to the government to claim benefits, open a bank account, get a job etc. that aren’t accepted by state governments when it comes time to vote.
If you make the type of ID required to vote abnormally difficult to get, especially for people of color, that IS racist. Several states that were under federal supervision under the voting rights act removed DMVs and other offices where you could get voting ID from majority black and Hispanic counties as soon as they were no longer under supervision. | iovib9 | CMV: Voter ID laws are not racist. | Voter ID laws in the U.S. are very controversial, with some calling it racist. Since a majority of countries in the world requires some form of IDs to vote, why should the U.S. be any different. It would make sure it was a fair election, and less controversy.
The main argument I have heard against voter ID is that its hard to get an ID. It could be, but it is harder to live without one as an adult, as an ID is required to open a bank account, getting a job, applying for government benefits, cashing a check, even buying a gun, so why is it so hard to just use the ID to vote.
Edit: thank you everyone for your involvement and answers, I have changed my mind on voter ID laws and the way they could and have been implemented. | dj1greatest | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g6hyp",
"score": 100,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599579038
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g725d",
"score": 4,
"text": "You need an Id to do nearly everything to live in the U.S. so how can people even do anything without an ID... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4g68yq",
"score": 73,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599578908
},
{
"author": "dj1greatest",
"id": "g4g6qt2",
"score": -5,
"text": "You need an ID to basically live in this country, even to collect government benefits, so pleaes explain ho... | [
"g4g6hyp",
"g4g725d",
"g4g8tr0"
] | [
"g4g68yq",
"g4g6qt2",
"g4g7eso"
] |
CMV: If PPP loans were forgiven for the rich, student loans should be canceled for the poor.
It feels completely backwards to me that the majority of congress is against canceling student loan debt and ~~SCOTUS is also against cancelation~~ while seemingly approving of business owners getting their PPP loans forgiven (many of the congress members who voted against it had their own PPP loans forgiven).
~~The majority of these business owners already have financial superiority to these broke college graduates or dropouts yet we are giving handouts to them?~~ The excuse from the congress members against were that the taxpayers shouldn't be paying to bailout lawyers, doctors, and accountants (professionals). Why did they not carry this same energy when we are bailing out business owners (can be much wealthier than these professionals mentioned).
I have also seen that the government bailed them out because of their poor handling of the COVID 19 pandemic regulations and this was a forgiveness of sorts for having to shut down their businesses. However, the taxpayers have also struggled with the job market, insane inflation, and absolutely pathetic wages yet they simply (may have) received some cash stipends and perhaps unemployment for a few months, which could have also been claimed by eligible business owners (ones that are not too wealthy).
This is not a loaded question, clearly someone has to have agreed with the other side of this argument if the majority of our congress that has been voted in was against it.
Edit: I am contractually incorrect since repayment was in original terms of loan. I have been informed and am rethinking. But how ethically correct was it to give a handout to many wealthy business owners while giving former or current students not break on interest maturity or payment or anything at all?
Edit 2: Put a strike through my inaccurate or assumed statements. I have concluded I didn't have enough information in my original statement so the opinion was invalid, I will have to rethink my opinions with newfound knowledge. | >SCOTUS is also against cancelation
why do you think this?
>while seemingly approving of business owners getting their PPP loans forgiven (many of the congress members who voted against it had their own PPP loans forgiven).
what is the difference between a loan you agreed to pay back and a loan that was specifically given with [stipulations on its cancellation?](https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program/ppp-loan-forgiveness)
>The majority of these business owners already have financial superiority to these broke college graduates or dropouts yet we are giving handouts to them
you base this on... what?
>I have also seen that the government bailed them out because of their poor handling of the COVID 19 pandemic regulations and this was a forgiveness of sorts for having to shut down their businesses.
read the link about the ppp loans instead of listening to what morons on twitter say.
>This is not a loaded question, clearly someone has to have agreed with the other side of this argument if the majority of our congress that has been voted in was against it.
the issue here is that college loans were taken with the expectation of repayment, and no reason to think you can just not pay them then get them forgiven. ppp loans were given because the government required businesses to close, so they need to provide a recourse for those businesses. they also specifically stipulated that if conditions were met the loan would be forgiven. the two situations are not similar.
if the argument is "i want my loan forgiven because i don't feel like paying and wont it help the economy" then we should forgive mortgages, which are much larger than student loans.
---
Thank you for using exact quotes
I will answer with #s to each of your questions
1. ~~If they are against partial forgiveness per recent vote they are against full forgiveness no doubt.~~
2. I did not know there were stipulations for cancelation, so this was known by the borrowers to simply be a handout with certain regulations followed. Seems quite a lot less aggressive than loans for students. You brought a good fact here. Young adults who don't own businesses aren't going to be able to interpret contracts as well as a business owner who can hire someone to do it for them. I believe that this was known from the beginning.
3. I have no fact here. ~~The average amount of wealth per person would most definitely have to exceed that of college students since the majority of billionaires (majority of billionaires being business owners) would be averaged in to this number.~~ Median would definitely be different.
4. ~~I don't have Twitter, I read that on a The Hill article one of the few comparing the actions somewhat in favor of congress choice.~~
5. ~~I don't have a student loan I have a full tuition scholarship and additional for my GPA and have used my part time job for fees and expenses. I think contractually you are correct on all dimensions, but not ethically. Non business owners had to deal with repercussions of covid but were not given such handouts.~~
Edited for my irrelevance assumptions and inaccuracies.
---
> If they are against partial forgiveness per recent vote they are against full forgiveness no doubt.
A minor but important point: the Supreme Court didn’t rule against loan forgiveness. The court’s decision didn’t say that the federal government can’t forgive student loans, nor did it give an opinion about whether forgiving student loans is a good or bad idea. All the decision held was that the President can’t unilaterally forgive whatever loans he wants - Congress wrote the law, and Congress has to change it.
As someone who supports student loan forgiveness, I agree with the court on this. We have a President, not a king, and one of the key differences between the two is that the President can only do what either 1) the Constitution empowers him to do, or 2) what laws passed by Congress give him permission to do. If Biden wants to forgive loans (and he should!) he needs Congress to pass a bill, just like Trump needed Congress to pass a bill if he wanted a build his wall. | No, because the house & senate passed the PPP loan forgiveness.
Congress did not pass any such student loan forgiveness.
Just because Biden tried to buy votes by bribing college students that doesn't make it right for the average working man without a college degree to have to pay for student loans they did not take.
The real problem is that colleges are charging too much. They should be forced to charge less for an education.
If the degree you got was worth it then you wouldn't have a problem paying it off... Sorry your philosophy degree hasn't landed you a job, but that is not MY PROBLEM.
Student loan forgiveness would just subsidize colleges and then they would raise their prices through the roof even higher because of that subsidy.
Such a forgiveness would negatively effect non college educated people significantly. It would cause a massive amount of both taxation and inflation.
You are responsible for your own loan.
Do you feel the loan was predatory? File a class action suit AGAINST THE COLLEGES! Do not try to force a working man like me to pay YOUR LOAN... because once more it is YOUR LOAN and NOT MY LOAN! I have a mortage and kids to feed. I shouldn't have to get an extra job to pay for YOUR LOAN.
---
>It would cause a massive amount of both taxation and inflation.
How so?
---
Government spends money. Government doesn't have money.
Therefor...
Taxes go up...
or they just print the money...
Often they do both.
So, both more taxes and more inflation. | 14oqlw9 | CMV: If PPP loans were forgiven for the rich, student loans should be canceled for the poor. | It feels completely backwards to me that the majority of congress is against canceling student loan debt and ~~SCOTUS is also against cancelation~~ while seemingly approving of business owners getting their PPP loans forgiven (many of the congress members who voted against it had their own PPP loans forgiven).
~~The majority of these business owners already have financial superiority to these broke college graduates or dropouts yet we are giving handouts to them?~~ The excuse from the congress members against were that the taxpayers shouldn't be paying to bailout lawyers, doctors, and accountants (professionals). Why did they not carry this same energy when we are bailing out business owners (can be much wealthier than these professionals mentioned).
I have also seen that the government bailed them out because of their poor handling of the COVID 19 pandemic regulations and this was a forgiveness of sorts for having to shut down their businesses. However, the taxpayers have also struggled with the job market, insane inflation, and absolutely pathetic wages yet they simply (may have) received some cash stipends and perhaps unemployment for a few months, which could have also been claimed by eligible business owners (ones that are not too wealthy).
This is not a loaded question, clearly someone has to have agreed with the other side of this argument if the majority of our congress that has been voted in was against it.
Edit: I am contractually incorrect since repayment was in original terms of loan. I have been informed and am rethinking. But how ethically correct was it to give a handout to many wealthy business owners while giving former or current students not break on interest maturity or payment or anything at all?
Edit 2: Put a strike through my inaccurate or assumed statements. I have concluded I didn't have enough information in my original statement so the opinion was invalid, I will have to rethink my opinions with newfound knowledge. | Anxious_Set_6342 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "caine269",
"id": "jqe1at6",
"score": 100,
"text": ">SCOTUS is also against cancelation\n\nwhy do you think this?\n\n>while seemingly approving of business owners getting their PPP loans forgiven (many of the congress members who voted against it had their own PPP loans forgiven).\n\nwha... | [
{
"author": "Euphoric-Beat-7206",
"id": "jqe1yb2",
"score": 3,
"text": "No, because the house & senate passed the PPP loan forgiveness.\n\nCongress did not pass any such student loan forgiveness.\n\nJust because Biden tried to buy votes by bribing college students that doesn't make it right for the ... | [
"jqe1at6",
"jqe4pg6",
"jqe8e2s"
] | [
"jqe1yb2",
"jqe2a7x",
"jqe31v7"
] |
CMV: i believe time is an illusion
Time is a manipulation. A construct.
Clocks exist, but time doesn’t
Not like we think.
There are two types.
Physical time is movement.
The Earth spinning, the Earth orbiting the Sun.
That’s all it is.
Then there’s numerical time.
Man’s version.
Hours, days, months, calendars
They change from culture to culture
It’s not universal
Look at the calendar we use it’s based on Jesus
But the Ethiopian calendar says it’s 7 BC
The Gregorian calendar says 1 AD
That’s a 7 year, 8 month gap
So what even is time?
We’re programmed to think we’re always running out
From birth to 18, school
From 25 to 41, jobs, kids
By 63, retirement
What do we do in between?
We stress about time That’s how we age
Because you become what you fear
Where has time gone?
It’s been deleted
Replaced
Edited
Not by accident
By design
There’s banging every time I talk
That means I’m on to something
In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII dropped the Gregorian calendar
Ten days, gone
They said it was to “realign with the sun”
Sure But think about it
A theory called Phantom Time Hypothesis
Says 297 years were made up
I could’ve been born yesterday
The past and future only exist when we think about them
Memories are dreams The mind plays tricks
I’m not even in some people’s memories that live in mine
Block universe theory
Everything is happening at once
Past, present, future
Einstein said that
So maybe the future is now
Sometimes I get stuck at nine years old
Like I’m reliving something I can’t fully remember
But it’s happening now
And I can see my future too
Clear as I can see my death
| I think time might be circular. I think the universe will forever be in a cyclical 'breathing' pattern, that's how I visualize it at least. The big bang happens and everything expands and all the galaxies are created over time and everything happens, then the expansion loses its momentum eventually and everything falls back into what eventually becomes one great yet tiny ball again. Then another big bang happens and everything happens the exact same way as it did last time. It would explain deja vu for sure lol. I don't know how much I believe in my idea but I always come back to it as a calming thought process when I'm anxious.
---
thank you finally someone who has at least a similar thought process to mine
---
Why is that what you're looking for? How will a similar thought process work to change your view? | What does it mean for time be an illusion? Your writing is not clear
---
as I said to previous comments, there are two forms of time physical and numerical wine is based off solid facts and the other is created by men
---
Pretty sure there’s just one time, and then there’s the way we measure and count time. | 1l7r4hf | CMV: i believe time is an illusion | Time is a manipulation. A construct.
Clocks exist, but time doesn’t
Not like we think.
There are two types.
Physical time is movement.
The Earth spinning, the Earth orbiting the Sun.
That’s all it is.
Then there’s numerical time.
Man’s version.
Hours, days, months, calendars
They change from culture to culture
It’s not universal
Look at the calendar we use it’s based on Jesus
But the Ethiopian calendar says it’s 7 BC
The Gregorian calendar says 1 AD
That’s a 7 year, 8 month gap
So what even is time?
We’re programmed to think we’re always running out
From birth to 18, school
From 25 to 41, jobs, kids
By 63, retirement
What do we do in between?
We stress about time That’s how we age
Because you become what you fear
Where has time gone?
It’s been deleted
Replaced
Edited
Not by accident
By design
There’s banging every time I talk
That means I’m on to something
In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII dropped the Gregorian calendar
Ten days, gone
They said it was to “realign with the sun”
Sure But think about it
A theory called Phantom Time Hypothesis
Says 297 years were made up
I could’ve been born yesterday
The past and future only exist when we think about them
Memories are dreams The mind plays tricks
I’m not even in some people’s memories that live in mine
Block universe theory
Everything is happening at once
Past, present, future
Einstein said that
So maybe the future is now
Sometimes I get stuck at nine years old
Like I’m reliving something I can’t fully remember
But it’s happening now
And I can see my future too
Clear as I can see my death
| Express_Mechanic4927 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Mission-Cycle-8719",
"id": "mwyzzhp",
"score": 1,
"text": "I think time might be circular. I think the universe will forever be in a cyclical 'breathing' pattern, that's how I visualize it at least. The big bang happens and everything expands and all the galaxies are created over time a... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "mwyxsbo",
"score": 4,
"text": "What does it mean for time be an illusion? Your writing is not clear",
"timestamp": 1749535031
},
{
"author": "Express_Mechanic4927",
"id": "mwyyb4c",
"score": -2,
"text": "as I said to previous comments, there are t... | [
"mwyzzhp",
"mwz0tub",
"mwz24xj"
] | [
"mwyxsbo",
"mwyyb4c",
"mwyyipt"
] |
CMV: Coach class airplane seats should NOT be able to recline.
I think that the ability for coach class airplane seats to recline does no good. It only serves to make what is usually a terrible flight experience even worse.
Whenever I recline on an airplane, I barely notice a difference. It's as if I didn't do anything.
However, that tiny space means everything if you are being reclined into. Coach class seats already don't give enough room to their passengers; you need to be either very ~~anorexic~~ impossibly thin or four in order to actually fit. Then some jerk is going to take what little room I have away from me? Your seat crushes my legs now. And for what?
Also, for some reason, if I want to call him out, that makes me the asshole due to stupid social standards.
It would also be cheaper for the airlines. Non reclining seats are cheaper to both purchase and maintain, so the airlines would make a little bit more money.
Now I am not saying to retrofit every existing plane, rather I am saying that all new planes have this feature removed when they are being filled in.
CMV!
Edit: Changed
Edit 2: I fly Delta, if that's important. | Have you even flown on a red-eye flight or a long international flight? It is very difficult to sleep without reclining the seat. I agree with you about shorter flights that it is better for everyone involved to not recline, but if that isn't an option on the plane it will apply on flights that leave LA at midnight and land in NY at 8AM. A better alternative would be a key that can disable the recline function and the airlines would use selectively.
---
I agree that it is next to impossible to sleep in thAt cramped seat, but reclination would not help much. The best way to sleep on a long flight is to be tired in the first place, and to bring your own blanket and or pillow.
---
I don't understand this. The commenter is saying, "I have a harder time sleeping without reclining" and you're just telling them that they don't?
---
I'm saying that it is hard regardless of whether the seat is reclined.
---
How does that change what they said at all? They are saying that they find it useful and you're dismissing it.
---
It may just be anecdotal evidence, but it has never been easier for me. If you're in front of me and you think it is an improvement, at the very least ask me or tell me what you are doing so that I can understand why you are stealing half of my legroom
---
Why would someone ask you to use a feature that everyone is entitled to use, and everyone expects them to use? No one is stealing your leg room. They are using their seat as designed. | If you are fortunate enough not to suffer from chronic back pain that makes it an excruciating experience to sit straight up in a cramped seat for 6 hours, then consider yourself privileged.
Just because it doesn't help you doesn't mean that it doesn't help others. Indeed, think about it logically: it takes effort to recline, and then unrecline when landing. Why would someone do this unless it provided them a benefit.
And there's really no part of your legs that should be impacted by a normal airline reclining seat. And it has no impact on your tray table, either.
People that put their knees up and rest them on the seat are the true scourge of the skies. Kneeing someone in the kidneys is really vicious. But if you just sit normally, you knees should not be impacted.
---
Sorry, this is wrong. It greatly diminishes my comfort and ability to function when the person in front of me reclines their seat. I can't "sit normally" for six hours without serious cramps in my legs; I have to shift somehow, and I can't do that with your seat in the way.
You can go ahead and do it, but don't kid yourself that it isn't seriously infringing on the person behind you.
---
I'm just going to call bullshit on this.
Unless you're 7 feet tall (get a business class seat), there's no way for a reclined seat to actually impinge on any space that "infringes" on you. The just aren't designed that way. The pivot point is above nearly every person's knees in a neutral position.
I'm a big guy, I fly alot. The only thing it infringes on is a sense of entitlement.
---
"Call bullshit" if it makes feel better to take the space by reclining. You're utterly wrong.
Source: I've flown on a plane.
---
Explain how it inconveniences you in any way for a part of the seat above your knees to move into space that you're not using anyway.
It doesn't impact your knees unless you're leaning on the other person's seatback, and it doesn't move your tray table at all.
The worst it might do is move the screen on the seatback in front of you closer to your eyes, improving your view.
---
I'm not going to sit motionless for hours. I have to move, to change position, re-angle my legs. You just can't be comfortable sitting the same exact way for extended periods. In addition, it's actually dangerous for people who are on certain medications that can cause clotting in the legs. To move to a new position you need room to shift your legs around. If I do this I end up pushing into the seat back, jarring the person in front of me, which I want to avoid doing. So I'm stuck motionless, or I have to go through other contortions to try to get comfortable without being an asshole to the guy whose taken my space, and, despite the affront to my comfort, I don't want to be like that.
Plus for all the time when I'm not trying to get comfortable, I use that space sometimes to put things, like a magazine, or laptop, or sometimes I want to write using the table. I simply cannot do any of these things easily with the seat fully back.
I've never had issues with my back, and I don't know anyone who has told me they have. I should by this standard find your account hard to believe, yet I don't question your reasoning. I don't know why you question mine. Go ahead and move your seat back if you have to, but know that there's a good chance the person behind you resents it. And for God's sake, if you get up to go to the bathroom, at least have the decency to move the seat back up while you're not sitting in it.
---
> Go ahead and move your seat back if you have to, but know that there's a good chance the person behind you resents it.
I'm sure, people being people, that some people will resent anything, even a slight inconvenience.
And I really don't think you need to worry about bumping the seat of someone you think is inconveniencing you. As long as you aren't an asshole about it, what do they really have to complain about? | 6j4ank | CMV: Coach class airplane seats should NOT be able to recline. | I think that the ability for coach class airplane seats to recline does no good. It only serves to make what is usually a terrible flight experience even worse.
Whenever I recline on an airplane, I barely notice a difference. It's as if I didn't do anything.
However, that tiny space means everything if you are being reclined into. Coach class seats already don't give enough room to their passengers; you need to be either very ~~anorexic~~ impossibly thin or four in order to actually fit. Then some jerk is going to take what little room I have away from me? Your seat crushes my legs now. And for what?
Also, for some reason, if I want to call him out, that makes me the asshole due to stupid social standards.
It would also be cheaper for the airlines. Non reclining seats are cheaper to both purchase and maintain, so the airlines would make a little bit more money.
Now I am not saying to retrofit every existing plane, rather I am saying that all new planes have this feature removed when they are being filled in.
CMV!
Edit: Changed
Edit 2: I fly Delta, if that's important. | ManMan36 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "getfuckingreal",
"id": "djbesle",
"score": 9,
"text": "Have you even flown on a red-eye flight or a long international flight? It is very difficult to sleep without reclining the seat. I agree with you about shorter flights that it is better for everyone involved to not recline, but if ... | [
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"id": "djbe4c4",
"score": 27,
"text": "If you are fortunate enough not to suffer from chronic back pain that makes it an excruciating experience to sit straight up in a cramped seat for 6 hours, then consider yourself privileged. \n\nJust because it doesn't help you doesn'... | [
"djbesle",
"djbfch9",
"djbmetq",
"djboaae",
"djbp00l",
"djbpxcv",
"djc02mm"
] | [
"djbe4c4",
"djbfa24",
"djbfg6f",
"djbfooz",
"djbfu51",
"djbggns",
"djbgo5c"
] |
CMV: Coach class airplane seats should NOT be able to recline.
I think that the ability for coach class airplane seats to recline does no good. It only serves to make what is usually a terrible flight experience even worse.
Whenever I recline on an airplane, I barely notice a difference. It's as if I didn't do anything.
However, that tiny space means everything if you are being reclined into. Coach class seats already don't give enough room to their passengers; you need to be either very ~~anorexic~~ impossibly thin or four in order to actually fit. Then some jerk is going to take what little room I have away from me? Your seat crushes my legs now. And for what?
Also, for some reason, if I want to call him out, that makes me the asshole due to stupid social standards.
It would also be cheaper for the airlines. Non reclining seats are cheaper to both purchase and maintain, so the airlines would make a little bit more money.
Now I am not saying to retrofit every existing plane, rather I am saying that all new planes have this feature removed when they are being filled in.
CMV!
Edit: Changed
Edit 2: I fly Delta, if that's important. | Have you even flown on a red-eye flight or a long international flight? It is very difficult to sleep without reclining the seat. I agree with you about shorter flights that it is better for everyone involved to not recline, but if that isn't an option on the plane it will apply on flights that leave LA at midnight and land in NY at 8AM. A better alternative would be a key that can disable the recline function and the airlines would use selectively.
---
I agree that it is next to impossible to sleep in thAt cramped seat, but reclination would not help much. The best way to sleep on a long flight is to be tired in the first place, and to bring your own blanket and or pillow.
---
Reclining helps exponentially. The small recline makes it very easy to fall asleep for the whole flight. Sitting straight up makes it nearly impossible. | If you are fortunate enough not to suffer from chronic back pain that makes it an excruciating experience to sit straight up in a cramped seat for 6 hours, then consider yourself privileged.
Just because it doesn't help you doesn't mean that it doesn't help others. Indeed, think about it logically: it takes effort to recline, and then unrecline when landing. Why would someone do this unless it provided them a benefit.
And there's really no part of your legs that should be impacted by a normal airline reclining seat. And it has no impact on your tray table, either.
People that put their knees up and rest them on the seat are the true scourge of the skies. Kneeing someone in the kidneys is really vicious. But if you just sit normally, you knees should not be impacted.
---
How common of an affliction is the chronic back pain you describe? I am still pretty young, so i don't know.
---
[Here's a sourced infographic](http://www.thegoodbody.com/back-pain-statistics/).
Almost everyone, some time in their lives. About 30% have experienced back pain within the last 3 months. | 6j4ank | CMV: Coach class airplane seats should NOT be able to recline. | I think that the ability for coach class airplane seats to recline does no good. It only serves to make what is usually a terrible flight experience even worse.
Whenever I recline on an airplane, I barely notice a difference. It's as if I didn't do anything.
However, that tiny space means everything if you are being reclined into. Coach class seats already don't give enough room to their passengers; you need to be either very ~~anorexic~~ impossibly thin or four in order to actually fit. Then some jerk is going to take what little room I have away from me? Your seat crushes my legs now. And for what?
Also, for some reason, if I want to call him out, that makes me the asshole due to stupid social standards.
It would also be cheaper for the airlines. Non reclining seats are cheaper to both purchase and maintain, so the airlines would make a little bit more money.
Now I am not saying to retrofit every existing plane, rather I am saying that all new planes have this feature removed when they are being filled in.
CMV!
Edit: Changed
Edit 2: I fly Delta, if that's important. | ManMan36 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "getfuckingreal",
"id": "djbesle",
"score": 9,
"text": "Have you even flown on a red-eye flight or a long international flight? It is very difficult to sleep without reclining the seat. I agree with you about shorter flights that it is better for everyone involved to not recline, but if ... | [
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"id": "djbe4c4",
"score": 27,
"text": "If you are fortunate enough not to suffer from chronic back pain that makes it an excruciating experience to sit straight up in a cramped seat for 6 hours, then consider yourself privileged. \n\nJust because it doesn't help you doesn'... | [
"djbesle",
"djbfch9",
"djc002x"
] | [
"djbe4c4",
"djbedm1",
"djbeie4"
] |
CMV: People of sound mind have the right to end their own life
If a person is “of age” (meaning the age set by law/cultural agreement to be an adult) and is capable of decision making, they have a right to bodily autonomy. That extends to the ability to choose to destroy their own body, up to and including death. Furthermore, depriving this person of that choice is depriving them of their right to bodily autonomy.
To reference the American ideal of a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, this right would include the negation of that. People have the right to _not_ have their own life if they so choose. This right is analogous to the generally agreed upon freedom to choose your own religion; you also have the freedom to choose _not_ to have religion. Same with freedom of speech; you can choose _not_ to speak.
Change my view. | > meaning the age set by law/cultural agreement to be an adult
If part of your view is down to law/cultural agreement then how can a definition of
>capable of decision making
Include the decision to take ones own life?
In societies where cultural agreement is that suicide is a negative and steps should be taken to prevent it, someone claiming to be suicidal would not be considered of sound mind.
Of course there are some exceptions, and a shift in thinking on euthanasia is occurring, but I'm talking about the broad societal contract which you invoked.
---
> capable of decision making
To clarify, this means:
-Not under influence of mind altering substances
-Not mentally disabled (unconscious, unable to comprehend the world, etc)
-Not emotionally distraught (chronic issues like depression would be an exception)
---
>-Not mentally disabled (unconscious, unable to comprehend the world, etc)
That's kinda funny, because we very commonly make the concession for assisted suicide for people who are in braindead comas. | Your friend hears you say this, and he kills himself.
---
Doesn't apply. All of my friends are mad.
---
Cute. Some of my friends are dead. | 1fpkw1m | CMV: People of sound mind have the right to end their own life | If a person is “of age” (meaning the age set by law/cultural agreement to be an adult) and is capable of decision making, they have a right to bodily autonomy. That extends to the ability to choose to destroy their own body, up to and including death. Furthermore, depriving this person of that choice is depriving them of their right to bodily autonomy.
To reference the American ideal of a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, this right would include the negation of that. People have the right to _not_ have their own life if they so choose. This right is analogous to the generally agreed upon freedom to choose your own religion; you also have the freedom to choose _not_ to have religion. Same with freedom of speech; you can choose _not_ to speak.
Change my view. | Kemilio | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111",
"id": "loydivs",
"score": 17,
"text": "> meaning the age set by law/cultural agreement to be an adult\n\n\nIf part of your view is down to law/cultural agreement then how can a definition of \n\n\n>capable of decision making\n\n\nInclude the decision to take ones ow... | [
{
"author": "RoyalOrganization676",
"id": "loyd9z9",
"score": 2,
"text": "Your friend hears you say this, and he kills himself.",
"timestamp": 1727314815
},
{
"author": "ifitdoesntmatter",
"id": "loydkxj",
"score": 1,
"text": "Doesn't apply. All of my friends are mad.",
"... | [
"loydivs",
"loyebq1",
"loyeuy4"
] | [
"loyd9z9",
"loydkxj",
"loydokq"
] |
CMV: If the Abrahamic God does exist, he is not necessarily perfect
To start with, I am an atheist but for the purpose of this I would like to assume that the Abrahamic God does exist, this shouldn't derail into a debate about the existence of God.
The Abrahamic God is considered to be perfect. Everything the does is good because he cannot do wrong. But as people, how would we actually know this?
We know he created us. We know he is powerful and knowing. For what reason, other than just trusting what he says, do we have for believing that he is perfect? Within the bible he clearly shows human emotions, is it not possible he is extremely egotistical? If he is all there is, he has no one to question his authority, anyone with that status maybe go on to believe they are 'perfect'. There is no reason to assume he can't make mistakes, particularly when you look at the flaws in the world around us.
It seems that Christians/Jews/Muslims not only take a leap of faith in his existence but also faith in that he actually is as perfect as he says because he is our creator.
| TL;DR: The term "perfect" implies that there is some objective standard to which a thing is being held. If there is a singular being which creates literally everything else in existence, then that being is, by definition, the only standard to which the rest of existence can be held, because nothing else exists.
Though you only used the term "perfect" in your question, you seem to be meaning moral perfection specifically. In which case: on what grounds do you base your idea of morality? There are only a few options.
One: there is an ultimate moral standard which is above God, against which someone could judge God's actions. This seems to be the view you're taking. But in the Abrahamic traditions, nothing exists other than God and what God creates, for lots of philosophical reasons that tie into why they believe God exists at all.
Two: the ultimate moral standard is defined by God's actions - ie, whatever God does is morally good by definition. This is basically the view of the Abrahamic faiths. That is: our conception of "perfection" is based in the nature of God. We think compassion and love and justice are good because God is compassionate and loving and just.
Three: there is no ultimate moral standard at all - in which case the whole conversation becomes nonsensical because neither perfection nor mistakes exist.
Your question implies that a standard of perfection exists - however you'd define it. The important question to ask is where that standard comes from. If God is the standard, he is perfect; if God is not the standard, you're no longer talking about the Abrahamic God. You cannot separate the *existence* of god or gods in any religion from the *nature* of the god or gods they believe in. Every religion is built on a particular understanding of what the universe is and how it functions - and that determines how they conceive of the Divine (including whether or not a personal God even exists - ie Hinduism or Buddhism, in which everything is part of the Divine). For the Abrahamic God to be the ultimate creator of literally all of existence necessarily means there is no standard of perfection beyond him with which he can be judged; he IS the only standard.
---
Thanks. I am close to giving you a delta but not quite there. I am talking about 'moral perfection' and I think you make a sound argument. However don't most people have an inherent moral compass, regardless of religion?
You could ask the question, why is it wrong to kill? Most people will talk about how you are taking away someone's most valuable possession (life), causing huge amounts of grieve and sometimes leaving children without parents. I feel the majority wouldn't say 'because God says it's wrong'; this is unrelated to religion. Doesn't this show that your no. 3 is somewhat correct? There is essentially some moral standards that we have ingrained into us as humans. God directly kills many people in the Bible and as a result we cause a huge amount of misery - I'm still not comfortable with the idea that it's okay because it's God.
---
> However don't most people have an inherent moral compass, regardless of religion?
The Abrahamic faiths would argue that while we do have an innate moral compass, that compass was "put there" (for lack of a better term) by God when we were created. He gave us our intrinsic sense of right and wrong based on His own moral values. Thus, even people who don't necessarily believe in Him or follow Him are still guided by the morality that He instilled in us. Religion is simply what we believe and how we practice that belief; if there is an objectively true God then He created us in a particular way, regardless of how we end up utilizing that creation. How we rationalize our innate desires may be unrelated to those desires themselves.
>You could ask the question, why is it wrong to kill? Most people will talk about how you are taking away someone's most valuable possession (life), causing huge amounts of grieve and sometimes leaving children without parents.
And the Abrahamic faiths would say that the reason we feel it is "wrong" (and the reason we feel all of the effects are "wrong") is because of the innate morality that he placed in us. He put that life here for a reason and our taking it for selfish reasons is a violation of His plan for our life and theirs.
> God directly kills many people in the Bible and as a result we cause a huge amount of misery - I'm still not comfortable with the idea that it's okay because it's God.
The argument there is that if everything in creation is part of God's plan, then the suffering that He created as a result of those deaths was also part of the plan and in service of a greater good that only He understands. We accept that sometimes we have to cause pain to others as part of the pursuit of a greater good even if the "victim" does not understand the reasons at the time (any parent will agree with that ideal) so the argument follows that we simply don't understand the reasons for God's decision and how it fits in the grand plan. Actions are acceptable for God because He has a plan and that plan is rooted in His love for His people; similar actions may not be acceptable to us because they run counter to His plan and are not done out of a greater love.
It requires some mental gymnastics, but if we are starting with the assumption that the Abrahamic God is real as He is described, then this interpretation is in line with those descriptions. | >For what reason, other than just trusting what he says, do we have for believing that he is perfect?
It's not about trusting what He says. By virtue of who He is (God) He sets the rules. They are His to do with as He pleases. He is the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. He's not an elected official nor was His position conferred upon Him by some other agency. We believe He is perfect because He says He is. We take Him at His word because He is God.
So my question to you is what reason do we have not to believe He is not perfect? By what standard and what authority do you judge Him to be imperfect? Is it a higher authority than His own (creator and supreme ruler of the universe)?
---
> It's not about trusting what He says
> We believe He is perfect because He says He is. We take Him at His word because He is God.
Pick one, please.
---
Where does your confusion lie?
He could remain silent on the topic altogether and by virtue of Him being God we would know that He is perfect. | 78udup | CMV: If the Abrahamic God does exist, he is not necessarily perfect | To start with, I am an atheist but for the purpose of this I would like to assume that the Abrahamic God does exist, this shouldn't derail into a debate about the existence of God.
The Abrahamic God is considered to be perfect. Everything the does is good because he cannot do wrong. But as people, how would we actually know this?
We know he created us. We know he is powerful and knowing. For what reason, other than just trusting what he says, do we have for believing that he is perfect? Within the bible he clearly shows human emotions, is it not possible he is extremely egotistical? If he is all there is, he has no one to question his authority, anyone with that status maybe go on to believe they are 'perfect'. There is no reason to assume he can't make mistakes, particularly when you look at the flaws in the world around us.
It seems that Christians/Jews/Muslims not only take a leap of faith in his existence but also faith in that he actually is as perfect as he says because he is our creator.
| iMac_Hunt | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Wwendon",
"id": "dowsd7n",
"score": 15,
"text": "TL;DR: The term \"perfect\" implies that there is some objective standard to which a thing is being held. If there is a singular being which creates literally everything else in existence, then that being is, by definition, the only stand... | [
{
"author": "inb4thecleansing",
"id": "dowzhic",
"score": 1,
"text": ">For what reason, other than just trusting what he says, do we have for believing that he is perfect?\n\nIt's not about trusting what He says. By virtue of who He is (God) He sets the rules. They are His to do with as He pleases. ... | [
"dowsd7n",
"dowsx4n",
"dowwm41"
] | [
"dowzhic",
"doxftlg",
"doxtdy2"
] |
Cmv: The USA doesn't need the worlds 2 biggest airforces, and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
As some Republicans argue that European nations can afford their social services because they don't need as big of a military as us. Even if we cut back to the largest airforce and 3 carriers with the combined power of the EU Russia and China would be hard pressed even if they were fighting side by side.
Then there is nukes, hopefully never used, but if war broke out everyone would have their finger on the button anyways.
The US is so grossly op, and the mismanagement of funds that ends up subsidizing the rest of the world would be better spent getting our social services up to bar, which in turn would promote economic growth, unity, and more freedoms at home. | It depends on what you want your goals to be.
Being the only Superpower, as you put is 'OP'. We are the biggest baddest bully on the block and can do pretty much whatever we want. Only a handful of nations can put any time of meaningful dispute with us and that is backed by Nukes.
If you like the ability to carry the biggest stick and dictate world policy - you have to maintain the biggest stick.
---
Agreed but why do we need the 2 biggest sticks? Along with a bunch of smaller deployable pocket sticks, along with a bunch of floating portable stick throwing more sticks.
We've surpassed bully and bordered on a blackbelt principle, that waves guns in kids faces to get them to "behave".
---
Simple: our sticks compete with each other and make each other fitter for the challenges ahead. Not only does the Air Force compete with the Navy, Army, and Marines on air equipment, tactics and development ... unlike many countries we also have multiple “private air forces” like Boeing and Lockheed competing with each other for supremacy.
It gives the government flexible options and real competitive advantages when it comes time to adapt to conflicts abroad. It’s expensive but it exists because we can afford it and it works for those intentions above, | In 2015, the U.S. spent less than $600 billion on defense. This amounts to 4% of the total personal income for that year. You could just as easily place a 4% flat tax (obviously not the first choice, but simplest) on everyone and increase the total amount spent on social services by an amount equal to the total defense budget. Point being, I don't see a reason why it needs to be one or the other. We can do both.
---
But why do we need both?
---
Why do we need only one?
Given our ability to afford to be able to massively overpower any other nation while also being able to afford to spend more than enough money on social services, there is no reason why we shouldn't do both, especially given that we still exist in a world where both Russia and China seek to spread their own power.
Really, the question comes down more to how much of the defense budget do you want to cut, and why can't we just pay for that with more taxes when we have an economy which can easily afford it? Cut the defense budget in half and decrease the ability to project power, or raise everyone's taxes by 2%? The latter is more appealing because the sacrifice is truly minimal. That would be an extra $10 per week I'd personally be paying, and I wouldn't suffer at all from that (and I don't make all that much).
There is more benefit to be had by simply raising taxes to cover those costs than by cutting the defense budget. | ao4csa | Cmv: The USA doesn't need the worlds 2 biggest airforces, and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. | As some Republicans argue that European nations can afford their social services because they don't need as big of a military as us. Even if we cut back to the largest airforce and 3 carriers with the combined power of the EU Russia and China would be hard pressed even if they were fighting side by side.
Then there is nukes, hopefully never used, but if war broke out everyone would have their finger on the button anyways.
The US is so grossly op, and the mismanagement of funds that ends up subsidizing the rest of the world would be better spent getting our social services up to bar, which in turn would promote economic growth, unity, and more freedoms at home. | notwithagoat | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "in_cavediver",
"id": "efy2021",
"score": 9,
"text": "It depends on what you want your goals to be.\n\nBeing the only Superpower, as you put is 'OP'. We are the biggest baddest bully on the block and can do pretty much whatever we want. Only a handful of nations can put any time of meani... | [
{
"author": "fryamtheiman",
"id": "efy2rlu",
"score": 3,
"text": "In 2015, the U.S. spent less than $600 billion on defense. This amounts to 4% of the total personal income for that year. You could just as easily place a 4% flat tax (obviously not the first choice, but simplest) on everyone and incr... | [
"efy2021",
"efy2bg0",
"efy69ea"
] | [
"efy2rlu",
"efy5ru7",
"efy8n36"
] |
CMV: Nat Turner did nothing wrong.
Nat, whose master's name was Turner, was being held against his will along with a few others. He knew of others who were in his predicament, so he set out to free them also. If this had been a Nazi-held POW scenario, his actions would have been cheered. In fact, even the recent victims of Ariel Castro would have been forgiven and outright applauded if they had caved his head in with a fence post in an attempt to escape.
Military operations have a history of being messy, and oftentimes a civilian is killed by accident or to make sure they can't ruin the mission by revealing information. This is the most tenuous part of the view here, as people could have been tied up & gagged, but speed and efficiency were required in the greater mission of freeing the thousands of enslaved persons being forced to labor for their captors.
Nat was not a believer in white genocide, he stated he bypassed a group of poor white folks who lived down in the woods, as they held no slaves and he didn't feel they were any threat to his cause. I am open to having my opinion changed however, as it is a touchy subject. I am not easily offended, and will entertain any non-racist counterpoints. Thank you. | Killing defensless children is wrong. Children whom had no choice or sway over their parents. Children who were too young to form their own opinions. While he spared poor people because they were treated similarly to black people (Nat’s own thoughts.) he did not spare women or children.
Nat did not only want to free slaves - as we can all agree an honourable thing. But spread violence and fear through the white communities. That is terroism even for a just cause. We can analyse wherever it was the only option or not but he won’t be looked at in the same way as people who just did the honourable thing - freed slaves and helped them out.
Hurting children who have nothing voluntarily to do with slavery is wrong.
---
General Tecumseh Sherman committed terrorism, the French Resistance committed terrorism. I have never met anyone that didn't support terrorism is some way.
The hurting children thing is not something that I have been able to verify that Nat agreed to/approved of, but he was the leader. However, I don't see why you hold the women in the same regard as the children. They seem as guilty as the men as a whole, although of course you could have sympathizers anywhere.
​
Jewish and Islamic scriptures both allow for killing children in war, and of course the allies killed thousands of children in WWII. This doesn't make it okay, but it puts it in context. I believe they were at war and the rules change somewhat in wartime.
My final point: Practicality. You have killed the captors and liberated the captives. Now there is a 6-month-old in your possession. What are you supposed to do with it? The options as I see them:
1. Leave it to possibly starve. This seems unnecessarily cruel.
2. Take a crying, helpless baby along with you. This will slow you down, warn other captors (and militias) of your presence, and inconvenience you in other ways. (feeding requirements etc)
3. Kill it. This seems distasteful, but of the three options, when you are at war, I am not convinced it is the wrong choice. War is not neat and clean, it is filled with hard choices and least-of-the-evils scenarios.
---
No, killing a child, especially an infant, is the wrong choice, both from a moral and military standpoint. Yes, if you leave a helpless 6-month old (assuming a lone 6-month old is the only survivor) it could possibly starve. Or not. Moses lived. Oedipus lived. Whatever you think of those men and their fates, the fact is they lived (in their stories, at least). And this hypothetical infant has a much better chance of surviving than either of those examples. There has just been a battle, which tend to be loud, and attract notice. After the fighting has stopped and the combatants either killed or departed, it seems pretty reasonable to me that folks might swing by fairly quickly, within a matter of hours most likely, to check for wounded, collect their dead, and the like. Seems a good chance a crying baby would not go overlooked. In any case, it certainly ups its chances far more than actively removing any other possibilities.
Militarily it would also be a bad choice, partially for reasons you mentioned: babies are a burden and resource drain. So if it survives, it’s now a burden and drain of resources for your opponent, especially as said baby is now likely an orphan, since they probably didn’t wander into the aftermath of a battle on their own. Also, if you kill the child, now not only is it not taking up resources, its murder has boosted the moral of your enemy by incensing them against you. If you ever had any chance of being viewed as a human being with a cause, that is erased. Now you are a monster.
Also, using ancient religious scripture as moral justification is dubious at best, especially when said scriptures contain many of their own poorly justified atrocities, and seem to be able to be interpreted to back just about any position a person would care to choose. Nowadays we call these actions war crimes, and we put people on trial for them (unless they’re on the winning side, of course).
The problem with your title is that it is so absolute, though I slightly suspect that was intentional to spark interest, which is fair, I suppose. It’s hard to defend the idea that Nat Turner did “nothing” wrong, but I believe your argument is more in lines with “Nat Turner was justified in his actions within the context of his situation”, which is more defensible. Hopefully the above indicates that I would still argue that he was not, but it is definitely a greyer area. For me the context might help me to understand his reasoning, but it still does not supply an excuse. | He did something wrong, because he failed
---
I don't consider trying & failing to be wrong exactly, he did bring about a harder life for slaves after his death, his failed insurrection caused murders and oppressive laws to happen, but I don't hold him as guilty for them.
---
I hold him guilty of not focusing on freeing more slaves and capturing more guns. There were FAR more slaves than slave-owners. Nat Turner could have had an army in the spirit of Spartacus, but instead he got all vengeful and wasted his opportunity. | b2ygk7 | CMV: Nat Turner did nothing wrong. | Nat, whose master's name was Turner, was being held against his will along with a few others. He knew of others who were in his predicament, so he set out to free them also. If this had been a Nazi-held POW scenario, his actions would have been cheered. In fact, even the recent victims of Ariel Castro would have been forgiven and outright applauded if they had caved his head in with a fence post in an attempt to escape.
Military operations have a history of being messy, and oftentimes a civilian is killed by accident or to make sure they can't ruin the mission by revealing information. This is the most tenuous part of the view here, as people could have been tied up & gagged, but speed and efficiency were required in the greater mission of freeing the thousands of enslaved persons being forced to labor for their captors.
Nat was not a believer in white genocide, he stated he bypassed a group of poor white folks who lived down in the woods, as they held no slaves and he didn't feel they were any threat to his cause. I am open to having my opinion changed however, as it is a touchy subject. I am not easily offended, and will entertain any non-racist counterpoints. Thank you. | Sgt_Spatula | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Helpfulcloning",
"id": "eivu4eu",
"score": 10,
"text": "Killing defensless children is wrong. Children whom had no choice or sway over their parents. Children who were too young to form their own opinions. While he spared poor people because they were treated similarly to black people (... | [
{
"author": "yunyun333",
"id": "eivsmv5",
"score": 2,
"text": "He did something wrong, because he failed",
"timestamp": 1553008131
},
{
"author": "Sgt_Spatula",
"id": "eivuqpb",
"score": 2,
"text": "I don't consider trying & failing to be wrong exactly, he did bring about a h... | [
"eivu4eu",
"eivwi9g",
"eiw65w5"
] | [
"eivsmv5",
"eivuqpb",
"eiyha8n"
] |
CMV: There is no way that any estranged parent doesn't know the reason why their kids cut them off and went no-contact.
It is common for many parents whose adult offspring have gone no-contact and cut them off to complain that they have no idea why their sons/daughters cut off contact - or to ascribe some sort of ridiculous, doesn't-make sense reason.
I think the [Missing Missing Reasons blog post](https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html) does this phenomenon excellent justice and encapsulates much of this.
Essentially, usually the adult son or daughter has given the parent(s) MUCH explanation and reason of what has gone wrong, and the parent continuously ignored it and then the kid did indeed make good on the threat and left. And then the parent acts bewildered when in fact deep down they totally know why it happened, they just don't want to admit it.
But - I am open to having my view changed - that maybe the parents indeed didn't know, and got blindsided, or still don't know the reason why.
​ | It really depends on what you understand when somebody say "they didn't know".
Do you think it's possible they heard their child's explanation but it just sounds meaningless to them? Like, they cannot relate to it or connect the dots at all, therefore they stay at "I just don't know why they don't wanna be around me"?
Hearing something is one thing, but having the framework to understand what that means is another.
---
My interpretation is that these parents usually do in fact know, but pretend not to know because they don't want to admit to anyone verbally. They pretend they're the victim.
---
I have an estranged parent, and I do not think she's pretending she's the victim. She absolutely believes with her entire being that she did the best she could, that I'm cruel and abusive, and that no one listens to her side and if they did they would be understanding. She invited me to a therapist visit of hers once, and the therapist was convinced of the above. Her entire family has been convinced of the above since I was a literal infant. This woman put out lit cigarettes on me at 5 years old. She is not mentally capable of the self-reflection you are projecting onto her. You may have that capacity, I know I do, but she does not. | >Essentially, usually the adult son or daughter has given the parent(s) MUCH explanation and reason of what has gone wrong, and the parent continuously ignored it and then the kid did indeed make good on the threat and left.
What do you beleive is the reason why the parents ignored the explanation?
---
Because the parent simply prefers to keep up their behavior.
For instance, "I don't like it when you keep insulting my appearance," but maybe the mother keeps insulting her daughter because she finds it humorous to do so, etc.
---
Would you consider the idea that, to the parents, "it's not that big of a deal"? Simply notably underestimating how much their child values whatever is in question?
Your example could be interpreted as the mother thinking that their insults "aren't that bad", I believe. | 17k5ru4 | CMV: There is no way that any estranged parent doesn't know the reason why their kids cut them off and went no-contact. | It is common for many parents whose adult offspring have gone no-contact and cut them off to complain that they have no idea why their sons/daughters cut off contact - or to ascribe some sort of ridiculous, doesn't-make sense reason.
I think the [Missing Missing Reasons blog post](https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html) does this phenomenon excellent justice and encapsulates much of this.
Essentially, usually the adult son or daughter has given the parent(s) MUCH explanation and reason of what has gone wrong, and the parent continuously ignored it and then the kid did indeed make good on the threat and left. And then the parent acts bewildered when in fact deep down they totally know why it happened, they just don't want to admit it.
But - I am open to having my view changed - that maybe the parents indeed didn't know, and got blindsided, or still don't know the reason why.
​ | SteadfastEnd | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Affectionate-Sand838",
"id": "k75jjc3",
"score": 74,
"text": "It really depends on what you understand when somebody say \"they didn't know\".\n\nDo you think it's possible they heard their child's explanation but it just sounds meaningless to them? Like, they cannot relate to it or con... | [
{
"author": "AleristheSeeker",
"id": "k75ifhg",
"score": 14,
"text": ">Essentially, usually the adult son or daughter has given the parent(s) MUCH explanation and reason of what has gone wrong, and the parent continuously ignored it and then the kid did indeed make good on the threat and left.\n\nWh... | [
"k75jjc3",
"k75m2fa",
"k75ou9w"
] | [
"k75ifhg",
"k75kiqv",
"k75mg1t"
] |
CMV: Trump should NOT be impeached because his crimes, even if TRUE, are far less severe than what previous presidents have done.
The last two presidents committed far worse acts, George W. Bush (who democrats pretend to love all of a sudden) committed a completely illegal and totally unconstitutional violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution with the [warrantless wiretap program](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html). Barack Obama, who democrats for some reason revere, was far worse, not only did he continue, expand, and then LIE about the warrant less wiretap program, he also illegally [went to war in Lybia](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/24/obamas-unconstitutional-war/) without congressional authorization and violating the War Powers resolution.
Now Trump, if guilty, has done none of those. He has continued those illegal acts, but no one cares, what people care about is that he may have withheld congressional mandated AID, [an act which Joe Biden BRAGGED about in 2016](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html), to try to get dirt about a political opponent. Now, this dirt, is the Joe Biden again doing the exact same thing Trump is being accused of but whatever. there is clearly an argument he is doing this for personal benefit, AND national interest.
irregardless, even if he was doing it 100% selfishly, this doesn't even compare to the stuff Bush and Obama did, and they were cheered, except by a couple nutty an-caps.
Change my View, show me how Trump is worse than Bush or Obama. | Even supposing the allegations you've made against Bush and Obama are totally accurate, it does seem a bit strange to not pursue impeachment against trump on the grounds of fairness. Imagine making that argument in court: "Look your Honor, I know I killed a man. But a lot of murders go unsolved, the perpetrators walking free! That means I should too!" If anything you should be angry at the republican congressional majority that existed for *six years* and not on one single occasion did they bring up impeaching Obama due to wiretapping. Actually, (hilariously), exactly one congressman brought up the possibility of the intervention in Libya being an impeachable offense and it was Democrat [Dennis Kucinich.](https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/kucinich-libya-action-impeachable-051668)
---
Your argument is good, but it assumes that the crimes are equal. Taking the country to war without congressional approval is far greater offense and detriment to the homeland than sorta-bribing a foreign official. Your analogy would be more accurate as:
>Imagine making that argument in court: "Look your Honor, I know I jay walked. But a lot of murders go unsolved, the perpetrators walking free! That means I should too!"
In this case there would be a genuine question a to why the judge was allowing murder to go unpunished was punishing for Jay Walking.
---
The issue is that we can't retroactively impeach past presidents. We can only do what we can today to make sure no more presidents get away with breaking the law. | [removed]
---
[removed]
---
what? because the concept of banning people from certain places has only existed in countries with racist roots? okay boomer | dzo2xy | CMV: Trump should NOT be impeached because his crimes, even if TRUE, are far less severe than what previous presidents have done. | The last two presidents committed far worse acts, George W. Bush (who democrats pretend to love all of a sudden) committed a completely illegal and totally unconstitutional violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution with the [warrantless wiretap program](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html). Barack Obama, who democrats for some reason revere, was far worse, not only did he continue, expand, and then LIE about the warrant less wiretap program, he also illegally [went to war in Lybia](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/24/obamas-unconstitutional-war/) without congressional authorization and violating the War Powers resolution.
Now Trump, if guilty, has done none of those. He has continued those illegal acts, but no one cares, what people care about is that he may have withheld congressional mandated AID, [an act which Joe Biden BRAGGED about in 2016](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html), to try to get dirt about a political opponent. Now, this dirt, is the Joe Biden again doing the exact same thing Trump is being accused of but whatever. there is clearly an argument he is doing this for personal benefit, AND national interest.
irregardless, even if he was doing it 100% selfishly, this doesn't even compare to the stuff Bush and Obama did, and they were cheered, except by a couple nutty an-caps.
Change my View, show me how Trump is worse than Bush or Obama. | 2ndandtwenty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"id": "f88zed7",
"score": 13,
"text": "Even supposing the allegations you've made against Bush and Obama are totally accurate, it does seem a bit strange to not pursue impeachment against trump on the grounds of fairness. Imagine making that argument in court: \"L... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "f88y6xs",
"score": 3,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1574363620
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "f88yq78",
"score": -2,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1574363898
},
{
"author": "Azkorath",
"id": "f88yyha",
"score": 2... | [
"f88zed7",
"f8979r9",
"f89ajd3"
] | [
"f88y6xs",
"f88yq78",
"f88yyha"
] |
CMV: Trump should NOT be impeached because his crimes, even if TRUE, are far less severe than what previous presidents have done.
The last two presidents committed far worse acts, George W. Bush (who democrats pretend to love all of a sudden) committed a completely illegal and totally unconstitutional violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution with the [warrantless wiretap program](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html). Barack Obama, who democrats for some reason revere, was far worse, not only did he continue, expand, and then LIE about the warrant less wiretap program, he also illegally [went to war in Lybia](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/24/obamas-unconstitutional-war/) without congressional authorization and violating the War Powers resolution.
Now Trump, if guilty, has done none of those. He has continued those illegal acts, but no one cares, what people care about is that he may have withheld congressional mandated AID, [an act which Joe Biden BRAGGED about in 2016](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html), to try to get dirt about a political opponent. Now, this dirt, is the Joe Biden again doing the exact same thing Trump is being accused of but whatever. there is clearly an argument he is doing this for personal benefit, AND national interest.
irregardless, even if he was doing it 100% selfishly, this doesn't even compare to the stuff Bush and Obama did, and they were cheered, except by a couple nutty an-caps.
Change my View, show me how Trump is worse than Bush or Obama. | Generally presidents aren’t impeached for behavior that is, or ends up being, unpopular but within the normal mandate of their presidential powers. Elections are for judging those actions. The specific issue with Trump here (and Nixon) is that he was attempting to use his power to invite interference into our election. So we can’t rely on the tool we’re supposed to for removing presidents, when the president is using his power improperly to get in the way of said tool.
---
This is close to a delta......But you are not quite there.
First off, it isn't quite "interference" Trump was after, I think the democrats are being a bit disingenuous there. Trump was looking for dirt on Biden. If that is "interference" than Hillary paying for the Steel Dossier is also "interference", and she should be prosecuted or something....Hell, the entire Mueller investigation is "interference"....I think we should all concede wanting to know the truth about what our politicians are doing is beneficial to the American people, NOT JUST their political opponents..
My other problem is that there are very valid non election reasons for Trump to want that investigation into Biden. Joes crack head son having that position is a big fat problem, and it is truly stunning to see people defend that. It is perfectly reasonable to want an investigation into that.
---
> Hillary paying for the Steel Dossier is also "interference"
Hillary is not president and never was. | [removed]
---
[removed]
---
Yeah. That's why everybody hates them, "the great mod overearch of 1939-1945". | dzo2xy | CMV: Trump should NOT be impeached because his crimes, even if TRUE, are far less severe than what previous presidents have done. | The last two presidents committed far worse acts, George W. Bush (who democrats pretend to love all of a sudden) committed a completely illegal and totally unconstitutional violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution with the [warrantless wiretap program](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html). Barack Obama, who democrats for some reason revere, was far worse, not only did he continue, expand, and then LIE about the warrant less wiretap program, he also illegally [went to war in Lybia](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/24/obamas-unconstitutional-war/) without congressional authorization and violating the War Powers resolution.
Now Trump, if guilty, has done none of those. He has continued those illegal acts, but no one cares, what people care about is that he may have withheld congressional mandated AID, [an act which Joe Biden BRAGGED about in 2016](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html), to try to get dirt about a political opponent. Now, this dirt, is the Joe Biden again doing the exact same thing Trump is being accused of but whatever. there is clearly an argument he is doing this for personal benefit, AND national interest.
irregardless, even if he was doing it 100% selfishly, this doesn't even compare to the stuff Bush and Obama did, and they were cheered, except by a couple nutty an-caps.
Change my View, show me how Trump is worse than Bush or Obama. | 2ndandtwenty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "miguelguajiro",
"id": "f88ycpu",
"score": 6,
"text": "Generally presidents aren’t impeached for behavior that is, or ends up being, unpopular but within the normal mandate of their presidential powers. Elections are for judging those actions. The specific issue with Trump here (and Nixo... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "f88y6xs",
"score": 3,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1574363620
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "f88yq78",
"score": -2,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1574363898
},
{
"author": "generic1001",
"id": "f88zwbt",
"score"... | [
"f88ycpu",
"f89avji",
"f89c9ha"
] | [
"f88y6xs",
"f88yq78",
"f88zwbt"
] |
CMV: Skinhead culture is inherently black and has nothing to do with neo-nazis and right-wing politics
Skinhead culture was born from the marriage of the Jamaican rude boy and the British mod(most notably hard-mods) in the mid to late 1960s. The influx of Jamaican immigrants to the Uk brought along with them the rude boy and ska youth movements, which introduced the suits, thin ties, and pork pie and trilby hats to the UK youth. The mods of the time were already wearing a number of what we would now consider mainstays of the skinhead attire, notably button down shirts, chelsea boots, also introducing short hair-cuts and androgynous fashion to many women in the mod scene.
It is with the advent of the hard-mod, often times younger, more working class youth who, in reaction to the mod culture of the time, opted for a harsher, more blue-collar look with braces, Dr. Martens, and straight-cut jeans instead of trousers. Prok-pie and trilby hats would still be worn, and suits with thin ties would be worn for special occasions.
The peak of this era, known as the Spirit of '69, would involve rude boys, mods, hard mods, and skinheads all co-existing. Skinheads were at the time largely apolitical. Ska, 2 tone, and soon-to-be punk scenes were occupied by black, white, and brown working class youth. It wasn't until the advent of the National Front, and a large right-wing movement in the UK that violent, racist groups began adopting the skinhead attire. Unfortunately, movies like American History X have hammered this perception into the global consciousness.
It is my view that by virtue of it's history, founding, and origins, skinhead history IS black history, belonging as much to Jamaicans as British people. Without the influence of rude boys, Ska, reggae, and 2 tone, we would not have skinhead culture, and the entire trajectory of music and fashion trajectory in the UK would be different. Without the influence of black and Caribbean people there would be no skinhead culture for racists and right-wingers to appropriate. | Just because the fashion currently associated with skinheads originated in black communities does not mean that today's skinhead culture has "nothing" to do with naziism and right wing extremism. The fact is that the people we call skinheads today are neonazis.
---
Who is we in this sentence? Since most skinheads I know call themselves skinheads and don't mean neo-nazi. Almost unilaterally among actual skinheads neo-nazis are called boneheads if they are called anything aside from neo-nazis
---
We refers to Americans.
---
Even in America actual skinheads don't consider boneheads skins, and both skins and boneheads are wearing a sub-cultural garb born from Jamaican and White working class British neighbourhoods.
---
As an American, I can vouch for the fact that "skinhead" to me ONLY represents "neonazi" or "violent right wing". That is the only context I've seen or heard of skinheads. I honestly had no idea there was a Jamaican or British history to it until this post.
Maybe that WAS the culture of skinhead, but at least for some americans like me, its lost that association. | I think what you are hitting on is the fact that the same term is used for two different groups in two different countries.
In the US "Skin-Head" is used to describe the group of white supremacist Neo-Nazis primarily from the 70s who also tended to shave their heads to distinguish themselves from the hippy movements of the time. It has no connection to the British subculture you are speaking about.
You are right that "American History X" and other American movies and TV shows that utilize skin heads are responsible for this confusion because you and others think that they are talking about the same subculture that you have in your nations that go by the same names, and because some groups have copied the American subculture blurring lines.
---
You are right about the distinction between the US/UK skinhead but there are plenty of actual, often called "trad" skinheads in North America who are not neo-nazis. In fact, most racists who were boots and braces are called boneheads by actual skins. I would still posit that skinheads wherever they are are taking part in a black subculture.
---
People who simply shave their heads do not go by the term "skinhead" in the US. Only the Neo-Nazis do that. And I say that as a white man who shaves his head due to going bald at a young age. The subculture you talk about from the UK simply does not really exist here and the term is only used for the Neo-Nazis.
Edit: Reggae, Ska, and the like while having some presence here were never big enough to be full on subculture elements like they were in the UK. By the time those things did get big here the genre had split into Jazz revival and Punk/Grunge, neither of which went by the name Skinhead because of the well established Neo-Nazis association with the term for over a decade.
---
I posit that the subculture does exist, despite in the margins of society. There is a very active though close-knit skinhead culture in North America, though it is larger in Central and South America, that is true to the UK brand of skins. I would also argue that worldwide the more often used garb for neo-nazis is suits, with only groups like the Proud Boys still adopting some parts of skinhead fashion.
---
Please see my edit.
The subculture you are talking about already shifted and split before it got to the US so the name "Skinhead" kept its Neo-Nazis association here. (Remember the two groups started at the same time in their respective countries).
And it does not matter what happens in Central and South America, they speak a different language so have different terms. | b2zl40 | CMV: Skinhead culture is inherently black and has nothing to do with neo-nazis and right-wing politics | Skinhead culture was born from the marriage of the Jamaican rude boy and the British mod(most notably hard-mods) in the mid to late 1960s. The influx of Jamaican immigrants to the Uk brought along with them the rude boy and ska youth movements, which introduced the suits, thin ties, and pork pie and trilby hats to the UK youth. The mods of the time were already wearing a number of what we would now consider mainstays of the skinhead attire, notably button down shirts, chelsea boots, also introducing short hair-cuts and androgynous fashion to many women in the mod scene.
It is with the advent of the hard-mod, often times younger, more working class youth who, in reaction to the mod culture of the time, opted for a harsher, more blue-collar look with braces, Dr. Martens, and straight-cut jeans instead of trousers. Prok-pie and trilby hats would still be worn, and suits with thin ties would be worn for special occasions.
The peak of this era, known as the Spirit of '69, would involve rude boys, mods, hard mods, and skinheads all co-existing. Skinheads were at the time largely apolitical. Ska, 2 tone, and soon-to-be punk scenes were occupied by black, white, and brown working class youth. It wasn't until the advent of the National Front, and a large right-wing movement in the UK that violent, racist groups began adopting the skinhead attire. Unfortunately, movies like American History X have hammered this perception into the global consciousness.
It is my view that by virtue of it's history, founding, and origins, skinhead history IS black history, belonging as much to Jamaicans as British people. Without the influence of rude boys, Ska, reggae, and 2 tone, we would not have skinhead culture, and the entire trajectory of music and fashion trajectory in the UK would be different. Without the influence of black and Caribbean people there would be no skinhead culture for racists and right-wingers to appropriate. | rudeheadjoey | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "onetwo3four5",
"id": "eiw1mp8",
"score": 7,
"text": "Just because the fashion currently associated with skinheads originated in black communities does not mean that today's skinhead culture has \"nothing\" to do with naziism and right wing extremism. The fact is that the people we call ... | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "eiw1nxg",
"score": 10,
"text": "I think what you are hitting on is the fact that the same term is used for two different groups in two different countries. \n\nIn the US \"Skin-Head\" is used to describe the group of white supremacist Neo-Nazis primarily from the 70s who... | [
"eiw1mp8",
"eiw23gs",
"eiw263y",
"eiw2uq3",
"eiw41z8"
] | [
"eiw1nxg",
"eiw2nbw",
"eiw30y1",
"eiw3dz7",
"eiw3txo"
] |
CMV: A human is alive as soon as it has ANY brain activity
I will not argue about abortion because I am not trying to prove any view for or against abortion. I am posting this for people to question my views and find any flaws in my logic.
My logic is that a life starts as soon as there is any sort of brain activity, regardless of what kind. I do not care about consciousness. I do not even care if the life in question is a human or not (though obviously I am more concerned about humans).
Before there is brain activity, the cells start to divide. The cells are indeed alive. They have a metabolism. But they are not a single organism controlled by a brain yet. They have DNA for their organism, but they are not an organism yet. They are dividing cells.
Some forms of life, like bacteria, do not need a brain to survive and live, but humans do (and all mammals as far as I know). So if there is brain activity, it has become an organism and it can survive or at least have a chance at surviving.
I decided that a confirmed brain dead person is no longer a life. It has no brain activity. At first I hesitated to accept this, but then I did a thought experiment. If the brain activity of a human was somehow transferred to a human body with no brain activity, the human would live on in the new body. I definitely would not consider the leftover body a life in this case. I guess the idea that the person is living on somewhere else is comforting enough for me to not consider the leftover body a life. So this must also mean a brain dead human is also not a life.
It does not matter how fully formed the human is or that it has a unique genetic code. If there is no brain activity it is not a life. Size does not matter either. A 6 week old embryo/fetus is about the size of a grain of rice. But it has brain activity. The sign that it is an organism. It has its control panel. It is not a mass of leaderless cells. Ants have brains and they can be the size of a 6 week old fetus. Just because the fetus is small does not mean it is not an organism.
Again, the kind of brain activity does not matter. If there was an adult human that that had an accident but still had some sort of brain activity, there would be a chance for them to wake up. I would still consider that alive. There is still hope, albeit small. In the case of a 6 week old embryo/fetus, that brain activity definitely isn’t the last wisps of life as it may be in the adult human, it is the beginning of even more brain activity to come. There is life there as an organism controlled by a brain.
I think I’ve covered all my points. I think this is a very clear marker for life. Brain activity is something that can by detected. There is physical evidence of it. There is no exact line that can be made for every organism. Every organism probably gets its first brain wave at a different time. Regardless, this seems like the surest way to decide if something is alive or not. Again, I do not mean metabolism. I mean alive as in an organism that requires a brain to function and that brain is active in some way, even if minor.
Thank you! | Most "braindead" people have brain activity, hence why they retain some basic autonomic functions.
---
I did not know this. When I think of brain dead I think that the brain is no longer working and it will never work again. What kind of brain activity occurs?
---
I'm no neurologist, but you need brain function for respiratory function, or if the patient is vented, you at least need brain function for the heart to beat. The whole reason why keeping someone alive when they are "braindead" is unethical is because they have enough brain function to feel pain, but not enough to have any value being alive.
---
But is it true that there is irreparable damage to the brain for it to function properly? What kind of brain function is happening in brain dead people?
---
I don't understand your first question, but brain function differs case by case. For the patient to be alive, there's probably enough to regulate the heart, otherwise they wouldn't be alive. Many people can have reactions to pain, measured by movements or increased blood pressure with pain stimuli.
​
So "ANY" brain function would include "braindead" people.
---
The heart can beat on its own without direction from the brain. Humans can react to stimuli before the information reaches the brain, like touching your hand to a hot stove. Otherwise we would not remove our hands from the stove as quickly. Is it confirmed that the response to pain is not an automated response and is indeed brain activity?
---
Pain is processed in the brain, the response to that pain is processed in both your brain and your spinal cord.
Your spinal cord is what is responsible for the reflex of taking away your hand from the hot stove, your brain is responsible for feeling the pain and emotionally processing it. | This is a tremendously tortured definition of life.
There are many orders of magnitude more living creatures on the planet wholly lacking nerves of any sort, much less neurons. These are still alive. Why apply a different standard for what fundamentally constitutes life for humans?
---
I would apply a different standard for humans because a human does not live and survive the same way as a sea star, for example. A sea star requires no brain to live and survive, but it is definitely alive. Again, when I say alive, I mean that it can survive and live as a single organism. Humans cannot do that without a brain or brain activity, thus I apply different standard.
---
Are you saying that if an organism cannot live on its own, that it is not alive then?
---
I see how that would subvert my argument if that were the case, as a fetus cannot live on its own. No, I do not just mean that it has to live on its own. I would consider someone in a coma on life support, unable to live on their own, alive. A fetus would be alive because it has its own brain and control center, which is required for humans to be alive. Humans require a brain with brain activity to be alive as a single organism. A fetus can have a brain and brain activity but cannot yet live on its own. It has already fulfilled the requirement for aliveness as far as humans though.
You may be on to a flaw in my argument though so if you can think of a counter argument I would really like to hear it.
EDIT: I just noticed about your argument for having a different standard of life for different organisms. If we were to put every form of life under one standard, than an embryo on the day of conception would be considered alive as much as a bacteria or other forms of life without a brain or neurons.
---
Lots of other things are required for a human to live. Why is brain function special?
---
Other organs can be transplanted, but not the brain. The brain can die and the body can live but that human is no longer functioning. It's just a body.
---
So your view on what defines being alive revolves around medical technology? What if a brain transplant is possible? What if a person cant get a certain transplant? I mean, a fetus obviously cant get anything transplanted.
What about all the things that cant be transplanted? Specific enzymes, proteins, GI organs? | b2x5q4 | CMV: A human is alive as soon as it has ANY brain activity | I will not argue about abortion because I am not trying to prove any view for or against abortion. I am posting this for people to question my views and find any flaws in my logic.
My logic is that a life starts as soon as there is any sort of brain activity, regardless of what kind. I do not care about consciousness. I do not even care if the life in question is a human or not (though obviously I am more concerned about humans).
Before there is brain activity, the cells start to divide. The cells are indeed alive. They have a metabolism. But they are not a single organism controlled by a brain yet. They have DNA for their organism, but they are not an organism yet. They are dividing cells.
Some forms of life, like bacteria, do not need a brain to survive and live, but humans do (and all mammals as far as I know). So if there is brain activity, it has become an organism and it can survive or at least have a chance at surviving.
I decided that a confirmed brain dead person is no longer a life. It has no brain activity. At first I hesitated to accept this, but then I did a thought experiment. If the brain activity of a human was somehow transferred to a human body with no brain activity, the human would live on in the new body. I definitely would not consider the leftover body a life in this case. I guess the idea that the person is living on somewhere else is comforting enough for me to not consider the leftover body a life. So this must also mean a brain dead human is also not a life.
It does not matter how fully formed the human is or that it has a unique genetic code. If there is no brain activity it is not a life. Size does not matter either. A 6 week old embryo/fetus is about the size of a grain of rice. But it has brain activity. The sign that it is an organism. It has its control panel. It is not a mass of leaderless cells. Ants have brains and they can be the size of a 6 week old fetus. Just because the fetus is small does not mean it is not an organism.
Again, the kind of brain activity does not matter. If there was an adult human that that had an accident but still had some sort of brain activity, there would be a chance for them to wake up. I would still consider that alive. There is still hope, albeit small. In the case of a 6 week old embryo/fetus, that brain activity definitely isn’t the last wisps of life as it may be in the adult human, it is the beginning of even more brain activity to come. There is life there as an organism controlled by a brain.
I think I’ve covered all my points. I think this is a very clear marker for life. Brain activity is something that can by detected. There is physical evidence of it. There is no exact line that can be made for every organism. Every organism probably gets its first brain wave at a different time. Regardless, this seems like the surest way to decide if something is alive or not. Again, I do not mean metabolism. I mean alive as in an organism that requires a brain to function and that brain is active in some way, even if minor.
Thank you! | troubledyouth15 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "ace52387",
"id": "eivjlfl",
"score": 10,
"text": "Most \"braindead\" people have brain activity, hence why they retain some basic autonomic functions.",
"timestamp": 1553001834
},
{
"author": "troubledyouth15",
"id": "eivk9ac",
"score": 4,
"text": "I did not know... | [
{
"author": "Missing_Links",
"id": "eivigk9",
"score": 4,
"text": "This is a tremendously tortured definition of life.\n\nThere are many orders of magnitude more living creatures on the planet wholly lacking nerves of any sort, much less neurons. These are still alive. Why apply a different standard... | [
"eivjlfl",
"eivk9ac",
"eivlhjm",
"eivso7t",
"eivtoey",
"eivzv66",
"eiw1gvx"
] | [
"eivigk9",
"eivk6ly",
"eivl8ck",
"eivn1hk",
"eivt3zv",
"eiw00se",
"eiw1v70"
] |
CMV: A human is alive as soon as it has ANY brain activity
I will not argue about abortion because I am not trying to prove any view for or against abortion. I am posting this for people to question my views and find any flaws in my logic.
My logic is that a life starts as soon as there is any sort of brain activity, regardless of what kind. I do not care about consciousness. I do not even care if the life in question is a human or not (though obviously I am more concerned about humans).
Before there is brain activity, the cells start to divide. The cells are indeed alive. They have a metabolism. But they are not a single organism controlled by a brain yet. They have DNA for their organism, but they are not an organism yet. They are dividing cells.
Some forms of life, like bacteria, do not need a brain to survive and live, but humans do (and all mammals as far as I know). So if there is brain activity, it has become an organism and it can survive or at least have a chance at surviving.
I decided that a confirmed brain dead person is no longer a life. It has no brain activity. At first I hesitated to accept this, but then I did a thought experiment. If the brain activity of a human was somehow transferred to a human body with no brain activity, the human would live on in the new body. I definitely would not consider the leftover body a life in this case. I guess the idea that the person is living on somewhere else is comforting enough for me to not consider the leftover body a life. So this must also mean a brain dead human is also not a life.
It does not matter how fully formed the human is or that it has a unique genetic code. If there is no brain activity it is not a life. Size does not matter either. A 6 week old embryo/fetus is about the size of a grain of rice. But it has brain activity. The sign that it is an organism. It has its control panel. It is not a mass of leaderless cells. Ants have brains and they can be the size of a 6 week old fetus. Just because the fetus is small does not mean it is not an organism.
Again, the kind of brain activity does not matter. If there was an adult human that that had an accident but still had some sort of brain activity, there would be a chance for them to wake up. I would still consider that alive. There is still hope, albeit small. In the case of a 6 week old embryo/fetus, that brain activity definitely isn’t the last wisps of life as it may be in the adult human, it is the beginning of even more brain activity to come. There is life there as an organism controlled by a brain.
I think I’ve covered all my points. I think this is a very clear marker for life. Brain activity is something that can by detected. There is physical evidence of it. There is no exact line that can be made for every organism. Every organism probably gets its first brain wave at a different time. Regardless, this seems like the surest way to decide if something is alive or not. Again, I do not mean metabolism. I mean alive as in an organism that requires a brain to function and that brain is active in some way, even if minor.
Thank you! | Stemonyx is making “mini-brains” on plates, about 10000 neurons and astrocytes that do develop spontaneous electrical activity and can have seizures. Are they life?
---
Where did they get the DNA/cells for this brain from? What constitutes living for this organism that is just a brain? A single brain is different from an organism with a brain. If we were able to make a human brain on a plate would I consider that a human? That is a tough question. It would have human DNA and brain activity but no way to engage with its environment. Is the life of a human brain different from the life of a human brain with a body? Does the brain contain the full human genome or just the genome for the brain? In that case it wouldn't have every part of a human. It wouldn't be a full human.
---
The cells start as human skin cells that they induce pluripotency in, forming stem cells, which they then differentiate to be brain cells. The genes would be identical to the human that gave the initial cells.
What constitutes living is, I guess what I’m asking you- is electrical activity enough? The company also makes mini-hearts that have electrical activity and beat.
It certainly doesn’t have every part of a human, but neither does a 6 week old embryo. It too is largely pluripotent stem cells finding their differentiation.
---
But the stem cells can become any sort of cells. A brain cell cannot become any sort of cell. Both cells have the same DNA, but brain cells have a different expression of that DNA. Can it be considered a human if all of the DNA is not expressed? An embryo has not yet expressed all of its human DNA but it can. A brain cannot. I think that is the difference here. The brain can be alive, but it is not a full human. To be a human life you need the ability to express all DNA and you need brain waves.
​
Does this sound like I'm making excuses? This makes sense as I type this but maybe I am coming up with more reasons to justify my view regardless of logic?
---
"To be a human life you need the ability to express all DNA"
Does this mean that people with health disorders where they can't produce certain proteins (and thus are unable to express some of their DNA) are not alive? | Most "braindead" people have brain activity, hence why they retain some basic autonomic functions.
---
I did not know this. When I think of brain dead I think that the brain is no longer working and it will never work again. What kind of brain activity occurs?
---
If you define brain as neural cluster you have them all over your body, there are more neural cells in your stomach than in a cat's brain.
​
[https://www.bbc.com/news/health-18779997](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-18779997)
​
This is why chicken can still run with their head removed.
---
The chicken is no longer alive though, it is just operating on auto until it stops moving. It does not run around like that for long. Neural clusters all over the body are not the brain.
---
Again I'm not sure why that matters.
The chicken run with its head removed but will eventually die, a human in vitro with a small number of neural cell would also die at about the same speed. And arguably speaking if you placed the chicken in the right environment it would run around for a considerable time.
​
Also if neural clusters are not a brain, then we further have to increase the number of animals that aren't alive. As the neurons in your stomach are both more complex, and more involved than many animals. | b2x5q4 | CMV: A human is alive as soon as it has ANY brain activity | I will not argue about abortion because I am not trying to prove any view for or against abortion. I am posting this for people to question my views and find any flaws in my logic.
My logic is that a life starts as soon as there is any sort of brain activity, regardless of what kind. I do not care about consciousness. I do not even care if the life in question is a human or not (though obviously I am more concerned about humans).
Before there is brain activity, the cells start to divide. The cells are indeed alive. They have a metabolism. But they are not a single organism controlled by a brain yet. They have DNA for their organism, but they are not an organism yet. They are dividing cells.
Some forms of life, like bacteria, do not need a brain to survive and live, but humans do (and all mammals as far as I know). So if there is brain activity, it has become an organism and it can survive or at least have a chance at surviving.
I decided that a confirmed brain dead person is no longer a life. It has no brain activity. At first I hesitated to accept this, but then I did a thought experiment. If the brain activity of a human was somehow transferred to a human body with no brain activity, the human would live on in the new body. I definitely would not consider the leftover body a life in this case. I guess the idea that the person is living on somewhere else is comforting enough for me to not consider the leftover body a life. So this must also mean a brain dead human is also not a life.
It does not matter how fully formed the human is or that it has a unique genetic code. If there is no brain activity it is not a life. Size does not matter either. A 6 week old embryo/fetus is about the size of a grain of rice. But it has brain activity. The sign that it is an organism. It has its control panel. It is not a mass of leaderless cells. Ants have brains and they can be the size of a 6 week old fetus. Just because the fetus is small does not mean it is not an organism.
Again, the kind of brain activity does not matter. If there was an adult human that that had an accident but still had some sort of brain activity, there would be a chance for them to wake up. I would still consider that alive. There is still hope, albeit small. In the case of a 6 week old embryo/fetus, that brain activity definitely isn’t the last wisps of life as it may be in the adult human, it is the beginning of even more brain activity to come. There is life there as an organism controlled by a brain.
I think I’ve covered all my points. I think this is a very clear marker for life. Brain activity is something that can by detected. There is physical evidence of it. There is no exact line that can be made for every organism. Every organism probably gets its first brain wave at a different time. Regardless, this seems like the surest way to decide if something is alive or not. Again, I do not mean metabolism. I mean alive as in an organism that requires a brain to function and that brain is active in some way, even if minor.
Thank you! | troubledyouth15 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "ElectCatsNotFascists",
"id": "eivr7ma",
"score": 2,
"text": "Stemonyx is making “mini-brains” on plates, about 10000 neurons and astrocytes that do develop spontaneous electrical activity and can have seizures. Are they life?",
"timestamp": 1553007229
},
{
"author": "trouble... | [
{
"author": "ace52387",
"id": "eivjlfl",
"score": 10,
"text": "Most \"braindead\" people have brain activity, hence why they retain some basic autonomic functions.",
"timestamp": 1553001834
},
{
"author": "troubledyouth15",
"id": "eivk9ac",
"score": 4,
"text": "I did not know... | [
"eivr7ma",
"eivvwr5",
"eivx4wu",
"eivxxz4",
"eiw8c61"
] | [
"eivjlfl",
"eivk9ac",
"eivliy5",
"eivseq5",
"eivsyhs"
] |
CMV: not wanting your girl to have male friends is not controlling or insecure
Hi there.
I don't want my gf to have male friends. She is totally fine with that.
I often hear from other people that this is insecure and controlling behavior from me.
I disagree, for the following reasons:
Any healthy relationship has boundaries that are agreed upon. They differ from relationship to relationship.
A very common boundary in most relationships is: "don't sleep with other people".
Normally, people don't say this boundary is controlling or comes from insecurity.
"Have no friends of the opposite gender", however, usually gets called the opposite.
Can't you make the exact same argument when it comes to not having sex with others?
Why don't people (in general) don't say: "you're just insecure bro. "Are you scared the other guy will fuck her better? Don't you trust your gf to stay with you?"
I can't understand why. If you decide to draw a line somewhere, it is totally arbitrary where you draw it.
Friends are okay, having sex with others is not.
What about your gf having a sleepover with her male best friend? What if they are naked and sleeping in the same bed? Now the line starts to blur, even for people who are fine with their partner having friends of the opposite gender.
My point is that either all boundaries are coming from insecurity and are controlling or none are. Accepted social standards (monogamy) are no substantive reason as to why one boundary is more okay than another.
Bear in mind, I am talking about two consenting adults. If we stick with my example, no one is forced to not have opposite sex friends. If they feel this boundary is too restrictive, they may just leave.
I am also not judging. It's not "weak" letting your partner have friends of the opposite sex. It's just personal preference.
Why does society in general not accept it, just like we accept other preferences (height, hair color, tattoos or no tattoos, etc.)? | A healthy relationship has healthy boundaries. You can just equivocate all requests as if they are all equal.
Would you feel the same if a couple's boundary was no friends outside the relationship? How about if they can't talk to any of their familiy anymore?
---
Yeah, I would feel the same.
I would not want thse boundaries in my relationship and I would wonder why they agreed on that.
But they are two consenting adults and if they both feel like they want to live that way, that's fine with me.
---
so someone demanding that they cannot talk with ANY other human in their life if they want to stay in a relationship is... NOT controlling to you? | A couple questions.
Why do you draw the line at "Have male friends"?
Do you have any female friends?
---
Gonna start with the last question: no, I don't.
I don't think it's inherently wrong for me to have female friends (or my girl having male friends). My partner has also not told me they are not okay with me having female friends.
I draw the line at her hanging out for fun (so not in a professional context) with other males without my company.
If she's in a group of her girl friends and some bring their bf, that's fine.
I can't give a definitive definition, as it depends on the context of the situation. If she feels like something could violate a boundary, she brings it up (as anyone should in a healthy relationship) and we talk about it to clarify.
Does that answer your question?
---
I guess I'm just curious about why that boundary is there?
Like... my partner has a bunch of activities she's into that aren't my thing (salsa dancing as an example) and like... telling her she can't hang out with dudes would be me telling her she can't do that unless I decided to also take up salsa which I'm not interested in doing.
That rule seems like it would just create a lot of complications | 1mmc13b | CMV: not wanting your girl to have male friends is not controlling or insecure | Hi there.
I don't want my gf to have male friends. She is totally fine with that.
I often hear from other people that this is insecure and controlling behavior from me.
I disagree, for the following reasons:
Any healthy relationship has boundaries that are agreed upon. They differ from relationship to relationship.
A very common boundary in most relationships is: "don't sleep with other people".
Normally, people don't say this boundary is controlling or comes from insecurity.
"Have no friends of the opposite gender", however, usually gets called the opposite.
Can't you make the exact same argument when it comes to not having sex with others?
Why don't people (in general) don't say: "you're just insecure bro. "Are you scared the other guy will fuck her better? Don't you trust your gf to stay with you?"
I can't understand why. If you decide to draw a line somewhere, it is totally arbitrary where you draw it.
Friends are okay, having sex with others is not.
What about your gf having a sleepover with her male best friend? What if they are naked and sleeping in the same bed? Now the line starts to blur, even for people who are fine with their partner having friends of the opposite gender.
My point is that either all boundaries are coming from insecurity and are controlling or none are. Accepted social standards (monogamy) are no substantive reason as to why one boundary is more okay than another.
Bear in mind, I am talking about two consenting adults. If we stick with my example, no one is forced to not have opposite sex friends. If they feel this boundary is too restrictive, they may just leave.
I am also not judging. It's not "weak" letting your partner have friends of the opposite sex. It's just personal preference.
Why does society in general not accept it, just like we accept other preferences (height, hair color, tattoos or no tattoos, etc.)? | Wooden_Nature_8735 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "shouldco",
"id": "n7wkmpi",
"score": 19,
"text": "A healthy relationship has healthy boundaries. You can just equivocate all requests as if they are all equal.\n\nWould you feel the same if a couple's boundary was no friends outside the relationship? How about if they can't talk to any ... | [
{
"author": "sailorbrendan",
"id": "n7wk8zd",
"score": 4,
"text": "A couple questions. \n\nWhy do you draw the line at \"Have male friends\"? \n\nDo you have any female friends?",
"timestamp": 1754809965
},
{
"author": "Wooden_Nature_8735",
"id": "n7wkqwn",
"score": -1,
"text... | [
"n7wkmpi",
"n7wmk7w",
"n7wovvw"
] | [
"n7wk8zd",
"n7wkqwn",
"n7wlac6"
] |
CMV: the tv series "the wire" champions conservative ideals
fyi: some spoilers within (tho for a show that is more than a decade old)
​
if you're a fan of the hbo series, the wire, at first glance you may think it is show that illustrates more neutral to liberal ideas. many ppl will point out the failures of the police or how some working within the drug world are lionized or at least humanized. in season 3 legalization of drugs is explored as a potentially effective but taboo concept, as well as the notion of how money poisons politics. but to think any or all of the above (and any other of the many "liberal" talking points) is what the show is about misses what i believe to be the true central theme of the show:
​
\*\*big institutions exist primarily to serve themselves and not the ppl they are supposed to.\*\*
​
this applies to each of the major groups highlighted in the show: the police, drug gangs, economic systems (like unions), government, schools, and the media. time and again, you see how institutional thinking actively works against objectively better outcomes in favor of what the institution deems is permissible. anyone willing to buck up within these systems to either get out or achieve something systemically better will get beat down and punished or eliminated. and while positive change is possible, it's only at the personal and individual level that this kind of change is achieved and not within the institution itself, which goes chugging along as it has before, maybe swapping out a few ppl along the way. if one of the main objectives of the show is to show the complexities, problems, and failures that plague american urban cities (and allegorically, america as well), then it's also saying that those failures come about in large part due to these institutions as well.
​
this is, imo, a very conservative ideal and the basis for much of classic conservative thought. the show demonstrates we should have disdain and mistrust for institutions (esp government) that, in general, the more liberal-minded would rather put a lot of faith, money, and power in. the show also champions the hyper individualism that is revered in much of the american right (and america in general compared to the world).
​
for the purposes of this CMV, i am only talking about these particular conservative ideals and bypassing the culture war issues (which i would argue is not actual classical conservatism, but is nevertheless a major part of modern conservatism thought today). i will also admit that many conservatives have no issue placing faith and power into certain institutions as well (police and free markets as obvious examples) often because they generally stand to benefit from those institutions more than others, or have convinced ppl they would.
​
as a partial aside, omar is the one character (and i guess michael, at the show's end) who exists totally outside of these institutions, working off his own moral code, and beholden to none of them (tho working with them to various degrees as desired), and is the reason why he is such a striking (almost admirable) character.
​
most of my buddies (who run the political spectrum) disagree wholeheartedly and say the show is more liberal than not, often by citing the examples in the first paragraph. let's discuss and maybe change my view! | In some ways, the main villain of the show is capitalism. That alone precludes it from being anything but anathema to modern American "conservative" politics.
---
*i bleed red, you bleed green*
i think the show treats capitalism as a positive and negative, but immovable, force. as in, there's capitalism will always be there, but there's no alternative to it. there are alternatives to the way institutions are set up/exist.
---
But that’s the crux of a left-leaning read of the show—because the underlying structure underpinning everything is deeply capitalist, individual good intentions are inadequate to solve the big problems.
Those good intentions will always be subsumed and corrupted by more selfish motives that the underlying system rewards by doling out money and power.
I’m not sure how much you’ve followed David Simon, but fundamentally he is coming from the left in his perspective on the world. But he does not have a particularly ideological worldview and its one that’s deeply shaped by his experiences on the ground in Baltimore dealing with those institutions and watching them at work in the city.
In many ways, its a left leaning critique of liberal faith in throwing money and programs at problems with much deeper roots. | I think the genius of the wire is that people of all political tribes - liberals, socialists, conservatives, libertarians etc - can watch the show and find something they feel reflects (or validates) their views.
Perhaps this is because, at its heart, the Wire is a show about individuals and self-interest, *framed* as a story about various institutions from season to season.
---
I absolutely agree. I believe a big theme in the wire is that the system fails because of people not trying. Cops getting drunk instead of doing work, superior officers telling cops to make more arrests even though they know it won't change anything, and politicians telling people they will fix problems then only focusing on reelection. When someone does try, it backfires on them, or they are shown how little the rest of the people in the system care.
---
"There you go - giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck."
I slept on season 5 for the longest time, but rewatching the Wire last year in quarantine, that bit where McNulty sits down with Scott - the "journalist" - and he talks about being trapped in the same lie; that really summed up the whole show for me there. From Bodie, to Rawls, to Carcetti, to Prez - most all the characters are in over their heads in one way or another, and hardly any of them can face up to it. | q3xkm4 | CMV: the tv series "the wire" champions conservative ideals | fyi: some spoilers within (tho for a show that is more than a decade old)
​
if you're a fan of the hbo series, the wire, at first glance you may think it is show that illustrates more neutral to liberal ideas. many ppl will point out the failures of the police or how some working within the drug world are lionized or at least humanized. in season 3 legalization of drugs is explored as a potentially effective but taboo concept, as well as the notion of how money poisons politics. but to think any or all of the above (and any other of the many "liberal" talking points) is what the show is about misses what i believe to be the true central theme of the show:
​
\*\*big institutions exist primarily to serve themselves and not the ppl they are supposed to.\*\*
​
this applies to each of the major groups highlighted in the show: the police, drug gangs, economic systems (like unions), government, schools, and the media. time and again, you see how institutional thinking actively works against objectively better outcomes in favor of what the institution deems is permissible. anyone willing to buck up within these systems to either get out or achieve something systemically better will get beat down and punished or eliminated. and while positive change is possible, it's only at the personal and individual level that this kind of change is achieved and not within the institution itself, which goes chugging along as it has before, maybe swapping out a few ppl along the way. if one of the main objectives of the show is to show the complexities, problems, and failures that plague american urban cities (and allegorically, america as well), then it's also saying that those failures come about in large part due to these institutions as well.
​
this is, imo, a very conservative ideal and the basis for much of classic conservative thought. the show demonstrates we should have disdain and mistrust for institutions (esp government) that, in general, the more liberal-minded would rather put a lot of faith, money, and power in. the show also champions the hyper individualism that is revered in much of the american right (and america in general compared to the world).
​
for the purposes of this CMV, i am only talking about these particular conservative ideals and bypassing the culture war issues (which i would argue is not actual classical conservatism, but is nevertheless a major part of modern conservatism thought today). i will also admit that many conservatives have no issue placing faith and power into certain institutions as well (police and free markets as obvious examples) often because they generally stand to benefit from those institutions more than others, or have convinced ppl they would.
​
as a partial aside, omar is the one character (and i guess michael, at the show's end) who exists totally outside of these institutions, working off his own moral code, and beholden to none of them (tho working with them to various degrees as desired), and is the reason why he is such a striking (almost admirable) character.
​
most of my buddies (who run the political spectrum) disagree wholeheartedly and say the show is more liberal than not, often by citing the examples in the first paragraph. let's discuss and maybe change my view! | PM_me_ur_datascience | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "tinoynk",
"id": "hfutr1r",
"score": 7,
"text": "In some ways, the main villain of the show is capitalism. That alone precludes it from being anything but anathema to modern American \"conservative\" politics.",
"timestamp": 1633702271
},
{
"author": "PM_me_ur_datascience",
... | [
{
"author": "blatant_ban_evasion_",
"id": "hfuriz5",
"score": 19,
"text": "I think the genius of the wire is that people of all political tribes - liberals, socialists, conservatives, libertarians etc - can watch the show and find something they feel reflects (or validates) their views. \n\nPerhaps ... | [
"hfutr1r",
"hfuvkir",
"hfv0a87"
] | [
"hfuriz5",
"hfusovb",
"hfuuado"
] |
CMV: Homeschooling shouldn't be legal in the United States
It's legal in the U.S., but my spouse comes from a country where homeschooling is not legal and I feel like that makes so much more sense. My own experience may bias me but a grew up in a part of the country with a HUGE amount of people who were homeschooled for religious reasons (a lot of hardcore evangelicals and Pentecostals mostly homeschooled to avoid learning evolution, no sex-ed, etc). School is a place where we learn to live together in a society and can be united by core values that tie this country together. It also gives kids exposure to ideas outside of their family of origin and exposure to people who can help them if their family situation isn't good at home (teacher, school nurse, school counselor). I know there are some check and regulations, but one also sees stories in the news (like the recent best-selling book Educated) or here on Reddit where those regulations failed and kids got no help in abusive situations. Homeschooling families can further isolate themselves from society creating small factions and extremist movements that hurt society at large (anti-vaxxer is one example). I know that not ALL homeschool families are like that and I have met homeschooled people who clearly turned out well-adjusted, but I feel like there is something to be said for a shared set of values, ideas, exposure to other ideas, and place to learn all of them. I don't find religious freedom so convincing as a rationale for homeschooling either because school doesn't mandate that students have to follow any particular religion (at least they're not supposed to). I'm interested in compelling arguments for why it SHOULD be allowed, though.
_____
> *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!* | Some parents homeschool their children because the bullying problem is so bad and their children are so targeted, and the public school they are in will not do anything about it. In these cases, I think it is entirely justifiable to homeschool your child to get them away from a situation that is detrimental to their upbringing and wellbeing.
Sometimes, it isn't just bullying, but also violence, crime, and gang life in schools, especially once you get into middle and high school. Parents keeping their children out of these kinds of environments may be protecting them from being recruited to a gang, from being robbed or beat up, or other bad outcomes.
Another argument is that while some public schools are good, many are very bad indeed and the parent may be able to provide a better education than the one the child will receive in the school. This is especially true if the parent has some educational background.
I agree that we could have better standards for what children learn in homeschooling and assuring certain bars of competency are met both by the parent to provide the education, and by the child to make sure they are not falling years behind their peers or being indoctrinated with false beliefs. But there are public and private schools teaching many harmful, outdated, misinformed things also. Add in the dangers of bullying and school violence for kids who are vulnerable to those things, and I can see a case for homeschooling being allowed for at least some children.
---
> the public school they are in will not do anything about it.
But then isn't *that* the problem that should be addressed? I think addressing problems like bullying in a more productive way is a better solution than allowing homeschooling.
---
When it's your kid being bullied, would you rather wait years for the wheels of change to turn while the bullying continues, or remove them from the situation? | > feel like there is something to be said for a shared set of values, ideas, exposure to other ideas, and place to learn all of them.
You think the State should have more ownership of children and their development than their parents in 100% of all cases?
---
I guess the difference for me is that I don't think of public school as state ownership over a child's development? Maybe if I did I'd find the whole thing more convincing. For me, I feel like WE as a society, have a responsibility to educate children, not only their parents.
---
On what basis do you disagree that public schools are state-run? Whatever you feel, the fact of the matter is schools *are* run by the state. The state decides how they're funded, how they're run, what gets taught, how it gets taught, etc.
It's not a collection of regular families (including the families of home-schooled children) working together to make the big decisions on how to best educate our children. It's bureaucrats. | b2ybul | CMV: Homeschooling shouldn't be legal in the United States | It's legal in the U.S., but my spouse comes from a country where homeschooling is not legal and I feel like that makes so much more sense. My own experience may bias me but a grew up in a part of the country with a HUGE amount of people who were homeschooled for religious reasons (a lot of hardcore evangelicals and Pentecostals mostly homeschooled to avoid learning evolution, no sex-ed, etc). School is a place where we learn to live together in a society and can be united by core values that tie this country together. It also gives kids exposure to ideas outside of their family of origin and exposure to people who can help them if their family situation isn't good at home (teacher, school nurse, school counselor). I know there are some check and regulations, but one also sees stories in the news (like the recent best-selling book Educated) or here on Reddit where those regulations failed and kids got no help in abusive situations. Homeschooling families can further isolate themselves from society creating small factions and extremist movements that hurt society at large (anti-vaxxer is one example). I know that not ALL homeschool families are like that and I have met homeschooled people who clearly turned out well-adjusted, but I feel like there is something to be said for a shared set of values, ideas, exposure to other ideas, and place to learn all of them. I don't find religious freedom so convincing as a rationale for homeschooling either because school doesn't mandate that students have to follow any particular religion (at least they're not supposed to). I'm interested in compelling arguments for why it SHOULD be allowed, though.
_____
> *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!* | ArtichokeOwl | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "SuperSpyChase",
"id": "eivt9hi",
"score": 2,
"text": "Some parents homeschool their children because the bullying problem is so bad and their children are so targeted, and the public school they are in will not do anything about it. In these cases, I think it is entirely justifiable to ... | [
{
"author": "bjankles",
"id": "eivrani",
"score": 11,
"text": "> feel like there is something to be said for a shared set of values, ideas, exposure to other ideas, and place to learn all of them.\n\nYou think the State should have more ownership of children and their development than their parents... | [
"eivt9hi",
"eivuc4m",
"eivuk10"
] | [
"eivrani",
"eivthx3",
"eivu0ho"
] |
CMV: Elon’s new CyberTruck is awesome and a bold move toward breaking traditional design molds
In a world full of generic and antiquated design, I think that bold explorations into alternative forms is something rarely celebrated, but should be.
Is the new Tesla truck ugly? That depends on perspective. But regardless of whether it’s appealing to someone or another, one thing is clear: it’s *different*. Different is good. Different brings new innovation. Different challenges us to move beyond comfort zones into uncharted territories.
By making a truck design like this, Elon is challenging us to throw out old conceptions of how vehicles have looked, forcing us to think different.
Regardless of whether we *individually* like the look of the truck, I feel that that type of bold design will only encourage future designers to move beyond previous models in search of new forms that will shape future conceptions of travel.
What do you think? Am I looking too far in to this? Change my view. | Product designer here. It’s garbage dude.
Have you ever been to r/oldschoolcool? Notice how some “old styles” are trendy but look like garbage today, and some are classic and look old school but cool? Ever wonder what the difference is?
Look. I’m gonna go our on a limb here and say you aren’t a designer. And yes, aesthetics are “subjective”. But product design is more than aesthetics and even subjective things have coherent objective frameworks they relate to.
Design has been described as *”breaking the rules beautifully”*. That’s not the same thing as ignoring the rules. Communicating something with design is not different than communicating it verbally. Communicating requires a shared vocabulary. Imagine a book so innovative that every word was new. Imagine a song that was nothing but notes that had never been played before in a new order. Wow that would be breaking traditional molds. It would also sound like garbage.
The point of innovation isn’t quantity. It’s quality. Like any music, you need a shared set of common vocabulary to tell a story. And honestly, people don’t understand stories that are *too* new. But a little innovation is all it takes. Too much is just muddled nonsense.
But that’s not really my problem with the Elon mobile. My problem isn’t too much innovation. It’s too little.
Being a designer, I’ve seen a lot of people’s first attempt to draw a car. Their 1,000th isn’t always their best. But it’s always better than their first. This is someone’s first attempt.
Everything about this design is naïve. First of all, *low poly* or *tesselated* is the aesthetic this is coming from. It’s about 6 years past it’s prime and was one of the most fleeting movements in product design ever. It’s the “pogs” of design movements. It never really made it past [art masks](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/404127766544293301/) and [Pinterest succulent vases](https://www.etsy.com/sg-en/listing/654899339/low-poly-bulbassaur-planter-pokemon). But it’s already in decline because it’s just a superficial trend with nothing lasting to say to us.
In a truck, these lines don’t really make sense. There will be a lot of excess wasted space. There will be a lot of needless expense. There will be a lot of compromising function to meet this form. It means there won’t be a lot of other vehicles produced that echo this one. It means this is a song that won’t find many similes in our shared vocabulary. It means 30 years from now, people won’t call this old school cool. But weird garbage.
---
Δ
First of all, this is a great response and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, learning from your perspective and experience, and seeing design through your lens. I agree with probably everything you’re saying. It’s the most coherent design-centric argument thus far, so thank you.
*And*, yes I am a designer and filmmaker. I don’t do product design, so that’s a different realm for me, but I’m a graphic designer, artist, and builder. That said, yes I wholly admit car design is not my area of knowledge.
Does that mean my perspective isn’t valid? Of course not. *But*, you’ve made enough legit arguments that you’ve changed my view by a couple degrees, so thanks again 🤓
---
Let me counter here a bit. I work with product designers and /u/foc-macleod doesn't sound like one. He or she sounds like an art student - full of platitudes, little substance.
First of all, product design has to follow production capabilities. Tesla claims that the design is a consequence of their inovative frame production techniques which make the car more robust and cheaper to produce but at the same time unconventionally looking. Don't write a design off just because someone finds the look superficial.
Second, there is no information on the interior spacing, all of the critique of that is pure speculation.
Third, this:
>>The point of innovation isn’t quantity. It’s quality. Like any music, you need a shared set of common vocabulary to tell a story. And honestly, people don’t understand stories that are too new. But a little innovation is all it takes. Too much is just muddled nonsense.
This is pure garbage.
Innovation is in fact very often about quantity. Just look at Ford model T.
Also, a book with a whole lot of new words sound awfully like what James Joyce used to write or the famous Jabberwocky poem by Carroll. And it's not like Tesla is a complete non-car anyway.
Now I'm not saying the Tesla truck is all roses. It's a prototype. A lot of questions are unanswered (internal space, safety etc.) And also it just may not work out as a large production vehicle. I would not take Musks words at face value.
It's just that the above critique completely missed the point. | It does no good to produce a car that have no market viability if you want the industry to change course.
It’s not like he’s the first to make different looking cars. It happened frequently in the 80s and 90s
---
Market viability is sorta relative here though, right? We’ve already seen a couple other Tesla truck designs that will go in to production, including one that looks more similar to the current truck trends.
The CyberTruck might just have the right appeal for a specific demographic. I mean, I’d drive one, and I’m not alone.
---
The overwhelming majority think it was a complete fail on his part. His stock ranked - and he lost almost a billion dollars in net worth in a day.
If you’d drive it you’re in an extreme minority | e0ktha | CMV: Elon’s new CyberTruck is awesome and a bold move toward breaking traditional design molds | In a world full of generic and antiquated design, I think that bold explorations into alternative forms is something rarely celebrated, but should be.
Is the new Tesla truck ugly? That depends on perspective. But regardless of whether it’s appealing to someone or another, one thing is clear: it’s *different*. Different is good. Different brings new innovation. Different challenges us to move beyond comfort zones into uncharted territories.
By making a truck design like this, Elon is challenging us to throw out old conceptions of how vehicles have looked, forcing us to think different.
Regardless of whether we *individually* like the look of the truck, I feel that that type of bold design will only encourage future designers to move beyond previous models in search of new forms that will shape future conceptions of travel.
What do you think? Am I looking too far in to this? Change my view. | Cosmohumanist | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "fox-mcleod",
"id": "f8ez9wu",
"score": 1508,
"text": "Product designer here. It’s garbage dude. \n\nHave you ever been to r/oldschoolcool? Notice how some “old styles” are trendy but look like garbage today, and some are classic and look old school but cool? Ever wonder what the differe... | [
{
"author": "vettewiz",
"id": "f8em9rz",
"score": 33,
"text": "It does no good to produce a car that have no market viability if you want the industry to change course. \n\nIt’s not like he’s the first to make different looking cars. It happened frequently in the 80s and 90s",
"timestamp": 15745... | [
"f8ez9wu",
"f8f0s2a",
"f8jcmnu"
] | [
"f8em9rz",
"f8equo5",
"f8eqyt6"
] |
CMV: Police should be called when there is bullying/ signs of bullying in school.
i feel teachers and other people at the school they are busy with teaching or they might not know how to deal with bully situation, or when they do say something ,it is often too gentle.
say i am a bully and i am not nice to others, and teacher just tell me to stop. i might be thinking:" no, i am not i will keep at it, and if you keep bothering me i will hurt you as well." but if there is a police telling me to stop and they will arrest me if i continue, i think i will behave.
so just call a police, get the professional to deal.
say some kids fighting, or bad mouthing, or mean to each other, just call the police and come the the class give the kids some lessons. tell them what kind of behavior is unkind and what would get them in prison etc. and the tone of the police doesnot have to be that nice.（not nice as in, they already got teachers cuddle them, so when the police tell them not to hurt anyone/ what consequence there are etc,they should be very serious and stern.）
and if someone is seriously bullied other people take them to the police station, give them the punish they deserve.
​
i think it is better to call the police before anyone actually died or bring a gun to school to hurt people/ to protect themselves. | So call the police to wag their finger? Because that's all the police could do. Literally nothing else, unless the bullying moves into actual criminal levels. The police couldn't even make the child stay and listen to them.
Also:
>so just call a police, get the professional to deal.
Where are you that police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues? They're not professionals anywhere I've seen.
---
"So call the police to wag their finger?"
yes, exactly. to intimidate somehow, the younger the kids this works better. and when the little one know what not to do, when they grow old they will stick to the right thing to do.
"The police couldn't even make the child stay and listen to them."
just puting the kids in a room with their teacher in it, and let the police do the talking. i cannot be very sure of every detail. i have never see this happen or read it anywhere.
“Where are you that police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues? They're not professionals anywhere I've seen.”
police in my country are not the perfect to do this, i have never heard they actually did this. it is an idea that i think should be reality. sure they are not made to do this, but how do police deal with hooligans in real life? dial it down to deal with kids.
and if police donot this, who else would be better to do this? teachers? very few of them do anything about it. and they are afraid of bully or bully's parents probably.
police might not solve 100% of bully, but police donot solve 100% steal, murder etc. but they can play an important role. it is much better than to tell the parents or teachers, because they mostly busy with other stuff, and police are more impartial. i am not saying police has to go to school every time there's something problematic happen with the kids, but they can go the a school a few times a year.
---
>"So call the police to wag their finger?"
>
>yes, exactly. to intimidate somehow, the younger the kids this works better. and when the little one know what not to do, when they grow old they will stick to the right thing to do.
Nah, this will just desensitize the kids and eventually they'll get used to it. Kids aren't stupid. If the kids doing the bullying don't fear adult faculty, they'll very quickly learn not to fear the police either.
>just puting the kids in a room with their teacher in it, and let the police do the talking. i cannot be very sure of every detail. i have never see this happen or read it anywhere.
Eventually, the kid will realize that the police have no real power over them aside from talking. If anything, they'll eventually learn to view the police as impotent as long as they're minors.
>police in my country are not the perfect to do this, i have never heard they actually did this. it is an idea that i think should be reality. sure they are not made to do this, but how do police deal with hooligans in real life? dial it down to deal with kids.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for police and law enforcement in general. That said, they have, what, 6 months training before they hit the streets? The environment of a school is different from the general environment of the streets. Police officers aren't trained, nor should they be, to go from dealing with the general public, to very specifically, dealing with school-age children in a school environment.
Cops tend to have very aggressive, hardened personalities in order to deal with criminals. They have to. And they're not got going to be able to turn that off so easily once they're being called into every so often to handle bullying situations at schools.
It's not the job of the police, it's the job of the parents AND the school faculty. The parents have the obligation and responsibility to make sure they're raising their child right NOT to bully others, and the school has the responsibility of ensuring a safe environment for the children.
>and if police donot this, who else would be better to do this? teachers?
No, the parents. If the parents can't do their job to discipline their child and teach him or her respect, then for sure, the teacher won't be able to.
>very few of them do anything about it. and they are afraid of bully or bully's parents probably.
If the bully and/or the parents are that fearsome that they intimidate adult teachers, that's a sign of a way bigger problem. Chances are they're not going to fear police either.
> i am not saying police has to go to school every time there's something problematic happen with the kids, but they can go the a school a few times a year.
Bullying happens on the daily. So yeah, this isn't going to work. | Bullying is not illegal. Police can not do anything more than school personnel until a crime has been committed.
---
some action of bully might not be illegal, but what about someone get beat? if this is not illgel, this should made to be.
---
Well someone gets beat that is now a crime of assault and battery. Now the police would be involved. Bullying in and of itself is not a crime. If you were calling the police for bullying you were just wasting their time and preventing them from responding to more important actual crimes. | q3q8vf | CMV: Police should be called when there is bullying/ signs of bullying in school. | i feel teachers and other people at the school they are busy with teaching or they might not know how to deal with bully situation, or when they do say something ,it is often too gentle.
say i am a bully and i am not nice to others, and teacher just tell me to stop. i might be thinking:" no, i am not i will keep at it, and if you keep bothering me i will hurt you as well." but if there is a police telling me to stop and they will arrest me if i continue, i think i will behave.
so just call a police, get the professional to deal.
say some kids fighting, or bad mouthing, or mean to each other, just call the police and come the the class give the kids some lessons. tell them what kind of behavior is unkind and what would get them in prison etc. and the tone of the police doesnot have to be that nice.（not nice as in, they already got teachers cuddle them, so when the police tell them not to hurt anyone/ what consequence there are etc,they should be very serious and stern.）
and if someone is seriously bullied other people take them to the police station, give them the punish they deserve.
​
i think it is better to call the police before anyone actually died or bring a gun to school to hurt people/ to protect themselves. | itWillGetFresher | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Feathring",
"id": "hftgeph",
"score": 5,
"text": "So call the police to wag their finger? Because that's all the police could do. Literally nothing else, unless the bullying moves into actual criminal levels. The police couldn't even make the child stay and listen to them.\n\nAlso:\n>so... | [
{
"author": "harley9779",
"id": "hftgf5e",
"score": 1,
"text": "Bullying is not illegal. Police can not do anything more than school personnel until a crime has been committed.",
"timestamp": 1633667261
},
{
"author": "itWillGetFresher",
"id": "hftor6s",
"score": 1,
"text": "... | [
"hftgeph",
"hfton0g",
"hg2kmw3"
] | [
"hftgf5e",
"hftor6s",
"hftouz8"
] |
CMV: Pro-lifers are morally obliged to actively target men/encourage male contraception.
I'm willing to concede that societal acceptance of abortion, especially late term abortions are a moral greyzone. While I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with quickly terminating the life of a non-viable fetus, I don't think I'd want to live in a society where this was an accepted norm. I think it's a very healthy human instinct to anthropomorphize and sympathise with sentient beings that are perceived as 'defenseless', and this sentiment is where I believe many pro-lifers come from.
That said, I'm also a feminist. And I find it absurd to demand that women sacrifice bodily autonomy just because they're biologically wired to carry a pregnancy. So the way I see it in an ideal world, for both pro-lifers/choicers, we'd find a way to ensure millions of fetuses are not aborted, while at the same time not curtailing a woman's right to choose.
If that's the case, male contraception is the PERFECT solution. Condoms are 99% effective when used correctly, the least expensive, most available and have practically no side effects. So why is it that while I've hear every pro-life stance ranging from the 'poor fetus' to 'women who abort are monsters', In all my years on the internet I haven't run into a single pro-lifer faulting men for the abortion stats they so vehemently condemn?
Why is all the hell-fire reserved for feminism and women, when if they redirected their attention to men they're guaranteed to have better results?
I'd love to hear a counter-argument on why the pro-life stance is allowed to be so focused on women while giving guys what to me looks like a free pass. | The simplest answer is that "moral obligations" are a pretty subjective thing, being entirely reliant on the moral principles a person holds as true. It's entirely possible for "opposing abortion" to not have some conditional obligation in plenty of moral systems, in the same way that generally opposing murder doesn't entail an obligation to encourage crime prevention.
Also, whether you like it or not, a significant portion of the pro-life crowd is arguing one further than male contraceptives, which is abstinence. Which is, ultimately, a more effective manner of achieving the same goal of not causing a pregnancy. And even if you disagree with practicing abstinence, you can't say they're not doing anything.
---
I can see where you're coming from, but I find it unconvincing because of this : the way I see it, a consistent moral system would require that if a stance is held as morally right/absolute, any measure that supports or enables that stance (without contradicting some other aspect of the system) becomes right by default. The degree to which the measure enables the stance should determine how valid the measure is. If you were actively defending or enforcing that stance you would have to defend/enforce the measure or explicitly state a valid reason not to. Failure to do this makes your moral framework entirely too arbitrary to get consensus on... At which point it can rightly be labelled as inconsistent/discriminatory/hypocritical and hence invalid.
This applies to your murder analogy as well. If you were going around as an anti-murder activist and someone told you "Hey, lead pollutants mess with people's heads and make them 70% more likely to commit acts of violence or murder", at that point unless you have a counter reason, you are obliged to become anti-lead or something, and do everything possible to minimize/mitigate it's effects. If not, your motives and morality come into question. (ie. Do you want to prevent abortion because the fetus life matters or because you want to control women)
Same way, unprotected male ejaculation causes pregnancy. If 50% of men today didn't have unprotected sex without mutually deciding to have a baby with their female partner, your abortion statistics would go down by 40-45% (guesstimate, allowing for women who say they're willing and then change their mind).
So by the requirements for a consistent moral framework I've laid out ( I'm open to having this challenged), my initial statement holds with the caveat that it is only valid if we're looking for an internally consistent moral system.
The Abstinence bit is way more interesting though. Could you link a few sources to this 'significant portion' advocating for it?
---
> I can see where you're coming from, but I find it unconvincing because of this : the way I see it, a consistent moral system would require that if a stance is held as morally right/absolute, any measure that supports or enables that stance (without contradicting some other aspect of the system) becomes right by default. The degree to which the measure enables the stance should determine how valid the measure is. If you were actively defending or enforcing that stance you would have to defend/enforce the measure or explicitly state a valid reason not to. Failure to do this makes your moral framework entirely too arbitrary to get consensus on... At which point it can rightly be labelled as inconsistent/discriminatory/hypocritical and hence invalid.
I’m not sure this holds up to scrutiny. If I believe that we should feed the poor that doesn’t mean I have to support a 100% tax to accomplish it, nor that I have to condone cannibalism.
> The Abstinence bit is way more interesting though. Could you link a few sources to this 'significant portion' advocating for it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education#:~:text=5%20References-,Description,sexually%20transmitted%20infections%20(STIs).
I’ll give the conservatives this - they have been consistently in favor of abstinence-only sex education. To the point that in 26 states it is *required* as part of any sex ed curriculum. | Because being pro life isn't about caring about the defenceless sentiment being. It's about controlling women.
Why would you try to place the responsibility on men when you can blame and control women?
---
Has there ever been a shred of evidence put forth about this hyperbolic talking point always thrown around about "controlling women" ?
Lol... I don't think anyone actually believes this nonsense. It's very obviously just a made up argument that's only meant to pretend like the "other side" is evil and has evil intentions. You may as well go with "Those pro abortion people just want the world to have more dead babies because they server Moloch whether they know him or not". It's an equally vapid and silly argument that only serves to avoid the actual argument.
---
Banning abortion literally controls what women can do with their bodies.
I'm not sure what other evidence you'd need, but there is plenty there. | 17jocds | CMV: Pro-lifers are morally obliged to actively target men/encourage male contraception. | I'm willing to concede that societal acceptance of abortion, especially late term abortions are a moral greyzone. While I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with quickly terminating the life of a non-viable fetus, I don't think I'd want to live in a society where this was an accepted norm. I think it's a very healthy human instinct to anthropomorphize and sympathise with sentient beings that are perceived as 'defenseless', and this sentiment is where I believe many pro-lifers come from.
That said, I'm also a feminist. And I find it absurd to demand that women sacrifice bodily autonomy just because they're biologically wired to carry a pregnancy. So the way I see it in an ideal world, for both pro-lifers/choicers, we'd find a way to ensure millions of fetuses are not aborted, while at the same time not curtailing a woman's right to choose.
If that's the case, male contraception is the PERFECT solution. Condoms are 99% effective when used correctly, the least expensive, most available and have practically no side effects. So why is it that while I've hear every pro-life stance ranging from the 'poor fetus' to 'women who abort are monsters', In all my years on the internet I haven't run into a single pro-lifer faulting men for the abortion stats they so vehemently condemn?
Why is all the hell-fire reserved for feminism and women, when if they redirected their attention to men they're guaranteed to have better results?
I'd love to hear a counter-argument on why the pro-life stance is allowed to be so focused on women while giving guys what to me looks like a free pass. | Round-Inspection7011 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "GeorgeWhorewell1894",
"id": "k72aqdr",
"score": 21,
"text": "The simplest answer is that \"moral obligations\" are a pretty subjective thing, being entirely reliant on the moral principles a person holds as true. It's entirely possible for \"opposing abortion\" to not have some conditio... | [
{
"author": "alwaysright12",
"id": "k72cggd",
"score": -10,
"text": "Because being pro life isn't about caring about the defenceless sentiment being. It's about controlling women.\n\nWhy would you try to place the responsibility on men when you can blame and control women?",
"timestamp": 1698655... | [
"k72aqdr",
"k72i3j7",
"k72vgpd"
] | [
"k72cggd",
"k72d45k",
"k72d8ba"
] |
CMV: It is a violation of basic human rights to send kids to school
Premise 1: There's some basic intuition we have about a human right (e.g. Article 3 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights) of not being under threat of death, or more generally, of having security about you body and your immediate goods.
That is not to say this right can be universally applied, but I believe most people would agree with a formulation like "If society can easily provide certain things to a person, or just stop forcing them to do certain things, in order to greatly increase their security from being violently assaulted, murdered or stolen from, society should do that". We do this all the time by allowing people to have things such as lock, doors, send restraining orders, change the place where they live, provide a police force to patrol the streets, provide them (in certain countries) with the right to carry weapons to defend themselves... etc.
Premise 2: Schools are a less safe environment than all other environments besides literal war zones and extremely crime-ridden parts of cities which are very uncommon.
It's very hard to find numbers on this, so let's go with the data wikipeida has, a CDC study for the US of a "representative sample of students" and a report of an enquiry committee into the subject of school violence (presumably commissioned by the UK government) .
For the US:
> 5.9% of students carried a weapon (e.g. gun, knife, etc.) on school property during the 30 days antedating the survey
> 7.8% of high school students reported having been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once
> In the 12 months antedating the survey, 12.4% of students had been in a physical fight on school property at least once
> In the 30 days antedating the survey, 5.5% of students reported that because they did not feel safe, they did not go to school on at least one day
For the UK:
> found that 2 percent of teachers had reported facing physical aggression
> teachers' trade union NASUWT found that over 16% claimed to have been physically assaulted by students in the previous two years
> Wales, a 2009 survey found that two-fifths of teachers reported having been assaulted in the classroom. 49% had been threatened with assault
So obviously the rate of violence varies quite a lot, under somewhat expected patterns (e.g. I would expect people in Wales to be more aggressive than... most other parts of Europe, no offense), but the point is that it's an observably high number.
12.4% of students fighting during a given month at least once it's the kind of thing that you observe, I observed this in high school and school and most people I know had similar experiences (and we didn't got to particularly bad schools).
Most people I know, including myself, were forced to fight and encouraged to start fights in school (and I know the trend continued, and even got worst, in worst-off high schools where most of the high aggressive kids seemed to have ended up).
So I think there's both empirical and statistical evidence that aggression is rather common in schools against the pupils. Note, I'm bringing up the numbers regarding aggression against the teachers because it can be an indicator of overall aggression, I don't think this point applies to teachers, which are going to schools on a voluntary basis.
It's much harder to figure out how common aggression is in the normal world, because there seem to be no statistics on the subject except for crime statistics, and obviously most aggression is not reported to the police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
Based on this, I guess the rate in the US is about 0.7%, per year, assuming that 100% of those a crime were inflicted upon were different people. So that leave us with ~ 0.06%/month
Now, in the school fighting scenario, let's say that out of that 12.4%, every fight had a "perpetrator" and a "victim" and we only care about victims, that's how the crime rate is counted (aka 1 crime accounts for 1 or multiple perpetrators and one of multiple victims, and we only care about victim, so): 6.2% of kids were the victim of an assault during school.
So we have 0.06% in normal society, vs 6.2% in school. that's a pretty gaping difference, even if you say "Well, maybe 4 out of 5 assaults never get reported to the police" or "Well, maybe 4 out of 5 fights aren't that serious and nobody really gets hurt"... you're still left, with an over 5x difference.
And again, empirically speaking, I remember fights every single week in school and high school, if not more often, which sometimes ended up in black eyes, broken bones and other types of long-lasting damage. Most people remember this kind of thing.
On the other hand, I've been in various environments in the "real world", including living as the neighbour of a drug gang in Dublin (not the safest of towns), visiting places where crime rates have an extra digit compared to Europe, construction sites, large office buildings, planes, roads, bars... essentially, loads of environments where you have loads of people, sometimes aggressive people, packed together. I've witnessed maybe 2x fights in ~6 years of adult life, and that's really stretching the definition of "fight". Most people seem to share my experience, fights are not common, injuring other people is not common.
Conclusion/View to be changed:
Since children are humans, living in the same environment as us, and since humans have a right to safety, especially when it's easy for us as a society to provide it, children should not be obligated by law to go to school (or rather, parents shouldn't be forced to send them).
It might well be that some kids enjoy the high-aggression environment of schools (personally, as a very tall and bulky kid I kinda did), but I assume there's certain kids which hate it, just as much as you as an adult would hate being randomly beaten when you walk the street every 10th day of the week (even if the beating is never lethal and you can fight back).
So it is a violation of a kid's fundamental right of security to force them to attend school if an alternative (e.g. staying home, playing around in their safe neighbourhood) is available.
Clarification: Since most comments bought in a utilitarian~style argument, and only a few tried to argue with my definition of right and/or my way of proving schools are unsafe, I feel like I should mention:
My stance is NOT that I believe school is actually harmful, or (assuming my base position was true) that kids should not longer be sent to school. This is a question about social ethics, not practical policy.
Hopefully that makes sense. | But the low change of aggression is outweighed by the benefits an educated populace can provide. [Education also reduces crime](https://voxeu.org/article/why-education-reduces-crime). So, it makes sense that aggression rates are higher while people are still getting educated compared to after they have had a proper education. Also, we violate fundamental rights legally all the time for the greater good (especially the first amendment in the US).
---
>But the low change of aggression is outweighed by the benefits an educated populace can provide.
Can't you make the same argument for e.g. slavery?
My point here isn't that the utilitarian calculus of going to school is necessarily unfavorable, it's that, given that we want to hold human rights as absolute, or at least above petty utilitarian gains, than safety from physical harm (especially in the "not being forced into a violent environment by the state" sort of way) should be placed on the same pedestal as freedom.
I guess you could argue safety is less important than freedom/autonomy? But constitutions and declarations of human rights actually seem to place it before freedom/autonomy and all of them mention it.
Overall, I can grant you the point of "maybe it's better to send kids to school" but unless you can argue a fundamental right is not being violated.... then it doesn't really change my view.
I agree that from an economic/utilitarian perspective society is better off with forced schooling.
Alternatively, if you can argue there's literally no way for a society (and thus fundamental rights) to exist without schooling that would also be a reasonable argument or at least the same kind used to justify e.g. conscription, or imprisonment.
But considering most constitutions were written by plenty of people that didn't go to school and were maybe schooled by a local priest or aristocrat... I think that'd be rather hard to argue? Maybe not ?
---
> than safety from physical harm (especially in the "not being forced into a violent environment by the state" sort of way) should be placed on the same pedestal as freedom.
And it is. Children in school are not allowed to attack other children. There are laws and supervision that is in place to stop this from happening. If they are not enough, then we should thing about other measures.
You want to allow disregarding other children's rights (f.ex. right to access to education, acting in best interest of a child, right to set up/join groups) if a parent decides that child will be safer in home. This is a major loophole that allows for other rights of a child to be easily broken.
> I agree that from an economic/utilitarian perspective society is better off with forced schooling.
Not only from economic/utilitarian, but also from objective point of children's development. For a child to develop socially, it has to be exposed to a society, and that is cannot possible without schools, as in other situation these social situations are reglamented and chosen by parent.
> But considering most constitutions were written by plenty of people that didn't go to school and were maybe schooled by a local priest or aristocrat
Children rights were adopted in 1924, long after public schooling were adopted - and they do not specifically adressed the term of asfety, this was a point in UNCRC in 1989. | [deleted]
---
Ah, finally someone actually touching my argument, took a long while :p
It is very late and I don't have time to look at the statistics and formulate a rebuttal (if I can) but preemptive !delta, because I am indeed going on the assumption that the "outside world" a kid would interact with is different than inside a school, but realistically speaking, kids will be among other kids, so if violence outside a school is the same (or worst) than inside than it doesn't make much difference.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/rehcsel ([90∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/rehcsel)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | g8zs5g | CMV: It is a violation of basic human rights to send kids to school | Premise 1: There's some basic intuition we have about a human right (e.g. Article 3 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights) of not being under threat of death, or more generally, of having security about you body and your immediate goods.
That is not to say this right can be universally applied, but I believe most people would agree with a formulation like "If society can easily provide certain things to a person, or just stop forcing them to do certain things, in order to greatly increase their security from being violently assaulted, murdered or stolen from, society should do that". We do this all the time by allowing people to have things such as lock, doors, send restraining orders, change the place where they live, provide a police force to patrol the streets, provide them (in certain countries) with the right to carry weapons to defend themselves... etc.
Premise 2: Schools are a less safe environment than all other environments besides literal war zones and extremely crime-ridden parts of cities which are very uncommon.
It's very hard to find numbers on this, so let's go with the data wikipeida has, a CDC study for the US of a "representative sample of students" and a report of an enquiry committee into the subject of school violence (presumably commissioned by the UK government) .
For the US:
> 5.9% of students carried a weapon (e.g. gun, knife, etc.) on school property during the 30 days antedating the survey
> 7.8% of high school students reported having been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once
> In the 12 months antedating the survey, 12.4% of students had been in a physical fight on school property at least once
> In the 30 days antedating the survey, 5.5% of students reported that because they did not feel safe, they did not go to school on at least one day
For the UK:
> found that 2 percent of teachers had reported facing physical aggression
> teachers' trade union NASUWT found that over 16% claimed to have been physically assaulted by students in the previous two years
> Wales, a 2009 survey found that two-fifths of teachers reported having been assaulted in the classroom. 49% had been threatened with assault
So obviously the rate of violence varies quite a lot, under somewhat expected patterns (e.g. I would expect people in Wales to be more aggressive than... most other parts of Europe, no offense), but the point is that it's an observably high number.
12.4% of students fighting during a given month at least once it's the kind of thing that you observe, I observed this in high school and school and most people I know had similar experiences (and we didn't got to particularly bad schools).
Most people I know, including myself, were forced to fight and encouraged to start fights in school (and I know the trend continued, and even got worst, in worst-off high schools where most of the high aggressive kids seemed to have ended up).
So I think there's both empirical and statistical evidence that aggression is rather common in schools against the pupils. Note, I'm bringing up the numbers regarding aggression against the teachers because it can be an indicator of overall aggression, I don't think this point applies to teachers, which are going to schools on a voluntary basis.
It's much harder to figure out how common aggression is in the normal world, because there seem to be no statistics on the subject except for crime statistics, and obviously most aggression is not reported to the police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
Based on this, I guess the rate in the US is about 0.7%, per year, assuming that 100% of those a crime were inflicted upon were different people. So that leave us with ~ 0.06%/month
Now, in the school fighting scenario, let's say that out of that 12.4%, every fight had a "perpetrator" and a "victim" and we only care about victims, that's how the crime rate is counted (aka 1 crime accounts for 1 or multiple perpetrators and one of multiple victims, and we only care about victim, so): 6.2% of kids were the victim of an assault during school.
So we have 0.06% in normal society, vs 6.2% in school. that's a pretty gaping difference, even if you say "Well, maybe 4 out of 5 assaults never get reported to the police" or "Well, maybe 4 out of 5 fights aren't that serious and nobody really gets hurt"... you're still left, with an over 5x difference.
And again, empirically speaking, I remember fights every single week in school and high school, if not more often, which sometimes ended up in black eyes, broken bones and other types of long-lasting damage. Most people remember this kind of thing.
On the other hand, I've been in various environments in the "real world", including living as the neighbour of a drug gang in Dublin (not the safest of towns), visiting places where crime rates have an extra digit compared to Europe, construction sites, large office buildings, planes, roads, bars... essentially, loads of environments where you have loads of people, sometimes aggressive people, packed together. I've witnessed maybe 2x fights in ~6 years of adult life, and that's really stretching the definition of "fight". Most people seem to share my experience, fights are not common, injuring other people is not common.
Conclusion/View to be changed:
Since children are humans, living in the same environment as us, and since humans have a right to safety, especially when it's easy for us as a society to provide it, children should not be obligated by law to go to school (or rather, parents shouldn't be forced to send them).
It might well be that some kids enjoy the high-aggression environment of schools (personally, as a very tall and bulky kid I kinda did), but I assume there's certain kids which hate it, just as much as you as an adult would hate being randomly beaten when you walk the street every 10th day of the week (even if the beating is never lethal and you can fight back).
So it is a violation of a kid's fundamental right of security to force them to attend school if an alternative (e.g. staying home, playing around in their safe neighbourhood) is available.
Clarification: Since most comments bought in a utilitarian~style argument, and only a few tried to argue with my definition of right and/or my way of proving schools are unsafe, I feel like I should mention:
My stance is NOT that I believe school is actually harmful, or (assuming my base position was true) that kids should not longer be sent to school. This is a question about social ethics, not practical policy.
Hopefully that makes sense. | elcric_krej | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "adastra041",
"id": "fori31l",
"score": 7,
"text": "But the low change of aggression is outweighed by the benefits an educated populace can provide. [Education also reduces crime](https://voxeu.org/article/why-education-reduces-crime). So, it makes sense that aggression rates are higher ... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "forks3r",
"score": 9,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1588013893
},
{
"author": "elcric_krej",
"id": "forpr9k",
"score": -2,
"text": "Ah, finally someone actually touching my argument, took a long while :p\n\nIt is very late and I don't have ... | [
"fori31l",
"form8ja",
"forormy"
] | [
"forks3r",
"forpr9k",
"forpsf1"
] |
CMV: Your ex is not your property, it’s perfectly fine for your best friend/friend to date them if they develop feelings for them
**Edit: I haven’t responded to all the comments but there are a few that truly made my re-evaluate my view! Thanks to everyone for their inputs! I replied with a !delta to explanations that made me change my view. Original post below the cut:**
\--------
I see this everywhere in real life and in movies. For some reason, people treat their exes as “theirs” and off limits, I find that strange because you’re treating someone you used to date as your property. Even a lot of my (fairly rational) friends agree with this sentiment of “you can’t date your friend’s ex.”
Even for amicable exes, seems like there’s a “betrayal” feeling if your friends date them. I get why it would be awkward to hang out with your friend if they are dating your ex, but if your friend genuinely likes your ex and is better for them, why is it such a taboo for them to date them? As long as they wait some time for you to heal, I think it should be fine!
I’ve never had a friend want to date an ex of mine or vice versa though so that’s why I feel like I’m missing some part of the logic. Change my view! | I think it's more about the relationship you have with me rather than me owning the person I used to date. If somebody broke my heart I wouldn't want you to be bringing that person around me.
Also I think I would feel a little weird if I had told things in confidence while I was dating this person. Again it would just put a strain on yours and my relationship and nothing to do with me owning this person.
---
That makes sense, but I’ve seen even people who are still friendly with their ex pretty much blow up at the thought of a friend dating them. How would you explain this phenomenon?
---
(I'm not the person you just responded to, but they posted basically what I was planning to.)
Rather than answer that question, I'd like to point something out about the logic that you're using.
You're saying "this example of the behavior I'm talking about is unreasonable", and using that to back up "the behavior I'm talking about is unreasonable". It can both be the case that the situation is more complicated than "it's fine to date your friend's ex", *and* the case that some people have unhealthy reasons for being mad about their friend dating their ex.
So, in order to change your view we shouldn't need to show that *every* instance of someone being mad that their friend is dating their ex is justified. That would be too high a bar. We should just need to show that *some* instances are justified.
And there are certainly situations in which "I've started dating your ex" is tantamount to saying "I don't care about your feelings". Like /u/Penguin_Loves_Robot said, it doesn't have to be about feeling ownership over your ex. Wanting your friend to care about your feelings is often a perfectly sufficient explanation. | > I find that strange because you’re treating someone you used to date as your property.
You're not necessarily treating them as your property. You're just acknowledging that you have feelings for this person and you would be hurt if a close friend dated them.
> I get why it would be awkward to hang out with your friend if they are dating your ex, but if your friend genuinely likes your ex and is better for them, why is it such a taboo for them to date them?
Because it hurts.
>As long as they wait some time for you to heal, I think it should be fine!
Sometimes it takes a long time to heal.
---
That’s a fair point but aren’t you still making them off-limits and “claiming” them to some extent?
Also, on the other hand what if your friend is truly hurting by not being able to act on their feelings? Would you still feel your friend is betraying you?
---
If I date Amy, and break up, there will always be tension, and emotional problems, between us. If my best friend, Jack, dates Amy, after me, he's forcing me to deal with all of those emotional problems. That's why it sucks, that's why you shouldn't do it. | g95ja8 | CMV: Your ex is not your property, it’s perfectly fine for your best friend/friend to date them if they develop feelings for them | **Edit: I haven’t responded to all the comments but there are a few that truly made my re-evaluate my view! Thanks to everyone for their inputs! I replied with a !delta to explanations that made me change my view. Original post below the cut:**
\--------
I see this everywhere in real life and in movies. For some reason, people treat their exes as “theirs” and off limits, I find that strange because you’re treating someone you used to date as your property. Even a lot of my (fairly rational) friends agree with this sentiment of “you can’t date your friend’s ex.”
Even for amicable exes, seems like there’s a “betrayal” feeling if your friends date them. I get why it would be awkward to hang out with your friend if they are dating your ex, but if your friend genuinely likes your ex and is better for them, why is it such a taboo for them to date them? As long as they wait some time for you to heal, I think it should be fine!
I’ve never had a friend want to date an ex of mine or vice versa though so that’s why I feel like I’m missing some part of the logic. Change my view! | Putsomesunglasseson | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Penguin_Loves_Robot",
"id": "forci6g",
"score": 6,
"text": "I think it's more about the relationship you have with me rather than me owning the person I used to date. If somebody broke my heart I wouldn't want you to be bringing that person around me. \n\nAlso I think I would feel a lit... | [
{
"author": "CompetentLion69",
"id": "force2l",
"score": 2,
"text": "> I find that strange because you’re treating someone you used to date as your property.\n\nYou're not necessarily treating them as your property. You're just acknowledging that you have feelings for this person and you would be hu... | [
"forci6g",
"forcxj6",
"fordrhc"
] | [
"force2l",
"forcrq9",
"fordxat"
] |
CMV: "Dry Promotions" are a bullshit corporate scheme to trick workers into talking on more responsibility without paying them more.
So I start a new job in two weeks. The job is a step up the corporate ladder both by the company's definitions and by the increase in responsibility. So I foolishly expected a pay raise with it. When the recruiter offered me the job and told me it would be a so called dry promotion, I was clearly disappointed but she was quick to assure me that my new department has plenty of growth. I feel like I am being used and although I am aware there is no grand evil corporate scheme it does feel like a faceless company abusing employees because it knows it can. This has been eating me for the last week so please, CMV. | Dry promotions are sometimes a test to see if you can handle the new position without the issue of filling out paperwork to raise pay, and then lower pay later. At my last job, they gave us a 2 month test to see if we could move up and not fuck anything up
---
I mean, thats still more work without more pay. You're supposed to put in more effort but they can't be arsed to do some paperwork that they should be able to routinely do?
---
Yeah that's my perspective. Plus I proved I was capable at my previous job, that's the reason I was chosen for a promotion.
---
From an employer's perspective, it could be a method to reduce the issue of employees rising to the level of their incompetence.
For example, you mentioned that you proved you were capable at your previous job and that's why you were given the promotion -- however, competence at one position doesn't mean you're going to thrive at the next rank up.
What happens much of the time is that an employee keeps proving they're good at their job, getting a promotion, until finally the job they're promoted into is not something they're good at anymore. The employee stagnates, and then ends up *staying* in that position -- even though they're not a good fit -- because they're no longer moving up the ladder.
This is how you get horrible managers or bosses -- they were once a good worker, but it turns out that the skills that make you a great worker might have nothing to do with being a good leader. And then because they're not a good manager, they never get promoted *past* that position and end up staying there forever -- which lowers company morale because suddenly everyone underneath them has an incompetent manager.
A dry promotion -- especially if it's temporarily a dry promotion -- is a means for an employer to test an employee out without having to fully commit to them as a good fit for the position.
In your shoes, I'd try to negotiate a guaranteed raise after a favorable 6 month review in the position. That allows them the flexibility to find out if you're a good fit while getting you more money once you prove yourself.
​ | [removed]
---
∆ Honestly I think you're right. I will talk to my new manager when I start and express my dissatisfaction and discuss what I can do to ensure I get a raise in the near future. Idk if I consider the thread redundant because really I posted it looking for some reassurance or relief. It's hard for me to even be excited for the new job because I just feel bitterness about the whole dry promotion bs. If nothing else this has been somewhat cathartic for me.
---
Also, you have the option to say no to a promotion. The instant you learned there wasn't a pay increase you should have said you aren't interested in doing more work for the same pay, thanks but no thanks.
---
Trust me I thought about it. Chose not to decline because my current job isn't particularly desirable, and I guess maybe I was hoping to negotiate something with my new manager as other people pointed out in this thread. | b2vzn4 | CMV: "Dry Promotions" are a bullshit corporate scheme to trick workers into talking on more responsibility without paying them more. | So I start a new job in two weeks. The job is a step up the corporate ladder both by the company's definitions and by the increase in responsibility. So I foolishly expected a pay raise with it. When the recruiter offered me the job and told me it would be a so called dry promotion, I was clearly disappointed but she was quick to assure me that my new department has plenty of growth. I feel like I am being used and although I am aware there is no grand evil corporate scheme it does feel like a faceless company abusing employees because it knows it can. This has been eating me for the last week so please, CMV. | beast6106 | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "TheCrimsonnerGinge",
"id": "eival1q",
"score": 6,
"text": "Dry promotions are sometimes a test to see if you can handle the new position without the issue of filling out paperwork to raise pay, and then lower pay later. At my last job, they gave us a 2 month test to see if we could move... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "eivg88m",
"score": 6,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1552999128
},
{
"author": "beast6106",
"id": "eivikeu",
"score": 2,
"text": "∆ Honestly I think you're right. I will talk to my new manager when I start and express my dissatisfaction and ... | [
"eival1q",
"eivbi14",
"eivcn7p",
"eivjdnf"
] | [
"eivg88m",
"eivikeu",
"eivuwux",
"eiwi2xa"
] |
CMV: American interest in the Middle East is entirely made up.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument detailing why the United States need to be in the Middle East. The United States have troops in Yemen, Syria, and other nations. It occupies and attacks people for reasons that I cannot find. Most people argue that it's because of terrorism and spreading democracy.
As far as I'm concerned, these terrorist groups would not be so large, if the USA were not occupying these countries. Also, what business do we have to go in and force these countries to be democratic? The people decide what they want, not the United States. The USA would need to stay in these countries for generations until it forced the people to bend to their will.
As it pertains to America protecting its ally Israel. Why is it the USAs job to get in the middle. I just don't get why the US needs to come to attack other countries for the sake of protecting Israel. We already provied plenty of defense. I think the US getting involved is making the conflict worse and making relations with other countries tenuous.
The only reason I can see is that the people in the government are making money off the conflict and using these countries to fight proxy wars (to avoid direct war with Russia). I don't have a whole lot of evidence to my viewpoint.
I'd greatly appreciate some booke recs explaining the conflicts in the middle east and why America should/shouldn't be in these conflicts. | >using these countries to fight proxy wars (to avoid direct war with Russia). I don't have a whole lot of evidence to my viewpoint.
Is this not in American interest? This doesnt seem made up.
---
I mean I'd rather not be in conflict with a nuclear power. Seems like it would be in America's best interest to stay out of a nuclear conflict.
---
>Seems like it would be in America's best interest to stay out of a nuclear conflict.
Currently, Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and a close ally of the US. If Israel fell to other powers in the region, we couldn't predict who would end up with those nuclear weapons.
I'm not a fan of US global hegemony or what we do in the Middle East. However, it's difficult to imagine a situation where we unilaterally and fully withdrew from the region without increasing the likelihood of Israel falling. That would drastically increase the odds of non-allies obtaining nuclear weapons, thereby increasing the risk of a nuclear conflict with or between groups or nations in the region. | Oil. From a strategic perspective the U.S., and it's massive energy corporations, need to control the world's supply of oil and that means a military presence in the middle east. Fighting terrorism and spreading democracy are lies intended to obscure the true economics behind it. Citizens won't be likely to send their kids to die for oil profits so they must be decieved.
---
I've heard it before. Any articles or books to back up this view? I'd really like to point to something concrete when someone doesn't believe it.
---
https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0011283/ | 17j94os | CMV: American interest in the Middle East is entirely made up. | I have yet to hear a convincing argument detailing why the United States need to be in the Middle East. The United States have troops in Yemen, Syria, and other nations. It occupies and attacks people for reasons that I cannot find. Most people argue that it's because of terrorism and spreading democracy.
As far as I'm concerned, these terrorist groups would not be so large, if the USA were not occupying these countries. Also, what business do we have to go in and force these countries to be democratic? The people decide what they want, not the United States. The USA would need to stay in these countries for generations until it forced the people to bend to their will.
As it pertains to America protecting its ally Israel. Why is it the USAs job to get in the middle. I just don't get why the US needs to come to attack other countries for the sake of protecting Israel. We already provied plenty of defense. I think the US getting involved is making the conflict worse and making relations with other countries tenuous.
The only reason I can see is that the people in the government are making money off the conflict and using these countries to fight proxy wars (to avoid direct war with Russia). I don't have a whole lot of evidence to my viewpoint.
I'd greatly appreciate some booke recs explaining the conflicts in the middle east and why America should/shouldn't be in these conflicts. | frogtapp | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "k6zjasm",
"score": 37,
"text": ">using these countries to fight proxy wars (to avoid direct war with Russia). I don't have a whole lot of evidence to my viewpoint.\r \n\r\n\nIs this not in American interest? This doesnt seem made up.",
"timestamp": 1698605542
},
... | [
{
"author": "iconoclast63",
"id": "k6zff1o",
"score": 14,
"text": "Oil. From a strategic perspective the U.S., and it's massive energy corporations, need to control the world's supply of oil and that means a military presence in the middle east. Fighting terrorism and spreading democracy are lies in... | [
"k6zjasm",
"k6zojbl",
"k70jstc"
] | [
"k6zff1o",
"k6zh98v",
"k6zi2jt"
] |
CMV: Most routine health care visits could be managed by a technician instead of a doctor
There is a huge concern about health care cost and access in the US, but every time I go to the dentist, I have to have at least a visit with the actual dentist who tells me 'we'll keep an eye on [the same thing for 3 years] and keep flossing and brushing'. When I get my (not complicated) eyeglass prescription 'updated' to the same damn prescription, I have to see the optometrist. When I get my medication for a chronic illness refilled again after being on it for literally years, I have to see the doctor ... Maybe a nurse practitioner.
I'm not saying we don't need highly skilled, highly educated people providing healthcare. I'm just saying, why bring in the dentist when the hygienist is the one who spends all their time in my mouth? Why have an optometrist give me the '2 or 3' ... '1 or c' drill when it usually pops in exactly where the tech put it? Do glasses prescriptions *really* need to be all that up-to-date in the first place? I get needing to check in on my symptoms and the drug side effects before a refill, and occasionally offering alternatives, but 4 times out 5, it's 'everything's great. Thanks doc, just like I told the intake nurse."
I have my opinions about how healthcare should be paid for, but regardless of who foots the bill, the priesthood of doctors seems a little weird for most everyday visits. | The reason a doctor checks you out is liability. In these parts at least, a nurse does 90% of the visit and the actual doctor comes in, looks at the nurse's work, looks at you, checks anything they're concerned about, and leaves. In and out, 5 minute adventure. Its because generally, if the nurse misses something and you were actually dying, you or your family could sue the office (often run by the doctors). So to reduce that liability, the doctor comes in and signs off, so you can't say that they didn't try
---
∆
This the real. The sooner we recognize insurance companies control our medical care, maybe we can afford easy access for everyone.
---
Also, a doctor is well-practiced at diagnosing conditions, whereas Nurses and technicians are skilled at performing healthcare tasks. I would trust my doctor to give me a shot, but I would trust the nurse who does it a few dozen times a day to do it more effortlessly.
In the same way, the doctor has a lot of specialized knowledge that allows them to diagnose conditions accurately. That's often why the visits only take a couple minutes. It's why you pay $100 for a locksmith to come out and open your broken locks with what looks like only ten minutes work--they have so much experience with it, it's fast.
That 5 minute check at the end is liability and it's the time for the doctor to diagnose any conditions you have. Your doctors, as much as they give you personal care and attention, see dozens of patients. They've developed a lot of experience That 5 minutes may be all they need for a routine check of your symptoms. Just like that locksmith only needs ten minutes to open up a lock you could spend hours trying to open yourself.
You've already given deltas for some really good points, but I wanted to add this perspective to things as well. | I've had too many physician assistants miss important markers. One mistook a carpal boss for a ganglion cyst. The cysts don't show up on x-rays, but carpal bosses look like massive fractures. It confused the radiologist because the PA didn't report the carpal boss.
Another time I went in to an urgent care for a low grade favor and headache. Swab tested negative for any kind of throat infection, but was sent away with amoxycillin anyway. PAs are really quick to give out the amoxycillin. A couple of days later no change. I go into my doctors office and ask for my doctor. In comes the PA. Insists I haven't been on the antibiotics long enough. I push hard and she eventually caves and orders a chest xray. Two of three lobes of my right lung had pneumonia. Turns out it was asymptotic but still just as serious. Days later no change in status. Again, I insist on a change in medication based on the recommendations of my doctor cousin. PA resists but caves again. Twelve hours later all symptoms are gone. Same PA also insisted that I had mono again despite already having it and having no symptoms.
TLDR: I wouldn't trust a PA with my life. They're right at the top of the Dunning Kruger effect.
---
You dont how often this happens. Now with PAs not needing physician supervision, shit is gonna hit the fan. As a medical student, most PAs and NP are so hard headed they wont ask for help, whereas whenever a physician is stuck, they wont hesitate to get a colleague's opinion. I have seen simple cases in the ER turn into serious problems all because the PA didnt want to order an xray/mri/ct. I have seen a nurse anesthetist herniate a patient while administering anesthesia. Although these things may happen with doctors as well, you will rarely see it with one that has completed residency. You can not substitute a 12 year education with a 4 year nursing degree, there are just too many things you arent exposed to, and too little experience in the field. NPs and PAs are good to work with, just not good as standalone replacements for physicians.
---
Ya, I'm at a point where I don't trust PAs or NPs. I'll take a doc out of residency or seasoned nurse. Hell, I'll take a new nurse with decent supervision over a PA. They're like sophomores, but forever. NP's are too quick to dole out meds, at least the ones at my college were. Both think they're all that because they're somehow "better than nurses" when in fact they're neither have experience from the front lines nor have the knowledge to lead. | g91shm | CMV: Most routine health care visits could be managed by a technician instead of a doctor | There is a huge concern about health care cost and access in the US, but every time I go to the dentist, I have to have at least a visit with the actual dentist who tells me 'we'll keep an eye on [the same thing for 3 years] and keep flossing and brushing'. When I get my (not complicated) eyeglass prescription 'updated' to the same damn prescription, I have to see the optometrist. When I get my medication for a chronic illness refilled again after being on it for literally years, I have to see the doctor ... Maybe a nurse practitioner.
I'm not saying we don't need highly skilled, highly educated people providing healthcare. I'm just saying, why bring in the dentist when the hygienist is the one who spends all their time in my mouth? Why have an optometrist give me the '2 or 3' ... '1 or c' drill when it usually pops in exactly where the tech put it? Do glasses prescriptions *really* need to be all that up-to-date in the first place? I get needing to check in on my symptoms and the drug side effects before a refill, and occasionally offering alternatives, but 4 times out 5, it's 'everything's great. Thanks doc, just like I told the intake nurse."
I have my opinions about how healthcare should be paid for, but regardless of who foots the bill, the priesthood of doctors seems a little weird for most everyday visits. | looking4awayin | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "TheCrimsonnerGinge",
"id": "foqpm9g",
"score": 18,
"text": "The reason a doctor checks you out is liability. In these parts at least, a nurse does 90% of the visit and the actual doctor comes in, looks at the nurse's work, looks at you, checks anything they're concerned about, and leave... | [
{
"author": "blackdynomitesnewbag",
"id": "foqqyee",
"score": 305,
"text": "I've had too many physician assistants miss important markers. One mistook a carpal boss for a ganglion cyst. The cysts don't show up on x-rays, but carpal bosses look like massive fractures. It confused the radiologist beca... | [
"foqpm9g",
"fora3ae",
"forbz3z"
] | [
"foqqyee",
"foqt9au",
"foqyut1"
] |
CMV: The term Zionist is used a weapon against Jews and has big antisemitic undertones
**I'll start with the view and then explain:**Using the term Zionist is a often a dogwhistle attack at Jews and is incredibly antisemitic, some use it legitimately, but because of the difficulty in distinguishing the two and the accusatory nature of use by almost all people - it should be seen as antisemitic and removed from speech.
**Now to clarify:**
First, I am aware that Zionist is a term Jews created and are using themselves in Israel all the time in legitimate use. To those unfamiliar, it is a term derived from the word Zion - another name for Jerusalem, and embodies the hopes and wishes of Jews in exile to one day return home and rebuild an Israeli country to call their own.To put simply - It is an ideological view that there should be a Jewish homeland for Jews and it should be in Zion. And while there are a lot of different views within that ideology about how, when and where the base concept is that.
And it is also okay to be critical against that view ideology without being antisemitic\*.
**So why do I still think it's antisemitic?**
0 - Preface - I'll preface by saying this is not universal, and there might be plenty who use the term Zionist in good faith and have no ill intent. But because it's indistinguishable from those who do have ill intent, the good people end up being a shield for antisemites to hide behind and whitewash their racist hate.1 - **Negative context of the term** \- So to start, it is quite clear that when many discuss Zionism outside of Israel and the Jewish world, they intend it as a negative action of taking other people's land and forcibly building a country in it. It connects Israel's current actions which are perceived as genocide and attempted ethnocleansing of another population in the purpose of realizing the full Zionist dream. It looks at the actions of 1948 through the lens of the end results of today, and sees the whole concept of Zionism as corrupt and poisonous from the very roots of it.And thus for many people, supporting Zionism is for all intents and purposes supporting genocide.
2 - **Interlinking the (negative) term with Jewish people** \- Because Zionism deals with the Jewish population, it ends being a question of each Jew if they support Zionism or not. Nowadays, it is being asked in a pretty aggressive manner towards many Jews whether or not they're Zionists. Even removing the negative context, this has antisemitic undertones since you're posing a question only towards one ethnic group and when you add the context, you're basically putting their backs against the wall, painting a target and then giving them one last chance to correct themselves.It is an attempt to separate the "clean" Jews from the "dirty" ones, and while it's a question now - how long before it's an assumption made towards every Jew without giving them time to distance themselves.
This is basically linking the two terms together, and ignoring the fact Zionists can be (and are) non-Jews too.
3 - **Using the terms interchangeably** \- In places where antisemitism is more widespread, like many Arab countries, the two terms are used pretty interchangeably, with some organizations only using the term Zionist as to avoid being seen as antisemitic. And whether or not the use is purposeful or a a byproduct of years of rhetorics against Israel - the result remains the same. A Jew is a Zionist and a Zionist is a Jew.
4 - **The historical use of the term to raise antisemitism in the world** \- When we look back to the start of Zionism, and the previous wave of antisemitism in the world, we can see that anti-zionism was used heavily as a tool to spread antisemitism around the world. The fact that there really was a Zionist organization in the start of the 20th century helped it be a pointed weapon towards Jews, creating big conspiracy theories about Zionists and their plans for world domination. Most famously, the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was the biggest fabricated weapon to target Jews indirectly. It originated in Russia as part of the protests and pogroms against Jews which displaced and killed thousands of Jews.It was later adopted by Hitler and used to showcase reasons to hate the Jews, pointing and linking Zionism and Jews. While internally, Hitler didn't discuss Zionism much - externally, he used it as the primary export with which to spread antisemitism in other countries, most specifically, in Arab countries.And it worked too, Arab leaders were already weary of Zionist attempts to settle in Palestine, buying land and immigrating there in masse, and the 1917 Balfour Declaration served as proof that something sinister is brewing. So when Nazi relations with Arab countries tightened, it was easy to point the finger towards all the Jews living in their lands and paint them as evil Zionists that should be killed or expelled (ironically pushing them to Israel).Jews living in many of these Arab countries did not leave due to Zionism, but rather being pushed out for their religion/ethnicity. So there's a demonstrable example of how Anti-Zionism ends up in Antisemitism.
5 - **Anti-Israel vs Anti-Zionism** \- Most anti-Zionist are also not really arguing against the ideological belief that Jewish people should have a home but rather the current actions of the Israel government which might be rooted in Zionism, but aren't necessarily linked. Anti-Zionism might have had a purpose in the years leading up to 1948 since Israel was still not a fact and one could argue against the idea or concept of its formation. But it's been 75 years since, and at this point any beef one has against Israel should be against Israel. There's no reason to be against Zionism since Zionist has already been realized.But more to the point, if you object to what you perceive as genocide or ethnic cleansing, and object to Israel's apartheid practices against Palestine, you should object to Israel or Israel's government. Zionism has nothing to do with it (Well, I concede that Israelis are still motivated by Zionism and one can say that the current government is lead by extreme zionistic ideology. But why muddle the water here when it's easier to stay clean and just object and criticize Israel's current regime).
6\* - **Complexity of being anti-Zionist** \- Even if we say there's merit here to be criticize Zionism since Israel's government is lead by that ideology, what exactly is anti-Zionism? Is it being against Israel as a concept in general, is it against Israel being where it is, or is it just against the idea of Israel expanding?Since at the base of it Zionism is the ideology that Jews should have a homeland. Being against that, is in a way, being against Jews having an ethnic home. Something that 90%+ all other ethnic groups have and something that all big religions have too, a religious country that protects it. Christianity has plenty (Greece, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Hungary, Iceland, the Vatican obviously) and Muslim obviously has many countries were Islam is the dominant and protected religion. If you object to the idea of a religious state, why not object to those of other religions?
If you accept that Judaism should have a home and only object to the location, then you only partially object to Zionism which makes it harder to be completely anti-Zionist, but more to the point - Where then? If you object to Zionism at this point in time - are you not just calling for the banishment of 8M Jews from what they've known as their home for the past 75 years, most born to only know it as their home. How is anti-Zionism then not a call to ethnic cleansing?(And if you only object to further expansion and current occupation, then you're pretty much objecting to Israel's actions first and foremost so why tie it with Zionism when that makes it much less clear what you object to).
7 - **Parallels to Jihad -** Just to paint a wider picture here. As a Jewish person, asking me pointedly if I'm a Zionist only because of my ethnicity (as many Jews are practically atheists) especially when it's clear you see Zionism as evil is no different than asking a Muslim if he's a Jihadist. Jihad too is an idea that is even more complex than Zionism and can have plenty of positive implications, but when one asks that of a Muslims, they're obviously relating it to a the negative aspect and ready to attack them. We'd obviously understand how that's wrong even just asking that question, regardless of intention.So why is it not even seen as problematic against Jews?
In summary, calling someone a Zionist can be a slur since many intend it as an accusation of "support for occupation, genocide and ethno-cleansing". That term is only being thrown towards Jews and many use it as a tool to separate Jews who you can hate and Jews you shouldn't. In the past it was used to breed undercover antisemitism and since it's only used against Jews but has "legitimate" grounds it's nearly impossible to distinguish between legitimate use of the term and a hate-crime use of it.Because of it, this term should really not be used by anyone who is not antisemitic and can instead be replaced with anti Israel rhetorics which is what most non antisemitic people refer to anyway. | But Zionism is still a real ideology that exists and needs to be talked about. What are we supposed to say, then, if the word Zionism is so hurtful and potentially racist? Like honestly asking here. "Pro-Israeli" has similar issues because there's lots of different ways to be in favor of Israel
---
Well, first off - The problem is identifying people as "Zionists" - It's not a discussion on the ideology of Zionism but rather attempting to view people based on their assumed ideology and projecting a bunch of concepts into it.
I don't think there's a problem discussing Zionism as a concept, but it should steer clear of labeling individuals and make clear attempts to separate the people from the idea. The onus at the moment is on the user of that label to make it clear they're not being antisemitic and not projecting it on Jews everywhere.
There needs to be real awareness of the dog whistling of this term, and I assume if you want to discuss the subject, you'd want to avoid being in-grouped with those whistling individuals.
---
So what is the term that we should use to talk about the ideology which supports the building of an ethnostate in Israel
---
Like I said, there's no problem discussing Zionism. But discuss that, not Israeli politics or Jewish individuals.
And like I said in my original argument - Aside from a philosophical debate, what point is there discussing Zionism when the result already happened 75 years ago?
Okay I'm against Jewish People building their home in Zion. Now what?
---
Zionism is an ongoing process from relatively benign things like the (Jewish) Right to Return, to bad things like ongoing expulsions of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The law specifying Israel as Jewish was passed in 2018.
And these are the results of laws (aka Israel politics) and the actions of specific individuals.
Why can't individuals acting because of Zionist beliefs be called Zionist? Why can't a country with Zionist politics be discussed? Jewish people have suffered so much that some of them get to ethnically cleanse another group of people? | I don't think the "racist" people think it's ethnic cleansing. Rather they think the building of the country for a race/religion or whatever doesn't promote equality.
Of course, coincidentally they themselves are racist.
So you're right and wrong at the same time.
Being racist and not racist isn't mutually exclusive I guess.
---
I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here. I haven't used the term racist once in my argument.
Like I said in my argument, if you're against the Zionist idea of a country for an ethnic group / a religion - then are you also against a country like Greece, the Vatican, Denmark, Egypt, Pakistan? - All of which place their respective religion above other religions in their country.
---
I'm not against anything. I said racist. You do know that I realize we are independent people correct?
---
I wasn't claiming you were against anything. I said "If you" as a general you - IE a person who's against the building of a country for a race/religion.
---
Look I don't know what you're talking about.
You talk about ethnic cleansing then chastise me for paraphrasing with the word racist.
...you're not qualified to talk to me | 17jbf66 | CMV: The term Zionist is used a weapon against Jews and has big antisemitic undertones | **I'll start with the view and then explain:**Using the term Zionist is a often a dogwhistle attack at Jews and is incredibly antisemitic, some use it legitimately, but because of the difficulty in distinguishing the two and the accusatory nature of use by almost all people - it should be seen as antisemitic and removed from speech.
**Now to clarify:**
First, I am aware that Zionist is a term Jews created and are using themselves in Israel all the time in legitimate use. To those unfamiliar, it is a term derived from the word Zion - another name for Jerusalem, and embodies the hopes and wishes of Jews in exile to one day return home and rebuild an Israeli country to call their own.To put simply - It is an ideological view that there should be a Jewish homeland for Jews and it should be in Zion. And while there are a lot of different views within that ideology about how, when and where the base concept is that.
And it is also okay to be critical against that view ideology without being antisemitic\*.
**So why do I still think it's antisemitic?**
0 - Preface - I'll preface by saying this is not universal, and there might be plenty who use the term Zionist in good faith and have no ill intent. But because it's indistinguishable from those who do have ill intent, the good people end up being a shield for antisemites to hide behind and whitewash their racist hate.1 - **Negative context of the term** \- So to start, it is quite clear that when many discuss Zionism outside of Israel and the Jewish world, they intend it as a negative action of taking other people's land and forcibly building a country in it. It connects Israel's current actions which are perceived as genocide and attempted ethnocleansing of another population in the purpose of realizing the full Zionist dream. It looks at the actions of 1948 through the lens of the end results of today, and sees the whole concept of Zionism as corrupt and poisonous from the very roots of it.And thus for many people, supporting Zionism is for all intents and purposes supporting genocide.
2 - **Interlinking the (negative) term with Jewish people** \- Because Zionism deals with the Jewish population, it ends being a question of each Jew if they support Zionism or not. Nowadays, it is being asked in a pretty aggressive manner towards many Jews whether or not they're Zionists. Even removing the negative context, this has antisemitic undertones since you're posing a question only towards one ethnic group and when you add the context, you're basically putting their backs against the wall, painting a target and then giving them one last chance to correct themselves.It is an attempt to separate the "clean" Jews from the "dirty" ones, and while it's a question now - how long before it's an assumption made towards every Jew without giving them time to distance themselves.
This is basically linking the two terms together, and ignoring the fact Zionists can be (and are) non-Jews too.
3 - **Using the terms interchangeably** \- In places where antisemitism is more widespread, like many Arab countries, the two terms are used pretty interchangeably, with some organizations only using the term Zionist as to avoid being seen as antisemitic. And whether or not the use is purposeful or a a byproduct of years of rhetorics against Israel - the result remains the same. A Jew is a Zionist and a Zionist is a Jew.
4 - **The historical use of the term to raise antisemitism in the world** \- When we look back to the start of Zionism, and the previous wave of antisemitism in the world, we can see that anti-zionism was used heavily as a tool to spread antisemitism around the world. The fact that there really was a Zionist organization in the start of the 20th century helped it be a pointed weapon towards Jews, creating big conspiracy theories about Zionists and their plans for world domination. Most famously, the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was the biggest fabricated weapon to target Jews indirectly. It originated in Russia as part of the protests and pogroms against Jews which displaced and killed thousands of Jews.It was later adopted by Hitler and used to showcase reasons to hate the Jews, pointing and linking Zionism and Jews. While internally, Hitler didn't discuss Zionism much - externally, he used it as the primary export with which to spread antisemitism in other countries, most specifically, in Arab countries.And it worked too, Arab leaders were already weary of Zionist attempts to settle in Palestine, buying land and immigrating there in masse, and the 1917 Balfour Declaration served as proof that something sinister is brewing. So when Nazi relations with Arab countries tightened, it was easy to point the finger towards all the Jews living in their lands and paint them as evil Zionists that should be killed or expelled (ironically pushing them to Israel).Jews living in many of these Arab countries did not leave due to Zionism, but rather being pushed out for their religion/ethnicity. So there's a demonstrable example of how Anti-Zionism ends up in Antisemitism.
5 - **Anti-Israel vs Anti-Zionism** \- Most anti-Zionist are also not really arguing against the ideological belief that Jewish people should have a home but rather the current actions of the Israel government which might be rooted in Zionism, but aren't necessarily linked. Anti-Zionism might have had a purpose in the years leading up to 1948 since Israel was still not a fact and one could argue against the idea or concept of its formation. But it's been 75 years since, and at this point any beef one has against Israel should be against Israel. There's no reason to be against Zionism since Zionist has already been realized.But more to the point, if you object to what you perceive as genocide or ethnic cleansing, and object to Israel's apartheid practices against Palestine, you should object to Israel or Israel's government. Zionism has nothing to do with it (Well, I concede that Israelis are still motivated by Zionism and one can say that the current government is lead by extreme zionistic ideology. But why muddle the water here when it's easier to stay clean and just object and criticize Israel's current regime).
6\* - **Complexity of being anti-Zionist** \- Even if we say there's merit here to be criticize Zionism since Israel's government is lead by that ideology, what exactly is anti-Zionism? Is it being against Israel as a concept in general, is it against Israel being where it is, or is it just against the idea of Israel expanding?Since at the base of it Zionism is the ideology that Jews should have a homeland. Being against that, is in a way, being against Jews having an ethnic home. Something that 90%+ all other ethnic groups have and something that all big religions have too, a religious country that protects it. Christianity has plenty (Greece, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Hungary, Iceland, the Vatican obviously) and Muslim obviously has many countries were Islam is the dominant and protected religion. If you object to the idea of a religious state, why not object to those of other religions?
If you accept that Judaism should have a home and only object to the location, then you only partially object to Zionism which makes it harder to be completely anti-Zionist, but more to the point - Where then? If you object to Zionism at this point in time - are you not just calling for the banishment of 8M Jews from what they've known as their home for the past 75 years, most born to only know it as their home. How is anti-Zionism then not a call to ethnic cleansing?(And if you only object to further expansion and current occupation, then you're pretty much objecting to Israel's actions first and foremost so why tie it with Zionism when that makes it much less clear what you object to).
7 - **Parallels to Jihad -** Just to paint a wider picture here. As a Jewish person, asking me pointedly if I'm a Zionist only because of my ethnicity (as many Jews are practically atheists) especially when it's clear you see Zionism as evil is no different than asking a Muslim if he's a Jihadist. Jihad too is an idea that is even more complex than Zionism and can have plenty of positive implications, but when one asks that of a Muslims, they're obviously relating it to a the negative aspect and ready to attack them. We'd obviously understand how that's wrong even just asking that question, regardless of intention.So why is it not even seen as problematic against Jews?
In summary, calling someone a Zionist can be a slur since many intend it as an accusation of "support for occupation, genocide and ethno-cleansing". That term is only being thrown towards Jews and many use it as a tool to separate Jews who you can hate and Jews you shouldn't. In the past it was used to breed undercover antisemitism and since it's only used against Jews but has "legitimate" grounds it's nearly impossible to distinguish between legitimate use of the term and a hate-crime use of it.Because of it, this term should really not be used by anyone who is not antisemitic and can instead be replaced with anti Israel rhetorics which is what most non antisemitic people refer to anyway. | AxlLight | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"id": "k6zyl5w",
"score": 59,
"text": "But Zionism is still a real ideology that exists and needs to be talked about. What are we supposed to say, then, if the word Zionism is so hurtful and potentially racist? Like honestly asking here. \"Pro-Israeli\" has simila... | [
{
"author": "belief_chief",
"id": "k6zybvg",
"score": 6,
"text": "I don't think the \"racist\" people think it's ethnic cleansing. Rather they think the building of the country for a race/religion or whatever doesn't promote equality. \n\nOf course, coincidentally they themselves are racist. \n\nSo... | [
"k6zyl5w",
"k700yz5",
"k701rro",
"k704ag5",
"k7066yt"
] | [
"k6zybvg",
"k701pap",
"k701uol",
"k703vx3",
"k7042uj"
] |
CMV: The US Invasion of Afghanistan was *not* imperialism and shouldn’t be remembered as such on the Left. Instead the responsibility for the invasion lies with the Taliban, who refused to surrender Osama Bin Laden when the US requested him.
3k Americans die in one day and you expected the United States to what? Do nothing?
(Note: By left I don’t mean state and congressional democrats. Most of them voted for the war or supported it. I mean your academics. You can quibble whether they matter or not but they’re the ones that will shape popular opinion on the conflict for posterity.)
Whether the decision was good or not is a different story but it was certainly understandable in the aftermath of the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor. But since the aforementioned left as an obsession with creating false equivalencies between the US and whatever the decide is the most evil military dictatorships in history (usually the nazis) it fit neatly into their premade scripts so “American imperialism” was back in vogue.
But it’s completely inaccurate. The US spent billions on that country’s health, infrastructure and development. They spent even more on the War against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of a simple flight of fancy on the part of GW Bush. They invaded because *they had to*. They had tried the carrot approach with the Taliban and had demanded they hand over Bin Laden, allow US inspections of former terrorists bases and assist in the removal of Al-Qaeda from the country.
They refused and we invaded. We didn’t want to, but you don’t fuck with America and then walk away with no consequences. No country should allow that but the world’s only superpower *definitely* can’t. | The imperialism part is the US asking Taliban to give up Osama bin Laden and invading when they refused. Thats kinda an imperialist thing to do
---
If you’ve the power, pursuing the butchers responsible for thousands of your peoples deaths one of justice, *not imperialism*. We had the power and so we did it. Same as almost any country.
---
20 years of occupation is imperialism. Afghanistan was a punitive war that spun out into a money furnace | Can you support the claim that it even is remembered as such currently by leftist academics? I am not familiar with it
---
This is paper published just this year
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19427786251355044
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443705055734
And from 20 years prior.
---
Neither of these seem to claim there were primarily imperial motivations | 1mm3kcy | CMV: The US Invasion of Afghanistan was *not* imperialism and shouldn’t be remembered as such on the Left. Instead the responsibility for the invasion lies with the Taliban, who refused to surrender Osama Bin Laden when the US requested him. | 3k Americans die in one day and you expected the United States to what? Do nothing?
(Note: By left I don’t mean state and congressional democrats. Most of them voted for the war or supported it. I mean your academics. You can quibble whether they matter or not but they’re the ones that will shape popular opinion on the conflict for posterity.)
Whether the decision was good or not is a different story but it was certainly understandable in the aftermath of the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor. But since the aforementioned left as an obsession with creating false equivalencies between the US and whatever the decide is the most evil military dictatorships in history (usually the nazis) it fit neatly into their premade scripts so “American imperialism” was back in vogue.
But it’s completely inaccurate. The US spent billions on that country’s health, infrastructure and development. They spent even more on the War against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of a simple flight of fancy on the part of GW Bush. They invaded because *they had to*. They had tried the carrot approach with the Taliban and had demanded they hand over Bin Laden, allow US inspections of former terrorists bases and assist in the removal of Al-Qaeda from the country.
They refused and we invaded. We didn’t want to, but you don’t fuck with America and then walk away with no consequences. No country should allow that but the world’s only superpower *definitely* can’t. | soozerain | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "EasternHo",
"id": "n7uuz3a",
"score": 13,
"text": "The imperialism part is the US asking Taliban to give up Osama bin Laden and invading when they refused. Thats kinda an imperialist thing to do",
"timestamp": 1754782832
},
{
"author": "soozerain",
"id": "n7uvrl7",
"... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "n7uu96v",
"score": 15,
"text": "Can you support the claim that it even is remembered as such currently by leftist academics? I am not familiar with it",
"timestamp": 1754782565
},
{
"author": "soozerain",
"id": "n7uv23s",
"score": -8,
"text": "Thi... | [
"n7uuz3a",
"n7uvrl7",
"n7uxgwq"
] | [
"n7uu96v",
"n7uv23s",
"n7uw6zz"
] |
CMV: The Conventional "Waitress Test" is Inadequate For Spotting Bad Relationship Material
If you don't know, the Waitress Test for date says that how your date treats a restaurant server (or other low-paid staff) is how he or she will treat you six months from now. Naturally this also applies to people in the usual diversity categories we all know about, too.
Sound advice, but it has a serious failure point: it focuses only on one narrow aspect of a person, namely economic status. It can't reveal whether a date mistreats people who have personal traits that have little to nothing to do with socio-economic status or diversity category. That requires taking the Waitress Test one step further - how your date treats people with certain traits widely disparaged or belittled by most of society, not because those traits reflect on that person's moral and ethical character, but simply because that person has cringe-worthy or otherwise "uncool" traits.
These traits are being any one (or even all) of the following: weak; timid; poor in social skills, thinking skills, or practical judgment; having odd or even extreme habits, dress, or ways of carrying themselves; lacking “street smarts” or bullshit spotting (i.e., “gullible”); physical or vocal unattractiveness. Probably many others I left off, but you get the idea.
If your date treats even *these* kinds of people with dignity and respect, then he or she is practically assured to treat waitresses likewise, given that the *average* waitress still lacks the unappealing personal habits that the ones I mentioned do. This is what makes my proposed test a much more accurate way to measure the character of your date than the conventional Waitress Test. As such, I think this should be adopted as the new conventional dating wisdom for the future. | You're attributing a level of sophistication to the test that it was never supposed to have.
Sure, it might be more accurate to observe how a potential romantic partner interacts with a wide variety of different types of people - but there is no practical way to feasibily do that quickly. You can make those observations over a long period of time, but that's just basically what "being in a relationship" is.
The advantage of the waitress test is that it can, on a first date, be employed to eliminate *some* bad people before you waste any more time with them. Passing the test isn't a guarantee that your date is a good person, and you're not supposed to take it that way. It's just a test with a low false positive rate for detecting bad people, but a relatively higher false negative rate.
---
I grant that the conventional Waitress test is a fairly good way to screen out jerks and bitches quickly, but it's still incomplete, for reasons I just gave. My purpose is to give a more sophisticated test that, as you said, screens out still more people. My concern is that the test, by focusing on waitresses, this can easily distract people from seeing that low-paying, low-status, "obligated to serve customers" types of workers are not the only low pecking order (even if not *status* status, so to speak) people one has to worry about in their date.
---
The effectiveness of a test has to weighed against the time/effort expenditure.
The Waiter Test is specifically a low time/effort expenditure test that can be used as an initial screening. It's not meant to be all encompassing or thorough.
Your more sophisticated test may be more effective but it requires a larger time/effort expenditure. It could possibly be used for future screening of those that "pass" the initial Waiter Test. But beyond the first few dates I think it would be better to implement the far more comprehensive test of "getting to know them". | I fail to see how the Waitress Test has anything to do with economics.
---
Personal income does a lot to influence status, and waitresses are generally a low paid, low status position. It's not unheard of for restaurant clientel to treat servers in fairly disparaging ways (as in insisting on more than just a reasonable level of service, but treat them like a feudal lord treated his peasants).
---
That depends on where you live, I guess? I can't say that this is true everywhere, certainly not in proper restaurants as opposed to a fast food chain or whatever. | e03siw | CMV: The Conventional "Waitress Test" is Inadequate For Spotting Bad Relationship Material | If you don't know, the Waitress Test for date says that how your date treats a restaurant server (or other low-paid staff) is how he or she will treat you six months from now. Naturally this also applies to people in the usual diversity categories we all know about, too.
Sound advice, but it has a serious failure point: it focuses only on one narrow aspect of a person, namely economic status. It can't reveal whether a date mistreats people who have personal traits that have little to nothing to do with socio-economic status or diversity category. That requires taking the Waitress Test one step further - how your date treats people with certain traits widely disparaged or belittled by most of society, not because those traits reflect on that person's moral and ethical character, but simply because that person has cringe-worthy or otherwise "uncool" traits.
These traits are being any one (or even all) of the following: weak; timid; poor in social skills, thinking skills, or practical judgment; having odd or even extreme habits, dress, or ways of carrying themselves; lacking “street smarts” or bullshit spotting (i.e., “gullible”); physical or vocal unattractiveness. Probably many others I left off, but you get the idea.
If your date treats even *these* kinds of people with dignity and respect, then he or she is practically assured to treat waitresses likewise, given that the *average* waitress still lacks the unappealing personal habits that the ones I mentioned do. This is what makes my proposed test a much more accurate way to measure the character of your date than the conventional Waitress Test. As such, I think this should be adopted as the new conventional dating wisdom for the future. | filrabat | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "parentheticalobject",
"id": "f8brna8",
"score": 16,
"text": "You're attributing a level of sophistication to the test that it was never supposed to have.\n\nSure, it might be more accurate to observe how a potential romantic partner interacts with a wide variety of different types of pe... | [
{
"author": "Morasain",
"id": "f8bstdr",
"score": 10,
"text": "I fail to see how the Waitress Test has anything to do with economics.",
"timestamp": 1574444515
},
{
"author": "filrabat",
"id": "f8bu0o9",
"score": 2,
"text": "Personal income does a lot to influence status, and... | [
"f8brna8",
"f8bw9wt",
"f8d5fls"
] | [
"f8bstdr",
"f8bu0o9",
"f8buzjv"
] |
CMV: Using AI even if it's for assistance is considered as a Sin in the Creative Community
Many creative communities have begun banning the usage of AI and many creative minds are known to dislike AI because it's taking their work and credibility. I was neutral to this Creative vs AI (most notably Artist and Writers vs AI) until I ended up quitting AI for good and took the side of the Creatives.
But now I'm ashamed for using AI even if it's for assistance and now I'm on the process of gradually getting rid of it's influence. I've asked so many creative minds and they told me to just go with the process of getting rid of the influence or just scrap the whole thing and start all over. I'm even worried about the usage of AI name generators and traits and ideas that I got from AI. I even scared to use the same topics because I got them from AI, even if I present them on a far different manner than what AI does.
So from observation, I have come to the conclusion that in the Creative Community, using AI is a Sin and I feel like a fraud for using it a long time ago. I may be exaggerating but I don't know anymore. | Is there a substantive difference between a 'sin' and a 'thing you shouldn't do'?
---
A sin is a forbidden thing which should be frowned upon. I've been to r/artisthate and r/fuckAI and they tried AI like it's a Cardinal Sin.
---
So is your view any different from something like "society considers not brushing your teeth a sin"?
---
I wanted to present myself to other creatives as best as I could to the point where I have to absorb they're views like a sponge. I don't want to be an AI bro anymore.
---
Well do you think AI is good or not?
---
AI is literally destroying the environment, steals art from artist, and is slowly replacing creative minds.
---
Let's unpack this for a minute. I'm going to assume this is in good faith.
First, is AI "literally destroying the environment?" There is no evidence for this, beyond standard energy consumption. Even if you combined *all* online data storage, including non-AI use (like, you know, reddit and YouTube), you'd account for maybe 3.5% of global carbon emissions. And the actual training estimates I found use about a single days worth of a single coal power plant.
Is it *helping* the environment? No, but AI isn't using as much energy as, say, social media, yet here we are discussing it on exactly that sort of platform. Heck, AI hasn't even surpassed bitcoin in energy use.
Again, I'm not saying it has no environmental impact, but banning 100% of AI would do virtually nothing to prevent environmental damage.
Second, AI art doesn't steal art. That's not how the technology works. Every generated piece of AI imagery is made via an algorithmic process that does not copy a single pixel from any specific existing piece of art. There's a reason no one is suing AI companies for *producing* copyrighted art...such a lawsuit would probably never even make it to court, as even a cursory glance at the tech would demonstrate this is impossible.
Instead, current arguments are that the generation does not have enough artistic input from the individual adding the prompt, and that use of images for training potentially violated copyright. So far this argument hasn't gone anywhere, although courts seem reluctant to grant copyright to generated images.
From a technical standpoint, this should be obvious. Stable Diffusion, for example, was trained on the LAION data set, which contained anywhere from 2-5 *billion* captioned images. The model file, however, are anywhere from 2-6 GB. That means at a *maximum* each image file would be around 3 bytes. There is no compression algorithm in existence that can make an image 3 bytes.
So what's in the training data? In layman's terms, it's a bunch of math equations that give statistical weight associating words with pixels. The word "dog", for example, gets an average (well, not exactly, but same idea) of all images tagged with "dog" and looks for patterns in the sorts of shapes that match.
When you actually generate the image, the system is essentially doing a reverse image identification, the same sort of tech that detects faces on your phone camera. You give the generate some random noise and it goes over it a bunch of times, modifying the noise to look closer and closer to what the mathematical relationship between pixels best resemble the prompt words. But it's creating something genuinely new, which is why it has trouble with certain concepts or proportions because it's not really understanding anything in 3D space (this is why hands tend to get mangled).
Finally, there is no evidence that AI art is replacing creative minds, at least not any more than corporate slop is already doing. Most entertainment and media organizations are still using artists, even if they are requiring those artists to utilize AI as part of their workflow, but even that is rare at this point.
In fact, unedited AI is mediocre at best, both for image and prompt generation. If you give a random prompt, AI will produce moderately decent random stuff, but if you want a *specific* thing (especially a *consistent* thing), AI simply is terrible at it. Many artists will use AI almost as a "base layer" they then heavily modify, or even as inspiration before creating something specialized.
Try making a comic with consistent characters using Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, especially characters that give you the right emotions and composition in action scenes according the story you created; I can almost guarantee it's nearly impossible, and if you *can* do it, you'll have spent hours and hours tweaking settings, manipulating control net, and other techniques. You can't just write "make me a scene of my samurai character Bob holding a glowing sword to fight his nemesis Gary" and expect to get something that remotely connects to the surrounding panels. In fact, I'd be impressed if you can keep Bob looking the same.
I'm sorry, but the creation of random static images is not going to eliminate the demand for curated and managed art. When a company hires an artist, they are generally looking for something that fits a specific style and is part of some greater whole, which AI simply sucks at. Companies may hire fewer interns to draw generic clouds or whatever, sure, OK, but they aren't firing their creative team and asking ChatGPT to make the next Superman comic. It doesn't work like that. | what medium we talkin? auto tune has been around for decades. People use drum machines all the time. i don't hear much fuss about that
---
Atleast Autotune and Drum machines still require human operation and more than just typing it in.
---
u said in your title, "even if it's for assistance"
---
I want to get rid of the AI influence with the main reason being that I'm a member of r/OriginalCharacter which has an Anti-AI rule and r/ArtistHate which is Anti-AI in general. I want to prove myself to those communities.
---
so back to my question about mediums, we are only specifically talking about visuals and characters? drawings?
---
Both, Mostly character drawings
---
so just this particular creative community views it as a sin. an entirely different branch of the "creative community" seems to embrace, although to a different degree, non human assistance | 1fotlml | CMV: Using AI even if it's for assistance is considered as a Sin in the Creative Community | Many creative communities have begun banning the usage of AI and many creative minds are known to dislike AI because it's taking their work and credibility. I was neutral to this Creative vs AI (most notably Artist and Writers vs AI) until I ended up quitting AI for good and took the side of the Creatives.
But now I'm ashamed for using AI even if it's for assistance and now I'm on the process of gradually getting rid of it's influence. I've asked so many creative minds and they told me to just go with the process of getting rid of the influence or just scrap the whole thing and start all over. I'm even worried about the usage of AI name generators and traits and ideas that I got from AI. I even scared to use the same topics because I got them from AI, even if I present them on a far different manner than what AI does.
So from observation, I have come to the conclusion that in the Creative Community, using AI is a Sin and I feel like a fraud for using it a long time ago. I may be exaggerating but I don't know anymore. | Electromad6326 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Vesurel",
"id": "loskvhc",
"score": 3,
"text": "Is there a substantive difference between a 'sin' and a 'thing you shouldn't do'?",
"timestamp": 1727230592
},
{
"author": "Electromad6326",
"id": "losle9k",
"score": 0,
"text": "A sin is a forbidden thing which sho... | [
{
"author": "geunty",
"id": "losotyc",
"score": 1,
"text": "what medium we talkin? auto tune has been around for decades. People use drum machines all the time. i don't hear much fuss about that",
"timestamp": 1727232170
},
{
"author": "Electromad6326",
"id": "losoz02",
"score":... | [
"loskvhc",
"losle9k",
"losnsv8",
"loso22i",
"loso8ll",
"losoiry",
"lot0gji"
] | [
"losotyc",
"losoz02",
"lospew5",
"lospmbd",
"losq73r",
"losqkye",
"losreyg"
] |
CMV: No one should use the "n" word in modern day life
This post is more about black people using the n-word since it is already viewed as unacceptable for white people or other races to use it and it would be extremely difficult to change my view that white people should be able to use the word.
So my basic reasoning is that the word has a long history of hatred and use to disparage and put down black people. The continued use of the word by black people only encourages the use of the word in a negative way by white people. I only have anecdotal evidence for this, but I often hear white people repeating lines by black comedians and musical artists thinking if the artist says it, why can't the audience. This then snowballs into the use of the word in everyday speech and then, for a few people, into actual hate speech.
I know one of the main arguments for its use is to take the power away from the word and give it to the people it was originally targeting. While I can see the logic in this, I don't think it has worked. The word is just as harsh as it has always been. If a white person uses it towards a black person it will cause just as much harm now as it would in the past. I could very well be wrong about this point as I am white so I don't know the actual harm a black person feels when hearing the word so feel free to explain to me why this is working.
I would like to point out I don't think there should legal repercussions against the word, but there should be an effort made to stop the prevalent use of the word in modern culture. As simple efforts as reminding people not to use it, pushing artists and entertainers away from using the word, and just a cultural pressure to stop the use in general.
Lastly, I don't disagree with the use of the word in historical context or in order to make a powerful point about race. For example, I wouldn't want to see abridged versions of huckleberry Finn or try to cover up the history of the word in new media that covers historical context. Secondly, if a speaker or artist wants to make a point about oppression using the word with the full weight of it behind it, I don't see an issue. But using it has a pronoun as it's often used today seems to have be more harm than good.
| >I know one of the main arguments for its use is to take the power away from the word and give it to the people it was originally targeting. While I can see the logic in this, I don't think it has worked. The word is just as harsh as it has always been.
It hasn't *finished* working, but it IS working.
The fact that black people can use it amongst themselves without calling up the old hatred is proof of that.
As soon as black people are no longer offended when white people say it, the word will have successfully been taken off the list of pejoratives.
We are just in the middle of the process.
It is interesting how 'queer' was successfully taken back by the gay community so quickly, in comparison to the n-word, but queer also had a shorter history as a pejorative.
---
I guess I don't see it ever being a time where white people can use it without being offensive. I would guess that if you asked most black people they would say white people will never be able to use the word with impunity.
However you raise a good point about queer being successfully taken back, so I will have to award a delta that it is possible for that to happen. !delta
---
Maybe not looking hard enough? Plenty of white people say it, mostly rappers. Also, there are a few comedians that can get away with it. For example, Louis CK is a very fatherly, honest figure, and when he says it, I don't feel the slightest offense. Also, whyyyyy do white people care so much about it? Do you reeeeeeally want to say it that badly? Just forget about it. | > The word is just as harsh as it has always been
You note that it is just as harsh coming from white people, but you neglect to address black people saying it to other black people. Do you think that it is "just as harsh as it has always been" in this context?
---
That's difficult for me to say. don't know if in the past it was used amongst black people primarily as a slur, but if you can show that, it would surely earn a delta.
---
Why would it have to have been used as a slur between black people in the past? If one could demonstrate that it isn't offensive (speaking very generally) to many black people -between black people- presently, doesn't that directly refute your view that "no one should say it" because it is hurtful and harmful? | 78o3dj | CMV: No one should use the "n" word in modern day life | This post is more about black people using the n-word since it is already viewed as unacceptable for white people or other races to use it and it would be extremely difficult to change my view that white people should be able to use the word.
So my basic reasoning is that the word has a long history of hatred and use to disparage and put down black people. The continued use of the word by black people only encourages the use of the word in a negative way by white people. I only have anecdotal evidence for this, but I often hear white people repeating lines by black comedians and musical artists thinking if the artist says it, why can't the audience. This then snowballs into the use of the word in everyday speech and then, for a few people, into actual hate speech.
I know one of the main arguments for its use is to take the power away from the word and give it to the people it was originally targeting. While I can see the logic in this, I don't think it has worked. The word is just as harsh as it has always been. If a white person uses it towards a black person it will cause just as much harm now as it would in the past. I could very well be wrong about this point as I am white so I don't know the actual harm a black person feels when hearing the word so feel free to explain to me why this is working.
I would like to point out I don't think there should legal repercussions against the word, but there should be an effort made to stop the prevalent use of the word in modern culture. As simple efforts as reminding people not to use it, pushing artists and entertainers away from using the word, and just a cultural pressure to stop the use in general.
Lastly, I don't disagree with the use of the word in historical context or in order to make a powerful point about race. For example, I wouldn't want to see abridged versions of huckleberry Finn or try to cover up the history of the word in new media that covers historical context. Secondly, if a speaker or artist wants to make a point about oppression using the word with the full weight of it behind it, I don't see an issue. But using it has a pronoun as it's often used today seems to have be more harm than good.
| random5924 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Burflax",
"id": "dovb6jj",
"score": 27,
"text": ">I know one of the main arguments for its use is to take the power away from the word and give it to the people it was originally targeting. While I can see the logic in this, I don't think it has worked. The word is just as harsh as it h... | [
{
"author": "Wierd_Carissa",
"id": "dovb41d",
"score": 5,
"text": "> The word is just as harsh as it has always been \n\nYou note that it is just as harsh coming from white people, but you neglect to address black people saying it to other black people. Do you think that it is \"just as harsh as it ... | [
"dovb6jj",
"dovbv26",
"dovkl45"
] | [
"dovb41d",
"dovbgix",
"dovbke4"
] |
CMV: It should be illegal for politicians to have a net worth beyond the national median for the rest of their lives
This is my solution to the problem of political corruption. It should be illegal for any politician to have a net worth greater than an ordinary citizen at any point for the rest of their life, even after they leave office. Politics should only be pursued by people who are willing to sacrifice the allure of riches for the sake of making their nation and the world a better place.
I know that it’s difficult to become elected without being rich, and I don’t have a solution to that problem. However, forcing the winning candidates to give up their riches and never accept a “donation” that would enrich them is a step in the right direction. Politics should be completely decoupled from riches. Politicians should agree to undergo lifelong surveillance to ensure that they never become rich again.
_____
> *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!* | That would encourage corruption. If politicians aren’t payed satisfactorily they are more likely to accept money from more “unofficial” sources.
---
All politicians should agree to undergo surveillance while and after they are in office to ensure that no bribes from unofficial sources are collected.
---
If the surveillance will be needed regardless, what is the point of limiting the politicians income? The surveillance can already ensure that it only comes from legitimate/non-corrupt sources.
---
In America it’s currently legal for an organization to make a large “donation” to a politician, and then ask the politician to support a law reform which benefits the organization. That system needs to be completely destroyed, which means politicians should receive no donations whatsoever.
---
Those donations do not go to the politician personally, it is already illegal to give a politician money directly to get something you want from them
[18 U.S. Code § 201](https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2041-bribery-public-officials) | Couldn't this also discourage capable people of wanting to enter politics?
---
There are enough people who are both capable and willing to sacrifice riches. Governments shouldn’t take the risk of allowing rich politicians to exist.
---
>There are enough people who are both capable and willing to sacrifice riches
I'm willing to bet there is not. People may take a pay cut to become a politician but nobody is going to risk losing the ability to ever have money just for a term or two.
---
They won’t lose the ability to have money. They’ll merely lose the ability to become rich. They can still live a middle class lifestyle, which is the lifestyle most people are fine with.
---
They will lose the ability to own a home in most places in the country as the average person has less wealth than an average house costs. They probably will not be able to work in a field that can use their skills as most politicians are highly educated. These are not restrictions we put on the average person. | b2onoz | CMV: It should be illegal for politicians to have a net worth beyond the national median for the rest of their lives | This is my solution to the problem of political corruption. It should be illegal for any politician to have a net worth greater than an ordinary citizen at any point for the rest of their life, even after they leave office. Politics should only be pursued by people who are willing to sacrifice the allure of riches for the sake of making their nation and the world a better place.
I know that it’s difficult to become elected without being rich, and I don’t have a solution to that problem. However, forcing the winning candidates to give up their riches and never accept a “donation” that would enrich them is a step in the right direction. Politics should be completely decoupled from riches. Politicians should agree to undergo lifelong surveillance to ensure that they never become rich again.
_____
> *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!* | CircleReversed | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "nashamagirl99",
"id": "eiu09ew",
"score": 8,
"text": "That would encourage corruption. If politicians aren’t payed satisfactorily they are more likely to accept money from more “unofficial” sources.",
"timestamp": 1552946188
},
{
"author": "CircleReversed",
"id": "eiu0cd... | [
{
"author": "poltroon_pomegranate",
"id": "eiu0frj",
"score": 1,
"text": "Couldn't this also discourage capable people of wanting to enter politics?",
"timestamp": 1552946314
},
{
"author": "CircleReversed",
"id": "eiu0jkk",
"score": 1,
"text": "There are enough people who ar... | [
"eiu09ew",
"eiu0cdc",
"eiu1i4i",
"eiu3s7l",
"eiu74w9"
] | [
"eiu0frj",
"eiu0jkk",
"eiu0pdm",
"eiu0zde",
"eiu1bli"
] |
CMV: From an amoral, purely utilitarian point of view, the best thing for the global West/global North's maintenance of standard of living and the planet's environment would be to use military force to cripple the global South's, especially China's and India's, growing economies
Title note: It has been pointed out that "utilitarian" is misused in the title and body of the post. As titles cannot be edited, please note that "selfish" is a word more in line with my intended meaning.
At present, the fact that the environment is at a critical point, near a point of no return, is apparent and undeniable. If we continue on our current course, we will cause damage to the global environment that will be catastrophic in nature, beyond anything we've experienced in the past. This is a fact that we cannot get away from; barring significant technological breakthroughs, this is something we need to confront, and soon.
In light of that, radical environmental measures need to be taken. In much of the West, these measures are being taken; carbon emissions are either slowing their growth or declining in much of the West. We in the west have the luxury of a fully developed, wealthy economy that can afford the transition to cleaner energy sources without much hardship. Most of the issue in the West right now is political inertia and denialism among politicians like Donald Trump and his like.
However, in the global South, or put another way, the developing world, carbon emissions are increasing at a breakneck pace. This is especially true in China and recently India. Already, China is the number one carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide producer in the world. With their immense populations, if they reach a standard of living and commensurate carbon emissions per capita equivalent to those in the US or Western Europe or elsewhere in the global North, the consequences for the environment are difficult to overstate.
This will become true in Africa, as well. As their economies burgeon, their energy needs will expand. If they follow the same model as India and China, their carbon emissions will likewise balloon into unprecedented levels. Given that Africa is expected to reach a population of around 4 billion by the end of this century, if they reach carbon emissions per capita on par with, or even half of, those of the US at the present time, the consequences for the environment will again be difficult to overestimate.
In light of this, in a purely ~~utilitarian~~ (Edit:) selfish mindset devoid of considerations of morality or ethics, and instead focused purely on self-preservation and benefits to self, the best course of action for the US, and more broadly the global North, to take would be to engage in military force to cripple the economies of the countries in the global South, preferably without the use of nuclear weapons, while of course continuing to take other measures to reduce their own carbon emissions concurrently. This would mean devastating economic engines and centers in India and China, destroying as many power plants as possible, and then taking measures to actively prevent rebuilding those economic engines, or the development of more energy-demanding economies elsewhere in the global South.
If the global North wishes to maintain its standard of living, while at the same time preventing climate catastrophe, without consideration of moral qualms, the most effective way to do so right now would be to militarily stop the economic growth of the global South, and to continuously prevent its growth until such time as technology can be developed to completely mitigate carbon emissions and other pollutants.
CMV. | Assuming theyll just sit there and take it, i still dont think your view makes sense. Per capita emissions are higher in many developed countries. If youre gonna kill people, might as well kill people in another developed country (unless your view is that all the developed countries are monolithic inherently).
Also, crippling the economies of other countries cripples your own. Its not clear to me that not having access to what the chinese economy provides will be less harmful to the western lifestyle than simply resolving to drive less, use more electric cars, etc. A globalized economy improves quality of life by lowering prices through maximization of local efficiencies and expertise. Removing 2 big suppliers of unique efficiencies would be harmful to the western way of life.
Finally, both countries have militaries and nuclear weapons. If you factor in the fact that neither country will appreciate military invasions, and will retaliate, suddenly the cost becomes insanely high for what? The ability to emit more carbon?
---
> Assuming theyll just sit there and take it, i still dont think your view makes sense. Per capita emissions are higher in many developed countries. If youre gonna kill people, might as well kill people in another developed country (unless your view is that all the developed countries are monolithic inherently).
This post assumes that the developed countries wish to maintain their standards of living and disregards any moral element.
>Also, crippling the economies of other countries cripples your own. Its not clear to me that not having access to what the chinese economy provides will be less harmful to the western lifestyle than simply resolving to drive less, use more electric cars, etc. A globalized economy improves quality of life by lowering prices through maximization of local efficiencies and expertise. Removing 2 big suppliers of unique efficiencies would be harmful to the western way of life.
I do think this is the most convincing argument against it being the most pragmatic option, but it still ignores the fact that allowing developing economies to walk the same path the developed economies walked would be catastrophic to the environment.
>Finally, both countries have militaries and nuclear weapons. If you factor in the fact that neither country will appreciate military invasions, and will retaliate, suddenly the cost becomes insanely high for what? The ability to emit more carbon?
I don't think either country would be capable of resisting with conventional means, but the nuclear angle is indeed an issue, and if nuclear war could not be guaranteed to be prevented then it would necessarily on the balance be the worse choice. And no, not for the ability to emit more carbon: In order to halt and roll back the increase of carbon emissions from developing countries.
---
China might well be able to resist conventionally, at least if it has some allies. Warfare at a distance is a lot more expensive, so western powers would be using long supply lines that drive up cost substantially. Whereas China is defending its own territory, thus much shorter supply lines. China also has an enormous amount of power (which is a bit more useful in a defensive war as well).
​
For clarification: what side is Russia on in this scenario of yours? I'd tend to say not on the global west's side; and being its own faction which will act based on whatever is advantageous to them.
​
At any rate, there's no way to prevent nuclear war in such a scenario, it'd be inevitable; a lot of work goes into making sure that nuclear systems can survive a first strike; so it'd be infeasible for the US to reliably knock out all the Chinese nukes in a nuclear first strike. China has enough nukes and ICBMs that several major american cities which would sustain massive damage and millions of casualties. | Why not just institute legislation globally to stop emmissions? It's tough, but way less tough than a world war III.
Also, you misunderstand Utilitarianism. It *is* an ethical mindset. The most good for the most people. Crippling other countries for the sake of your own is definitionally not utilitarian.
---
> Why not just institute legislation globally to stop emmissions? It's tough, but way less tough than a world war III.
Yes, but my post presupposes that the global North wishes to maintain its economic power without significant contraction or reduction, which I believe in the current political environment is accurate. Proposing economic contraction is political suicide, and thus no one with any significant influence is seriously proposing it.
>Also, you misunderstand Utilitarianism. It is an ethical mindset. The most good for the most people. Crippling other countries for the sake of your own is definitionally not utilitarian.
I concede I may have used the wrong word; my meaning of "utilitarian" was in the sense of avoiding any moral considerations and thinking only of the measurable outcomes, ie. the *utility*, of an action. If you can propose a more fitting term, I would appreciate it, in order to avoid being bogged down in semantics.
---
Instead of Utilitarian, I would say the only fitting word would be "from a purely selfish perspective."
Yet still, attempting to cripple the economies of the rest of the world is likely going to result in war (or at least economic warfare, as is already starting).
It's literally just easier for the world to reduce emissions. But if you're argument is that people will refuse reduction out of hand, then your statement is a tautology and can't be proven false, so I'm not sure what sort of argument you're looking for exactly; would you mind clarifying that? | bxlca6 | CMV: From an amoral, purely utilitarian point of view, the best thing for the global West/global North's maintenance of standard of living and the planet's environment would be to use military force to cripple the global South's, especially China's and India's, growing economies | Title note: It has been pointed out that "utilitarian" is misused in the title and body of the post. As titles cannot be edited, please note that "selfish" is a word more in line with my intended meaning.
At present, the fact that the environment is at a critical point, near a point of no return, is apparent and undeniable. If we continue on our current course, we will cause damage to the global environment that will be catastrophic in nature, beyond anything we've experienced in the past. This is a fact that we cannot get away from; barring significant technological breakthroughs, this is something we need to confront, and soon.
In light of that, radical environmental measures need to be taken. In much of the West, these measures are being taken; carbon emissions are either slowing their growth or declining in much of the West. We in the west have the luxury of a fully developed, wealthy economy that can afford the transition to cleaner energy sources without much hardship. Most of the issue in the West right now is political inertia and denialism among politicians like Donald Trump and his like.
However, in the global South, or put another way, the developing world, carbon emissions are increasing at a breakneck pace. This is especially true in China and recently India. Already, China is the number one carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide producer in the world. With their immense populations, if they reach a standard of living and commensurate carbon emissions per capita equivalent to those in the US or Western Europe or elsewhere in the global North, the consequences for the environment are difficult to overstate.
This will become true in Africa, as well. As their economies burgeon, their energy needs will expand. If they follow the same model as India and China, their carbon emissions will likewise balloon into unprecedented levels. Given that Africa is expected to reach a population of around 4 billion by the end of this century, if they reach carbon emissions per capita on par with, or even half of, those of the US at the present time, the consequences for the environment will again be difficult to overestimate.
In light of this, in a purely ~~utilitarian~~ (Edit:) selfish mindset devoid of considerations of morality or ethics, and instead focused purely on self-preservation and benefits to self, the best course of action for the US, and more broadly the global North, to take would be to engage in military force to cripple the economies of the countries in the global South, preferably without the use of nuclear weapons, while of course continuing to take other measures to reduce their own carbon emissions concurrently. This would mean devastating economic engines and centers in India and China, destroying as many power plants as possible, and then taking measures to actively prevent rebuilding those economic engines, or the development of more energy-demanding economies elsewhere in the global South.
If the global North wishes to maintain its standard of living, while at the same time preventing climate catastrophe, without consideration of moral qualms, the most effective way to do so right now would be to militarily stop the economic growth of the global South, and to continuously prevent its growth until such time as technology can be developed to completely mitigate carbon emissions and other pollutants.
CMV. | SpacemanSkiff | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ace52387",
"id": "eq894y8",
"score": 1,
"text": "Assuming theyll just sit there and take it, i still dont think your view makes sense. Per capita emissions are higher in many developed countries. If youre gonna kill people, might as well kill people in another developed country (unless ... | [
{
"author": "TheVioletBarry",
"id": "eq7r819",
"score": 3,
"text": "Why not just institute legislation globally to stop emmissions? It's tough, but way less tough than a world war III.\n\nAlso, you misunderstand Utilitarianism. It *is* an ethical mindset. The most good for the most people. Crippling... | [
"eq894y8",
"eq8aks7",
"eq8emu5"
] | [
"eq7r819",
"eq7rq8l",
"eq7s5fp"
] |
CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals.
The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.
This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.
People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.
Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals? | > People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.
This is very strange in this context because you don't make jokes about the holocaust or child molestation because you dislike children (and if you are then that's generally not accepted) but specifically because these are horrific things, for that matter I *have* seen jokes about murdering puppies, but, just as with "good" holocaust and child molestation jokes the joke is more of a "look how terrible I'm being" rather than "suffering is fun".
---
Hmmm...well neo-Nazis seem to adore holocaust jokes and they profess to hate Jews, I figured they went together. I can see to a point, that soda contest a few years ago where Mountain Dew foolishly asked the internet to name their new drink had "Hitler did nothing wrong" as a frontrunner. That seems like a funny name because it would be a terrible name for a soda. But someone just saying "Hitler did nothing wrong!" isn't at all funny to me. And same with cat crushing. Good horrible name for a soda but not funny otherwise.
Just out of curiosity, have you seen a joke about hurting/murdering animals (cute animals, not horseflies) ever receive an appreciable number of upvotes? Say more than 1k? (I'm only counting the main body of Reddit here, I am sure there are subs devoted to animal abuse or whatnot but it has to be on a mainstream part.)
---
A few years ago there was [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3iilas/clubbers_of_reddit_what_are_your_best_tips_for/) thread about clubbing that was deliberately misinterpreted by a few users to be about seal hunting. The comments got several thousands of upvotes. | You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.
---
Considering 99% of people eat meat, I'm going to go with "normal person".
---
People who eat meat didn't kill anything. If a person directly kills an animal without feeling they are not normal. | dzzdmx | CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. | The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.
This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.
People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.
Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals? | Sgt_Spatula | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PauLtus",
"id": "f8baykg",
"score": 83,
"text": "> People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.\n\nThis is very strange in this context because you don't make jokes about the... | [
{
"author": "TRossW18",
"id": "f8b94fc",
"score": 8,
"text": "You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.",
"timestamp": 1574430859
},
{
"author": "r1veRRR",
"id": "f8b9mda",
"score": 16,
"text... | [
"f8baykg",
"f8bbnop",
"f8bmwrx"
] | [
"f8b94fc",
"f8b9mda",
"f8b9swd"
] |
CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals.
The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.
This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.
People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.
Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals? | \> I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you wouldn't feel bad if you watched an animal starve to death in front of you? Because if so, that's not normal or ethical, and while you need not LIKE a thing, causing intentional suffering of a sentient being is wrong. I mean, I don't "like" children insofar as I don't want a child, but that's not the same thing as allowing harm to come to a child and feeling indifference.
---
Oh no, I wouldn't want to see an animal suffer. But if and when the cat passes on I won't cry or mourn. It will be like when a tree dies, in a way.
---
But if you dont want to see their suffering you are empathizing with them, thus you think their existence is valuable to a degree. You still haven't said what it is you supposedly dislike about animals so I'm struggling to see where your indifference turns into dislike? | It isn't wrong, but it is pretty uncommon. One of our deepest instincts is to pack bond, and we do it with all kinds of things. Our ability to just kind of decide that a thing in our lives is in the set of \[us\] is one of the things that made us so evolutionarily able, and also is a thing that gives a lot of people meaning in their lives.
​
Like, I kinda feel like you're asking the wrong question here, or an unanswerable question. It's like asking if it's wrong to not be nostalgic.
---
You may be right that it isn't answerable, I will see what other responses I get. But don't you think it is weird that I could get upvoted for a joke about raping a child but not one about stomping a puppy? If I had to choose one I would kill the puppy.
---
I mean, I wouldn't upvote either of them, personally. I stopped being into "look how offensive and edgy I can be" jokes in my mid twenties | dzzdmx | CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. | The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.
This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.
People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.
Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals? | Sgt_Spatula | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "pol_pots",
"id": "f8bi52d",
"score": 32,
"text": "\\> I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. \n\nI'm a bit confused. Are... | [
{
"author": "sailorbrendan",
"id": "f8b91dk",
"score": 51,
"text": "It isn't wrong, but it is pretty uncommon. One of our deepest instincts is to pack bond, and we do it with all kinds of things. Our ability to just kind of decide that a thing in our lives is in the set of \\[us\\] is one of the thi... | [
"f8bi52d",
"f8bloqv",
"f8bnosw"
] | [
"f8b91dk",
"f8b9t5w",
"f8bacey"
] |
CMV: Smart watches are unnecessary
Smart Phones do everything a smart watch does- notifications, calls, time, weather etc. its just duplicating the functions. I don't like redundant technology. If I don't need my phone ever, then a smart watch would make sense to me. But the screen is too small, so that won't work either.
Charging them daily is the worst. I already do it with my phone. I dont want to charge 1 more device daily specially if it's a wearable because I will have to take off the wearable and charge, which beats the purpose of it being a wearable.
Durability - I have owned 3 smart watches. All just broke or stopped working in an year or so. They're not very durable- I think it's because they go through rough workouts etc and can't handle it. They're as delicate as phones.
Looks- I personally hate the look. Look like smooth ugly plastic crap. Like a kids toy with lights and sounds coming from the watch. Too 'nerdy'.
Fitness:
Heart rate monitor is not accurate on a smart watch. chest strap heart rate monitor is better (like polar or something)
Step counter and GPS: this is pretty accurate on phone. I don't need this to be that accurate anyways, just get a sense of how long you walked. What do I care if I it's 50-100 steps less or more. I know the total time I worked out.
Calorie counter is well documented to be highly inaccurate in any devices, so don't even bother talking about that.
Sleep analysis, does it really help? If I sleep for 7-8 hours, I feel good. If I ever sleep less, I don't feel that good. What other information helps really? Maybe someone with insomnia can benefit?
So, I don't think smart watches really improve health. | The heart rate monitors are accurate, though. And even better or more importantly, they are consistent and thus fit for purpose when gauging trends, which is how you measure your workout progress (if you’re interested in tracking it anyway).
Interestingly, I find this aspect to be the only respect in which smartwatches justify their existence, and it’s something that smartphones will never be able to conveniently do without a body-mounted sensor of some kind.
Most of what smartwatches do is redundant. And in that way, they are redundant. But for fitness tracking, there’s no better solution. Even if I’m exercising in place on an elliptical that doesn’t have any fancy connectivity or HR tracking options, my smartwatch will automatically identify the workout, track the time, track the duration, etc. My phone won’t do that.
Then factor in the added value of all the other stuff the watches can do, and there you are. My wife has a Fitbit and I have an Apple Watch. While her Fitbit is fine, it’s frustrating that there aren’t more app controls and tie-ins on the platform. I’m of the mind that if you’re going to be wearing this thing, it ought to be as usable and flexible as possible. So once the fitness stuff is dialed in, and this is the primary use case, I want other stuff to mess around with. It’s added value at that point, certainly.
Fitness is the thing.
---
From what I understand - Polar H9 or H10 chest band heart rate monitors type of tech is accurate. Smart watches just give an approximate range of the heart rate accurately.
---
those r annoying to put on and expensive and don’t have other features? | Define “necessary” please - for a lot of people a smartphone is not technically needed for survival.
---
Sure, I mean, a smart phone is necessary for me for everything it does. I don't need a smart watch in addition to it.
---
So is your argument that is no legitimate use for them for any user, or that you specifically don’t need one? | 1foutrm | CMV: Smart watches are unnecessary | Smart Phones do everything a smart watch does- notifications, calls, time, weather etc. its just duplicating the functions. I don't like redundant technology. If I don't need my phone ever, then a smart watch would make sense to me. But the screen is too small, so that won't work either.
Charging them daily is the worst. I already do it with my phone. I dont want to charge 1 more device daily specially if it's a wearable because I will have to take off the wearable and charge, which beats the purpose of it being a wearable.
Durability - I have owned 3 smart watches. All just broke or stopped working in an year or so. They're not very durable- I think it's because they go through rough workouts etc and can't handle it. They're as delicate as phones.
Looks- I personally hate the look. Look like smooth ugly plastic crap. Like a kids toy with lights and sounds coming from the watch. Too 'nerdy'.
Fitness:
Heart rate monitor is not accurate on a smart watch. chest strap heart rate monitor is better (like polar or something)
Step counter and GPS: this is pretty accurate on phone. I don't need this to be that accurate anyways, just get a sense of how long you walked. What do I care if I it's 50-100 steps less or more. I know the total time I worked out.
Calorie counter is well documented to be highly inaccurate in any devices, so don't even bother talking about that.
Sleep analysis, does it really help? If I sleep for 7-8 hours, I feel good. If I ever sleep less, I don't feel that good. What other information helps really? Maybe someone with insomnia can benefit?
So, I don't think smart watches really improve health. | LikedIt666 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ElephantNo3640",
"id": "losu7qw",
"score": 3,
"text": "The heart rate monitors are accurate, though. And even better or more importantly, they are consistent and thus fit for purpose when gauging trends, which is how you measure your workout progress (if you’re interested in tracking it... | [
{
"author": "Apprehensive_Song490",
"id": "losso1j",
"score": 1,
"text": "Define “necessary” please - for a lot of people a smartphone is not technically needed for survival.",
"timestamp": 1727233776
},
{
"author": "LikedIt666",
"id": "loste4g",
"score": 0,
"text": "Sure, I ... | [
"losu7qw",
"losur85",
"losuyix"
] | [
"losso1j",
"loste4g",
"lostm3w"
] |
CMV: Extreme Zionists are some of the most frightening, rabid fanatics since the Nazis.
I DO NOT MEAN JEWS WHEN I SAY THIS OR ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST I MEAN EXTREME ZIONISTS!!!
This is a tough topic to discuss. I think Zionists are frightening. I go to UCLA where there is a significant Jewish population and have found myself getting in frequent debates over Isreali-Palestinian relations. Full disclaimer: I do think Israel has the right to exist TO AN EXTENT, but the appartheid state they've built and their forcing of many Palestinians into fucking ghettos and repeatedly carpet bombing them is horrific and barbaric and tied for the worst humanitarian crisis with the Uighur genocide.
Back to Zionists. These people are fucking sick. When I've debated them on UCLA, they've said the most overtly racist and even genocidal sentiment towards Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general, calling for their death or at the very least total removal from Israeli soil. They are fanatics who fully support Israel no matter what. They call you anti-Semetic for criticizing Israel when the way I see it the institution of Israel and the institution of Judaism are distinct things, and criticizing one does not mean you hate the other.
They claim it is impossible for Israel to be an oppressive police state because of the Holocaust. When I bring up how the unconsenually sterilized black Ethiopian JEWISH Beta-Israelite refugees, they continued to defend Israel and claimed it was justified. It made me sick. They view Palestinians collectively as terrorist animals so of course there's no way I can convince them that they have rights, but against their own JEWISH people? This is sick.
They treat fucking genocidal Nettanyahu as a god and defend his increased censorships and weakening of the judicial branch, and even said democracy has to be put on hold during war.
My heart aches for the Israelis who died on October 7th and the 1000s of Palestinians who have died since. | Back in the 1990s Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright tried to negotiate peace, the proposal was one where the Palestinians got something like 95% of what they were asking for, Yassar Arafat and his PLO responded with the Intifada.
Again back in the 2000s another Israeli government offer a deal close to the 1967 borders with land swaps for where settlements were created, a shared Jerusalem, and the Holy Basin would be managed by a five government body. Again the Palestinians responded by saying no and attacking.
I have lots of problems with Israel. But right now my choices are to support the country that has Gay Pride parades, or the death cult that throws homosexuals off rooftops to their death. Given that choice, I am going to choose the liberal democracy every single time.
As soon as the Palestinians agree that Israel has a right to exist and stops the murder, kidnapping, etc. I am happy to start criticizing Israel.
I do not like the rapid Zionists either, but I am siding with them, for now, only because the Palestinians are forcing my hand to do so.
---
>I have lots of problems with Israel. But right now my choices are to support the country that has Gay Pride parades, or the death cult that throws homosexuals off rooftops to their death. Given that choice, I am going to choose the liberal democracy every single time.
SO FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Why are gay rights a topic that has any place in this discussion? Yes I agree killing gay people is fucked up but if some nation that supports gay rights decides to bomb the shit out of Nigeria or forces all Nigerians into ghettos, that nation is fucking wrong. You sound so stupid right now get this gay shit out of here. Does a human rights abuse justify another human rights abuse?
>As soon as the Palestinians agree that Israel has a right to exist and stops the murder, kidnapping, etc. I am happy to start criticizing Israel.
>
>I do not like the rapid Zionists either, but I am siding with them, for now, only because the Palestinians are forcing my hand to do so.
Why must you lump all Palestinians together as the same monsters? Palestinians are not Hamas. You sound racist.
---
As sad and shitty as it is, civilians die in every war, and every war is between governments. Why weren't you protesting when the USA killed 200,000 civilian afghans. Why are you just waking up now when it is palestine. IF you were alive during WW2, would you have demonstrating for protecting the german population from being bombed? I know its not appealing (and not justifying the lack of humanitarian aid by Israel), but palestinians learn how to shoot semiautomatic rifles in elementary schools (they all go to Hamas schools). They are brain washed there for murder. I don't see a big distinction between them and the Nazis.
​
PS this is based on an interview I watched of an Israeli arab who grew up in Gaza.
---
>Why weren't you protesting when the USA killed 200,000 civilian afghans.
Why are you assuming I was for the Afghanistan war? I wasn't and I'm not, I just used Reddit for other shit than CMV back then.
I do agree Hamas is evil and they should die but forcing all Palestinians into 2 small pieces of land and then bombing the shit out of them seems genocidal to me.
I do think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and firebombing Germany were horrendous too. Wars didn't always use to involve attacking civilians, it was only normalized in WWI to destroy the industrial power of Germany/Britain depending on the side.
---
> Wars didn't always use to involve attacking civilians
No, wars have *always* involved attacking civilians for as long as there have been wars.
Take for example the Hundred Years War. Despite popular media portraying it as many battles between armies, most of it consisted of small bands of English raiders pillaging French villages and yes - attacking civilians.
The Mongols deliberately attacked civilians to force refugees to flee to more well fortified cities, so that when the Mongols inevitably laid siege, those cities would run out of supplies faster and capitulate.
Going back even further - look at the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. At the conclusion of the Third Punic War, Rome burned Carthage to the ground, killed all the men, and sold all the women and children into slavery.
It was only around the World Wars that "attacking civilians" started to be considered a bad thing, and not something you just did as a military commander. | If you think Israel should get on its knees and wait for the next attack after Oct 7. You are needing more education.
---
Here is the issue with how some people are approaching this debate: criticizing the Israel government and extremism is not the same thing as saying Israel should do nothing.
This is clearly not what they said.
---
Asking Israel to not bomb Gaza into dust *is* saying Israel should just take Oct. 7 on the chin.
The US dropped immense amounts of ordnance on Afghanistan after 9/11, and ultimately two nuclear bombs on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Why does Israel have to show restraint when no other nation has had to? Why does Israel have to show restraint when *the Palestinians don't*?
---
Why didn't the US use nuclear bombs in Afghanistan?
---
> Why do you think every country has been so reluctant to use them ever since?
Because the genie is out of the bottle and there is more than one country who has them? If the US had taken a policy of nuclear first strike against any adversarial state pursuing nuclear weapons we wouldn't be in this situation.
> Additionally, when you say bomb Gaza into dust do you mean that you want everything destroyed?
So thoroughly bombed that there aren't two stones left standing on top of one another. Yes. That is ultimately the extent that Israel will need to go to achieve peace. | 17it4ui | CMV: Extreme Zionists are some of the most frightening, rabid fanatics since the Nazis. | I DO NOT MEAN JEWS WHEN I SAY THIS OR ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST I MEAN EXTREME ZIONISTS!!!
This is a tough topic to discuss. I think Zionists are frightening. I go to UCLA where there is a significant Jewish population and have found myself getting in frequent debates over Isreali-Palestinian relations. Full disclaimer: I do think Israel has the right to exist TO AN EXTENT, but the appartheid state they've built and their forcing of many Palestinians into fucking ghettos and repeatedly carpet bombing them is horrific and barbaric and tied for the worst humanitarian crisis with the Uighur genocide.
Back to Zionists. These people are fucking sick. When I've debated them on UCLA, they've said the most overtly racist and even genocidal sentiment towards Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general, calling for their death or at the very least total removal from Israeli soil. They are fanatics who fully support Israel no matter what. They call you anti-Semetic for criticizing Israel when the way I see it the institution of Israel and the institution of Judaism are distinct things, and criticizing one does not mean you hate the other.
They claim it is impossible for Israel to be an oppressive police state because of the Holocaust. When I bring up how the unconsenually sterilized black Ethiopian JEWISH Beta-Israelite refugees, they continued to defend Israel and claimed it was justified. It made me sick. They view Palestinians collectively as terrorist animals so of course there's no way I can convince them that they have rights, but against their own JEWISH people? This is sick.
They treat fucking genocidal Nettanyahu as a god and defend his increased censorships and weakening of the judicial branch, and even said democracy has to be put on hold during war.
My heart aches for the Israelis who died on October 7th and the 1000s of Palestinians who have died since. | RealFee1405 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "throwawaydanc3rrr",
"id": "k6wqbhi",
"score": 25,
"text": "Back in the 1990s Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright tried to negotiate peace, the proposal was one where the Palestinians got something like 95% of what they were asking for, Yassar Arafat and his PLO responded with the Intifad... | [
{
"author": "Darkhorse33w",
"id": "k6wnijb",
"score": 2,
"text": "If you think Israel should get on its knees and wait for the next attack after Oct 7. You are needing more education.",
"timestamp": 1698547795
},
{
"author": "HauntedReader",
"id": "k6wqji3",
"score": 3,
"tex... | [
"k6wqbhi",
"k6wruir",
"k6wu718",
"k6wuqze",
"k6wxd5x"
] | [
"k6wnijb",
"k6wqji3",
"k6wrk6d",
"k6wrou3",
"k6wsuc6"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.