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: The fact that Affirmative Action was banned instead of legacy admissions reveals that we have not learned anything regarding race.
As we all have heard this morning, Affirmative Action was banned under the 14th amendment. This has proven that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
The idea was that it discriminates against whites and Asians. Here's the student body population of Harvard:
39.7% white, 13.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic or Latino, 6%, everything else is other.
The largest chunk of Harvard's student body population is white and asian.
For MIT, it's 28.7% white, 19.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic, and only 3% black.
That angle that black people are taking spots away from Asians and whites makes absolutely no sense from an objective statistical view.
Now there's the issue of legacy admissions. It is common knowledge that for universities like Harvard and Standford, legacy admissions plays a major role in admissions. It's not uncommon for someone with lower GPA and other holistic metrics to get if they are legacy applicants.
There is a strong likelihood that legacy admits drastically outnumbers Affirmative Action admits, and likely also has lower GPA's than Affirmative Action admits.
The sheer fact that people are focusing on Affirmative Action rather than legacy showcases that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
One of the largest anti-Affirmative Actions groups have consistently been Asians. Asians have frequently been an ally, co-conspirator, or unwilling beneficiary to anti-black anti-diversity campaigns since the 1960's through anti-Civil Rights Model Minority campaigns. The fact that many activist groups have not recognized the weaponization of the Model Minority stereotype to push the initiative is worrying.
Anti-Affirmative Action activists had white and asian students front page on news outs complaining about or bashing Affirmative Action. Not unlike the 1960's.
Why is Affirmative Action made in the first place? Because African Americans literally weren't allowed to even compete academically in many educational institutions and everything else around Jim Crow policies. Affirmative Action is still needed precisely because primary schools in black communities are notoriously under-funded, thus decreasing the amount of quality applicants to elite universities.
Not addressing this fact, not addressing that legacy applicants outnumbers AA applicants really does show that we have really learned nothing regarding race. | >The largest chunk of Harvard's student body population is white and asian.
Yes, Asian students and White students have the best test scores. That is why there are more Asian and White students.
>The sheer fact that people are focusing on Affirmative Action rather than legacy showcases that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
This case wasn't about legacy admissions. If you want that to go, start your own case.
>The fact that many activist groups have not recognized the weaponization of the Model Minority stereotype to push the initiative is worrying.
This talk about ''Model Minority'' is mostly just a strategy by certain left wing academics to attack minorities that don't behave in the ways they want them to behave.
>affirmative Action is still needed precisely because primary schools in black communities are notoriously under-funded, thus decreasing the amount of quality applicants to elite universities.
Harvard wasn't taking students from those communities in anyway. Harvard students are rich. Harvard was just taking in the daughters of Indian billionaires and the sons of Nigerian businessmen. The ''diversity'' at those universities is just window dressing to avoid talking about wealth privilege.
---
If whites and asians have the best scores, and it's thoroughly represented in the makeup of the student body, then why is Affirmative Action even an issue
But the right literally invented the Model Minority to fight against Civil Rights legislation.
---
>and it's thoroughly represented in the makeup of the student body, then why is Affirmative Action even an issue
Because they are **not** thoroughly represented. It's not a secret that SAT score requirements for Asian is higher in ivy league than any other ethnicity.
This is a zero-sum game, increasing affirmative action will directly decrease the ratio of other ethnicity. It make sense for people who will be negatively impacted to fight against AA. | > As we all have heard this morning, Affirmative Action was banned under the 14th amendment. This has proven that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
I mean we’ve learned that 60 years of discrimination based on race didn’t solve racial inequality.
> The idea was that it discriminates against whites and Asians. Here’s the student body population of Harvard:
> 39.7% white, 13.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic or Latino, 6%, everything else is other.
Non-Hispanic whites make up 59% of the US population. So it would seem that they’re underrepresented based on population at Harvard.
> For MIT, it’s 28.7% white, 19.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic, and only 3% black.
So yet again, whites are underrepresented based on population.
> That angle that black people are taking spots away from Asians and whites makes absolutely no sense from an objective statistical view.
But whites are underrepresented at Harvard and MIT based on your statistics.
> It is common knowledge that for universities like Harvard and Standford, legacy admissions plays a major role in admissions. It’s not uncommon for someone with lower GPA and other holistic metrics to get if they are legacy applicants.
Do you have statistics on legacy admissions?
> There is a strong likelihood that legacy admits drastically outnumbers Affirmative Action admits, and likely also has lower GPA’s than Affirmative Action admits.
What is this based on?
> Why is Affirmative Action made in the first place? Because African Americans literally weren’t allowed to even compete academically in many educational institutions and everything else around Jim Crow policies. Affirmative Action is still needed precisely because primary schools in black communities are notoriously under-funded, thus decreasing the amount of quality applicants to elite universities.
Do you have statistics on school funding?
---
Except black primary school remain criminally under-funded, nullifying any potential positive impacts.
If anything, asians and women where the biggest winners of all this.
Non-hispanic whites are underrepresented while asians are massively massively overrepresented, and blacks and underrepresented
But whites still make up the bulk of higher education
---
> Except black primary school remain criminally under-funded, nullifying any potential positive impacts.
Ya, I asked if you had statistics on this.
> If anything, asians and women where the biggest winners of all this.
Again, based on your statistics white are underrepresented by a large margain at MIT and Harvard.
> Non-hispanic whites are underrepresented while asians are massively massively overrepresented, and blacks and underrepresented
So then you’d agree that Non-Hispanic whites are discriminated against by affirmative action? And you haven’t demonstrated that blacks are underrepresented.
> But whites still make up the bulk of higher education
But whites make up a far greater portion of the population. | 14mgpm6 | CMV: The fact that Affirmative Action was banned instead of legacy admissions reveals that we have not learned anything regarding race. | As we all have heard this morning, Affirmative Action was banned under the 14th amendment. This has proven that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
The idea was that it discriminates against whites and Asians. Here's the student body population of Harvard:
39.7% white, 13.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic or Latino, 6%, everything else is other.
The largest chunk of Harvard's student body population is white and asian.
For MIT, it's 28.7% white, 19.7% Asian, 9% Hispanic, and only 3% black.
That angle that black people are taking spots away from Asians and whites makes absolutely no sense from an objective statistical view.
Now there's the issue of legacy admissions. It is common knowledge that for universities like Harvard and Standford, legacy admissions plays a major role in admissions. It's not uncommon for someone with lower GPA and other holistic metrics to get if they are legacy applicants.
There is a strong likelihood that legacy admits drastically outnumbers Affirmative Action admits, and likely also has lower GPA's than Affirmative Action admits.
The sheer fact that people are focusing on Affirmative Action rather than legacy showcases that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.
One of the largest anti-Affirmative Actions groups have consistently been Asians. Asians have frequently been an ally, co-conspirator, or unwilling beneficiary to anti-black anti-diversity campaigns since the 1960's through anti-Civil Rights Model Minority campaigns. The fact that many activist groups have not recognized the weaponization of the Model Minority stereotype to push the initiative is worrying.
Anti-Affirmative Action activists had white and asian students front page on news outs complaining about or bashing Affirmative Action. Not unlike the 1960's.
Why is Affirmative Action made in the first place? Because African Americans literally weren't allowed to even compete academically in many educational institutions and everything else around Jim Crow policies. Affirmative Action is still needed precisely because primary schools in black communities are notoriously under-funded, thus decreasing the amount of quality applicants to elite universities.
Not addressing this fact, not addressing that legacy applicants outnumbers AA applicants really does show that we have really learned nothing regarding race. | Tessenreacts | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Character_Dot5740",
"id": "jq1ql6i",
"score": 32,
"text": ">The largest chunk of Harvard's student body population is white and asian.\r \n\r \n\n\nYes, Asian students and White students have the best test scores. That is why there are more Asian and White students. \n\n>The sheer fac... | [
{
"author": "PmMeYourDaddy-Issues",
"id": "jq1q3b4",
"score": 55,
"text": ">\tAs we all have heard this morning, Affirmative Action was banned under the 14th amendment. This has proven that US has learned absolutely nothing about race.\n\nI mean we’ve learned that 60 years of discrimination based on... | [
"jq1ql6i",
"jq1r3az",
"jq1s5wy"
] | [
"jq1q3b4",
"jq1qqgj",
"jq1r6is"
] |
CMV: just because Sean Strickland has beaten an ex-Navy SEAL in a sparring doesn't mean that Navy SEAL can't beat Sean Strickland in a street fight
Recently, internet was hyped up about how Sean Strickland has beaten an ex-Navy SEAL, who's also a professional MMA fighter with an amateur background, in a sparring.
People started to say that "Navy SEALs are overrated, your average amateur MMA mops the floor with them in a fight" or "Strickland proves that a professional MMA fighter is better than elite military in terms of hand-to-hand combat, Navy SEAL fanboys can cope harder".
That made me feel absolutely disgusting and weird. And I have my counter-points about all of this stuff:
1) Sean Strickland has beaten a guy who only has 3 fights in MMA (2 wins and 1 loss (to the same fighter that he would beat in rematch), plus 11 wins and 1 loss in amateur MMA), and yes, he was a Navy SEAL, but the fact that this guy (his name is Mitch Aguiar, a.k.a. "Smashin' Frog": https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/100131-mitch-aguiar) is barely even trying to fight back and Strickland just uses him as a dummy for punching doesn't prove that "MMA fighter > Navy SEAL". Seems to be a fixed match for me. Also, Mitch's last pro fight was in 2020, and his resume doesn't seems to be impressive ( in 2018, he defeated a fighter named Brandon Pennington, which record is 1 win and 3 losses, and another fighter named Mumia Abu Del Ali in 2020, to whom he lost in 2018, who has an overall 3 wins and 3 losses record. Not counting amateur fights of Mitch Aguiar, but there's also nothing impressive as well).
2) Sean Strickland is indeed a professional fighter, sure, who has a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and who started to train in MMA since he was 18. Great. Meanwhile, Navy SEAL aren't trained to fight in the octagon and win against a single opponent under the set of rules while wearing gloves, mouthguard and a cup. They're trained in many military things, which includes hand-to-hand combat, and their hand-to-hand combat isn't the same as MMA. Their hand-to-hand combat is for survival and for killing.
3) Just because Navy SEALs has less advanced hand-to-hand combat training and skills doesn't mean that they're bad fighters. They don't need fancy combos or flashy kicks, they're using simple and effective moves which are also combined with a killer instinct and brutality.
4) Jason Pike, who was originally challenged by Sean Strickland, said that "yes, you can beat me in the octagon, but I would cripple or even kill you in a street fight". And Jason is right. Because street fights has no rules and since Navy SEALs are trained to finish the fights as quickly as possible, it means that Navy SEAL's tactic would be aimed for the incapacitation of the opponent. And don't forget that streets has much harder surface and that makes it different from gyms and octagon.
5) Experience and skills of an MMA fighter is a good thing, but it's not everything and isn't really applicable in a street fight, especially where is a risk of a severe injury or death. Navy SEALs are trained to fight under stress and "life or death" situation, and they aren't fighting for money or for fame, they're fighting for the country. Their mentality is their main weapon, which makes them an ultimate warriors.
6) Navy SEAL's main asset is an endurance and toughness, which they're training under an extreme conditions. I highly doubt that SEAN Strickland could pass the recruitment process of a Navy SEAL.
7) There's a lot of Navy SEAL's that are doing martial arts and advanced combat training even after retirement. Jocko Willink is one of them – he is a combat veteran who is 50+ years old now, but still in a great shape, has a black belt in BJJ and rolls/spars with elite fighters, and usually shows that he's a legit fighter who can give them a serious challenge or even defeat them.
8) "OK, then why nobody from Navy SEAL has challenged Strickland to fight on the street with no rules?". Well, I don't think that Navy SEAL guy would like to face charges of aggravated assault and attempted murder (if Strickland survives) or manslaughter (if street fight ends up with Strickland's death). Navy SEALs aren't idiots like Strickland who brags about how badass he is because he floored his abusive father with a headbutt and beaten him with a guitar or who is proud that he's a homophobic gun-totin' racist, willing to shoot a bunch of kids that was just pranking. Another one proof that Navy SEAL has better mentality. | Navy Seals are still human beings at the end of day, although the military does a great job of making them seem superhuman. It’s important to give them a larger than life reputation from a PR and pride/honor standpoint, but again, you need to remember they are just people that need to train to become good at something like everyone else. I wouldn’t be surprised if their hand to hand combat is 5% or less of their training, so they would never be able to compete in wrestling with someone who dedicated their life to wrestling, a boxer that dedicated their life to boxing, or an mma fighter dedicating their life to mma. This is all before getting to the fact that these sports too have insane “vetting” processes to make it to the champion level, mentally tougher, fighter IQ, then the thousands of others in their sport. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these sports have more competition to get to the top ten of their perspective sport than making it into the seals.
Lastly, MMA fighters are also probably VERY knowledgeable, with their fight IQ’s and love for fighting, etc, in what to do if the rules slightly change to allow groin strikes head stomping or whatever. The tactics wouldn’t change much in a street fight to be honest, and their skills would 95% carry over to the “streets”. There aren’t any special “gotcha” moves a navy seal is learning that is only applicable in the streets that would trump the training and athleticism of mma fighters.
---
I'm wondering how MMA fighter would do against an aggressive and brutal attacker who isn't afraid to eye gouge, bite, attack the groin and do other moves that are banned in MMA.
---
There isn’t much of a difference between eye gouging from a standing position and punching someone in the face, except the fact that eye gouging requires greater accuracy (something the MMA fighter will have by virtue of significantly more training). The human body only has so many efficient ways to move itself in a fight. | You're sort of comparing different things, and regardless of context ignoring that a win is a win.
Winning a spar counts for something, winning an arm wrestling match counts for something, winning a street fight, a chess game, etc they all contribute to people's perception.
Maybe a street fight would go one way or the other, but from the evidence people have in who won one type of fight that's going to influence their perceptions of who may win the next.
---
I'm not low-balling Strickland as a fighter. He is good, no doubts.
I'm saying that his insulting of Navy SEALs and trash talk gone too far.
---
What's too far? Why do Navy Seals need you in perticular to stand up and say enough is enough? Do you think they're so fragile as to not withstand words here? | 1ea0mto | CMV: just because Sean Strickland has beaten an ex-Navy SEAL in a sparring doesn't mean that Navy SEAL can't beat Sean Strickland in a street fight | Recently, internet was hyped up about how Sean Strickland has beaten an ex-Navy SEAL, who's also a professional MMA fighter with an amateur background, in a sparring.
People started to say that "Navy SEALs are overrated, your average amateur MMA mops the floor with them in a fight" or "Strickland proves that a professional MMA fighter is better than elite military in terms of hand-to-hand combat, Navy SEAL fanboys can cope harder".
That made me feel absolutely disgusting and weird. And I have my counter-points about all of this stuff:
1) Sean Strickland has beaten a guy who only has 3 fights in MMA (2 wins and 1 loss (to the same fighter that he would beat in rematch), plus 11 wins and 1 loss in amateur MMA), and yes, he was a Navy SEAL, but the fact that this guy (his name is Mitch Aguiar, a.k.a. "Smashin' Frog": https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/100131-mitch-aguiar) is barely even trying to fight back and Strickland just uses him as a dummy for punching doesn't prove that "MMA fighter > Navy SEAL". Seems to be a fixed match for me. Also, Mitch's last pro fight was in 2020, and his resume doesn't seems to be impressive ( in 2018, he defeated a fighter named Brandon Pennington, which record is 1 win and 3 losses, and another fighter named Mumia Abu Del Ali in 2020, to whom he lost in 2018, who has an overall 3 wins and 3 losses record. Not counting amateur fights of Mitch Aguiar, but there's also nothing impressive as well).
2) Sean Strickland is indeed a professional fighter, sure, who has a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and who started to train in MMA since he was 18. Great. Meanwhile, Navy SEAL aren't trained to fight in the octagon and win against a single opponent under the set of rules while wearing gloves, mouthguard and a cup. They're trained in many military things, which includes hand-to-hand combat, and their hand-to-hand combat isn't the same as MMA. Their hand-to-hand combat is for survival and for killing.
3) Just because Navy SEALs has less advanced hand-to-hand combat training and skills doesn't mean that they're bad fighters. They don't need fancy combos or flashy kicks, they're using simple and effective moves which are also combined with a killer instinct and brutality.
4) Jason Pike, who was originally challenged by Sean Strickland, said that "yes, you can beat me in the octagon, but I would cripple or even kill you in a street fight". And Jason is right. Because street fights has no rules and since Navy SEALs are trained to finish the fights as quickly as possible, it means that Navy SEAL's tactic would be aimed for the incapacitation of the opponent. And don't forget that streets has much harder surface and that makes it different from gyms and octagon.
5) Experience and skills of an MMA fighter is a good thing, but it's not everything and isn't really applicable in a street fight, especially where is a risk of a severe injury or death. Navy SEALs are trained to fight under stress and "life or death" situation, and they aren't fighting for money or for fame, they're fighting for the country. Their mentality is their main weapon, which makes them an ultimate warriors.
6) Navy SEAL's main asset is an endurance and toughness, which they're training under an extreme conditions. I highly doubt that SEAN Strickland could pass the recruitment process of a Navy SEAL.
7) There's a lot of Navy SEAL's that are doing martial arts and advanced combat training even after retirement. Jocko Willink is one of them – he is a combat veteran who is 50+ years old now, but still in a great shape, has a black belt in BJJ and rolls/spars with elite fighters, and usually shows that he's a legit fighter who can give them a serious challenge or even defeat them.
8) "OK, then why nobody from Navy SEAL has challenged Strickland to fight on the street with no rules?". Well, I don't think that Navy SEAL guy would like to face charges of aggravated assault and attempted murder (if Strickland survives) or manslaughter (if street fight ends up with Strickland's death). Navy SEALs aren't idiots like Strickland who brags about how badass he is because he floored his abusive father with a headbutt and beaten him with a guitar or who is proud that he's a homophobic gun-totin' racist, willing to shoot a bunch of kids that was just pranking. Another one proof that Navy SEAL has better mentality. | AlexFerrana | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Agreeable_Bike_4764",
"id": "leib82j",
"score": 17,
"text": "Navy Seals are still human beings at the end of day, although the military does a great job of making them seem superhuman. It’s important to give them a larger than life reputation from a PR and pride/honor standpoint, but ag... | [
{
"author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111",
"id": "lei7fwg",
"score": 4,
"text": "You're sort of comparing different things, and regardless of context ignoring that a win is a win.\n\n\nWinning a spar counts for something, winning an arm wrestling match counts for something, winning a street fight, a chess gam... | [
"leib82j",
"leicpf2",
"leiebn3"
] | [
"lei7fwg",
"lei87h1",
"leiazba"
] |
CMV: We shouldn't boil lobsters alive.
It's no secret that we have to eat to live, and we have to kill to eat. Even plants have to die just so we can nourish our own bodies, and it's just the way life is. But some methods seem weird or unnecessary to me. Out of all the other ways to cook lobsters, why boil them alive? Doesn't that seem kinda cruel if we're already gonna eat the lobster anyway? After all, there are definitely more humane ways to cook lobster, like killing them before eating them.
Some people say that a lobster's nervous system is too simple for it to feel pain, or the bacteria will make you sick if you boil the lobster before killing it, and even "They're not screaming, it's just the air escaping its shells." To me, it's a bit hard to believe, and it sounds like it comes from someone very sadistic. Why do people boil lobsters alive? Is it more humane/necessary than any of the other ways to cook a lobster? | The question is can lobsters EXPERIENCE pain. Do lobsters detect pain, like a camera detects light? Or do lobsters experience pain like you experience pain. If a lobster is simply a machine made of flesh and exoskeleton, then there is no reason to think that a lobster experiences pain in any way. If that's true, then boiling them alive is like sticking a camera into a pot of boiling water, the camera might beep or flash as its internal mechanisms start to go haywire but doesn't experience pain.
Their brains are VERY VERY different from ours. The areas we have which we believe allow us to experience reality do not seem present in lobsters. I don't personally believe there is any evidence to suggest lobsters "experience" pain.
---
Sorry, I'm laughing while reading this comment. It makes absolutely ZERO sense!
Firstly, your lobsters being "machines" is not only a big IF, but it's also baseless conjecture. Secondly, we can say all we want that "A lobster's brain is different from ours." How in the Kentucky Fried Frick do we know how they feel? And third, the lobsters LITERALLY scream and try to leave the boiling water. I'm pretty sure that's evidence they feel pain. Don't tell me "Oh, it's not a scream, it's just air escaping its shell!" There is ZERO evidence behind this!
---
Your argument doesn’t work because you can make it go the other way: how do we know that lobsters ARE experiencing pain?
How do we know that grass doesn’t experience pain when we step on it? Does this mean that we should avoid touching all plants for the rest of our lives in the fear that it could cause them pain?
I am not qualified on this, but I know that decades of research have been conducted on the functions of brains and how consciousness works, so I think we can be fairly certain that lobsters do not experience pain as we do. | There is no humane way to kill a lobster. If you don’t throw it in the pot while it’s alive, you risk eating a bacteria that literally multiples after a shellfish has died, that will not be completely destroyed while cooking. So those of us who want to enjoy lobster with a bowl full of some garlic butter, we’d like to do so knowing we’re not about to kill ourselves in the process. So the only humane way would be to just not eat it at all- I mean do you feel the same way about slaughter houses? I mean they’re in line for death and know it’s coming. Just curious..
---
Step 1: place in freezer for one hour.
Step 2: remove from freezer and dispatch with a sharp object through the back of its head.
Step 3: place in boiling water.
Tell me where in that process the bacteria are multiplying.
---
So you freeze it to death? Or does freezing it not kill it | 14m7yu7 | CMV: We shouldn't boil lobsters alive. | It's no secret that we have to eat to live, and we have to kill to eat. Even plants have to die just so we can nourish our own bodies, and it's just the way life is. But some methods seem weird or unnecessary to me. Out of all the other ways to cook lobsters, why boil them alive? Doesn't that seem kinda cruel if we're already gonna eat the lobster anyway? After all, there are definitely more humane ways to cook lobster, like killing them before eating them.
Some people say that a lobster's nervous system is too simple for it to feel pain, or the bacteria will make you sick if you boil the lobster before killing it, and even "They're not screaming, it's just the air escaping its shells." To me, it's a bit hard to believe, and it sounds like it comes from someone very sadistic. Why do people boil lobsters alive? Is it more humane/necessary than any of the other ways to cook a lobster? | LarryBetraitor | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "BronzeSpoon89",
"id": "jq0ehde",
"score": 4,
"text": "The question is can lobsters EXPERIENCE pain. Do lobsters detect pain, like a camera detects light? Or do lobsters experience pain like you experience pain. If a lobster is simply a machine made of flesh and exoskeleton, then there i... | [
{
"author": "Italiaroxx",
"id": "jq0728p",
"score": -4,
"text": "There is no humane way to kill a lobster. If you don’t throw it in the pot while it’s alive, you risk eating a bacteria that literally multiples after a shellfish has died, that will not be completely destroyed while cooking. So those ... | [
"jq0ehde",
"jq0iqgs",
"jq2dopc"
] | [
"jq0728p",
"jq07leg",
"jq0962c"
] |
CMV: If we required vacant houses and buildings owners to either have a tenant, or be subject to yearly luxury tax, the housing shortage and high rent for small businesses would end.
I'm a full believer in people owning their own homes, but no one needs multiple homes in multiple states, that's a luxury and should be taxed as such. If someone had multiple houses, they could use them as Airbnb or something similar that would allow better traveling and it would help pay for the maintenance of the house, while also having vacation houses when they want to use them. When landlords have multiple properties, they will take the tax break on them being vacant than lower their asking rent, which causes rent to remain artificially high. This causes a shortage of affordable housing, and subpar housing for the price.
I have also seen many commercial properties stay vacant for years and those same units are extremely expensive compared to other units and they aren't any nicer. They stay vacant, not because business is dying, but because they are asking too much. There should be a penalty for this since they are not allowing business to happen and causing the cost of goods to be more expensive for their own greed.
I understand the landlord needs to make money, but they need incentives to remain competitive and be encouraged to do business realistically. They can't just hold onto a property without working it indefinitely unless it's their home. They need to use it, or sell it especially in cities since those places have a finite amount of space. | Have you actually studied the economics of housing, OP? If so, why assert your personal intuition over the consensus of professional economists?
---
Isn’t this literally what they did in Vancouver BC?
---
How long ago did they try this? I can imagine it's not an instant fix and it will take years for the market to adjust.
---
Yes Vancouver, BC did it starting in 2018. It yielded only modest gains since few of the vacant homes were straight up vacant so just 3,631 homes were added to the market. That isn’t bad but it just isn’t game changing either. Denver for example added 20k homes last year. Always keep in mind cities often need millions of occupied homes to function so many solutions are too small to achieve your goals without the help of something else.
Most people in the let’s just better use the vacancy camp seem to miss that the census counts all addresses that didn’t respond due to no permanent residents as vacant. 1/3 of them have really good reasons like being unsafe or promised to a new tenant. The other 2/3rd include the homes of recently deceased, seasonal workers who aren’t claiming permanent residency, AirBNBs and any homes that are a bad deal but legally acceptable. Not a lot of vacant homes are just sitting there unused.
A vacancy tax isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I can’t find any negatives. But the main benefit could really be in removing this distraction from fixing the housing shortage and | So if I am selling my house and I no longer live in it due to this but struggle to sell even if I am selling at market value I should be subject to an added tax?
---
You aren't selling, then it's not at market value.
---
What? lol
---
If you had tomatoes and you were trying to sell them for $100 a tomato, no one would buy your tomato. Not because they don't want your tomato, but because paying $100 for a tomato is ridiculous. If you have no buyers in a reasonable time frame that houses usually sell for, it means your house is priced too high for what the market wants it for. No house sells the same day it gets put on the market, unless you are in an extreme a buyers market.
I've bought and sold houses before, the owners that had a high price on their house and weren't willing to haggle at all kept their house on the market until they went down in price, months later and lower than my asking price. | 1mjds2y | CMV: If we required vacant houses and buildings owners to either have a tenant, or be subject to yearly luxury tax, the housing shortage and high rent for small businesses would end. | I'm a full believer in people owning their own homes, but no one needs multiple homes in multiple states, that's a luxury and should be taxed as such. If someone had multiple houses, they could use them as Airbnb or something similar that would allow better traveling and it would help pay for the maintenance of the house, while also having vacation houses when they want to use them. When landlords have multiple properties, they will take the tax break on them being vacant than lower their asking rent, which causes rent to remain artificially high. This causes a shortage of affordable housing, and subpar housing for the price.
I have also seen many commercial properties stay vacant for years and those same units are extremely expensive compared to other units and they aren't any nicer. They stay vacant, not because business is dying, but because they are asking too much. There should be a penalty for this since they are not allowing business to happen and causing the cost of goods to be more expensive for their own greed.
I understand the landlord needs to make money, but they need incentives to remain competitive and be encouraged to do business realistically. They can't just hold onto a property without working it indefinitely unless it's their home. They need to use it, or sell it especially in cities since those places have a finite amount of space. | R1R1FyaNeg | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "nauticalsandwich",
"id": "n7aa4br",
"score": 38,
"text": "Have you actually studied the economics of housing, OP? If so, why assert your personal intuition over the consensus of professional economists?",
"timestamp": 1754507875
},
{
"author": "anotherhumantoo",
"id": "n... | [
{
"author": "Both-Structure-6786",
"id": "n7abe8x",
"score": 2,
"text": "So if I am selling my house and I no longer live in it due to this but struggle to sell even if I am selling at market value I should be subject to an added tax?",
"timestamp": 1754508239
},
{
"author": "R1R1FyaNeg"... | [
"n7aa4br",
"n7ab20e",
"n7ag6tu",
"n7avqvv"
] | [
"n7abe8x",
"n7adwss",
"n7agqzu",
"n7ai9ui"
] |
CMV: There should be no efforts made to recover the Titan or the remains of the passengers
While exact figures haven't been disclosed, multiple countries are using sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel to attempt to cover the human and vessel remains from the Titan tragedy. I think that is a gigantic waste of money and effort.
First of all, it is widely known that the builders flouted safety guidelines. This is not a situation in which we are trying to solve the mystery of why a seemingly-fine airplane crashed. This was a situation in which corners were admittedly cut.
Next, if there is any actual need to figure out which exact design flaw caused the thing to implode, it would be much easier and cheaper to build a new one to test in simulated conditions.
Finally, the ocean is commonly accepted as a final resting place for many. While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean. Plenty of bodies are left on Everest, and those bodies pose a risk to future climbers. What is it hurting for these people to stay out? | Your perspective appears to be somewhat out of date. The recovery operation is largely complete. Significant debris, including [presumed human remains](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66049789), have already been recovered and taken ashore.
---
I don't think recovery efforts should have been initiated, and I don't think they should continue.
---
What you're missing is that this is great low-risk practice for all of these recovery teams. They get to train in a live environment with little pressure of actually recovering everything and it costs us basically nothing to do because all of these assets would just be sitting around or doing less effective training otherwise. | I don't think they're attempting to retrieve the bodies because there are no bodies to recover.
I think a lot of people are getting confused because they said they possibly recovered human remains in a part they brought up. I've heard a few people mention that is likely referring to very tiny bone fragments lodged into whatever they recovered.
---
I should have been more precise-- bodies, remains, any residue left from the deceased.
---
And again, that isn’t what they’re looking for.
They’re bringing up the pieces to examine what went wrong. Even with the ignorance of safety guidelines, we can learn from this moving forward.
It’s pretty standard to examine failures like this. | 14lswtf | CMV: There should be no efforts made to recover the Titan or the remains of the passengers | While exact figures haven't been disclosed, multiple countries are using sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel to attempt to cover the human and vessel remains from the Titan tragedy. I think that is a gigantic waste of money and effort.
First of all, it is widely known that the builders flouted safety guidelines. This is not a situation in which we are trying to solve the mystery of why a seemingly-fine airplane crashed. This was a situation in which corners were admittedly cut.
Next, if there is any actual need to figure out which exact design flaw caused the thing to implode, it would be much easier and cheaper to build a new one to test in simulated conditions.
Finally, the ocean is commonly accepted as a final resting place for many. While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean. Plenty of bodies are left on Everest, and those bodies pose a risk to future climbers. What is it hurting for these people to stay out? | FlatElvis | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ViewedFromTheOutside",
"id": "jpy1fo8",
"score": 39,
"text": "Your perspective appears to be somewhat out of date. The recovery operation is largely complete. Significant debris, including [presumed human remains](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66049789), have already been re... | [
{
"author": "HauntedReader",
"id": "jpy1h0u",
"score": 29,
"text": "I don't think they're attempting to retrieve the bodies because there are no bodies to recover.\n\nI think a lot of people are getting confused because they said they possibly recovered human remains in a part they brought up. I've ... | [
"jpy1fo8",
"jpy2d5i",
"jpy3g22"
] | [
"jpy1h0u",
"jpy27xw",
"jpy2ej5"
] |
CMV: There should be no efforts made to recover the Titan or the remains of the passengers
While exact figures haven't been disclosed, multiple countries are using sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel to attempt to cover the human and vessel remains from the Titan tragedy. I think that is a gigantic waste of money and effort.
First of all, it is widely known that the builders flouted safety guidelines. This is not a situation in which we are trying to solve the mystery of why a seemingly-fine airplane crashed. This was a situation in which corners were admittedly cut.
Next, if there is any actual need to figure out which exact design flaw caused the thing to implode, it would be much easier and cheaper to build a new one to test in simulated conditions.
Finally, the ocean is commonly accepted as a final resting place for many. While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean. Plenty of bodies are left on Everest, and those bodies pose a risk to future climbers. What is it hurting for these people to stay out? | The answer to this is that we always learn from failure.
We don't necessarily fully understand the failure method here. Yes - we know it failed but without the structure, you cannot truly state the full mechanism.
This information can have applications well outside the submersible industry. Carbon fiber is used widely. We may learn more about the material in this usage history. This knowledge may save lives in the future. It's the same reason the NTSB investigates airplane crashes.
This is not about recovering bodies but recovering useful pieces of evidence to further our technical understanding.
---
But at what cost? Have any attempts been made to quantify the monetary value of this knowledge? There has to be some kind of threshold.
---
I suspect it’s mainly a sunk cost. In that, if these ships aren’t doing this recovery effort, what are they doing instead?
The Coast Guard is still out doing Coast Guard things, it’s not like we had to hire them special to do this mission.
If nothing else, it’s valuable training for them. | > While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean.
Would you say the same thing if it were migrants whose ship capsized while they were trying to flee war and unrest in their home countries?
Cuban refugees fleeing an oppressive regime?
---
Yes. I don't believe that the world owes anyone heroics to return their remains to their loved ones.
---
Heroics? This isn’t like pulling a body off Everest where you are risking your life to do so.
What do you mean by “heroics”? | 14lswtf | CMV: There should be no efforts made to recover the Titan or the remains of the passengers | While exact figures haven't been disclosed, multiple countries are using sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel to attempt to cover the human and vessel remains from the Titan tragedy. I think that is a gigantic waste of money and effort.
First of all, it is widely known that the builders flouted safety guidelines. This is not a situation in which we are trying to solve the mystery of why a seemingly-fine airplane crashed. This was a situation in which corners were admittedly cut.
Next, if there is any actual need to figure out which exact design flaw caused the thing to implode, it would be much easier and cheaper to build a new one to test in simulated conditions.
Finally, the ocean is commonly accepted as a final resting place for many. While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean. Plenty of bodies are left on Everest, and those bodies pose a risk to future climbers. What is it hurting for these people to stay out? | FlatElvis | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Full-Professional246",
"id": "jpy1wkl",
"score": 37,
"text": "The answer to this is that we always learn from failure. \n\nWe don't necessarily fully understand the failure method here. Yes - we know it failed but without the structure, you cannot truly state the full mechanism.\n\nThis... | [
{
"author": "Front_Many_6231",
"id": "jpy2seh",
"score": 1,
"text": "> While I sympathize with the loved ones, I do not believe that public funds should be expended to recover remains of people who knowingly took a gigantic risk that they would end up dead in the ocean.\n\nWould you say the same thi... | [
"jpy1wkl",
"jpy2jm1",
"jpy36bv"
] | [
"jpy2seh",
"jpy32zu",
"jpy3ib6"
] |
CMV: Anyone who thinks the new online safety bill is made to collect data knows nothing about the government
Now I'm not saying this in favour of the law, cause I think it's a stupid law that is just gonna get kids to go onto dodgier porn sites (though I've heard there's some merit to the discord), but the idea that the government is doing this to collect images of our faces and which devices they connect to is absurd. If the government wants a photo of your face, they can find it cause there's CCTV all over the place in cities and on any type of highway. Even if you live in Dorset (where there's nothing for miles), they have cameras in places like Weymouth all over and without any problem and could no doubt if they cared about you, find your face, your car, where you like to shop and so much more useful info to the government that's honestly more important to them than what you like to jerk off to (yes they could potentially also find your ip address but everything that would tell them that would be of use to government they could already pretty much figure out by knowing your car and tbh your shopping habbits would give away a lot with the right statistics).
If you're worried about privacy (which is fair enough), this system shouldn't be a problem; it's a system that, if the government are lying to you and not deleting your photo, can a) be easily cheated and b) will tell the government nothing more than they already knew about you. This law is failing at its objective, but its objective was to save the kids. It makes no sense for this to be a tool to control and gather data. (I've heard there are some censorship problems, but even then, they're not hiding anything more than a simple photo away, even if those claims are true) | It's not "the government" that I'm worried about collecting my data. What if one of the companies carrying out these age verifications decides to sell my data? Even if they're all honest, what if they have a data breach? Even if _that_ doesn't happen, what's to stop a scammer spoofing a fake age verification and getting hold of my data that way?
---
Mistake me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole system government-run, including the algorithm and who you're sending the photos to? Even then, most of the talk I've seen online has been like "the government is doing this for our data", companies are a more valid concern, especially with these data breaches every other week.
---
> Mistake me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole system government-run, including the algorithm and who you're sending the photos to?
No, it's not government run. They are demanding these online companies do this without providing a way to safely and securely validate who you are. They passed the law and expect these private entities to figure out how to do what they want. Most are going to enact the bare minimum; including how it's securely done. Why do I assume this? Because it will be initially cheaper and more profitable for them. | Even on a very basic birds-eye view of the issue, there's a difference between a government having the ability to capture images of someone through CCTV and a self-assembling database of front-on well-lit photos with personal identifiers attached. It's not just "government" monitoring the that people are wary of, it's the sites and aggregators gathering perfectly tee-ed up information for their own databases to sell to the highest bidder. Do you think things like this get pushed with such expediency only by "concerned parent" groups? Government moves like molasses until money heats the pan. Do you trust the corporations with your data? Palantir has already likely pulled an enormous amount of data from government backdoors that were previously scrupulously protected, but no more.
It's very transparent that data collection is the goal, it aligns with broad, ambiguous censorship interests, and protection of children is the most obvious smokescreen of all time.
---
>front-on well-lit photos
That's a hilarious thing to claim when the system has been fooled by literal video game characters; these systems will accept almost any photo. Seriously, these photos are being taken in people's bedrooms and bathrooms on phone and laptop cameras, stop pretending this is some professional modelling job. These photos will be mildly more convenient for them if, for some reason, they wanted a photo of you (which they don't) rather than CCTV, but by a very minor amount (also, there's no like identifier besides your IP address, which could change). The government, btw, already knows where you live, so CCTV is going to be significantly more useful to them, because it can track something useful that you're doing over a day instead of just which types of sexual pleasure you like.
>It's not just the "government" monitoring the that people are wary of, it's the sites
Mistake me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole verification system done by the government? Not just that, I think this is backed up by how many companies haven't followed these new rules. Twitter, Reddit and Discord have 18+ content exclusively, Porn hub has and like Nutaku. This list doesn't include OnlyFans, though it still might be there cause I'm not spending money on an OF subscription or getting an account to see if they ask me for an age verification (though a lot of OF accounts have lewd account photos so i've surprised they're not demanding immediate verification like most other porn sites). But they're not desperate to ask for your data from any of these sites, cause they'd lose people on their site (and thus money), so either they didn't support the law, or they were stupid enough to think this would cause their smaller competition to do the same, letting them collect data while still making money (and if the government and the companies are that stupid they can have my data they'll be too dumb to do anything with it).
>Government moves like molasses until money hits the pan
(Great f\*cking quote btw like genuinely both accurate and well put together)
This has genuinely taken forever. It was signed a bit under 2 years ago in the Tory government. It was debated a load before that. This bill has been slow to come, not really a sign of company interference.
>protection of children is the most obvious smokescreen of all time
I just don't think it is. The government already know or can know so much about you, meaning if this is their plan, it's honestly incompetent. Get us to give data away that they already have for sites, which will inevitably not be used and be replaced by smaller, dodgier sites. Sounds like a great logical plan.
---
Re ease of fooling: It doesn't need to be spoof-proof, just convenient enough for it not to be a big enough deal for some of the population. People are lazy, people aren't tech savvy, and people are apathetic. The growth of a police state doesn't have to happen in leaps and bounds; trickling in small impositions on your liberty, gathering data on people who are too lazy or don't know any better, these are incremental steps.
Re convenience in surveillance; you're still thinking about it in terms of the government targeting specific individuals to gather information and photographs. The power of these widespread nets is not depth, but the ease with which the state can broadly aggregate a large database without individualized attention. Say 25% of people are lazy uninformed enough to use the verification. That's like 17 million people in the UK whose faces are now associated with potentially identifiable information. It's a big numbers game, and it's a way for easy fishing. The value of a front on photograph, even for a smaller percentage of the population, is much more valuable than individually captured CCTV footage. "Mildly more convenient" on an individual basis for data aggregation and big numbers equals an enormous advancement in surveillance on the whole.
Re companies:
As an example, if you're curious about the generalized value of biometric data, look up the u.s. based startup "Orb", which is a retinal scanner that in developed countries that are planning on charging people to use for "more accurate facial fingerprinting" but in developing countries, they're paying people in rural villages in crypto to scan their eyeballs. Bio data is valuable beyond surveillance capacities
(but it also provides a lot more surveillance capacity than I think you give it credit for).
Re corporate interest and compliance: Sometimes companies will push for laws because then they will have an excuse to say "it's the law". Noncompliance on the part of big companies when there aren't as strict age verification principles makes sense because they have nothing to gain, but when the government says you *must* collect biometric data, they're going to happily do it as long as the they have the back-end infrastructure to benefit, either by selling or aggregating. Two years is generally fast for anything that doesn't have unanimous public support.
Any tech company can find profit in data. The government is not vast or powerful enough to police the company's storage/disposal of data, and the companies can point at the government and say "sorry, they made us do this". It's not all companies and it's not a singleminded mission of a strictly totalitarian state, but I think it's naive to believe that the only interest here is in protecting children. Just because it's easily fooled or you don't see the value of individual data pieces does not eliminate clear governmental and corporate interests in this form of data collection.
Thanks for all your responses! | 1mj9e87 | CMV: Anyone who thinks the new online safety bill is made to collect data knows nothing about the government | Now I'm not saying this in favour of the law, cause I think it's a stupid law that is just gonna get kids to go onto dodgier porn sites (though I've heard there's some merit to the discord), but the idea that the government is doing this to collect images of our faces and which devices they connect to is absurd. If the government wants a photo of your face, they can find it cause there's CCTV all over the place in cities and on any type of highway. Even if you live in Dorset (where there's nothing for miles), they have cameras in places like Weymouth all over and without any problem and could no doubt if they cared about you, find your face, your car, where you like to shop and so much more useful info to the government that's honestly more important to them than what you like to jerk off to (yes they could potentially also find your ip address but everything that would tell them that would be of use to government they could already pretty much figure out by knowing your car and tbh your shopping habbits would give away a lot with the right statistics).
If you're worried about privacy (which is fair enough), this system shouldn't be a problem; it's a system that, if the government are lying to you and not deleting your photo, can a) be easily cheated and b) will tell the government nothing more than they already knew about you. This law is failing at its objective, but its objective was to save the kids. It makes no sense for this to be a tool to control and gather data. (I've heard there are some censorship problems, but even then, they're not hiding anything more than a simple photo away, even if those claims are true) | Humble-Math6565 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ohfudgeit",
"id": "n79bug2",
"score": 5,
"text": "It's not \"the government\" that I'm worried about collecting my data. What if one of the companies carrying out these age verifications decides to sell my data? Even if they're all honest, what if they have a data breach? Even if _that_... | [
{
"author": "FiendishNoodles",
"id": "n79cykm",
"score": 3,
"text": "Even on a very basic birds-eye view of the issue, there's a difference between a government having the ability to capture images of someone through CCTV and a self-assembling database of front-on well-lit photos with personal ident... | [
"n79bug2",
"n79cemo",
"n79jx9e"
] | [
"n79cykm",
"n79l516",
"n79qkhr"
] |
Cmv: people who improperly dispose of syringes 💉 should face heavy handed punishment (please read post - replies which only address title shall be ignored)
Cmv: people who improperly dispose of syringes 💉 should face heavy handed punishment
* Improper disposal of syringes endangers common people and sanitation workers
* Leaving needles on the ground elicits fear from ordinary people, and discourages them from enjoying public spaces
* Improper disposal of syringes is antisocial behavior which shows a disregard for others, if not active malice
* Drug abuse may be a victimless crime, but Improper syringe disposal ** IS NOT ** a victimless crime. Improper needle disposal should be punished regardless of whether or not illegal drugs were used
* Improper syringe disposal is part of a broader trend of antisocial behavior and disrespect for the commons. It must be stopped
* Antisocial negligence of this severity is a clear moral evil. It should be punished for the sake of both deterence and retribution | It's pretty hard to address your post unless you specify what you mean by heavy handed punishment. Is it Fines? Jail time? Death penalty? Community Service?
---
I would like to see prison time, heavy fines (in the rare cases where there is money to collect), and community service in which they must collect twenty times more needles than the number which they improperly disposed of
---
I'm saying this as a recovered heroin addict who has known a lot of people who had habits on the street:
Typically the people leaving used needles in the street are going to be committing other crimes. So somebody on the street in Philly surrounded by needles is going to get picked up and taken on possession charges.
Adding littering charges isn't really more likely to rehabilitate someone, and to actually charge them would mean they have to prove that littered needles were theirs. So unless they're caught in the act or on camera, that means testing litter for DNA which doesn't really seem feasible just to add a few days to someone's sentence when the littering probably isn't the biggest charge on their sheet anyway. | I agree, but how would it be enforced?
Can you prove who dropped the syringes? Unless there are cameras literally everywhere, I find it hard to believe you would be able to actually enforce this.
People using needles for illegal drugs are generally going to hide where there are no cameras.
Obviously if witnessing it first hand, that's different. But... how often is that going to happen?
---
I dont like these replies which criticize implementation or practicality. Every law has a problem with enforcement & compliance
---
Fair enough.
I guess the point is what should be done, as opposed to how. So I totally agree with you.
But aren't there already laws around this? I know businesses can get in deep shit if they dispose of medical waste/syringes etc improperly. | 1mjavlq | Cmv: people who improperly dispose of syringes 💉 should face heavy handed punishment (please read post - replies which only address title shall be ignored) | Cmv: people who improperly dispose of syringes 💉 should face heavy handed punishment
* Improper disposal of syringes endangers common people and sanitation workers
* Leaving needles on the ground elicits fear from ordinary people, and discourages them from enjoying public spaces
* Improper disposal of syringes is antisocial behavior which shows a disregard for others, if not active malice
* Drug abuse may be a victimless crime, but Improper syringe disposal ** IS NOT ** a victimless crime. Improper needle disposal should be punished regardless of whether or not illegal drugs were used
* Improper syringe disposal is part of a broader trend of antisocial behavior and disrespect for the commons. It must be stopped
* Antisocial negligence of this severity is a clear moral evil. It should be punished for the sake of both deterence and retribution | DaegestaniHandcuff | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES",
"id": "n79n6w6",
"score": 7,
"text": "It's pretty hard to address your post unless you specify what you mean by heavy handed punishment. Is it Fines? Jail time? Death penalty? Community Service?",
"timestamp": 1754501425
},
{
"author": "DaegestaniHandc... | [
{
"author": "denyull",
"id": "n79nlo7",
"score": 3,
"text": "I agree, but how would it be enforced? \nCan you prove who dropped the syringes? Unless there are cameras literally everywhere, I find it hard to believe you would be able to actually enforce this. \nPeople using needles for illegal dru... | [
"n79n6w6",
"n79nraw",
"n79ygte"
] | [
"n79nlo7",
"n79o3cp",
"n79pqlx"
] |
CMV: Only addressing sexual assault as a means to shame someone who’s wrong you makes you an asshole as well
I think there's at least 2 things any and every sane person here can agree with:
1. People who sexually assault others are bad
2. People who enable sexual assault are bad
Now I was reading something where a woman (I assume) claimed a man stealthed her (saying they were using a condom when they weren't). From their story, they told him that was assault but then continued to have sex with them not only that time but 2 more times after. The next day the person unmatched her on a dating app and she responded by texting them saying that he shouldn't have unmatched her if he was going to assault her and called him a loser
Was the guy wrong? Yes? But the woman was also wrong as well. I've seen many times myself how women weaponize assault for their own gain and to me that's just wrong. In a way it's blackmail even if what the person did was assault and it's basically being used as a sword of Damocles.
I'm not sure what would change my view but while I think this is correct it also feels wrong | Is your view based on this arbitrary example that is essentially hearsay? Do we even know if anything happened to the guy because if not...not much of a weapon. Add onto the fact that the vast vast majority of sexual crimes never result in any legal punishment.
If you agree the women was assaulted, why is her stating she was assaulted as being wrong?
---
Whether or not something happened to the guy doesn’t matter. It’s more the mindset behind it
Stating she was assaulted isn’t wrong. Utilizing the claim of being assaulted for her own personal gain irrelevant to the assault is
---
I get what you’re saying and would agree in the grand scheme of things but to play devils advocate, does a single bad action make someone an asshole? If so aren’t we all assholes? | Maybe you can give a better example but I’m not really clear on how the woman in this weaponized the assault for her own gain? It seems that all she got out of it was calling the guy a loser.
---
In this scenario the benefit is getting back at someone who she felt wronged her. I’ve also seen it where women use it to “convince” guys to continue dating then implying if they break up then they’ll tell everyone they assaulted them
---
I’m not sure I’d consider calling a guy a loser for sexually assaulting you a benefit that makes you in the wrong, I feel like that should be the minimal expectation. I’m not sure if delaying calling someone out for sexually assaulting you swings the pendulum to you being an asshole.
For the second scenario you said, that makes sense if the guy didn’t actually do anything. But if he did then that sticks with him and can always be used against him, that’s the consequence for sexually assaulting someone. | 1e9krmq | CMV: Only addressing sexual assault as a means to shame someone who’s wrong you makes you an asshole as well | I think there's at least 2 things any and every sane person here can agree with:
1. People who sexually assault others are bad
2. People who enable sexual assault are bad
Now I was reading something where a woman (I assume) claimed a man stealthed her (saying they were using a condom when they weren't). From their story, they told him that was assault but then continued to have sex with them not only that time but 2 more times after. The next day the person unmatched her on a dating app and she responded by texting them saying that he shouldn't have unmatched her if he was going to assault her and called him a loser
Was the guy wrong? Yes? But the woman was also wrong as well. I've seen many times myself how women weaponize assault for their own gain and to me that's just wrong. In a way it's blackmail even if what the person did was assault and it's basically being used as a sword of Damocles.
I'm not sure what would change my view but while I think this is correct it also feels wrong | FormerBabyPerson | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Kazthespooky",
"id": "lef066q",
"score": 14,
"text": "Is your view based on this arbitrary example that is essentially hearsay? Do we even know if anything happened to the guy because if not...not much of a weapon. Add onto the fact that the vast vast majority of sexual crimes never res... | [
{
"author": "TitanCubes",
"id": "leezu07",
"score": 30,
"text": "Maybe you can give a better example but I’m not really clear on how the woman in this weaponized the assault for her own gain? It seems that all she got out of it was calling the guy a loser.",
"timestamp": 1721671338
},
{
... | [
"lef066q",
"lef18ay",
"lefi8do"
] | [
"leezu07",
"lef07yd",
"lef3olq"
] |
CMV: As much as I hate it, well known video game companies are right to cater to all gamers rather than their loyal fan base.
It’s called competition. If they don’t cater to others, they will lag behind their competitors. In terms of gaining a player base, cosmetic micro transactions and brief partner/sponsorships.
I’m actually one of the people that long for certain games to return to its original theme. But competition could render them to be considered backwards. Even if it’s realistic to have an all white squad of American male operators vs an all white German male operators in a WWII setting, we’ll never see that again from Call of Duty. At least not in Multiplayer. Unless it’s a coincidence every 10+ player has a white male operator. | You are falling victim to the same mentality that has destroyed countless franchises now.
You think that “loyal” fan base will always be loyal, no matter what. So you take their money for granted and change up the winning formula to attract maybe 10-15% more of an untapped audience, but in doing so destroy what made you successful in the first place and ruin the relationship you had with those loyal fans.
---
You could be right but I have little faith most loyal fans decide to not buy the new games.
---
All you have to do is look at, say, the latest Assassin’s Creed for proof to the contrary.
---
I think it’s still too recent. One day it might be considered a gem. Just like Assassin’s Creed Unity.
---
I mean take your pick then of the beloved movie franchises.
Same principle.
---
Well, movies/ TV shows then sure. But this is games.
---
Saints Row (studio **closed**). Suicide Squad (Arkham franchise, heavy layoffs). Dragon Age (layoffs).
These are three more franchises that have suffered significantly by chasing a broader audience in recent years. | Hahahaaha. Let's be honest, the majority of gamers are straight men. Look at the battlefield 6 multiplayer event. It was mostly men. If your audience is mostly men then you are going to cater to them.
Would a romantic comedy movie cater to a man? no because most of the audience is women in that case.
So stop with this flamboyent shit in games we aren't gonna buy it.
---
>Let's be honest, the majority of gamers are straight men. Look at the battlefield 6 multiplayer event
Are you talking about demographics for gaming in general, or that specific franchise? Based on recent studies, the gender split of the game-playing public are, within a slight margin of error, essentially 50/50.
https://www.theesa.com/resources/essential-facts-about-the-us-video-game-industry/2024-data/
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-and-identifies-as-a-gamer/
While it hasn't always been the case, the last decade or so has seen *a lot* of market penetration for the female demographic, both due to the falling stigma around playing games, and the desire to not simply leave money on the table for game publishers.
---
That 50/50 demographic takes into account mobile gaming. I’m talking about console and pc gaming
---
I would argue that the mobile gaming distinction is a dividing line without much actual purpose, other than attempting to conserve the 'purity' of specific gaming cultures by omitting platforms and genres that don't adhere to it.
*But even then*, you would be surprised how relatively little that actually sways the current demographic.
By the latest stats I can find, ~41% of PS4/PS5 owners are female:
https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/irday/pdf/2021/GNS_E.pdf
Modern Nintendo consoles bring this divide much closer, and in some cases women outpace men in ownership.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/eedar-nintendo-switch-attracting-more-women-wider-age-ranges-over-time
Xbox is weird to find stats for, I've seen numbers ranging from 29% to 45% female audience.
PC is again hard to track due to no collective hardware sales data to look at, but it's widely understood to be following a similar trend. | 1miwygi | CMV: As much as I hate it, well known video game companies are right to cater to all gamers rather than their loyal fan base. | It’s called competition. If they don’t cater to others, they will lag behind their competitors. In terms of gaining a player base, cosmetic micro transactions and brief partner/sponsorships.
I’m actually one of the people that long for certain games to return to its original theme. But competition could render them to be considered backwards. Even if it’s realistic to have an all white squad of American male operators vs an all white German male operators in a WWII setting, we’ll never see that again from Call of Duty. At least not in Multiplayer. Unless it’s a coincidence every 10+ player has a white male operator. | AfricanAmericanTsar | 7 | 4 | [
{
"author": "Mairon12",
"id": "n76pg6o",
"score": 29,
"text": "You are falling victim to the same mentality that has destroyed countless franchises now.\n\nYou think that “loyal” fan base will always be loyal, no matter what. So you take their money for granted and change up the winning formula to a... | [
{
"author": "Emotinonal_jiggolo",
"id": "n76tbtf",
"score": -1,
"text": "Hahahaaha. Let's be honest, the majority of gamers are straight men. Look at the battlefield 6 multiplayer event. It was mostly men. If your audience is mostly men then you are going to cater to them.\n\nWould a romantic comedy... | [
"n76pg6o",
"n76q7mg",
"n76qi6l",
"n76qq1i",
"n76qsw7",
"n76r0ly",
"n7711iw"
] | [
"n76tbtf",
"n76wzx6",
"n76xfrw",
"n772p6f"
] |
CMV: Reparations in the form of direct checks are a terrible idea.
I would begin by prefacing that I hold the view that the ripples of racism exist today and need dealt with.
I will layout my reasoning for my view using three main arguments:
1. The logistical complexity is astronomical. Let’s say 100k per person. That’s close to 4 trillion dollars. That’s almost the entire federal budget. The system required to responsibly regulate this level of capital is enormous.
2. The divisiveness. Who pays for this? Are recent immigrants going to see increasing taxes? What about the non-black members of the impoverished community? How do we suspect they will feel as they become more poor and their neighbors receive 100k checks? Resentment and division will skyrocket.
3. Effective solution? Does this really solve the problem or does it provide an excuse to never solve the problem? This creates an excuse to not deal with real problems in the black community. Any ongoing problem will be met with a “I paid you the money, now shut up” type of attitude.
Real change is what’s needed. A check in the mail is not it. | Look, I don't think this is the best solution either, but to say that 100K straight into the bank isn't "real change" is absurd. That is life changing money for most poor people. That takes you from worrying where your next meal will come from to having a robust savings account. That amount would save lives nationwide. If you don't think it's realistic to raise that amount, fine, but I cannot see a reason this would not be effective in turning around the lives of millions of people.
And, it would help the economy on top of that. Because when you give poor people money, they spend it! Those families will be buying new cars, kitchen supplies, remodels, home improvements, and tons of other things that will spread that money out in the community. I highly doubt their neighbors would be too upset when those who receive the checks all line up at local business to cash those checks.
---
Of course 100k in the mailbox would help, but we agree it’s not the best solution. We agree that it would still leave things that need addressed unaddressed. My point is, once the checks are cut, America wipes her hands of the issue. It’s a very capitalistic solution to a problem that requires more than checks in mailboxes. It’s very simplistic.
I would prefer you teach me how to fish as well as everyone else instead of simply giving me fish. Provide the black community with quality angler tools. Do not have them reaching their hands out for fish.
Personally I find it disrespectful, but that’s subjective and not something I would argue.
---
Why do you think that black people are worse fishermen right now than other races? What exactly is your alternate proposal? Because in my eyes, black people's main issue in America right now is merely a lack of resources, not a lack of skill or talent. Black people lack home equity due to redlining, they have to drop out of school early due to needing to work and support their families, they cannot afford college because of money problems. You can see this in stats too, on average Black people do only make 60% the income of a white person, but they have 10% of the average white person's wealth.
Personally, I find this "teach them to fish" stuff to be more disrespectful than just giving them money. Money is what they have been denied, money and the opportunities to make it. Black people do not need us to teach them how to fish - they are quite capable of learning on their own. We should give them what they are owed, fix the problems that we made for them, and not treat them like uneducated children who need to be shown how to live their lives.
---
I haven’t fact checked your stat, but let’s say, on average, blacks make 60% of what whites make. I know that’s not because companies are only paying blacks 60% wages. To me, this shows something is wrong with the boats not the fish.
It’s the capacity for production that needs improved within the black community. If we take the black immigrant community we can compare them economically to the African American community, we can have an idea of how much racism is affecting wages. We see it has a significantly lesser effect on other black communities than it does African American communities.
There is a book, Racism without Racists, that explores racial inequality in America. The ripples of racism don’t require active racism to persist. So let’s take one example, blacks in America were assaulted and abused simply going to school. Traumatized for generations for simply trying to receive an education. We have fixed a majority of those issues within the school system, but the wounds persist in the black home.
My grandma in-law’s, a victim of this hostile system, view about education is a trepidatious view. She discouraged my wife from going to college. She is still experiencing racism without any racist activity enforcing it upon her.
We need to mend these wounds with love and thoughtful investment. With 4 trillion dollars we could have a chance at solving this! Simply 100,000 greenbacks in the bank won’t cut it.
---
> I know that’s not because companies are only paying blacks 60% wages.
It's largely due to lack of education, mixed with other vectors of poverty like lack of connections and overpolicing. It's not a problem with the people, it's a problem with their circumstances. I think we agree on that.
When you bring up African immigrants, you make a good point. Racism largely affects people in historical ripple effects, as you say. But I disagree that the majority of these effects are in the ways black people view education, or anything else, I think these ripples are most felt in the wallet.
Your wife was discouraged from going to college by someone with trauma in the education system, and I agree that's bad. But how many more black kids will never even have the choice on going to college because they can't afford it? Because they need to be working now to feed their younger siblings? Those are, statistically, the reasons that African Americans do not go to college.
And wealth is also the main gap between African Americans and black immigrants, to bring it back to that point. It takes wealth to move across continents, and it takes wealth or the potential to gain wealth to get a US Visa. Wherever you look, you can talk about African American culture all day, but the main difference between African Americans and every more successful demographic in America is the systemic denial of their ability to gain wealth. Giving them the money they deserve may not be a perfect solution, but it's not useless and it would absolutely solve a lot of problems.
Giving people the money to feed their kids is love. Giving people a chance to send their kids to college is a thoughtful investment. 100,000 greenbacks in the bank will in fact cut it for a large portion of people.
---
I absolutely agree that school education is not the only issue. I also don’t think it’s the majority of the problem. I apologize if I gave that impression. That’s not my view.
My wife grew up in a very small 1 bedroom house within one of the most dangerous and underfunded neighborhoods in Texas. Inside the house lived 3 generations. 9 people. They had less than no money. My wife refused to believe she couldn’t go to college. With no money, no car no anything she finished college. Yes, she is in moderate debt. 35k, it’s nothing unreasonable. Yes, she had a harder time than most. My point being that success in todays America is not ever unobtainable no matter how dire the situation.
I think we agree on my basic premise. Of course money will always help a bad situation in America. However real change, real solutions require a multifaceted deeply thoughtful investment in the community. We can dive into what these real solutions may look like, but I think we would be wading into more philosophical waters on how best to support our black brothers and sisters and away from the main post.
---
> However real change, real solutions require a multifaceted deeply thoughtful investment in the community.
Isn't this letting perfection being the enemy of the good? We can't do anything until we all agree on the optimal solution?
Can you name another institution that is required to meet that level of proof? | When the government violates someone's rights, they have to pay. That money comes from taxes. Is it unfair to LA residents when a cop beats up a civilian and the city has to pay out? It is no less fair than any other obligation the city incurs that is paid with taxes.
And if reparations are obligations incurred by governments based on past behavior, then the other stuff is irrelevant. Who cares if it doesn't solve anything? It is an obligation that is owed
---
The common counter argument to California giving out reparations is
"So people who were never slaves are getting reparations from a state that never allowed slavery, funded by taxpayers who never owned a slave."
Even if you look at it transactionally. You get $2million dollars. Can I say "you people" to a black person now? Am I done with this white guilt? Does the race card go back in the deck?
What's the outcome besides "you now have money"?
---
I don't think the California's ones are for slavery?
The fact it is done by taxpayers who didn't participate is irrelevant. It has never been held that governments are exempt from obligations because taxpayers were not involved.
There doesn't need to be an outcome besides the money. The money is owed. If you owed me money, it ain't any of your damn business what giving me the money accomplishes... it's my money.
---
Except "the money is owed" is your opinion.
There were slaves when slaves were legal, there weren't slaves when slavery was illegal.
> There doesn't need to be an outcome besides the money.
So you agree that this doesn't fix anything?
---
whether the money is owed or not is, for this thread, posited as owed for sake of the OP.
I have no opinion if it fixes anything or not. Whether it fixes anything doesn't matter. Just as of someone asked why I need a gun my answer is ,"fuck you"....my answer to the question if the money I am owed fixes anything is, "fuck you."
---
So the money isn't going to the victim, doesn't fix anything, and is paid because something legal happened. Like there are no good "reasons" for reparations, on any level.
Great trillion dollar investment during this time of our economic prosperity. Good talk.
---
If a victim dies, there can still be legal settlements where money goes to the descendents. You don't get out of product liability if your product manages to kill the victim because there is no victim to give the money to.
the reasons for reparations are the same for any civil settlement | 14l9597 | CMV: Reparations in the form of direct checks are a terrible idea. | I would begin by prefacing that I hold the view that the ripples of racism exist today and need dealt with.
I will layout my reasoning for my view using three main arguments:
1. The logistical complexity is astronomical. Let’s say 100k per person. That’s close to 4 trillion dollars. That’s almost the entire federal budget. The system required to responsibly regulate this level of capital is enormous.
2. The divisiveness. Who pays for this? Are recent immigrants going to see increasing taxes? What about the non-black members of the impoverished community? How do we suspect they will feel as they become more poor and their neighbors receive 100k checks? Resentment and division will skyrocket.
3. Effective solution? Does this really solve the problem or does it provide an excuse to never solve the problem? This creates an excuse to not deal with real problems in the black community. Any ongoing problem will be met with a “I paid you the money, now shut up” type of attitude.
Real change is what’s needed. A check in the mail is not it. | TrappedInRedditWorld | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "DuhChappers",
"id": "jpur777",
"score": 96,
"text": "Look, I don't think this is the best solution either, but to say that 100K straight into the bank isn't \"real change\" is absurd. That is life changing money for most poor people. That takes you from worrying where your next meal wil... | [
{
"author": "MysticInept",
"id": "jpupzpd",
"score": -8,
"text": "When the government violates someone's rights, they have to pay. That money comes from taxes. Is it unfair to LA residents when a cop beats up a civilian and the city has to pay out? It is no less fair than any other obligation the ci... | [
"jpur777",
"jpuu35f",
"jpuv3vi",
"jpv01ax",
"jpv3opg",
"jpv6tt3",
"jpv7btu"
] | [
"jpupzpd",
"jpuquop",
"jpurbrj",
"jpurwq0",
"jpusagp",
"jputb5a",
"jputo0j"
] |
CMV: We need an Economic 'Matrix' to address unsustainable levels of toxic, inequitable wealth distribution.
Allowing for the fact that our global capitalist system has lifted millions of people out of poverty in recent years, and reduced the number of people in extreme poverty to record lows, it appears that the system is, nonetheless, fatally flawed.
Without having investigated this to any huge extent, my limited (read tenuous) understanding is that the levels of inequality will continue to grow, with even more wealth inexorably being concentrated in even fewer hands, and this will likely lead (or at least significantly contribute) to dire consequences (civil unrest, further eradication of democratic processes, potentially war and other national/global disasters etc).
So, in the absence of any viable alternative, it appears the system (like the Matrix) will require rebooting from time to time; a self-correction that would redistribute wealth to more balanced, equitable levels (every X years) if inevitable doom is to be avoided.
Without getting too wrapped up in the methods of how this would be achieved; if the aim is to create a prosperous, peaceful, global village which prioritises: maximising well-being, increasing net happiness, improving opportunities for intellectual and emotional development and advancing ourselves as a species and a culture, does this not make sense?
EDIT | First, thanks to all that have taken the time to respond. Especially those with whom I may have come across as, lets say 'terse'. Trying to reply to a number of responses at once, whilst being new to the whole Reddit thing (posting topics) did get a touch overwhelming. Anyway, if anyone wants to continue this, I'd like to request they focus on the following (as most responses are geared towards aspects not of primary concern):
1) Global levels of personal economic inequality are toxic, the margins will continue to increase over time with the present system, and the results will be detrimental (possibly catastrophic) to society. If not, why not?
2) If so, can anything be done to prevent this from happening? And are their overriding reasons to believe any alternative will almost certainly be worse?
Thanks again for your involvement and your patience.
_____
> *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!* | The problem with a reboot at a predetermined moment is that it changes the value of everything relative to that time.
Let's say you're wealthy, so on D Day your holdings are going to be redistributed to poorer people. That means that you have no incentive to invest in anything coming to fruition after that day. Your goal has to be to spend every penny you can before your wealth is taken away.
The thing is, everyone is in the same situation. Just prior to the moment of redistribution, money becomes effectively valueless as there is not going to be any later opportunity to spend it. Inflation becomes exponential as remaining spending time runs out.
However, that has knock on effects that go back through time in a way I find very hard to conceptualise. If I know that tomorrow my wealth will cease to exist, that makes me care very little about it today. But if I know that in two days my wealth will cease to exist, then I know that I'll care very little about it tomorrow, so I should try to blow it all on coke and hookers. Problem is, the hookers and coke dealers don't want the money either, because they don't have time to spend it.
Any program to reduce inequality has to work gradually and in the long term, rather than reboots.
---
Hmmm... would like to mull on this for a wee while.
I'm thinking about someone, call him A. A is worth $10B. If he knows that tomorrow 80% of that will be dished out to the poor and needy etc, will he no longer care for his remaining $2B?
At these levels of wealth, the sort that can never be spent, I'm not sure how it would make much difference to their day to day existence.
As for the hookers and dealers, I'm afraid you've lost me. Surely there are lots of both that would welcome a chance to do something different if someone offered them a good chunck of cash for nothing, no?
Not getting onto 'drug dealing' because the illegality of drugs is something else I find morally repugnant and may have to be the subject of another CMV.
---
If the wealth is really not spent, who really cares? I mean, if A is worth $10B and isn't actually doing anything with that $10B other than hoarding it, does it matter (as long as it's money/stock and not commodities)? I mean, yes if it's a commodity then that commodity isn't being used to help people. But if it's just a useless value-store that is sitting put, then his money affects nobody else. If it isn't moving, that means the government can print more money without causing inflation. It's only the money he spends and does bad things with (say building a huge polluting yacht) that we should care about. | Inequality itself is not an issue, nor should it ever be. Any system which isn't inherently equal(arguably doesn't realistically exist) is going to have inequality.
>does this not make sense?
No.
What you're proposing would *seriously* reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. Why would a business owner build their company from the ground up if they knew their success would be(at least partially) taken from them down the line? Why would an investor put capital behind a venture if he would unquestionably see a loss when the "reset" occurs?
---
I'm not arguing for total equality, just smaller margins of inequality.
I also don't see the logic of the rest of your post. A business owner would build up his business for exactly the same reasons he would now, same for investors. Even now investors understand they could make a loss. What they are looking for is a return on investment. So if they can back a start up with $50K and receive 1000% return in X years, they're going to do it aren't they? Just because they can no longer hope for $5B or whatever would hardly act as a disincentive to most.
People would still rather have $100M in the bank than $100K, no?
---
>I'm not arguing for total equality, just smaller margins of inequality.
What you're arguing would accomplish nothing. So long as X group owns Y assets, they will quickly make their money back. Think of Bill Gates, for example, who makes ~$23,148 per minute due to the assets which he owns.
Do you really think a partial reset would make a difference when that level of income can be generated in such a short amount of time?
>What they are looking for is a return on investment. So if they can back a start up with $50K and receive 1000% return in X years, they're going to do it aren't they?
Yes. But in a reset situation, you would be taking away a large portion of that return on investment. You would still have short term incentive to do the work, but ultimately any meaningful wealth redistribution would mean that any wealth you generate from your business(or even the equity in your business) would be taken from you once every X years.
>People would still rather have $100M in the bank than $100K, no?
It depends on how significantly you "redistribute" the wealth.
As discussed above, if you do a "light" redistribution of wealth, nothing will change in the long term. You will create a more equal system in the immediate short term, which would pretty quickly move to an unequal system in the span of weeks or months.
If you do a "heavy" redistribution, you've greatly reduced the incentive to produce and build, which harms society.
| 6x7mv4 | CMV: We need an Economic 'Matrix' to address unsustainable levels of toxic, inequitable wealth distribution. | Allowing for the fact that our global capitalist system has lifted millions of people out of poverty in recent years, and reduced the number of people in extreme poverty to record lows, it appears that the system is, nonetheless, fatally flawed.
Without having investigated this to any huge extent, my limited (read tenuous) understanding is that the levels of inequality will continue to grow, with even more wealth inexorably being concentrated in even fewer hands, and this will likely lead (or at least significantly contribute) to dire consequences (civil unrest, further eradication of democratic processes, potentially war and other national/global disasters etc).
So, in the absence of any viable alternative, it appears the system (like the Matrix) will require rebooting from time to time; a self-correction that would redistribute wealth to more balanced, equitable levels (every X years) if inevitable doom is to be avoided.
Without getting too wrapped up in the methods of how this would be achieved; if the aim is to create a prosperous, peaceful, global village which prioritises: maximising well-being, increasing net happiness, improving opportunities for intellectual and emotional development and advancing ourselves as a species and a culture, does this not make sense?
EDIT | First, thanks to all that have taken the time to respond. Especially those with whom I may have come across as, lets say 'terse'. Trying to reply to a number of responses at once, whilst being new to the whole Reddit thing (posting topics) did get a touch overwhelming. Anyway, if anyone wants to continue this, I'd like to request they focus on the following (as most responses are geared towards aspects not of primary concern):
1) Global levels of personal economic inequality are toxic, the margins will continue to increase over time with the present system, and the results will be detrimental (possibly catastrophic) to society. If not, why not?
2) If so, can anything be done to prevent this from happening? And are their overriding reasons to believe any alternative will almost certainly be worse?
Thanks again for your involvement and your patience.
_____
> *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!* | HitchlikersGuide | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "FatherBrownstone",
"id": "dmdrhn0",
"score": 5,
"text": "The problem with a reboot at a predetermined moment is that it changes the value of everything relative to that time. \n\nLet's say you're wealthy, so on D Day your holdings are going to be redistributed to poorer people. That mea... | [
{
"author": "MrGraeme",
"id": "dmdslab",
"score": 1,
"text": "Inequality itself is not an issue, nor should it ever be. Any system which isn't inherently equal(arguably doesn't realistically exist) is going to have inequality. \n\n>does this not make sense?\n\nNo. \n\nWhat you're proposing would *se... | [
"dmdrhn0",
"dmdsnmb",
"dmdtwf3"
] | [
"dmdslab",
"dmdt64w",
"dmdtsjj"
] |
CMV: A Single Streaming Service Subscription Will Always Beat Cable TV, Despite Advertisements and Account Sharing Restrictions.
# Context
Streaming services have revolutionized how we consume entertainment, providing convenience and a vast library of content at our fingertips. However, recent developments in the streaming industry have raised concerns and drawn comparisons to traditional cable TV. Let's take a look at the current environment surrounding streaming services.
As of June 2023, Netflix has implemented a device authentication system, making it harder to share accounts across multiple households. They want each household to have its own subscription.
Additionally, Netflix has announced plans to introduce advertisements, although they will offer a pricier ad-free subscription option. These changes reflect the evolving nature of streaming services.
With the rise of multiple streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, and more, securing rights to popular franchises has become competitive. This has led to content being spread across multiple services, making it harder to access all the desired shows and films in one place.
These developments have sparked discussions about the impact on user experience and the increasing similarities between streaming services and cable TV. Some have taken the position that streaming services are becoming just as bad or even worse than cable TV was. I disagree with this.
# Overview
In this post, I will argue that streaming services are inherently superior to Cable TV by highlighting the following key points:
1. Accessibility:
1. Streaming services provide unparalleled accessibility, allowing content consumption anywhere with an internet connection. No need for specialized hardware or installations; a simple app download on existing devices is sufficient.
2. Control over Playback:
1. Streaming services empower viewers with control over playback, including features like pause, rewind, and skip intro, eliminating the need for separate recording devices like DVRs.
3. Asynchronous Media Consumption:
1. Streaming services enable asynchronous media consumption, allowing viewers to watch any released content at their convenience, regardless of when it originally aired.
2. There is no need to pre-record or schedule viewing; users have the flexibility to enjoy media on their own terms.
4. Addressing Media Fragmentation: 5. Although media fragmentation exists across various streaming services, there is typically a wide selection of shows and series available within similar genres or purposes. 6. The expanding catalog of original content ensures a continuous and diverse range of options that rarely leave the streaming service, providing a satisfactory replacement.
Through these points, I will demonstrate that streaming services offer unmatched convenience, control, and flexibility, making them the superior choice over Cable TV for modern media consumption.
# Accessibility
One of the key advantages of streaming services over Cable TV is the unparalleled accessibility they offer. Here's a closer look at why streaming services excel in this aspect:
1. **Content consumption anywhere, anytime:** Streaming services allow users to access their favorite movies, shows, and videos from virtually anywhere with an internet connection. Whether you're at home, traveling, or even in a coffee shop, as long as you have internet access, you can stream your desired content.
2. **No specialized hardware or installations required:** Unlike Cable TV, which often involves installing specific equipment and cables, streaming services eliminate the need for such hardware. All you need is a compatible device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, smart TV, or computer) and a reliable internet connection. Simply download the streaming app or access the service's website, and you're ready to enjoy a vast array of content.
3. **Wide range of supported devices:** Streaming services cater to various platforms and devices, ensuring compatibility across different operating systems and devices. Whether you prefer iOS or Android, Windows or macOS, or even gaming consoles like Xbox or PlayStation, streaming services offer apps and platforms that allow you to seamlessly access content on your preferred device.
4. **Portable and convenient:** With streaming services, there's no need to be tied down to a specific location or device. You can start watching a show on one device and continue where you left off on another, allowing for a seamless and uninterrupted viewing experience.
# Control
Streaming services offer viewers a remarkable level of control over their viewing experience, surpassing the capabilities of traditional cable TV. Here's a closer look at the aspects of control and convenience that streaming services provide:
1. **Playback control at your fingertips:** Streaming services empower viewers with a wide range of playback controls, allowing them to pause, rewind, fast forward, and skip scenes or intros with ease. This eliminates the need for separate recording devices like DVRs, as users can navigate through the content effortlessly using their streaming platform's intuitive interface.
2. **Freedom from DVR limitations:** While DVRs provide the ability to record and store content for later viewing, they have inherent limitations. One such limitation is storage space, which restricts the number of shows or movies that can be recorded. In contrast, streaming services offer virtually unlimited content availability, with a vast library of movies, TV series, and original programming accessible on-demand.
3. **Enhanced viewing experience:** Streaming services enable viewers to enjoy a seamless viewing experience without the hassle of commercials or time constraints. With the ability to skip ads or choose ad-free subscription options, viewers can enjoy the uninterrupted content immersion.
4. **Preservation of content quality:** DVRs record the content exactly as it is broadcasted, which means any corruptions or technical issues during the original airing are also preserved. Streaming services, on the other hand, provide a reliable and consistent streaming experience, ensuring high-quality playback without the risk of signal loss or degradation. If corruption does happen, it is usually a one-time thing that you can correct by simply trying again later instead of waiting for the episode or film to rerun.
5. **Offline viewing:** Many streaming services now offer the option to download selected titles for offline viewing. This functionality allows users to store content locally on their devices, similar to a DVR, and watch it without an internet connection. Whether on a long flight or in areas with limited internet access, the ability to download and stream content offline provides convenience and flexibility.
# Asynchronous Consumption
Streaming services revolutionize the way we consume media by enabling asynchronous consumption, granting viewers the freedom to watch content at their convenience, regardless of its original airing. Here's a detailed exploration of how streaming services excel in providing this flexibility:
1. **On-demand viewing:** Streaming services offer the unique advantage of on-demand viewing, allowing users to choose what, when, and how they want to watch. Whether you prefer binge-watching an entire season in one sitting or catching up on missed episodes at your own pace, streaming services cater to individual preferences and schedules.
2. **No need for pre-recording or scheduling:** Unlike traditional cable TV, which often requires pre-recording or scheduling shows to ensure you don't miss them, streaming services eliminate this hassle. With streaming platforms, you can access a vast library of content without having to worry about setting up recordings or adhering to specific broadcast times.
3. **Flexibility in content selection:** Streaming services offer an extensive catalog of movies, TV series, documentaries, and original programming, ensuring a diverse range of options to suit individual interests. This allows viewers to explore and discover content on their own terms, tailoring their media consumption experience to their preferences.
4. **Catch-up and backlogging:** With streaming services, there's no need to worry about missing out on episodes or seasons of your favorite shows. You can catch up on missed episodes or even start watching a series from the beginning at any time, as past seasons or episodes are often available on the platform. This flexibility allows viewers to stay up-to-date with ongoing series or delve into older content at their own pace.
# Addressing Media Fragmentation
One of the most significant arguments for streaming services becoming as bad or worse than cable TV revolves around the issue of media fragmentation. This aspect holds the greatest potential to sway my viewpoint, as it touches on subjective preferences and individual perspectives. Let's delve into this topic further:
Media fragmentation, the distribution of content across various streaming services, is often cited as a drawback of the streaming landscape. While it is true that different shows and series are spread across multiple platforms, it is important to consider individual preferences and the expanding range of content offered by streaming services. From my perspective, the impact of media fragmentation on the overall streaming experience can be subjective and dependent on personal media taste. As someone who chooses to watch something based on the interestingness of its plot and premise, my preferences prioritize the ideas and concepts presented in a piece of media rather than its technical aspects, such as acting or production quality. I believe that effective communication of ideas and the potential for further discussion are more significant than the specific execution or critical acclaim of a particular show or movie.
In this context, media fragmentation becomes less of a concern for me. While it may result in some shows or series being scattered across different platforms, streaming services typically offer a wide selection of content within similar genres or purposes. Additionally, the expanding catalog of original content ensures a continuous and diverse range of options that rarely leave the streaming service, providing a satisfactory replacement.
To illustrate this perspective, consider the following analogy: Imagine you have a craving for pizza, and your favorite is Papa John's. However, Pizza Hut is also nearby and offers a similar pizza with the same general ingredients. Although the taste profile may be different, both options can fulfill your practical desire for pizza. In this scenario, if Papa John's is closed, I would choose to order from Pizza Hut, as the specific brand becomes less important compared to satisfying the craving for pizza itself. The practical benefits and enjoyment of the experience are comparable, even if it's not the absolute ideal choice.
In summary, while media fragmentation can be seen as a potential drawback of streaming services, its impact can vary depending on individual preferences and priorities. For those like me, who prioritize the ideas and concepts presented in media and are open to exploring different platforms, the wide selection of content within similar genres and the continuous stream of original programming make streaming services a suitable alternative. The fragmented distribution of shows and series becomes a minor concern when the focus lies on the enjoyment and engagement derived from the content itself. | Modern cable companies do allow for most of what you're talking about. You can access cable channels on multiple devices, you can stream previously-aired content, download content to watch off-line, you can pause/rewind, etc.
One huge advantage cable has over streaming services is live content. News, sports, live broadcasts, watching series as they first air, etc.
With a cabled connection, you can all but guarantee good quality, without any lag or buffering or dropped feeds, which cannot be guaranteed for any live broadcast on a streamed service. Any technical issues would likely be on the broadcasters' end, and not yours.
---
Can you elaborate on the perceived advantage of viewing live content versus consuming it asynchronously? I don't really see the appeal.
---
Do you seriously not get the "perceived advantage" of watching live sports?
---
Yes, I am being serious. While I have watched live TV before, I saw it as more of a nuisance and would always prefer to record or stream so I can watch on my own terms when my schedule specifically allows for it. The only reason I would actively want to watch live TV is if it was made to be the only option or if I was already available and just happened to see something interesting in the moment.
---
>While I have watched live TV before...
Not just live TV, like when a show first airs, but live *sporting events*, where the action is happing on screen and in real life at the same time. Do you not understand the appeal of watching, say, the Super Bowl as it happens? | Cable contracts _include_ streaming services. The act of selecting on cable provider includes getting a streaming service.
The technical advantages you mention around needing special wires seems moot at this point. Unless your home internet is satellite or 5g then you've got some cable bringing it in - phone, coax or fiber. The later two may be delivering your cable and both require hardware. If you have DSL then you've got hardware for your internet connection.
---
!delta for that first point, as another user also brought it up and I gave them one for that as well. Here's my response:
>A cable TV plan might include access to streaming services, but, for the purposes of this post, I will be considering them separate services, as they are also offered outside of said package and are very distinct from a traditional cable service.
However, I believe that, while an internet connection might require hardware, this is not *specialized* hardware in the sense that I was using it, since an internet connection is something that is also immensely useful for other tasks. My experience with Cable TV is that they actually have to come in and install something special even if you can access the internet already.
---
that's a massive "it depends". The cable company has a "self-install" option that requires that you have cable to the house already.
A DSL connection has a self-install option that requires you have telephone line to house already.
I don't think an RJ-45 based DSL modem is more specialized than a cable modem. Cable where I am does not require a "cable box" as they once did.
---
I may be outdated on this point, then. I switched almost completely from Cable TV quite a while ago, and I was aware of the fact that they offer streaming bundled in sometimes, but I haven't done in-depth research in a while. !delta.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest ([238∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/iamintheforest)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 14lbrfb | CMV: A Single Streaming Service Subscription Will Always Beat Cable TV, Despite Advertisements and Account Sharing Restrictions. | # Context
Streaming services have revolutionized how we consume entertainment, providing convenience and a vast library of content at our fingertips. However, recent developments in the streaming industry have raised concerns and drawn comparisons to traditional cable TV. Let's take a look at the current environment surrounding streaming services.
As of June 2023, Netflix has implemented a device authentication system, making it harder to share accounts across multiple households. They want each household to have its own subscription.
Additionally, Netflix has announced plans to introduce advertisements, although they will offer a pricier ad-free subscription option. These changes reflect the evolving nature of streaming services.
With the rise of multiple streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, and more, securing rights to popular franchises has become competitive. This has led to content being spread across multiple services, making it harder to access all the desired shows and films in one place.
These developments have sparked discussions about the impact on user experience and the increasing similarities between streaming services and cable TV. Some have taken the position that streaming services are becoming just as bad or even worse than cable TV was. I disagree with this.
# Overview
In this post, I will argue that streaming services are inherently superior to Cable TV by highlighting the following key points:
1. Accessibility:
1. Streaming services provide unparalleled accessibility, allowing content consumption anywhere with an internet connection. No need for specialized hardware or installations; a simple app download on existing devices is sufficient.
2. Control over Playback:
1. Streaming services empower viewers with control over playback, including features like pause, rewind, and skip intro, eliminating the need for separate recording devices like DVRs.
3. Asynchronous Media Consumption:
1. Streaming services enable asynchronous media consumption, allowing viewers to watch any released content at their convenience, regardless of when it originally aired.
2. There is no need to pre-record or schedule viewing; users have the flexibility to enjoy media on their own terms.
4. Addressing Media Fragmentation: 5. Although media fragmentation exists across various streaming services, there is typically a wide selection of shows and series available within similar genres or purposes. 6. The expanding catalog of original content ensures a continuous and diverse range of options that rarely leave the streaming service, providing a satisfactory replacement.
Through these points, I will demonstrate that streaming services offer unmatched convenience, control, and flexibility, making them the superior choice over Cable TV for modern media consumption.
# Accessibility
One of the key advantages of streaming services over Cable TV is the unparalleled accessibility they offer. Here's a closer look at why streaming services excel in this aspect:
1. **Content consumption anywhere, anytime:** Streaming services allow users to access their favorite movies, shows, and videos from virtually anywhere with an internet connection. Whether you're at home, traveling, or even in a coffee shop, as long as you have internet access, you can stream your desired content.
2. **No specialized hardware or installations required:** Unlike Cable TV, which often involves installing specific equipment and cables, streaming services eliminate the need for such hardware. All you need is a compatible device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, smart TV, or computer) and a reliable internet connection. Simply download the streaming app or access the service's website, and you're ready to enjoy a vast array of content.
3. **Wide range of supported devices:** Streaming services cater to various platforms and devices, ensuring compatibility across different operating systems and devices. Whether you prefer iOS or Android, Windows or macOS, or even gaming consoles like Xbox or PlayStation, streaming services offer apps and platforms that allow you to seamlessly access content on your preferred device.
4. **Portable and convenient:** With streaming services, there's no need to be tied down to a specific location or device. You can start watching a show on one device and continue where you left off on another, allowing for a seamless and uninterrupted viewing experience.
# Control
Streaming services offer viewers a remarkable level of control over their viewing experience, surpassing the capabilities of traditional cable TV. Here's a closer look at the aspects of control and convenience that streaming services provide:
1. **Playback control at your fingertips:** Streaming services empower viewers with a wide range of playback controls, allowing them to pause, rewind, fast forward, and skip scenes or intros with ease. This eliminates the need for separate recording devices like DVRs, as users can navigate through the content effortlessly using their streaming platform's intuitive interface.
2. **Freedom from DVR limitations:** While DVRs provide the ability to record and store content for later viewing, they have inherent limitations. One such limitation is storage space, which restricts the number of shows or movies that can be recorded. In contrast, streaming services offer virtually unlimited content availability, with a vast library of movies, TV series, and original programming accessible on-demand.
3. **Enhanced viewing experience:** Streaming services enable viewers to enjoy a seamless viewing experience without the hassle of commercials or time constraints. With the ability to skip ads or choose ad-free subscription options, viewers can enjoy the uninterrupted content immersion.
4. **Preservation of content quality:** DVRs record the content exactly as it is broadcasted, which means any corruptions or technical issues during the original airing are also preserved. Streaming services, on the other hand, provide a reliable and consistent streaming experience, ensuring high-quality playback without the risk of signal loss or degradation. If corruption does happen, it is usually a one-time thing that you can correct by simply trying again later instead of waiting for the episode or film to rerun.
5. **Offline viewing:** Many streaming services now offer the option to download selected titles for offline viewing. This functionality allows users to store content locally on their devices, similar to a DVR, and watch it without an internet connection. Whether on a long flight or in areas with limited internet access, the ability to download and stream content offline provides convenience and flexibility.
# Asynchronous Consumption
Streaming services revolutionize the way we consume media by enabling asynchronous consumption, granting viewers the freedom to watch content at their convenience, regardless of its original airing. Here's a detailed exploration of how streaming services excel in providing this flexibility:
1. **On-demand viewing:** Streaming services offer the unique advantage of on-demand viewing, allowing users to choose what, when, and how they want to watch. Whether you prefer binge-watching an entire season in one sitting or catching up on missed episodes at your own pace, streaming services cater to individual preferences and schedules.
2. **No need for pre-recording or scheduling:** Unlike traditional cable TV, which often requires pre-recording or scheduling shows to ensure you don't miss them, streaming services eliminate this hassle. With streaming platforms, you can access a vast library of content without having to worry about setting up recordings or adhering to specific broadcast times.
3. **Flexibility in content selection:** Streaming services offer an extensive catalog of movies, TV series, documentaries, and original programming, ensuring a diverse range of options to suit individual interests. This allows viewers to explore and discover content on their own terms, tailoring their media consumption experience to their preferences.
4. **Catch-up and backlogging:** With streaming services, there's no need to worry about missing out on episodes or seasons of your favorite shows. You can catch up on missed episodes or even start watching a series from the beginning at any time, as past seasons or episodes are often available on the platform. This flexibility allows viewers to stay up-to-date with ongoing series or delve into older content at their own pace.
# Addressing Media Fragmentation
One of the most significant arguments for streaming services becoming as bad or worse than cable TV revolves around the issue of media fragmentation. This aspect holds the greatest potential to sway my viewpoint, as it touches on subjective preferences and individual perspectives. Let's delve into this topic further:
Media fragmentation, the distribution of content across various streaming services, is often cited as a drawback of the streaming landscape. While it is true that different shows and series are spread across multiple platforms, it is important to consider individual preferences and the expanding range of content offered by streaming services. From my perspective, the impact of media fragmentation on the overall streaming experience can be subjective and dependent on personal media taste. As someone who chooses to watch something based on the interestingness of its plot and premise, my preferences prioritize the ideas and concepts presented in a piece of media rather than its technical aspects, such as acting or production quality. I believe that effective communication of ideas and the potential for further discussion are more significant than the specific execution or critical acclaim of a particular show or movie.
In this context, media fragmentation becomes less of a concern for me. While it may result in some shows or series being scattered across different platforms, streaming services typically offer a wide selection of content within similar genres or purposes. Additionally, the expanding catalog of original content ensures a continuous and diverse range of options that rarely leave the streaming service, providing a satisfactory replacement.
To illustrate this perspective, consider the following analogy: Imagine you have a craving for pizza, and your favorite is Papa John's. However, Pizza Hut is also nearby and offers a similar pizza with the same general ingredients. Although the taste profile may be different, both options can fulfill your practical desire for pizza. In this scenario, if Papa John's is closed, I would choose to order from Pizza Hut, as the specific brand becomes less important compared to satisfying the craving for pizza itself. The practical benefits and enjoyment of the experience are comparable, even if it's not the absolute ideal choice.
In summary, while media fragmentation can be seen as a potential drawback of streaming services, its impact can vary depending on individual preferences and priorities. For those like me, who prioritize the ideas and concepts presented in media and are open to exploring different platforms, the wide selection of content within similar genres and the continuous stream of original programming make streaming services a suitable alternative. The fragmented distribution of shows and series becomes a minor concern when the focus lies on the enjoyment and engagement derived from the content itself. | 00PT | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "svenson_26",
"id": "jpv5wfx",
"score": 2,
"text": "Modern cable companies do allow for most of what you're talking about. You can access cable channels on multiple devices, you can stream previously-aired content, download content to watch off-line, you can pause/rewind, etc. \n ... | [
{
"author": "iamintheforest",
"id": "jpv64d1",
"score": 2,
"text": "Cable contracts _include_ streaming services. The act of selecting on cable provider includes getting a streaming service.\n\nThe technical advantages you mention around needing special wires seems moot at this point. Unless your ... | [
"jpv5wfx",
"jpv86ur",
"jpv8vhx",
"jpv9sjc",
"jpvb5co"
] | [
"jpv64d1",
"jpv6wsg",
"jpv8wit",
"jpvaerq",
"jpvaj1y"
] |
CMV: Riding a bicycle in the bicycle lane is far more dangerous than riding on the sidewalk (when both options are available).
I live in a big college town, less than half a mile from the big Division 1 campus (Arizona State). In fact, my city is ranked by bicycling.com as the 22nd most bike friendly city in the US (there are a lot of kids on bikes here and if you follow the link and scroll down to #22, you will see a perfect picture of what I'm talking about here). There are bike lanes painted everywhere right on the street where the cars drive. It looks cool and it's an awesome concept but there are also thousands of college kids who have cars and text while driving. According to teensafe.com, “statistically, teens are more likely to make driving errors, regardless of distraction type. However, the use of mobile devices while driving increases safety risks.” And to make it worse, according the thebalance.com, “as they gain more driving experience and more confidence, they may be may be more likely to get involved in distracted driving at higher frequencies.” With the bike lane right there by the cars, a driving error could easily cause a car to clip a bike.
I drive to and from work everyday basically through campus. Without fail, I will ALWAYS see a young person (17-22) texting while driving, doing make-up while driving, horse-playing with other passengers while driving... it irritates me but I get it, I was young once too and I was probably the same way. BUT with all of these bikes in bike lanes, right on the road next to the potentially distracted drivers, would it not be safer to ride your bike on the sidewalk? This gives you (in my city) more distance from the cars, and a curb height of maybe around 6” to protect you from cars that may sway into your bike lane.
IDK, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. Please, change my view. I feel very strongly that the sidewalk is safer than the bike lane.
EDIT: a lot of good responses helped me form a question that is more to the point I'm trying to have my view changed upon: CMV: in cities where it is illegal for bikes to ride on the sidewalk, if there is no foot traffic the bikes should be allowed to ride on the sidewalk to increase their own safety. If foot traffic shows up, they have to go back down to the bike lane for the pedestrian's safety... at least give them the legal option to increase their safety when no pedestrians are nearby.
Sources:
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20048181/the-50-best-bike-cities-of-2016/
https://www.phoenixlawteam.com/blog/2014/12/whats-leading-type-distracted-driving-arizona-hint-not-texting/
https://www.thebalance.com/distracted-driving-teens-2645865
https://www.teensafe.com/blog/teens-and-distracted-driving-facts-and-statistics/
_____
> *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 | It's always more dangerous for pedestrians when bikes are on the sidewalk. It's also more dangerous for bikes at intersections and driveways because drivers don't (and shouldn't) expect bikes to be on the sidewalk.
---
I don't know, how is it dangerous for pedestrians when bikes are on the sidewalk? If you go with the flow of traffic \(which you should\), bikes can just pass on the left \(the sidewalks here are huge\). And again, if you're going with the flow of traffic and following safety protocols, as a person driving a car the only time you would worry about a bicycle in the intersection is when you are turning right and you would be able to easily see it.
---
Pedestrians do NOT go with the flow of traffic. What if a family walking by has a kid that veers off-course on the sidewalk in front of your bike? There are a lot of people hard of hearing that might not hear you coming and walk across the sidewalk to the other side.
Really, letting bikes onto the sidewalk instead of bike lanes opens up huge civil lawsuit opportunity. It's one thing to argue that a pedestrian hit by a bike shouldn't have been in the bike lane, but it's gonna be hard to prove it's not your fault when they're in the sidewalk. | Hi, Civil engineer here. I studied transportation specifically in college even though I didn't go into that field. I think you are simply overlooking something big here. Bicycle lanes serve two purposes. Protecting Bicyclist from cars is one but the other is protecting pedestrians from cyclist. A sidewalk is designed for pedestrian traffic and must adhere to all ADA requirements. A Bicycle lane has a different set of restrictions. A sidewalk may be safer for a cyclist but when you have extremely large volumes of cyclist traffic and pedestrian traffic, like your college, then a separation of the three forms of traffic is the safest for all parties.
---
I understand what you are saying... and maybe this is anecdotal and extremely case sensitive to my town but the only time \(that I have seen\) heavy foot traffic along with heavy bike traffic is right down University Drive. In that case, I totally see the need for 3 forms of traffic for safety. But in this instance, the cars are bumper to bumper and due to that, it seems really safe for the bicycles. I guess what I am really trying to say is, when there is very light or zero foot traffic on the sidewalk, bicyclists should be allowed to legally ride on the sidewalk for their own safety.
---
>bicyclists should be allowed to legally ride on the sidewalk for their own safety.
Is that against the law there? It wasn't at my college even though we had bike lanes. I road a bike and often used sidewalks as I felt safer. I wouldn't at times of high pedestrian activity though.
I am not trying to say Sidewalks are less safe, only that bike lanes serve a significant purpose and are not always less safe than sidewalks. | 8feeu5 | CMV: Riding a bicycle in the bicycle lane is far more dangerous than riding on the sidewalk (when both options are available). | I live in a big college town, less than half a mile from the big Division 1 campus (Arizona State). In fact, my city is ranked by bicycling.com as the 22nd most bike friendly city in the US (there are a lot of kids on bikes here and if you follow the link and scroll down to #22, you will see a perfect picture of what I'm talking about here). There are bike lanes painted everywhere right on the street where the cars drive. It looks cool and it's an awesome concept but there are also thousands of college kids who have cars and text while driving. According to teensafe.com, “statistically, teens are more likely to make driving errors, regardless of distraction type. However, the use of mobile devices while driving increases safety risks.” And to make it worse, according the thebalance.com, “as they gain more driving experience and more confidence, they may be may be more likely to get involved in distracted driving at higher frequencies.” With the bike lane right there by the cars, a driving error could easily cause a car to clip a bike.
I drive to and from work everyday basically through campus. Without fail, I will ALWAYS see a young person (17-22) texting while driving, doing make-up while driving, horse-playing with other passengers while driving... it irritates me but I get it, I was young once too and I was probably the same way. BUT with all of these bikes in bike lanes, right on the road next to the potentially distracted drivers, would it not be safer to ride your bike on the sidewalk? This gives you (in my city) more distance from the cars, and a curb height of maybe around 6” to protect you from cars that may sway into your bike lane.
IDK, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. Please, change my view. I feel very strongly that the sidewalk is safer than the bike lane.
EDIT: a lot of good responses helped me form a question that is more to the point I'm trying to have my view changed upon: CMV: in cities where it is illegal for bikes to ride on the sidewalk, if there is no foot traffic the bikes should be allowed to ride on the sidewalk to increase their own safety. If foot traffic shows up, they have to go back down to the bike lane for the pedestrian's safety... at least give them the legal option to increase their safety when no pedestrians are nearby.
Sources:
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20048181/the-50-best-bike-cities-of-2016/
https://www.phoenixlawteam.com/blog/2014/12/whats-leading-type-distracted-driving-arizona-hint-not-texting/
https://www.thebalance.com/distracted-driving-teens-2645865
https://www.teensafe.com/blog/teens-and-distracted-driving-facts-and-statistics/
_____
> *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 | kitchmonster | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "BruinsMurph",
"id": "dy2u0nv",
"score": 3,
"text": "It's always more dangerous for pedestrians when bikes are on the sidewalk. It's also more dangerous for bikes at intersections and driveways because drivers don't (and shouldn't) expect bikes to be on the sidewalk.",
"timestamp": 1... | [
{
"author": "Tratopolous",
"id": "dy2u8sm",
"score": 11,
"text": "Hi, Civil engineer here. I studied transportation specifically in college even though I didn't go into that field. I think you are simply overlooking something big here. Bicycle lanes serve two purposes. Protecting Bicyclist from cars... | [
"dy2u0nv",
"dy2u9cg",
"dy2um1i"
] | [
"dy2u8sm",
"dy2ui0b",
"dy2uqtu"
] |
CMV: Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
First off, I'm not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him, don't support the majority of his policies, and still vehemently disagree with his behavior and general unpresidential demeanor.
However, there are 2 things that I believe warrant Trump for consideration of a Nobel Peace Prize: 1) progress made on North Korea, and 2) removal of ISIS from Iraq and Syria.
1) While a celebration may be premature, the easing of tensions between North Korea and the US and South Korea is a major step towards peaceful resolution of a 60 year conflict. Yesterday's meeting between [Kim and Moon](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake) and the meeting between [Kim and Pompeo](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/mike-pompeo-kim-jong-un-photo/index.html) is monumental considering the nuclear standoff of just several months ago. While much credit goes to North and South Korean diplomats, Trump's tough rhetoric combined with repproachment also deserves credit. In fact, South Korea's Foreign Minister also [believes Trump is largely responsible for bringing Kim to the negotiating table.](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html).
2) ISIS and its caliphate in Syria and Iraq has largely fallen since the start of Trump's presidency, including the loss of Mosul in July 2017 and the fall of ISIS' capital Raqqa 3 months later. The inflow of ISIS recruits has nearly stopped and ISIS now controls [less than 98% of the territory they controlled in 2015.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/30/state-union-fact-check-u-s-led-coalition-has-liberated-most-territory-held-isis/1081181001/) This sudden reversal is attributed to [several military strategy reversals led by General Mattis and approved by Trump.](https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/did-trump-really-beat-isis). While ISIS-inspired attacks still continue in places like Turkey, France and the UK, the loss of territorial legitimacy in the form of a caliphate will likely spell less violence, at least in parts of Iraq and Syria previously controlled by ISIS.
I also feel that the merit for the Nobel Prize should be viewed in relation to the achievements of other notable winners. For example, [Obama's 2009 Prize](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize?wprov=sfla1) was especially premature for his efforts at peace in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, and climate change - all of which arguably worsened throughout his presidency. Trump's current and future progress should be more persuasive, given the lack of consequential outcomes by Obama on his Nobel merits.
If we are to view the Peace Prize as an award for those that have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and for the abolition or reduction of standing armies" and we see the benchmark of Obama's merit for the Prize, then I believe Trump should also be considered for his early progress with ISIS and North Korea.
Edit: I'm not arguing here that the Nobel selection process should be reformed. That's for another topic. My view is, that in light of the Nobel Committee's past low standards, Trump might meet those same standards. | Obama's Peace Prize was a ridiculous award, but that doesn't mean we now need to further cheapen it.
The Nobel Peace Prize was founded as something new and unprecedented. It has overcome any early doubts and taken up a vital role in international development and diplomacy, as the Gold Medal for ending conflicts and bringing people together. It draws people's attention to the good things that are going on in the world, and the people who work tirelessly to achieve them.
Many laureates are not well-known figures, and the conflicts that are ended may have received little coverage. It's beneficial to shine light on achievements in areas like women's rights in Liberia and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.
The prize comes with two main benefits: money and publicity. It gives a sizeable income from Nobel's legacy, and tells the world about the person and their actions.
Trump already has money and fame. This kind of prize would bring him little benefit, compared to someone you and I have never heard of, struggling in an underdeveloped homeland.
While he may have been at the head of actions that promoted peace, he has not made any particular conflict his life's work.
Any US president will have some achievements during his term of office. The country has a vested interest in resolving conflicts, which it addresses through a strong military and foreign policy. Obama got a Nobel Prize, Jimmy Carter got one, even Al Gore got one - for 'environmental activism'. There's a danger that the prize might come to be seen as a sinecure for senior American politicians.
The Nobel Peace Prize was not designed to reward powerful people for being in power. It is a donation and a badge of honour traditionally given to people who achieve peaceful outcomes not through status and wealth but through a lifetime of perseverance. Trump does not qualify.
---
I honestly see your response as bolstering my argument, because it shows that, in reality, the award is relative to power. Certainly it was meant for some higher nobility, but as its practiced, it goes to people that have flaws, political motives and underachievements just like Trump.
As I mentioned to another commenter, I'm not suggesting Trump should get the Prize for some perceived infaliabilty, but rather because the award is given to people that dont always live up to those highest standards (i.e. Gore, Carter, Obama). As it exists, the Nobel Prize doesnt just go to people of little fame and money. We can argue that the Prize should return to it's original intentions of nobility, but that's for a separate post I guess.
Furthermore, if you're correct that the award should be used to "draw people's attention to the good things in the world", then the award should be used to draw attention to the tremendous opportunity for peace in Northeast Asia and Iraq-Syria.
---
There have been 50 alleged chemical attacks made against civilians in Syria. I don’t know how that’s a tremendous opportunity for peace.
ISIS has been steadily losing influence for the past several years, it’s not like the past 12 months they’ve gone from a powerhouse to being defeated.
Nothing has actually happened in Korea yet. NK has a long history of making gestures suggesting they’ll denuclearize/be less aggressive. They do this in order to get some concessions from the western powers and then a few months later they continue operating as usual.
---
>Nothing has actually happened in Korea yet.
This is patently not true. Kim meeting Pompeo and Moon and agreeing to meet with POTUS is historically unprecedented and monumental. The North Korea leader stepped into South Korea for the first time in 68 years, hugged the President of S. Korea and agreed to end the ongoing war.
Much work remains, but I dont see how one can honestly say that "nothing has happened."
This is potentially bigger, in my view, then Kissinger and Nixon meeting Mao.
---
>Kim meeting Pompeo and Moon and agreeing to meet with POTUS is historically unprecedented and monumental.
First, two of those three are not unprecedented.
[Kim Jong-Il met with the South Korean president in 2000 and 2007.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Korean_summits)
[Kim Jong-Il also met with US Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 2000.](http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82298&page=1)
Only a US president meeting with the North Korean leader is unprecedented, and it hasn't happened yet.
Second, the _reason_ it hasn't happened is not because of lack of North Korean willingness to have such a summit. It has been the US which has consistently refused to meet with the dictators of North Korea. The DPRK leadership wants very much to have the legitimacy conferred by a meeting as equals with a US President. The US has been the party which has said no.
Third, there is good reason to believe that the US is getting played. [A report today](http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/A-study-by-Chinese-geologists-suggests-the-mountain-where-North-Korea-has-conducted-five-successive-nuclear-bomb-tests-has-likely-collapsed/id-8a02d34f7c3142d3a283d943070fef8e) indicates that North Korea's main nuclear testing facility may have been destroyed recently, and that a pause in testing from them is something they would have to do anyway, and an opportunity for them to offer a seeming concession while actually giving up nothing and still pursuing their weapons programs. | Nobody, right or left thinks that Obama's Peace prize was warranted based on past past action. To call it a benchmark you'd have to be at least a little disingenuous.
The prize serves a lot of purposes, some of them political. When Obama was awarded the prize the US had just ended an administration which started two wars and lost a lot of the trust, cooperation and respect that the international community would like to keep with the US as an economic and military superpower. The award to Obama was most likely meant to reopen those channels and encourage (maybe even guilt a little bit) the new administration to engage the world in a very different way.
We can certainly discuss how good of an idea that reasoning for an award was or how effective it was. But if we go with your analysis of its effectiveness, then we would have to conclude that it's a very poor baseline for a Peace prize and should not be used as a point of comparison.
---
>Nobody, right or left thinks that Obama's Peace prize was warranted based on past past action. To call it a benchmark you'd have to be at least a little disingenuous.
Not nearly as disingenuous as the people who have obama the peace prize. They've set their own standard.
>The award to Obama was most likely meant to reopen those channels and encourage (maybe even guilt a little bit) the new administration to engage the world in a very different way.
the prize is to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
There is no plausible reading of that definition whereby obama was eligible and trump is not.
---
If you believe that the standard set by Obama's prize was a poor one, why on earth should they retain that standard?
---
I didn't set the standard the Nobel committee did. I don't think either should get the prize, and that the committee would do well to adopt a longer term strategy more in tune with what the scientific prizes do, not leaping on whatever current event tickles their fancy. That's neither here nor there though, the points is if you think Obama's prize was legitimate, it's hard to argue that trump's wouldn't be more legitimate.
---
No one is arguing about "legitimacy". The conversation is how they ought to act going forward.
If you believe they acted wrongly in the past then it's hard to argue that they ought to hold that same standard going forward.
| 8fd5yl | CMV: Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize | First off, I'm not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him, don't support the majority of his policies, and still vehemently disagree with his behavior and general unpresidential demeanor.
However, there are 2 things that I believe warrant Trump for consideration of a Nobel Peace Prize: 1) progress made on North Korea, and 2) removal of ISIS from Iraq and Syria.
1) While a celebration may be premature, the easing of tensions between North Korea and the US and South Korea is a major step towards peaceful resolution of a 60 year conflict. Yesterday's meeting between [Kim and Moon](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake) and the meeting between [Kim and Pompeo](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/mike-pompeo-kim-jong-un-photo/index.html) is monumental considering the nuclear standoff of just several months ago. While much credit goes to North and South Korean diplomats, Trump's tough rhetoric combined with repproachment also deserves credit. In fact, South Korea's Foreign Minister also [believes Trump is largely responsible for bringing Kim to the negotiating table.](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html).
2) ISIS and its caliphate in Syria and Iraq has largely fallen since the start of Trump's presidency, including the loss of Mosul in July 2017 and the fall of ISIS' capital Raqqa 3 months later. The inflow of ISIS recruits has nearly stopped and ISIS now controls [less than 98% of the territory they controlled in 2015.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/30/state-union-fact-check-u-s-led-coalition-has-liberated-most-territory-held-isis/1081181001/) This sudden reversal is attributed to [several military strategy reversals led by General Mattis and approved by Trump.](https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/did-trump-really-beat-isis). While ISIS-inspired attacks still continue in places like Turkey, France and the UK, the loss of territorial legitimacy in the form of a caliphate will likely spell less violence, at least in parts of Iraq and Syria previously controlled by ISIS.
I also feel that the merit for the Nobel Prize should be viewed in relation to the achievements of other notable winners. For example, [Obama's 2009 Prize](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize?wprov=sfla1) was especially premature for his efforts at peace in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, and climate change - all of which arguably worsened throughout his presidency. Trump's current and future progress should be more persuasive, given the lack of consequential outcomes by Obama on his Nobel merits.
If we are to view the Peace Prize as an award for those that have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and for the abolition or reduction of standing armies" and we see the benchmark of Obama's merit for the Prize, then I believe Trump should also be considered for his early progress with ISIS and North Korea.
Edit: I'm not arguing here that the Nobel selection process should be reformed. That's for another topic. My view is, that in light of the Nobel Committee's past low standards, Trump might meet those same standards. | RabbleRide | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "FatherBrownstone",
"id": "dy2j6by",
"score": 12,
"text": "Obama's Peace Prize was a ridiculous award, but that doesn't mean we now need to further cheapen it. \n\nThe Nobel Peace Prize was founded as something new and unprecedented. It has overcome any early doubts and taken up a vital ... | [
{
"author": "-paperbrain-",
"id": "dy2istl",
"score": 19,
"text": "Nobody, right or left thinks that Obama's Peace prize was warranted based on past past action. To call it a benchmark you'd have to be at least a little disingenuous. \n\nThe prize serves a lot of purposes, some of them political. Wh... | [
"dy2j6by",
"dy2kpje",
"dy2me1t",
"dy2noay",
"dy2qdri"
] | [
"dy2istl",
"dy2jv82",
"dy2r14r",
"dy2rg3q",
"dy2thv0"
] |
CMV: The Nazis were not socialists or communists even though they endorsed a planned economy
I'm not a history major so maybe I'm wrong. I know that nazis hated communists and worked to violently suppress labor movements. I understand that Nazis organized cartels and monopolies but these were still privately owned. For much of its existence the Nazi state was in a War Economy which necessarily involves lots of government control over production but that was true for other countries and no one accuses the USA of becoming socialist during WW2.
I think of socialism as being state ownership of industry or of all businesses while capitalism is private ownership. I think that's distinct from a free market economy versus a planned economy. A nation with a mostly planned economy but with privately owned companies operating for a profit would still be considered capitalism, IMO.
I'm going to be especially receptive to responses that have citations, quotes, and links back to sources, especially if those sources are available online so they can easily be double checked for context and accuracy. | There's no *ultimate* profit motive in giving businesses to loyal party members, or autarky. If objective metrics like profit and productivity are now second to loyalty, or class/caste status, or even if someone's male or female, then whatever business being conducted isn't truly capitalist *even if they say it is.*
---
Privately owned companies can make decisions for all kinds of reasons beyond profits and efficiency. Owners can be motivated by religion, patriotism, ethics, aesthetics, to get someone to love then, to hurt someone they hate.
If the company is privately owned and operated for profit I would probably that capitalism though it might be closer to mercantilism, but I definitely wouldn't call it socialism.
---
Owners can, but a voluntary action of a company's owner, or of the company's collective staff is very different from the State, for whatever reason, demanding the company act in a given manner as to be in line with party politics. Another example is, say, the agents of the State widely demanding public displays of allegiance (e.g. "Heil mustache-man") to not treat you like a sworn enemy.
That is coercion. That is not an expression of an owner's desires or designs, but a State coercing the owner into compliance. From afar, we can only assume the intentions of a given company owner, but we can know for sure that a portion of those compliant are doing so out of fear for their lives, not loyalty to an ideology.
---
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's socialism
---
The fascist and Nazi structure of of corporations (fascist corporations are profoundly different than modern usage that just means business) is just a palate swap of the USSR's soviets and the syndicalist's syndicates. Those three are all party/government run super organizations that control entire sectors of the economy and are meant to be the representatives of everyone in that sector functionally a government/party run union.
Also the argument that because the Nazis killed all the other authoritarians that also wanted an identical command economy so they weren't trying to achieve an identical system is kinda like saying that Henry VII wasn't a monarchist because he killed all the other claimants to the throne. | There's other forms of socialism, too, where businesses are entirely owned by the workers.
---
Has that ever actually happened anywhere?
It's always turned into authoritarian nightmares. The reason is very simple. The system is highly inept. It can't have fair elections against the private enterprise/free market model. It will get slaughtered. The only way to stay in power is through authoritarianism and a monopoly on ideology. Which is exactly what we see play out time and time again.
---
It's a key part of Vietnam's model. Basically everyone has a mixed system. Nobody has a free market model, although some are closer than others.
---
From what I understand Vietnam much like China took a look at their horrific mess of an economy and introduced a ton of capitalist reforms. They are only socialist in name at this point. Similar to China. China is more like an authoritarian capitalist country than anything else.
"Mixed economy" is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion. You're either aggressive towards private enterprise or you're not. USSR was. Pre-reform China was. North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela still are.
Calling taxation and public services "socialism" is rather silly. And I know that the right does it a lot.
---
China's government owns whole companies that produce goods. That isn't "being aggressive toward private enterprise". It's literally the state owning and running the means of production.
You need to look into the basics. | 1e93m3h | CMV: The Nazis were not socialists or communists even though they endorsed a planned economy | I'm not a history major so maybe I'm wrong. I know that nazis hated communists and worked to violently suppress labor movements. I understand that Nazis organized cartels and monopolies but these were still privately owned. For much of its existence the Nazi state was in a War Economy which necessarily involves lots of government control over production but that was true for other countries and no one accuses the USA of becoming socialist during WW2.
I think of socialism as being state ownership of industry or of all businesses while capitalism is private ownership. I think that's distinct from a free market economy versus a planned economy. A nation with a mostly planned economy but with privately owned companies operating for a profit would still be considered capitalism, IMO.
I'm going to be especially receptive to responses that have citations, quotes, and links back to sources, especially if those sources are available online so they can easily be double checked for context and accuracy. | demonsquidgod | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "locri",
"id": "lebqot2",
"score": 26,
"text": "There's no *ultimate* profit motive in giving businesses to loyal party members, or autarky. If objective metrics like profit and productivity are now second to loyalty, or class/caste status, or even if someone's male or female, then whate... | [
{
"author": "c0i9z",
"id": "lebpd9u",
"score": -4,
"text": "There's other forms of socialism, too, where businesses are entirely owned by the workers.",
"timestamp": 1721616455
},
{
"author": "LapazGracie",
"id": "lebrdb6",
"score": 0,
"text": "Has that ever actually happened... | [
"lebqot2",
"lebxbiv",
"lebyes1",
"lec1ml5",
"lech90j"
] | [
"lebpd9u",
"lebrdb6",
"lebtv50",
"lebu4gg",
"lebun61"
] |
CMV: Leftists shouldn't buy hogwarts legacy.
Hogwarts Legacy is releasing soon and people are pumped, but from a far left perspective I think you will find it hard to justify your purchase. To be clear, it will all depend on your adherence to principles or not. For those of you who claim to be principled leftists explain to me how it benefits your cause, that you buy this game for your own short term pleasure?
If you purchase Hogwarts legacy you are directly economically contributing to the success of somebody you claim to be a "transphobe" and who has the power to directly influence the political future of at least British society in a way you think is negative. The counterargument many give is that a boycott will fail regardless... and? But a principled person would stand by their principles regardless of outcome, ergo you have a choice: directly contribute to the enrichment of somebody you believe is bigoted, or don't. I would love to hear counterarguments from leftists, making the case why it is okay for you to buy this game. | Why does Leftism inherently equate to support of a pro-trans position?
---
I guess I should have specified that then, leftists with progressive social views, which is most leftists.
---
Is it? Furthermore why is it not progressive to support J. K. Rowling? Is she not a strong and influential feminist figure?
---
I am not taking a position, but I would think the broader left especially in the UK and US dislike her, but if you know otherwise feel free to provide that information.
---
I think you are wrong and have just surrounded yourself in some particular spaces.
The only ones who dislike J.K. Rowling are those who get into online fights fight about Trans Related topics. The overwhelming majority of people are positive to neutral of her and only associate her with Harry Potter. | > For those of you who claim to be principled leftists explain to me how it benefits your cause, that you buy this game for your own short term pleasure?
Explain why a principled leftist should purchase *any* game? They all seem like mass produced distractions that allow the capital class to keep the common man busy chasing dopamine hits while they rape and pillage the earth, or something.
---
They shouldn't, leftism is unironically when no society if pushed far enough, but especially not this game as it benefits somebody they think is evil.
---
[removed]
---
[removed]
---
[removed] | 10pa9cd | CMV: Leftists shouldn't buy hogwarts legacy. | Hogwarts Legacy is releasing soon and people are pumped, but from a far left perspective I think you will find it hard to justify your purchase. To be clear, it will all depend on your adherence to principles or not. For those of you who claim to be principled leftists explain to me how it benefits your cause, that you buy this game for your own short term pleasure?
If you purchase Hogwarts legacy you are directly economically contributing to the success of somebody you claim to be a "transphobe" and who has the power to directly influence the political future of at least British society in a way you think is negative. The counterargument many give is that a boycott will fail regardless... and? But a principled person would stand by their principles regardless of outcome, ergo you have a choice: directly contribute to the enrichment of somebody you believe is bigoted, or don't. I would love to hear counterarguments from leftists, making the case why it is okay for you to buy this game. | FlowerTheMate | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "LysenkoistReefer",
"id": "j6j7e13",
"score": 8,
"text": "Why does Leftism inherently equate to support of a pro-trans position?",
"timestamp": 1675104193
},
{
"author": "FlowerTheMate",
"id": "j6j7mb3",
"score": -3,
"text": "I guess I should have specified that t... | [
{
"author": "destro23",
"id": "j6j7jq4",
"score": 6,
"text": "> For those of you who claim to be principled leftists explain to me how it benefits your cause, that you buy this game for your own short term pleasure?\n\nExplain why a principled leftist should purchase *any* game? They all seem like m... | [
"j6j7e13",
"j6j7mb3",
"j6j87qf",
"j6j8msc",
"j6j9t1c"
] | [
"j6j7jq4",
"j6j7s1k",
"j6j8hbh",
"j6j9171",
"j6j9df3"
] |
CMV: You have to have a crush on someone in order to ask him/her to meet somewhere.
For years, I have (and still do) believe that you have to have a crush on someone to ask that person out on a date.
Everyone says that, if I have a crush on a girl, then I should ask her out. And I can see where this is coming from. This would increase my chances of having a relationship with her. Even if no relationship comes as a result, thows that I am confident and not afraid of being rejected. It could also avoid creepy behaviors.
But I have simply interpreted that as, I have to have a crush on a girl in order to ask her out. If I ask a girl if we could meet just for a study session or something, then I'm worried that the girl might think that I have a crush on her, even if I do not and I really just want to advance the friendship and improve my social skills. Also, what if I ask multiple girls if I can simply meet them at a public place just for a friendly hangout? Then I'm worried that I'll be seen as a "player" or someone who has relationships with multiple women at once, even if I do not intend to do so. And it could be weird if the girl already has a boyfriend.
Therefore, it would be better for me to ask a girl out only if I have a crush on her. That way, there would be a clearer difference between my normal, friendly social interaction, and my more romantic moves, and other people would be able to clearly tell the difference between when I like a girl and when I don't.
If you're going on a date with someone, you're meeting with someone. If I ask a girl if I could meet her at a coffee place or whatever simply because I want to be her friend, without any romantic intentions, then, by definition, I am dating this girl, without being in a relationship. If I have a crush on a girl and ask her out to increase my chances of entering a relationship with her, then I am dating her. If I am in a relationship with a girl and I am meeting her to advance that relationship, then I am dating her. The concept is the same, whether I have a crush on a girl or simply for the sake of being friends with her. Me and the girl meet at a coffee place, or restaurant, or the mall, or whatever, and eat and chat and have fun. So, by definition, I am dating a girl in both situations. But wait! I can't date someone without being in a relationship/having a crush on her! Because the point of dates is to advance a romantic relationship! I can't date someone while still being single! So therefore, I should not ask a girl out *for the sake of making friends(* because I wouldn't have a crush on her! I have always thought that dating and romantic relationships were synonymous.
Please change this view. This has limited my potential for social interaction. It feels awkward having to follow such strict rules and it has limited my abilities to talk to people. CMV | Overcomplicating things.
You are basically saying you expect to some how be able to telegraph that the only reason you would ask someone out is because you have a crush on them, therefore, the reason you are asking them out is because you have a crush on them.
Hint: its meant to be complicated (at which you are succeeding wonderfully by the way), daunting, stressful, anxiety riven.
you will have regrets, embarrassing moments and WTF was I thinking. enjoy them for what they are.
To CYV consider this - People are not if, then statements following strict rules. Are you?
---
>Hint: its meant to be complicated (at which you are succeeding wonderfully by the way), daunting, stressful, anxiety riven.
Are you saying that dating/hanging out shouldn't be based on strict guidelines and it's not like a robot that has to follow specific instructions?
---
>Are you saying that dating/hanging out shouldn't be based on strict guidelines and it's not like a robot that has to follow specific instructions?
Do you feel it does? | A pattern I see here is that you're trying to anticipate the other person's response. You don't need to do that! If you want to go on a date with someone, you should ask her out! If you want to hang out platonically, say so! You can even use the word "platonically". If you're unsure, or the other person is unsure, about whether an activity is a date or not, start a conversation about it. It's perfectly normal for people of different genders to hang out, and anyone who sees that as weird is not someone whose opinion you need to be concerned about.
I would also argue that meeting someone at a location doesn't mean it's a date, or if it is a date that it's not necessarily a romantic one. It can just be hanging out - it's only a date if both parties participating in the activity agree that it is!
Also, dating and single are not mutually exclusive. You can be dating people but not further any romantic relationship with them beyond those dates. Single means that you're not committed to anyone in whatever form. Plenty of people who are casually dating, even multiple people, still accurately describe themselves as single.
In short, you don't need to follow these rules. Just talk with people about what they want, and ignore anyone who says they have a blueprint to human interaction. It's all based on what the two (or more) of you decide. Good luck!
---
>A pattern I see here is that you're trying to anticipate the other person's response.
This is what I really needed to hear. If I try to anticipate how people respond, then I become too worried about upsetting them and I start hurting my own chances as a result. If the other person's concerned that I may be romantically pursuing them even if I'm not, I could say that I do not expect a romantic relationship in return.
>It can just be hanging out - it's only a date if both parties participating in the activity agree that it is!
That's also a good point. Dates don't even have to be romantic, from what I'm reading.
>Also, dating and single are not mutually exclusive.
That's also another good point. I could have casual, non-romantic dates with women without being in a committed relationship. Because hanging out with someone casually and being in a fully comnitted relationship are different things.
You deserve a !delta
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/herrsatan ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/herrsatan)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | ms6ifp | CMV: You have to have a crush on someone in order to ask him/her to meet somewhere. | For years, I have (and still do) believe that you have to have a crush on someone to ask that person out on a date.
Everyone says that, if I have a crush on a girl, then I should ask her out. And I can see where this is coming from. This would increase my chances of having a relationship with her. Even if no relationship comes as a result, thows that I am confident and not afraid of being rejected. It could also avoid creepy behaviors.
But I have simply interpreted that as, I have to have a crush on a girl in order to ask her out. If I ask a girl if we could meet just for a study session or something, then I'm worried that the girl might think that I have a crush on her, even if I do not and I really just want to advance the friendship and improve my social skills. Also, what if I ask multiple girls if I can simply meet them at a public place just for a friendly hangout? Then I'm worried that I'll be seen as a "player" or someone who has relationships with multiple women at once, even if I do not intend to do so. And it could be weird if the girl already has a boyfriend.
Therefore, it would be better for me to ask a girl out only if I have a crush on her. That way, there would be a clearer difference between my normal, friendly social interaction, and my more romantic moves, and other people would be able to clearly tell the difference between when I like a girl and when I don't.
If you're going on a date with someone, you're meeting with someone. If I ask a girl if I could meet her at a coffee place or whatever simply because I want to be her friend, without any romantic intentions, then, by definition, I am dating this girl, without being in a relationship. If I have a crush on a girl and ask her out to increase my chances of entering a relationship with her, then I am dating her. If I am in a relationship with a girl and I am meeting her to advance that relationship, then I am dating her. The concept is the same, whether I have a crush on a girl or simply for the sake of being friends with her. Me and the girl meet at a coffee place, or restaurant, or the mall, or whatever, and eat and chat and have fun. So, by definition, I am dating a girl in both situations. But wait! I can't date someone without being in a relationship/having a crush on her! Because the point of dates is to advance a romantic relationship! I can't date someone while still being single! So therefore, I should not ask a girl out *for the sake of making friends(* because I wouldn't have a crush on her! I have always thought that dating and romantic relationships were synonymous.
Please change this view. This has limited my potential for social interaction. It feels awkward having to follow such strict rules and it has limited my abilities to talk to people. CMV | CEO_Of_Rejection_99 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Quirky-Alternative97",
"id": "guqpfg6",
"score": 1,
"text": "Overcomplicating things.\n\nYou are basically saying you expect to some how be able to telegraph that the only reason you would ask someone out is because you have a crush on them, therefore, the reason you are asking them out... | [
{
"author": "herrsatan",
"id": "guqo4m0",
"score": 5,
"text": "A pattern I see here is that you're trying to anticipate the other person's response. You don't need to do that! If you want to go on a date with someone, you should ask her out! If you want to hang out platonically, say so! You can even... | [
"guqpfg6",
"guqrbd8",
"guqrrxy"
] | [
"guqo4m0",
"guqq94d",
"guqqbqd"
] |
CMV: American culture is essentially consumerism
I was born in South Asia, but immigrated to the US as a tween. I've also spent a good portion (~3 years) of my life in Europe split between France and the UK.
When someone asks about South Asian culture, I talk about the colorful religious festivals, South Asian food like Biryani, curry, chutneys, etc., and strong familial ties - which is not all universally positive given just how involved parents, and extended family tends to be in each others' lives, but it's definitely a cultural theme.
When you picture the culture of France for example, the images that come to mind are a culture of artists, authors, chefs, and local artisans, bakers, cheesemongers, etc. The quintessential French festival is Bastille Day, which celebrates the famous French revolution. To this day, the French labor movement is so strong that the nation pretty much grinds to a halt when they tried to raise the retirement age.
However, when someone asks me what _American culture_ is, I can't think of anything that is not based in consumerism.
The food that America is known for internationally is just mass produced fast food, soda, and cheap beer. The cultural events of prominence are Super Bowl, July 4th, Thanksgiving + Black Friday, and Christmas.
Every single one of these events revolve around consumption. E.g. Super Bowl is about 60 minutes of actual game with about 2.5 hours of commercials. Thanksgiving and Black Friday are about just as known for being retail holidays as they are for the purported celebration of the pilgrims being welcomed by the natives (which is already a significant amount of whitewashing to begin with).
Christmas too is primarily about gift giving and opening the said gifts.
One area where I do think America has produced significant cultural value is movies, and music. Hollywood and American music dominate globally, but outside of these two things, I cannot point to anything other than consumerism as being America's culture. | Hollywood? Broadway? Satirical cartoons like Homer Simpson and such?
What about jeans, and affordable brands like Old Navy, etc.? What about discount shoppers like WalMart, Dollarama, McDonalds, etc.?
It's not as traditional, but it is culture nonetheless. We're just so used to it we don't really see it as such anymore.
---
I already called out Hollywood and Pop Music. They are global influences. That's an area I'm willing to concede.
Broadway is just theatre, which has existed for about 2 millenia before Broadway even existed.
> What about jeans, and affordable brands like Old Navy, etc.? What about discount shoppers like WalMart, Dollarama, McDonalds, etc.?
This is what I mean by consumerism. You basically just named 5 corporations. Corporations != culture. No matter how much we would like for it to be.
---
Broadway is not “just theatre.” Broadway created the [American Musical](https://www.sutori.com/en/story/a-history-of-american-musical-theatre--aUH6hqrWo1S2eYXx3vseptrk) which has been exported to almost every country around the world. Broadway and the rest of US theatre is unique and undoubtedly one of the US’ biggest cultural exports. | >The food that America is known for internationally is just mass produced fast food, soda, and cheap beer.
[BBQ, and all of it's variations](https://www.tastingtable.com/695400/styles-american-bbq-barbecue/) is neither mass produced nor fast.
Edit:
>Super Bowl, July 4th, Thanksgiving + Black Friday, and Christmas.
>Every single one of these events revolve around consumption. E.g. Super Bowl is about 60 minutes of actual game with about 2.5 hours of commercials. Thanksgiving and Black Friday are about just as known for being retail holidays as they are for the purported celebration of the pilgrims being welcomed by the natives (which is already a significant amount of whitewashing to begin with).
You pointed to the 4th as revolving around consumption, but when listing examples of how you left off the 4th. I'd say it isn't about consumption at all. It is about, *FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!!!!". Consumption is just a handy by-product of living in a capitalist dystopia.
---
I can't figure out exactly what we consume on the Fourth? OMG we eat food?
---
Fireworks and Budweiser? | 10p9suy | CMV: American culture is essentially consumerism | I was born in South Asia, but immigrated to the US as a tween. I've also spent a good portion (~3 years) of my life in Europe split between France and the UK.
When someone asks about South Asian culture, I talk about the colorful religious festivals, South Asian food like Biryani, curry, chutneys, etc., and strong familial ties - which is not all universally positive given just how involved parents, and extended family tends to be in each others' lives, but it's definitely a cultural theme.
When you picture the culture of France for example, the images that come to mind are a culture of artists, authors, chefs, and local artisans, bakers, cheesemongers, etc. The quintessential French festival is Bastille Day, which celebrates the famous French revolution. To this day, the French labor movement is so strong that the nation pretty much grinds to a halt when they tried to raise the retirement age.
However, when someone asks me what _American culture_ is, I can't think of anything that is not based in consumerism.
The food that America is known for internationally is just mass produced fast food, soda, and cheap beer. The cultural events of prominence are Super Bowl, July 4th, Thanksgiving + Black Friday, and Christmas.
Every single one of these events revolve around consumption. E.g. Super Bowl is about 60 minutes of actual game with about 2.5 hours of commercials. Thanksgiving and Black Friday are about just as known for being retail holidays as they are for the purported celebration of the pilgrims being welcomed by the natives (which is already a significant amount of whitewashing to begin with).
Christmas too is primarily about gift giving and opening the said gifts.
One area where I do think America has produced significant cultural value is movies, and music. Hollywood and American music dominate globally, but outside of these two things, I cannot point to anything other than consumerism as being America's culture. | SiliconValleyIdiot | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "j6j4vtd",
"score": 11,
"text": "Hollywood? Broadway? Satirical cartoons like Homer Simpson and such?\n\nWhat about jeans, and affordable brands like Old Navy, etc.? What about discount shoppers like WalMart, Dollarama, McDonalds, etc.? \n\n\nIt's not as traditional, b... | [
{
"author": "destro23",
"id": "j6j5kti",
"score": 0,
"text": ">The food that America is known for internationally is just mass produced fast food, soda, and cheap beer. \n\n[BBQ, and all of it's variations](https://www.tastingtable.com/695400/styles-american-bbq-barbecue/) is neither mass produced n... | [
"j6j4vtd",
"j6j610p",
"j6ja9pn"
] | [
"j6j5kti",
"j6j7gz7",
"j6j7r38"
] |
CMV: Cocaine is a bad drug and I don't condone the usage of it.
I grew up in a household where drugs in general were taboo. Alcohol was the exception of course. Recently, I've been curious about cocaine, but the thought of doing it makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I see it as something that's potentially highly addictive, makes you forget your actions have consequences, can lead to foolish decisions when with people, and can be the catalyst for infidelity.
That last point may mainly be from me having trust issues of the opposite sex which in turn makes me feel insecure, but I know the drug makes you horny.
Help me change my view. | ...are you asking for someone to convince you that cocaine is a good thing that you SHOULD be using?
---
Not at all. I just know that I have a really negative view on it and want someone to shed some light on why people might use it.
---
>want someone to shed some light on why people might use it.
Nasal Cauterization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Medical | I really just want some insight as to why people would do it and what's so fun about it, not necessarily to convince me that it's "good" per say.
---
It's enjoyable and makes you feel good. It's not as intoxicating as alcohol so you don't lose your control, it lasts a shorter time so you aren't forced to be intoxicated for long and the hangover is less than alcohol
---
Taking those points into consideration, the short duration just makes people use it repeatedly. Additionally, does it make you more impulsive? Or do you still have some semblance of control? | 691bvx | CMV: Cocaine is a bad drug and I don't condone the usage of it. | I grew up in a household where drugs in general were taboo. Alcohol was the exception of course. Recently, I've been curious about cocaine, but the thought of doing it makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I see it as something that's potentially highly addictive, makes you forget your actions have consequences, can lead to foolish decisions when with people, and can be the catalyst for infidelity.
That last point may mainly be from me having trust issues of the opposite sex which in turn makes me feel insecure, but I know the drug makes you horny.
Help me change my view. | ReclusiveNature | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "scottevil110",
"id": "dh2whq1",
"score": 2,
"text": "...are you asking for someone to convince you that cocaine is a good thing that you SHOULD be using?",
"timestamp": 1493828258
},
{
"author": "ReclusiveNature",
"id": "dh2wmo1",
"score": 2,
"text": "Not at all.... | [
{
"author": "ReclusiveNature",
"id": "dh2x28n",
"score": 1,
"text": "I really just want some insight as to why people would do it and what's so fun about it, not necessarily to convince me that it's \"good\" per say.",
"timestamp": 1493828868
},
{
"author": "Fizzy_T",
"id": "dh2z8t0"... | [
"dh2whq1",
"dh2wmo1",
"dh2xp28"
] | [
"dh2x28n",
"dh2z8t0",
"dh2zxyu"
] |
CMV: Cocaine is a bad drug and I don't condone the usage of it.
I grew up in a household where drugs in general were taboo. Alcohol was the exception of course. Recently, I've been curious about cocaine, but the thought of doing it makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I see it as something that's potentially highly addictive, makes you forget your actions have consequences, can lead to foolish decisions when with people, and can be the catalyst for infidelity.
That last point may mainly be from me having trust issues of the opposite sex which in turn makes me feel insecure, but I know the drug makes you horny.
Help me change my view. | I really just want some insight as to why people would do it and what's so fun about it, not necessarily to convince me that it's "good" per say.
---
It's enjoyable and makes you feel good. It's not as intoxicating as alcohol so you don't lose your control, it lasts a shorter time so you aren't forced to be intoxicated for long and the hangover is less than alcohol
---
Taking those points into consideration, the short duration just makes people use it repeatedly. Additionally, does it make you more impulsive? Or do you still have some semblance of control?
---
Like alcohol you lose disinhibitions and can completely do so if you take enough. but generally no it doesn't make you a drug addled zombie with no control.
It gives a sense of confidence and euphoria and so yes does make you impulsive.
People will tend to do it repeatedly because it lasts a short amount of time, though this is very often limited by the price.
Also the comedown phase can be terrible. Most people know recreational drugs are bad for them and moderate accordingly. The number of cocaine addicts is dwarfed by the number of people who will take it recreational every now and then.
| ...are you asking for someone to convince you that cocaine is a good thing that you SHOULD be using?
---
Not at all. I just know that I have a really negative view on it and want someone to shed some light on why people might use it.
---
good luck with this one... everyone that uses it knows its bad for you and its a mistake - but the cognitive dissonance of the short term pleasure overrides the person's ability to behave as they know they should. There's no one smoking crack or shooting H that thinks they are making positive life choices.
---
[deleted] | 691bvx | CMV: Cocaine is a bad drug and I don't condone the usage of it. | I grew up in a household where drugs in general were taboo. Alcohol was the exception of course. Recently, I've been curious about cocaine, but the thought of doing it makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I see it as something that's potentially highly addictive, makes you forget your actions have consequences, can lead to foolish decisions when with people, and can be the catalyst for infidelity.
That last point may mainly be from me having trust issues of the opposite sex which in turn makes me feel insecure, but I know the drug makes you horny.
Help me change my view. | ReclusiveNature | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "ReclusiveNature",
"id": "dh2x28n",
"score": 1,
"text": "I really just want some insight as to why people would do it and what's so fun about it, not necessarily to convince me that it's \"good\" per say.",
"timestamp": 1493828868
},
{
"author": "Fizzy_T",
"id": "dh2z8t0"... | [
{
"author": "scottevil110",
"id": "dh2whq1",
"score": 2,
"text": "...are you asking for someone to convince you that cocaine is a good thing that you SHOULD be using?",
"timestamp": 1493828258
},
{
"author": "ReclusiveNature",
"id": "dh2wmo1",
"score": 2,
"text": "Not at all.... | [
"dh2x28n",
"dh2z8t0",
"dh2zxyu",
"dh30a6c"
] | [
"dh2whq1",
"dh2wmo1",
"dh2wrqv",
"dh2wxvu"
] |
CMV: non-vegetarians are sick people.
i know this might sound problematic but how can someone eat something which was once living. i know plants are living too and this must be sounding like another vegan motto but no im just amazed that these non veggies are so widely accepted in our society they're i mean, how are they better than cannibals? putting humans on a pedestal above other animals is itself so sick. im open to opinions i want to change this one too but i just cant get over that people eat such cute animals.
also we cant eradicate them ik but there should be like a limit on people who just eat it for fun, their fun involves killings and thats not very nice. | It is the way of nature. Are animals eating other animals wrong? If so then they would all die out. If not then why is it wrong for humans? If you think eating other living things are wrong and you also think plants are living things but eating plans is okay then that just means you're a hypocrite.
---
well, we're humans for a reason arent we. we have a logical brain to think rationally of what is good and what is bad. a wild example but rape is also a very common thing in the animal kingdom you can search it up be it ducks or whatever but we have got brains to understand that this is sick and not something to be done. similarly we should apply some little common sense here too.
and coming to your plant point- Given that plants do not have pain receptors, nerves, or a brain, they do not feel pain as we members of the animal kingdom understand it. Uprooting a carrot or trimming a hedge is not a form of botanical torture.
---
>putting humans on a pedestal above other animals is itself so sick
>we're humans for a reason arent we. we have a logical brain to think rationally
Choose one. Why do you despise the idea of people are above animals in some sense when it comes to eating meat, but perfectly fine when applying rationality, stressing that we have better brains, and using common sense? Why the double standards?
>but we have got brains to understand that this is sick and not something to be done
This was about r*pe. Why is it you that gets to decide which is right and which is wrong? Maybe the ducks and other animals got it right and it is fine. Just because you are a human, doesn't mean you are better than animals, or are you again putting human on a pedestal above animals?
This was just a theoretical example, of course I condemn r*pe, but I'm just questioning why do you perfectly accept that the humans got it right, but when eating animals, human made the wrong dicision
>Given that plants do not have pain receptors, nerves, or a brain, they do not feel pain
Ah, I know of the time when not so long ago, people were adamant that 'animals can't feel pain, they're animals' so boiling alive for food, and beating them was perfectly fine. Then the scientific consensus was made that actually they feel pain, as it is probably the most primal feeling. I am pretty sure plants and fungi will eventually get this recognition. Of course I don't know if they can feel pain yet, but learning from that past mistake, it does have a significant chance of being true.
But even if plants don't feel pain, why is it prefectly fine to kill them in your eyes, but not animals? Both are living things, and you take away their lives. Just because you can more relate to a cows emotions of sadness on their face or in their voice, doesn't make killing plants that better. If we somehow using a syringe give animals a drug that they won't ever feel pain, then I guess we are fine killimg them, since they don't feel pain? | are all omnivorous and carnivorous animals (and plants, for the few that count) also sufficiently "sick" to you? if not, are you not putting humans on a pedestal above those life forms, just in a different manner?
---
they're animals, we're not above them- we're just different. we do not apply human laws to them. we are different in the sense we can think. they need to eat to survive. how many humans would die if we ban meat for a week?
---
>we do not apply human laws to them. we are different in the sense we can think.
certainly seems like we're sufficiently different in such a manner that puts us above them | 17hhf47 | CMV: non-vegetarians are sick people. | i know this might sound problematic but how can someone eat something which was once living. i know plants are living too and this must be sounding like another vegan motto but no im just amazed that these non veggies are so widely accepted in our society they're i mean, how are they better than cannibals? putting humans on a pedestal above other animals is itself so sick. im open to opinions i want to change this one too but i just cant get over that people eat such cute animals.
also we cant eradicate them ik but there should be like a limit on people who just eat it for fun, their fun involves killings and thats not very nice. | fookyfooker | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "dropitinshort",
"id": "k6nevss",
"score": 8,
"text": "It is the way of nature. Are animals eating other animals wrong? If so then they would all die out. If not then why is it wrong for humans? If you think eating other living things are wrong and you also think plants are living th... | [
{
"author": "PokemonGoDie",
"id": "k6ney3v",
"score": 14,
"text": "are all omnivorous and carnivorous animals (and plants, for the few that count) also sufficiently \"sick\" to you? if not, are you not putting humans on a pedestal above those life forms, just in a different manner?",
"timestamp"... | [
"k6nevss",
"k6nf7ll",
"k6nh4qs"
] | [
"k6ney3v",
"k6nfj1w",
"k6nftdu"
] |
CMV: Increased sexual perversion (relative to the porn we watch) is the natural consequence of the over-consumption of porn.
As my title states, I believe people's tastes and fantasies generally become more perverse and kinky the more they consume porn.
Just like one's tastes in automobiles or food become more refined as they immerse themselves in the study and gratification of those subjects, so does one's proclivities for porn.
The hedonic treadmill is a psychological observation that asserts that humans quickly return to a stable level of contentment in reaction to positive or negative life changes; I believe this translates over to the things we consume and enjoy as well.
While seeing bare chests as pre-teens is exciting, we quickly become desensitized to the visiual images as we become more and more exposed to it. As we grow bored of these stimulations, we move to seek out and attain that same level of excitement and enjoyment we found at the start.
As such, our tastes evolve (or de-evolve) as we dive deeper into niche categories and kinks. We eventually grow tired of those things, and grow to seek out even more niche & interesting turn-ons or fetishes.
Please, change my view! | With the amount of porn available in a few clicks today, wouldn't literally anyone who's ever watched porn (what, 95% of the adult population?) be into the weirdest kinks? Wouldn't scat and vore and whatever else is out there be completely mainstream? If every porn user forever would continue to be unsatisfied and seek out new stuff.
---
>wouldn't literally anyone who's ever watched porn
I'm specifically talking about people who over-consume porn. While a good majority of people certainly enjoy porn on a semi-regular basis, I don't believe a significant portion of them are "addicted" or over-consume porn in an unhealthy way.
---
>I'm specifically talking about people who over-consume porn. While a good majority of people certainly enjoy porn on a semi-regular basis, I don't believe a significant portion of them are "addicted" or over-consume porn in an unhealthy way.
Just to make sure I'm on the same page: you're suggesting that increased sexual perversion is a consequence of over-consumption of (or addiction to) porn. But correlation isn't causation. How do you know that those who over-consume porn are not inherently more sexually "perverse" (however that's defined) than average and; therefore, consume more porn than average to "get their fix" (so-to-speak)? Because if that's the case, then the over-consumption of porn is not necessarily an indicator of increased sexual perversion; but rather, an indicator that a higher-than-average sexual drive results in over-consumption of porn. | Weird kinks aren't just like regular sexual attraction but "more." They're WEIRD.
That's why they call fetishes "paraphilia." They're "para." They're ALONGSIDE sexual attraction; they're not somehow the ultimate conclusion of attraction.
---
Are you arguing that people can like weird kinky stuff and normal stuff at the same time? If so, I agree with you.
However, exposure to more porn is likely to expose you (as a consequence) to kinkier porn.
---
No, I'm saying balloon porn, or whatever, isn't "more" than 'vanilla' porn. People don't seek out balloon porn because they don't get a thrill from regular ol' sex anymore. | ani2lk | CMV: Increased sexual perversion (relative to the porn we watch) is the natural consequence of the over-consumption of porn. | As my title states, I believe people's tastes and fantasies generally become more perverse and kinky the more they consume porn.
Just like one's tastes in automobiles or food become more refined as they immerse themselves in the study and gratification of those subjects, so does one's proclivities for porn.
The hedonic treadmill is a psychological observation that asserts that humans quickly return to a stable level of contentment in reaction to positive or negative life changes; I believe this translates over to the things we consume and enjoy as well.
While seeing bare chests as pre-teens is exciting, we quickly become desensitized to the visiual images as we become more and more exposed to it. As we grow bored of these stimulations, we move to seek out and attain that same level of excitement and enjoyment we found at the start.
As such, our tastes evolve (or de-evolve) as we dive deeper into niche categories and kinks. We eventually grow tired of those things, and grow to seek out even more niche & interesting turn-ons or fetishes.
Please, change my view! | UNRThrowAway | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Moluwuchan",
"id": "efth7rg",
"score": 11,
"text": "With the amount of porn available in a few clicks today, wouldn't literally anyone who's ever watched porn (what, 95% of the adult population?) be into the weirdest kinks? Wouldn't scat and vore and whatever else is out there be comple... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "efthont",
"score": 0,
"text": "Weird kinks aren't just like regular sexual attraction but \"more.\" They're WEIRD.\n\nThat's why they call fetishes \"paraphilia.\" They're \"para.\" They're ALONGSIDE sexual attraction; they're not somehow the ultimate conclusio... | [
"efth7rg",
"efthgcs",
"eftki92"
] | [
"efthont",
"efthtwn",
"eftigmp"
] |
CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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!* | Unlike horoscopes, MBTI results are not attempting to predict the future; they're merely reflecting the personality that you presented with on the day you took the test. I've found it interesting, personally, though not earth shattering or anything. I've also always tested as the exact same type every time. But I would hope that no one is taking the results so seriously that it's affecting their work or their relationships. It's just a personality test.
---
The [people in charge](https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx) of the exam claim it can make predictive claims. Here are some of the claims they make:
**Team development**—helps ease communication among team members, identify team strengths and weaknesses, and create action plans for improved performance
**Leadership development**—deepens leaders’ understanding of their personality type and the types of those they are leading to help them manage better, give more meaningful feedback, and improve individual and team performance
**Conflict management**—improves skills in identifying sources of conflict and intervening early to prevent underperformance, disruption, and disengagement
**Stress management**—builds resilience, increases productivity, and offers strategies for identifying and managing stress triggers
**Career transition and planning**—helps guide individuals on career choice, development, and management
I know multiple people who take their MBTI seriously and change their life based on this. I know someone who actually discriminates based on MBTI type. It is absurd.
Some businesses utilize MBTI to make hiring decisions. This is very dangerous.
---
The methodology and the grouping may be flawed - but when it comes to everything you listed understanding people's personality is critical in every regard.
I've run numerous businesses and managed groups from 2 to as many as 30. The success of any business is determined by its members. Unfortunately managing people is the hardest part of business, and good management means understanding how and why people act how they do then catering to that.
Now whether I have a fancy test and label for a group is irrelevant. Working with people you quickly learn their personality, and if you make no attempts to work around it and put them in groups or situations that don't suit them you'll get a worse return than if you had considered it.
None of this is meant to justify MBTI, but it thoroughly refutes your assumption that knowing people's personality cannot help predict how they will function in a work environment. Because it absolutely does. Therefore if we just for a moment assumed MBTI was perfect, it could very well help with every item you listed.
Lastly, why is anyone taking an online questionnaire seriously in the first place???
---
I never claimed that understanding personality can't help organize teams and effectively manage. I claim that MBTI can't do that, and in fact might do exactly the opposite.
People take it seriously because there is more than an online questionnaire. There is a multi-million dollar industry involving the administration and consultation of the exams. The CPP is treated by many businesses as a valid organization which offers consultation services. And on an individual level, when they are told to believe that Myers Briggs is a real thing, they form their identity around their type. When this happens, it becomes hard to convince people to critically evaluate it.
---
Like anything it can be good and bad; it all depends on how you treat it. One of the things it can be great for is those searching for a career path. While not binding, if you're looking for ideas it can be really helpful to articulate how you think/behave and compare that to others who think/behave similarly. If you see they generally find happiness in a particular or variety of fields, perhaps you will too. None of it is a guarantee, but it can certainly help in providing a guideline.
As long as you treat it as what it is: a research opportunity and a way to learn more about yourself, then it is nothing but constructive. When you take it as gospel you have a problem.
---
The question is, does it help people articulate how they think/behave compared to others or does it hamper it? If you can demonstrate that it helps, it can change my view.
---
Not Op. I would argue that it, and other similar tests, help. I have done a few such tests at work with various coworkers and the benefit we get out of it is that it provides everyone with a starting point to discuss personality traits that they may or may not have in a more open way. The facilitators have always stressed that you should cross out things that you honestly disagree with and that the results only show more dominant tendencies, which may change over time or under stress, and the findings are definitely generic in that many people will find they apply, like a horoscope.
However, seeing what findingshe resonate as difficult truths give the group an opening to discuss those traits and communication techniques to handle them. It now is permissible to say "Hey, Alice does not like to be interrupted often with questions so how can she and the team be aware of and handle this preference" without someone having to say "Alice, why are you so rude when we ask you questions?"
So it is really a tool that facilitates those conversations, nothing more.
| I am not going to argue that it is hard science, as I am in no way informed enough for that. However, I don't think it belongs in the same category as horoscopes. It takes things at *least* a step further by actually asking you questions about yourself.
Horoscopes simply lump you into a category based on when you were born and say, "everyone born in this chunk of time is the same."
I would also say the questions alone give it *some* value as a self-diagnostic tool to be taken with a grain of salt.
---
As far as I can tell, despite the questions, the assessment is rather arbitrary as people tend to answer in similar ways. Most individual types like "thinking" or "feeling" are unicamerally distributed. Because of this, most people are only one or two questions away from the opposite type. It isn't really a predictor of anything.
Just because it has some theoretical input from a human doesn't mean that it is a useful predictor tool. People decide their hair length, but that doesn't mean that can be used as a self-diagnostic tool.
---
> unicameral
You keep using this word, and the only definition I can find in google refers to legislative or judiciary chambers. In psychology, the only reference I can see is to Julian Jaynes' Bicameralism, which borrowed the judiciary meaning as an analogy, makes no mention of unicamerilism and by my reading, is largely debunked. I can't work out how to get anything germane from "single-chamber relationship" or "single chamber distribution". Could you please explain what you mean when you use this word?
---
I think it's being used as the opposite of bimodal, here. Essentially, MBTI predicts (kinda) that each personality dimension has two peaks in the distribution - that there are lots of Thinking people, and lots of Feeling people, but not many people in between (which allows you to distinguish T/F). In practice, though, most people are approximately in the middle, which means that MBTI personalities are less of "types" and more like "continuous deviations from an average".
---
Another related but alternative view of OP's intent in using the terms bicameral/unicameral relates to MBTI dimensions being "dichotomous", that is, sliding scales between between two things that are considered opposites. (Each dimension, however, is considered to be orthogonal to the others.)
The OP's objection, as it relates to the use of the term bicameral and unicameral, appears to me to be that the ends of the dichotomies are not, in fact, extremes of the same dimension. That Sensing is not the opposite of iNtuitive; or that Judging is not the opposite of Perceiving, and so on. That these qualities can stand individually, and a person could score high on both (which, presumably, would be shown in an MBTI analysis as being centred on that dichotomy, which would not be the same thing). This particular point is a reasonable one for discussion, and one I have considered from time to time. I am considering a response to the original post, so I'll stop this comment here having given my take on the (incorrect but well intentioned) terminology.
---
I didn't intend it in this way, but this is a good point. This has changed my view somewhat, in that my current standing on MBTI is a little stronger. Is it proper to award deltas to people who changed your view by making it stronger?
---
If someone has changed your view, even a little bit, that's a delta. | 68xs9v | CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes | The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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!* | MegaZeroX7 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "AlveolarFricatives",
"id": "dh26v7k",
"score": 154,
"text": "Unlike horoscopes, MBTI results are not attempting to predict the future; they're merely reflecting the personality that you presented with on the day you took the test. I've found it interesting, personally, though not earth ... | [
{
"author": "Gummy_Venus",
"id": "dh272ey",
"score": 56,
"text": "I am not going to argue that it is hard science, as I am in no way informed enough for that. However, I don't think it belongs in the same category as horoscopes. It takes things at *least* a step further by actually asking you questi... | [
"dh26v7k",
"dh27gsb",
"dh2d4hq",
"dh2k266",
"dh2mzyr",
"dh2nqfj",
"dh2pgbt"
] | [
"dh272ey",
"dh27s69",
"dh2espg",
"dh2gtgx",
"dh2hw1u",
"dh2kff0",
"dh2kxat"
] |
CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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!* | Unlike horoscopes, MBTI results are not attempting to predict the future; they're merely reflecting the personality that you presented with on the day you took the test. I've found it interesting, personally, though not earth shattering or anything. I've also always tested as the exact same type every time. But I would hope that no one is taking the results so seriously that it's affecting their work or their relationships. It's just a personality test.
---
The [people in charge](https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx) of the exam claim it can make predictive claims. Here are some of the claims they make:
**Team development**—helps ease communication among team members, identify team strengths and weaknesses, and create action plans for improved performance
**Leadership development**—deepens leaders’ understanding of their personality type and the types of those they are leading to help them manage better, give more meaningful feedback, and improve individual and team performance
**Conflict management**—improves skills in identifying sources of conflict and intervening early to prevent underperformance, disruption, and disengagement
**Stress management**—builds resilience, increases productivity, and offers strategies for identifying and managing stress triggers
**Career transition and planning**—helps guide individuals on career choice, development, and management
I know multiple people who take their MBTI seriously and change their life based on this. I know someone who actually discriminates based on MBTI type. It is absurd.
Some businesses utilize MBTI to make hiring decisions. This is very dangerous.
---
MBTI presents a famework that groups people into divided ranges of personality. While it's likely someone may be on the edge with respect to any given trait, typecasting can nevertheless be helpful. The human brain is constantly looking for shortcuts to better interpret information, and stereotypes are commonly used to cut down on mental sleuthing. MBTI cuts down on stereotypes by presenting a number of possible strengths and weaknesses someone is more likely to have. Otherwise, it would take someone much longer to observe these traits in someone. Of course, an individual will never 100% fit any type as people are far too unique.
---
Can you provide me any legitimate experiment which showed that MBTI results have indicated anything about someone's personality? You claim that it is helpful. I need actual proof of this.
---
This tool has been used in organizations for decades, and my family even used it around the dinner table to embarrass each other.
Most of us have been aware that there are concerns about it's legitimacy - in fact every time I have encountered it, there has been a disclaimer.
As you said, it seems to operate much the way horoscopes do, in that there is descriptive text that sometimes provides insights into our character. I learned that I'm an introvert with great social skills, and whether that conclusion was truly a result of solid science, doesn't matter to me, because it feels right and explains a lot.
I think when we use it, we often find nuggets of insight, and then we hone in on those and use those insights to help us as we move through our lives. Almost like a Rorschach test. We find our own truth in those questionnaires and we might even project that truth into the findings of the questionnaire.
You could say the MBTI is a sort of psychological placebo, which actually does, at times, reveal insights about our character. | MBTI isn't that useful, but it's quick and easy to do, it's easy to understand the results, there are lots of online resources about it. It's a really easy way to introduce people to the idea that there are different personalities. Take the introversion/extroversion idea. Before MBTI became popular, people just assumed that some people were fun sociable winners and some people were losers. MBTI helped recast this idea in a different light. It's not good or bad anymore, it's about small differences in people's preferences and personality.
Horoscopes also used to serve this function, but not as well. as MBTI. Horoscopes use the idea of different personality types, but they are all based on the month or year you were born. The Chinese Zodiac give the impression that everyone born in a given year has the same personality. Furthermore, horoscopes offer an inherently false predictive power. You are a Libra so X will happen to you tomorrow. MBTI doesn't do either of that.
MBTI doesn't stand up to real academic rigor, but neither does most mainstream pop psychology. And it's certainly better than horoscopes. Buzzfeed isn't as good as the Wall Street Journal, but it's significantly better than Infowars. As long as you don't take MBTI too seriously, it's fine.
---
The problem is that a lot of people *do* take it seriously. I know someone who always talks about their MBTI type and how it relates to their own actions and others. They will go on about how great "intuitives" are, and talk about how ENTJ often make "evil" leaders. They will use MBTI to make predictions about their future actions. This is a person who is in a position to make dramatic changes to my life.
The fact of the matter is that businesses don't use horoscopes as they know it is nonsense. However, many businesses still use Myers-Briggs. Implicitly, they may choose not to hire someone based on something that has the same predictive power has a horoscope.
---
Ironically, people who promote horoscopes tell you they are true, and most people don't believe them. Meanwhile, the MBTI Manual explicitly says that MBTI measures preferences, not ability, and should not be used in predicting job success. Yet people use it that way anyways.
If someone is purposefully misleading someone else, that's wrong. But I don't think it's fair to blame someone for someone else's mistakes, especially when the first person explicitly warned them in advance.
---
Given that [CPP's official website](https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx), from what I can tell, seems to advertise that it can help businesses determine cooperation and career transitions, it makes sense that businesses would use it as advertised and determine teams and hireability based upon it.
---
Sometimes businesses will look into general personality traits of their applicants in addition to their abilities. | 68xs9v | CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes | The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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!* | MegaZeroX7 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "AlveolarFricatives",
"id": "dh26v7k",
"score": 154,
"text": "Unlike horoscopes, MBTI results are not attempting to predict the future; they're merely reflecting the personality that you presented with on the day you took the test. I've found it interesting, personally, though not earth ... | [
{
"author": "McKoijion",
"id": "dh26tgl",
"score": 23,
"text": "MBTI isn't that useful, but it's quick and easy to do, it's easy to understand the results, there are lots of online resources about it. It's a really easy way to introduce people to the idea that there are different personalities. Take... | [
"dh26v7k",
"dh27gsb",
"dh2d03s",
"dh2k4ru",
"dh2m94x"
] | [
"dh26tgl",
"dh278sv",
"dh27miu",
"dh282hu",
"dh29oum"
] |
CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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 am not going to argue that it is hard science, as I am in no way informed enough for that. However, I don't think it belongs in the same category as horoscopes. It takes things at *least* a step further by actually asking you questions about yourself.
Horoscopes simply lump you into a category based on when you were born and say, "everyone born in this chunk of time is the same."
I would also say the questions alone give it *some* value as a self-diagnostic tool to be taken with a grain of salt.
---
As far as I can tell, despite the questions, the assessment is rather arbitrary as people tend to answer in similar ways. Most individual types like "thinking" or "feeling" are unicamerally distributed. Because of this, most people are only one or two questions away from the opposite type. It isn't really a predictor of anything.
Just because it has some theoretical input from a human doesn't mean that it is a useful predictor tool. People decide their hair length, but that doesn't mean that can be used as a self-diagnostic tool.
---
> unicameral
You keep using this word, and the only definition I can find in google refers to legislative or judiciary chambers. In psychology, the only reference I can see is to Julian Jaynes' Bicameralism, which borrowed the judiciary meaning as an analogy, makes no mention of unicamerilism and by my reading, is largely debunked. I can't work out how to get anything germane from "single-chamber relationship" or "single chamber distribution". Could you please explain what you mean when you use this word?
---
I think it's being used as the opposite of bimodal, here. Essentially, MBTI predicts (kinda) that each personality dimension has two peaks in the distribution - that there are lots of Thinking people, and lots of Feeling people, but not many people in between (which allows you to distinguish T/F). In practice, though, most people are approximately in the middle, which means that MBTI personalities are less of "types" and more like "continuous deviations from an average".
---
Another related but alternative view of OP's intent in using the terms bicameral/unicameral relates to MBTI dimensions being "dichotomous", that is, sliding scales between between two things that are considered opposites. (Each dimension, however, is considered to be orthogonal to the others.)
The OP's objection, as it relates to the use of the term bicameral and unicameral, appears to me to be that the ends of the dichotomies are not, in fact, extremes of the same dimension. That Sensing is not the opposite of iNtuitive; or that Judging is not the opposite of Perceiving, and so on. That these qualities can stand individually, and a person could score high on both (which, presumably, would be shown in an MBTI analysis as being centred on that dichotomy, which would not be the same thing). This particular point is a reasonable one for discussion, and one I have considered from time to time. I am considering a response to the original post, so I'll stop this comment here having given my take on the (incorrect but well intentioned) terminology.
| The usefulness of MB isn't in the results but in the administration. It's a good thing in that it gets people thinking about their own motivations and ways, and those of others. Just going through the motions spurs people to consider that other people don't look at things the same way, that they have different ways of going about the world.
The assay results themselves are, scientifically speaking, garbage. _Talking about_ the results, and especially the fact that people have their own perspective which might differ from your own, is beneficial.
---
But there seems to be a dangerous line there. You say that it is useful in that it gets people to talk about their results, which means they talk about their personality differences, which is beneficial.
However, if they are using MBTI results to springboard a discussion on personality, doesn't it, you know, make sense that they might use their *MBTI results in the discussion*? If the results, as you mentioned, are garbage, then the resulting discussion is garbage. You'll get:
"Oh you are a sensor? I guess we won't ever bother giving you a why."
or
"Oh you are a thinking type. I guess we will never attempt to comfort you."
Garbage in, garbage out. MBTI isn't a good basis for discussion of personality.
---
I think what you're describing with your examples are the worst possible case. Someone could just as easily say:
"Oh you're a seonsor? I'll try and explain this differently than I would to someone who is a thinking type. Maybe using metaphor is better than just listing statistics."
or
"Oh you're a thinking type. That might mean you don't frequently have big emotional displays. Maybe I should be more aware of subtle changes in your temperament so I can be a better manager or friend."
Since everyone keeps talking about business applications, I'll put it this way: terrible managers will be terrible managers, and good managers will be good. Giving either group an additional tool to use is not going to drastically change that.
---
The problem is that their results may not actually indicate anything, so those talks can be incorrect. Maybe "being aware of subtle changes in your temperament" will actually cause you to overreact to small things and actually do bad as a manager/friend.
What I was getting at was that a faulty basis can't be the basis of anything good. I can't help a bad manager, and could potentially hurt a good manager.
---
I think the results indicate as much as a conversation with the person would, perhaps more.
If I recall, one common question is something along the lines of:
"I am comfortable displaying emotion in front of others. Agree or disagree on a scale of 1 - 5."
Whether you ask an employee something similar to this in person or give them a test, you're getting the same information. And arguably, the test taker is more likely to give an honest response (as opposed to what they think you want to hear) because their is a degree of separation between you two when they are taking a test.
Sure, the test isn't perfect and people aren't always honest. But, if I want information about *you* then you're the best possible source for that information. Who else am I going to ask? | 68xs9v | CMV: MBTI is Pseudoscience, and Deserves the Same Ridicule as Horoscopes | The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has received ridicule from the psychology community as a whole. It is flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, it presents a binary when personality has been shown to be continuous by researchers. Secondly, all of the relationships other than Introversion/Extroversion have been shown to have unicameral relationships, leaving the labeling meaningless. Even introversion/extroversion has a fair amount of people in the middle (ambiverts). Lastly, people's personality types have been shown to be inconsistent. After around 5 weeks, around 39% to 76% of respondents reported a different personality type.
One of the real problems with MBTI is that it is often believed in by people that usually don't fall for pseudo-science. People who believe in the typing can receive advice from the "professionals" who run the exams which also provide nonsensical information about what they should do and who they should interact with. This harms relationship opportunities. Furthermore, some businesses use this with employment and team construction, which can cause many issues in professional life.
Other forms of pseudosciences have much open ridicule, but MBTI is rarely talked about. It is time that MBTI should receive the same ridicule that horoscopes.
_____
> *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!* | MegaZeroX7 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Gummy_Venus",
"id": "dh272ey",
"score": 56,
"text": "I am not going to argue that it is hard science, as I am in no way informed enough for that. However, I don't think it belongs in the same category as horoscopes. It takes things at *least* a step further by actually asking you questi... | [
{
"author": "YourFairyGodmother",
"id": "dh2h6b5",
"score": 5,
"text": "The usefulness of MB isn't in the results but in the administration. It's a good thing in that it gets people thinking about their own motivations and ways, and those of others. Just going through the motions spurs people to co... | [
"dh272ey",
"dh27s69",
"dh2espg",
"dh2gtgx",
"dh2hw1u"
] | [
"dh2h6b5",
"dh2ksty",
"dh2lisl",
"dh2lxsg",
"dh2masr"
] |
CMV: It is a complete waste of resources and tax payer's money to make "loli" or "shotcon" illegal
Ok if you don't know what loli or shotacon is, it is animated cp (yes it is quite disgusting) Real cp should be illegal everywhere because when people download that disgusting shit, they contribute to the trafficking and harming of children. Also I think posting loli on reddit should mean a ban because I DO NOT want to see that shit while scrolling through reddit. Even though loli is quite bad and quite creepy too, it should not be a punnishable offense because at the end of the day, it really does not hurt children. Loli based off of real children should be illegal and and photorealistic animated cp should be illegal too because you can't tell the difference or it is very hard to tell the difference. Punnishing people for possesing things like loli is a huge ass waste of money. That money could be used to help schools, protect REAL children, help the homeless, etc. I don't want to pay taxes for that money to be punnishing people for having some underaged anime. It is bad, it should never be allowed on reddit, pornhub, xvideos, xhamster, etc but making it a punishable offense is just wasting that useful tax dollars. Maybe there is something that I am missing but I think putting people in prison for possesing underaged anime is a waste of money that could be used to help actual children.
Edit: wanna add a few more things. I hate loli too like most of you. It is like one of the worst things you can see online. That is why I love the idea of not allowing loli on Reddit. If making it illegal helps reducing child mollestation, I am all for making it illegal. I don't think it should just be illegal just because it is disgusting (which is true)
Edit: well thank you for being civilized in the comments. I never really expect that on reddit, espically if a post involves politics (like this one) | > Real cp should be illegal everywhere because when people download that disgusting shit, they contribute to the trafficking and harming of children.
If someone were to post CP to reddit and I were to download it, how would my downloading it contribute to the trafficking and harming of children?
---
Is this a real question? Have you ever heard of supply and demand. People downloading CP definitely contributes to the trafficking and harming your children because the more people there are that are interested in it, the more of a want for it there is. Not to mention the fact that when pedophiles watch this it either satisfies them or it just reminds them that watching it isn't truly enough. There are plenty of cases where one specific video or one specific child that they saw was enough to push them past the line of just being an observer, to being an abuser. | If democratically elected representatives make something illegal they have a mandate to use public funds to apply that decision to reality.
---
I think it would be better to use the funs on real children than drawings. | 10p3xll | CMV: It is a complete waste of resources and tax payer's money to make "loli" or "shotcon" illegal | Ok if you don't know what loli or shotacon is, it is animated cp (yes it is quite disgusting) Real cp should be illegal everywhere because when people download that disgusting shit, they contribute to the trafficking and harming of children. Also I think posting loli on reddit should mean a ban because I DO NOT want to see that shit while scrolling through reddit. Even though loli is quite bad and quite creepy too, it should not be a punnishable offense because at the end of the day, it really does not hurt children. Loli based off of real children should be illegal and and photorealistic animated cp should be illegal too because you can't tell the difference or it is very hard to tell the difference. Punnishing people for possesing things like loli is a huge ass waste of money. That money could be used to help schools, protect REAL children, help the homeless, etc. I don't want to pay taxes for that money to be punnishing people for having some underaged anime. It is bad, it should never be allowed on reddit, pornhub, xvideos, xhamster, etc but making it a punishable offense is just wasting that useful tax dollars. Maybe there is something that I am missing but I think putting people in prison for possesing underaged anime is a waste of money that could be used to help actual children.
Edit: wanna add a few more things. I hate loli too like most of you. It is like one of the worst things you can see online. That is why I love the idea of not allowing loli on Reddit. If making it illegal helps reducing child mollestation, I am all for making it illegal. I don't think it should just be illegal just because it is disgusting (which is true)
Edit: well thank you for being civilized in the comments. I never really expect that on reddit, espically if a post involves politics (like this one) | dnkmmr69420 | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Salringtar",
"id": "j6i4gvo",
"score": -6,
"text": "> Real cp should be illegal everywhere because when people download that disgusting shit, they contribute to the trafficking and harming of children.\n\nIf someone were to post CP to reddit and I were to download it, how would my downl... | [
{
"author": "Presentalbion",
"id": "j6i4gc9",
"score": 1,
"text": "If democratically elected representatives make something illegal they have a mandate to use public funds to apply that decision to reality.",
"timestamp": 1675089010
},
{
"author": "dnkmmr69420",
"id": "j6i56h9",
... | [
"j6i4gvo",
"j6i4sku"
] | [
"j6i4gc9",
"j6i56h9"
] |
CMV: Maximising profit is more often than not unsustainable and not in the shareholders' interest.
I am talking about this from a purely shareholder and company earnings viewpoint, regardless of it's morality and popularity, as it seems like that's the way these companies think anyway.
What I mean by maximising profit is the way companies try to introduce unnecessary additional pricing, or reduction in quality to barrel-scrape the most profit.
additional pricing are value added "features" in their products that are either not related to improvement in quality or for things that should've been there in the first place, e.g. microtransactions in single player games, subscription for carplay/android auto in cars.
reduction in quality, think Boeing.
I would argue that for the most part, unpopular profit maximising strategies is not a good way to increase shareholder value in the long run. At most, the extra profit or share value gained are short term and a money grab for the current C-suite lineup. This is because the unpopular decisions they make is likely to catch up to them in the long run.
Boeing's shares are only half from peak, and even if we could reasonably expect it to bounce back in the future, it creates uncertainty, insolvency, and lost interest for shareholders at the very least.
From what I can tell, even if these strategies work most times (people don't know or eventually don't care, and media scrutiny dies down), they need to be lucky every time for it to translate to long term shareholder value. Only one truely unpopular/illegal practice might bring the whole operation down.
Of course, some companies have made an art of anti-consumer practises like Apple, and with it enormous profits, but most companies aren't Apple. | > CMV: Maximising profit is more often than not unsustainable and not in the shareholders' interest.
Your view seems to be that some ways of maximizing profit are mistaken and don’t maximize profit since they don’t do so in the long run.
That’s different than maximizing profit itself being unsustainable.
---
yes, of course there are many sensible ways to maximise profit in the way of improving efficiency, necessary cost-cutting, etc. what I'm referring to is the barrel-scraping practises of large companies that have seem to run out of other ideas.
frequently, an argument for this is the companies' fiduciary duty to make the highest profits possible. what I'm saying is that this justification doesn't make sense in the long run and I want to know what are considered in the decision making to justify for these practises long-term.
---
>What I mean by maximising profit is the way companies try to introduce unnecessary additional pricing, or reduction in quality to barrel-scrape the most profit.
That’s not what maximizing profit means though. That’s just a mistaken view of what it means to maximize profit, usually promoted by people who are against maximizing profit on principle. You yourself have said that it doesn’t work in the long run. If it doesn’t work in the long run, then it’s not maximizing profit since someone who was maximizing profit would have done something that worked in the long run.
---
I think we're arguing on semantics here. What I'm trying to find out is why these anti-consumer practises, whatever you would like to call it, is seemingly on the rise lately. What is the thought process of being an asshole to your customers be a good idea?
---
One thing short term revenue could do is help improve the company longer term. Perhaps without the extra revenue, the company would have been out competed in the longer term. | Generally I agree. Boeing used to be that way until they merged with McDonnell Douglas. It was a company of engineers that truly believed that if they focused on making high quality aircraft and they money side of things would sort itself out.
McDonnell Douglas was the opposite. A company of bean counters whose focus was on maximizing shareholder value and pumping quarterly metrics.
If Boeing were correct they never would have needed to merge, if MD was correct then planes wouldn’t be falling apart mid flight.
---
I think there's a balance to be had here, good quality products still need sensible pricing and business practises to thrive. Boeing was doing pretty well until the late 2010s after the merger. What I'm seeing is many businesses are turning to riskier and riskier approaches to maximise their profits.
---
I think the problem is *executives*. A CEO or other top management generally has an incentive structure that differs from shareholders and promotes risk. They get big bonuses for above average performance but don't lose nearly as much if their strategy backfires. So they are systematically incentivized to try risky and unsustainable strategies
---
My impression is that this is an intentional decision because shareholders are generally less risk averse than CEOs.
If there is a half chance of tripling the company and a half chance of zeroing the company, for the shareholder where this is 1% of their portfolio, they want to make this bet. For the CEO, this job is ~100% of their portfolio so this bet feels less appealing. The solution is these risk encouraging pay packages.
---
Mmm not really, and not how it ends up in practice. There's not a lot of swinging for the fences going on in publicly traded companies, that's more of a thing for pre-IPO companies. For publicly traded companies, the bigger thing going on is a series of "90% chance of a 5% bump, 10% chance of catastrophe" bets. For the CEO, that 90% chance of a big bonus, 10% chance of becoming CEO of a new company bet is a great choice. For shareholders it's a *problem* not an intentional decision. | 1bsxjy9 | CMV: Maximising profit is more often than not unsustainable and not in the shareholders' interest. | I am talking about this from a purely shareholder and company earnings viewpoint, regardless of it's morality and popularity, as it seems like that's the way these companies think anyway.
What I mean by maximising profit is the way companies try to introduce unnecessary additional pricing, or reduction in quality to barrel-scrape the most profit.
additional pricing are value added "features" in their products that are either not related to improvement in quality or for things that should've been there in the first place, e.g. microtransactions in single player games, subscription for carplay/android auto in cars.
reduction in quality, think Boeing.
I would argue that for the most part, unpopular profit maximising strategies is not a good way to increase shareholder value in the long run. At most, the extra profit or share value gained are short term and a money grab for the current C-suite lineup. This is because the unpopular decisions they make is likely to catch up to them in the long run.
Boeing's shares are only half from peak, and even if we could reasonably expect it to bounce back in the future, it creates uncertainty, insolvency, and lost interest for shareholders at the very least.
From what I can tell, even if these strategies work most times (people don't know or eventually don't care, and media scrutiny dies down), they need to be lucky every time for it to translate to long term shareholder value. Only one truely unpopular/illegal practice might bring the whole operation down.
Of course, some companies have made an art of anti-consumer practises like Apple, and with it enormous profits, but most companies aren't Apple. | friedbebek | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Love-Is-Selfish",
"id": "kxikxfn",
"score": 18,
"text": "> CMV: Maximising profit is more often than not unsustainable and not in the shareholders' interest.\n\nYour view seems to be that some ways of maximizing profit are mistaken and don’t maximize profit since they don’t do so in the... | [
{
"author": "ImmaFancyBoy",
"id": "kxil0w8",
"score": 1,
"text": "Generally I agree. Boeing used to be that way until they merged with McDonnell Douglas. It was a company of engineers that truly believed that if they focused on making high quality aircraft and they money side of things would sort it... | [
"kxikxfn",
"kxim5ev",
"kximrzs",
"kxin4ws",
"kxiojy6"
] | [
"kxil0w8",
"kxioq1g",
"kxiwzpo",
"kxjuh3x",
"kxjzdhn"
] |
CMV: If you are a real racist, you'll kill more blacks if dont do anything to blacks and support social programs.
While this is pretty controversial nowadays with the whole idea of "institutional racism" I think it brings a good point to what's going on in black communities, and how the communities will kill and oppress each other far more than any racist institution today.
In black communities, it's no secret that the violent crime rates are astronomical compared to other communities. Of all the black homicide, over 90 percent was perpetrated by other blacks and are 5 times as likely to be killed by a black person than a white person. ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls ) And the leading cause of death for black men below the age of 40 is homicide. ( https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-black/index.htm ) and we all know the famous line "despite making up just 15 percent of the population blacks commit 50 percent of crime. But in reality, it's even worse. That statistic accounts for all blacks of all genders and ages and ability. In reality the number is looking something like 4-6 percent of the population because the primary perpetrators are black men below the age of 45. so if a white supremacist really wanted to do damage to blacks, they would just leave them to their own ends.
But if he really wanted to accelerate the damage. All he would have to do is support social programs like affirmative action, and welfare (among other things)
Ok, that's alot of things so I'll go by them one at a time. Affirmative action. Studies show that affirmative action not only discriminates against asians and whites, but it also harms blacks. Studies show that a black student will often go to schools in which they cant compete with students of higher Mark's, to they fall behind academically , get isolated from their peers, and many times, drop out. And when they drop out, they are likely to never enroll into any school ever again.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/harvard-asian-admission.html
Next is welfare, in the 1960s before the implementation of welfare, black families had rates of dual parent households equal to or more than white families. As of 2019 the rate of single parent households in black communities was at 65 percent as opposed to whites at only 24 percent. ( https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by ) why do I bring this up? Well the fact is fatherless and single father house holds have increased risk of committing violent crimes, become incarcerated before they come of age, many times larger chan e to become incarcerated before they graduate highschool and many many other negative results. ( https://www.liveabout.com/fatherless-children-in-america-statistics-1270392 )
And welfare only encourages this. In the 60s black single motherhood households were at almost 30 percent, after the passing of welfare, it grew to almost 70 percent. Marriage rates dropped and babies born out of wedlock skyrocketed. And marriage is disincentivized by welfare because as earnings of the family go up their benefits go down. There are over 80 welfare programs to date and most of them have marriage isincentivising penalties with them. All of which leads to the negative outcomes of single parent households. ( https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it )
So all in all, if a racist really wanted to destroy the black race, they could just not do anything and just support a welfare state. This shows that there are so many problems in the black communities and I think that any significant action to get rid of whatever "systemic racism" there is would be in welfare and affirmative action, but after that the real root of the problem rests on the communities themselves, and that's something that only they can fix. | This entire view is one which lacks perspective and is working on very shaky and false premises. Firstly, black on black crime is a metric used by the racist media to vilify the black populous. Of course black people are going to commit more crime against black people- they live in the same communities. White people are also the biggest perpetrators of crime against white people, and you can take a guess as to why. Do you hear narratives about white on white crime? No, why? Perhaps that would help broaden your understanding of “institutional racism”.
Your statistics on percentage of crime committed is one which helps to highlight the overrepresentation of blacks in the criminal justice system, do you want to ask why that is the case? Not sure what your area of expertise is but you do realize in the history of America that the black population has been constantly criminalized in order to propagate the prison system- the stand in for slavery? The criminalization of Marijuana, crack cocaine- the entire war on drugs is just about criminalization of the black and latinx populations, as the opiate laws in Canada were to criminalize the Asian populous.
Affirmative action is not the demand of the black populous; if you’ve been paying attention to the movements, you’d see it’s well past that. Affirmative action is nowhere near what is required for justice in the racist system; affirmative action however will not cause as much damage as you believe it would- not sure how you could destroy a population with that. People will still succeed one way or another, and if the black population was not facing the burden of systemic racism then they wouldn’t turn to affirmative action in the first place. If the school funding system was not based on property taxes for example- a tactic combined with redlining to keep black schools underfunded and students from excelling. If teachers in black schools were representative, the schools had funding and programs, the classes small enough for teachers to teach and give students time of day like in the “white” schools - then students would be level with all their peers academically.
You’re right about welfare, and the government does support welfare practices - because welfare keeps people poor, and it keeps them suffering. As you should know, how welfare works- if people earn anything more than their welfare, it is pulled from them- ergo people make more on welfare than with actual jobs, leading to dependence. However, again- without the burden of systemic racism- say blacks could go to good funded schools, get good jobs from that? Then what would they need welfare for?
Single parent homes etc, again- a lot of this is actually down to the systematic criminalization of the black man. The thing about systems is they have multiple facets and we have gone over a few- purposely poor education, lack of job opportunities, stigmatization as aggressive and violent, welfare which binds poverty. When people have goals but no legitimate means they turn to illegitimate means. The major way blacks are criminalized is the war on drugs - most black people in prison are there on drug charges. White people are currently now making millions off marijuana because the govt has decided enough white people are about it for it to be legal. Where am I going with this? Single parent homes and broken homes occur due to - poor education and sex education, criminalization due to stigmatization and systemic incarceration , the turn to illegitimate means etc. If there was no systemic racism to ensure these things kept black people down- starting at the base from education, then the black community would thrive.
The black community built and rebuilt themselves many times in history. Be it Seneca village, erased from history by Central Park- a decision the whites saw necessary to keep blacks oppressed. Be it the targeted disruption of the black panther programs such as feeding hungry school kids. Be it through the razing of homes and lynchings. The black populous would find a way to thrive.
The powers that be know not to just “leave them be”, the law makers, judiciaries, politicians, bourgeoisie- they need to maintain their supremacy and they need their prison labour for production too. So I think they’re playing their cards how they feel they should.
---
I'm all for allowing school of choice and destroying the war on drugs, and that welfare is a minority effected prpgram. Those are valid points that affect blacks predominantly. And I will concede those entirely. So my question is, when does systemic racism and oppression end, and personal responsibility begin? The system isn't forcing blacks to have kids out of wedlock. They arent forcing them into gangs, to sell drugs illegally, to kill thy neighbor. These are all personal decisions. Redlining was made illegal long ago and with the invention of the internet blck communities have infinite avenues of making money and getting an education and doing the right things to thrive. But the data shows that compared to other races, they dont. What exactly is oppressing them today? Not 20, 40, 60 years ago. What is stopping them today other than a broken community that doesnt have a foundation for success?
---
> The system isn't forcing blacks to have kids out of wedlock. They arent forcing them into gangs, to sell drugs illegally, to kill thy neighbor
Sort of
They really are being forced into gangs due to the needs for protection. People join gangs because if you don't join a gang you're not safe from anyone. Gangs are a support system. Not a good support system, but it's whats there. Drugs are how the gangs fund themselves, so that's what they're doing. And the violence is a direct result of operating in a black market without other recourse.
It's all just incentive structures.
\> What is stopping them today other than a broken community that doesnt have a foundation for success?
that's pretty much what it is. You just need to recognize why the community is broken. |
> in the 1960s before the invention of welfare...
I beg your pardon?
---
Oops sorry wrong word. Fixed it
---
No, this absolutely doesn't fix anything. Where on earth did you get the idea welfare started in the 60s? | iolbq7 | CMV: If you are a real racist, you'll kill more blacks if dont do anything to blacks and support social programs. | While this is pretty controversial nowadays with the whole idea of "institutional racism" I think it brings a good point to what's going on in black communities, and how the communities will kill and oppress each other far more than any racist institution today.
In black communities, it's no secret that the violent crime rates are astronomical compared to other communities. Of all the black homicide, over 90 percent was perpetrated by other blacks and are 5 times as likely to be killed by a black person than a white person. ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls ) And the leading cause of death for black men below the age of 40 is homicide. ( https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-black/index.htm ) and we all know the famous line "despite making up just 15 percent of the population blacks commit 50 percent of crime. But in reality, it's even worse. That statistic accounts for all blacks of all genders and ages and ability. In reality the number is looking something like 4-6 percent of the population because the primary perpetrators are black men below the age of 45. so if a white supremacist really wanted to do damage to blacks, they would just leave them to their own ends.
But if he really wanted to accelerate the damage. All he would have to do is support social programs like affirmative action, and welfare (among other things)
Ok, that's alot of things so I'll go by them one at a time. Affirmative action. Studies show that affirmative action not only discriminates against asians and whites, but it also harms blacks. Studies show that a black student will often go to schools in which they cant compete with students of higher Mark's, to they fall behind academically , get isolated from their peers, and many times, drop out. And when they drop out, they are likely to never enroll into any school ever again.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/harvard-asian-admission.html
Next is welfare, in the 1960s before the implementation of welfare, black families had rates of dual parent households equal to or more than white families. As of 2019 the rate of single parent households in black communities was at 65 percent as opposed to whites at only 24 percent. ( https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by ) why do I bring this up? Well the fact is fatherless and single father house holds have increased risk of committing violent crimes, become incarcerated before they come of age, many times larger chan e to become incarcerated before they graduate highschool and many many other negative results. ( https://www.liveabout.com/fatherless-children-in-america-statistics-1270392 )
And welfare only encourages this. In the 60s black single motherhood households were at almost 30 percent, after the passing of welfare, it grew to almost 70 percent. Marriage rates dropped and babies born out of wedlock skyrocketed. And marriage is disincentivized by welfare because as earnings of the family go up their benefits go down. There are over 80 welfare programs to date and most of them have marriage isincentivising penalties with them. All of which leads to the negative outcomes of single parent households. ( https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it )
So all in all, if a racist really wanted to destroy the black race, they could just not do anything and just support a welfare state. This shows that there are so many problems in the black communities and I think that any significant action to get rid of whatever "systemic racism" there is would be in welfare and affirmative action, but after that the real root of the problem rests on the communities themselves, and that's something that only they can fix. | niqletism | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ezkenneth",
"id": "g4ewc7l",
"score": 15,
"text": "This entire view is one which lacks perspective and is working on very shaky and false premises. Firstly, black on black crime is a metric used by the racist media to vilify the black populous. Of course black people are going to commit... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "g4etxcu",
"score": 7,
"text": "\n> in the 1960s before the invention of welfare...\n\nI beg your pardon?",
"timestamp": 1599538840
},
{
"author": "niqletism",
"id": "g4etzu2",
"score": -2,
"text": "Oops sorry wrong word. Fixed it",
"tim... | [
"g4ewc7l",
"g4exd4u",
"g4ey795"
] | [
"g4etxcu",
"g4etzu2",
"g4eu4y9"
] |
CMV: Anti-Asian hate is not as prevalent as the media makes it out to be.
I want to preface this by saying I genuinely want to be proven wrong about this. I personally have nothing against Asian people, and if Asian hate is as prevalent as the media makes it out to be, then it absolutely needs to be dealt with. However, I can't help but feel like this is all a result of the news media blowing something way out of proportion.
For context, I live in Georgia, near Atlanta. I don't watch the news much, but I happened to catch it on the day that a man shot up several Asian massage parlors in the city. The killer stated that his crime was not racially motivated but was driven by his perception of the parlors as places of sexual temptation.
I thought that was the end of it. Yet another incident of a depraved man taking out his frustrations on other people. However, I hear on the news that this was but one tragedy in a recent rise of anti-Asian hate crimes across the country. I was like, "Huh? That's news to me."
Again, I don't watch the news much, but I am on the internet a lot, and I do try to keep up to date on what's going on in the world. This was the first I've heard of any anti-Asian hate crimes. As I said, I just assumed it was a sick man who killed a bunch of innocent people because he couldn't deal with his own personal issues. Plus, a killer usually doesn't lie about their motivations. If someone is secure enough in their beliefs that they would kill other people because of them, why would they lie?
Now, I can understand how some people may choose to be racist assholes because of the pandemic and the fact that it started in China. But I haven't heard of any anti-Asian hate crimes that stemmed from that in particular. (Of course, this is not to say they don't exist.) I also acknowledge that the U.S. has a history of [racism towards Asians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlUld1yXKRo).
To be fair, I was around when 9/11 occurred, and I remember the strong [anti-Muslim sentiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L62b92Prk0) that grew out of that. So, it's not entirely impossible the same thing could've happened to Asians because of COVID-19. However, there's a huge difference between a pandemic that started in a particular country and a direct attack on the U.S. by terrorists of a specific religion. Also, I would argue that the U.S. is much more racially sensitive on the whole now than it was in the '40s or the early 2000s, and people are much less likely to get away with racist behavior.
I want to be wrong about this, but, again, it just feels like the news media is spinning a narrative that might not be entirely accurate.
P.S. This should go without saying, but even if it's not that prevalent, anti-Asian hate is still bad and unacceptable. | > Anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150% in 2020, mostly in N.Y. and L.A., new report says.
> From 2019 to 2020, the overall hate crime rate declined, while hate crimes targeting Asians increased, from three to 28 in New York and seven to 15 in Los Angeles.
> An analysis of police department statistics has revealed that the United States experienced a significant hike in anti-Asian hate crimes last year across major cities.
> The [analysis released by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism](https://www.csusb.edu/sites/default/files/FACT%20SHEET-%20Anti-Asian%20Hate%202020%203.2.21.pdf) at California State University, San Bernardino, this month examined hate crimes in 16 of America’s largest cities. It revealed that while such crimes in 2020 decreased overall by 7 percent, those targeting Asian people rose by nearly 150 percent.
-
From _the media_
---
I'm willing to concede that there has been a rise in anti-Asian "hate crimes" based on that data. So, in that regard, I'll give you a delta. **Δ**
I guess my problem is how I personally perceive hate crimes. When I think of a hate crime, I think of an act of physical violence provoked solely by the victim's race.
According to the study you cited:
* There were 122 anti-Asian hate crimes in 2020, compared to 49 in 2019. Certainly a big increase.
* The majority (66%) of said crimes were verbal assaults, while the others were "shunning/avoidance" (20%), physical assault (8%), and coughing/spitting (6%).
* Doing basic math, that would mean, of the 122 crimes reported, only 10 (rounded up) of them were physical assaults.
* It's also worth noting that when people were asked if they were concerned about coming close to someone of Asian ancestry, the majority (76%) responded either "Not at all concerned" (41%) or "Not very concerned" (35%).
Regarding the verbal assaults, I question how many of them were purely driven by racism. In other words, how many of them were incidents where someone just walked up to them and hurled racial slurs at them for absolutely no reason? Why do I question this? Because some of the ones I've seen were sparked by something entirely different.
For example:
* [This man](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAL2taR2OXM&t=44s) asked a woman to eat with him, she declined, and he proceeded to go on a racist tirade against her. His anger seemed to stem more from the rejection than racism, which is not an uncommon thing that women experience, regardless of race.
* [This man](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kKS8DVQxI8) came out of his house to verbally harass an Asian woman while she was walking down the street. This seems to be the most clear-cut example of a purely racist attack. However, the worst thing he called her was "a stupid, blue, Asian-haired girl". (That's exactly what he said.) The man is clearly drunk. At least, that's how it seems to me. People do [stupid things](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjTCWLjuBzQ) when they're drunk.
* [This man](https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/mcjjnm/yet_another_antiasian_racist_incident_also_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) verbally assaults a woman after she politely (I'm assuming) asked him to pull his mask up. Hate to say it, but I don't think this was an example of anti-Asian hate. It seemed more like that guy was just being a dick. He didn't like the fact he was being called out for wearing his mask improperly, so he lashed out and called her racist names. This is certainly not the only example of people being dicks when called out for wearing masks improperly ([or not wearing them at all](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ithd5i/guy_at_disney_world_freaks_out_after_getting/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)).
Now, I don't want to invalidate anyone's experiences. As I said before, Asian hate is bad no matter how prevalent it is, no matter what form the crime. Nor am I excusing the examples listed above. I just question how much of what is considered "Asian hate" is actually people just being dicks, as opposed to targeted acts against a person or group of people based solely on their race.
---
The problem with this argument is that racism is inherently illogical. It is an excuse to torment others, and not necessarily a basis for confrontation. I could be walking down the street and randomly hear insults directed at my race, and that would be your stereotypical example of "anti-asian hate." But alternatively, when I am already in a confrontation, it can be a means to elevate the conflict. An interaction may have been incited by the refusal to wear a mask, but by using racial slurs, my aggressor has escalated the situation to become "anti-asian hate."
Think of it this way. Hate is like a fuel that burns. You can use it to start a fire. You can add it to a fire to make it blaze brighter. Both actions are undeniably examples of burning. We consider the fuel to have ignited, even if it is adding on to existing flames.
You might argue that the first example is more racially driven than the second. There is some validity to this argument. An encounter that is only driven by racism is more "anti-asian" than those that simply involve some kind of discriminatory sentiment. The elderly man who is harassed by passerby is subject to more racism than the woman who rejects a man and receives a racist tirade in return. However, it is incorrect to say that one is hate, while the other is not. These crimes are not invalidated by the fact that they were not initially racist. | Crimes against Asian people have increased. That is an accurate statement.
When the media covers these attacks they are covering things that are happening and in larger numbers.
---
Where's the data? The media is very good at using selective reporting to mold the public concious.
---
there are so few comments in this thread, and a comment containing this link was posted a few minutes before you asked your question
https://www.csusb.edu/sites/default/files/FACT%20SHEET-%20Anti-Asian%20Hate%202020%203.2.21.pdf | mru51v | CMV: Anti-Asian hate is not as prevalent as the media makes it out to be. | I want to preface this by saying I genuinely want to be proven wrong about this. I personally have nothing against Asian people, and if Asian hate is as prevalent as the media makes it out to be, then it absolutely needs to be dealt with. However, I can't help but feel like this is all a result of the news media blowing something way out of proportion.
For context, I live in Georgia, near Atlanta. I don't watch the news much, but I happened to catch it on the day that a man shot up several Asian massage parlors in the city. The killer stated that his crime was not racially motivated but was driven by his perception of the parlors as places of sexual temptation.
I thought that was the end of it. Yet another incident of a depraved man taking out his frustrations on other people. However, I hear on the news that this was but one tragedy in a recent rise of anti-Asian hate crimes across the country. I was like, "Huh? That's news to me."
Again, I don't watch the news much, but I am on the internet a lot, and I do try to keep up to date on what's going on in the world. This was the first I've heard of any anti-Asian hate crimes. As I said, I just assumed it was a sick man who killed a bunch of innocent people because he couldn't deal with his own personal issues. Plus, a killer usually doesn't lie about their motivations. If someone is secure enough in their beliefs that they would kill other people because of them, why would they lie?
Now, I can understand how some people may choose to be racist assholes because of the pandemic and the fact that it started in China. But I haven't heard of any anti-Asian hate crimes that stemmed from that in particular. (Of course, this is not to say they don't exist.) I also acknowledge that the U.S. has a history of [racism towards Asians](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlUld1yXKRo).
To be fair, I was around when 9/11 occurred, and I remember the strong [anti-Muslim sentiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L62b92Prk0) that grew out of that. So, it's not entirely impossible the same thing could've happened to Asians because of COVID-19. However, there's a huge difference between a pandemic that started in a particular country and a direct attack on the U.S. by terrorists of a specific religion. Also, I would argue that the U.S. is much more racially sensitive on the whole now than it was in the '40s or the early 2000s, and people are much less likely to get away with racist behavior.
I want to be wrong about this, but, again, it just feels like the news media is spinning a narrative that might not be entirely accurate.
P.S. This should go without saying, but even if it's not that prevalent, anti-Asian hate is still bad and unacceptable. | umokithinkso | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Neverlife",
"id": "guomsio",
"score": 20,
"text": "> Anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150% in 2020, mostly in N.Y. and L.A., new report says.\n\n> From 2019 to 2020, the overall hate crime rate declined, while hate crimes targeting Asians increased, from three to 28 in New Yor... | [
{
"author": "IwasBlindedbyscience",
"id": "guomks3",
"score": 13,
"text": "Crimes against Asian people have increased. That is an accurate statement. \n\nWhen the media covers these attacks they are covering things that are happening and in larger numbers.",
"timestamp": 1618542759
},
{
... | [
"guomsio",
"guox955",
"gup2c47"
] | [
"guomks3",
"guon6jl",
"guonfuv"
] |
CMV: Science is frequently corrupted by financial issues
In the vast majority of cases, I am sure that the scientific consensus is more likely to be correct than opposing views are. And in the specific case of climate change, I have no doubt that the scientific consensus is absolutely right.
However, there is an overwhelmingly common cause of exceptions spanning widely different scientific disciplines. That common cause is **financial influence corrupting the truth.**
Perhaps because our society pays teachers and scientists so poorly relative to, e.g., professional athletes and entertainers, many otherwise entirely ethical scientists in most if not all fields of science fall prey to the corrupting influence of money far more often than most people realize. Let me give you some examples, which I will link to some recent posts and comments on Reddit where I have been discussing them:
[**Black hole dark matter**](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/5ncwyb/170102544_inflationary_primordial_black_holes_as/) explains the abundance of early quasars, the absence of expected dwarf galaxies, the so-called "cuspy halo problem," and other aspects which the far more popular weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) theory of dark matter, for which there is not a smidgen of observational evidence (unlike black holes: the Japanese discovered the first intermediate mass black hole in the Milky Way just last year, after about 60 stellar mass black holes had been cataloged in our galaxy) does not. But what do WIMPs have that black holes don't? Literally thousands of tenured and tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and lab technicians whose research bibliographies, fellowships (often graduate students' sole source of income), and jobs are predicated on their existence. So [the joke's on you, black holes.](http://jensorensen.com/2014/03/17/corporate-cosmos/)
[**Carbon neutral synthetic fuels:**](https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/5qs0uw/what_should_you_do_if_technology_you_want_to_work/) You can make methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and even kerosene jet fuel from recycled carbon, or even the carbonic acid destroying coral reefs in ocean water. The U.S. has been developing the process intently since 1965, and when it became economical from off-peak electricity, nighttime nuclear and wind power in particular, the U.S. Strategic "Petroleum" Reserve stopped buying while continuing to sell, and the number of [oilers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_oiler) in aircraft carrier fleets fell from the upper teens to the mid single digits, while their port call docking frequency to fill up plummeted even further. Why can't you buy carbon neutral fuel at the pump? Most likely a secret agreement, called the Bitter Lake accord, to buy Saudi oil in return for their assurance to refrain from attacks against Israel and Iran.
[**Mosquito abatement.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/5quo6i/if_a_general_strike_is_called_reporters_will/dd4l47x/) Back in the 1960s, when dengue fever was eradicated in the US, the "BT" mosquito bits and dunks you could buy in the hardware store lasted five years, which is how often the World Health Organization recommended applying it. The strains back then were similar to those found persisting in nature, with both floating and sinking spores. But sometime around 1977, the seven BT manufacturers found out they could sell a whole lot more BTI without sinking spores, because sunlight killed the floating spores in weeks to months. So now the WHO says, screw that, just [put it in your drinking water](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/thuringiensis/en/) but of course the US EPA won't allow that because it would disturb bakers and everyone else who expects drinking water to be free from bacteria. And guess what has re-emerged in the U.S.? Dengue fever.
**[Pesticides killing polinator insects,](http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees) and creating superweeds via transgenic contamination.** I guess I haven't been talking about superweeds on Reddit a whole lot, but both are easy to Google. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (who want to merge, of course) fight these truths tooth-and-nail in industry, academia, government, and the media, so I'll just link to some more sources about how [neonicotinoids contaminate the environment, killing helpful bugs,](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12372/pdf) including [fireflies](http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/entomo/OOGCBV/2008/v47n3/OOGCBV_2008_v47n3_265.pdf) and how [Bayer made the Royal Society have to retract a bunch of work](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1818/20151821.full#app-1) they clandestinely funded, and have been [astroturfing long after they got caught at it.](http://britishbeekeeping.com/) But the sheer amount of money Bayer and Monsanto can bring to bear in sponsoring research, paying for scientists' junkets, and just good old-fashioned tobacco- and fossil fuel-style media disinformation campaigns have kept these correct views far from the scientific mainstream.
Do you need more examples? I have plenty. Fusion power creates more radioactive waste than fission. Polygraphs required for security clearances are inaccurate and penalize the innocent. Antibiotic use practices on farms are very unwise, and aren't much better for people. Seriously, I've got plenty more where these come from.
_____
> *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 think you've articulated your own viewpoint incorrectly.
Your statement: politics corrupts science.
However, you didn't argue that point. You argued that that the proper *application of* science is stymied by political process. In all of those examples, the science itself is relatively clear. It's the political understanding of that science that is stymied.
I don't think many would take objection with this view. The reason for this is largely because our legislators aren't sufficiently educated to understand science. So we end up with naive laws for things like stem cells, climate change - even simple things like net neutrality.
But the scientific method and the science that is produced continues to refine our understanding of the natural world.
---
I am not claiming that the source of the corruption is political, but explicitly financial: money. Scientists are more likely to fudge in their own financial interest than they are to bow to political pressure.
---
Going through your examples...
- Black hole dark matter theories appear to be pretty new -- [2016 or so](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-scientist-suggests-possible-link-between-primordial-black-holes-and-dark-matter/)? -- so it's hard for me to conclude that the larger number of scientists studying WIMP theories is evidence of some sort of financial favoritism towards WIMP research at the expense of the truth.
- The Bitter Lake accord is pretty clearly a political decision, not one that scientists had anything to do with. The scientific truth about whether we should continue to build our economy on oil was never really in doubt, was it?
- Mosquito abatement is an economic problem. Science [continues to come up with new approaches](https://phys.org/news/2016-06-discovery-future-mosquito.html), the problem is that the rich countries with the money don't want to spend it eliminating mosquitoes in poor countries. That's why it's been up to billionaires like Bill Gates to try to act. But again, I don't think the scientific truth about whether we can fight mosquitoes has been suppressed.
- Bee colony collapse, well, we've had [about a decade](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/22/401536105/buzz-over-bee-health-new-pesticide-studies-rev-up-controversy) since the phenomenon was noticed. Yes, Monsanto and crew have been engaging in PR, but I don't think that has seriously altered the _scientific_ consensus -- just the EPA's desire to act on it.
I can think of a few examples of scientists "fudging" data (or outright lying) in their financial interest, such as Andrew Wakefield. However, I think that most publicly funded scientists have no real financial motivation either way — their grant doesn't depend upon getting the "right" result.
There _is_ a problem in corporately-funded science in some areas, such as pharmaceutical trials. However, there are many things we can do to mitigate the problem — demanding open data, requiring preregistration of studies, requiring publication of all results, working on reproducability, and so on.
Mostly, though, I think the funding more affects which results get published or acted on, rather than the results obtained in the lab. So having said that, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not... | well in order to post a thread in this sub, according to rule B you need to be "open to the view changing". sounds like you have a firm grip on your view, why did you post here?
---
I'm very open to arguments about any of the specified aspects, as per the commenting rules, and in the unlikely case that many or most are shown to be false, I'm willing to reconsider my view on the general case.
Did you read the sidebar rules on commenting? Is there a specific aspect you would like to challenge?
---
no I think it is a sound, logical argument, I don't really see how any of it is false, I was just curious if you were open to other views | 5rg4pu | CMV: Science is frequently corrupted by financial issues | In the vast majority of cases, I am sure that the scientific consensus is more likely to be correct than opposing views are. And in the specific case of climate change, I have no doubt that the scientific consensus is absolutely right.
However, there is an overwhelmingly common cause of exceptions spanning widely different scientific disciplines. That common cause is **financial influence corrupting the truth.**
Perhaps because our society pays teachers and scientists so poorly relative to, e.g., professional athletes and entertainers, many otherwise entirely ethical scientists in most if not all fields of science fall prey to the corrupting influence of money far more often than most people realize. Let me give you some examples, which I will link to some recent posts and comments on Reddit where I have been discussing them:
[**Black hole dark matter**](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/5ncwyb/170102544_inflationary_primordial_black_holes_as/) explains the abundance of early quasars, the absence of expected dwarf galaxies, the so-called "cuspy halo problem," and other aspects which the far more popular weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) theory of dark matter, for which there is not a smidgen of observational evidence (unlike black holes: the Japanese discovered the first intermediate mass black hole in the Milky Way just last year, after about 60 stellar mass black holes had been cataloged in our galaxy) does not. But what do WIMPs have that black holes don't? Literally thousands of tenured and tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and lab technicians whose research bibliographies, fellowships (often graduate students' sole source of income), and jobs are predicated on their existence. So [the joke's on you, black holes.](http://jensorensen.com/2014/03/17/corporate-cosmos/)
[**Carbon neutral synthetic fuels:**](https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/5qs0uw/what_should_you_do_if_technology_you_want_to_work/) You can make methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and even kerosene jet fuel from recycled carbon, or even the carbonic acid destroying coral reefs in ocean water. The U.S. has been developing the process intently since 1965, and when it became economical from off-peak electricity, nighttime nuclear and wind power in particular, the U.S. Strategic "Petroleum" Reserve stopped buying while continuing to sell, and the number of [oilers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_oiler) in aircraft carrier fleets fell from the upper teens to the mid single digits, while their port call docking frequency to fill up plummeted even further. Why can't you buy carbon neutral fuel at the pump? Most likely a secret agreement, called the Bitter Lake accord, to buy Saudi oil in return for their assurance to refrain from attacks against Israel and Iran.
[**Mosquito abatement.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/5quo6i/if_a_general_strike_is_called_reporters_will/dd4l47x/) Back in the 1960s, when dengue fever was eradicated in the US, the "BT" mosquito bits and dunks you could buy in the hardware store lasted five years, which is how often the World Health Organization recommended applying it. The strains back then were similar to those found persisting in nature, with both floating and sinking spores. But sometime around 1977, the seven BT manufacturers found out they could sell a whole lot more BTI without sinking spores, because sunlight killed the floating spores in weeks to months. So now the WHO says, screw that, just [put it in your drinking water](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/thuringiensis/en/) but of course the US EPA won't allow that because it would disturb bakers and everyone else who expects drinking water to be free from bacteria. And guess what has re-emerged in the U.S.? Dengue fever.
**[Pesticides killing polinator insects,](http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees) and creating superweeds via transgenic contamination.** I guess I haven't been talking about superweeds on Reddit a whole lot, but both are easy to Google. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (who want to merge, of course) fight these truths tooth-and-nail in industry, academia, government, and the media, so I'll just link to some more sources about how [neonicotinoids contaminate the environment, killing helpful bugs,](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12372/pdf) including [fireflies](http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/entomo/OOGCBV/2008/v47n3/OOGCBV_2008_v47n3_265.pdf) and how [Bayer made the Royal Society have to retract a bunch of work](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1818/20151821.full#app-1) they clandestinely funded, and have been [astroturfing long after they got caught at it.](http://britishbeekeeping.com/) But the sheer amount of money Bayer and Monsanto can bring to bear in sponsoring research, paying for scientists' junkets, and just good old-fashioned tobacco- and fossil fuel-style media disinformation campaigns have kept these correct views far from the scientific mainstream.
Do you need more examples? I have plenty. Fusion power creates more radioactive waste than fission. Polygraphs required for security clearances are inaccurate and penalize the innocent. Antibiotic use practices on farms are very unwise, and aren't much better for people. Seriously, I've got plenty more where these come from.
_____
> *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!* | jsalsman | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "firingallcylinders",
"id": "dd6yxv8",
"score": 6,
"text": "I think you've articulated your own viewpoint incorrectly.\n\nYour statement: politics corrupts science.\n\nHowever, you didn't argue that point. You argued that that the proper *application of* science is stymied by political p... | [
{
"author": "mnmgod",
"id": "dd6y97f",
"score": 1,
"text": "well in order to post a thread in this sub, according to rule B you need to be \"open to the view changing\". sounds like you have a firm grip on your view, why did you post here?",
"timestamp": 1485964683
},
{
"author": "jsalsm... | [
"dd6yxv8",
"dd71obc",
"dd7dt9z"
] | [
"dd6y97f",
"dd6ye9o",
"dd6yhro"
] |
CMV: Justice Breyer should retire as soon as possible.
Justice Breyer is an octogenarian, and the oldest left-leaning Supreme Court justice by far. Although he seems to be in good health, he's still over 80 so the chances of him dying of old age increase by the year.
Recent history has shown us that the judges whom Republican presidents nominate go completely counter to the ideology of Breyer, and if he wants his legacy to continue and not be erased, he would step down now. If he cares about the causes he wrote for on the bench, he'd retire tomorrow. The 2022 midterms are approaching, and if the Republicans retake the Senate, Biden's hope for successfully confirming a nominee of his will become a pipe dream. It's simply too risky to wait.
RBG's refusal to retire during the Obama administration provokes a poignant warning of the dangers of dragging your feet on retirement. Breyer and Ginsburg were close friends and colleagues, and I'm sure she regretted not retiring under the Obama administration after Trump was elected and her health started going downhill as it did. I'm sure Breyer saw that, and one would think he'd want to learn a lesson from that.
My view is: a) Breyer should retire on his own accord, to protect causes that he clearly cares about. b) the Biden administration should gently nudge Breyer to retire, as many Presidents before him has done. and c) Perhaps most importantly, there is no reason why me, a left-leaning American, shouldn't be praying on our lucky stars that Breyer has the good sense to retire before it's too late. | Your a) and b) are in conflict. You want him prodded until he agrees to retire. That's not on his own accord.
Your c) is fine, you can wish as you like.
Why are you in a rush to push him out? The dems have an easy 2-2.5years before it would ever be an issue to replace him.
---
> Your a) and b) are in conflict. You want him prodded until he agrees to retire. That's not on his own accord.
Let me clarify a bit here. I meant if it doesn't look like he wants to retire on his own accord, for whatever reason, *then* the Biden administration should step him and encourage him to step down.
> Why are you in a rush to push him out? The dems have an easy 2-2.5years before it would ever be an issue to replace him.
The 2022 midterms are in a year and a half. The closer we get to that event, the more likely we'll have pushback and controversy as to whether it's too close to the election, and theoretically it could give the more conservative Democratic senators like Manchin an excuse to vote against them. Also, the senate is split 50-50. If an older, Democratic senator from a state with a Republican governor (Cardin & Sanders are both over 75) were to pass away, the balance of the Senate would flip like that.
---
A lot of things have to happen for the death of senator to flip the senate. For example looking at Vermont and Maryland's laws (where Sander's and Cardin are from). In Vermont a vacancy is filled by a special election. The governor can appoint someone in the meantime but the special election has to occur within six months of the vacancy. And in Maryland the appointment has to be the same party as the person who they've replaced. | One could argue that a supreme court justice should separate themselves from the political sphere and should only be focussed on the constitution. Therefore he should retire when he feels he is not able to do his job up to his standards.
---
I get what you’re saying in theory, but in reality everyone has biases. People like to pretend like the Supreme Court is unbiased but it never has been and it never will be. Trying to keep up the charade is just meaningless
---
You’re correct that everyone has biases, you’re wrong that someone shouldn’t try and do their job properly regardless of their bias.
The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if something is Constitutional or not. Not right or wrong, good or bad, Preferred or disliked. Just whether or not it jives with the legal basis of the Federal government.
Unless there is a strong Constitutional case *against* the social issues you want, you shouldn’t have to worry. As far as I know, the conservative-stacked 9-judge court hasn’t made any egregiously biased rulings. (If they have, then I’ll have to change my view...)
If the social issues you care about *are* arguably unconstitutional, the focus should be on getting an amendment passed, because that’s how it’s supposed to work. “Judicial activism is a good thing if they do what I want” isn’t a principled position. | mrrjtb | CMV: Justice Breyer should retire as soon as possible. | Justice Breyer is an octogenarian, and the oldest left-leaning Supreme Court justice by far. Although he seems to be in good health, he's still over 80 so the chances of him dying of old age increase by the year.
Recent history has shown us that the judges whom Republican presidents nominate go completely counter to the ideology of Breyer, and if he wants his legacy to continue and not be erased, he would step down now. If he cares about the causes he wrote for on the bench, he'd retire tomorrow. The 2022 midterms are approaching, and if the Republicans retake the Senate, Biden's hope for successfully confirming a nominee of his will become a pipe dream. It's simply too risky to wait.
RBG's refusal to retire during the Obama administration provokes a poignant warning of the dangers of dragging your feet on retirement. Breyer and Ginsburg were close friends and colleagues, and I'm sure she regretted not retiring under the Obama administration after Trump was elected and her health started going downhill as it did. I'm sure Breyer saw that, and one would think he'd want to learn a lesson from that.
My view is: a) Breyer should retire on his own accord, to protect causes that he clearly cares about. b) the Biden administration should gently nudge Breyer to retire, as many Presidents before him has done. and c) Perhaps most importantly, there is no reason why me, a left-leaning American, shouldn't be praying on our lucky stars that Breyer has the good sense to retire before it's too late. | LetsGetRowdyRowdy | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "SpeakerClassic4418",
"id": "guo2p30",
"score": 1,
"text": "Your a) and b) are in conflict. You want him prodded until he agrees to retire. That's not on his own accord. \n\nYour c) is fine, you can wish as you like. \n\nWhy are you in a rush to push him out? The dems have an easy 2-2... | [
{
"author": "Ok_Onion2247",
"id": "guo2jwo",
"score": 31,
"text": "One could argue that a supreme court justice should separate themselves from the political sphere and should only be focussed on the constitution. Therefore he should retire when he feels he is not able to do his job up to his standa... | [
"guo2p30",
"guo3khc",
"guo8snz"
] | [
"guo2jwo",
"guo2z8u",
"guo5lhq"
] |
CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them.
Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me.
What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him.
Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me.
Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them.
I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | Empirical studies have found that people drastically overestimate the extent to which talking to a stranger would bother them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/sunday/hello-stranger.html?_r=0
---
I'm not speaking about strangers though, but people I see daily.
---
if strangers aren't bothered by people talking to them, I imagine people are even less likely to be annoyed by someone talking to them if they know the person.
I think the real question is--why do you have this fear? Would it really be so bad if you did annoy someone? Keep in mind that annoying someone doesn't actually mean you are annoying (ex: If I start talking to someone about art, and they hate art, they might find me annoying, but that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with my interests or who I am as a person).
Start small--comment on something you like about another person, "hey those are cool shoes! I was thinking of getting some red ones like that, how do you like them?" and then if you start to get uncomfortable, exit the conversation gracefully, "It was nice talking to you, I gotta go! Thanks!" | [deleted]
---
The guy I mentioned certainly is annoying
---
What about other people, or people in general? Do you find listening to others annoying? | 5rh49f | CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them. | Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me.
What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him.
Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me.
Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them.
I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | grandoz039 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "dd79e0i",
"score": 3,
"text": "Empirical studies have found that people drastically overestimate the extent to which talking to a stranger would bother them.\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/sunday/hello-stranger.html?_r=0",
"timestamp": 148597687... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dd766gg",
"score": 1,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1485973418
},
{
"author": "grandoz039",
"id": "dd76g0y",
"score": 1,
"text": "The guy I mentioned certainly is annoying",
"timestamp": 1485973700
},
{
"author": "thelawsdelay",... | [
"dd79e0i",
"dd7bbck",
"dd7eipv"
] | [
"dd766gg",
"dd76g0y",
"dd7efa1"
] |
CMV: it doesn't make sense how much people focus on trying to get relationships
I really don't get why people focus so much on dating. I always hear people online and irl talk about relationships. And I even hear men talk so much about how trying to find a partner is so difficult and that their life sucks. They act like their life is unfulfilled and pointless, and get sad about it.
But I really don't see there being much benefits from being in a relationship, especially considering cheating, breakups, arguments, and feeling sad after the breakup seem to be a common occurrence with relationships. Most people desperately trying to be in a relationship should really stop being obsessed with it, and shouldn't spend so much time trying to find a girlfriend/boyfriend.
Simply put, I don't see much benefits of a relationship that should justify spending so much time. I think it's either because of a culture thing, or some arbitrary reason. | Have you heard of the term aromantic? It's often lumped in with asexual, but it describes people who do experience sexual desire but who have no desire for the other aspects of a romantic relationship. This describes what you explain about yourself.
If you are aromantic, there is nothing we can say to convince you that a relationship would be worthwhile for you. It is simply not something you want or need.
However, most people are not aromantic. They are born with a desire to have these types of relationships, and it's just part of their nature.
---
hmm, very interesting. I looked up the google results for it and I think it matches up. I just realized that I never felt any 'romantic' feelings, never had any crush on anyone, or actually cared to be in a relationship. This is something new for me. Never heard that word before, but I'm surprised I didn't ever know about this till now, especially since it has been lifelong.
---
This was what I came here to say, but simpler:
If you don't desire it, don't bother with it. It is a simpler life.
I am a dude who always wanted a family. I yearned for it and a compatible partner until I finally fulfilled that desire, but it takes way more energy and coordination than being single.
I also had a very fun and enjoyable single life. It was a blast! But I don't miss it because it didn't fulfill all my needs.
The common phrase, "you do you," comes to mind. People who are fine without a relationship might do well to avoid them.
Be happy and have fun being single!
Is this a delta-worthy thought? | Sex is an essential component of the happiness equation for most people. Having a reliable source of it is easier than having to win over someone new every time you want to get laid.
Not saying this is the only reason people enter relationships, but it's one most can relate to.
---
In my opinion, there are so many men and people in general who never manage to get a sexual experience. The problem with that is that it creates incels. And we all know how bad they can be. Sometimes, it might as well not be worth trying to look for sex, if it's difficult to near impossible for that to happen.
---
>Sometimes, it might as well not be worth trying to look for sex
Sex is something we're all driven towards by nature itself. Strongly. It's how we reproduce. Every organism on the planet is directed towards reproduction.
How would we go about refraining from experiencing the forces of nature? | 17gke8k | CMV: it doesn't make sense how much people focus on trying to get relationships | I really don't get why people focus so much on dating. I always hear people online and irl talk about relationships. And I even hear men talk so much about how trying to find a partner is so difficult and that their life sucks. They act like their life is unfulfilled and pointless, and get sad about it.
But I really don't see there being much benefits from being in a relationship, especially considering cheating, breakups, arguments, and feeling sad after the breakup seem to be a common occurrence with relationships. Most people desperately trying to be in a relationship should really stop being obsessed with it, and shouldn't spend so much time trying to find a girlfriend/boyfriend.
Simply put, I don't see much benefits of a relationship that should justify spending so much time. I think it's either because of a culture thing, or some arbitrary reason. | TouristFew4907 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ScaryPetals",
"id": "k6hbvw9",
"score": 109,
"text": "Have you heard of the term aromantic? It's often lumped in with asexual, but it describes people who do experience sexual desire but who have no desire for the other aspects of a romantic relationship. This describes what you explain... | [
{
"author": "Aggressive-Carob6256",
"id": "k6h89q8",
"score": 4,
"text": "Sex is an essential component of the happiness equation for most people. Having a reliable source of it is easier than having to win over someone new every time you want to get laid.\n\nNot saying this is the only reason peopl... | [
"k6hbvw9",
"k6hccmp",
"k6hf08u"
] | [
"k6h89q8",
"k6h8uru",
"k6h9xq8"
] |
CMV: ADHD medication should not be analogized to insulin
In r/ADHD (and online generally) I often see people comparing ADHD medication to insulin. A recent post on the sub was entitled, "My boyfriend thinks I'm cheating bc I am finally medicated for ADHD", just a few quotes from the responses include:
"That's the dumbest shit I've heard all day. Saying you're cheating for being medicated for a MEDICAL CONDITION is purely idiotic. It's like saying your cheating for taking insulin for diabetes."
"Are eyeglasses cheating? Insulin? Braces? Pace makers? Limb braces? Wheelchairs? What does he think of those?"
"So if you have kids together and the kid is diabetic? You respect his right to deny insulin to your kid"
"Would he tell someone with diabetes that taking insulin is cheating? Because he's basically saying getting treatment for a condition is cheating"
It continues, and the comparison is rampant all over the sub. **My view is that using focus-enhancing medication for ADHD management is not at all equivalent to using insulin for diabetes management**, and to say so is willfully obtuse. A diabetic will die without their medication, meanwhile a massive amount of people with ADHD go their whole lives (or most of their lives) without medication.
I am diagnosed with ADHD, originally as a teenager, but I was not medicated until the past couple of years. I am well aware of how much ADHD medication can improve quality of life, and how incredibly difficult it can be to move through the world this way. I also worry at times I am "cheating", or that my diagnosis isn't valid and actually I'm just a lazy sack of shit. Even still, I'm so tired of seeing this erroneous comparison - I will not die without my medication, and I am not better off dead than unmedicated. | The comparison isn't trying to say they are both necessary for life. It's a comparison in response for the ridiculous notion that taking doctor prescribed medication is somehow cheating... whatever that means.
A comparison doesn't need to stand up to scrutiny in every possible context. Just the one that it is in reference to
---
Is the implication not that people with ADHD need their medication in the same way a diabetic needs their medication? I know they're not saying someone is going to literally die without it, but I believe they are implying the consequences of not getting the medication are at least comparable, and my point is I don't think they are.
I completely disagree with her boyfriend saying she's "cheating" by the way, but you can search the word insulin in the sub and see that this analogy is used to refute almost any claim that someone doesn't need ADHD medication.
---
Type 2 diabetes often develops slowly, and generally you do not strictly "need" insulin when you start taking it. Instead, you are prescribed insulin once your blood sugar becomes high enough to indicate that the risks and symptoms associated with that level of hyperglycemia start to out weigh the risks/cost of taking insulin. Much like people with ADHD, such patients could stop taking insulin and wouldn't drop dead, their quality of life would just suffer (and complication risks start to rise).
In these cases (which represent a fairly large proportion of those on insulin), the analogy to ADHD is actually pretty apt. | In the context of them both being necessary medical applicants they are comparable.
---
Comparable yes, but they're being equivalized. "Necessary" is relative.
---
>Comparable yes, but they're being equivalized. "Necessary" is relative.
What about ADHD medication and its effect on ADHD sufferers (not recreational users) do you feel makes it notably different? | 10ok1sm | CMV: ADHD medication should not be analogized to insulin | In r/ADHD (and online generally) I often see people comparing ADHD medication to insulin. A recent post on the sub was entitled, "My boyfriend thinks I'm cheating bc I am finally medicated for ADHD", just a few quotes from the responses include:
"That's the dumbest shit I've heard all day. Saying you're cheating for being medicated for a MEDICAL CONDITION is purely idiotic. It's like saying your cheating for taking insulin for diabetes."
"Are eyeglasses cheating? Insulin? Braces? Pace makers? Limb braces? Wheelchairs? What does he think of those?"
"So if you have kids together and the kid is diabetic? You respect his right to deny insulin to your kid"
"Would he tell someone with diabetes that taking insulin is cheating? Because he's basically saying getting treatment for a condition is cheating"
It continues, and the comparison is rampant all over the sub. **My view is that using focus-enhancing medication for ADHD management is not at all equivalent to using insulin for diabetes management**, and to say so is willfully obtuse. A diabetic will die without their medication, meanwhile a massive amount of people with ADHD go their whole lives (or most of their lives) without medication.
I am diagnosed with ADHD, originally as a teenager, but I was not medicated until the past couple of years. I am well aware of how much ADHD medication can improve quality of life, and how incredibly difficult it can be to move through the world this way. I also worry at times I am "cheating", or that my diagnosis isn't valid and actually I'm just a lazy sack of shit. Even still, I'm so tired of seeing this erroneous comparison - I will not die without my medication, and I am not better off dead than unmedicated. | taurus_water | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "draculabakula",
"id": "j6f3ss6",
"score": 39,
"text": "The comparison isn't trying to say they are both necessary for life. It's a comparison in response for the ridiculous notion that taking doctor prescribed medication is somehow cheating... whatever that means. \n\nA comparison doesn... | [
{
"author": "Presentalbion",
"id": "j6f3lmk",
"score": 2,
"text": "In the context of them both being necessary medical applicants they are comparable.",
"timestamp": 1675030215
},
{
"author": "taurus_water",
"id": "j6f40pc",
"score": -3,
"text": "Comparable yes, but they're b... | [
"j6f3ss6",
"j6f504j",
"j6fcoae"
] | [
"j6f3lmk",
"j6f40pc",
"j6f4cs9"
] |
CMV: “Racism = prejudice + power” misunderstands what racism is
I’m a leftist and this argument is used a lot by leftists as a way to brush off interpersonal racism against white people, but I think this is harmful because it unnecessarily combines the definitions of interpersonal and systemic racism, and it’s important to distinguish the two.
90% of the time people who complain about anti-white racism are full of shit but the right way to deal with it is to either ignore them or confront them on their argument directly. I think it’s fair to say that interpersonal racism against whites is less of a problem for a lot of reasons (either because it’s less common, it doesn’t tap into trauma in the same way it does for POC, or it has less severe effects because anti-white rhetoric doesn’t affect whites systematically). But because those arguments are more complicated and people don’t wanna take the effort to make them, they come up with this new definition of racism that makes no sense and just serves to shut up people who don’t agree with it.
If interpersonal racism is only valid when accompanied by systemic racism, asian americans who aren’t first-gen immigrants can’t experience racism, since they don’t experience racism systemically. Other racial minorities can’t experience racism from black americans since black people suffer from systemic racism in america more than any other group by far, and therefore have less power in society.
If interpersonal racism was defined by the existence of systemic racism, there would be no need to distinguish the two. But it’s really important to understand the differences between types of racism so we can be specific when talking about racism and discussing its consequences. If this means acknowledging that white people can technically experience racism, that’s fine and doesn’t contradict the struggles of racial minorities. I also think turning the definition of racism into an equation is trying to “quantify” racism and turning it into oppression olympics which is always unhelpful.
I want my view changed because if there’s a good reason for me to agree with the “prejudice + power” statement, I wanna know about it. | I feel like you have your own definitions of these terms that other people just aren't using, and perhaps that's why people don't find your arguments convincing.
When people talk about 'systematic racism' they mean racism embedded withing a system. Your comment that a second generation Asian American immigrant "doesn't experience racism systematically" is simply not true. A systemically racist system - let's use the example of a company towards its employees - will be racist towards the minority group regardless of its immigration status.
---
A racist company discriminating against asians is still an example of interpersonal racism, not systemic (just interpersonal racism that has worse effects). You could maybe argue that this results in less asian-American people in power, which could result in some systemic discrimination, but this still doesn’t compare to systemic racism that black Americans face.
I’m sticking to the definitions I learned when studying systematic racism in college, which I think are the most accurate and helpful. I’m arguing that those definitions should be most accepted.
---
That's like, 100% incorrect. An individual within a company who is discriminating is individual. A company discriminating as a matter of policy or practice is systemic, and this difference is also backed up by the different legal liability in the two situations. That is the whole point of this distinction.
I don't think you are remembering what you learned in college accurately. | The distinction comes down to what you think racism is. Much like other -isms, I think of racism as a form of political and societal structure. Racism is when Jews were systemically oppressed and slaughtered by other Europeans Nazis, or when Blacks were systematically enslaved and oppressed by other White people, or when Chinese were systematically slaughtered and raped by Japanese. It doesn't simply refer to someone being mean to someone else, it refers to a system of governance that actively oppresses one racial group.
In my book, what you describe as "interpersonal racism" is _racial prejudice_, whereas systemic racism is just racism.
---
Yeah, racism isn’t just people saying “I hate Black people!”, it’s being denied a loan or your child being sent to a failing school based on your zip code, or your neighborhood being demolished for a highway.
---
>it’s being denied a loan or your child being sent to a failing school based on your zip code
No. That's what class struggle is. It just so happens to be that racial minorities are often poorer, but there are people who are racial minorities and are wealthier. | 1fnwlrq | CMV: “Racism = prejudice + power” misunderstands what racism is |
I’m a leftist and this argument is used a lot by leftists as a way to brush off interpersonal racism against white people, but I think this is harmful because it unnecessarily combines the definitions of interpersonal and systemic racism, and it’s important to distinguish the two.
90% of the time people who complain about anti-white racism are full of shit but the right way to deal with it is to either ignore them or confront them on their argument directly. I think it’s fair to say that interpersonal racism against whites is less of a problem for a lot of reasons (either because it’s less common, it doesn’t tap into trauma in the same way it does for POC, or it has less severe effects because anti-white rhetoric doesn’t affect whites systematically). But because those arguments are more complicated and people don’t wanna take the effort to make them, they come up with this new definition of racism that makes no sense and just serves to shut up people who don’t agree with it.
If interpersonal racism is only valid when accompanied by systemic racism, asian americans who aren’t first-gen immigrants can’t experience racism, since they don’t experience racism systemically. Other racial minorities can’t experience racism from black americans since black people suffer from systemic racism in america more than any other group by far, and therefore have less power in society.
If interpersonal racism was defined by the existence of systemic racism, there would be no need to distinguish the two. But it’s really important to understand the differences between types of racism so we can be specific when talking about racism and discussing its consequences. If this means acknowledging that white people can technically experience racism, that’s fine and doesn’t contradict the struggles of racial minorities. I also think turning the definition of racism into an equation is trying to “quantify” racism and turning it into oppression olympics which is always unhelpful.
I want my view changed because if there’s a good reason for me to agree with the “prejudice + power” statement, I wanna know about it. | Ill-Cat4533 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "FaerieStories",
"id": "lolj3lg",
"score": 49,
"text": "I feel like you have your own definitions of these terms that other people just aren't using, and perhaps that's why people don't find your arguments convincing. \n\nWhen people talk about 'systematic racism' they mean racism embedd... | [
{
"author": "denyer-no1-fan",
"id": "loli3ss",
"score": -1,
"text": "The distinction comes down to what you think racism is. Much like other -isms, I think of racism as a form of political and societal structure. Racism is when Jews were systemically oppressed and slaughtered by other Europeans Nazi... | [
"lolj3lg",
"lolkla5",
"lollgjc"
] | [
"loli3ss",
"loliqrq",
"loljw6v"
] |
CMV: Layman should always side with academic consensus
It seems that common trend in modern United States is for people to do a bit of personal research on a subject and come to conclusions that contradict the conclusions of the people in academia.
I think this is a very arrogant and frankly stupid thing to do, since it assumes that someone with no experience and only very basic knowledge could somehow be more familiar with a subject than a person who has dedicated much of, if not their entire life, to understanding the subject.
Even a layman who has spent lots of time researching something is still very likely to know less than an expert.
EDIT:
To clarify, my stance is not that academia should not be questioned. It is that you should always bear in mind when evaluating data that if you are a layman, you are far more prone to error than an expert. If even just 80% of experts in the relevant fields say X, but to you, a layman, it seems like Y is true, it's probably not the 80% who are wrong. If you're sure you're right anyways, and want to challenge the consensus, then I would support your doing so. But you should do it by going through the same process that the experts had to go through (studying at universities and getting actual degrees) rather than just citing youtube videos. | Academic consensus in Nazi Germany was that aryans were the superior race and eugenics.
---
Wouldn't anyone with a dissenting opinion have been sacked? If that's the case, I don't think it can truly be called an academic consensus.
---
> I don't think it can truly be called an academic consensus.
This is a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. | Conclusions backed by One study or a few with a small sample size should not necessarily be accepted. Academics can be motivated to publish results simply for recognition or to get further research funding.
Academics are motivated by human desires like fame and fortune, and may be willing to do things which produce unreliable science. A layman should evaluate things with a critical eye.
---
A layman lacks the ability to make critiques though. If you don't understand chemistry you aren't capable of commenting on it.
That's why you go with the consensus, not grasping at outliers.
---
The layman is capable of *rejecting* outliers if they fail to meet a few basic criteria though. For example, study with a sample size of 4, even if published by an expert in the field, is likely unreliable. | mrer37 | CMV: Layman should always side with academic consensus | It seems that common trend in modern United States is for people to do a bit of personal research on a subject and come to conclusions that contradict the conclusions of the people in academia.
I think this is a very arrogant and frankly stupid thing to do, since it assumes that someone with no experience and only very basic knowledge could somehow be more familiar with a subject than a person who has dedicated much of, if not their entire life, to understanding the subject.
Even a layman who has spent lots of time researching something is still very likely to know less than an expert.
EDIT:
To clarify, my stance is not that academia should not be questioned. It is that you should always bear in mind when evaluating data that if you are a layman, you are far more prone to error than an expert. If even just 80% of experts in the relevant fields say X, but to you, a layman, it seems like Y is true, it's probably not the 80% who are wrong. If you're sure you're right anyways, and want to challenge the consensus, then I would support your doing so. But you should do it by going through the same process that the experts had to go through (studying at universities and getting actual degrees) rather than just citing youtube videos. | NoahTheAnimator | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ITSINCElTIME",
"id": "guludih",
"score": 35,
"text": "Academic consensus in Nazi Germany was that aryans were the superior race and eugenics.",
"timestamp": 1618495962
},
{
"author": "NoahTheAnimator",
"id": "gulwzn2",
"score": -3,
"text": "Wouldn't anyone with a... | [
{
"author": "Canada_Constitution",
"id": "gulqpb0",
"score": 1,
"text": "Conclusions backed by One study or a few with a small sample size should not necessarily be accepted. Academics can be motivated to publish results simply for recognition or to get further research funding. \n\nAcademics are m... | [
"guludih",
"gulwzn2",
"gumjxb5"
] | [
"gulqpb0",
"gulrz61",
"gult0v6"
] |
CMV: I should be allowed to uninstall Facebook and Sony Xperia Movie Maker from my phone.
When I try to uninstall these apps, my phone tells me "system apps cannot be uninstalled". However, why are these apps even "system apps" anyway?
I don't have a Facebook account, and a phone (yes, even android smartphones) can operate without ever using Facebook. Sony Xperia Movie Maker is worse than useless - it makes movies automatically out of your photos and videos, using up extra memory to do so, and the movies you can deliberately make with that app can't be made long enough to be useful.
I really want to make room on my phone for more apps - I barely have enough room for picture-taking because the apps necessary for my work take up most of the space not already taken up by "system apps".
Finally, please don't just tell me to "*just get a new phone*". I try to minimise my materialism. Besides, even if I get a new phone, many phone models have Facebook and other non-essential apps designated as "system apps", making them impossible to uninstall. | If you're talking about Movie Creator, the phone should at least let you disable it and stop it from doing anything on its own.
As others have said it's both a cost-cutting measure and (for apps developed by the phone makers) a way to nudge you into their ecosystem. Samsung is particularly bad about this.
Your options as a user are to buy a phone with low or no bloatware, or an unlocked bootloader (these are often the same, btw: Essential and Google's Pixel line are the big examples) or a phone that can be rooted and modified (which will often void your warranty and be a pain in the ass for a non-poweruser)
---
> Your options as a user are to buy a phone with low or no bloatware, or an unlocked bootloader (these are often the same, btw: Essential and Google's Pixel line are the big examples) or a phone that can be rooted and modified (which will often void your warranty and be a pain in the ass for a non-poweruser)
Thanks for the advice. I will make sure that the next phone I buy either has an unlocked bootloader or can be safely rooted and modified.
---
The Pixel line is really wonderful, IMO, and they are now releasing a more budget friendly option. Consider selling your Sony and picking up a Pixel 3a, or a used Pixel 2. | The manufacturer of your phone, received a payment from Facebook, to make it undelete able. Theoretically, this money is used to lower the price of the phone.
Thus a trade-off, a cheaper phone, in exchange for a phone with permafacebook.
Assuming the phone is otherwise available without Facebook, but at a higher price, it then is on you to decide if it's worth it.
Last, and most importantly, why are you even storing photos on your phone. Transfer them to a laptop, or at least buy a memory stick or some cloud storage or something.
---
>Last, and most importantly, why are you even storing photos on your phone. Transfer them to a laptop, or at least buy a memory stick or some cloud storage or something.
I try not to. I transfer the photos and videos I take to my laptop at least once a day. I also have cloud storage, but I travel a lot, including to places with non-existent or barely usable WiFi.
It's not that I have many photos and videos, it's just that my phone lacks free space.
---
This sounds like a job for a memory stick. | bvf6ol | CMV: I should be allowed to uninstall Facebook and Sony Xperia Movie Maker from my phone. | When I try to uninstall these apps, my phone tells me "system apps cannot be uninstalled". However, why are these apps even "system apps" anyway?
I don't have a Facebook account, and a phone (yes, even android smartphones) can operate without ever using Facebook. Sony Xperia Movie Maker is worse than useless - it makes movies automatically out of your photos and videos, using up extra memory to do so, and the movies you can deliberately make with that app can't be made long enough to be useful.
I really want to make room on my phone for more apps - I barely have enough room for picture-taking because the apps necessary for my work take up most of the space not already taken up by "system apps".
Finally, please don't just tell me to "*just get a new phone*". I try to minimise my materialism. Besides, even if I get a new phone, many phone models have Facebook and other non-essential apps designated as "system apps", making them impossible to uninstall. | Real_Carl_Ramirez | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "LatinGeek",
"id": "epp3ugy",
"score": 2,
"text": "If you're talking about Movie Creator, the phone should at least let you disable it and stop it from doing anything on its own.\n\nAs others have said it's both a cost-cutting measure and (for apps developed by the phone makers) a way to... | [
{
"author": "Tibaltdidnothinwrong",
"id": "epow9k6",
"score": 11,
"text": "The manufacturer of your phone, received a payment from Facebook, to make it undelete able. Theoretically, this money is used to lower the price of the phone. \n\nThus a trade-off, a cheaper phone, in exchange for a phone wit... | [
"epp3ugy",
"epp6jmj",
"epzs3fi"
] | [
"epow9k6",
"epoy09s",
"epozd9x"
] |
CMV: People shouldn’t be judged by something they did 35 years ago. People can change.
There have been a number of instances recently where people have behaved poorly many years ago and have been crucified in the media. Where they have thought to have committed a crime then they should be innocent until proven guilty. A case can be brought forward and tested in a court.
Where someone has done something considered objectionable in today’s society like wear blackface or said something offensive I believe they shouldn’t be judged by today’s standards. I also think people can grow as a person. You can’t judge a 55 year old by their actions as a 20 year old.
EDIT: Thanks everyone for giving me plenty to think about and I think my view has been changed somewhat.
Note I was excluding illegal acts from this post and only talking about statements or poor taste actions.
I think the key points I’ve taken that I now agree with are:
1. Elected officials should be held to higher standards than regular people.
2. It’s not just what they say or did in the past but what evidence there is that they have changed.
3. Calling out these actions now and making it clear it’s unacceptable helps society as a whole so there’s a focus on the greater good rather than the individual. | That would Solely depend on them actually having changed. If they came out and said "shit yea, that's bad, I was a fucking moron. here's why I realise it's offensive, and ive grown as a person here's XYZ examples" then ok, that's shown they've changed and that they regret their behaviour.
However, that's typically not what a lot of these people do. They either double down, claim it's just a joke and people are too sensitive, or offer a half assed apology which is essentially "sorry you found out the bad shit I said" with no acknowledgement that you learnt anything other than don't say dumb stuff in public.
So untill you've demonstrated you no longer harbour those views, I will continue to believe you have those views.
---
It feels like people don’t even get a chance to respond to some of these accusations before people have rushed to judgement.
---
We people are not supermen, and we are not known for our cool ability to withhold judgment on others. You are asking something godly from people, that we withhold judgment until we are given a positive response. Sometimes no response is necessary to make conclusions on the choices that have been revealed.
You may see the end of blackfacing forever by public officials and figures in America because we seem to be judging people permanently about what we increasingly see as a core racist or stupid or cruel character of someone who ever acted this way without a reasonable alternative. For blackface there’s no good alternative explanation why someone does it in a photo they are showing off. In the future the best and widely known best choice will be never to do blackface in public. | Should people be judged by something they did *25* years ago?
---
The number is just an example and would probably depend on the type and seriousness of offense.
---
Should people be judged by something they did *1* year ago? | ancjfr | CMV: People shouldn’t be judged by something they did 35 years ago. People can change. | There have been a number of instances recently where people have behaved poorly many years ago and have been crucified in the media. Where they have thought to have committed a crime then they should be innocent until proven guilty. A case can be brought forward and tested in a court.
Where someone has done something considered objectionable in today’s society like wear blackface or said something offensive I believe they shouldn’t be judged by today’s standards. I also think people can grow as a person. You can’t judge a 55 year old by their actions as a 20 year old.
EDIT: Thanks everyone for giving me plenty to think about and I think my view has been changed somewhat.
Note I was excluding illegal acts from this post and only talking about statements or poor taste actions.
I think the key points I’ve taken that I now agree with are:
1. Elected officials should be held to higher standards than regular people.
2. It’s not just what they say or did in the past but what evidence there is that they have changed.
3. Calling out these actions now and making it clear it’s unacceptable helps society as a whole so there’s a focus on the greater good rather than the individual. | WebcamsReviewed | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ducks_have_heads",
"id": "efsbflo",
"score": 470,
"text": "That would Solely depend on them actually having changed. If they came out and said \"shit yea, that's bad, I was a fucking moron. here's why I realise it's offensive, and ive grown as a person here's XYZ examples\" then ok, tha... | [
{
"author": "wellhellmightaswell",
"id": "efsbkzj",
"score": 0,
"text": "Should people be judged by something they did *25* years ago?",
"timestamp": 1549359992
},
{
"author": "WebcamsReviewed",
"id": "efsbobg",
"score": 0,
"text": "The number is just an example and would pro... | [
"efsbflo",
"efsblzh",
"efsc3ov"
] | [
"efsbkzj",
"efsbobg",
"efsc0x8"
] |
CMV: There are good reasons why Jeff Bezos does not spend his fortune on charity
So this post is not intended to defend him of any of his anti-monopolistic behavior, bad labor policies, etc. Rather, I'm making the case that, as of right now, there's a good reason why he doesn't spend a significant portion of his wealth on charity. However, I do believe that him not signing the Giving Pledge is not a good sign and this argument/opinion depends entirely on his future philanthropic donations.
So first, he actually doesn't have much money to donate. Now most people will be thinking "Well what about the $200+ billion he has?" Well, that's his net worth, not money he has lying around in a bank account. Almost all of that value is derived from his stock portfolio (mostly Amazon). This is illiquid wealth, meaning that it's relatively hard to just transfer it to liquid wealth (cash).
So why doesn't he just cash out on his stocks/real estate and donate now? Well, think about it this way. If he did this last year, he would have something around $87 billion less to donate to charity if he did so today. Next year, I'm willing to bet that he'll be even richer, meaning that he will be able to donate even more money in the future. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn't start making their massive endeavors into charity until the 2010's (decades into their respective careers). If Bezos wants to maximize his future potential donations, it makes sense to hold onto his stock and continue investing while his net worth continues to rise.
Last, I want to address another point which makes converting his wealth to charitable actions more difficult, and instead requires patience and research. Giving to charity in a way that is effective and meaningful is actually very difficult. [This Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/12/14/why-your-charitable-donations-probably-arent-doing-much-good/#53f3118d4278) goes into more detail on the reasons why. Many philanthropic endeavors that mean good, but were poorly researched and tested, have actually caused quite a bit of harm. A good example of this is [PlayPump International](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/07/01/the-playpump-what-went-wrong/), which did far more harm than good in the communities where it operated, despite millions of dollars of funding and international brand recognition. Simply throwing money at problems does not work. Rather, it requires significant research, experimentation, and planning. So, it doesn't make sense as of right now to just dump his fortune into charity.
​
If you're interested in making any sort of charitable donation, I highly recommend checking out [GiveWell](https://www.givewell.org/), a charity evaluator that tries to find ways to maximize the lives saved per dollar (no affiliation, just a fan).
​
Edit: Changed "doesn't give to charity" to "doesn't give a significant portion of his wealth to charity." in the first paragraph to better clarify my stance.
​
**Δ** u/permajetlag **for time-sensitive donations and psychology of giving now vs later** | [removed]
---
1) I spent maybe thirty minutes writing this
2) Some people give regularly to charity, I'm simply providing a way for people to explore new ways of giving
3) My argument depends on whether you expect your net worth to increase significantly in the future, and if so, then wait to donate. If not, then I think it's perfectly fine for regular people to make donations to help people who are most in need.
---
There are a few problems with waiting for net worth to increase. The largest two are:
- **Many opportunities are time-limited**. The most effective COVID intervention needed to happen before April this year. No amount of money you throw at the problem today will undo the spread of COVID in the US.
- **Likelihood of giving and psychology**: If you never practice giving substantial amounts, it will be psychologically harder to give substantially later, because humans are not fully rational, and habits help.
A good starting point for reading more on timing:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/giving-now-vs-later-a-summary | I don’t understand your argument, Jeff Bezos HAS given to charity so what exactly are you arguing here?
---
So yes he's given to charity, but it's been very little. His donations have only been in the order of millions, not billions. He's been criticized lately about his lack of philanthropy. The argument I'm making is to point out that not spending a significant fraction of his wealth is not necessarily the best approach.
---
Then you should say that because that’s not what you wrote. To wit: “... he doesn’t give to charity.” | iod263 | CMV: There are good reasons why Jeff Bezos does not spend his fortune on charity | So this post is not intended to defend him of any of his anti-monopolistic behavior, bad labor policies, etc. Rather, I'm making the case that, as of right now, there's a good reason why he doesn't spend a significant portion of his wealth on charity. However, I do believe that him not signing the Giving Pledge is not a good sign and this argument/opinion depends entirely on his future philanthropic donations.
So first, he actually doesn't have much money to donate. Now most people will be thinking "Well what about the $200+ billion he has?" Well, that's his net worth, not money he has lying around in a bank account. Almost all of that value is derived from his stock portfolio (mostly Amazon). This is illiquid wealth, meaning that it's relatively hard to just transfer it to liquid wealth (cash).
So why doesn't he just cash out on his stocks/real estate and donate now? Well, think about it this way. If he did this last year, he would have something around $87 billion less to donate to charity if he did so today. Next year, I'm willing to bet that he'll be even richer, meaning that he will be able to donate even more money in the future. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn't start making their massive endeavors into charity until the 2010's (decades into their respective careers). If Bezos wants to maximize his future potential donations, it makes sense to hold onto his stock and continue investing while his net worth continues to rise.
Last, I want to address another point which makes converting his wealth to charitable actions more difficult, and instead requires patience and research. Giving to charity in a way that is effective and meaningful is actually very difficult. [This Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/12/14/why-your-charitable-donations-probably-arent-doing-much-good/#53f3118d4278) goes into more detail on the reasons why. Many philanthropic endeavors that mean good, but were poorly researched and tested, have actually caused quite a bit of harm. A good example of this is [PlayPump International](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/07/01/the-playpump-what-went-wrong/), which did far more harm than good in the communities where it operated, despite millions of dollars of funding and international brand recognition. Simply throwing money at problems does not work. Rather, it requires significant research, experimentation, and planning. So, it doesn't make sense as of right now to just dump his fortune into charity.
​
If you're interested in making any sort of charitable donation, I highly recommend checking out [GiveWell](https://www.givewell.org/), a charity evaluator that tries to find ways to maximize the lives saved per dollar (no affiliation, just a fan).
​
Edit: Changed "doesn't give to charity" to "doesn't give a significant portion of his wealth to charity." in the first paragraph to better clarify my stance.
​
**Δ** u/permajetlag **for time-sensitive donations and psychology of giving now vs later** | thehomelessman0 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4d0o0h",
"score": 5,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1599503655
},
{
"author": "thehomelessman0",
"id": "g4d24ya",
"score": 0,
"text": "1) I spent maybe thirty minutes writing this\n\n2) Some people give regularly to charity, I'm simply prov... | [
{
"author": "RooDooDootDaDoo",
"id": "g4d0uef",
"score": 0,
"text": "I don’t understand your argument, Jeff Bezos HAS given to charity so what exactly are you arguing here?",
"timestamp": 1599503736
},
{
"author": "thehomelessman0",
"id": "g4d1kbk",
"score": 1,
"text": "So ye... | [
"g4d0o0h",
"g4d24ya",
"g4d4mlj"
] | [
"g4d0uef",
"g4d1kbk",
"g4d1py6"
] |
CMV: Buying solar rarely pays for itself and if it does end up being a benefit, it’s much further out than most people realize.
Some basic points:
1. Solar is good for the environment and people should do it.
2. Solar is a good hedge against rising energy costs. It’s great peace of mind knowing that you’re locked in.
3. Solar + house battery is great for blackouts and inconvenient power outages. Do it if you can!!
4. For this argument I’m assuming normal family suburban homes. Not some giant compound that uses extreme amounts of energy. I understand that those may have nearer term break even points.
My point: When people make the case that solar “saves them money”. They do overly basic math.
Example: I spent $20k on the system. My bill used to be $100/mo and now it’s $0/mo. So I break even 200 months aka 16 years.
What I feel like is unfairly left out of the equation is the opportunity cost of the $20k. I think it’s fair to debate where that money would have been otherwise (I.e. not in solar panels), but for debate I think it’s fair to assume that money would be in the S&P500 or VTSAX or equivalent. When you do this math, you’re very unlikely to ever break even or if you do it’s 40+ years out. And that’s before taking into account repair costs while you’re out of warranty.
Would love your thoughts! | I think if you're factoring in opportunity cost and assuming the person isn't using any benefits you can get for green improvements you'd also have to factor in the increased value of the property which would possibly cancel out the opportunity cost.
---
I’d love to see some real math if this is how you justified your system.
---
I literally paid 18k last week for my solar. Here is my math:
Upfront cost 18k
Post tax credit cost :12.6k
Annual production: 9000kwh
Cost of electricity: 42c/kwh
Annual saving : 0.42*9000= $3700
Pay back period : about 3.5 years
The remaining 21 years are free
---
This is exactly my point.
Where in your math are you accounting for what that $12.6k (and $18k for a year) would be doing for you?
Although the numbers are really good and you’ll have a fairly good payback period. Just to make the math easy assume you paid for this Jan 1st. The S&P is up 10%. You missed out on $1800 already this year. The math for this year works in my favor and that’s certainly not the case every year. But it still needs to be accounted for.
---
Ok, so here's some math.
Year no solar solar
118000 8900
2 19800 13490
3 21780 18539
4 23958 24093
5 26354 30202
6 28989 36922
7 31888 44315
8 35077 52446
9 38585 61391
10 42443 71230 | Depending on your country and your political leanings you could have an aversion to paying fees and taxes out of principle and therefore consider your "repayment period" to be shorter.
But other than that, what is your view here? That budgeting doesn't take into account the opportunity costs?
I mean, if global warming = all dead then anything you can do to prevent that has near infinite value. If solar is then something to prevent global warming then the value is huge.. so using that metric, Noone can afford not to have solar installed.
There's also something to be said for peace of mind. Purchasing a solar system in your example had time to repayment if 16 years, in today's money. But it is also an expense you don't need to budget for, freeing up cash flow.
---
> I mean, if global warming = all dead
It doesnt...
---
A lot dead, a lot of land underwater etc etc. I simplified the argument to not type out more than needed.
---
Nope, doesnt mean that either.
---
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en
Yes it does | 1bsgw8i | CMV: Buying solar rarely pays for itself and if it does end up being a benefit, it’s much further out than most people realize. | Some basic points:
1. Solar is good for the environment and people should do it.
2. Solar is a good hedge against rising energy costs. It’s great peace of mind knowing that you’re locked in.
3. Solar + house battery is great for blackouts and inconvenient power outages. Do it if you can!!
4. For this argument I’m assuming normal family suburban homes. Not some giant compound that uses extreme amounts of energy. I understand that those may have nearer term break even points.
My point: When people make the case that solar “saves them money”. They do overly basic math.
Example: I spent $20k on the system. My bill used to be $100/mo and now it’s $0/mo. So I break even 200 months aka 16 years.
What I feel like is unfairly left out of the equation is the opportunity cost of the $20k. I think it’s fair to debate where that money would have been otherwise (I.e. not in solar panels), but for debate I think it’s fair to assume that money would be in the S&P500 or VTSAX or equivalent. When you do this math, you’re very unlikely to ever break even or if you do it’s 40+ years out. And that’s before taking into account repair costs while you’re out of warranty.
Would love your thoughts! | PeasPlease11 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "DeadCupcakes23",
"id": "kxfjf7f",
"score": 34,
"text": "I think if you're factoring in opportunity cost and assuming the person isn't using any benefits you can get for green improvements you'd also have to factor in the increased value of the property which would possibly cancel out th... | [
{
"author": "nufli",
"id": "kxfje6i",
"score": 80,
"text": "Depending on your country and your political leanings you could have an aversion to paying fees and taxes out of principle and therefore consider your \"repayment period\" to be shorter.\n\n\nBut other than that, what is your view here? Tha... | [
"kxfjf7f",
"kxfncei",
"kxfpmyd",
"kxgeavu",
"kxgio52"
] | [
"kxfje6i",
"kxfkjcw",
"kxflg6e",
"kxfoex7",
"kxfoyho"
] |
CMV: Governments shouldn't rely on their people so heavily to do the right thing
I think governments should have been/should be way, way harsher about COVID-19 protocol. If I imagine myself as the sole ruler of a country amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't know why I wouldn't just make a stay at home mandate, put cameras up everywhere and send armed guards to people's houses who break the rules. If someone does something blatantly offensive like throw a big party, I would throw them in prison for biological terrorism and make an example of them. COVID would be all but eradicated from my nation and things could go (mostly) back to normal after a couple weeks. Is 2 weeks of "freedom" worth hundreds of thousands of lives? I just think it's the moral thing to do to be extremely strict about this. Instead, we (Americans) are basically just being asked politely to distance and wear masks, and obviously that's not enough. Convince me that there's something wrong with this logic. Why not send non-mask-wearers to the gulag?
Edit: I appreciate all the comments I've gotten so far and I've read them all. However, I think this conversation is trending too far toward 'how bad are dictators?' (spoiler: really bad). So I'm going to steer it in another direction to keep it interesting if that's ok:
I think freedom is essential. Even the freedom to do things that are potentially harmful to you. However, freedom should be restricted when that harm extends to others. Should you be allowed to drink? Absolutely! Drink and drive? Certainly not. The same applies with masks. If a toxic gas filled the air and slowly poisoned us and masks kept us safe, I don't think masks should be mandated. If someone wants to feel more comfortable and live a slightly shorter life that's their choice. The problem is that not wearing a mask during a pandemic isn't drinking. It's drinking and driving. So here's a rephrasing of my question: How can you ever morally justify allowing people to harm others in such a big way? I don't think 'because freedom is important' is a sufficient answer. | What prevents the legal mechanisms that allow you to jail party-throwers and anti-maskers from being used against other groups of people whose behavior isn't as objectively harmful?
---
1. Nothing.
2. That's the point.
3. This behaviour is not a thousandth as "objectively harmful" as the OP's.
4. This is a perfect illustration of why we need "rights and protections" from the government - and their fascist tendencies. | Just so I'm clear, you have no real problem with despotic tyranny *per se* so long as it does things you agree with?
---
Practically speaking, I understand that all tyrants trend toward power-hungry and evil. But hypothetically I would much prefer to live under a benevolent dictator than in a dysfunctional democracy. | mroglr | CMV: Governments shouldn't rely on their people so heavily to do the right thing | I think governments should have been/should be way, way harsher about COVID-19 protocol. If I imagine myself as the sole ruler of a country amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't know why I wouldn't just make a stay at home mandate, put cameras up everywhere and send armed guards to people's houses who break the rules. If someone does something blatantly offensive like throw a big party, I would throw them in prison for biological terrorism and make an example of them. COVID would be all but eradicated from my nation and things could go (mostly) back to normal after a couple weeks. Is 2 weeks of "freedom" worth hundreds of thousands of lives? I just think it's the moral thing to do to be extremely strict about this. Instead, we (Americans) are basically just being asked politely to distance and wear masks, and obviously that's not enough. Convince me that there's something wrong with this logic. Why not send non-mask-wearers to the gulag?
Edit: I appreciate all the comments I've gotten so far and I've read them all. However, I think this conversation is trending too far toward 'how bad are dictators?' (spoiler: really bad). So I'm going to steer it in another direction to keep it interesting if that's ok:
I think freedom is essential. Even the freedom to do things that are potentially harmful to you. However, freedom should be restricted when that harm extends to others. Should you be allowed to drink? Absolutely! Drink and drive? Certainly not. The same applies with masks. If a toxic gas filled the air and slowly poisoned us and masks kept us safe, I don't think masks should be mandated. If someone wants to feel more comfortable and live a slightly shorter life that's their choice. The problem is that not wearing a mask during a pandemic isn't drinking. It's drinking and driving. So here's a rephrasing of my question: How can you ever morally justify allowing people to harm others in such a big way? I don't think 'because freedom is important' is a sufficient answer. | Chizzle76 | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "1msera",
"id": "gunhv6k",
"score": 5,
"text": "What prevents the legal mechanisms that allow you to jail party-throwers and anti-maskers from being used against other groups of people whose behavior isn't as objectively harmful?",
"timestamp": 1618521917
},
{
"author": "don_... | [
{
"author": "Grunt08",
"id": "guni0ip",
"score": 8,
"text": "Just so I'm clear, you have no real problem with despotic tyranny *per se* so long as it does things you agree with?",
"timestamp": 1618521983
},
{
"author": "Chizzle76",
"id": "gunjjhl",
"score": 1,
"text": "Practi... | [
"gunhv6k",
"gunlc0w"
] | [
"guni0ip",
"gunjjhl"
] |
CMV: Video Games are the best medium of storytelling
Storytelling should be immersive and create an experience for a person who normally wouldn't have. Or create a world that they cannot experience. Video games are immersive for the visual aspect primarily. The strongest sense of the human body is eyesight. Secondary is hearing and video games again provide that. Immersion should be vital to storytelling and books are superceded by video games. A painting can tell a story without words. A videogame multiplies this. I wish that video games were recognized as this rather than the image of some sweaty fat guy with poor social skills.
I noticed from the comments that there is a general lack of knowledge about games like Edith Finch, Erica, Rapture, Life is Strange that don't require grinding and likely wouldnt need tutorials. These games are about the impacts of your decisions. I haven't played Finch or Erica. I can think of many more examples also.
I must stress that the view is about the POTENTIAL of video games over books. In a sense they could have infinite potential over medium whose variability lies in it's number of pages.
I saw a trailer for a game called Paradise Lost. That's what made me write this. There's nothing particularly outstanding about it.
Why do I think immersion is so important? Because even if someone said I want to hear a story to learn something they would still want entertainment. Perhaps we seek entertainment in everything...
There have been good arguments in terms of length and money wise. Those were two very strong arguments. I can imagine short games. I guess budget is a strong problem with this view. Some people mentioned tabletop as well. I think that those are good but personally I thought the best definition of immersion was getting "lost" in the medium. The problem I have with tabletop is that it seems that there is wayyy too much freedom of choice and chance involved. Someone can clarify this hopefully? I'm still waiting for a better definition of immersion if someone has?
Someone mentioned this already, but one of the benefits to books is filling in the aspects in your mind. Such as the environment. The limitation is brainpower and maybe imagination??? The problem is that video games could theoretically be redacted or redesigned surgically. A book can't have that. I also think that there is filling in gaps while playing video games. For instance when a character says something but it's ambiguous. | Well, I agree that video games are as legitimate an art form as books and paintings, and that games that rise above mere entertainment should be duly appreciated for their artistic merit. However, there are several problems with your argument. Chief among them is the fact that you are merely making assertions that lack any argument to back them up. Why must storytelling be immersive? Why should it create an experience that someone wouldn't normally have? Surely works that appeal to the common experience of living, that speak to the basic human condition, are as deserving of being called great stories as something that is fantastic and impossible.
What's more, even if all your assertions were granted, video games are only the ideal medium for a certain class of non-disabled people. By your own assertions, they are not ideal for those who lack the senses of sight or of hearing, or of both. What about those who are paralyzed from the neck down, and thus cannot interact with the games in any "normal" way? For all of these people, and more, games are not the ideal medium for storytelling.
---
Yeah I was expecting a comment about how stories should be about philosophy and deep themes. I also understand why you're asking about immersion. I'm not going to argue that immersion is the most important. The general premise is that storytelling is entertaining and that immersion creates more entertainment. Just leave a comment about the last sentence because I think that's the crux of what you disagree on.
---
Even if immersion was the most important factor. Dungeons and dragons and other tabletop role playing games are way more immersive. Video games are limited by what has been built for you. A traditional rpg is limited by your imagination. | Why is "immersion" the one and only criteria? Pacing and efficiency are also important, and the cool thing about Citizen Kane is that Kane doesn't stop to grind newpaperXP points for 3 hours right in the middle.
---
I thought pacing was negligent. As long as your emotions have been mostly the same. There arr plenty of video games that don't require "grinding." I'm noticing there is a lack of knowledge about video games in the responses. There are games that are more narrative and story based. The primary barriers are puzzles. You wouldn't grind.
---
I know not every video game includes grinding. Not every movie includes Kane either. It's an illustrative example.
Pacing is not negligent. It's what separates a boring slog from a tight and exciting thriller. A well-paced story and be the difference between losing audience interest and being intense and memorable.
You never answered why immersion was the only criteria to judge stories. There are many aspects that make a good story and yes video games are good at one of them, immersion, but that doesn't mean they're "the best" at all kinds. | mrmd0f | CMV: Video Games are the best medium of storytelling | Storytelling should be immersive and create an experience for a person who normally wouldn't have. Or create a world that they cannot experience. Video games are immersive for the visual aspect primarily. The strongest sense of the human body is eyesight. Secondary is hearing and video games again provide that. Immersion should be vital to storytelling and books are superceded by video games. A painting can tell a story without words. A videogame multiplies this. I wish that video games were recognized as this rather than the image of some sweaty fat guy with poor social skills.
I noticed from the comments that there is a general lack of knowledge about games like Edith Finch, Erica, Rapture, Life is Strange that don't require grinding and likely wouldnt need tutorials. These games are about the impacts of your decisions. I haven't played Finch or Erica. I can think of many more examples also.
I must stress that the view is about the POTENTIAL of video games over books. In a sense they could have infinite potential over medium whose variability lies in it's number of pages.
I saw a trailer for a game called Paradise Lost. That's what made me write this. There's nothing particularly outstanding about it.
Why do I think immersion is so important? Because even if someone said I want to hear a story to learn something they would still want entertainment. Perhaps we seek entertainment in everything...
There have been good arguments in terms of length and money wise. Those were two very strong arguments. I can imagine short games. I guess budget is a strong problem with this view. Some people mentioned tabletop as well. I think that those are good but personally I thought the best definition of immersion was getting "lost" in the medium. The problem I have with tabletop is that it seems that there is wayyy too much freedom of choice and chance involved. Someone can clarify this hopefully? I'm still waiting for a better definition of immersion if someone has?
Someone mentioned this already, but one of the benefits to books is filling in the aspects in your mind. Such as the environment. The limitation is brainpower and maybe imagination??? The problem is that video games could theoretically be redacted or redesigned surgically. A book can't have that. I also think that there is filling in gaps while playing video games. For instance when a character says something but it's ambiguous. | Big-Set2750 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "NaturaSiveDeus",
"id": "gun4yxu",
"score": 20,
"text": "Well, I agree that video games are as legitimate an art form as books and paintings, and that games that rise above mere entertainment should be duly appreciated for their artistic merit. However, there are several problems with yo... | [
{
"author": "dudemanwhoa",
"id": "gun4xvp",
"score": 14,
"text": "Why is \"immersion\" the one and only criteria? Pacing and efficiency are also important, and the cool thing about Citizen Kane is that Kane doesn't stop to grind newpaperXP points for 3 hours right in the middle.",
"timestamp": 1... | [
"gun4yxu",
"gun8ctf",
"gup6sxf"
] | [
"gun4xvp",
"gun7tby",
"gun8kw9"
] |
CMV: There is very little reason for most tests/exams to not be open note/calculator
As the internet has become an increasingly more important part of our lives, we’ve reached a point where rote memorization of facts for most subjects has become more or less unnecessary. Everyone carries what is the equivalent of a calculator, dictionary, atlas, encyclopedia, and any number of other resources in their pocket at all times and sites like Wikipedia that compile knowledge about hundreds of different topics are accessible to everyone. There is almost no situation where either in everyday life or a more specialized career would you have to solve a given problem or otherwise apply knowledge without access to these resources.
At this point, the skills that should be taught and reinforced far more than memorization are application of that knowledge and problem solving. I find it far less important that a student on a math or science exam be able to recite an equation or formula from memory than making sure that they’re able to use that formula to solve a given problem and determine what formulas they would need in a given instance to find the desired result.
As someone who’s a college student who is currently attending class online, I’ve had several professors, especially in history or social studies courses, allow students to use notes, textbooks, and in some rare instances even google on exams, but to compensate they have asked more questions in a shorter amount of time to discourage people from spending too much time researching, and I think this is a much more sensible approach. My math, physics, and engineering courses have been slow to adopt this kind of policy (aside from one physics course that has allowed access to physical notes and limited digital resources like lecture notes and Wikipedia). The most egregious example is a programming course I took in person before the pandemic that required us to write code with a pencil and paper without access to any other resources whatsoever. From all of my experience writing code outside of classes a major part of it is researching different methods of solving problems and that entire aspect of the skill is completely lost in this type of test environment, forcing students into an extremely contrived situation that they would never be in under normal circumstances.
Aside from exams like the SAT and standardized tests (and perhaps even those too), I see very little reason to continue using this outdated testing methodology as it forces students to waste time memorizing information that they could access within seconds in a realistic situation when that time could be used to further improve their problem solving skills.
EDIT: Added paragraphs to improve clarity.
I also wanted to stress that I don’t think students should have unlimited resources and unlimited time. I think the idea should be to make the time limit short enough and have enough questions that students will mostly want to have the information memorized but are allowed to quickly check a few things if they really need it and have the time. I also think that this mostly applies to higher level education, and that for basic skills like arithmetic and basic algebra students should need to learn how to do that by memory. I’m mostly referring to more advanced subjects like physics, chemistry, and higher level math like advanced algebra, statistics, and calculus, and for certain things like squares of numbers and unit circle trigonometric calculations students should be encouraged to memorize that information. I remember having quizzes specifically on those two things and I think for that type of quick knowledge that students will want to know offhand they should be tested on that in the traditional way. | In life you are still going to need to know some things intrinsically. If you think about a doctor in the middle of a surgery, you'll need be able to calculate of how medication to provide in an IV on the fly.
or think about a meeting at work, poeple are going to want to ask you questions about things you know, and you can't always run back to your computer to look it up.
​
If anything, kids these days are being coddled by easy access to information and being conned into thinking that they know something. As a former computer engineer, it was staggering how lost some people could get in a project without there being a tailor made answer on Stackoverflow.
---
!delta I do agree with this to some extent. I think a lot of these skills do need to be developed intrinsically and requiring memorization could help with that. However, I think similar results could be achieved by simply repeatedly assigning questions on certain subjects on homework and other assignments, or by limiting the amount of time students have to complete a test. I think ideally students should be able to answer most of these questions from memory and then be able to access resources for questions they’re really struggling to remember how to do (and in situations where I’ve had open notes this is usually what happens).
---
>or by limiting the amount of time students have to complete a test
This is a tricky one. Because there are plenty of students that struggle with finishing exams on time. Decreasing the time given in an exam may prevent some students from relying on their notes too much but it may also disadvantage students that are slow test takers even further.
I'm current a student in college where all the tests are open note. I really like open note exams and certainly think they have their place. But I do have to admit I've learned wayyyy less these past two semesters than I did with closed note exams before the pandemic.
I honestly think open/closed note exams are very class dependant. For example, open note exams work great for my math classes because its mostly about application and you dont really need to have the equations memorized. On the otherhand, open notes for some of my other classes have allowed me to just control-f half the answers from my typed notes. | Could you add some paragraphs? Also are we talking all tests or just after a certain level of education? Learning algebra or doing arithmetic for younger kids it makes sense not to use a calculator or open notes.
---
!delta This is mostly applying to higher level education (high school and beyond primarily, but perhaps middle school as well), but I agree that subjects like arithmetic and algebra should mostly be taught as before, that’s something I hadn’t thought about. However, I think putting a greater emphasis on teaching research skills and critical thinking/problem solving to younger students would also be very important.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Fit-Order-9468 ([20∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Fit-Order-9468)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | mrnmln | CMV: There is very little reason for most tests/exams to not be open note/calculator | As the internet has become an increasingly more important part of our lives, we’ve reached a point where rote memorization of facts for most subjects has become more or less unnecessary. Everyone carries what is the equivalent of a calculator, dictionary, atlas, encyclopedia, and any number of other resources in their pocket at all times and sites like Wikipedia that compile knowledge about hundreds of different topics are accessible to everyone. There is almost no situation where either in everyday life or a more specialized career would you have to solve a given problem or otherwise apply knowledge without access to these resources.
At this point, the skills that should be taught and reinforced far more than memorization are application of that knowledge and problem solving. I find it far less important that a student on a math or science exam be able to recite an equation or formula from memory than making sure that they’re able to use that formula to solve a given problem and determine what formulas they would need in a given instance to find the desired result.
As someone who’s a college student who is currently attending class online, I’ve had several professors, especially in history or social studies courses, allow students to use notes, textbooks, and in some rare instances even google on exams, but to compensate they have asked more questions in a shorter amount of time to discourage people from spending too much time researching, and I think this is a much more sensible approach. My math, physics, and engineering courses have been slow to adopt this kind of policy (aside from one physics course that has allowed access to physical notes and limited digital resources like lecture notes and Wikipedia). The most egregious example is a programming course I took in person before the pandemic that required us to write code with a pencil and paper without access to any other resources whatsoever. From all of my experience writing code outside of classes a major part of it is researching different methods of solving problems and that entire aspect of the skill is completely lost in this type of test environment, forcing students into an extremely contrived situation that they would never be in under normal circumstances.
Aside from exams like the SAT and standardized tests (and perhaps even those too), I see very little reason to continue using this outdated testing methodology as it forces students to waste time memorizing information that they could access within seconds in a realistic situation when that time could be used to further improve their problem solving skills.
EDIT: Added paragraphs to improve clarity.
I also wanted to stress that I don’t think students should have unlimited resources and unlimited time. I think the idea should be to make the time limit short enough and have enough questions that students will mostly want to have the information memorized but are allowed to quickly check a few things if they really need it and have the time. I also think that this mostly applies to higher level education, and that for basic skills like arithmetic and basic algebra students should need to learn how to do that by memory. I’m mostly referring to more advanced subjects like physics, chemistry, and higher level math like advanced algebra, statistics, and calculus, and for certain things like squares of numbers and unit circle trigonometric calculations students should be encouraged to memorize that information. I remember having quizzes specifically on those two things and I think for that type of quick knowledge that students will want to know offhand they should be tested on that in the traditional way. | tarheeltexan1 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "guneexe",
"score": 13,
"text": "In life you are still going to need to know some things intrinsically. If you think about a doctor in the middle of a surgery, you'll need be able to calculate of how medication to provide in an IV on the fly. \n\nor think about a mee... | [
{
"author": "Fit-Order-9468",
"id": "gunc7d8",
"score": 4,
"text": "Could you add some paragraphs? Also are we talking all tests or just after a certain level of education? Learning algebra or doing arithmetic for younger kids it makes sense not to use a calculator or open notes.",
"timestamp"... | [
"guneexe",
"gunfd87",
"gunjeu7"
] | [
"gunc7d8",
"gunci5a",
"gund0g1"
] |
CMV: It's degrading that I have to wear a shirt that says 'pizza genius' in huge letters on the back of it while in public because I'm working for just under minimum wage for a soulless corporation who I'm pretty sure made the shirts intentionally embarrassing because they hate the poor.
I won't say the name of the company for obvious reasons. This just really gets to me, I only got the job to appease my family, I have no interest in existing or sustaining myself that isn't for other people and to have to wear something so atrocious in public because the store is tiny and I can't change clothes there and the uniform is mandatory is just so painful. I'm tolerating working again, it's nice to have something to eat up my time that is semi-productive (not productive enough to deserve livable wags apparently but whatever).
Sorry, I know I belong on r/3edgy5me n' all, I just really wish this world had anything that wasn't tinged with cruelty within it. Bit of a vent, nothing in the rules of the sub against that though so it should be fine. | A company is well within its rights to have employees wear a uniform. It is quite common as a means to identify who is and is not staff. You see this everywhere in customer facing sales jobs.
You may dislike this but it is hardly offensive or degrading. It is a shirt advertising the business you are working for.
---
Yes, but they did not need to emblazon the back of the shirt with big bold words in a nice fun font saying I'm a genius of pizza when I'm just trying to survive as a highschool dropout.
---
> I'm a genius of pizza
How is that degrading? Maybe you don't like it, which is fine, but I don't see any malicious intent to humiliate or embarrass anyone. | [removed]
---
True, but they seem to enjoy rubbing it in. I would find another job but its slim pickings for me. I have some mental health issues that make me very uncertain of if I'll have a psychotic break if I'm under too much stress and I'm trying to take it slow and not overwork myself because that's how my last episode happened and I don't want a repeat. There aren't many places that'll treat you nice if you say you're crazy and can't work even 20 hours a week while only having a GED and no certain diagnosis because you can't afford the good doctors.
---
Pizza delivery is probably the worst possible job you could pic having thos issues I'd say if you able to tolerate that you can easily handle something different, try warehouse jobs or job shops. | io8zeh | CMV: It's degrading that I have to wear a shirt that says 'pizza genius' in huge letters on the back of it while in public because I'm working for just under minimum wage for a soulless corporation who I'm pretty sure made the shirts intentionally embarrassing because they hate the poor. | I won't say the name of the company for obvious reasons. This just really gets to me, I only got the job to appease my family, I have no interest in existing or sustaining myself that isn't for other people and to have to wear something so atrocious in public because the store is tiny and I can't change clothes there and the uniform is mandatory is just so painful. I'm tolerating working again, it's nice to have something to eat up my time that is semi-productive (not productive enough to deserve livable wags apparently but whatever).
Sorry, I know I belong on r/3edgy5me n' all, I just really wish this world had anything that wasn't tinged with cruelty within it. Bit of a vent, nothing in the rules of the sub against that though so it should be fine. | UmmWaitWut | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "in_cavediver",
"id": "g4c6uhq",
"score": 27,
"text": "A company is well within its rights to have employees wear a uniform. It is quite common as a means to identify who is and is not staff. You see this everywhere in customer facing sales jobs. \n\nYou may dislike this but it is hardly... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4c6o7m",
"score": 24,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1599491142
},
{
"author": "UmmWaitWut",
"id": "g4c79gh",
"score": -8,
"text": "True, but they seem to enjoy rubbing it in. I would find another job but its slim pickings for me. I have so... | [
"g4c6uhq",
"g4c7ogx",
"g4ca9me"
] | [
"g4c6o7m",
"g4c79gh",
"g4c7lkb"
] |
CMV: It's degrading that I have to wear a shirt that says 'pizza genius' in huge letters on the back of it while in public because I'm working for just under minimum wage for a soulless corporation who I'm pretty sure made the shirts intentionally embarrassing because they hate the poor.
I won't say the name of the company for obvious reasons. This just really gets to me, I only got the job to appease my family, I have no interest in existing or sustaining myself that isn't for other people and to have to wear something so atrocious in public because the store is tiny and I can't change clothes there and the uniform is mandatory is just so painful. I'm tolerating working again, it's nice to have something to eat up my time that is semi-productive (not productive enough to deserve livable wags apparently but whatever).
Sorry, I know I belong on r/3edgy5me n' all, I just really wish this world had anything that wasn't tinged with cruelty within it. Bit of a vent, nothing in the rules of the sub against that though so it should be fine. | [removed]
---
True, but they seem to enjoy rubbing it in. I would find another job but its slim pickings for me. I have some mental health issues that make me very uncertain of if I'll have a psychotic break if I'm under too much stress and I'm trying to take it slow and not overwork myself because that's how my last episode happened and I don't want a repeat. There aren't many places that'll treat you nice if you say you're crazy and can't work even 20 hours a week while only having a GED and no certain diagnosis because you can't afford the good doctors.
---
The company enjoys rubbing it in??? Get over yourself. It’s not about you. The company thinks it’s clever advertising. They don’t think about you at all. | It’s a uniform and the reason for the big letters is not for the reasons you described. It’s called marketing and they can require you to wear it so if it’s a problem your solution should be to find another job. But to say that they only make you wear it to humiliate you has zero basis in reality, you’re just jaded.
---
Fair enough, it is humiliating that I have to wear something so abrasive to my being, I just wish that I saw a better option that is within my known capabilities because I have very strong dissuasion from leaving them in any way that isn't inherently a safe situation and I don't get many safe situations to expand, getting this job wasn't even all that safe for me honestly.
---
Oh please get over yourself. | io8zeh | CMV: It's degrading that I have to wear a shirt that says 'pizza genius' in huge letters on the back of it while in public because I'm working for just under minimum wage for a soulless corporation who I'm pretty sure made the shirts intentionally embarrassing because they hate the poor. | I won't say the name of the company for obvious reasons. This just really gets to me, I only got the job to appease my family, I have no interest in existing or sustaining myself that isn't for other people and to have to wear something so atrocious in public because the store is tiny and I can't change clothes there and the uniform is mandatory is just so painful. I'm tolerating working again, it's nice to have something to eat up my time that is semi-productive (not productive enough to deserve livable wags apparently but whatever).
Sorry, I know I belong on r/3edgy5me n' all, I just really wish this world had anything that wasn't tinged with cruelty within it. Bit of a vent, nothing in the rules of the sub against that though so it should be fine. | UmmWaitWut | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4c6o7m",
"score": 24,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1599491142
},
{
"author": "UmmWaitWut",
"id": "g4c79gh",
"score": -8,
"text": "True, but they seem to enjoy rubbing it in. I would find another job but its slim pickings for me. I have so... | [
{
"author": "RooDooDootDaDoo",
"id": "g4c7cjk",
"score": 10,
"text": "It’s a uniform and the reason for the big letters is not for the reasons you described. It’s called marketing and they can require you to wear it so if it’s a problem your solution should be to find another job. But to say that th... | [
"g4c6o7m",
"g4c79gh",
"g4c7lhm"
] | [
"g4c7cjk",
"g4c8x59",
"g4c93kk"
] |
CMV: Transexuals are their own thing, not fully male or female.
Think of this hypothetical scenario: You are a MtF and you are stranded on an island with another person, a biological woman. You both are without any memory of what civilization is like or their judgements on you. Your only perspective of yourself is your own and the nice woman who is with you. (We’re going to say she’s nice for the sake of the argument.) The only world you would know is the one where you’re accepted for what you are. In this case would you really care if someone thinks of you fully as a woman? You get to act, dress and do what you want. Your shade of gender is fully accepted. The thought of someone even hating on you for being different doesn’t exist. You never experienced it. The real problem truly arises when we turn the nice woman into a hateful woman.
I believe this push to call transexuals “real” females or males is the wrong push. It’s a demographic wide push into delusion rather than a push towards acceptance of what makes you different in the first place. My argument is this: If you are different then why does it matter? If you are trans and feel this bad about this then I believe others made you feel like it matters and you’re responding to that. Being trans is unique. You are your own thing and only a few others get to be like you. You are your own shade of female or male. What matters is that others are accepting you being different rather than hating you for it. The major push for trans rights shouldn’t be the push to be SEEN like everyone else rather it should be so that you’re TREATED like how you want to be treated.
What’s is really so wrong with being different?
Some background here: I’ve dealt with mental illness for most of my life. I have had lots of problems with people and lots problems in certain areas in my life. Lots of bullying. I pushed myself a lot to try to be something I’m not. And the more I pushed myself towards being someone I could never hope to be, the more I would hate myself for not being able to reach the ideal in my mind. I wanted to desperately be something I am not because others told me I could in an attempt to make me feel better. I was delusional for awhile and it burnt me out. I almost got close to suicide. What helped me recover was things like meditation and Buddhism. The acceptance of what is instead of what I want.
I’m open for a more nuanced discussion about this. I’d like to know about more perspectives. I know that not every trans person feels this way but it seems like a large swath of them do and there’s a thread I saw earlier of people arguing that you need to see every trans as a “real” woman or man. This doesn’t feel like a real push towards acceptance to me.
​
Edit: Well that was quick. I think I need to rethink this. There is a large amount of things I do not understand about gender. My arguments need to be refined and I need to educate myself.
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to close this off now. | >I pushed myself a lot to try to be something I’m not
Unlike what you've experienced in your life, transgendered people experience this issue in reverse. Their default state/the body they've been given is unappealing to them and does not feel like their *own*. They are not working towards becoming more like their internal gender for society's sake, but because they *genuinely* feel as though they are female/male internally.
---
But how you genuinely feel doesn't always line up with the reality of your situation. They should be able to do what they want, and have others respect how they want to be treated. You want to act like a girl and be treated like a girl or vice versa? That's fine. My argument is that pushing them towards the delusion that they are the same as the biological gender they so desperately want to be is hurting more people than helping.
---
>My argument is that pushing them towards the delusion that they are the same as the biological gender they so desperately want to be is hurting more people than helping.
I don't agree, and I don't think you've exactly outlined a good case as to *why* and *how* it is causing more harm than good.
There are women who are infertile, and have never been able to bare children. Are they not women because of this? Certainly not.
Would a man no longer be a man if he lost his penis in an accident?
---
My case is that pushing others towards delusion that they're exactly the same as what they would like to be is wrong. Like what had happened to myself. It's an empathetic lie.
How does it hurt? For example there was a thread earlier calling a man who couldn't find attraction to transgender people as "transphobic". They were conflating the differences between being attracted to a girl and to a trans girl. When you call others transphobic for something you have no control over it only creates more strife between people which in turn causes more problems.
​
Edit: Also No I do not think those two things do not make someone not a man or not a female. They were born that way biologically no matter what unfortunate event that has occurred.
---
> For example there was a thread earlier calling a man who couldn't find attraction to transgender people as "transphobic"
I was in that thread earlier, and unless the conseus changed, that is not what people were saying. They were saying refusing to see a person as a real woman is the transphobic part | So, let's take your hypothetical scenario. You asked "in this case would you really care if someone thinks of you fully as a woman?" The answer is actually yes, I would care, as I am a woman.
Also, some things to correct you on. The term is transgender, not transexual. In addition, people who are trans aren't saying "I am actually a female" they are saying "I am actually a woman." It's a subtle, but important distinction, as they aren't denying their sex, but informing people their gender is different.
---
> The term is transgender, not transexual.
​
Not to sound snide, but - what's the difference?
---
Transsexual is an outdated and less accurate term, while transgender is current and more accurate.
From GLAAD's website:
>An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. Still preferred by some people who have permanently changed - or seek to change - their bodies through medical interventions, including but not limited to hormones and/or surgeries. Unlike transgender, transsexual is not an umbrella term. Many transgender people do not identify as transsexual and prefer the word transgender. It is best to ask which term a person prefers. If preferred, use as an adjective: transsexual woman or transsexual man.
Essentially, the difference is Sex vs Gender.
---
Thanks for that. TBH, still does not seem like a meaningful difference to me (they don't actually explain why transsexual is not an umbrella term but transgender is). But, good to know that GLAAD does recognize a correct terminology.
---
So, to go a bit further, transsexual implies that the person is different than the sex they were born with, while transgender implies the person is a different gender.
As for why one is an umbrella term, and the other isn't, there are very few people who are trans that object to the term transgender, as it is an accurate description (gender doesn't match sex.) But many will object to transsexual (either because they never viewed themselves that way, the implication of surgery, or other reasons). | bwrexk | CMV: Transexuals are their own thing, not fully male or female. | Think of this hypothetical scenario: You are a MtF and you are stranded on an island with another person, a biological woman. You both are without any memory of what civilization is like or their judgements on you. Your only perspective of yourself is your own and the nice woman who is with you. (We’re going to say she’s nice for the sake of the argument.) The only world you would know is the one where you’re accepted for what you are. In this case would you really care if someone thinks of you fully as a woman? You get to act, dress and do what you want. Your shade of gender is fully accepted. The thought of someone even hating on you for being different doesn’t exist. You never experienced it. The real problem truly arises when we turn the nice woman into a hateful woman.
I believe this push to call transexuals “real” females or males is the wrong push. It’s a demographic wide push into delusion rather than a push towards acceptance of what makes you different in the first place. My argument is this: If you are different then why does it matter? If you are trans and feel this bad about this then I believe others made you feel like it matters and you’re responding to that. Being trans is unique. You are your own thing and only a few others get to be like you. You are your own shade of female or male. What matters is that others are accepting you being different rather than hating you for it. The major push for trans rights shouldn’t be the push to be SEEN like everyone else rather it should be so that you’re TREATED like how you want to be treated.
What’s is really so wrong with being different?
Some background here: I’ve dealt with mental illness for most of my life. I have had lots of problems with people and lots problems in certain areas in my life. Lots of bullying. I pushed myself a lot to try to be something I’m not. And the more I pushed myself towards being someone I could never hope to be, the more I would hate myself for not being able to reach the ideal in my mind. I wanted to desperately be something I am not because others told me I could in an attempt to make me feel better. I was delusional for awhile and it burnt me out. I almost got close to suicide. What helped me recover was things like meditation and Buddhism. The acceptance of what is instead of what I want.
I’m open for a more nuanced discussion about this. I’d like to know about more perspectives. I know that not every trans person feels this way but it seems like a large swath of them do and there’s a thread I saw earlier of people arguing that you need to see every trans as a “real” woman or man. This doesn’t feel like a real push towards acceptance to me.
​
Edit: Well that was quick. I think I need to rethink this. There is a large amount of things I do not understand about gender. My arguments need to be refined and I need to educate myself.
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to close this off now. | TheAngerManOfDicks | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "UNRThrowAway",
"id": "epzp0sz",
"score": 5,
"text": ">I pushed myself a lot to try to be something I’m not\n\nUnlike what you've experienced in your life, transgendered people experience this issue in reverse. Their default state/the body they've been given is unappealing to them and do... | [
{
"author": "techiemikey",
"id": "epzq4yp",
"score": 8,
"text": "So, let's take your hypothetical scenario. You asked \"in this case would you really care if someone thinks of you fully as a woman?\" The answer is actually yes, I would care, as I am a woman.\n\nAlso, some things to correct you on.... | [
"epzp0sz",
"epzq3mp",
"epzqdid",
"epzrmuf",
"epzs6ms"
] | [
"epzq4yp",
"epzs7d8",
"epzsq5b",
"epzt0lc",
"epzu1vr"
] |
CMV: I don't care about the environment.
I just think that whatever happens probably won't be within my lifetime or the lifetime of people i love anyway (my boyfriend, parents, sister and dogs).
1-no I don't want to have kids, and I don't care about anyone's kids because i don't love them?
2-i don't give a shit about what I'll leave behind after I die
3-i know if people thought like that in the past generations I wouldn't be here but that didn't happen so it doesn't make any difference
Please cmv if you think you can, maybe it is failed.
Edit: why is this being downvoted anyway? I thought this sub was a place to be honest and try to change people's views | Just because it won't be in your lifetime doesn't mean you shouldn't care/ give a shit about it. You still live in the world now. And the things that companies/ governments do now impact your life directly, even if you won't be around for the larger scale impacts.
To paraphrase guardians of the galaxy.
"Why do you care about the fate of the universe?"
"Because i'm one of the idiots that lives in it."
Unless you plan on dying in the next 10 years you probably will see the impact of climate change to a larger scale, so why not care a little bit now and save future you some trouble?
---
What kind of impact would I see and what are your sources?
---
A brief Google from NASA's website. For the United States:
>Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.
>Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.
>Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.
>Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
>Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.
>The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.
>Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere.
>Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central U.S. in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation.
NASA has their references at the bottom of the page. They list some things that will happen in the far future, but the few that I listed above can be expected in your lifetime based on what i guessed your age is
---
I'm Brazilian so I already have really hot days and am used to it. Can't I just use the air conditioner and stay inside like I do? If i need to go out in a really hot day I can take an uber which also has a.c. We don't have hurricanes and such here. And the first paragraph don't really shows WHEN these would happen.
---
> I'm Brazilian so I already have really hot days and am used to it.
If you live in a hot area it is going to get even hotter. This is going to have effects on your way of life. It is going to affect how food is grown, how materials are gathered, infrastructure, etc. We're not talking about mild discomfort, we're talking about a catastrophic change and an upset of our global environment.
"Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns." These are things that are going to affect you even if you "use the air conditioner". | Will your sister ever have kids?
Even if you don't love her kids, you love your sister so you'd at least somewhat care for what she wants right? (ie: a non-fucked up environment for her kid)
---
She doesn't want to get married or date, also hates kids..
---
Will you ever make friends with anyone who doesn't hate kids? Will any of your loved ones ever make friends like that either?
Pretty much same argument.
---
But I don't really care about their kids, If they are my friends I only care about them and only to a certain extent, the only people I truly value are my bf sister and parents.
---
Let's go back a step, what does "care for" and "value" mean to you, and why are you so sure that those are the only people you'll *ever* value, because my question was about future hypothetical friends. | an9pbe | CMV: I don't care about the environment. | I just think that whatever happens probably won't be within my lifetime or the lifetime of people i love anyway (my boyfriend, parents, sister and dogs).
1-no I don't want to have kids, and I don't care about anyone's kids because i don't love them?
2-i don't give a shit about what I'll leave behind after I die
3-i know if people thought like that in the past generations I wouldn't be here but that didn't happen so it doesn't make any difference
Please cmv if you think you can, maybe it is failed.
Edit: why is this being downvoted anyway? I thought this sub was a place to be honest and try to change people's views | pr0xyd0t | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Thesaltysnal",
"id": "efrsiz9",
"score": 1,
"text": "Just because it won't be in your lifetime doesn't mean you shouldn't care/ give a shit about it. You still live in the world now. And the things that companies/ governments do now impact your life directly, even if you won't be around... | [
{
"author": "figsbar",
"id": "efrt3ap",
"score": 2,
"text": "Will your sister ever have kids?\n\nEven if you don't love her kids, you love your sister so you'd at least somewhat care for what she wants right? (ie: a non-fucked up environment for her kid)",
"timestamp": 1549336887
},
{
"a... | [
"efrsiz9",
"efruzis",
"efrv874",
"efrvikl",
"efryj73"
] | [
"efrt3ap",
"efruqwo",
"efruzvn",
"efrv5au",
"efrvpfw"
] |
CMV: Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax is misguided and would hurt the economy
I've seen this proposal become extremely popular on reddit and want to see a solid argument for it. I fully agree that the ultra wealthy should be taxed more, but I think a wealth tax is an extremely poor method to accomplish that goal. For a number of reasons, I think it would result in far worse outcomes than introducing higher taxes in another form such as further marginal brackets on income or capital gains.
**It would be far more complicated to implement and collect.** Accurately valuing these fortunes annually would require a massive increase in the size of the IRS. Taxing wealth in the form of cash is easy enough, but as the assets become more volatile or less frequently traded, things become difficult. I'll admit I haven't yet seen her answers on how to deal with this, but how do you tax a stock holding that doubled in value over the year, or to take it even further an art collection? Capital gains does not have this ambiguity, since it requires a purchase and a sale.
**It discourages investment and capital accumulation.** It's generally agreed that capital accumulation is a strong driver of economic development. Introducing a wealth taxes encourages consumption spending with no value gained afterwards. Innovative companies and risky large scale projects heavily rely on investments from the wealthy. Without steady returns, wealthy investors would likely shy away from these investments in favor of low risk investments or consumption spending.
**There's a philosophical difference between taxing a transfer and taxing fixed wealth.** Most taxes are taken as skimming from a transaction. I know property taxes are an exception, but I disagree with them on the same grounds. There is a fundamental difference between taking a portion of economic activity and taking a constant payment from citizens.
**Although this is a rare situation, it can cause an unfair burden for people with relatively illiquid wealth.** For early investors in companies, or people who inherit large estates it may be difficult to come up with the payment. If your wealth is in illiquid forms it would be difficult to sell as well. | **>It discourages investment and capital accumulation.**
​
Isn't this begging the question? We don't need wealthy people to drive the economy. We can replace private investment with public investment in the form of public banks. In fact this neoliberal idea of catering to the needs of the super rich so that they might invest in something useful is a failed idea and we need to move beyond it already.
Also the tax is so small that it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway.
**>There's a philosophical difference between taxing a transfer and taxing fixed wealth.**
​
Not sure why that matters? I don't see an inherent moral problem with taxing wealth, or taking constant payments from citizens. At least in theory the citizens are benefitting from the system which is kept intact through taxes. And at least in theory they have democratic control of the state.
---
>We can replace private investment with public investment in the form of public banks.
I guess that could work, but that becomes an even more complicated change to introduce. My point is that very large projects require a large amount of investment that middle class people can't manage. Maybe crowd funding or public banks, but then you run into issues of who would manage that.
>Also the tax is so small that it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway.
Small is relative, 3% essentially nullifies bond rates and takes a huge dent (close to half) out of most stable investments.
>Not sure why that matters? I don't see an inherent moral problem with taxing wealth, or taking constant payments from citizens
Fair enough, some people have an outlook that you pay the tax, and take possession of the money. In my mind, this kind of makes me feel that I don't truly have ownership and might as well be renting from the government.
---
> Maybe crowd funding or public banks, but then you run into issues of who would manage that.
The government?
> Fair enough, some people have an outlook that you pay the tax, and take possession of the money. In my mind, this kind of makes me feel that I don't truly have ownership and might as well be renting from the government.
The important thing to remember is that this only applies to extreme wealth.
The concept of income tax is in *theory* a good way to tax all your citizens, but you have a problem when it comes to the extremely wealthy-- they have very little income. Jeff Bezos has an income of only $80,000, Warren Buffet has an income of $100,000, [Mark Zuckerberg's salary is only $1](https://www1.salary.com/Mark-Zuckerberg-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-FACEBOOK-INC.html) a move he co-opted from Steve Jobs.
This means that-- with the exception of sales tax and property tax-- Mark Zuckerberg will never pay taxes again. Jeff Bezos will continue to pay less in taxes (especially when you consider write offs) than the programmers that work at his company. I know a woman who works as a housekeeping manager for a national hotel chain in rural Wyoming-- she will pay more in taxes than Warren Buffet.
All of their 'money' comes from assets and wealth, and their wealth fuels their lifestyles. As the super wealthy are using their wealth as a vehicle to essentially generate income-- i.e. purchasing power-- and they do it at a crazy rate, then taxing this wealth is the only way to get a proper contribution from them. Without it, we're left with the richest people in our society paying next to nothing.
​
I do agree that 2% and 3% seems *a little* high. I would bet that if her plan ever came to fruition though it would only be after a lot of deliberation-- that number of 2% and 3% would likely end up as 0.5% and 1% after everything is said and done. If she doesn't start high she has nowhere to maneuver to when people push back. | i'm guessing this is similar to AOC's ultra-rich tax?
paul krugman wrote an opinion piece on this in january:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html
i think the core of his piece is this [graph](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/01/05/opinion/190105krugman1/190105krugman1-jumbo.png?quality=90&auto=webp) which shows the top tax bracket rate and GDP growth rate since 1957, the year in which that rate was 90%.
> What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich — higher even than those AOC is proposing — and did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
krugman, though he does write for the NYT, is at core a policy wonk and cites a lot of data here.
---
AOC's proposed tax is adding more marginal brackets to the federal income tax. Warren has released a plan to tax fortunes over $50 million at 2% annually and over $1 billion at 3% annually. I mostly agree with Krugman's view on the AOC tax.
---
ah ok. yeah i have no info/opinion on warren's tax then | bwi2yw | CMV: Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax is misguided and would hurt the economy | I've seen this proposal become extremely popular on reddit and want to see a solid argument for it. I fully agree that the ultra wealthy should be taxed more, but I think a wealth tax is an extremely poor method to accomplish that goal. For a number of reasons, I think it would result in far worse outcomes than introducing higher taxes in another form such as further marginal brackets on income or capital gains.
**It would be far more complicated to implement and collect.** Accurately valuing these fortunes annually would require a massive increase in the size of the IRS. Taxing wealth in the form of cash is easy enough, but as the assets become more volatile or less frequently traded, things become difficult. I'll admit I haven't yet seen her answers on how to deal with this, but how do you tax a stock holding that doubled in value over the year, or to take it even further an art collection? Capital gains does not have this ambiguity, since it requires a purchase and a sale.
**It discourages investment and capital accumulation.** It's generally agreed that capital accumulation is a strong driver of economic development. Introducing a wealth taxes encourages consumption spending with no value gained afterwards. Innovative companies and risky large scale projects heavily rely on investments from the wealthy. Without steady returns, wealthy investors would likely shy away from these investments in favor of low risk investments or consumption spending.
**There's a philosophical difference between taxing a transfer and taxing fixed wealth.** Most taxes are taken as skimming from a transaction. I know property taxes are an exception, but I disagree with them on the same grounds. There is a fundamental difference between taking a portion of economic activity and taking a constant payment from citizens.
**Although this is a rare situation, it can cause an unfair burden for people with relatively illiquid wealth.** For early investors in companies, or people who inherit large estates it may be difficult to come up with the payment. If your wealth is in illiquid forms it would be difficult to sell as well. | jscummy | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "uselessrightfoot",
"id": "epxq4gt",
"score": 7,
"text": "**>It discourages investment and capital accumulation.**\n\n​\n\nIsn't this begging the question? We don't need wealthy people to drive the economy. We can replace private investment with public investment in the form of pu... | [
{
"author": "mfDandP",
"id": "epxqdmh",
"score": 5,
"text": "i'm guessing this is similar to AOC's ultra-rich tax?\n\npaul krugman wrote an opinion piece on this in january:\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html\n\ni think the core of his piece ... | [
"epxq4gt",
"epxrgif",
"epyc4b9"
] | [
"epxqdmh",
"epxqjrq",
"epxqowt"
] |
CMV: Police aren't inherently more racist than any other profession
There is the common view that police, as an institution, is (and therefore police officers themselves are) often racist. However, I don't think police are more likely to be racist than any other profession. It's just that you see the effects of it more because police have more power (like to use deadly force) if they are, in fact, racist. Someone's profession has nothing to do with them being racist, in my opinion. So I don't think police officers are any more likely to be racist than retail workers, for example. It's just that the consequences are greater if they choose to act on it. | Different professions appeal to different types of people. There's definitely a type of person who wants to be in a position of authority over people and pursues a career in policing to get it. I wouldn't be surprised if that type also has more racist tendencies.
That's not to say there aren't other types of people policing appeals to, but I think it's more likely attract someone who wants to be in control of others than, say, being a barber.
---
What do you think the connection is between wanting to have authority over people and being racist? Also, do you think that would apply to jobs like teaching, as well?
---
>What do you think the connection is between wanting to have authority over people and being racist?
Racists believe in a racial hierarchy, where their race should have power over others. The idea of having power over others is thus going to appeal to you.
>Also, do you think that would apply to jobs like teaching, as well?
I wouldn't say teaching has the same thing going for it, you're more performing a duty. You certainly don't have the same degree of power as a cop would over someone. | >There is the common view that police, as an institution, is (**and therefore police officers themselves are**)
No, you've misunderstood the idea. The whole point of saying that the institution is racist is to distinguish from the idea of individual cops being racist. That's what systemic racism means.
---
There's no way for a system to be racist without individuals being racist. (Individuals make up the system.) Do you disagree?
---
That is in fact the *entire concept* of systemic racism. Whether you agree with it or not, that's what it means. So your whole question is based on misunderstanding what you're even asking about. | 1bsa2ns | CMV: Police aren't inherently more racist than any other profession | There is the common view that police, as an institution, is (and therefore police officers themselves are) often racist. However, I don't think police are more likely to be racist than any other profession. It's just that you see the effects of it more because police have more power (like to use deadly force) if they are, in fact, racist. Someone's profession has nothing to do with them being racist, in my opinion. So I don't think police officers are any more likely to be racist than retail workers, for example. It's just that the consequences are greater if they choose to act on it. | Blonde_Icon | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "NaturalCarob5611",
"id": "kxe5rvb",
"score": 35,
"text": "Different professions appeal to different types of people. There's definitely a type of person who wants to be in a position of authority over people and pursues a career in policing to get it. I wouldn't be surprised if that typ... | [
{
"author": "FrickinLazerBeams",
"id": "kxe67qq",
"score": 47,
"text": ">There is the common view that police, as an institution, is (**and therefore police officers themselves are**)\n\nNo, you've misunderstood the idea. The whole point of saying that the institution is racist is to distinguish fro... | [
"kxe5rvb",
"kxe6fty",
"kxe6z2m"
] | [
"kxe67qq",
"kxe6ox9",
"kxe6wt8"
] |
CMV: It’s not just that the minimum wage is too low, it’s that employers try to make every job minimum wage
Don’t get me wrong: Everybody should be able to live off of what they can earn from a week’s work. If a company can’t survive by paying people properly for their time, it shouldn’t survive at all. HOWEVER… Just focusing on the dollar-amount of the minimum wage draws attention away from the fact that employers are abusing the hell out of it. Every time I see a discussion of minimum wage someone gives an example of a job that is horribly underpaid at (say…) $12 an hour. I can’t help but agree - but my first reaction isn’t “we need to raise the minimum wage”, it’s “why the hell is that considered a minimum wage job?” | > HOWEVER… Just focusing on the dollar-amount of the minimum wage draws
attention away from the fact that employers are abusing the hell out of
it.
And that is why people talk about the dollar amount. We literally can not force a company to hire people for specific roles. But we can create legislation that requires the company pay a certain amount minimum to address their hiring practice.
---
Δ For inspiring a refinement of my view: we should establish different levels of minimum wage based on the class of work being performed. for example (illustrative $ only):
* Shoveling shit? $12/hr.
* Associate’s degree and administering patient meds, feeding tube, that’s $19/hr.
* EMT? $25/hr.
Clearly this would be prohibitively complicated to administer. But in the meantime we’re lumping a wide range of skilled & unskilled workers into the same bucket, which makes agreeing on a “fair” minimum impossible. Δ
---
Hi OP, this system exists in Australia, Australia has a unique legal system for work and pay.
The government many decades ago saw the conflict between workers and companies, and saw that it often revolved around who could abuse their power better. Companies paid whatever bullshit exploitative conditions they could get away with, and powerful unions was just strike and throw a tantrum whenever they would get away with it.
Enter the award system..the government decided that courts should be the final mediator for all working disputes. Each industry was to meet between workers and companies and agree on a generic contract for their specific job. It should specify everything related to that job - rest, travel, enumeration, promotion schedules, etc etc all jobs not only have different conditions but within jobs there are.classes of wage based on experience, complexity of the job etc.
If an agreement could not be reached, the case went to the courts. Both sides made their case and the court imposed a contract that the courts felt was fair. These agreements are called "awards"
Any company can make a contract that is more generous than the award but they must meet the minimum standards for an award.
The system has been stripped down a bit by successive right wing governments but it is still an enduring part of Australian work law.
One thing that is great about the award system is that it recognises each job is different and handles all sorts of minor workplace rights to ensure your welfare and happiness. The requirements for a white collar worker, a night shift nurse, a travelling salesman working on commission, and a trucker in terms of rest, travel renumeration, being required to stay back etc etc are totally different. | What sort of jobs are minimum wage jobs that you consider shouldn't be?
---
Retail pharmacy technicians, EMTs. Sure there are some examples above min wage, but they are so grossly underpaid that it makes the jobs really tough to justify when you are a licensed medical professional making less than a taco bell employee.
---
These are generally low paid because there are tons of people capable and willing to do them. | q1wrhd | CMV: It’s not just that the minimum wage is too low, it’s that employers try to make every job minimum wage | Don’t get me wrong: Everybody should be able to live off of what they can earn from a week’s work. If a company can’t survive by paying people properly for their time, it shouldn’t survive at all. HOWEVER… Just focusing on the dollar-amount of the minimum wage draws attention away from the fact that employers are abusing the hell out of it. Every time I see a discussion of minimum wage someone gives an example of a job that is horribly underpaid at (say…) $12 an hour. I can’t help but agree - but my first reaction isn’t “we need to raise the minimum wage”, it’s “why the hell is that considered a minimum wage job?” | Opr9r | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "gothpunkboy89",
"id": "hfhct9s",
"score": 111,
"text": "> HOWEVER… Just focusing on the dollar-amount of the minimum wage draws \nattention away from the fact that employers are abusing the hell out of \nit.\n\nAnd that is why people talk about the dollar amount. We literally can no... | [
{
"author": "HavntGottaKalou",
"id": "hfh93jv",
"score": 193,
"text": "What sort of jobs are minimum wage jobs that you consider shouldn't be?",
"timestamp": 1633441916
},
{
"author": "General_Elephant",
"id": "hfhak19",
"score": 8,
"text": "Retail pharmacy technicians, EMTs.... | [
"hfhct9s",
"hfhu559",
"hfizgcj"
] | [
"hfh93jv",
"hfhak19",
"hfhbh21"
] |
CMV: The genesis of segregation does not come from social construct. Is not new in the 21st century, is not a 'Western' problem and stems from natural primal urges to fit in where you feel comfortable.
First off. I'm trying to make this claim objectively. I'm trying to understand why regardless of how hard we try to synergize over many 'social' issues, we always disagree and gravitate towards like minded people. Which creates groups. Which creates segregation.
​
By segregation I mean anytime a person prefers any atmosphere of group to another.
​
In simplest ways we segregate every day by putting ourselves in social circles that we enjoy. Eg: I prefer going out with the people who make me feel safe when I express my views and I am able to be myself. And so I segregate with those friends and venture out less from those spheres (not to say at points I don't venture out and am happy I did), because it takes more energy. It's the path of least resistance. In this case the chicken came first (where my natural desire to fit in, is the urge) and the egg came from it (where social circumstances are created to incubate my innate senses).
​
Rocket scientist hang out with rocket scientists and talk about rockets. I know nothing about rockets, so I am excluded.
​
Incredibly developed academics pontificate with other developed academics. I can not keep up with the dialogue because of my ignorance, so I am excluded.
​
I play COD, you play COD, so we play COD together with other CODians.
​
The chess club has a chess club. Which I am not a part of because I prefer checkers club.
​
I believe in God, You believe in God. Lets go to church with other people who believe in God.
Common interests. Groups forming. Comfortable surroundings. All these stem from the same place.
Arguably, simple concepts start wars.
​
If we are fighting the issues of segregation from social lenses first, we are trying to change the cause by arguing the effect. We believe we can re construct the innate, socially. My main point of view is driven by the example, that in all of recorded history there has been groups, tribalism and segregation. So that leads me to believe that IF SEGREGATION IS a social construct then it's not unique to the West, to the 21st century or to any one race. It's a fluid pattern that shows up in cognitive ability, interests, religion, etc. So it must not be social construct and it must have a natural element to it. I think when we talk about segregation we do ourselves a disservice by painting our arguments with one brush. Segregation is something that will continue to pop up in spite of our best efforts to subdue it. While I personally would like to see it change, where there is no segregation of any kind. I don't believe we can. We aren't there yet.
​
I am extremely open to changing my viewpoint on this, as I've been told it's very similar to racism, white privilege, toxic masculinity and so on. I don't feel like I fit into any of those groups. And personally, I find all of those concepts fruitless and barbaric.
CMV
​
​ | I don’t think you get how this sub works. You haven’t presented a view, you’ve just stated a load of facts. You even said yourself that you’re making an objective claim. If you want us to change your view, you have to actually share your view.
---
People are arguing with the post, though. You should read other comments. For instance, /u/gnosticgnome 's point about how segregation isn't merely separating ourselves into groups, it was a system of enforcement of that separation. | >By segregation I mean anytime a person prefers any atmosphere of group to another.
But that's not what Segregation was. Segregation was a system with *enforcement*, whereby if a white person saw another white person and black person interacting in certain proscribed ways, he or she would *punish* one or both of them for it. That's not human nature, that's an ideology.
---
I agree that it became an ideology. But at the time these white people truly thought they were justified in their actions. The initial urge was to create security for them and their families. Only in hindsight was it blatantly obvious how disgusting and brutal it was. My point is that its not unique to the West and is found all over history, everywhere. That's by no means justifying it. It's just saying that those reasons are always overlooked when we think about where to start fixing our mistakes. Whats to say that we aren't using the same mentality as white slave owners when we are trying to 'fix things'? Are we going to look back and it's obvious that we had good intentions but have created a monster? Am I missing something here? | an81sq | CMV: The genesis of segregation does not come from social construct. Is not new in the 21st century, is not a 'Western' problem and stems from natural primal urges to fit in where you feel comfortable. | First off. I'm trying to make this claim objectively. I'm trying to understand why regardless of how hard we try to synergize over many 'social' issues, we always disagree and gravitate towards like minded people. Which creates groups. Which creates segregation.
​
By segregation I mean anytime a person prefers any atmosphere of group to another.
​
In simplest ways we segregate every day by putting ourselves in social circles that we enjoy. Eg: I prefer going out with the people who make me feel safe when I express my views and I am able to be myself. And so I segregate with those friends and venture out less from those spheres (not to say at points I don't venture out and am happy I did), because it takes more energy. It's the path of least resistance. In this case the chicken came first (where my natural desire to fit in, is the urge) and the egg came from it (where social circumstances are created to incubate my innate senses).
​
Rocket scientist hang out with rocket scientists and talk about rockets. I know nothing about rockets, so I am excluded.
​
Incredibly developed academics pontificate with other developed academics. I can not keep up with the dialogue because of my ignorance, so I am excluded.
​
I play COD, you play COD, so we play COD together with other CODians.
​
The chess club has a chess club. Which I am not a part of because I prefer checkers club.
​
I believe in God, You believe in God. Lets go to church with other people who believe in God.
Common interests. Groups forming. Comfortable surroundings. All these stem from the same place.
Arguably, simple concepts start wars.
​
If we are fighting the issues of segregation from social lenses first, we are trying to change the cause by arguing the effect. We believe we can re construct the innate, socially. My main point of view is driven by the example, that in all of recorded history there has been groups, tribalism and segregation. So that leads me to believe that IF SEGREGATION IS a social construct then it's not unique to the West, to the 21st century or to any one race. It's a fluid pattern that shows up in cognitive ability, interests, religion, etc. So it must not be social construct and it must have a natural element to it. I think when we talk about segregation we do ourselves a disservice by painting our arguments with one brush. Segregation is something that will continue to pop up in spite of our best efforts to subdue it. While I personally would like to see it change, where there is no segregation of any kind. I don't believe we can. We aren't there yet.
​
I am extremely open to changing my viewpoint on this, as I've been told it's very similar to racism, white privilege, toxic masculinity and so on. I don't feel like I fit into any of those groups. And personally, I find all of those concepts fruitless and barbaric.
CMV
​
​ | backhandedsweetheart | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Top100percent",
"id": "efrein6",
"score": 1,
"text": "I don’t think you get how this sub works. You haven’t presented a view, you’ve just stated a load of facts. You even said yourself that you’re making an objective claim. If you want us to change your view, you have to actually share ... | [
{
"author": "GnosticGnome",
"id": "efreg2z",
"score": 7,
"text": ">By segregation I mean anytime a person prefers any atmosphere of group to another.\n\nBut that's not what Segregation was. Segregation was a system with *enforcement*, whereby if a white person saw another white person and black per... | [
"efrein6",
"efrkips"
] | [
"efreg2z",
"efrl3nj"
] |
CMV: “Latinx” are mostly just white
I apologise in advance for the “ranty” nature of this post, I’m very “passionate” about this subject.
I’m half Italian, and are absolutely sick to death of these Americans that want to feel special and act like Latinx is a different ethnicity.
No.
It isn’t, you’re fucking white, get over it. At least say WASP instead of White because by using the latter you imply that Italians aren’t European which they ARE. I can understand if by Latinx they mean “central/south american with native/amerindian ancestry” then fair, they’re a separate identity. But if by Latinx they mean ”Mediterranean” or New Jerseyfolk who’s grandaddy was from Sicily then fuck off. Actually fuck you, this pisses me off so much.
What does Latinx/Latino/Latina even Mean? There’s tons of Brazilians, Argentinians, Caribbeans etc who are as pale as porcelain, are they still Latinx even if they’re not tanned? What about the Quebecois? They live in America, and they speak a Latin language, do they count as Latinx? I almost never see them grouped under “Latinx”
Someone please explain this mess to me because when people think I’m Latinx (therefore non-European) it’s such a fucking berserk button. There’s nothing wrong with being non-white or non-European, but I (and most Italians) are white And European. | It's important to remember that race isn't actually based on skin color or genetics, it's based on social perception; historically, both the Irish and Italians were excluded from being white.
The reason that Latinx people aren't white, is because society treats them as a separate race, that's really all there is to it.
---
> race isn't actually based on skin color or genetics
Wait… really? Is that what it’s all about? Societal perception? In the same way Irish people weren’t considered white is just that society saw them as separate?
---
In a word, racism. America is quite racist. Look at conviction rates among minorities (and don't cite that "they commit most of the crimes" crap because that's tied into it too) and you'll find latinex fare far worse than whoever else you personally identify as white. | Wtf is Latinx?!
---
American liberal way of removing gender and fun from everything
---
Oh don't blame it on the "liberal" anything. Both sides have their morons | io7hsy | CMV: “Latinx” are mostly just white | I apologise in advance for the “ranty” nature of this post, I’m very “passionate” about this subject.
I’m half Italian, and are absolutely sick to death of these Americans that want to feel special and act like Latinx is a different ethnicity.
No.
It isn’t, you’re fucking white, get over it. At least say WASP instead of White because by using the latter you imply that Italians aren’t European which they ARE. I can understand if by Latinx they mean “central/south american with native/amerindian ancestry” then fair, they’re a separate identity. But if by Latinx they mean ”Mediterranean” or New Jerseyfolk who’s grandaddy was from Sicily then fuck off. Actually fuck you, this pisses me off so much.
What does Latinx/Latino/Latina even Mean? There’s tons of Brazilians, Argentinians, Caribbeans etc who are as pale as porcelain, are they still Latinx even if they’re not tanned? What about the Quebecois? They live in America, and they speak a Latin language, do they count as Latinx? I almost never see them grouped under “Latinx”
Someone please explain this mess to me because when people think I’m Latinx (therefore non-European) it’s such a fucking berserk button. There’s nothing wrong with being non-white or non-European, but I (and most Italians) are white And European. | AdRevolutionary4516 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "aRabidGerbil",
"id": "g4bv8vu",
"score": 10,
"text": "It's important to remember that race isn't actually based on skin color or genetics, it's based on social perception; historically, both the Irish and Italians were excluded from being white. \n\nThe reason that Latinx people aren't... | [
{
"author": "Dargon34",
"id": "g4buy6g",
"score": 0,
"text": "Wtf is Latinx?!",
"timestamp": 1599485890
},
{
"author": "Rook_the_Janitor",
"id": "g4bvohc",
"score": -4,
"text": "American liberal way of removing gender and fun from everything",
"timestamp": 1599486246
},... | [
"g4bv8vu",
"g4bvo4a",
"g4bvzpv"
] | [
"g4buy6g",
"g4bvohc",
"g4bwmv3"
] |
CMV: Critical Race Theory doesn't offer a clear or realistic solution to the supposed issue of "Systemic Oppression"
Perhaps I have not quite fully understood Critical Race Theory, or am missing a crucial point. However, as of now I just don't see this theory offering any realistic or clear solution to the issue of Systemic Oppression. From what I have read, it seems that CRT argues for the dismantlement of white supremacy by pointing out the inherently racist system of government in the U.S. It also criticizes liberalism and it's "colorblind" laws for being able to only point out the most obvious forms of racism, and not the subtle microaggressions that prey upon POC. It calls for POC to share their personal experiences with racism, and to use their narrative to fight systemic oppression. The main problem I have with CRT is that, while their arguments are understandable (I can understand how the U.S. could be fundamentally racist and supportive of the white status quo), I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly "systemic" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law. When I look at liberalism, I get a clear picture of how it wants to solve oppression and racism through laws that mandate that people of all races should have equal opportunity at success. I just don't see that kind of clear solution being offered with CRT. Is it asking us to dismantle the entire nation state of the U.S. and start anew? If not, are they asking for whites to continue recognizing their "position of privilege" for near eternity? It's just not clear what they're advocating for, and to me this makes CRT seem more of a anti-U.S. propaganda than an actual solution to race problems in this country. So if anyone could offer me a different viewpoint, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. | Critical race theory is an academic lens through which to analyze the role of race in the United States. It’s a method of study.
Liberalism is a political ideology.
The reason you’re not getting a sense that critical race theory offers action items, while liberalism does, is that theoretical academic lenses aren’t about action in the same way political ideologies are—they’re about analyzing and understanding.
---
∆ I had misunderstood the nature of CRT and how it is not a political ideology, but a theoretical lense from which to detect potential issues.
---
The person you replied to completely misrepresented the entire purpose of Critical Theory (and CRT by extension, which grew out of Marxist Critical Theory). While I won't go into value judgements of either, to say that CRT is purely analytical and not prescriptive at all is just plain wrong as every critical theorist in the world would tell you. Both the Marxist, materialist variety and CRT are unequivocally political ideologies as well.
Just google "critical theory" or "praxis." | I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly "systemic" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law.
who is they?
---
Apologies, by that I meant proponents of CRT
---
okay so from my perspective, since critical race theory is not an official organization, for people who study it there’s gonna be different markers of success. likewise with liberalism and other ideologies, not everyone agrees 100%
but the general purpose of CRT is to highlight that these things *exist*. many, many people do not believe white people do not have privilege to begin with, so really we are not even at the solutions stage just yet. CRT is necessary as long as black people are oppressed in America, the manner in which black people are oppressed the most today is economically and within the criminal justice system, so by fixing these issues then CRT and those discussions aren’t needed anymore (until they are again if there is more race based oppression) however these issues *are* systematic so to change these issues we will likely have to change a lot about american culture.
I hope that make sense i can clarify if necessary | mrlbw5 | CMV: Critical Race Theory doesn't offer a clear or realistic solution to the supposed issue of "Systemic Oppression" | Perhaps I have not quite fully understood Critical Race Theory, or am missing a crucial point. However, as of now I just don't see this theory offering any realistic or clear solution to the issue of Systemic Oppression. From what I have read, it seems that CRT argues for the dismantlement of white supremacy by pointing out the inherently racist system of government in the U.S. It also criticizes liberalism and it's "colorblind" laws for being able to only point out the most obvious forms of racism, and not the subtle microaggressions that prey upon POC. It calls for POC to share their personal experiences with racism, and to use their narrative to fight systemic oppression. The main problem I have with CRT is that, while their arguments are understandable (I can understand how the U.S. could be fundamentally racist and supportive of the white status quo), I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly "systemic" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law. When I look at liberalism, I get a clear picture of how it wants to solve oppression and racism through laws that mandate that people of all races should have equal opportunity at success. I just don't see that kind of clear solution being offered with CRT. Is it asking us to dismantle the entire nation state of the U.S. and start anew? If not, are they asking for whites to continue recognizing their "position of privilege" for near eternity? It's just not clear what they're advocating for, and to me this makes CRT seem more of a anti-U.S. propaganda than an actual solution to race problems in this country. So if anyone could offer me a different viewpoint, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. | Ojinavi | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "renoops",
"id": "gumy99y",
"score": 40,
"text": "Critical race theory is an academic lens through which to analyze the role of race in the United States. It’s a method of study.\n\nLiberalism is a political ideology.\n\nThe reason you’re not getting a sense that critical race theory off... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gumxjrc",
"score": 0,
"text": "I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly \"systemic\" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law.\n\nwho is they?",
"timestamp": 1618513088
},
{
"author": "Ojinavi",
"id... | [
"gumy99y",
"gun02ua",
"gunkg05"
] | [
"gumxjrc",
"gumxqjs",
"gumzjf8"
] |
CMV: Critical Race Theory doesn't offer a clear or realistic solution to the supposed issue of "Systemic Oppression"
Perhaps I have not quite fully understood Critical Race Theory, or am missing a crucial point. However, as of now I just don't see this theory offering any realistic or clear solution to the issue of Systemic Oppression. From what I have read, it seems that CRT argues for the dismantlement of white supremacy by pointing out the inherently racist system of government in the U.S. It also criticizes liberalism and it's "colorblind" laws for being able to only point out the most obvious forms of racism, and not the subtle microaggressions that prey upon POC. It calls for POC to share their personal experiences with racism, and to use their narrative to fight systemic oppression. The main problem I have with CRT is that, while their arguments are understandable (I can understand how the U.S. could be fundamentally racist and supportive of the white status quo), I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly "systemic" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law. When I look at liberalism, I get a clear picture of how it wants to solve oppression and racism through laws that mandate that people of all races should have equal opportunity at success. I just don't see that kind of clear solution being offered with CRT. Is it asking us to dismantle the entire nation state of the U.S. and start anew? If not, are they asking for whites to continue recognizing their "position of privilege" for near eternity? It's just not clear what they're advocating for, and to me this makes CRT seem more of a anti-U.S. propaganda than an actual solution to race problems in this country. So if anyone could offer me a different viewpoint, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. | First off, it’s fallacious to write about Critical Race Theory as a monolith. It doesn’t offer a single solution because it is not a single thing: it is an epistemological project, a cluster of discussions and ways of beginning to reconfigure understanding. It’s a bit like saying “I think poststructuralist theory doesn’t offer a realistic answer to how we can fix capitalism”...you’re not WRONG, but it’s also not a fair or proportional criticism. You also appear to think Critical Race Theory is focused on the US exclusively, which is untrue.
Instead, what this cluster of thinkers and debates offers is a way we can begin to shift paradigms such as the systematic centring of whiteness, the legacies of empire that still inflect our economic/political/educational spheres, etc. It’s not about building the house, it’s about understanding what’s in our toolbox, where those tools come from, which are helpful and which are outdated, and how we might begin to think about using them.
ETA: correction on my point on the US - I understand that the term “Critical Race Theory” as most commonly deployed refers specifically to US-based scholarship. I was thinking of work taking place in the U.K. and elsewhere that situates itself within the term, but I see the most common definitions of the term are concerned with the US, so my bad.
---
∆ I now understand that CRT is not a political ideology that advocates for a specific solution, but instead a theory that tries to point out flaws. I see how proponents of CRT are not always settled on a concrete solution, but instead use CRT to support their own thinking.
---
I think you should take a look at the [Grievance studies affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). CRT is just a cult of fanatics. | Critical race theory is an academic lens through which to analyze the role of race in the United States. It’s a method of study.
Liberalism is a political ideology.
The reason you’re not getting a sense that critical race theory offers action items, while liberalism does, is that theoretical academic lenses aren’t about action in the same way political ideologies are—they’re about analyzing and understanding.
---
∆ I had misunderstood the nature of CRT and how it is not a political ideology, but a theoretical lense from which to detect potential issues.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/renoops ([16∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/renoops)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | mrlbw5 | CMV: Critical Race Theory doesn't offer a clear or realistic solution to the supposed issue of "Systemic Oppression" | Perhaps I have not quite fully understood Critical Race Theory, or am missing a crucial point. However, as of now I just don't see this theory offering any realistic or clear solution to the issue of Systemic Oppression. From what I have read, it seems that CRT argues for the dismantlement of white supremacy by pointing out the inherently racist system of government in the U.S. It also criticizes liberalism and it's "colorblind" laws for being able to only point out the most obvious forms of racism, and not the subtle microaggressions that prey upon POC. It calls for POC to share their personal experiences with racism, and to use their narrative to fight systemic oppression. The main problem I have with CRT is that, while their arguments are understandable (I can understand how the U.S. could be fundamentally racist and supportive of the white status quo), I don't see a clear picture of what exactly they're offering to do to replace the supposedly "systemic" forms of racism and oppression in U.S. law. When I look at liberalism, I get a clear picture of how it wants to solve oppression and racism through laws that mandate that people of all races should have equal opportunity at success. I just don't see that kind of clear solution being offered with CRT. Is it asking us to dismantle the entire nation state of the U.S. and start anew? If not, are they asking for whites to continue recognizing their "position of privilege" for near eternity? It's just not clear what they're advocating for, and to me this makes CRT seem more of a anti-U.S. propaganda than an actual solution to race problems in this country. So if anyone could offer me a different viewpoint, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. | Ojinavi | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "dreamofdandelions",
"id": "gumy44w",
"score": 4,
"text": "First off, it’s fallacious to write about Critical Race Theory as a monolith. It doesn’t offer a single solution because it is not a single thing: it is an epistemological project, a cluster of discussions and ways of beginning t... | [
{
"author": "renoops",
"id": "gumy99y",
"score": 40,
"text": "Critical race theory is an academic lens through which to analyze the role of race in the United States. It’s a method of study.\n\nLiberalism is a political ideology.\n\nThe reason you’re not getting a sense that critical race theory off... | [
"gumy44w",
"gun0n4y",
"gurb58e"
] | [
"gumy99y",
"gun02ua",
"gun07qa"
] |
CMV: Parents in destructive radical groups, anything from the KKK to Jehovah's Witnesses, should have their children snatched away and raised by the state
The problem with squashing out destructive radical groups is when you try to ban them, they simply go underground or fight back endlessly. However, if the children of radical people were simply snatched away and reeducated, the Grim Reaper would have the pleasure of eventually taking the last of its followers with him in old age.
This program could be funded by forcing the radical parents to pay constant bills similar to child support, so it wouldn't even hurt the tax payer. I personally see no drawbacks to this aside from damaged egos, but it's definitely a radical idea, so what are your thoughts? | Why are you calling Jehovah witesses radical?
---
They bar their children from becoming educated or from having most of the people they would otherwise befriend. It doesn't seem like a healthy environment for a child.
---
No, they don't, I went to school with plenty of Jehovah witnesses.
Can you see from your response how easy it would be for a system like this to get out of control very quickly...
---
Can you elaborate?
---
You are literally on the internet. Google what jehovahs witnesses believes are and clear it up. There is no excuse for not being aware of this.
---
I watched Youtube videos about it, but I guess maybe they were wrong.
---
Go to [Official website for Jehovah's Witnesses](http://jw.org ) and you will find accurate information on what Witnesses believe. | Who gets to define "destructive radical group"?
You?
---
No, not me personally. It would be democratically decided.
---
By your elected representative or some kind of referendum?
Would it also be democratically decided whether or not to actually institute this policy?
---
In my ideal scenario, it would be decided among the prevailing communist party following the collapse caused by late stage capitalism.
---
And how would it work in reality?
---
That is reality. You really think this society can last much longer? It's either going to socialists or the alt-right once it collapses.
---
Oh ok. So you'd be happy with the alt-right deciding who gets to raise people's children? | 10nuger | CMV: Parents in destructive radical groups, anything from the KKK to Jehovah's Witnesses, should have their children snatched away and raised by the state | The problem with squashing out destructive radical groups is when you try to ban them, they simply go underground or fight back endlessly. However, if the children of radical people were simply snatched away and reeducated, the Grim Reaper would have the pleasure of eventually taking the last of its followers with him in old age.
This program could be funded by forcing the radical parents to pay constant bills similar to child support, so it wouldn't even hurt the tax payer. I personally see no drawbacks to this aside from damaged egos, but it's definitely a radical idea, so what are your thoughts? | Conkers-Good-Furday | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "PoppersOfCorn",
"id": "j6awttq",
"score": 8,
"text": "Why are you calling Jehovah witesses radical?",
"timestamp": 1674953237
},
{
"author": "Conkers-Good-Furday",
"id": "j6axid1",
"score": -4,
"text": "They bar their children from becoming educated or from havin... | [
{
"author": "Major_Lennox",
"id": "j6awi7o",
"score": 140,
"text": "Who gets to define \"destructive radical group\"? \n\nYou?",
"timestamp": 1674953085
},
{
"author": "Conkers-Good-Furday",
"id": "j6ax0to",
"score": -14,
"text": "No, not me personally. It would be democratic... | [
"j6awttq",
"j6axid1",
"j6axym0",
"j6aywhy",
"j6b2wjf",
"j6b69gc",
"j6dwma1"
] | [
"j6awi7o",
"j6ax0to",
"j6axjbl",
"j6axvqy",
"j6ay53c",
"j6ayf7e",
"j6ayjva"
] |
CMV: Republicans will hold a permanent Senate majority for the foreseeable future
In recent years, the red state–blue state polarization has become more and more locked in. We are now at a point of having no Democratic Senators from red states (and one Republican from a blue state, Susan Collins in Maine). At the moment, there are 24 safe red states, 18 safe blue states, and 7 swing states. This gives Republicans a baseline of 48 Senators, and it means the math no longer works for Democrats. They must hold 12 of 14 swing state Senate positions at once to make it to 50, which would be broken by the Vice President only if Democrats hold presidential office. It just doesn’t add up for Democrats. Barring Texas, Florida, Ohio pipe dreams, Democrats are simply not competitive in any red state.
Obviously, this cripples any Democratic presidents in the near future and weakens the party nationally, as even winning the presidency will not allow Democrats to make any legislative progress since they cannot hold the Senate as well. This further strengthens Republican dominance, as they are the only ones who can get anything done.
The resistance of the national Democratic Party to change and its unwillingness to upset corporate donors and interested groups seems to only cement this and shut down future arguments about how parties adapt—they don’t WANT to adapt. They have little reason to as long as they can fundraise successfully. | We're starting to see a split within the Republican party that could, and likely will, create a third party, either MAGA becomes it's own right party and the Republican party becomes more traditional right/center right, or the more moderate wing forms their own party.
At that a plurality will hold control of the Senate and caucusing between parties will be the norm
---
So you think MAGA doesn’t completely have Republicans by the balls? Are there any states where classic Republicans beat out MAGA?
---
Yeah, Utah. The mormon Republicans tend to not be nearly as captured, and the sheer sectarian control of the state combined with moderates/liberals in places like SLC/Provo lead to less MAGA capture. | What's the "Foreseeable future" to you?
---
At least the next generation, so like 20 years or so but possibly longer.
---
So like, 3 terms of office for Senators, then? | 1hln8gs | CMV: Republicans will hold a permanent Senate majority for the foreseeable future | In recent years, the red state–blue state polarization has become more and more locked in. We are now at a point of having no Democratic Senators from red states (and one Republican from a blue state, Susan Collins in Maine). At the moment, there are 24 safe red states, 18 safe blue states, and 7 swing states. This gives Republicans a baseline of 48 Senators, and it means the math no longer works for Democrats. They must hold 12 of 14 swing state Senate positions at once to make it to 50, which would be broken by the Vice President only if Democrats hold presidential office. It just doesn’t add up for Democrats. Barring Texas, Florida, Ohio pipe dreams, Democrats are simply not competitive in any red state.
Obviously, this cripples any Democratic presidents in the near future and weakens the party nationally, as even winning the presidency will not allow Democrats to make any legislative progress since they cannot hold the Senate as well. This further strengthens Republican dominance, as they are the only ones who can get anything done.
The resistance of the national Democratic Party to change and its unwillingness to upset corporate donors and interested groups seems to only cement this and shut down future arguments about how parties adapt—they don’t WANT to adapt. They have little reason to as long as they can fundraise successfully. | ahedgehog | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "le_fez",
"id": "m3nve5v",
"score": 16,
"text": "We're starting to see a split within the Republican party that could, and likely will, create a third party, either MAGA becomes it's own right party and the Republican party becomes more traditional right/center right, or the more moderat... | [
{
"author": "BalanceGreat6541",
"id": "m3nktj3",
"score": 9,
"text": "What's the \"Foreseeable future\" to you?",
"timestamp": 1735077299
},
{
"author": "ahedgehog",
"id": "m3nl5ov",
"score": 0,
"text": "At least the next generation, so like 20 years or so but possibly longer... | [
"m3nve5v",
"m3nvymv",
"m3o0g1t"
] | [
"m3nktj3",
"m3nl5ov",
"m3nloyo"
] |
CMV: I'm a non-offending pedophile and I should not be hated for it.
I'm a 23 year old pedophile that has been sexually attracted towards prepubescent children since the age of 13. I have never once offended anyone and I never intend on doing so. I acknowledge that pedophilia is a mental illness and that it is not a sexual orientation. It's a disease, an unwanted one. I, in no way condone any form of harm done towards children whether that be of sexual nature, physical or psychological.
-
-
That being said, I feel like us non-offending pedophiles are extremely stigmatized, offending or not. I very frequently, on 9gag, reddit and many other social media platforms, read about people being very much against pedophiles as individuals. Very common remarks is that pedophiles (offending or not) should get a bullet in the head, that they should all be castrated, that they are all evil, etc.
-
Considering I have this unwanted disease, I feel like a lot of those threats are directed towards me. I never had the option of choosing to become a pedophile or not, and if that choice were presented, most people would obviously choose not to be one.
-
It's extremely uncomfortable to know that people want you dead because you were born a certain way. That people want you to be miserable and dead only because you were genetically predisposed to have a disease nobody wants.
-
I personally feel that the stigma towards pedophilia is understandable, and that it does awake strong emotions. I however think that directing threats towards non-offending pedophiles is contra-productive and does society more harm than good.
-
So change my view. I don't think that non-offending pedophiles should be hated for something they have no control over. And just to repeat myself, I do not condone any abuse towards anyone. I think that the hate towards non-offending pedophiles should be replaced with empathy and a recognition that the disease is beyond the control of anybody, but that it can be controlled by the one carrying it. This would very likely reduce the number of abuses towards children, which is what most people with a slight degree of empathy would want.
------------------
As an example, an absurd one at that: being a pedophile, in my opinion, is like being born with albinism in an African country, or being born as a homosexual in a Middle eastern country... you are going to be hated and likely killed for something you have no control over.
------------------
**Anyone who sends me any distasteful PM, whether that be threats or providing or asking for materials will be reported with no exempt.** | Before we start, I'd like to note I'm making an extra effort to be sensitive to your needs, please let me know if I've stepped over any lines for you.
Would it change your mind if I assert any of these?
- It should be morally permitted for people to react fearfully to pedophiles, even if they are non-offending
- Pedophiles should be barred from any unsupervised contact with children, even if they are non-offending
- Pedophiles should be barred from any job that is focused on contact with children, even if they are non-offending
---
* I think it's natural to react fearfully towards a person that has a higher probability of hurting a child. I think it's important to distinguish between probability and an action. Probability is merely the chance of which an action is to take place, and that it is higher for a pedophile in this case. I don't think it does anyone any good to assume that every non-offending pedophile is out for your child. I would be afraid of someone thinking of murdering, so by this premise I would say yes, it is logical to be fearful of a pedophile. As long as it doesn't express itself openly even though the person did nothing wrong.
* Tough one for sure. I frankly don't know how to answer this sentence. By the same premise, a murderer should be barred from contact with any human. A rapist should be barred from all contact with women. The only difference is that the non-offending pedophile did not do anything wrong. I don't think it's logical to barr them from contact, unless they are clearly high-risk, in which case precautions should be employed.
* Also a tough one. My answer is going to be that they are *advised* against those type of jobs. It also depends. A lot of jobs will have one deal with kids. Doctors, teachers, janitors, buss drivers, taxi drivers etc... There are a lot of jobs that deal with children so barring them from those jobs is likely going to be very detrimental to their health and economic prospects. So my answer is no, I don't think that non-offending pedophiles should be barred from jobs with potential contact with children. They should be advised on what type of job and possibly have certain adaptions to minimize the likelyhood of comming in contact with children, but not a straight out barring.
Just my opinions.
---
> By the same premise, a murderer should be barred from contact with any human.
What do you think life sentences are for?
And what do we class as "high risk"? Compared to non-pedophiles, even non-offending pedophiles are practically infinitely more likely to rape a child. They're much less likely than offending pedophiles sure, but then every offending pedophile starts off as a non-offending pedophile and any likelihood more than 0 is a pretty big deal when compared to non-pedophiles.
To give it a bit more nuance though, what about barring pedophiles from jobs that don't just put them in contact with children, but that put them in a situation that would be ideal for abusing a child, such as a primary school teacher, where they're not only unsupervised but put in a position of authority over children and are seen by children as a trustworthy figure?
---
There are plenty of countries that don't use life sentences for murderers at all times, especially when carried out at a relatively young age and the prisoner changes his or her mental state.
I don't think it's right to barr them from getting certain jobs unless they are actual offending pedophiles. I think however that they should be adviced *against* those types of jobs. Otherwise no non-offending pedophile would try to seek help since they would risk getting barred from opportunities in life. Not to mention that the jobs can be quite ambigious, there are probably a lot of jobs where one has authority over children, even a doctor has.
I simply think they offending pedophiles should be barred from those jobs. Non-offending pedophiles, if they are diagnosed and not on any criminal register, should be *adviced against* those jobs but not prevented. If they are prevented from those jobs (probably many types), then very few would even bother to seek help since that would be a career suicide.
---
Pedophiles should not be allowed to be an authority figure in any children’s lives. Offending or non-offending. If they have jobs where they’re taxi drivers or whatnot that’s okay, because usually children will be with parents or a guardian during the drive. But you can not actually believe that it’s okay for pedophiles to be teachers or childcare workers? All offending pedophiles were non-offending at some point, and allowing them to be alone with a group of children who trust him/her at least 6 hours a day 5 days a week is wrong. You may not tip over the edge, but there are plenty of people that will, and children will get abused.
“I in no way condone any form of harm done towards children” yet you’re willing to place them in an environment so volatile for the sake of letting pedophiles get a few more jobs? There’s plenty of jobs out in the world that don’t put people in authority positions of children, they don’t need to be teachers. | >That people want you to be miserable and dead only because you were genetically predisposed to have a disease nobody wants.
Do you have any evidence that it's genetic? Afaik they don't know that much about it yet. Could be psychological. Biochemical. Genetic. Nobody knows.
---
Does it matter in this case? I didn't bonk my head in the hopes of becoming one. I didn't ingest certain chemicals to make that happen.
In the end it's beyond ones control. I just assumed it to be genetic because it appeared at a relatively young age, 13.
---
For the record (and not to say that you have any degree of control over it, but just for the record) it's currently thought that paedophilia is a combination of genetics and environment - ie, certain neurologies can "prime" your brain for picking up paedophilia, which is then actually created by some kind of trauma during childhood or puberty. If you don't have that neurological predisposition towards it you're less likely to get it, and even if you do, you won't necessarily get it if you aren't exposed to an environment that would cause it. It's very common for pedophiles to have sexual abuse somewhere in their past, which is thought to be one of the primary causes of pedophilia.
---
I have been physically and psychologically abused my whole childhood but never sexually. As soon as I developed this disease, I quickly felt like it was due to the circumstances I had experienced. It probably is the environment coupled with genetic predisposition. Just like schizophrenia, a person with the gene(s) that enable schizophrenia might have a 40 times higher probability of getting schizophrenia compared to a normal person when certain stimuli are introduced, such as drugs. Could be the same with pedophilia.
---
Aye, most likely. It's quite common for pedophiles to have some other neurological condition too. You might want to look into diagnoses for stuff like ADHD if you haven't already, cos if you do have something like that it'd probably be pretty helpful to know about it. | io3tok | CMV: I'm a non-offending pedophile and I should not be hated for it. | I'm a 23 year old pedophile that has been sexually attracted towards prepubescent children since the age of 13. I have never once offended anyone and I never intend on doing so. I acknowledge that pedophilia is a mental illness and that it is not a sexual orientation. It's a disease, an unwanted one. I, in no way condone any form of harm done towards children whether that be of sexual nature, physical or psychological.
-
-
That being said, I feel like us non-offending pedophiles are extremely stigmatized, offending or not. I very frequently, on 9gag, reddit and many other social media platforms, read about people being very much against pedophiles as individuals. Very common remarks is that pedophiles (offending or not) should get a bullet in the head, that they should all be castrated, that they are all evil, etc.
-
Considering I have this unwanted disease, I feel like a lot of those threats are directed towards me. I never had the option of choosing to become a pedophile or not, and if that choice were presented, most people would obviously choose not to be one.
-
It's extremely uncomfortable to know that people want you dead because you were born a certain way. That people want you to be miserable and dead only because you were genetically predisposed to have a disease nobody wants.
-
I personally feel that the stigma towards pedophilia is understandable, and that it does awake strong emotions. I however think that directing threats towards non-offending pedophiles is contra-productive and does society more harm than good.
-
So change my view. I don't think that non-offending pedophiles should be hated for something they have no control over. And just to repeat myself, I do not condone any abuse towards anyone. I think that the hate towards non-offending pedophiles should be replaced with empathy and a recognition that the disease is beyond the control of anybody, but that it can be controlled by the one carrying it. This would very likely reduce the number of abuses towards children, which is what most people with a slight degree of empathy would want.
------------------
As an example, an absurd one at that: being a pedophile, in my opinion, is like being born with albinism in an African country, or being born as a homosexual in a Middle eastern country... you are going to be hated and likely killed for something you have no control over.
------------------
**Anyone who sends me any distasteful PM, whether that be threats or providing or asking for materials will be reported with no exempt.** | [deleted] | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "permajetlag",
"id": "g4bcl9u",
"score": 66,
"text": "Before we start, I'd like to note I'm making an extra effort to be sensitive to your needs, please let me know if I've stepped over any lines for you.\n\nWould it change your mind if I assert any of these?\n\n-\tIt should be morally p... | [
{
"author": "NawYiDidny",
"id": "g4bc1on",
"score": 49,
"text": ">That people want you to be miserable and dead only because you were genetically predisposed to have a disease nobody wants.\n\nDo you have any evidence that it's genetic? Afaik they don't know that much about it yet. Could be psycholo... | [
"g4bcl9u",
"g4bdqd9",
"g4beyq8",
"g4bfg9r",
"g4bh1cg"
] | [
"g4bc1on",
"g4bc6gg",
"g4be4nj",
"g4becnp",
"g4bemuq"
] |
CMV: Germany would be better off today if they won WW2
Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable.
Around the world: Germany is the go-to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time-limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. (Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc).
Within Germany: The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham.
Today's Germany: Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half-century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German-born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often-militant refugees.
Alternative Universe Germany: German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance.
What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous. | Would a culture of citizen's constantly living in fear of secret police and government oversurveillance really be worth the "national pride" they've lost? Would having been complicit in the murder of millions more than they already were be better than reaching out a hand to help save some immigrants?
---
>Would having been complicit in the murder of millions more than they already were be better than reaching out a hand to help save some immigrants?
Victors don't see their victories as "murdering millions", they see it as winning the war, a source of pride.
---
I meant the Holocaust more than the war itself. Also any answer for the oppression that the fascistic regime of Nazi Germany certainly inflicted upon all members of the Reich?
---
> Also any answer for the oppression that the fascistic regime of Nazi Germany certainly inflicted upon all members of the Reich?
You're talking about wartime policy, I'm talking about post-war victory.
---
You really think it would've stopped? Did Franco ever stop oppressing his citizens in Spain just because he was never at war? Oppression is the name of the game for dictatorships. The Nazi regime oppressed people before the war too. Winning the war wasn't going to magically make them a utopia of freedom.
---
> Winning the war wasn't going to magically make them a utopia of freedom.
Says who? Look what it did for the allies.
The only reason fascism gained a foothold in Germany because of post-WW1 loss, saying nothing would change after a world-war *victory* doesn't seem reasonable.
---
The allies weren't fascist before the war and their hatred of fascism - the losing ideology - made them significantly more progressive after the fact (decolonization, etc). If fascism had won, all it would prove is that fascism *works*. How would that make fascism less powerful? Boiling history down to "losing wars makes you fascist and winning wars makes you not fascist" is so unfounded that I don't know how you expect people to argue it. It's very provably not true in a dozen situations - for example, Japan was on the WINNING side of World War 1, not the losing side, and became ultranationalist anyways. | It's been 60+ years since WWII ended. There is no end of possibilities on what could have occurred between then and now if Germany had won the war. Maybe they would have better off, but that isn't particularly likely. The very Idea that they might have won the war in the first place is a huge stretch.
In all likelihood if Germany had managed to attain something other than total defeat the result would have been some flavor of the oppressive, paranoid society they had already become. And that would have crumbled around them by now.
---
> if Germany had managed to attain something other than total defeat the result would have been some flavor of the oppressive, paranoid society they had already become.
But German citizens were not oppressed or paranoid, they were quite proud. They are oppressed *today*, they are victimized *today*, they are stigmatized *today*. Historically these are not the results of a world-war winner, they are the results of a loser, quite possibly the biggest national loss in the history of nations.
---
Um, yeah they were pretty damn oppressed. Fascist regimes with organizations like the Gestapo tend to do that to countries.
Edit: replaced SS with Gestapo, as the Gestapo were the secret police aimed at German citizens while the SS was more aimed at "enemies of the Reich"
---
You're talking about wartime policy, I'm talking about pre-war and post-war victory.
---
Pre-war there was also oppression. And there'd also be oppression post-war because without oppression fascist regimes fall out of favor. The only way to keep a dictator in power is to oppress the people.
---
> And there'd also be oppression post-war because without oppression fascist regimes fall out of favor.
Not exactly, the only reason fascism gained a foothold was because of post-WW1 loss, saying nothing would change after a world-war *victory* doesn't seem reasonable.
---
Why do you think they suddenly would've stopped oppressing people? | an7dxl | CMV: Germany would be better off today if they won WW2 | Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable.
Around the world: Germany is the go-to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time-limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. (Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc).
Within Germany: The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham.
Today's Germany: Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half-century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German-born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often-militant refugees.
Alternative Universe Germany: German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance.
What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous. | Armed_Scorpion | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "tbdabbholm",
"id": "efr9luy",
"score": 6,
"text": "Would a culture of citizen's constantly living in fear of secret police and government oversurveillance really be worth the \"national pride\" they've lost? Would having been complicit in the murder of millions more than they already we... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "efr9m97",
"score": 3,
"text": "It's been 60+ years since WWII ended. There is no end of possibilities on what could have occurred between then and now if Germany had won the war. Maybe they would have better off, but that isn't particularly likely. The very Idea that ... | [
"efr9luy",
"efrapoe",
"efrau22",
"efraybt",
"efrb616",
"efrcdoq",
"efrczbz"
] | [
"efr9m97",
"efra47u",
"efrac5w",
"efrbf0a",
"efrblg9",
"efrc4td",
"efrdcjr"
] |
CMV: The Illusion of Free Choice
What exactly is a human being?
Many people have beliefs that a human being is more than just the body it inhabits, that we have a soul, or some underlying being behind our faces. Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply, it may become apparent that human beings are no different than objects. Bleak as it may sound, hear me out. An object is classically a thing composed of matter, which is thought to lack consciousness or awareness. Human beings are also composed of matter. From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter. It is all a human is. The atoms in our bodies are very intricate and assorted, adding up to create organs, veins, bones, and notably, brains. However, despite how complex our biology may be, one thing is certain. We are still a body composed of matter. To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational, as would many. Many are able to find rationality in the idea that we have a soul, after all, we are *conscious and freethinking* right? Maybe we are aware of ourselves, maybe we have a sense of separation as a single entity, yet awareness and consciousness can be picked apart if you consider that these things are an illusion caused by an uncountable number of neurons firing in a lump of grey matter composed of material. All consciousness is simply that, electrical signals firing off at an incomprehensible level within an object. A very complex object is perfectly capable of becoming aware of itself, but none the less, it is an object. For example, if mankind created an artificial intelligence that was so advanced it were to become sentient, would you consider it alive? Likely not, even though its software/hardware would be much more complex than a human brain. At the same time, if nature created a biological organism and assorted its atoms into a brain with neurons that fire similar to binary over the course of millions of years (evolution) or billions of years (the big bang itself), the concepts would be the same. Only, one took much longer to come into existence. Due to an infinite seeming amount of time, it is actually quite unsurprising that matter would arrange itself into an object capable of experiencing the sensations by some way or another. Human beings, and life in general are simply that. A very low (yet high due to the age and vastness of the universe) probability took place a long time ago, and atoms arranged themselves into the first cells. These cells were capable simple reproduction and formation due to their makeup, and created the first living organisms. The most simple organisms consist of a very simple structure. Amoebas are single celled organisms with DNA that program it to preform a very simple tasks, to consume energy, and move away from death. Such an organism is subject to very basic programming, it lacks consciousness and awareness, yet it is "alive", even though it is a very simple organic object. A basic artificial robot may as well be the same as it. It also lacks awareness, yet it is programmed to do very basic tasks. The same line of thinking can be applied to human beings on a more complex level. We are the same in nature as an amoeba, except our tasks are much more diverse than any objective life form due to our brains. One of these tasks includes the illusion of consciousness and ego. Perhaps all of this does not do the explanation justice, therefore, I will attempt to explain it through analogy, and go in depth on how this effects our freedom of choice.
Imagine you were to take a small palm sized ball. You throw this ball at a wall, it bounces off, and lands on the floor in a certain position. Imagine you were to take that same ball, which is identical in atomic structure, and throw it with identical force in the exact same direction, and have it hit the same part of the wall, and bounce off in the same direction it did previously. Imagine that every single variable in that experiment was replicated perfectly, right down to the air molecules hitting it mid air. A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time. The ball had no say in the matter, and the variables had predestined where it would end up. Now, imagine you took a human and said a sentence to them, "Hello, how are you?". The vibration of your vocal cords and the movement of your mouth generated a specific wave in the air, which traveled to their ear drums and caused them to vibrate. This vibration sent an electrical signal to the brain and warranted a neurological response, and the individual processed the words you said, and responded to them. In this case, there are far more many variables involved in the experiment, perhaps out of the realms of calculation, yet a solution underlies and they respond anyway. If you were to completely erase all recollection of the memory the person just formed about this interaction (or you were to rewind time for the sake of argument), and sit them down in the same position, and say the exact same words with the exact same tone and body language, and once again, replicate every variable perfectly, the very neurons in their brain would react the same way, and they would exhibit the same response they did the first time. "I'm good, and you?". Once again, if you were to replicate everything perfectly, the object of the brain would behave exactly the same, and it would have a predestined response. Through this example, we see that an object, and the human brain that creates your consciousness and awareness are the same in nature. Every single response, reaction, and emotion, you have ever given or experienced in your entire life was purely a product of your environment, just as me writing this post was, and you reading it was.
I do not mean environment as in the area you grew up in, or the culture you were born into either. I am referring to the fundamental environment that shaped all environments. I am talking about the big bang. From the very origins of our universe, there was matter and energy. When basic atoms had formed, they underwent a series of collisions and interacted with each other for around 14 billion years, somewhere in that time period, stars and planets formed, and eventually life here on Earth. This mind breaking amount of time yielded an incomprehensible amount of variables that could never possibly be displayed fully in a human lifetime, yet they happened. A solution was underlying all of the atomic collisions, celestial interactions, explosions, and everything else. That "solution" continues to be uncovered as time passes, and human life, as well as everything else is a part of it. Hypothetically, if you were to create another universe with identical initial conditions and laws of physics to this one, everything would play out exactly the same. That play out would eventually result in me and you 14 billion years later once again, just as the ball would land in the same place. Essentially, **everything** is predestined, right to the end of this space and time me and you currently inhabit. The freedom of choice could not possibly exist in such a complex series of predestined events. The freedom of choice, in a way, encompasses what humanity is. People go around and boast about how they are unique and special because they are human, because humans have the power of reason, the power of choice, the power of consciousness, yet in the grand grand scheme of things, all of these things are actually illusions. I have tried to explain this idea to many, yet so many unknowingly follow the ego they were predestined to have, and dismiss this logic, quote: "But you still have a choice!". Perhaps in a very myopic and narrow sense, but in the greater picture, it is evident that this is not true.
If this post has shed any light on to you, hopefully it does not distress you. I personally think it is very fulfilling knowing that external to my sense of ego, I do not have to stress about my inadequacies because my life, as well as yours are written for us already. I also feel very blessed to have been in the chance of events that gave me my advantages, including my brain that is capable of decoding existence, whether I am an object or not. Although we may not be special in a greater sense, you can look at things in a sense of duality. Either everything is, or nothing is. I prefer to abide by the first. Perhaps this is all a belief, but if so, I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth. Hopefully you feel the same. If not, I would be happy to hear any thoughts you have that give a sense of understanding to our nature in an effort to change my view. Maybe you might even have something to add to this. Anyway, I have a destiny to go play out, thank you for reading!
​
EDIT; excuse minor typos if you come across them
​
EDIT 2; The best argument I have encountered so far is that of quantum mechanics, which may suggest that events may play out differently if time were to rewind due to inherent randomness. While such would no longer be deterministic, I have came to the conclusion that deterministic or random, both would warrant free will meaningless, as one depends on predestined events, and the other depends on probabilities that would warrant free will meaningless a second time if the choice was different, as that would mean it had no meaning the first time. The more I engage with the users in the comments, the clearer it becomes that free will and free choice is a human made concept that does not really have deep fundamental grounds to even be argued upon. Regardless, the conversations have been immensely stimulating and thought provoking, and I thank everyone who took the time to challenge my idea (even if it was out of your control in a deeper sense, haha). Perhaps we need the concept of free will in the common sense term associated with it in order to have a functioning society, while slightly illogical from a cosmic standpoint. An important concept no less, yet still an illusion in a way. You did spark some doubt in my theory of absolute determinism though, I guess you all changed my view in that way. I thank all of you very much for indulging me and giving me sound feedback to think about, hopefully others may gain some insight from all of the information displayed here. 😊 | There are a few issues that may change your view. Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a soul is not really relevant here. If there are souls, they still will follow some sort of rules analogous to physics. There is a consistency to human behavior that implies there must be some sort of a science that can explain it. Also even if souls don't exist, it is presumptuous and not supported by science that the universe can be fully described by deterministic causality. As far as we can tell, there are plenty of random and uncaused events happening in the quantum realm.
Secondly, describing free choice as an illusion is a popular but odd way of thinking about it. We know that people will have markedly different behaviors and help to different levels of culpability depending on their mental state. A person who has an accident because of a seizure is less responsible than someone who has an accident because they drank too much versus someone who deliberately causes harm with a sober sound mind. Free will perfectly describes the distinction in these scenarios. It may just be a physical process but it is still very important to our understanding of the world and other people. By this standard you'd have to call all sorts of other things illusions as well. For instance the color brown doesn't actually exist. It's just how our eyes and brains interpret certain complex patterns of light wavelengths.
Finally, there is a major epsitemologic issue to consider. Even if the universe is completely deterministic and would play out exactly the same way if started over, this fact offers absolutely no benefit to us understanding the universe. We can't restart the universe to see the past. We can't fast forward the universe to see the future. We're stuck in the present and fundamentally the universe's determinism would be irrelevant. We have to work with the uncertainty of our limited perspective of the universe, and this looks exactly the same as things in the universe having free will.
---
Perhaps I need further educating, and perhaps you can inform me on quantum. Although the quantum world is inherently random in the sense that it cannot be fully predicted or recorded, who is to say that such events are also deterministic? If the universe started over from an identical standpoint, would quantum cause a change, or is quantum theory simply a theory that cannot be fully predicted? Based on personal logic, I would assume that such things would also be deterministic even though they cannot be predicted in a deterministic world.
I realize that many people have different mental states and therefore exhibit different behavioral reactions, but from an ancient deterministic standpoint, those behaviors do not necessarily have to be reasonable, because determinism itself encompasses such things.
Your last point was quite interesting. I know that there is no experiment we can preform to restart the universe and observe the events that take place due to it, but in our existence here, perhaps we can understand the universe as being deterministic through the analogy I used in regards to a ball/object behaving the same under identical conditions.
Thank you for the input, I would enjoy hearing back from you. :)
---
> Although the quantum world is inherently random in the sense that it cannot be fully predicted or recorded, who is to say that such events are also deterministic?
There's no benefit to jumping to this conclusion.
> I realize that many people have different mental states and therefore exhibit different behavioral reactions,
If you want to call free will an illusion, then pretty much all human mental states would also be an illusion. Free will is as real as happiness, being in pain, or seeing the color brown. If you think about it, many of the concepts we use to understand and reason about the world would be just as illusory.
> but in our existence here, perhaps we can understand the universe as being deterministic through the analogy I used in regards to a ball/object behaving the same under identical conditions.
But this gives us no actual better understanding of.. anything really. Do you have an example where deterministic causality gives a better conceptual framework?
---
> There's no benefit to jumping to this conclusion.
Why do you believe such a conclusion is unlikely or lacking beneficial to "jump" to?
> If you want to call free will an illusion, then pretty much all human mental states would also be an illusion. Free will is as real as happiness, being in pain, or seeing the color brown. If you think about it, many of the concepts we use to understand and reason about the world would be just as illusory.
The concept that all human sensation being illusory is something that would fit into my perspective and something I would agree with. Neurons firing in a brain does not objectively mean pain, happiness, or any type of emotion. Objectively, they are neurons creating stimulus that may be interpreted as such, but nothing more. I also feel as though our senses are quite illusory. Once again, objectively, there is no such thing as the color brown. That is simply the way our brain interprets a certain wavelength. Although our senses are subjective in many ways, they are still accurate enough to objectively prove things (unless philosophers such as Desecrates were correct in arguing that nothing may exist outside of our minds), perhaps through the use of scientific instruments, or through observation alone. Thought and observation are the reason we have science, while our senses are not purely objective, we can still use rationality to break past this barrier through thought and analysis.
> But this gives us no actual better understanding of.. anything really. Do you have an example where deterministic causality gives a better conceptual framework?
Perhaps you could explain further why you feel as though this analogy does not explain anything. If a physical ball behaves the same in identical conditions, why would a physical universe be any different?
---
Not the poster you were responding to, but the pre-determinism assumption really builds a wall around what conclusions you can reach, which is why it's not a useful framework for discussion. It's like a closed question with one answer.
The same limitations apply with the criteria you've set to look at things only objectively. You say that neurons firing is not proof of pain. But inherently it is the same event. You are disqualifying the pain because it is subjective. Not because it isnt real.
Thw reality is not that the nerve firing causes pain. It is that the nerve firing is pain. You could argue that only the pain is real, and the nerve firing is the expression of the pain in reality. In the same way you could argue that only free will is real, and the course of your life is that expression in reality. This precludes a pre-deterministic framework, and is not an argument allowed by your question. | >Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply...
>From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter...
>To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational...
>A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time.
>I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth.
You're making the common mistake of thinking that rationality entails _way_ more than it actually does. Very little about the world is revealed from mere rationality and introspection: in order to learn about the world, we have to actually engage with it. (This is especially the case if you are a materialist.) Because you believe a bunch of things are rational or simply the consequence of thought alone, you actually have a lot of unexamined assumptions that underlie your view. For example, you seem to be a materialist (possibly even an eliminative materialist), but this is no more necessitated by reason than any other metaphysical philosophy (and there are good reasons to eschew materialism). You also seem to believe the universe is deterministic, and again here there are very good reasons to believe it isn't (not least of which is the fact that the standard model of quantum physics is inherently random). But as long as you think that things like materialism and determinism are the only reasonable position, you won't be able to understand their limits and flaws because you will just reject any criticism of either position as "irrational" or faith-based.
---
I am capable of accepting new views. In the post, when I referred to faith and irrationality, I was referring to the people I have had conversations with who very seldom engaged in deep discussion. Such people were not very literate in the realms of science, and believed what they had grown up with passionately (due to lack of other ideas or ingraining). Perhaps quantum is inherently random in our world, which I would argue is still deterministic. Although we cannot predict all the motions of quantum mechanics, I would argue that if the universe were to restart with identical conditions, that unpredictable randomness would remain the same the second time as if a movie were playing out again. If you have an argument against this, I invite you to inform me and change my view! Perhaps you have other examples you can give me, or you can debunk the argument I have put forward. I am aware that to fully understand the universe we must interact with it. Yet at the same time, Einstein being one of the most brilliant thinkers in history (I am not equating myself to him by any means), brought forth many proven theories from pure thought alone. Some were not even proven in his lifetime. Thought and rationality may have limits, but I do not see any points that overstep those bounds in my post. I would appreciate it if you elaborated more into that. Lastly, I feel it would be valuable if you were to give me explicit examples of things that are unexplained by my perspective, as I already addressed quantum.
---
> I would argue that if the universe were to restart with identical conditions, that unpredictable randomness would remain the same the second time as if a movie were playing out again.
Well, when we do this on a smaller scale, by running experiments on particles under identical conditions, we observe behavior that is _not_ the same the second time. Instead, we observe behavior that can be different every time. So why should this be different for the whole universe?
---
Because in a universe where all conditions are identical, *time* would also be identical.
​
EDIT; such an experiment is not possible to fully do justice in the realm of quantum physics, as the time interval, or even position interval is different between experiments.
---
What do you mean by "time would also be identical"? Time is a position, not a condition. | bvho87 | CMV: The Illusion of Free Choice | What exactly is a human being?
Many people have beliefs that a human being is more than just the body it inhabits, that we have a soul, or some underlying being behind our faces. Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply, it may become apparent that human beings are no different than objects. Bleak as it may sound, hear me out. An object is classically a thing composed of matter, which is thought to lack consciousness or awareness. Human beings are also composed of matter. From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter. It is all a human is. The atoms in our bodies are very intricate and assorted, adding up to create organs, veins, bones, and notably, brains. However, despite how complex our biology may be, one thing is certain. We are still a body composed of matter. To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational, as would many. Many are able to find rationality in the idea that we have a soul, after all, we are *conscious and freethinking* right? Maybe we are aware of ourselves, maybe we have a sense of separation as a single entity, yet awareness and consciousness can be picked apart if you consider that these things are an illusion caused by an uncountable number of neurons firing in a lump of grey matter composed of material. All consciousness is simply that, electrical signals firing off at an incomprehensible level within an object. A very complex object is perfectly capable of becoming aware of itself, but none the less, it is an object. For example, if mankind created an artificial intelligence that was so advanced it were to become sentient, would you consider it alive? Likely not, even though its software/hardware would be much more complex than a human brain. At the same time, if nature created a biological organism and assorted its atoms into a brain with neurons that fire similar to binary over the course of millions of years (evolution) or billions of years (the big bang itself), the concepts would be the same. Only, one took much longer to come into existence. Due to an infinite seeming amount of time, it is actually quite unsurprising that matter would arrange itself into an object capable of experiencing the sensations by some way or another. Human beings, and life in general are simply that. A very low (yet high due to the age and vastness of the universe) probability took place a long time ago, and atoms arranged themselves into the first cells. These cells were capable simple reproduction and formation due to their makeup, and created the first living organisms. The most simple organisms consist of a very simple structure. Amoebas are single celled organisms with DNA that program it to preform a very simple tasks, to consume energy, and move away from death. Such an organism is subject to very basic programming, it lacks consciousness and awareness, yet it is "alive", even though it is a very simple organic object. A basic artificial robot may as well be the same as it. It also lacks awareness, yet it is programmed to do very basic tasks. The same line of thinking can be applied to human beings on a more complex level. We are the same in nature as an amoeba, except our tasks are much more diverse than any objective life form due to our brains. One of these tasks includes the illusion of consciousness and ego. Perhaps all of this does not do the explanation justice, therefore, I will attempt to explain it through analogy, and go in depth on how this effects our freedom of choice.
Imagine you were to take a small palm sized ball. You throw this ball at a wall, it bounces off, and lands on the floor in a certain position. Imagine you were to take that same ball, which is identical in atomic structure, and throw it with identical force in the exact same direction, and have it hit the same part of the wall, and bounce off in the same direction it did previously. Imagine that every single variable in that experiment was replicated perfectly, right down to the air molecules hitting it mid air. A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time. The ball had no say in the matter, and the variables had predestined where it would end up. Now, imagine you took a human and said a sentence to them, "Hello, how are you?". The vibration of your vocal cords and the movement of your mouth generated a specific wave in the air, which traveled to their ear drums and caused them to vibrate. This vibration sent an electrical signal to the brain and warranted a neurological response, and the individual processed the words you said, and responded to them. In this case, there are far more many variables involved in the experiment, perhaps out of the realms of calculation, yet a solution underlies and they respond anyway. If you were to completely erase all recollection of the memory the person just formed about this interaction (or you were to rewind time for the sake of argument), and sit them down in the same position, and say the exact same words with the exact same tone and body language, and once again, replicate every variable perfectly, the very neurons in their brain would react the same way, and they would exhibit the same response they did the first time. "I'm good, and you?". Once again, if you were to replicate everything perfectly, the object of the brain would behave exactly the same, and it would have a predestined response. Through this example, we see that an object, and the human brain that creates your consciousness and awareness are the same in nature. Every single response, reaction, and emotion, you have ever given or experienced in your entire life was purely a product of your environment, just as me writing this post was, and you reading it was.
I do not mean environment as in the area you grew up in, or the culture you were born into either. I am referring to the fundamental environment that shaped all environments. I am talking about the big bang. From the very origins of our universe, there was matter and energy. When basic atoms had formed, they underwent a series of collisions and interacted with each other for around 14 billion years, somewhere in that time period, stars and planets formed, and eventually life here on Earth. This mind breaking amount of time yielded an incomprehensible amount of variables that could never possibly be displayed fully in a human lifetime, yet they happened. A solution was underlying all of the atomic collisions, celestial interactions, explosions, and everything else. That "solution" continues to be uncovered as time passes, and human life, as well as everything else is a part of it. Hypothetically, if you were to create another universe with identical initial conditions and laws of physics to this one, everything would play out exactly the same. That play out would eventually result in me and you 14 billion years later once again, just as the ball would land in the same place. Essentially, **everything** is predestined, right to the end of this space and time me and you currently inhabit. The freedom of choice could not possibly exist in such a complex series of predestined events. The freedom of choice, in a way, encompasses what humanity is. People go around and boast about how they are unique and special because they are human, because humans have the power of reason, the power of choice, the power of consciousness, yet in the grand grand scheme of things, all of these things are actually illusions. I have tried to explain this idea to many, yet so many unknowingly follow the ego they were predestined to have, and dismiss this logic, quote: "But you still have a choice!". Perhaps in a very myopic and narrow sense, but in the greater picture, it is evident that this is not true.
If this post has shed any light on to you, hopefully it does not distress you. I personally think it is very fulfilling knowing that external to my sense of ego, I do not have to stress about my inadequacies because my life, as well as yours are written for us already. I also feel very blessed to have been in the chance of events that gave me my advantages, including my brain that is capable of decoding existence, whether I am an object or not. Although we may not be special in a greater sense, you can look at things in a sense of duality. Either everything is, or nothing is. I prefer to abide by the first. Perhaps this is all a belief, but if so, I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth. Hopefully you feel the same. If not, I would be happy to hear any thoughts you have that give a sense of understanding to our nature in an effort to change my view. Maybe you might even have something to add to this. Anyway, I have a destiny to go play out, thank you for reading!
​
EDIT; excuse minor typos if you come across them
​
EDIT 2; The best argument I have encountered so far is that of quantum mechanics, which may suggest that events may play out differently if time were to rewind due to inherent randomness. While such would no longer be deterministic, I have came to the conclusion that deterministic or random, both would warrant free will meaningless, as one depends on predestined events, and the other depends on probabilities that would warrant free will meaningless a second time if the choice was different, as that would mean it had no meaning the first time. The more I engage with the users in the comments, the clearer it becomes that free will and free choice is a human made concept that does not really have deep fundamental grounds to even be argued upon. Regardless, the conversations have been immensely stimulating and thought provoking, and I thank everyone who took the time to challenge my idea (even if it was out of your control in a deeper sense, haha). Perhaps we need the concept of free will in the common sense term associated with it in order to have a functioning society, while slightly illogical from a cosmic standpoint. An important concept no less, yet still an illusion in a way. You did spark some doubt in my theory of absolute determinism though, I guess you all changed my view in that way. I thank all of you very much for indulging me and giving me sound feedback to think about, hopefully others may gain some insight from all of the information displayed here. 😊 | knowitallgenius | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "howlin",
"id": "eppa8yw",
"score": 1,
"text": "There are a few issues that may change your view. Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a soul is not really relevant here. If there are souls, they still will follow some sort of rules analogous to physics. There is a consistency to h... | [
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"id": "eppa3w7",
"score": 5,
"text": ">Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply...\n\n>From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter...\n\n>To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being... | [
"eppa8yw",
"eppdmdh",
"eppe4xo",
"eppepoz",
"eppg22j"
] | [
"eppa3w7",
"eppf5un",
"eppfpnu",
"eppg4th",
"eppgpdr"
] |
CMV: The Illusion of Free Choice
What exactly is a human being?
Many people have beliefs that a human being is more than just the body it inhabits, that we have a soul, or some underlying being behind our faces. Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply, it may become apparent that human beings are no different than objects. Bleak as it may sound, hear me out. An object is classically a thing composed of matter, which is thought to lack consciousness or awareness. Human beings are also composed of matter. From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter. It is all a human is. The atoms in our bodies are very intricate and assorted, adding up to create organs, veins, bones, and notably, brains. However, despite how complex our biology may be, one thing is certain. We are still a body composed of matter. To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational, as would many. Many are able to find rationality in the idea that we have a soul, after all, we are *conscious and freethinking* right? Maybe we are aware of ourselves, maybe we have a sense of separation as a single entity, yet awareness and consciousness can be picked apart if you consider that these things are an illusion caused by an uncountable number of neurons firing in a lump of grey matter composed of material. All consciousness is simply that, electrical signals firing off at an incomprehensible level within an object. A very complex object is perfectly capable of becoming aware of itself, but none the less, it is an object. For example, if mankind created an artificial intelligence that was so advanced it were to become sentient, would you consider it alive? Likely not, even though its software/hardware would be much more complex than a human brain. At the same time, if nature created a biological organism and assorted its atoms into a brain with neurons that fire similar to binary over the course of millions of years (evolution) or billions of years (the big bang itself), the concepts would be the same. Only, one took much longer to come into existence. Due to an infinite seeming amount of time, it is actually quite unsurprising that matter would arrange itself into an object capable of experiencing the sensations by some way or another. Human beings, and life in general are simply that. A very low (yet high due to the age and vastness of the universe) probability took place a long time ago, and atoms arranged themselves into the first cells. These cells were capable simple reproduction and formation due to their makeup, and created the first living organisms. The most simple organisms consist of a very simple structure. Amoebas are single celled organisms with DNA that program it to preform a very simple tasks, to consume energy, and move away from death. Such an organism is subject to very basic programming, it lacks consciousness and awareness, yet it is "alive", even though it is a very simple organic object. A basic artificial robot may as well be the same as it. It also lacks awareness, yet it is programmed to do very basic tasks. The same line of thinking can be applied to human beings on a more complex level. We are the same in nature as an amoeba, except our tasks are much more diverse than any objective life form due to our brains. One of these tasks includes the illusion of consciousness and ego. Perhaps all of this does not do the explanation justice, therefore, I will attempt to explain it through analogy, and go in depth on how this effects our freedom of choice.
Imagine you were to take a small palm sized ball. You throw this ball at a wall, it bounces off, and lands on the floor in a certain position. Imagine you were to take that same ball, which is identical in atomic structure, and throw it with identical force in the exact same direction, and have it hit the same part of the wall, and bounce off in the same direction it did previously. Imagine that every single variable in that experiment was replicated perfectly, right down to the air molecules hitting it mid air. A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time. The ball had no say in the matter, and the variables had predestined where it would end up. Now, imagine you took a human and said a sentence to them, "Hello, how are you?". The vibration of your vocal cords and the movement of your mouth generated a specific wave in the air, which traveled to their ear drums and caused them to vibrate. This vibration sent an electrical signal to the brain and warranted a neurological response, and the individual processed the words you said, and responded to them. In this case, there are far more many variables involved in the experiment, perhaps out of the realms of calculation, yet a solution underlies and they respond anyway. If you were to completely erase all recollection of the memory the person just formed about this interaction (or you were to rewind time for the sake of argument), and sit them down in the same position, and say the exact same words with the exact same tone and body language, and once again, replicate every variable perfectly, the very neurons in their brain would react the same way, and they would exhibit the same response they did the first time. "I'm good, and you?". Once again, if you were to replicate everything perfectly, the object of the brain would behave exactly the same, and it would have a predestined response. Through this example, we see that an object, and the human brain that creates your consciousness and awareness are the same in nature. Every single response, reaction, and emotion, you have ever given or experienced in your entire life was purely a product of your environment, just as me writing this post was, and you reading it was.
I do not mean environment as in the area you grew up in, or the culture you were born into either. I am referring to the fundamental environment that shaped all environments. I am talking about the big bang. From the very origins of our universe, there was matter and energy. When basic atoms had formed, they underwent a series of collisions and interacted with each other for around 14 billion years, somewhere in that time period, stars and planets formed, and eventually life here on Earth. This mind breaking amount of time yielded an incomprehensible amount of variables that could never possibly be displayed fully in a human lifetime, yet they happened. A solution was underlying all of the atomic collisions, celestial interactions, explosions, and everything else. That "solution" continues to be uncovered as time passes, and human life, as well as everything else is a part of it. Hypothetically, if you were to create another universe with identical initial conditions and laws of physics to this one, everything would play out exactly the same. That play out would eventually result in me and you 14 billion years later once again, just as the ball would land in the same place. Essentially, **everything** is predestined, right to the end of this space and time me and you currently inhabit. The freedom of choice could not possibly exist in such a complex series of predestined events. The freedom of choice, in a way, encompasses what humanity is. People go around and boast about how they are unique and special because they are human, because humans have the power of reason, the power of choice, the power of consciousness, yet in the grand grand scheme of things, all of these things are actually illusions. I have tried to explain this idea to many, yet so many unknowingly follow the ego they were predestined to have, and dismiss this logic, quote: "But you still have a choice!". Perhaps in a very myopic and narrow sense, but in the greater picture, it is evident that this is not true.
If this post has shed any light on to you, hopefully it does not distress you. I personally think it is very fulfilling knowing that external to my sense of ego, I do not have to stress about my inadequacies because my life, as well as yours are written for us already. I also feel very blessed to have been in the chance of events that gave me my advantages, including my brain that is capable of decoding existence, whether I am an object or not. Although we may not be special in a greater sense, you can look at things in a sense of duality. Either everything is, or nothing is. I prefer to abide by the first. Perhaps this is all a belief, but if so, I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth. Hopefully you feel the same. If not, I would be happy to hear any thoughts you have that give a sense of understanding to our nature in an effort to change my view. Maybe you might even have something to add to this. Anyway, I have a destiny to go play out, thank you for reading!
​
EDIT; excuse minor typos if you come across them
​
EDIT 2; The best argument I have encountered so far is that of quantum mechanics, which may suggest that events may play out differently if time were to rewind due to inherent randomness. While such would no longer be deterministic, I have came to the conclusion that deterministic or random, both would warrant free will meaningless, as one depends on predestined events, and the other depends on probabilities that would warrant free will meaningless a second time if the choice was different, as that would mean it had no meaning the first time. The more I engage with the users in the comments, the clearer it becomes that free will and free choice is a human made concept that does not really have deep fundamental grounds to even be argued upon. Regardless, the conversations have been immensely stimulating and thought provoking, and I thank everyone who took the time to challenge my idea (even if it was out of your control in a deeper sense, haha). Perhaps we need the concept of free will in the common sense term associated with it in order to have a functioning society, while slightly illogical from a cosmic standpoint. An important concept no less, yet still an illusion in a way. You did spark some doubt in my theory of absolute determinism though, I guess you all changed my view in that way. I thank all of you very much for indulging me and giving me sound feedback to think about, hopefully others may gain some insight from all of the information displayed here. 😊 | >Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply...
>From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter...
>To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational...
>A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time.
>I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth.
You're making the common mistake of thinking that rationality entails _way_ more than it actually does. Very little about the world is revealed from mere rationality and introspection: in order to learn about the world, we have to actually engage with it. (This is especially the case if you are a materialist.) Because you believe a bunch of things are rational or simply the consequence of thought alone, you actually have a lot of unexamined assumptions that underlie your view. For example, you seem to be a materialist (possibly even an eliminative materialist), but this is no more necessitated by reason than any other metaphysical philosophy (and there are good reasons to eschew materialism). You also seem to believe the universe is deterministic, and again here there are very good reasons to believe it isn't (not least of which is the fact that the standard model of quantum physics is inherently random). But as long as you think that things like materialism and determinism are the only reasonable position, you won't be able to understand their limits and flaws because you will just reject any criticism of either position as "irrational" or faith-based.
---
I am capable of accepting new views. In the post, when I referred to faith and irrationality, I was referring to the people I have had conversations with who very seldom engaged in deep discussion. Such people were not very literate in the realms of science, and believed what they had grown up with passionately (due to lack of other ideas or ingraining). Perhaps quantum is inherently random in our world, which I would argue is still deterministic. Although we cannot predict all the motions of quantum mechanics, I would argue that if the universe were to restart with identical conditions, that unpredictable randomness would remain the same the second time as if a movie were playing out again. If you have an argument against this, I invite you to inform me and change my view! Perhaps you have other examples you can give me, or you can debunk the argument I have put forward. I am aware that to fully understand the universe we must interact with it. Yet at the same time, Einstein being one of the most brilliant thinkers in history (I am not equating myself to him by any means), brought forth many proven theories from pure thought alone. Some were not even proven in his lifetime. Thought and rationality may have limits, but I do not see any points that overstep those bounds in my post. I would appreciate it if you elaborated more into that. Lastly, I feel it would be valuable if you were to give me explicit examples of things that are unexplained by my perspective, as I already addressed quantum.
---
> I would argue that if the universe were to restart with identical conditions, that unpredictable randomness would remain the same the second time as if a movie were playing out again.
Well, when we do this on a smaller scale, by running experiments on particles under identical conditions, we observe behavior that is _not_ the same the second time. Instead, we observe behavior that can be different every time. So why should this be different for the whole universe?
---
Because in a universe where all conditions are identical, *time* would also be identical.
​
EDIT; such an experiment is not possible to fully do justice in the realm of quantum physics, as the time interval, or even position interval is different between experiments.
---
What do you mean by "time would also be identical"? Time is a position, not a condition.
---
Position, yes. If you were to preform a quantum experiment at a different position in time, the results would likely be different. If you had a universe that was completely separate from ours in space and time, time would start and progress in an identical fashion, and likely yield the same quantum results. In the realm of quantum and sheer unpredictability, time/position in time is a very reasonable "condition" of the experiment. That means that we cannot replicate a quantum experiment in our universe perfectly because we cannot preform the experiments in precisely the same time interval down to a point of impeccability, or in the exact same position in space.
---
(Not the poster you responded to). The basic tenets of quantum mechanics are explained by schrodingers cat (I assume you are familiar?). In quantum mechanics the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Both conditions exist at the same time and it is quantum randomness that determines the reality we experience later on in time. But there are instances where both realities exist simultaneously. Superimposed. This is an observed phenomenon in quantum mechanics; schrodingers cat is the analogy.
This would suggest that resetting the earth at the same point in time may lead to a different result. The predeterminist view may not hold. | There are a few issues that may change your view. Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a soul is not really relevant here. If there are souls, they still will follow some sort of rules analogous to physics. There is a consistency to human behavior that implies there must be some sort of a science that can explain it. Also even if souls don't exist, it is presumptuous and not supported by science that the universe can be fully described by deterministic causality. As far as we can tell, there are plenty of random and uncaused events happening in the quantum realm.
Secondly, describing free choice as an illusion is a popular but odd way of thinking about it. We know that people will have markedly different behaviors and help to different levels of culpability depending on their mental state. A person who has an accident because of a seizure is less responsible than someone who has an accident because they drank too much versus someone who deliberately causes harm with a sober sound mind. Free will perfectly describes the distinction in these scenarios. It may just be a physical process but it is still very important to our understanding of the world and other people. By this standard you'd have to call all sorts of other things illusions as well. For instance the color brown doesn't actually exist. It's just how our eyes and brains interpret certain complex patterns of light wavelengths.
Finally, there is a major epsitemologic issue to consider. Even if the universe is completely deterministic and would play out exactly the same way if started over, this fact offers absolutely no benefit to us understanding the universe. We can't restart the universe to see the past. We can't fast forward the universe to see the future. We're stuck in the present and fundamentally the universe's determinism would be irrelevant. We have to work with the uncertainty of our limited perspective of the universe, and this looks exactly the same as things in the universe having free will.
---
Perhaps I need further educating, and perhaps you can inform me on quantum. Although the quantum world is inherently random in the sense that it cannot be fully predicted or recorded, who is to say that such events are also deterministic? If the universe started over from an identical standpoint, would quantum cause a change, or is quantum theory simply a theory that cannot be fully predicted? Based on personal logic, I would assume that such things would also be deterministic even though they cannot be predicted in a deterministic world.
I realize that many people have different mental states and therefore exhibit different behavioral reactions, but from an ancient deterministic standpoint, those behaviors do not necessarily have to be reasonable, because determinism itself encompasses such things.
Your last point was quite interesting. I know that there is no experiment we can preform to restart the universe and observe the events that take place due to it, but in our existence here, perhaps we can understand the universe as being deterministic through the analogy I used in regards to a ball/object behaving the same under identical conditions.
Thank you for the input, I would enjoy hearing back from you. :)
---
> Although the quantum world is inherently random in the sense that it cannot be fully predicted or recorded, who is to say that such events are also deterministic?
There's no benefit to jumping to this conclusion.
> I realize that many people have different mental states and therefore exhibit different behavioral reactions,
If you want to call free will an illusion, then pretty much all human mental states would also be an illusion. Free will is as real as happiness, being in pain, or seeing the color brown. If you think about it, many of the concepts we use to understand and reason about the world would be just as illusory.
> but in our existence here, perhaps we can understand the universe as being deterministic through the analogy I used in regards to a ball/object behaving the same under identical conditions.
But this gives us no actual better understanding of.. anything really. Do you have an example where deterministic causality gives a better conceptual framework?
---
> There's no benefit to jumping to this conclusion.
Why do you believe such a conclusion is unlikely or lacking beneficial to "jump" to?
> If you want to call free will an illusion, then pretty much all human mental states would also be an illusion. Free will is as real as happiness, being in pain, or seeing the color brown. If you think about it, many of the concepts we use to understand and reason about the world would be just as illusory.
The concept that all human sensation being illusory is something that would fit into my perspective and something I would agree with. Neurons firing in a brain does not objectively mean pain, happiness, or any type of emotion. Objectively, they are neurons creating stimulus that may be interpreted as such, but nothing more. I also feel as though our senses are quite illusory. Once again, objectively, there is no such thing as the color brown. That is simply the way our brain interprets a certain wavelength. Although our senses are subjective in many ways, they are still accurate enough to objectively prove things (unless philosophers such as Desecrates were correct in arguing that nothing may exist outside of our minds), perhaps through the use of scientific instruments, or through observation alone. Thought and observation are the reason we have science, while our senses are not purely objective, we can still use rationality to break past this barrier through thought and analysis.
> But this gives us no actual better understanding of.. anything really. Do you have an example where deterministic causality gives a better conceptual framework?
Perhaps you could explain further why you feel as though this analogy does not explain anything. If a physical ball behaves the same in identical conditions, why would a physical universe be any different?
---
> Why do you believe such a conclusion is unlikely or lacking beneficial to "jump" to?
Because it is unsupported by evidence and you are using the idea that the universe may be deterministic to attempt to upend pretty much every common concept we use in day to day life.
> The concept that all human sensation being illusory is something that would fit into my perspective and something I would agree with.
You are stretching the idea of illusion beyond any reasonable definition. The word essentially means "false perception" but now you're trying to say all perception is false perception.
> If a physical ball behaves the same in identical conditions, why would a physical universe be any different?
This is only true because this is a very simple system and you are making very coarse measurements of how it evolves. You can't jump to concluding everything is going to work exactly like a toy example.
---
>Because it is unsupported by evidence and you are using the idea that the universe may be deterministic to attempt to upend pretty much every common concept we use in day to day life.
The idea of a deterministic universe would inherently destroy many common concepts. To say that I am attempting to destroy "every" one of them is untrue. A deterministic universe would indeed destroy free will and even explain our perceptions. Although this evidence may be "unsupported" in a certain sense, I highly doubt there is any way to explain quantum theory in any other ways than simply saying those are the fundamental laws of physics. Knowing that, I took a step out of the impossibility of prediction and addressed the idea that on top of all that things may be deterministic anyway, which is actually not as big of a jump as you are arguing.
>You are stretching the idea of illusion beyond any reasonable definition. The word essentially means "false perception" but now you're trying to say all perception is false perception.
You are putting words in my mouth by saying that all perception is "false", or completely illusion like, seeing as you took that sentence out of context. You will notice a couple lines below that I mentioned we cannot experience things on a purely objective level, and some aspects of the human sensory system are relative to the human brain only. Regardless, we are able to use our sensory system to observe and prove objective things such as theory.
>This is only true because this is a very simple system and you are making very coarse measurements of how it evolves. You can't jump to concluding everything is going to work exactly like a toy example.
If determinism can explain the very way that atomic collisions happen (cause and effect, therefore destiny), a "toy example" would certainly do that idea justice. Expanding further, I thought the conclusion would be clear in regards to atomic cause and effect, and how such things relate to all matter in the universe.
---
> A deterministic universe would indeed destroy free will and even explain our perceptions.
I'll mostly pick at this because I am on my phone and it's late. Compatiblism explains how free will is not necessarily in conflict with a deterministic universe. It has two major arguments. First, for all intents and purposes free will is just a concept to quantify the intentionality of a behavior. A drink person has less free will than a sober person because many of his actions are unintended. A person suffering a seizure has even less free will than the drunk. This is a deeply important concept for things such as determining the degree and culpability of a person for a crime. What would you argue should replace this sort of assessment that isn't exactly what we already mean when practically discussing free will?
Secondly, even a completely deterministic clockwork universe is unpredictable from within itself. The halting problem is a computer theory question that asks if we can determine whether a computer program will stop at some point or go on computing forever. It turns out that despite the computers completely deterministic behavior, it is impossible to build a system that can tell which programs will stop versus which ones will run forever. If we can't even use determinism to predict the behavior of computers, what hope do we have to predict humans? Another thought experiment involves building a system to forecast the weather with perfect precision. It measures every single variable needed to calculate precisely where each raindrop will fall. The problem is this simulator takes a lot of power to run, and it ends up generating enough heat (entropy) that the very act of running the simulator ruined the precision of the results. | bvho87 | CMV: The Illusion of Free Choice | What exactly is a human being?
Many people have beliefs that a human being is more than just the body it inhabits, that we have a soul, or some underlying being behind our faces. Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply, it may become apparent that human beings are no different than objects. Bleak as it may sound, hear me out. An object is classically a thing composed of matter, which is thought to lack consciousness or awareness. Human beings are also composed of matter. From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter. It is all a human is. The atoms in our bodies are very intricate and assorted, adding up to create organs, veins, bones, and notably, brains. However, despite how complex our biology may be, one thing is certain. We are still a body composed of matter. To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being of any sort, requires a deal of faith. Personally, I would conclude that faith without a rational reason is quite irrational, as would many. Many are able to find rationality in the idea that we have a soul, after all, we are *conscious and freethinking* right? Maybe we are aware of ourselves, maybe we have a sense of separation as a single entity, yet awareness and consciousness can be picked apart if you consider that these things are an illusion caused by an uncountable number of neurons firing in a lump of grey matter composed of material. All consciousness is simply that, electrical signals firing off at an incomprehensible level within an object. A very complex object is perfectly capable of becoming aware of itself, but none the less, it is an object. For example, if mankind created an artificial intelligence that was so advanced it were to become sentient, would you consider it alive? Likely not, even though its software/hardware would be much more complex than a human brain. At the same time, if nature created a biological organism and assorted its atoms into a brain with neurons that fire similar to binary over the course of millions of years (evolution) or billions of years (the big bang itself), the concepts would be the same. Only, one took much longer to come into existence. Due to an infinite seeming amount of time, it is actually quite unsurprising that matter would arrange itself into an object capable of experiencing the sensations by some way or another. Human beings, and life in general are simply that. A very low (yet high due to the age and vastness of the universe) probability took place a long time ago, and atoms arranged themselves into the first cells. These cells were capable simple reproduction and formation due to their makeup, and created the first living organisms. The most simple organisms consist of a very simple structure. Amoebas are single celled organisms with DNA that program it to preform a very simple tasks, to consume energy, and move away from death. Such an organism is subject to very basic programming, it lacks consciousness and awareness, yet it is "alive", even though it is a very simple organic object. A basic artificial robot may as well be the same as it. It also lacks awareness, yet it is programmed to do very basic tasks. The same line of thinking can be applied to human beings on a more complex level. We are the same in nature as an amoeba, except our tasks are much more diverse than any objective life form due to our brains. One of these tasks includes the illusion of consciousness and ego. Perhaps all of this does not do the explanation justice, therefore, I will attempt to explain it through analogy, and go in depth on how this effects our freedom of choice.
Imagine you were to take a small palm sized ball. You throw this ball at a wall, it bounces off, and lands on the floor in a certain position. Imagine you were to take that same ball, which is identical in atomic structure, and throw it with identical force in the exact same direction, and have it hit the same part of the wall, and bounce off in the same direction it did previously. Imagine that every single variable in that experiment was replicated perfectly, right down to the air molecules hitting it mid air. A rational mind would say that the ball would land in the exact same position it did the first time. The ball had no say in the matter, and the variables had predestined where it would end up. Now, imagine you took a human and said a sentence to them, "Hello, how are you?". The vibration of your vocal cords and the movement of your mouth generated a specific wave in the air, which traveled to their ear drums and caused them to vibrate. This vibration sent an electrical signal to the brain and warranted a neurological response, and the individual processed the words you said, and responded to them. In this case, there are far more many variables involved in the experiment, perhaps out of the realms of calculation, yet a solution underlies and they respond anyway. If you were to completely erase all recollection of the memory the person just formed about this interaction (or you were to rewind time for the sake of argument), and sit them down in the same position, and say the exact same words with the exact same tone and body language, and once again, replicate every variable perfectly, the very neurons in their brain would react the same way, and they would exhibit the same response they did the first time. "I'm good, and you?". Once again, if you were to replicate everything perfectly, the object of the brain would behave exactly the same, and it would have a predestined response. Through this example, we see that an object, and the human brain that creates your consciousness and awareness are the same in nature. Every single response, reaction, and emotion, you have ever given or experienced in your entire life was purely a product of your environment, just as me writing this post was, and you reading it was.
I do not mean environment as in the area you grew up in, or the culture you were born into either. I am referring to the fundamental environment that shaped all environments. I am talking about the big bang. From the very origins of our universe, there was matter and energy. When basic atoms had formed, they underwent a series of collisions and interacted with each other for around 14 billion years, somewhere in that time period, stars and planets formed, and eventually life here on Earth. This mind breaking amount of time yielded an incomprehensible amount of variables that could never possibly be displayed fully in a human lifetime, yet they happened. A solution was underlying all of the atomic collisions, celestial interactions, explosions, and everything else. That "solution" continues to be uncovered as time passes, and human life, as well as everything else is a part of it. Hypothetically, if you were to create another universe with identical initial conditions and laws of physics to this one, everything would play out exactly the same. That play out would eventually result in me and you 14 billion years later once again, just as the ball would land in the same place. Essentially, **everything** is predestined, right to the end of this space and time me and you currently inhabit. The freedom of choice could not possibly exist in such a complex series of predestined events. The freedom of choice, in a way, encompasses what humanity is. People go around and boast about how they are unique and special because they are human, because humans have the power of reason, the power of choice, the power of consciousness, yet in the grand grand scheme of things, all of these things are actually illusions. I have tried to explain this idea to many, yet so many unknowingly follow the ego they were predestined to have, and dismiss this logic, quote: "But you still have a choice!". Perhaps in a very myopic and narrow sense, but in the greater picture, it is evident that this is not true.
If this post has shed any light on to you, hopefully it does not distress you. I personally think it is very fulfilling knowing that external to my sense of ego, I do not have to stress about my inadequacies because my life, as well as yours are written for us already. I also feel very blessed to have been in the chance of events that gave me my advantages, including my brain that is capable of decoding existence, whether I am an object or not. Although we may not be special in a greater sense, you can look at things in a sense of duality. Either everything is, or nothing is. I prefer to abide by the first. Perhaps this is all a belief, but if so, I "believe" it to hold a large amount of merit, rationality, and fundamental truth. Hopefully you feel the same. If not, I would be happy to hear any thoughts you have that give a sense of understanding to our nature in an effort to change my view. Maybe you might even have something to add to this. Anyway, I have a destiny to go play out, thank you for reading!
​
EDIT; excuse minor typos if you come across them
​
EDIT 2; The best argument I have encountered so far is that of quantum mechanics, which may suggest that events may play out differently if time were to rewind due to inherent randomness. While such would no longer be deterministic, I have came to the conclusion that deterministic or random, both would warrant free will meaningless, as one depends on predestined events, and the other depends on probabilities that would warrant free will meaningless a second time if the choice was different, as that would mean it had no meaning the first time. The more I engage with the users in the comments, the clearer it becomes that free will and free choice is a human made concept that does not really have deep fundamental grounds to even be argued upon. Regardless, the conversations have been immensely stimulating and thought provoking, and I thank everyone who took the time to challenge my idea (even if it was out of your control in a deeper sense, haha). Perhaps we need the concept of free will in the common sense term associated with it in order to have a functioning society, while slightly illogical from a cosmic standpoint. An important concept no less, yet still an illusion in a way. You did spark some doubt in my theory of absolute determinism though, I guess you all changed my view in that way. I thank all of you very much for indulging me and giving me sound feedback to think about, hopefully others may gain some insight from all of the information displayed here. 😊 | knowitallgenius | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"id": "eppa3w7",
"score": 5,
"text": ">Yet, if one is to think about the nature of life and consciousness deeply...\n\n>From a purely rational standpoint, all that encompasses a human being is matter...\n\n>To add anything else to that idea, such as a soul or underlying being... | [
{
"author": "howlin",
"id": "eppa8yw",
"score": 1,
"text": "There are a few issues that may change your view. Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a soul is not really relevant here. If there are souls, they still will follow some sort of rules analogous to physics. There is a consistency to h... | [
"eppa3w7",
"eppf5un",
"eppfpnu",
"eppg4th",
"eppgpdr",
"eppha59",
"eppibrl"
] | [
"eppa8yw",
"eppdmdh",
"eppe4xo",
"eppepoz",
"eppfa6r",
"eppg37g",
"eppj37t"
] |
CMV: Leftists that refuse to support Democrats are a net benefit to Republicans
My view is basically all in the title. Leftists that have branded the president “genocide Joe” and refuse to acknowledge that republicans are much, much worse than democrats on basically every issue they care about are actively beneficial to Republicans. By convincing many young Americans that there is basically no different between the two parties, they create lots of voter apathy which convinces young people and other leftists to stay home. This is essentially what got Trump elected (and appointing three Supreme Court justices) the first time around, and as a left wing person that agrees with these people on nearly every policy point, I am concerned that it’s going to happen again, and I am more concerned that so many alleged leftists seem to be okay with this.
Basically, I think leftists that refuse to support the “lesser evil” only serve as useless idiots for fascists. Please CMV. | DNC officials that refuse to allow fair primaries are a net benefit to Republicans.
Donna Brazile famously gave the debate questions to HRC before the debate happened.
DNC insiders discussed how they could use Bernie's Jewish faith against him.
Leaked emails show the DNC promoted Trump as a legitimate candidate because they were certain he couldn't win.
There's a reason third parties don't win lately. It's because the duopoly has convinced Americans that they only have 2 choices. Vote for the candidate you align most with instead of the lesser evil.
---
I agree with all of this. Would Republicans be worse or not? I do not have an option to vote for the candidate that most aligns with my views, because none of them come close.
---
>Would Republicans be worse or not?
Sure, probably. That's why I'm voting third party.
>I do not have an option to vote for the candidate that most aligns with my views, because none of them come close.
You do have the option, but you've already made up your mind.
---
I would support a third party candidate in an instance where they had a chance of winning. Realistically, they don’t. Therefore, in an extremely close race between the evil man and the VERY FUCKING EVIL man, I am obligated to support the evil man, no?
---
Do you live in a swing state? If, like most Americans, you don't, it doesn't matter who you vote for, as your state's electoral votes are essentially a given to one of the main parties.
In that case, instead of holding your nose for a lesser-of-two-evils vote that won't impact the election results at all, feel free to vote for a 3rd party without worring about the spoiler effect. Even when the 3rd party doesn't win, vote totals help with ballot access in future elections (which is a huge, costly hurdle avoided), and can help shift the duopoly's policies towards the 3rd party's to try and win your vote in the future | You've got to look beyond one election cycle. If you support your party every election, all they have to do is convince you that the other guy is worse and they know they'll have your vote. If you go vote third party or they see a massive drop in voter turnout, it will force the party to reflect on what they're doing wrong that's causing them to lose support. Yes, the other party may get a win for an election cycle, but hopefully the party you align with better will move in the right direction for the next election cycle. If they just get votes anyway they won't course correct.
---
If I lost to my far right opponent, I could easily conclude that I need to cater more to the right for votes.
---
You could. Sure. But a smart campaign manager/advisor would be looking into how the election actually played out. Did voter participation remain the same yet the far right opponent got more/a greater share of the votes than in previous elections?
Then yeah. Adopting policies that are more appealing to the far right would be the right strategy to win an election.
Did the far right opponent have the same volume of votes, but voter participation dropped, then the problem could be lack of enthusiasm from left leaning people leading to a lack of willingness to go vote. That could indicate you need to adapt more left leaning positions if your goal is to win an election.
---
Yes, now we're getting somewhere. Can you tell me if the left is a reliable voting bloc that engages in tactical vote abstention? From what I understand, older/wealthier/whiter people are reliable voting blocs and they all skew Republican. Can leftists be counted on to vote normally, do a round of abstention, and then vote again when the issue is addressed?
---
I don't think I can give an accurate answer here.
We're basically talking about a prediction. To make an accurate prediction, you're going to be using *some* form of data. Given that I'm not a campaign manager, and I'm just sitting in my apartment in sweatpants drinking a mimosa, I would imagine that the stats on past elections would be the most, or at least one of the most, important pieces of data you could base your prediction on.
So let's say we have Candidate John Doe. John Doe is running for office because the previous incumbent, Jim Doe, retired. John and Jim run on the same policy platforms with the exception of abortion. John wants a universal ban, Jim doesn't. I think we can both agree that Jim's position would be more appealing to left leaning individuals.
Election comes and goes. John loses. His far right opponent, who also ran last year, totaled 10 votes in both election cycles. The incumbent at that time (the previous election), Jim, received 20 votes.
In the election cycle that John loses, he receives 9 votes. The far right opponent received 10. John's campaign manager looks at the results and notices that turnout dropped by a statistically significant percentage. A reasonable person could conclude that the abortion issue (this is assuming all other variables remain constant) led to lower voter turnout. During the next cycle, it would be reasonable to predict that if John adapts Jim's abortion prediction, turnout would improve.
There's no way of guaranteeing predictions become true. And we never have data that's as "clean" as my hypothetical, but I think it illustrates the point. | 1brp6cs | CMV: Leftists that refuse to support Democrats are a net benefit to Republicans | My view is basically all in the title. Leftists that have branded the president “genocide Joe” and refuse to acknowledge that republicans are much, much worse than democrats on basically every issue they care about are actively beneficial to Republicans. By convincing many young Americans that there is basically no different between the two parties, they create lots of voter apathy which convinces young people and other leftists to stay home. This is essentially what got Trump elected (and appointing three Supreme Court justices) the first time around, and as a left wing person that agrees with these people on nearly every policy point, I am concerned that it’s going to happen again, and I am more concerned that so many alleged leftists seem to be okay with this.
Basically, I think leftists that refuse to support the “lesser evil” only serve as useless idiots for fascists. Please CMV. | metaisplayed | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "quetejodas",
"id": "kxams7c",
"score": 98,
"text": "DNC officials that refuse to allow fair primaries are a net benefit to Republicans. \n\n\n\nDonna Brazile famously gave the debate questions to HRC before the debate happened.\n\n\n\nDNC insiders discussed how they could use Bernie's J... | [
{
"author": "NaturalCarob5611",
"id": "kxagt9q",
"score": 14,
"text": "You've got to look beyond one election cycle. If you support your party every election, all they have to do is convince you that the other guy is worse and they know they'll have your vote. If you go vote third party or they see ... | [
"kxams7c",
"kxan9hw",
"kxao7xp",
"kxaom0a",
"kxarx94"
] | [
"kxagt9q",
"kxah6l6",
"kxai94r",
"kxaj3ek",
"kxalk28"
] |
CMV: Black People are Better
I thought it was time to confront some views of mine that had been festering. I was always anti-racist but somehow developed these beliefs that black people are simply better than white (and asian, etc...) people. Keep in mind these come down to average differences, and that picking out individual cases won't disprove the general trend.
Physically
It's no secret that black people are some of the greatest athletes. When they got into basketball, for example, they completely dominated everyone. The old worry about Jewish basketball players was completely demolished when a group of people who were more athletic got into the sport. The same is true for football - they are far overrepresented in basically every sport they have an equal chance of competing in.
There have been some studies showing their muscle fibers are better (both sprinting, long-distance - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/26/johnarlidge.theobserver), have higher bone densities (they will be better astronauts - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/), and have more testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741).
Keep in mind all this comes from the most impoverished and oppressed people in the history of the planet. Just imagine what they could do with the money and training and support that other groups of people have had, all the while losing to black athletes?
They also have the deepest voices, the tallest people, more masculine faces, better skin (less skin cancer obviously, they age better which is huge in society which is obsessed with anti-aging), and there's generally some agreement and evidence they are sexually better (Pelvic floor muscles are important - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24464469 - Penis size is debatable but you have a hard time finding a small black guy).
No other ethnic group of people match up to their athleticism. They also have more genetic diversity in Africa than the entire non-African population. It's quite clear that black people are physically better than everyone else.
Mentally
There is no evidence that black people inherently have lesser IQ. They're just as capable as anyone else. In fact they're also notoriously quick-witted which is demonstrated in their superior ability to rap and spit lyrics.
People usually say that the best artists came from well-off families, but this is the reverse for black people. And they have better musicians than anyone. People idealize their skill in music and their rhythm, while joking about that of others. And maybe they're right. White musicians have generally needed to copy black musicians to make better music. The kind of singers they've produced are so much more soulful and emotional than anyone (or at least most) of other singers through all of time. On top of this the rhythms of black cultures are more complex and 'rhythmic' than any other, which are usually rigid.
Morally speaking they also have the least baggage. Other groups have all done far worse crimes, and black people have always been the victim of others' oppression because they feared how much better black people would be. They also have
Again, if social situations like SES and racism were equalized, black people would come out on top because of their physical and mental superiority. I'm going to try as hard as I can to be open to changing my view but I'm aware I grew up in a culture which idealized black men. But for the time being, I'm completely convinced that black people are just simply better at everything and worse at nothing. I suppose in order to change my view you'd have to argue that there are cons that either outweigh or equalize all the immense pros of black ancestry.
_____
> *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!* | [deleted]
---
I just point it out because it's an obvious example of mental superiority that happens even in spite of being the lowest rung of society and having the least opportunities in life. Those scientific discoveries come from the height of privilege.
---
> I just point it out because it's an obvious example of mental superiority that happens even in spite of being the lowest rung of society and having the least opportunities in life.
It's a cultural difference more than anything. Blacks are the predominant race in rap because it is pretty synonymous with parts of their culture, not because they are inherently better at it. You say there is no evidence that black people in general have lower IQs, but don't hold the same standard to rap. There is no statistical evidence black people are better at rap other than there are just more black people invested in the culture. You are mistaking popularity for superiority here.
---
I'd just like to see a white person have the same rhythm and flair and ability.
---
Emenem
---
Most people think he's just copying black people, spits too fast, doesn't have the lyricality or rhythm.
---
Bullshit. He's one of the most popular figures of the genre.
---
He's not well respected by black people.
---
According to who? Are you the spokesman for all black people now? Dr. Dre likes Eminem, I would think that a professional music producer who happens to be black might have a little more authority to speak on Eminem's popularity with audiences than you would. Do you have a source that shows that Eminem is not popular with black people? | I think you are confusing general athletic ability with the idea that certain physical traits translate better to certain sports. Basketball is a sport that generally requires height to be successful at (though that is not always the case) so generally speaking people who are taller will do well. Tallness is not unique to black people. What about Tennis? Swimming? Baseball? Gymnastics? etc. There are plenty of sports that require a lot of athletic ability and are best played by people that have certain physical characteristics, it has nothing to do with a certain race being inherently better at a sport, just that they posses physical characteristics that translate better to certain sports and even then to say all black people are better at basketball is like saying all white people are better at tennis.
Most everything else you stated is a personal preference. YOU think black people make better music. YOU think black music is more soulful. YOU think black people are more attractive. Etc. These are opinions, not facts. You also state that if racism was equalized then black people would be far superior, but how do you account for African nations that are were worse off than European/Asian/Middle Eastern cultures during the same time periods?
---
We're talking about averages, such as the fact that asians are much less likely to be as tall as a black person, and therefore do well in basketball.
It would seem most of society believes this - can you really argue white music which was derivative (in an attempt to be cool and attractive) of black people was just as good or better? No chance.
I think if black people move to better geographies like Europe they'll do a lot better. The savannah and jungle isn't such a great environment.
---
[deleted]
---
Why? Classical music is rhythmically more simple than the ones you find in African cultures. And it's less attractive to the more modern generations.
---
This is an opinion. Would you say that a classical piece written by Beethoven is less complex then modern music written by Beyonce?
---
Hmm perhaps not. ∆
Although as a post-hoc, why do people (even whites themselves) think white people have no rhythm?
---
SOME white people joke that they have no rhythm. It is typically used as a joke, not an empirical fact. White people have been making music for thousands of years, you are only applying your logic to what is currently popular with .4% of the population of the world (America)
---
Behind those jokes are always some form of the belief. I've seen what happens when push comes to shove and people act out on that belief.
---
You are, again, using a subjective metric and applying it as a fact. I could just as easily joke that black people cant swim, something that is a joke among the black community. Does it make me correct? | 68uaqs | CMV: Black People are Better | I thought it was time to confront some views of mine that had been festering. I was always anti-racist but somehow developed these beliefs that black people are simply better than white (and asian, etc...) people. Keep in mind these come down to average differences, and that picking out individual cases won't disprove the general trend.
Physically
It's no secret that black people are some of the greatest athletes. When they got into basketball, for example, they completely dominated everyone. The old worry about Jewish basketball players was completely demolished when a group of people who were more athletic got into the sport. The same is true for football - they are far overrepresented in basically every sport they have an equal chance of competing in.
There have been some studies showing their muscle fibers are better (both sprinting, long-distance - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/26/johnarlidge.theobserver), have higher bone densities (they will be better astronauts - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/), and have more testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741).
Keep in mind all this comes from the most impoverished and oppressed people in the history of the planet. Just imagine what they could do with the money and training and support that other groups of people have had, all the while losing to black athletes?
They also have the deepest voices, the tallest people, more masculine faces, better skin (less skin cancer obviously, they age better which is huge in society which is obsessed with anti-aging), and there's generally some agreement and evidence they are sexually better (Pelvic floor muscles are important - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24464469 - Penis size is debatable but you have a hard time finding a small black guy).
No other ethnic group of people match up to their athleticism. They also have more genetic diversity in Africa than the entire non-African population. It's quite clear that black people are physically better than everyone else.
Mentally
There is no evidence that black people inherently have lesser IQ. They're just as capable as anyone else. In fact they're also notoriously quick-witted which is demonstrated in their superior ability to rap and spit lyrics.
People usually say that the best artists came from well-off families, but this is the reverse for black people. And they have better musicians than anyone. People idealize their skill in music and their rhythm, while joking about that of others. And maybe they're right. White musicians have generally needed to copy black musicians to make better music. The kind of singers they've produced are so much more soulful and emotional than anyone (or at least most) of other singers through all of time. On top of this the rhythms of black cultures are more complex and 'rhythmic' than any other, which are usually rigid.
Morally speaking they also have the least baggage. Other groups have all done far worse crimes, and black people have always been the victim of others' oppression because they feared how much better black people would be. They also have
Again, if social situations like SES and racism were equalized, black people would come out on top because of their physical and mental superiority. I'm going to try as hard as I can to be open to changing my view but I'm aware I grew up in a culture which idealized black men. But for the time being, I'm completely convinced that black people are just simply better at everything and worse at nothing. I suppose in order to change my view you'd have to argue that there are cons that either outweigh or equalize all the immense pros of black ancestry.
_____
> *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!* | rayray2kbdp | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dh1gadz",
"score": 1,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1493749315
},
{
"author": "rayray2kbdp",
"id": "dh1guzj",
"score": 1,
"text": "I just point it out because it's an obvious example of mental superiority that happens even in spite of being... | [
{
"author": "HuntAllTheThings",
"id": "dh1ca59",
"score": 12,
"text": "I think you are confusing general athletic ability with the idea that certain physical traits translate better to certain sports. Basketball is a sport that generally requires height to be successful at (though that is not always... | [
"dh1gadz",
"dh1guzj",
"dh1hj58",
"dh1itzt",
"dh1iwve",
"dh1jig0",
"dh1l2mc",
"dh1nxhn",
"dh1qs4e"
] | [
"dh1ca59",
"dh1ezjq",
"dh1gi66",
"dh1gsbb",
"dh1hezz",
"dh1ix6v",
"dh1ju7m",
"dh1k3nh",
"dh1keop"
] |
CMV: rape is de-facto legal in the US, unfortunately
I learned recently the conviction rate is extremely low like four percent and ninety seven percent of rapist never spend a day in jail this leads me to come to the conclusion that in the United States you could easily rape someone and get away with it making rape Basically legal in the United States, there are probably rapist everywhere living there best lives and blending in with everyone. Kind of a scary thought if you ask me, now that I think about it having my view changed would actually be very nice because right now I’m thinking we just straight up live in rape land. Based on this rape appears to be de facto legal in the US. | It's still illegal whether or not people can get away with it. Rape is an incredibly hard thing to prove even if the victim immediately reports it, and most don't. It's unfortunate but that's just the nature it. But that doesn't mean you're free to rape anyone you want without concequece.
---
It kind of does mean that tho…. I used the word defacto for a reason, defacto is about the reality of the situation whether the rules say it or not. On paper you can’t rape anyone without consequences. But the reality is… a whole different story.
---
Just because it is hard to prove something or it is easy to get away with doesn't mean it is de-facto legal.
It isn't like the rules say one thing and the reality is something else. The rules don't make it so people magically have enough evidence to convict. | Alternatively, a lot of false accusations
---
Less than 10% of sexual assault allegations are ever proved to be false
Spreading the narrative that there’s ’a lot’ of false accusations is actually what contributes to what OP is saying..
---
Proven to be false? That’s not the standard we use in the us, of course it’s not common | 1hl3yt8 | CMV: rape is de-facto legal in the US, unfortunately | I learned recently the conviction rate is extremely low like four percent and ninety seven percent of rapist never spend a day in jail this leads me to come to the conclusion that in the United States you could easily rape someone and get away with it making rape Basically legal in the United States, there are probably rapist everywhere living there best lives and blending in with everyone. Kind of a scary thought if you ask me, now that I think about it having my view changed would actually be very nice because right now I’m thinking we just straight up live in rape land. Based on this rape appears to be de facto legal in the US. | Perfect-Highway-6818 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Satansleadguitarist",
"id": "m3jdhl4",
"score": 8,
"text": "It's still illegal whether or not people can get away with it. Rape is an incredibly hard thing to prove even if the victim immediately reports it, and most don't. It's unfortunate but that's just the nature it. But that doesn'... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "m3jcjyk",
"score": 0,
"text": "Alternatively, a lot of false accusations",
"timestamp": 1735008507
},
{
"author": "BeyonceBurnerAccount",
"id": "m3jd7xu",
"score": -2,
"text": "Less than 10% of sexual assault allegations are ever proved to be fals... | [
"m3jdhl4",
"m3je6kr",
"m3ke0ag"
] | [
"m3jcjyk",
"m3jd7xu",
"m3jdc0h"
] |
CMV: Effeminate men are usally more in touch with their masculinity than men who try to be macho and shun anything feminine.
This isn't to shame you for having masculine interests or having a masculine personality. But I see all the time men trying really hard to be masculine and shaming men for being effeminate.
Like why would you have to prove your masculinity to me? If you know yourself that you are masculine or a man, then why shame other men for wearing skirts or makeup? It honestly just seems to me like if anything you're just very insecure about your own masculinity and want to inflict your insecurities on other people. Which makes you a bully. If a man is wearing dresses and skirts clearly he is aware it is feminine but he doesn't care. It makes him happy. Whether or not you like it doesn't matter because he knows about his masculinity. He doesnt have to prove it to anyone. He is already in touch with his own masculinity and doesn't need to remind himself of it.
Maybe I just have a different definition of masculinity but I honestly an effeminate man is usally more secure about their masculinity and aren't afraid to be who they really are. These people who make masculinity their whole personality, tbh I don't see masculinity, I see a very insecure young man who's too afraid to be himself. | I think this is kind of ironic, because the fact that you are trying to present being effeminate as more masculine instead of just saying "I'm fine with not being masculine" shows you really are insecure about your masculinity too.
---
Okay. How does that make me insecure about my masculinity? That literally makes no sense.
---
Because you are trying to prove your masculinity and disprove their masculinity. You're just using different metrics by which you measure masculinity.
But just like them you consider yourself better for being more masculine.
Someone who is truely masculine spends their day rescuing kittens or defending their country instead of telling the internet how masculine they are.
---
Okay where are you getting that impression? Could you quote me? Because that's not really my point. My point is that masculinity is just something we kind of made up. There isn't any reason a man should have to be the traditional idea of a man. Anyone in touch with masculinity would understand this. But these alpha masculinity people seem adamant about putting down effeminate and forcing them to be masculine because "They're a man and they're not supposed to that" but who says a man isn't supposed do that? An effeminate man isn't afraid to break gender norms and usally understands they don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things, that to me is being in touch with masculinity.
>Someone who is truely masculine spends their day rescuing kittens or defending their country instead of telling the internet how masculine they are.
I thought we weren't imposing masculinity here? But here you are setting an unfair standard for a masculine person that they will have to live up to. You're literally a hypocrite.
---
>There isn't any reason a man should have to be the traditional idea of a man.
Noone has to be masculine, yeah.
When you say "being in touch with masculinity" is what you mean actually knowing that they are not masculine and being okay with that? That doesn't make them masculine though. | You're conflating two different things. Masculinity and enforcement of masculine gender roles. One can be masculine in their own way, but not enforce gender roles onto others.
I agree if your definition of masculinity involves making sure other men "man up", expecting women to stay in the kitchen, hating LGBTQ+ folks, etc... You will generally have a difficult time with your own understanding of masculinity.
It's like how some people are with religion. Some people are individually religious, and some people push that religion onto others.
I think your statement is halfway true as a generality, but not written in stone. Some people literally are that masculine, and that's just who they are and align with. And I would say that someone who has faced and accepted adversity and takes the road less traveled is sometimes more secure in their identity.
And you also have no idea why certain men are effeminate. Is it because that's who they are naturally? Is it because they are (individually) self-hating men? Is it because they really don't understand gender roles all that well and misstep? Is it because they're really not men at all? You have a certain presentation which has frankly a multitude of root causes.
And that doesn't even begin to mention, society always attempts to break down effeminate men and masculine women. That's not a condition that engenders a lot of self-esteem in general. Hell, I deal with several insecurities of "not womaning right" and I'm fairly center of masc/femme in terms of expression.
---
>And you also have no idea why certain men are effeminate. Is it because that's who they are naturally? Is it because they are (individually) self-hating men? Is it because they really don't understand gender roles all that well and misstep? Is it because they're really not men at all? You have a certain presentation which has frankly a multitude of root causes.
True. But I did say usally. I'm aware there could be other reasons like the ones you just listed as to why a man is effeminate but I just think usally a man who isn't afraid to be a little effeminate is usally more masculine and more secure than a man who refuses to do anything remotly feminine at all because "I'm a man and men don't do that".
---
> a man who isn't afraid to be a little effeminate
What does this actually mean to you?
---
Well. A man who doesnt really care if people think hes effeminate. I'm not really understanding what your asking me here.
---
What are some actual effeminate things? Some examples. Effeminacy is a wide and amorphous concept. There are some weirdos who say using an umbrella is effeminate. There are some who say wearing a dress is manly (think Scotland). I just want you to be specific with what is effeminacy in men. | 1brl6wd | CMV: Effeminate men are usally more in touch with their masculinity than men who try to be macho and shun anything feminine. | This isn't to shame you for having masculine interests or having a masculine personality. But I see all the time men trying really hard to be masculine and shaming men for being effeminate.
Like why would you have to prove your masculinity to me? If you know yourself that you are masculine or a man, then why shame other men for wearing skirts or makeup? It honestly just seems to me like if anything you're just very insecure about your own masculinity and want to inflict your insecurities on other people. Which makes you a bully. If a man is wearing dresses and skirts clearly he is aware it is feminine but he doesn't care. It makes him happy. Whether or not you like it doesn't matter because he knows about his masculinity. He doesnt have to prove it to anyone. He is already in touch with his own masculinity and doesn't need to remind himself of it.
Maybe I just have a different definition of masculinity but I honestly an effeminate man is usally more secure about their masculinity and aren't afraid to be who they really are. These people who make masculinity their whole personality, tbh I don't see masculinity, I see a very insecure young man who's too afraid to be himself. | Tlines06 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Forsaken-House8685",
"id": "kx9ulgw",
"score": 175,
"text": "I think this is kind of ironic, because the fact that you are trying to present being effeminate as more masculine instead of just saying \"I'm fine with not being masculine\" shows you really are insecure about your masculini... | [
{
"author": "tulipkitteh",
"id": "kx9v9j9",
"score": 3,
"text": "You're conflating two different things. Masculinity and enforcement of masculine gender roles. One can be masculine in their own way, but not enforce gender roles onto others.\n\nI agree if your definition of masculinity involves makin... | [
"kx9ulgw",
"kx9utz9",
"kxa1g9f",
"kxa2k55",
"kxa70g1"
] | [
"kx9v9j9",
"kx9vvfg",
"kxa05as",
"kxa1a5n",
"kxa1y2q"
] |
CMV: Filming football play signals is not more unethical than watching game film
There is a recent stir against a University of Michigan employee for going to public games and filming public signals that the sideline makes to indicate a certain play to the players on the field. I don’t know all the details but my view is still the same regardless
View: I do not believe filming public signals is more unethical than studying public game film.
The end goal of stealing signals is to get an advantage and be able to predict what the opposing team is calling and hopefully have an audible that would counter effectively. A few premises I have:
- a signal does not have a definitive outlook for the actual play call based on the outside looking in. (Example below)
- watching game film is essentially getting the same benefit (tracking play calls, tendencies, strategies) in a different way.
- this is something every team could do while in person playing.
There are *easy* ways around this. You could have the captain on the field wear a wristband that changes every possession. So you would make the same signals, but the plays would change. You could also have different signalers that try to throw off the opposing team (most teams already do this). Or you could make new signals each week (I understand this is much more difficult). I would almost invite opponents to do this and try to mislead them.
Key words: public games, public signals. I am not advocating for stealing private practice information or radio interference/tampering.
Disclaimer: I don’t work in football or care for UM. | As far as I remember, such behavior is expressly against the rules of NCAA football. It isn't *really* about ethics. It is about rule breaking.
---
Yes, that’s what I’m arguing. It shouldn’t be unethical.
I’m not entirely familiar with how to reply on this sub, but I believe you’re only regurgitating that it’s deemed unethical by the NCAA, which I previously knew and thus my post.
---
It's unethical because it's against the rules and it's unethical to break the rules of a game you're playing. Maybe you're trying to argue that it shouldn't be against the rules instead?
---
I guess that’s a better way of saying it. The rule books didn’t appear out of thin air. Some group made the opinion that’s it’s unethical and put it in the ‘rule book’. That’s what I’m arguing
---
There's a rule that you can't pass the ball forward. It's not because they thought that it's unethical to pass balls, it's because they wanted a game where balls are only sometimes passed forward.
---
I get what you’re saying, but I believe this rule
Was enacted because it’s deemed ‘unethical’
---
This rule was enacted because wealthy schools could afford to send scouts to games while other programs with smaller funding would not be able to do so. It is to ensure money doesn’t have as big of an impact on a programs success. | There is an obvious difference between on field and off field.
Football tries to limit off field study as it defeats the strategy of the game on field. Key areas that I would consider as illegal/frowned upon/discouraged include;
- Studying public practices of opposing teams.
- hiring lip readers to identify what coaches on the sideline are saying.
Signal identification is no different than the above.
---
I appreciate the argument that there’s a difference between gameplay analysis, and play calling/signaling analysis (not during the game play).
But I think my premise still stands that both strategies (studying signals and studying gameplay) get to the same result. Both are publicly available. So how is one unethical but the other isn’t?
And yes those other scenarios might be deemed as frowned upon, but I disagree and is the point of my post. It’s publicly accessible and should be fair game. It’s not tampering/private. It’s something they’re *electing* to use in public. No one is forcing them to have signals
---
Are you studying gameplay off the (game day) field?
Wait, you believe attending other team practice and lip reading is ethical for football coaches?
---
> I am not advocating for stealing private practice information or radio tampering
I’m saying anything public should be fair game as everyone has access to it.
---
Sure, but what's public? That's your personal standard that differs from the NCAA.
They have defined all coach/player communication as private. They have determined signals as explicit private communication no different than playbooks or radio communication. They have defined all coaching material as private.
Why do you believe a signal as public but radio waves as private? | 17fey9n | CMV: Filming football play signals is not more unethical than watching game film | There is a recent stir against a University of Michigan employee for going to public games and filming public signals that the sideline makes to indicate a certain play to the players on the field. I don’t know all the details but my view is still the same regardless
View: I do not believe filming public signals is more unethical than studying public game film.
The end goal of stealing signals is to get an advantage and be able to predict what the opposing team is calling and hopefully have an audible that would counter effectively. A few premises I have:
- a signal does not have a definitive outlook for the actual play call based on the outside looking in. (Example below)
- watching game film is essentially getting the same benefit (tracking play calls, tendencies, strategies) in a different way.
- this is something every team could do while in person playing.
There are *easy* ways around this. You could have the captain on the field wear a wristband that changes every possession. So you would make the same signals, but the plays would change. You could also have different signalers that try to throw off the opposing team (most teams already do this). Or you could make new signals each week (I understand this is much more difficult). I would almost invite opponents to do this and try to mislead them.
Key words: public games, public signals. I am not advocating for stealing private practice information or radio interference/tampering.
Disclaimer: I don’t work in football or care for UM. | degen4Iyf | 7 | 5 | [
{
"author": "destro23",
"id": "k69es8a",
"score": 16,
"text": "As far as I remember, such behavior is expressly against the rules of NCAA football. It isn't *really* about ethics. It is about rule breaking.",
"timestamp": 1698161557
},
{
"author": "degen4Iyf",
"id": "k69g786",
"s... | [
{
"author": "Kazthespooky",
"id": "k69fo0w",
"score": 10,
"text": "There is an obvious difference between on field and off field. \n\nFootball tries to limit off field study as it defeats the strategy of the game on field. Key areas that I would consider as illegal/frowned upon/discouraged include;\... | [
"k69es8a",
"k69g786",
"k69hm8s",
"k69jdus",
"k69k0ie",
"k69l72f",
"k69m6of"
] | [
"k69fo0w",
"k69if5d",
"k69k45e",
"k69l14w",
"k69lx6h"
] |
CMV: Unprotected sex is NOT very risky - the statistics
If you google stuff about STDs and accidental pregnancy the first things that pop up sound pretty scary. “You have a high chance of getting an STD if your partner is infected.” “The pull out method fails 25% of the time.” Teachers and counselors trot out all kinds of frightening numbers and basically make it sound like anyone not using a condom is playing Russian roulette with pregnancy and disease.
But if you look into the details of these numbers, you’ll see that they’re often not showing the whole picture. Note: I am too lazy to put in citations, but a quick google search will verify my stats if you have any doubts.
STDs:
In the case of STDs, the incidence is something that’s rarely talked about because it doesn’t make good pamphlet material. Chlamydia (aka “the clap”) is the most common STD in the states, but only about 0.5% of people have it. And that 0.5% isn’t anywhere close to evenly distributed in the population. It is a lot more common among those with less education, low income, drug users, and ethnic minorities, particularly blacks. Half a percent is already pretty low, but the odds that a non-drug-using college educated middle class person has it are miniscule. The same is true for other STDs that have an even lower overall incidence. Also – side note – a lot of the more common bacterial STDs can be cured pretty easily (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea) and more recently you can get get vaccinated against some of the viral ones (cancer causing strains of HPV, Hepatitis).
HIV is still one of the scariest ones – sure it won’t kill you like it used to, but who wants to live with something like that hanging over your head. Still, the chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual vaginal sex are less than 1 in 1500 (and it’s even lower for men due to the biomechanics involved). And, again, if you are using common sense and not having unprotected sex with male bisexuals who are also IV-drug-users, the odds fall even more.
Pregnancy
So, how about pregnancy? Is pulling out only for the foolish, irresponsible risk-taker? Well… let’s look at that failure rate for pulling out. 25% sounds pretty high, until you look at the details of the study where that number comes from. First, that 25% number is based on a full year of people having unprotected sex using only that method. Also – and more importantly – researchers found out the pull out method almost always failed because of user error. Granted there is some scientific disagreement, but a couple studies have shown that, it’s nearly impossible to get pregnant from pre-cum because it contains little to no living sperm. So, in other words, this inflated stat comes almost entirely from some idiots with no self-control finding their way into a sex study and, over the course of a year, having who knows how many accidental “sorry the phone ringing distracted me” moments. If done correctly – fairly easy for most guys – the pull out method is very reliable. For the extremely risk averse, it could also be combined with avoiding high risk times of the month to make the chances of getting pregnant pretty much nil.
On a related note, consider another number – 25%. That is the approximate average chance an adult female has of getting pregnant in a given month. Yep. An entire month of unprotected sex to completion – including while she is ovulating – and there’s still a 75% chance of no pregnancy. Of course no one is suggesting it’s a good idea to just roll the dice and forget about using any method at all – 25% is way too high a number – but to suggest that pulling out is equally risky is ridiculous.
My view
Unprotected sex carries with it a risk. That much is obvious. But, unless you’re frequently engaging in high risk behaviors with high risk people, that risk is entirely blown out of proportion and has become more paranoid dogma than anything based on the actual numbers. The chances of contracting an STD are very low, and the odds of contracting one that will be more than a minor temporary inconvenience are tiny. The same is true for pregnancy. The odds of getting pregnant from pre-ejaculate alone are likely down there with the odds of a condom breaking leading to pregnancy – maybe it could happen, but I don’t think it’s something that should be keeping you up nights. Sometimes I wonder if there aren’t other motivations for pushing the idea that unprotected sex is so incredibly dangerous. Purely looking at the numbers, the paranoia seems unfounded. | > The odds of getting pregnant from pre-ejaculate alone are likely down there with the odds of a condom breaking leading to pregnancy – maybe it could happen, but I don’t think it’s something that should be keeping you up nights.
But the problem is - as you noted - that people who use the pull out method don't do it accurately consistently enough such that it becomes a lot less effective than it could be. When it comes to measuring the efficacy of birth control, we have to measure it based on how people *actually* use it, not based on how they *should* use it.
> Purely looking at the numbers, the paranoia seems unfounded.
I agree that some people can be concerned about STIs disproportionate to risk. But I wonder, what's the end result of your view? Is it that people should be okay having more high risk sex than they are today?
---
I think how people use it matters. For example, lots of women on the pill occasionally miss a day - and that DRASTICALLY lowers the efficacy of that form of birth control depending on when in her cycle she missed a dose. But companies who provide birth control don't provide statistics on pregnancy rates based on incorrectly using their product, they just stress that it has to be used as instructed. If you are a highly forgetful woman, the pill probably isn't for you. Similarly, if you are a man who can't reliably tell when you're about to cum, pulling out is probably a bad idea. But the fact that those people exist shouldn't invalidate the entire method for the rest of us.
---
I just realized this, and figured it is worth a different response: So, I'm going to pretend for a minute that only 1 in 4 men will make mistakes in the pull out method. Why should a woman trust a man that he has the control that 25% of men think they have, but actually don't? | so there's a good chance unsafe sex is not totally unsafe because a lot of people are practicing safe sex. Just like you don't really need to get vaccinated in many areas because everyone has a vaccination. Suddenly if no one starts getting vaccinations, you start seeing outbreaks.
It's called the buffer effect.
with the introduction of prep, you started seeing a rise in curable STDs in men who have sex with men populations, because suddenly HIV wasn't an issue anymore.
You don't think you'd start seeing a rise in communicable diseases and conditions if people stopped practicing safe sex more broadly speaking?
---
I think that's probably because less of them were dying. Not because they stopped having safe sex. also increasing acceptance of people is always going to lead to a higher reported percentage of a virus or trait associated with that group. Im not saying you're wrong, im saying it's not the main reason why.
---
Prep came around well after people stopped dying of HIV.
it is a relatively recent drug, the study I'm talking about is from like the past year or so
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/safety-quality/prep-use-linked-increased-std-risk-study-shows
The rise in STIs is very recently correlated to the introduction of prep, which is a recent introduction and enough itself | bwfm1c | CMV: Unprotected sex is NOT very risky - the statistics | If you google stuff about STDs and accidental pregnancy the first things that pop up sound pretty scary. “You have a high chance of getting an STD if your partner is infected.” “The pull out method fails 25% of the time.” Teachers and counselors trot out all kinds of frightening numbers and basically make it sound like anyone not using a condom is playing Russian roulette with pregnancy and disease.
But if you look into the details of these numbers, you’ll see that they’re often not showing the whole picture. Note: I am too lazy to put in citations, but a quick google search will verify my stats if you have any doubts.
STDs:
In the case of STDs, the incidence is something that’s rarely talked about because it doesn’t make good pamphlet material. Chlamydia (aka “the clap”) is the most common STD in the states, but only about 0.5% of people have it. And that 0.5% isn’t anywhere close to evenly distributed in the population. It is a lot more common among those with less education, low income, drug users, and ethnic minorities, particularly blacks. Half a percent is already pretty low, but the odds that a non-drug-using college educated middle class person has it are miniscule. The same is true for other STDs that have an even lower overall incidence. Also – side note – a lot of the more common bacterial STDs can be cured pretty easily (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea) and more recently you can get get vaccinated against some of the viral ones (cancer causing strains of HPV, Hepatitis).
HIV is still one of the scariest ones – sure it won’t kill you like it used to, but who wants to live with something like that hanging over your head. Still, the chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual vaginal sex are less than 1 in 1500 (and it’s even lower for men due to the biomechanics involved). And, again, if you are using common sense and not having unprotected sex with male bisexuals who are also IV-drug-users, the odds fall even more.
Pregnancy
So, how about pregnancy? Is pulling out only for the foolish, irresponsible risk-taker? Well… let’s look at that failure rate for pulling out. 25% sounds pretty high, until you look at the details of the study where that number comes from. First, that 25% number is based on a full year of people having unprotected sex using only that method. Also – and more importantly – researchers found out the pull out method almost always failed because of user error. Granted there is some scientific disagreement, but a couple studies have shown that, it’s nearly impossible to get pregnant from pre-cum because it contains little to no living sperm. So, in other words, this inflated stat comes almost entirely from some idiots with no self-control finding their way into a sex study and, over the course of a year, having who knows how many accidental “sorry the phone ringing distracted me” moments. If done correctly – fairly easy for most guys – the pull out method is very reliable. For the extremely risk averse, it could also be combined with avoiding high risk times of the month to make the chances of getting pregnant pretty much nil.
On a related note, consider another number – 25%. That is the approximate average chance an adult female has of getting pregnant in a given month. Yep. An entire month of unprotected sex to completion – including while she is ovulating – and there’s still a 75% chance of no pregnancy. Of course no one is suggesting it’s a good idea to just roll the dice and forget about using any method at all – 25% is way too high a number – but to suggest that pulling out is equally risky is ridiculous.
My view
Unprotected sex carries with it a risk. That much is obvious. But, unless you’re frequently engaging in high risk behaviors with high risk people, that risk is entirely blown out of proportion and has become more paranoid dogma than anything based on the actual numbers. The chances of contracting an STD are very low, and the odds of contracting one that will be more than a minor temporary inconvenience are tiny. The same is true for pregnancy. The odds of getting pregnant from pre-ejaculate alone are likely down there with the odds of a condom breaking leading to pregnancy – maybe it could happen, but I don’t think it’s something that should be keeping you up nights. Sometimes I wonder if there aren’t other motivations for pushing the idea that unprotected sex is so incredibly dangerous. Purely looking at the numbers, the paranoia seems unfounded. | guhajin | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "muyamable",
"id": "epx8fw0",
"score": 9,
"text": "> The odds of getting pregnant from pre-ejaculate alone are likely down there with the odds of a condom breaking leading to pregnancy – maybe it could happen, but I don’t think it’s something that should be keeping you up nights. \n\nBut... | [
{
"author": "DivingRightIntoWork",
"id": "epx82ww",
"score": 2,
"text": "so there's a good chance unsafe sex is not totally unsafe because a lot of people are practicing safe sex. Just like you don't really need to get vaccinated in many areas because everyone has a vaccination. Suddenly if no one s... | [
"epx8fw0",
"epx9yx0",
"epxexcd"
] | [
"epx82ww",
"epx92nl",
"epx9b4g"
] |
CMV: I should not feel guilty for being born a white male, I had no control over that, and white males need positive role models and a place to fit in society.
Basically I feel like I didn't have a choice to be born a white male and therefore I shouldn't feel guilty simply for existing. Similarly to how I think people shouldn't be discriminated for being born with their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Also, I think younger white males should have positive role models to show them how to fit into society in a positive, conducive, uplifting way. That, young white males (just like other young people) should aspire to be decent humans, and not ostracized for having certain uncontrollable endowments. | Is anyone of any significance demanding that you feel guilt for your race and sex? And is there any shortage of white male role models for you to look up to?
---
This particular topic came up in two situations that I frequently think about.
The first happened when I was working as a support staff member in a title 1 school. Now that I think of it, I was not surrounded by many white male adults. I think there was 1 other staff member that was a white male that I would have interactions with. Everyone else was a different ethnicity or a woman. One of the women were complaining about school shootings being done by white men and was placing the blame on white men. Whereas I was trying to say that I think the topic was a little more complicated.
This sparked a facebook conversation where a friend actually de-friended me. She was talking about corporate culture and the amount of discrimination women and other ethnic groups have faced while working at jobs.
---
At what point did she say you should feel bad for being white? It's true that some ethnic groups have faced and do face discrimination at work. Does that mean you should feel bad, or did pointing that out just *happen* to make you feel bad?
---
When I was talking to my friend on facebook, it was kind of implied that I should feel guilty for being a white male... at least that's how I felt. Simply because she was a black woman who seemed to take offense to something I said.
I saw a shirt at school which said, "The future belongs to women." And I had made a facebook post saying, "Why can't the future belong to all of us?" And I was wondering where white men fit into this future. I suppose I was focusing specifically on white men fitting into this future, but I was also thinking of men in general.
My friend said something along the lines of my "white male privilege" biasing my perspective and that I was wrong to be feeling this way or thinking these things. But when I asked her what should I feel or think or say. That I didn't know what she wanted me to say. She just removed and blocked me from her friend's list.
---
It's appears less that you are made to feel guilty by others and more that you are easily offended by perceived slights against your status as a white male. I'm not really sure how else these examples, as you describe them, could be interpreted. | do you think there aren't enough positive white male role models in 2019?
---
This might be due to some personal life situations. Both my grandfathers died before I was born, any my father lost his job in 2008. Whereas 1 grandmother was a doctor, and another was a teacher and my mother a lawyer. I have had some strong female characters in my life. My grandmother was a doctor when it was very taboo for her to be one. Yet my grandfathers while I hear stories about their fancy careers, were ultimately absent when I was growing up.
As for white male role models, my understanding is that teaching is mainly a female dominated industry. Especially elementary schools. So, I guess, I do think there aren't enough positive white male role models in 2019.
---
teaching, nursing, and fashion modelling are all female dominated. but name almost any other profession, especially at the CEO level, and you'll find a white male.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/
---
Sure, but I guess I don't see CEOs as the role models raising our youths. Maybe that's the issue I'm having?
---
for sure, theoretical role models is different than role models you interact with on a daily basis. it's your contention that there's a lack of a "place to fit in society" that i'm arguing against. white males still hold all the levers of power in society. you may very well have had a lack of role models growing up, and that's a shame -- but it's not because of some society-wide anti-white bias. | bwdxfz | CMV: I should not feel guilty for being born a white male, I had no control over that, and white males need positive role models and a place to fit in society. | Basically I feel like I didn't have a choice to be born a white male and therefore I shouldn't feel guilty simply for existing. Similarly to how I think people shouldn't be discriminated for being born with their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Also, I think younger white males should have positive role models to show them how to fit into society in a positive, conducive, uplifting way. That, young white males (just like other young people) should aspire to be decent humans, and not ostracized for having certain uncontrollable endowments. | Humble_Person | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Glory2Hypnotoad",
"id": "epwvsib",
"score": 53,
"text": "Is anyone of any significance demanding that you feel guilt for your race and sex? And is there any shortage of white male role models for you to look up to?",
"timestamp": 1559585893
},
{
"author": "Humble_Person",
... | [
{
"author": "mfDandP",
"id": "epwx5fv",
"score": 10,
"text": "do you think there aren't enough positive white male role models in 2019?",
"timestamp": 1559586822
},
{
"author": "Humble_Person",
"id": "epwxqax",
"score": 5,
"text": "This might be due to some personal life situ... | [
"epwvsib",
"epwwyy6",
"epwxjsr",
"epwyd96",
"epwylkn"
] | [
"epwx5fv",
"epwxqax",
"epwxz8s",
"epwz80l",
"epwze7c"
] |
CMV: If we allowed people to get 'un-canceled' by doing good things, this would be a net positive for the world.
Under our current social system, it's possible for someone to get 'canceled' for one thing they did or said many years ago, with no hope for redemption.
Here's the problem with that: if there is no hope for redemption, the only people who will still try to redeem themselves with good works are the ones who are truly good people in the first place. But if truly good people are being 'canceled', that's a huge problem in and of itself.
Where is the incentive for bad or neutral people to improve themselves or to do good works?
I am not saying we should forget what people did, or ever trust a dangerous person again. That's not my argument at all.
But if what someone did was say the 'wrong' political opinion, they should be able to redeem themselves by providing significant help to whatever group was harmed by their 'wrong' opinion. For example, if someone was cancelled because they said Hamas was justified in harming Israeli civilians, maybe all that person needs to do to redeem themselves is spend every Saturday for one year doing pro-bono work for a charity that gives free medical aid to Israeli civilians.
If what someone did was extremely harmful, like physically harming another person, they should have to work extremely hard to redeem themselves. Maybe they would need to dedicate years or even decades to helping others in order to earn this redemption.
Of course some crimes are unforgivable, and some people cannot be redeemed.
To change my view, you would have to convince me that the benefit of continuing to exclude 'canceled' people outweighs the potential good of whatever they would have to do in order to redeem themselves and be included again.
​ | I feel like with any topic like this we need examples before we can really have a good conversation about given alot of people you considered cancelled some people would argue aren't and vice versa.
---
If neither of my two examples is sufficient, it might be easier if you gave an example.
---
I'm talking like name and events case study if you will.
---
Alright. Let's use Chrissy Teigen as an example, cancelled for cyber-bullying. In your opinion, should she have a chance to redeem herself?
---
Around when was Teigen cancelled? | Question: what does the word "canceled" mean to you?
---
Nobody will work with this person anymore, they lose their job, are excluded from society, etc.
---
I don't understand why some people treat being "cancelled" like it's some official ruling or judgement. The idea that if you do something shitty that people won't want to associate with you anymore has been around forever.
---
What I am saying is that we, as people, could improve the world by offering people a chance to redeem themselves.
---
There are 7 billion people in the world and we're not going to just agree like that. Chris Brown did something terrible, he's still successful but far less so because some people have given him a second chance and some don't think he deserves it. That's always how this is going to work. | 17fdt2v | CMV: If we allowed people to get 'un-canceled' by doing good things, this would be a net positive for the world. | Under our current social system, it's possible for someone to get 'canceled' for one thing they did or said many years ago, with no hope for redemption.
Here's the problem with that: if there is no hope for redemption, the only people who will still try to redeem themselves with good works are the ones who are truly good people in the first place. But if truly good people are being 'canceled', that's a huge problem in and of itself.
Where is the incentive for bad or neutral people to improve themselves or to do good works?
I am not saying we should forget what people did, or ever trust a dangerous person again. That's not my argument at all.
But if what someone did was say the 'wrong' political opinion, they should be able to redeem themselves by providing significant help to whatever group was harmed by their 'wrong' opinion. For example, if someone was cancelled because they said Hamas was justified in harming Israeli civilians, maybe all that person needs to do to redeem themselves is spend every Saturday for one year doing pro-bono work for a charity that gives free medical aid to Israeli civilians.
If what someone did was extremely harmful, like physically harming another person, they should have to work extremely hard to redeem themselves. Maybe they would need to dedicate years or even decades to helping others in order to earn this redemption.
Of course some crimes are unforgivable, and some people cannot be redeemed.
To change my view, you would have to convince me that the benefit of continuing to exclude 'canceled' people outweighs the potential good of whatever they would have to do in order to redeem themselves and be included again.
​ | LaserWerewolf | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Foxhound97_",
"id": "k693ijx",
"score": 13,
"text": "I feel like with any topic like this we need examples before we can really have a good conversation about given alot of people you considered cancelled some people would argue aren't and vice versa.",
"timestamp": 1698157265
},... | [
{
"author": "YardageSardage",
"id": "k693yxl",
"score": 4,
"text": "Question: what does the word \"canceled\" mean to you?",
"timestamp": 1698157441
},
{
"author": "LaserWerewolf",
"id": "k6945s2",
"score": -1,
"text": "Nobody will work with this person anymore, they lose the... | [
"k693ijx",
"k693ogl",
"k693tym",
"k694ici",
"k696zgx"
] | [
"k693yxl",
"k6945s2",
"k694wvd",
"k695gkk",
"k6960ot"
] |
CMV: Airbus is better than Boeing.
CMV: I believe that Airbus is better than Boeing. Do note that I will easily and happily change my mind as I am hesitant in my preference. I just need strong points and arguments to change my mind. So I want to change my mind, I just need really good arguments. My positive view of Airbus is mostly due to the fact that it has a reputation for being a very safe aircraft. Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots. Third Airbus is a company that is a collaboration between European nations, which helps all of their economies and improves relations. So those are my reasons to like Airbus, but my preference for it over Boeing is not by much and I will gladly listen to anyone's arguments and points of view, and I am going to be very open minded, and open to change and new ideas. This is my first post so I don't really know the customs, but hope that it's good. Now Change My View! :) | Can you cite evidence that supports your view? All planes safe and have computers so I think you are going to have to be more specific in your view.
---
Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on planes, even though I like them a lot. It's generally what I hear around when I bring up the subject. I think I'm referring to the drastic difference in accidents between the two aircraft manufacturers. Airbus has a lower accident rate I believe, and has Lee's accidents in general when compared to Boeing. Also I hear in documentaries and forums that Airbus aircraft are more automated, whereas Boring aircraft tend to have more systems directly controlled by the pilots. Hope that helps!
---
No it doesn't help. You have the internet and all the time in the world. If you want to have a serious discussion about this find the evidence that lead you to this view and post it here. Only views based in evidence can be changed so if we aren't talking about the evidence we aren't changing your view.
---
Ok, sorry about that this is my first post. Can we at least discuss the economic argument? Airbus as a company at lease seems to be very international and helps the economies of numerous nations who collaborate in the construction of the aircraft in Toulouse. This leads to greater international collaboration, and is an example of the EU's policies permitting economic growth and development. Boeing is a national company, yes? So I would assume that it does not have the same benefits as a multinational corporation (except for the rolls Royce engines that they import)
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/jun/30/yemen-plane-crashes
---
The guardian links has stats, but no list of what it’s considering in those stats. For instance, there have been a number of Boeing planes that have been hijacked. Do these crashes count in that stat? What about landings or take offs in conditions that shouldn’t have happened? I don’t think it’s the fault of the aircraft that they were cleared for landing and slid off the runway because it was icy. What about planes operated by budget airlines in countries outside the us or Western Europe? Were those planes maintained properly? I hardly think it’s fair to blame a plane that wasn’t properly maintained. | > Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots.
This has caused a few crashes, notably one where sensors were plugged so the aircraft had no idea what it was doing and crashed despite all the pilots did to try to keep it up.
Boeing is also very computerized though. The 787 is highly computerized, and it's the first primarily carbon-fiber airliner. This caught Airbus off guard and they're rushing to catch up. It replaced the bleed air system commonly used to maintain cabin pressure with a compressor. It replaced a lot of pneumatic and hydraulic systems with electrical components, such as electrical mats to stop icing instead of using hot bleed air. This all saved a lot of weight and complexity.
---
>This has caused a few crashes, notably one where sensors were plugged so the aircraft had no idea what it was doing and crashed despite all the pilots did to try to keep it up.
Do you know which incident you're referring too? Because I can find no info that indicates that this ever happened.
When sensor data becomes unreliable, the Airbus system switches to alternate law, meaning the pilots are put in full control. There has been an incident however where the pilots flew their plane into the ground (specifically, they pulled it into a stall) after the computer gave them control.
Edit: Looked it up. It's a theoretical possibility if 2 out 3 sensors fail in exactly the same way. In that case, the system will assume the failed sensors are correct, and apply envelope protection. The pilots still have the possibility of switching to alternate law and going to manual control.
---
[Here](https://www.fastcompany.com/1669720/how-lousy-cockpit-design-crashed-an-airbus-killing-228-people). We may be talking about the same incident, but it was the pilots following the software that crashed the plane. It's strange that pilots aren't told angle of attack.
---
Yeah, that incident was the pilots crashing the plane.
1) The computer never stopped them from doing anything. Once it detected anomalous input, it switched to manual control.
2) The anomalous input resolved itself after 30 seconds. The plane crashed roughly 4 minutes later.
3) The crash was completely unrelated to the disturbance. The disturbance put the pilot in charge, the pilot pulled up, the plane stalled, pilot kept pulling up, plane plummeted into the ocean.
>it was the pilots following the software that crashed the plane.
Nope. It was the pilot completely failing to communicate (2 pilots didn't know the other was pulling the plane into a stall) or reading their instruments (The Airbus has an attitude indicator that would show the plane was stalling, a speed indicator that would show the plane was stalling, an altitude indicator that would show the effects of the stall...). The article implies the pilots know nothing because they don't have an Angle-of-attack info, but they have plenty of other sensors telling them more than enough to fly the plane.
Your article points out that Airbus could have done more to make this clear. Flight sticks in airbus aren't mechanically linked, thus it's possible for 2 pilots to make contradictory inputs without knowing it.
This however, has nothing to do with the software or with your claim that the computer crashed the planes. The pilots crashed it.
Edit: They also mention the stall warning. While it's true sensor was acting in an unexpected way (basically, the pilot had stalled the plane so badly the computer thought it's info was faulty), this should not have misled the pilot. The basic physical basis of a stall means that pulling up will always make it worse, which the pilot ought to have known. In addition, consulting all the available sensors would have told him what was going on.
---
Bad user design crashed the plane the same way it killed John Denver. | an3qkv | CMV: Airbus is better than Boeing. | CMV: I believe that Airbus is better than Boeing. Do note that I will easily and happily change my mind as I am hesitant in my preference. I just need strong points and arguments to change my mind. So I want to change my mind, I just need really good arguments. My positive view of Airbus is mostly due to the fact that it has a reputation for being a very safe aircraft. Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots. Third Airbus is a company that is a collaboration between European nations, which helps all of their economies and improves relations. So those are my reasons to like Airbus, but my preference for it over Boeing is not by much and I will gladly listen to anyone's arguments and points of view, and I am going to be very open minded, and open to change and new ideas. This is my first post so I don't really know the customs, but hope that it's good. Now Change My View! :) | Submarines_101 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Littlepush",
"id": "efqgwrz",
"score": 2,
"text": "Can you cite evidence that supports your view? All planes safe and have computers so I think you are going to have to be more specific in your view.",
"timestamp": 1549300409
},
{
"author": "Submarines_101",
"id": "efqh6... | [
{
"author": "DBDude",
"id": "efqjs06",
"score": 7,
"text": "> Also it is said of the Airbus planes that they are very high tech, with computers in the cockpits that help the pilots. \n\nThis has caused a few crashes, notably one where sensors were plugged so the aircraft had no idea what it was doi... | [
"efqgwrz",
"efqh60j",
"efqhey6",
"efqi552",
"efqjfwn"
] | [
"efqjs06",
"efqxm3x",
"efr1czx",
"efr9sbm",
"efra9e4"
] |
CMV: Employers should be able to discriminate
Not just for the sake of it, but it there is a sound statistical reason behind it they should be free to make the best decision for their business.
Years ago I walked into a pub with a help wanted sign and the owner said to me that to be honest he wanted to hire a pretty young girl as that has a better effect on sales. As long as his experience has proven that to be true then fair enough.
I was an estate agent in a small, predominantly white middle class village. A black colleague of mine did not do well in the area, he moved to a different office with a predominantly BAME population and did much better. If I applied to an office in golders green and they said sorry Jewish agents do much better here we want to hire a Jewish person, fair enough. I'm not condoning the discrimination of the public, just saying if it exists then a business should be free to make decisions for its performance not try and change their market.
Best point I can make with this is that insurance companies are literally built on discrimination. A 40 year old driver has a lower car insurance than a 20 year old, that's not the company being ageist it's the company basing decisions on data. Same should apply to all companies. If not, why not? | Employers are allowed to discriminate for all sorts of reasons EXCEPT the protected ones. Race, sex, orientation....etc.
Businesses discriminate all the time against criminals, the ugly(in some cases), non religious tattoos, smoking, etc. IIRC a business could technically discriminate against Raiders fans since this is not a protected class.
---
Ok I should have said the protected ones should be allowed as well.
If an employer has years of data which show a woman will likely perform better than a man at a certain role (due to external factors not the individual) then why shouldnt they be allowed to only hire a woman?
---
Not who you were responding to, but because stats that focus on large groups and probability don't mean a damn thing to an individual scenario. If it did, the poor would never try to climb the socio-economic ladder because our society tends to be sticky at the ends. Someone thats rich would never worry about being poor and do whatever they want for the same reason. Guys would never ask a girl out at a bar because they reject more guys than not.
Stats mean very little if nothing at all when evaluating a specific situation or individual. There might be a pattern and tendency if you take 5000 similar scenarios, but there is no pattern to an individual interaction or event.
If its likely a women would be better at a job, then its likely that a few men would out perform a few women because that stat is not 100% and using one stat that does not take into account your individual business needs and culture to completely influence your hiring practices and discriminate based on it, is rather fucking stupid in a business sense. | >Years ago I walked into a pub with a help wanted sign and the owner said to me that to be honest he wanted to hire a pretty young girl as that has a better effect on sales. As long as his experience has proven that to be true then fair enough. I was an estate agent in a small, predominantly white middle class village. A black colleague of mine did not do well in the area, he moved to a different office with a predominantly BAME population and did much better. If I applied to an office in golders green and they said sorry Jewish agents do much better here we want to hire a Jewish person, fair enough. I'm not condoning the discrimination of the public, just saying if it exists then a business should be free to make decisions for its performance not try and change their market.
And all of those instances are completely natural circumstances that absolutely no one can do anything about. Right?
---
I'm not saying those circumstances are desirable, I'm saying they exist and we shouldn't expect a business to not adapt to them. Most businesses exist to be profitable not to change society.
---
You didn't answer my question. Please answer the question then we can continue the conversation.
And all of those instances are completely natural circumstances that absolutely no one can do anything about. Right? | hfrje5 | CMV: Employers should be able to discriminate | Not just for the sake of it, but it there is a sound statistical reason behind it they should be free to make the best decision for their business.
Years ago I walked into a pub with a help wanted sign and the owner said to me that to be honest he wanted to hire a pretty young girl as that has a better effect on sales. As long as his experience has proven that to be true then fair enough.
I was an estate agent in a small, predominantly white middle class village. A black colleague of mine did not do well in the area, he moved to a different office with a predominantly BAME population and did much better. If I applied to an office in golders green and they said sorry Jewish agents do much better here we want to hire a Jewish person, fair enough. I'm not condoning the discrimination of the public, just saying if it exists then a business should be free to make decisions for its performance not try and change their market.
Best point I can make with this is that insurance companies are literally built on discrimination. A 40 year old driver has a lower car insurance than a 20 year old, that's not the company being ageist it's the company basing decisions on data. Same should apply to all companies. If not, why not? | Bojack35 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "NervousRestaurant0",
"id": "fvzbyrk",
"score": 6,
"text": "Employers are allowed to discriminate for all sorts of reasons EXCEPT the protected ones. Race, sex, orientation....etc.\n\nBusinesses discriminate all the time against criminals, the ugly(in some cases), non religious tattoos,... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fvzc6xz",
"score": 1,
"text": ">Years ago I walked into a pub with a help wanted sign and the owner said to me that to be honest he wanted to hire a pretty young girl as that has a better effect on sales. As long as his experience has proven that to be true then fair ... | [
"fvzbyrk",
"fvzccw9",
"fvzfo0z"
] | [
"fvzc6xz",
"fvzdexi",
"fvzdlzj"
] |
CMV: Personal vehicles from 2015-2020 will have the worst depreciation of any era
With the introduction of integrated infotainment systems, electric/hybrid power plants, 3G/4G connectivity, and all the other “high tech” features of automobiles from this era, the industry has almost guaranteed that these vehicles will hold no value over time.
Not that these features are inherently bad, just that the industry did not think far enough ahead to ensure that these vehicles will still be functional in 10-20 years.
The average age of a vehicle in the US is approximately 12 years. Who is still using a 12 year old laptop, TV, or phone? Basically no one. If they are, they are not even getting the performance of the device when it was first sold. Electronics degrade over time. That is just a basic fact.
Car manufacturers are realizing this and attempting to “future-proof” their vehicles by allowing software updates and putting essential controls back into physical buttons and dials. In 2015 , however, the manufacturers were busy cramming every function they possibly could into a single touchscreen. I will never want a car that requires me to dig through a 5-10 year old touchscreen menu to turn on my windshield wipers. There will be entire features of 2015-2020 vehicles that are essentially inaccessible or unusable in 10 years. So all the additional cost associated with those features will be evaporated.
Also, any battery-powered system will need to be replaced much sooner than an internal combustion engine. Modern engines can easily hit 300-400k miles with regular maintenance. If your hybrid power train needs a $3k battery replacement at 100k miles, then you automatically take a vehicle worth $10k and drop the price to $7k. Then at 200k miles, your $4k vehicle is now worth $1k
CMV. | I won't tackle the entire view, but there are some bits i took issue with.
>Basically no one. If they are, they are not even getting the performance of the device when it was first sold. Electronics degrade over time. That is just a basic fact.
The reason for performance degredation in phones mostly boils down to the fact old phones are trying to run newer software. Seeing as most cars from this time period can't be upgraded without hackery there's no reason to think their OS performance would suffer over time as the resource requirements are going to be the same in perpetuity. There are still computers out there from the 70s/80s that work absolutely fine as long as you use the software they were designed to run, which would largely be the case here. Unwieldy for sure, but not slow unless it was always that way from the factory.
The only way the above stated might occur would be hardware faults, of which even non iot cars will suffer from and require maintenence over time.
>Car manufacturers are realizing this and attempting to “future-proof” their vehicles by allowing software updates and putting essential controls back into physical buttons and dials.
I'd argue the dials were more of a safety feature than any sort of future proofing. Physical controls are much easier to use without looking at them, and looking at a screen to do anything while driving is asking to be in an accident. Manufacturers likely realized this and started migrating key functions back to physical dials for safety and to be less of a pain in the ass once the shine of new tech wore off.
---
You’re totally right about the demands of software. If there aren’t new demands, then the tech should be able to handle what it was originally designed to do.
That said, those early touchscreens were really bad to begin with and I can’t imagine they will age well.
---
I've got a 2004 lexus with a touch screen that controls some key features. Climate control, radio, and GPS. All 3 still work great. You probably have to push the screen a little harder than a new touch screen, but it's not slow or unresponsive because it's still running 2004 software, as another commenter pointed out. With the exception of GPS, which is largely being made obsolete with phones, I have no reason to think most modern touch screens wouldnt be the same in 15 years. | If you are talking American cars the worst was the previous decade. 2000-2010 as repeatedly poor quality resulted in near complete financial ruin.
---
Potentially true, but I’m talking about industry trends as a whole. I drive an 06 Honda Element with 250k miles. It still does everything it did when it was new. There’s not a single feature that has significantly degraded. Obviously mechanical components have needed replacement, but the user experience is essentially the same now as it was 15 years ago.
---
While it’s true Most modern vehicles have touch screens, those are generally for the “infotainment” and not for basic vehicle functions. Yes you can control your radio and gps and other things on that screen but many critical functions are still on knobs and buttons. Also many vehicles have lower trim levels without those screens. My 2017 f150 is mostly analog for all critical functions but my 2012 chrysler 300 had a big dumb touch screen.
There is something for everyone and it doesn’t matter when your car was made you can never future proof. | skiy6z | CMV: Personal vehicles from 2015-2020 will have the worst depreciation of any era | With the introduction of integrated infotainment systems, electric/hybrid power plants, 3G/4G connectivity, and all the other “high tech” features of automobiles from this era, the industry has almost guaranteed that these vehicles will hold no value over time.
Not that these features are inherently bad, just that the industry did not think far enough ahead to ensure that these vehicles will still be functional in 10-20 years.
The average age of a vehicle in the US is approximately 12 years. Who is still using a 12 year old laptop, TV, or phone? Basically no one. If they are, they are not even getting the performance of the device when it was first sold. Electronics degrade over time. That is just a basic fact.
Car manufacturers are realizing this and attempting to “future-proof” their vehicles by allowing software updates and putting essential controls back into physical buttons and dials. In 2015 , however, the manufacturers were busy cramming every function they possibly could into a single touchscreen. I will never want a car that requires me to dig through a 5-10 year old touchscreen menu to turn on my windshield wipers. There will be entire features of 2015-2020 vehicles that are essentially inaccessible or unusable in 10 years. So all the additional cost associated with those features will be evaporated.
Also, any battery-powered system will need to be replaced much sooner than an internal combustion engine. Modern engines can easily hit 300-400k miles with regular maintenance. If your hybrid power train needs a $3k battery replacement at 100k miles, then you automatically take a vehicle worth $10k and drop the price to $7k. Then at 200k miles, your $4k vehicle is now worth $1k
CMV. | Groundblast | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "zeronic",
"id": "hvm0ail",
"score": 13,
"text": "I won't tackle the entire view, but there are some bits i took issue with.\n\n>Basically no one. If they are, they are not even getting the performance of the device when it was first sold. Electronics degrade over time. That is just a ba... | [
{
"author": "EricBlair101",
"id": "hvl40c9",
"score": 20,
"text": "If you are talking American cars the worst was the previous decade. 2000-2010 as repeatedly poor quality resulted in near complete financial ruin.",
"timestamp": 1643995703
},
{
"author": "Groundblast",
"id": "hvl619p... | [
"hvm0ail",
"hvmhle4",
"hvmuwqz"
] | [
"hvl40c9",
"hvl619p",
"hvl8cok"
] |
CMV: the far left has gone too far when it comes to tearing down statues and sanitizing potentially problematic topics.
’s because it doesn’t meet cultural standards of society today. Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. But we celebrate many people who have done wrongs in their lives. Kobe Bryant raped a woman and cheated on his wife but we aren’t screaming for his memory to be erased. Statues of people who actually fought against slavery also have subjected to vandalism. This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history. But my question is how much farther is society prepared to let this go. Will civil war books be banned ? Will I not be allowed to by Harry turtledove novels? Will I not be permitted to read to kill a mockingbird or the works of Mark Twain because it is “racist literature”. A great opportunity to have wide ranging discussion about police brutality has been hijacked by ignorant low life’s that take pleasure in destroying things. Now race relations have taken a nose dive and there’s no clear end in sight. | [deleted]
---
I’d prefer to give most people the Benefit of the doubt instead of assuming what is in their heart.
---
> I’d prefer to give most people the Benefit of the doubt instead of assuming what is in their heart.
And yet you say
> It’s not a far leap to predict what comes next.
It's poor form to compare everything to the Nazi's, but look what Germany did post WWII - no Nazi statutes left, no "Hermann Göring Airbase" and I don't think anyone would ever argue that we are unable to discuss and learn from history simply due to the lack of Statues.
History does not need to be in the form of a Statue where we can see it and effectively glorify that person.
[Is this a good thing or a bad thing?](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/3/9/1362844516699/Statue---Saddam-Hussein-012.jpg?width=640&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=69c9c85c7b03e9b0b04e30b0413e7f96)
[Is Stalin's head before removed from a Statue a good thing or a bad thing?](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BLFadQGDw_E/V-X_dcHEY9I/AAAAAAAALJg/gXieEa4QxAkmiSN0lfOTkOKJvGrsMGKEQCLcB/s1600/stalin_budapest_1956_1.jpg).
The city of Saint Petersburg was known as Petrograd, then Leningrad and now Saint Petersburg - would you agree that renaming the city was a good thing, a bad thing, or just 'a thing'? Are we unable to learn about Lenin and that period simply due to the renaming of the city?
Volgograd used to be called Tsaritsyn, and then Stalingrad and was changed in 1961 as part of a 'de-Stalinisation'. Battle of Stalingrad was a huge deal, and yet it was renamed. Again - good bad or just a thing?
> The term "denazification" also refers to the removal of the physical symbols of the Nazi regime. For example, in 1957 the West German government re-issued World War II Iron Cross medals, among other decorations, without the swastika in the centre.
Imagine fighting in a battle and they reissue your medal... you'd hate it right? Or would you?
Is literally anyone ever going to say "it is impossible to learn about the atrocities of the Nazi Party or Stalin's communist regime because all symbols and monuments to them were torn down"?
No. You go to a museum, you go to Auschwitz and learn that while it's still standing, most of the Camps were razed to the ground. | >Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral.
So you agree that statues exist to commemorate people for their deeds. Which means that the existence of a statue is inherently praising the subject of that statue, and as long as that statue stands, it reflects a glorification of that person.
> This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history.
You know who Hitler, Lenin, and Saddam Hussein are even though those people had their statues torn down when their government was no longer in power. Why should it be any different for figures like Robert E Lee or Christopher Columbus?
---
[deleted]
---
This is just proof that having a statue doesn't help us learn history in any way. How did Christopher Columbus make America "as we know it." The man literally never set foot on America. | hfmwl6 | CMV: the far left has gone too far when it comes to tearing down statues and sanitizing potentially problematic topics. | ’s because it doesn’t meet cultural standards of society today. Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. But we celebrate many people who have done wrongs in their lives. Kobe Bryant raped a woman and cheated on his wife but we aren’t screaming for his memory to be erased. Statues of people who actually fought against slavery also have subjected to vandalism. This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history. But my question is how much farther is society prepared to let this go. Will civil war books be banned ? Will I not be allowed to by Harry turtledove novels? Will I not be permitted to read to kill a mockingbird or the works of Mark Twain because it is “racist literature”. A great opportunity to have wide ranging discussion about police brutality has been hijacked by ignorant low life’s that take pleasure in destroying things. Now race relations have taken a nose dive and there’s no clear end in sight. | 97jerfos20432 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fvykrjt",
"score": 3,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1593097329
},
{
"author": "97jerfos20432",
"id": "fvykya8",
"score": -2,
"text": "I’d prefer to give most people the Benefit of the doubt instead of assuming what is in their heart.",
... | [
{
"author": "Kirbyoto",
"id": "fvyh5d5",
"score": 16,
"text": ">Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. \n\nSo you agree that statues exist to commemorate people for their deeds. Which means ... | [
"fvykrjt",
"fvykya8",
"fvzg20d"
] | [
"fvyh5d5",
"fvyhsvb",
"fvyi4jo"
] |
CMV: the far left has gone too far when it comes to tearing down statues and sanitizing potentially problematic topics.
’s because it doesn’t meet cultural standards of society today. Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. But we celebrate many people who have done wrongs in their lives. Kobe Bryant raped a woman and cheated on his wife but we aren’t screaming for his memory to be erased. Statues of people who actually fought against slavery also have subjected to vandalism. This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history. But my question is how much farther is society prepared to let this go. Will civil war books be banned ? Will I not be allowed to by Harry turtledove novels? Will I not be permitted to read to kill a mockingbird or the works of Mark Twain because it is “racist literature”. A great opportunity to have wide ranging discussion about police brutality has been hijacked by ignorant low life’s that take pleasure in destroying things. Now race relations have taken a nose dive and there’s no clear end in sight. | I'm not super fond of removing some of these statues, but you know what? This isn't some kind of book burning and you can't rely on that slippery slope argument in good faith.
That's what Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity do. They take a controversial topic like tearing down statues and drag the chain along. "What's next? No more Harvey Weinstein movies? Book burnings? Are we going to teach that American history started in January 2009?" These are all ridiculous ideas that are never going to happen.
The thing with statues is that they memorialize glorified versions of the people they depict. Look at the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Square Park. Andrew Jackson is possibly the most controversial president in the history of our country. One one hand, he did a lot of good in effectuating expanded democracy, managing the executive branch, balancing the positions of the northern and southern states. But on the other hand, he was a slave owner, a bitter partisan, and essentially ethnically cleansed the South of Native Americans.
Complicated figures deserve to be studied, not memorialized. There is plenty of literature and will continue to be even more analytical writing about Andrew Jackson. Statues should be reserved for the individuals that represent the values of the times, not for controversial people from history. Why would one of the most controversial people in our nation's history be displayed en memoriam right in front of the White House? Imagine if in 50 years, some Republican president ordered a statue of Donald Trump be erected in Lafeyette park.
This isn't about erasing history. That's a right wing strawman meant to distract people from confronting actual issues. If anything, keeping these statues up is sanitizing history, not tearing them down. The statues sanitize the legacies of these complicated historical figures.
Read a book instead. Nobody learns anything from statues.
---
When the right was claiming in 2018 that parts of the left would come for Jefferson’s and Washington’s statues after they finish off the confederate statues, they were called paranoid. Now that’s literally what happening. It’s not a far leap to predict what comes next. This is an American Maoist revolution
---
> This is an American Maoist revolution
America's civil religion, which treats Jefferson and Washington as untouchable psuedo-prophets, is far more reminiscent of Maoism.
It's okay for people to hold Jefferson to the same standard as any other slave-holding serial rapist. Maybe you think the good somehow outweighs the bad, but reasonable people can disagree with you. | >Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral.
So you agree that statues exist to commemorate people for their deeds. Which means that the existence of a statue is inherently praising the subject of that statue, and as long as that statue stands, it reflects a glorification of that person.
> This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history.
You know who Hitler, Lenin, and Saddam Hussein are even though those people had their statues torn down when their government was no longer in power. Why should it be any different for figures like Robert E Lee or Christopher Columbus?
---
[deleted]
---
So? Modern Germany wouldn't be what it is without Hitler.
Maybe some people aren't stoked about America being the way as we know it, or about the way it got there.
"Things are the way they are because of this person" isn't an automatic reason for glorification. | hfmwl6 | CMV: the far left has gone too far when it comes to tearing down statues and sanitizing potentially problematic topics. | ’s because it doesn’t meet cultural standards of society today. Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. But we celebrate many people who have done wrongs in their lives. Kobe Bryant raped a woman and cheated on his wife but we aren’t screaming for his memory to be erased. Statues of people who actually fought against slavery also have subjected to vandalism. This is a cultural event with the objective of erasing vast swaths of American history. But my question is how much farther is society prepared to let this go. Will civil war books be banned ? Will I not be allowed to by Harry turtledove novels? Will I not be permitted to read to kill a mockingbird or the works of Mark Twain because it is “racist literature”. A great opportunity to have wide ranging discussion about police brutality has been hijacked by ignorant low life’s that take pleasure in destroying things. Now race relations have taken a nose dive and there’s no clear end in sight. | 97jerfos20432 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "TheFakeChiefKeef",
"id": "fvyjyrh",
"score": 14,
"text": "I'm not super fond of removing some of these statues, but you know what? This isn't some kind of book burning and you can't rely on that slippery slope argument in good faith. \n\nThat's what Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity do. T... | [
{
"author": "Kirbyoto",
"id": "fvyh5d5",
"score": 16,
"text": ">Statues that commemorate people that achieved amazing things are being torn down because of connection to an institution that was wrong and immoral. \n\nSo you agree that statues exist to commemorate people for their deeds. Which means ... | [
"fvyjyrh",
"fvylpg5",
"fvz7xiw"
] | [
"fvyh5d5",
"fvyhsvb",
"fvyi4sf"
] |
CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school
Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I’ve seen posts talking about covering “real world” skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.
There’s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical/scientific matters. I can’t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn’t know how to discern what is and isn’t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.
You might think there’s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called “Communication in Biology.” It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.
To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.
Students would be taught how to answer the following questions:
-What question did the researchers aim to answer?
-what conclusion did they come to?
-Does the data actually support that conclusion?
I can currently see two problems with this idea.
1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.
2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won’t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can’t suggest something that’s technically illegal (Scihub). I don’t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they’re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we’ll end paywalls on research articles.
This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I’m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven’t considered. One thing I will say isn’t going to change my mind: anecdotes of “my school already teaches this” unless you can show me that it’s already happening in a large number of schools. | I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read the material from each other's fields. There is quite a bit of a prerequisite that must be met to teach a person how to read scientific literature. It may not be feasible to implement this at the high school level.
---
I went into this in my post. You don’t need to have an understanding of the subject to find the answer to the 3 questions I proposed students should be able to answer about a study. You just need to know what to look for. I don’t expect high schoolers to understand enzyme kinetics or electron microscopy but they should be able to understand the general gist of what the aim of a study is.
---
> -What question did the researchers aim to answer?
This is relatively easy. Papers often explicitly state it.
> -what conclusion did they come to?
Same as #1.
> -Does the data actually support that conclusion?
This is *much* harder than you're assuming, and it almost always requires background knowledge. As a meta-example, what do you think about [this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584989/) on the readability of scientific texts? If you don't know what the FDE and NDC are or if they've been validated (how? in what context?), then you can't meaningfully make your own conclusions.
Your intent is laudable, but I think critically appraising scientific literature is beyond the high school level. Although, I suppose AP or honors classes could introduce journal clubs. | [deleted]
---
!Delta
I hadn’t considered that it’s something the teachers aren’t currently taught in college. I still think it’s a good idea but that definitely throws a speed bump in there.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AULock1 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AULock1)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | skko1g | CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school | Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I’ve seen posts talking about covering “real world” skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.
There’s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical/scientific matters. I can’t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn’t know how to discern what is and isn’t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.
You might think there’s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called “Communication in Biology.” It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.
To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.
Students would be taught how to answer the following questions:
-What question did the researchers aim to answer?
-what conclusion did they come to?
-Does the data actually support that conclusion?
I can currently see two problems with this idea.
1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.
2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won’t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can’t suggest something that’s technically illegal (Scihub). I don’t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they’re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we’ll end paywalls on research articles.
This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I’m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven’t considered. One thing I will say isn’t going to change my mind: anecdotes of “my school already teaches this” unless you can show me that it’s already happening in a large number of schools. | G_E_E_S_E | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "postdiluvium",
"id": "hvltgxz",
"score": 164,
"text": "I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read ... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "hvlgxpe",
"score": 573,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1644000445
},
{
"author": "G_E_E_S_E",
"id": "hvlw6hh",
"score": 166,
"text": "!Delta\n\nI hadn’t considered that it’s something the teachers aren’t currently taught in college. I still ... | [
"hvltgxz",
"hvlzwxp",
"hvn5hu7"
] | [
"hvlgxpe",
"hvlw6hh",
"hvlwbvs"
] |
CMV: Loan payments should go to principal before accrued interest
Part of the problem of consumer debt is that payments towards a loan are applied to interest prior to the principal, which extends the loan life as it is more difficult to make progress on the interest generating portion of the loan. Further, the interest capitalizes into the principal which compounds the problem.
It doesn’t make sense that payments made towards the loan are applied to interest prior to principal, because the principal investment is what is used to generate the interest returns. One could not make the interest income without investing into some sort of asset in which the asset then generates the profit/value of the interest.
If interest is the combination of opportunity cost and risk, then once the principal amount is paid off, how is the initial loan offerer assuming risk? It ought to be the case that the value of the principal has already been recognized and cannot grow in value. The profit would still need to be paid off (interest) but it cannot grow further. Assets aside from land and human capital are subject to depreciation, so the model of a principal investment as an asset that cannot depreciate (but does carry risk in the form of default) is incorrect.
The strongest counter argument I can think of is that money is fungible and that one cannot differentiate between the dollar that generated the revenue and the one that was the initial investment. The consequence of this is that capitalization should occur instantly and not on a schedule.
I’m sure there are other arguments against this and would love to hear them! The poverty trap created by debt is such a looming problem that I think it’s important to find a relief solution/better model to explore, so CMV! | Payments are not going towards paying the principal or interest.
Interest is added to the owned capital and any payments decrease this amount.
If you pay less than the interest your owned loan will increase.
---
I think this in conjunction with another comment stating that a loan is a product is a relatively strong argument. I suppose if interest is a fee for ownership after X time then effectively you are going to continue paying fees for that ownership. Although, if you’ve paid back the initial amount in full and what’s left is the interest accrued, how is the interest capital that you own? Your ownership isn’t the actual capital there (because you’ve not been lent more money), but the hypothetical opportunity cost and profit that the lender could have made elsewhere. Why can that portion continue to generate revenue?
---
If you have paid all the principal you still owe the interest.
Consider this as a new loan that will accumulate new interest. And that interest will accumulate more interest until you pay everything you owe.
---
At that point though the original lender has earned their principal back and has outstanding interest they’re owed anyways, so the value of their asset is already priced in. They can turn around and loan the same value out to begin generating new interest payments from a different loan agreement. Their asset is then generating revenue in two places despite already having been paid in full.
I suppose the one who had been lent money needs additional incentive to keep making payments, but IMO those ought to be fees based on principal amount instead of being capitalized into the base
---
>At that point though the original lender has earned their principal back and has outstanding interest they’re owed anyways, so the value of their asset is already priced in.
Except now they have a risk that you don't pay the interest that you owe. To compensate for this risk they ask you for interest.
---
I think it’s okay to charge on the risk that one doesn’t pay, but that additional risk should not compound on itself to generate a higher interest payment in the future. Shouldn’t that value be fixed to some amount and not based on a proportion of the value of the loan?
---
I think one part you are missing on this is that the current interest rates a person gets account for the current model of payment. The lender sets an interest rate so that on the whole they will make X dollars in profit off Y dollars in loans. If the way of calculating interest is done how you are describing all that would happen is the interest rates would increase to compensate. The lender doesn't particularly care how the interest is calculated just that on the whole they can generate their desired profit off the loans. Either method would/should result in general people paying the same amount of money in interest payments, the consumer would not save money under your methodology. | Why would I, as a financial institution, issue loans if these were the terms. You have to think about their opportunity cost. Imagine a loan issued at 5% interest. That 5% is static and can never accrue. In fact, the returns can only go down as all principal is paid off. I won't even *earn* my interest until the principal is paid off it turns out. Imagine just throwing that money into bonds. Not only do I get paid out my interest, it *accrues* and compounds.
What incentive is there now to loan?
---
Exactly. The original question was worded like someone who's 20 with tons of student debt and credit cards.
---
It’s not rocket science. The real question is: should they work like that?
---
If we want a thriving and diverse economy, the obvious answer seems to be “yes”.
---
Speak for yourself 😂
---
Out of curiosity, what do you suggest?
---
[deleted] | 195qkqb | CMV: Loan payments should go to principal before accrued interest | Part of the problem of consumer debt is that payments towards a loan are applied to interest prior to the principal, which extends the loan life as it is more difficult to make progress on the interest generating portion of the loan. Further, the interest capitalizes into the principal which compounds the problem.
It doesn’t make sense that payments made towards the loan are applied to interest prior to principal, because the principal investment is what is used to generate the interest returns. One could not make the interest income without investing into some sort of asset in which the asset then generates the profit/value of the interest.
If interest is the combination of opportunity cost and risk, then once the principal amount is paid off, how is the initial loan offerer assuming risk? It ought to be the case that the value of the principal has already been recognized and cannot grow in value. The profit would still need to be paid off (interest) but it cannot grow further. Assets aside from land and human capital are subject to depreciation, so the model of a principal investment as an asset that cannot depreciate (but does carry risk in the form of default) is incorrect.
The strongest counter argument I can think of is that money is fungible and that one cannot differentiate between the dollar that generated the revenue and the one that was the initial investment. The consequence of this is that capitalization should occur instantly and not on a schedule.
I’m sure there are other arguments against this and would love to hear them! The poverty trap created by debt is such a looming problem that I think it’s important to find a relief solution/better model to explore, so CMV! | Dswim | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"id": "khofn7r",
"score": 259,
"text": "Payments are not going towards paying the principal or interest.\n\nInterest is added to the owned capital and any payments decrease this amount.\n\nIf you pay less than the interest your owned loan will increase.",
"timestamp": 17051... | [
{
"author": "Bodoblock",
"id": "khog3u9",
"score": 43,
"text": "Why would I, as a financial institution, issue loans if these were the terms. You have to think about their opportunity cost. Imagine a loan issued at 5% interest. That 5% is static and can never accrue. In fact, the returns can only go... | [
"khofn7r",
"khoikmt",
"khojgan",
"kholfwk",
"khonehl",
"khoow4g",
"khorlw0"
] | [
"khog3u9",
"khou5zb",
"khp1zjs",
"khpai3x",
"khpbeky",
"khpk29f",
"khpy8qo"
] |
CMV: If there were a vaccine against romantic love, you should take it
P1 Romantic love hijacks our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning: Romantic love evolved to serve a biological (species level) function of reproduction and this is distinct from and can go against our interests as individual agents. Romantic love operates by hijacking our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning at the neurochemical level by manipulating our dopamine and endorphin systems (valuation and pleasure)
P2 If your practical reasoning is hijacked your decisions aren’t authentically your own: they aren't really being made by 'you' and they may not serve your own interests
P3 If there were such a thing as a vaccine against love then it would prevent this hijacking (obviously there isn't yet - this is hypothetical)
Therefore, If there were a vaccine against romantic love, you should take it
​
That is my main conclusion. However, I draw two further 'statist' implications I am less sure of but also worth mentioning
1) A vaccine against love would be of great value to society (like contraception it would allow us to escape the domination of biology and live our own lives for ourselves). Therefore it makes sense for society (i.e. taxes) to fund research into its development. (It also makes sense to fund research into an antidote to the vaccine, so that its effects can be reversed, as with contraception. This maximises individual freedom of choice.)
2) If it could be developed, governments should also encourage the take-up of the vaccine, e.g. by offering it to everyone for free (and perhaps also in schools, like vaccinations against infectious diseases). It is part of the role and responsibility of modern governments to protect their people's freedom and ability to pursue their real interests. This is just what a vaccine against love would do. Governments routinely ban drugs (like heroine) which threaten people's autonomy, as well regulating or banning activities that endanger people's basic interests (e.g. seatbelt laws). Offering the love vaccine to everyone can be justified in the same way and falls at the moderate end of such interventions. | >P1 Romantic love hijacks our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning
For something to be hijacked that suggests an outside actor. Romantic love doesn't hijack our emotions, desires, and reasoning, it's literally one of our emotions, desires, and reasons. Saying that it can hijack those things is like saying sadness, happiness, familial love, etc (basically any emotion) hijacks our emotions.
They don't hijack our emotions, they ARE our emotions. Romantic love is an emotion.
>Romantic love evolved to serve a biological (species level) function of reproduction and this is distinct from and can go against our interests as individual agents.
Not entirely. If that was true, you would not have romantic love between same sex partners. Or between people who can't reproduce (the elderly).
>P2 If your practical reasoning is hijacked your decisions aren’t authentically your own: they aren't really being made by 'you' and they may not serve your own interests
By your argument, any emotion hijacks your practical reasoning, which would mean unless you were a vulcan, no one's decisions are authentically their own. Going into school to do a job you are interested in, having any sort of hobby...really, anything you take pleasure in on any level, deciding to do that thing is not authentically your own decision. By your logic.
>they aren't really being made by 'you' and they may not serve your own interests
Whom are they being made by, then?
>If there were such a thing as a vaccine against love then it would prevent this hijacking
How can an emotion hijack itself?
>A vaccine against love would be of great value to society (like contraception it would allow us to escape the domination of biology and live our own lives for ourselves).
Is it your argument we should vaccinate against ALL emotions? Feel nothing but pure logic? Better yet, download ourselves into artificial realities and mainframes, get rid of anything biological about us, before we can 'live our lives for ourselves'? Can you clarify what 'living your life for yourself' actually looks like?
>Governments routinely ban drugs (like heroine)
Heroin is an actual hijacker of our biological systems because it is an outside actor introduced into our bodies. Emotions are not hijackers of our systems because they are literally the product of our systems.
---
[removed]
---
I am serious about trying to change your view. What in what I said was a straw man? I made counterpoints to your specific points and asked related, direct questions.
I was specifically talking to you throughout my entire reply. Can you actually answer the questions I asked you? I'll outline them again simply here so that you don't have to refer back.
You make a point about romantic love hijacking our emotions. Do you consider romantic love an emotion?
Do you think emotions can hijack themselves?
You made a point that romantic love evolved purely for reproductive purposes. Do you think romantic love doesn't exist even when reproduction is not possible or not wanted?
You say that being under the influence of one emotion (romantic love) means we don't make any decisions authentic to ourselves. Does this mean that being under the influence of any emotion means we are not able to make authentic-to-us decisions at all, and that the only ones who can make such authentic decisions are people who are free of any emotion?
You say that if you have romantic love, the decisions aren't really being made by 'you' and may not serve your interests. Whom are they being made by, then?
Do you feel we should vaccinate against all emotions? Can you clarify what 'living your life for yourself' actually looks like to you?
---
Why are you demanding answers from me? And so aggressively? Do you think I am under some obligation to try to change your view?
Please try to develop some positive argument that might be persuasive to me, as the other commenters on this post have been doing, some of them very successfully.
---
>Why are you demanding answers from me?
I'm not demanding answers, I'm asking questions specifically relating to your view. Questions designed to help get clarification on your claim and why you hold it, as well as to get you to perhaps consider it from angles you may not have considered in the beginning. You are free not to answer them, but asking questions both clarifying and leading are pretty common when you want to change someone's view.
My questions were in no way meant to be aggressive. Tone is hard to judge sometimes in writing so if they appeared aggressive you have my apologies.
>Do you think I am under some obligation to try to change your view?
No, but you are here, presumably, to have *your* view changed. That means others questioning your view, examining it and why you hold it, and getting you to examine certain aspects of it you may not have considered before.
>Please try to develop some positive argument that might be persuasive to me, as the other commenters on this post have been doing, some of them very successfully.
I'm trying to, that's literally why I'm asking questions to clarify your view, and to get an idea of what you have and have not considered in the formation of your view. Clearly, you are feeling defensive and hostile toward a very routine (for this board) attempt to get more information about your view and to show you aspects of it you may not have yet considered, via asking clarifying questions on where this view is coming from and how you have considered it and demonstrating flaws in the logic you have put down.
And that's fine. You are in no way required to continue on or answer any questions you don't want to answer, but this is Change My View. You post your view and the reasons you came to that view here and others examine, critique, and question that view and your logic in arriving at said view and so help you to change it. Answering questions of others regarding your view is part of that process.
Edit: it's literally the Socratic method, and is seen frequently on this board. It's even noted in the rules!
---
Actually I don't think you are employing the Socratic method. I think the Socratic method is fundamentally 'ad hominem' in the sense of trying to understand the other's point of view so you can explain in their own terms why they should change their mind. That is what other commenters have been doing. e.g. u/anakinmcfly above.
But let's try to deal with your barrage of questions
>You make a point about romantic love hijacking our emotions. Do you consider romantic love an emotion?
Yes: A very powerful one. It is an affective state that has physiological and cognitive effects (such as epistemic distortion) and can last for months.
>
Do you think emotions can hijack themselves?
Sure. They can conflict with and displace each other.
>You made a point that romantic love evolved purely for reproductive purposes. Do you think romantic love doesn't exist even when reproduction is not possible or not wanted?
No. Obviously. Natural selection generates crude architectures that often go astray from their biological function.
​
>You say that being under the influence of one emotion (romantic love) means we don't make any decisions authentic to ourselves. Does this mean that being under the influence of any emotion means we are not able to make authentic-to-us decisions at all, and that the only ones who can make such authentic decisions are people who are free of any emotion?
No. Authenticity concerns how far we recognise ourselves in our actions and thoughts, how far our will is our own. This is a fuzzy idea to be sure, and it better thought of in terms of more or less than yes or no. My claim is that romantic love (and perhaps some kinds of anger) are so radically transformative of our thoughts, feelings and values that they cross that threshold and render us unrecognisable to our former self.
You - and many other commenters - seem to have the idea that everything that happens in your brain must by definition be authentically you. This makes things simpler, but only by flattening away inconvenient details, such as our experience of being ourselves. It is not unusual to say things like 'I'm not feeling myself today', or 'Please forgive me - that's not who I am'. And there are lots of things that can happen in your brain - racist stereotypes to earworms to to brain tumours to depression that you can reasonably deny are the real you and try to take steps to excise.
>
You say that if you have romantic love, the decisions aren't really being made by 'you' and may not serve your interests. Whom are they being made by, then?
If there were a brain worm parasite that caused the same radically disruptive symptoms as romantic love, we would immediately recognise it as inauthentic. (It's not so far-fetched: Apparently there is such a [parasite](https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/cat-poop-parasite-controls-minds-early-permanently-study-finds-4B11194722) that makes mice attracted to cats and easier for them to eat: it would be absurd to say the mice are living their authentic life as they are drawn towards their death.) I think of romantic love as a kind of evolved algorithm/subroutine lurking in our brain that once activated functions like a parasite to displace our existing goals and reasons with its one and redirects our attention and energies. Sure it is endogenously produced by our own brain, but, like a cancer tumour, it is still alien to our self.
​
>Do you feel we should vaccinate against all emotions? Can you clarify what 'living your life for yourself' actually looks like to you?
No. Romantic love stands out as especially disruptive of our settled selves and especially opposed to our interests as an individual (rather than a member of the human species). It is harder to say what an authentic life is than to identify things that would make one's life inauthentic. But an approximation is that an authentic life is one we can recognise as our own story, with no sudden jumps where some alien bit of our brain jumps in and starts writing strange new roles and desires for us. It doesn't matter if the future person who falls in love looks back and says they still feel like themselves, and that love feels great! (I'm sure the mice say just the same thing!). What matters is that your brain will have been radically transformed around interests alien to you. That seems like something it would be reasonable to insure against, if something like a vaccine were possible.
---
Popping back in here because I found this interesting:
> And there are lots of things that can happen in your brain - racist stereotypes to earworms to to brain tumours to depression that you can reasonably deny are the real you and try to take steps to excise.
How would you define the real you, and what makes you think that it is in fact more authentically you than the one shaped by strong emotions, prejudices, overcoming prejudices, traumas, joys, health conditions and neurochemical interactions in your brain? What is this core, unadulterated self, and how does it exist independent of all that? Are you certain you would still be you if you instead grew up raised by robots on a spaceship after aliens ate your parents?
If you believe in the existence of a constant soul, that might make sense. But from your comments so far I get the sense that you're not particularly religious or spiritual, given that most religious traditions consider love of any sort as something transcendent that brings humanity together and is ourselves at our best and most authentic, not an crude unwanted byproduct of natural selection gone astray.
So: what if the version of yourself transformed by love is in fact the 'real' you, and the self-interested, hurting version without love is that false self? (Do you think incels are living more authentic lives than the average partnered person?)
In my experience within the LGBTQ community, I've certainly seen how love - in particular romantic love - is often so intrinsic to who someone authentically is, and how the denial and repression of that is instead what's far more likely to make them not feel like themselves. A lesbian marrying a man she does not love for rational, practical reasons is arguably much less herself than one giddy with love and making dumb decisions for the sake of her girlfriend.
> Sure it is endogenously produced by our own brain, but, like a cancer tumour, it is still alien to our self.
Perhaps. But I don't think it's alien to our humanity. I'm from Asia, where societies are much more collectivist than individualist. It means people are more likely than in the West to define their identities in relation to those they love and the community around them, rather than as individual selves separate from each other. In that context, where our needs and desires are shaped by those of our community and how we can serve and support each other, love deepens and enrichens those connections and thus our sense of self, rather than disrupts it. Friends become more authentically friends when they love each other. A husband becomes more authentically a husband when he loves his wife. A teacher becomes more authentically a teacher when she (platonically) loves her students.
> What matters is that your brain will have been radically transformed around interests alien to you.
Most of us have gone through that, one of the most notable instances being puberty and how it can transform a child into a near-unrecognisable teenager with a very different set of emotions, desires, interests and even personality. Yet in most cases, after some time of adaptation we come to integrate those changes into a broader understanding of who we are, and most adults wouldn't consider their transformation into adulthood to have robbed them of their real selves. Instead, all those changes and new feelings and experiences are what made them grow even more into who they are, and perhaps living true to ourselves is as much or more about growth than constancy. | While romantic love might not have “practical value” in the way you might like, I feel as though it is a fundamental part of what makes most of us human. While it’s not necessary for everyone, I feel as though most people’s lives would be made significantly more dull and soulless without it.
Also, think about how much great art and philosophy has been produced by romantic love. Plato’s Symposium, Xenophon’s Symposium, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Mishima’s Spring Snow, the Letters of Abelard and Heloise, I could go on. I feel as though a lack of romantic love would deny humanity works such as these which we as a species would be much worse without.
You mention romantic love taking away autonomy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I’m pretty sure I remember hearing that a postmodern philosopher, potentially Deleuze, argued that love allowed us to go beyond the limitations of our personal experience and truly become one with another person. This kind of experience can be incredibly important in self-actualisation and thus we would be significantly worse off without it.
---
You make an interesting claim about autonomy. But I would need to see it further argued for before I would be persuaded. How would you feel about someone who went around dosing people with a drug that made them fall in love with the next person they saw? If you would be repelled by that idea (as I think most people would be) then you probably value autonomy after all.
Also, I am pretty sure there are various psychedelic drugs that can achieve the kind of effect Deleuze is describing, and with considerably less baggage
---
First of all, if you’re interested in this concept I’d recommend reading the work it comes from (if I remember correctly), Deleuze and Guattari’s “Capitalism and Schizophrenia” duology, especially the second volume “A Thousand Plateaus”.
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Oedipus-Capitalism-Schizophrenia-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0816612250/](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Oedipus-Capitalism-Schizophrenia-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0816612250/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=0816612250&qid=1643987817&sr=8-1)
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thousand-Plateaus-Bloomsbury-Revelations/dp/1780935374/](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thousand-Plateaus-Bloomsbury-Revelations/dp/1780935374/ref=pd_sbs_1/261-4984416-9642135?pd_rd_w=eK4Ud&pf_rd_p=e0d2ff13-9dd4-4da7-83fa-1b78154f9d73&pf_rd_r=4RN367DG0JWSMS9WE868&pd_rd_r=17ee5b31-ebb8-4977-b001-807120e805b3&pd_rd_wg=6Ge3C&pd_rd_i=1780935374&psc=1)
They’re heavy works but, since it’s been a while since I personally looked into this stuff, they’ll give you a better understanding than I can. If you don’t want to read them (which is perfectly understandable) I’d recommend doing research specifically into the concept of “Bodies Without Organs” which this idea seems to be based around.
>How would you feel about someone who went around dosing people with a drug that made them fall in love with the next person they saw? If you would be repelled by that idea (as I think most people would be) then you probably value autonomy after all.
I would oppose this idea, not on the basis of “autonomy” but on the basis of it being inorganic. Rather than two people organically growing together you’re just arbitrarily forcing people together. There’s a major difference.
I will however point out that even in, for example, arranged marriages genuine and beneficial romantic love has developed. For example, the marriage of Emperor Charles V and Isabella of Portugal was an arranged one yet it later blossomed into a genuine romance.
>Also, I am pretty sure there are various psychedelic drugs that can achieve the kind of effect Deleuze is describing, and with considerably less baggage
Leaving aside the complex questions surrounding psychedelics, my issue would be that they are impersonal and, once again, inorganic. Rather than developing a genuine connection to another person you are using chemicals to simulate the effect. It’s not the same and I doubt that it’s anywhere near as beneficial.
---
You seem to have a particular concern for history of events (' the organic' ) that I do not share. To me this has a quasi-mystical flavour, like placing a special value on the first edition of a book or a baseball that someone famous signed.
The key point to me is that my brain has been dramatically changed in service of interests that are not mine. Whether that happens because of pheromones sprayed from a bottle or as a result of an 'organic' interaction makes no difference to the autonomy violation.
---
As I’ve said, an “autonomy violation” is not an inherently bad thing. Romantic love can help you the world in new ways and thus help you better understand both yourself. Romantic love helps you self-actualise and just generally be a more caring and selfless person. It is 100% in your interest to develop romantic love, whether or not it’s technically a violation of “autonomy”.
---
\> Romantic love can help you the world in new ways and thus help you better understand both yourself.
Well, yes. The world would look very different to you if your brain chemistry suddenly changes dramatically and you are stewing in endogenous morphine. But didn't we already establish that this would not justify someone else doing it to you (the love potion scenario). To me there is no difference between a stranger hijacking my life in this way and part of my own brain doing so. I know you see it differently because you place a special value on the 'organic' aspect - and I invite you to try once again to make that persuasive to me.
Maybe this example will help illustrate things. One of the things that struck me about Jane Austen's novels is how careful the women had to be not to let themselves fall in love with someone unsuitable (poor, silly, reckless, etc). Obviously the key issue there was the severe consequences (to 19th century women) of making a mistake. But it illustrates that there is nothing that strange or new in the idea of having to guard yourself from your own brain chemistry. A vaccine against love would have been very useful to those women.
---
The reason why so place value on organic love is the issue of compatibility. When organic love develops, most of the time it’s because the two people’s personalities are well suited to each other and thus they are better suited improve each other. With a love potion you don’t know if the two people are actually compatible or not and thus you don’t know how beneficial the relationship would actually be.
Regarding the Jane Austen example, I feel as though being in a relationship with someone you deeply love is a beneficial thing at least on a psychological level even if the person is poor or reckless or something like that. I feel as though even people living in poverty can have their lives greatly improved on a psychological level by romantic love. Money can’t guarantee happiness but I believe romantic love can. | skadxr | CMV: If there were a vaccine against romantic love, you should take it | P1 Romantic love hijacks our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning: Romantic love evolved to serve a biological (species level) function of reproduction and this is distinct from and can go against our interests as individual agents. Romantic love operates by hijacking our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning at the neurochemical level by manipulating our dopamine and endorphin systems (valuation and pleasure)
P2 If your practical reasoning is hijacked your decisions aren’t authentically your own: they aren't really being made by 'you' and they may not serve your own interests
P3 If there were such a thing as a vaccine against love then it would prevent this hijacking (obviously there isn't yet - this is hypothetical)
Therefore, If there were a vaccine against romantic love, you should take it
​
That is my main conclusion. However, I draw two further 'statist' implications I am less sure of but also worth mentioning
1) A vaccine against love would be of great value to society (like contraception it would allow us to escape the domination of biology and live our own lives for ourselves). Therefore it makes sense for society (i.e. taxes) to fund research into its development. (It also makes sense to fund research into an antidote to the vaccine, so that its effects can be reversed, as with contraception. This maximises individual freedom of choice.)
2) If it could be developed, governments should also encourage the take-up of the vaccine, e.g. by offering it to everyone for free (and perhaps also in schools, like vaccinations against infectious diseases). It is part of the role and responsibility of modern governments to protect their people's freedom and ability to pursue their real interests. This is just what a vaccine against love would do. Governments routinely ban drugs (like heroine) which threaten people's autonomy, as well regulating or banning activities that endanger people's basic interests (e.g. seatbelt laws). Offering the love vaccine to everyone can be justified in the same way and falls at the moderate end of such interventions. | phileconomicus | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "CoyotePatronus",
"id": "hvl2019",
"score": 4,
"text": ">P1 Romantic love hijacks our emotions, desires, and practical reasoning\n\nFor something to be hijacked that suggests an outside actor. Romantic love doesn't hijack our emotions, desires, and reasoning, it's literally one of our em... | [
{
"author": "Young_Englander",
"id": "hvk60sq",
"score": 3,
"text": "While romantic love might not have “practical value” in the way you might like, I feel as though it is a fundamental part of what makes most of us human. While it’s not necessary for everyone, I feel as though most people’s lives w... | [
"hvl2019",
"hvlc4nt",
"hvlhuke",
"hvlultk",
"hvm8tln",
"hvqj445",
"hvsahbj"
] | [
"hvk60sq",
"hvkgyqq",
"hvkkbcp",
"hvkmhn9",
"hvknygb",
"hvlz57f",
"hvm2fre"
] |
CMV: The USA is the Greatest Nation on the Planet
There are no nations that can be labeled as clearly better than the USA. Then on top of that you have the incredible stability of the USA, having continually existed for 250 years and avoiding civil war for the past 150. With excellent recognition of civil rights, material prosperity, and so on, the USA is the greatest country on the planet. While small nations in limited parts of the world may have some marginal higher quality of life indicators, they lack stability due to their small size, and in additon are more comparable to particularly well off US states due to it. And well, Massachusetts wasnt made into a Nazi puppet state, Denmark/Norway were.
So please, Change My View
Also, please substantiate any kind of an index used as a source - "this list says the USA is worse than Country Y" doesnt have any inherent meaning. For all I know it was pulled out of someone's ass. If they can be connected to reality by showing the USA being materially worse though, you will get a delta. | Like always, these stats are a case of cherrypicking.
>With excellent recognition of civil rights, material prosperity, and so on, the USA is the greatest country on the planet.
One could easily look at a statistic of like, maternal mortality rate, and see how it is far larger than other developed nations.
So, depending on what stats you pick, is the US even that prosperous?
---
>One could easily look at a statistic of like, maternal mortality rate, and see how it is far larger than other developed nations.
And that's not even getting into the Black maternal mortality rate in specific, which really challenges the idea that our civil rights are particularly advanced. | This is a troll post right? Citing a 250 year stability to show stability is insanity. And small countries meaning instability has no real correlation that I can think of. Hell, the oldest country is San Marino and that’s tiny AND an enclave.
Then there’s the fact that the only way you’re not aware of all the things the US is the WORST at is if you’re literally sticking your head in the sand.
---
> And small countries meaning instability has no real correlation that I can think of. Hell, the oldest country is San Marino and that’s tiny AND an enclave.
Your example was effectively a puppet state for Fascist Italy from 1923 to 1943.
> Then there’s the fact that the only way you’re not aware of all the things the US is the WORST at is if you’re literally sticking your head in the sand.
Ok... like what? | 195kxla | CMV: The USA is the Greatest Nation on the Planet | There are no nations that can be labeled as clearly better than the USA. Then on top of that you have the incredible stability of the USA, having continually existed for 250 years and avoiding civil war for the past 150. With excellent recognition of civil rights, material prosperity, and so on, the USA is the greatest country on the planet. While small nations in limited parts of the world may have some marginal higher quality of life indicators, they lack stability due to their small size, and in additon are more comparable to particularly well off US states due to it. And well, Massachusetts wasnt made into a Nazi puppet state, Denmark/Norway were.
So please, Change My View
Also, please substantiate any kind of an index used as a source - "this list says the USA is worse than Country Y" doesnt have any inherent meaning. For all I know it was pulled out of someone's ass. If they can be connected to reality by showing the USA being materially worse though, you will get a delta. | MathematicianThat402 | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "10ebbor10",
"id": "khngqj7",
"score": 4,
"text": "Like always, these stats are a case of cherrypicking.\n\n>With excellent recognition of civil rights, material prosperity, and so on, the USA is the greatest country on the planet.\n\nOne could easily look at a statistic of like, materna... | [
{
"author": "MarthLikinte612",
"id": "khngdek",
"score": 15,
"text": "This is a troll post right? Citing a 250 year stability to show stability is insanity. And small countries meaning instability has no real correlation that I can think of. Hell, the oldest country is San Marino and that’s tiny AND... | [
"khngqj7",
"khnhkxy"
] | [
"khngdek",
"khngjsh"
] |
CMV: The shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified
I'm an Asian American who has been following the recent George Floyd protests. As someone who supports peaceful protests and police reform, I do believe the shooting of Brooks was justified.
The video of the shooting clearly shows Brooks aiming a taser and firing it at the officer in pursuit. I don't believe Brooks deserved to die, but the officer was clearly defending himself. I truly believe the media has blatantly mislead people by claiming Brooks was "shot in the back".
To make matters even worse, the police officers were NOT hostile. The entire encounter between Brooks and the officers was mellow (the officers were not aggressive, insulting, or condensing while they were questioning Brooks about how much he had drank that night).
In the end, the officer did his job by pursing a run-away criminal and defending himself when Brooks tried to taser him. While Brooks did not deserve to die, I honestly do not know what he was thinking pointing and firing a taser at a police officer. | He was running away when he was shot, I feel like he should've been charged but it's not self defense if you shoot someone in the back as they run
---
Right, but you can see Brooks turn and fire the taser as he is running away.
---
But a taser isn't a lethal weapon. And there's two officers and only one taser. At worst, only one cop goes down.
At no point were the lives of the police in immediate danger. No were the live of any civilians. Lethal force should only be used in the event of mortal danger. Lacking mortal danger, less than lethal force should be used.
Brooks deserved to get arrested, tried, and sentenced for his crime. Not suffer extrajudicial execution. | He was running away and only armed with the exact same weapon they had already used on him.
The officer did not have to “defend himself” with lethal force. He could “defend himself” by simply standing still while the “threat” ran past the limited range of the half-used “less-lethal” weapon he’d taken from them.
There was no threat.
---
I think it's difficult to judge range in the heat of the moment... Do you believe the officer could have shot Brooks in the leg instead?
---
In range or no, Brooks only had a taser and was running away. He would be out of range shortly. That’s not an immediate threat.
You only shoot someone you intend to kill, so no shooting him in the leg would not be better. That clearly indicates that the only threat he posed was escape. | hfpcjq | CMV: The shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified | I'm an Asian American who has been following the recent George Floyd protests. As someone who supports peaceful protests and police reform, I do believe the shooting of Brooks was justified.
The video of the shooting clearly shows Brooks aiming a taser and firing it at the officer in pursuit. I don't believe Brooks deserved to die, but the officer was clearly defending himself. I truly believe the media has blatantly mislead people by claiming Brooks was "shot in the back".
To make matters even worse, the police officers were NOT hostile. The entire encounter between Brooks and the officers was mellow (the officers were not aggressive, insulting, or condensing while they were questioning Brooks about how much he had drank that night).
In the end, the officer did his job by pursing a run-away criminal and defending himself when Brooks tried to taser him. While Brooks did not deserve to die, I honestly do not know what he was thinking pointing and firing a taser at a police officer. | boager95 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "imnothotbutimnotcool",
"id": "fvywqxq",
"score": 3,
"text": "He was running away when he was shot, I feel like he should've been charged but it's not self defense if you shoot someone in the back as they run",
"timestamp": 1593103327
},
{
"author": "boager95",
"id": "fvy... | [
{
"author": "radialomens",
"id": "fvyxmd9",
"score": -2,
"text": "He was running away and only armed with the exact same weapon they had already used on him. \n\nThe officer did not have to “defend himself” with lethal force. He could “defend himself” by simply standing still while the “threat” ran ... | [
"fvywqxq",
"fvyxb5w",
"fvz1h2k"
] | [
"fvyxmd9",
"fvyxvef",
"fvyykdk"
] |
CMV: The shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified
I'm an Asian American who has been following the recent George Floyd protests. As someone who supports peaceful protests and police reform, I do believe the shooting of Brooks was justified.
The video of the shooting clearly shows Brooks aiming a taser and firing it at the officer in pursuit. I don't believe Brooks deserved to die, but the officer was clearly defending himself. I truly believe the media has blatantly mislead people by claiming Brooks was "shot in the back".
To make matters even worse, the police officers were NOT hostile. The entire encounter between Brooks and the officers was mellow (the officers were not aggressive, insulting, or condensing while they were questioning Brooks about how much he had drank that night).
In the end, the officer did his job by pursing a run-away criminal and defending himself when Brooks tried to taser him. While Brooks did not deserve to die, I honestly do not know what he was thinking pointing and firing a taser at a police officer. | He was running away and only armed with the exact same weapon they had already used on him.
The officer did not have to “defend himself” with lethal force. He could “defend himself” by simply standing still while the “threat” ran past the limited range of the half-used “less-lethal” weapon he’d taken from them.
There was no threat.
---
I think it's difficult to judge range in the heat of the moment... Do you believe the officer could have shot Brooks in the leg instead?
---
> Do you believe the officer could have shot Brooks in the leg instead?
No. Every firearms training course in the world drills one fact into you - you do not point a weapon at something which you do not intend to destroy. You are specifically trained _not_ to 'shoot too wound' because you can not do that with any degree of accuracy.
The decision to aim your weapon and fire is a decision to end the life of the target. When the officer fired at Mr. Brooks, he made the decision to end Mr. Brooks life (whether he was successful in that intent is not relevant). | He was running away when he was shot, I feel like he should've been charged but it's not self defense if you shoot someone in the back as they run
---
[removed]
---
No, when someone is running away it's not self-defense, someone has to pose an immediate and present threat for it to be self-defense, and someone running away is not an immediate and present threat | hfpcjq | CMV: The shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified | I'm an Asian American who has been following the recent George Floyd protests. As someone who supports peaceful protests and police reform, I do believe the shooting of Brooks was justified.
The video of the shooting clearly shows Brooks aiming a taser and firing it at the officer in pursuit. I don't believe Brooks deserved to die, but the officer was clearly defending himself. I truly believe the media has blatantly mislead people by claiming Brooks was "shot in the back".
To make matters even worse, the police officers were NOT hostile. The entire encounter between Brooks and the officers was mellow (the officers were not aggressive, insulting, or condensing while they were questioning Brooks about how much he had drank that night).
In the end, the officer did his job by pursing a run-away criminal and defending himself when Brooks tried to taser him. While Brooks did not deserve to die, I honestly do not know what he was thinking pointing and firing a taser at a police officer. | boager95 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "radialomens",
"id": "fvyxmd9",
"score": -2,
"text": "He was running away and only armed with the exact same weapon they had already used on him. \n\nThe officer did not have to “defend himself” with lethal force. He could “defend himself” by simply standing still while the “threat” ran ... | [
{
"author": "imnothotbutimnotcool",
"id": "fvywqxq",
"score": 3,
"text": "He was running away when he was shot, I feel like he should've been charged but it's not self defense if you shoot someone in the back as they run",
"timestamp": 1593103327
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fv... | [
"fvyxmd9",
"fvyxvef",
"fvyz7bw"
] | [
"fvywqxq",
"fvyzi5k",
"fvyzwxo"
] |
CMV: Conservatives who get upset about government regulations/overreach but are pro-life/anti-gay rights are hypocrites
I find it pretty hypocritical and funny that majority of conservatives hate government overreach and regulations, but are quick to demand such overreach and regulations on others.
God forbid you touch their second amendment right, but its open season for them to tell the LGBTQ community what they can and can’t do. They can have their guns and do whatever they want because some old dudes wrote it in the constitution hundreds of years ago. But, a man and a man getting married? Oh no, we need to fight that to the death. Take it to the courts. Debate it every year. Stand up for what they think is right and tell their leaders to pass a law against it!
A gay couple wants to adopt a kid? Oh no, that kid is going to become gay because of them. This is not what a family is about. They need to fight that. Pass some laws. Don’t allow this. Make it ok for them to discriminate against that couple. The government should pass a law making it ok for them to discriminate.
The government telling them to wear a mask? Oh no, that’s a clear violation of their liberties and rights. It’s completely un American and a major governmental overreach. They can’t tell us we have to wear a mask, it’s our body and we can do what I want.
Does a woman want to get an abortion? Oh no no no, that goes against what they believe and for that reason the government needs to step in and regulate their choice. Debate it every year. Pass MORE laws and regulations to remove their choice. The Supreme Court already made a decision on this 47 years ago? No no nooo we must KEEP fighting for this. Put more conservative judges in place. Vote for MORE government regulations to ban it. Pass more laws that make it harder for doctors to perform abortions. Whatever their conservative leaders can do to make sure their views are protected, go for it.
You can not be anti government regulation/governmental overreach, but impose your views and beliefs on other. Especially when you call upon your elected leaders to pass laws and regulations supporting your belief.
If you hate the government telling you what you can and can’t do with your house, business, guns, etc. Then you have no place to tell someone else what they can and can’t do with their body. | The thing to understand here is that regulations aren't the same thing as laws. Very few conservatives are suggesting that we have _regulations_ against abortion and gay marriage. Instead, they are calling for _laws_ banning those things. A general opposition to regulations doesn't mean you must oppose laws in general, and conservatives certainly don't oppose laws in general.
---
Here is the definition of a law:
1. the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
By passing a law restricting abortions and gay rights, you are therefore regulating what another person is able to do with their body.
---
In the specific context of US politics and conservatives' opposition to regulations, a more precise definition is used than your dictionary definition. E.g. from the [US Senate](https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Laws_and_Regulations_vrd.htm):
>Federal laws are bills that have passed both houses of Congress, been signed by the president, passed over the president's veto, or allowed to become law without the president's signature. Individual laws, also called acts, are arranged by subject in the United States Code. Regulations are rules made by executive departments and agencies, and are arranged by subject in the Code of Federal Regulations.
It's regulations that conservatives are expressing opposition to, now laws. Passing a law restricting abortions and gay rights doesn't involve regulations unless there are some additional rules made by executive agencies. But this is not what conservatives are calling for: they just want abortion and gay marriage to be banned full stop—no regulations involved.
---
I see your point and I agree to an extent. However I think passing a law that restricts someone else’s freedom for the sake of your own beliefs is a government overreach. That is fundamentally something that conservatives love to hate on.
I have to find the link but trump administration has passed several regulations making it harder for planned parenthood and other clinics to get funding. I think that would fall into the category of government regulations.
---
To expand on that commenter's point a bit - regulations, again, are laws created by unelected officials within the executive branch. It's often referred to as "administrative law," and it really exploded starting in the 1970s. It's labrynthine and difficult for the general public to parse. I also happen to think it's a good thing - it means subject matter experts are creating laws according to the science (in theory). So Congress might pass a law saying we must ensure drinking water is safe. It's then up to the EPA and its scientists to determine what "safe" means, without untrained politicians needing to argue about what fraction of lead in the water might be acceptable (though Congress has the authority to override most agency made law, and could directly determine the amount of lead allowed in water).
I also understand the sentiment that holds that this is move away from democracy towards a technocracy, where value decisions (how to weight environment vs economy) seem to be put in the hands of bureaucrats who don't answer directly to the public. I also think that sentiment arises due to the unfamiliarity most people have with how the US government works. Those value decisions are still being made by either Congress, or in the absence of Congressional direction, by the Executive. These executive agencies have quasi-legislative authority precisely because Congress has delegated them that authority (and can also take it back). The rise of the administrative state, by the way, is one of the ways in which the office of the president has become more powerful - the Executive controls the agencies, within certain parameters that vary from agency to agency, which have been delegated Congressional (and often judicial) authority. While we have a "separation of powers" in the US, that forbids one branch from controlling another or impinging on another's inherent powers - it does not preclude one branch willingly delegating its power to another branch. There are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of this arrangement which creates what's almost a fourth branch of government that holds the (subservient) power of the other three branches. A lot of wonky conservatives worry about that. That then makes its way into the mouths of people who don't understand what a "regulation" means, and they just parrot it after having been told their lives would be better with fewer "regulations."
Edit: Fixed some grammar and funky sentences. | It's fair to think that the government should control some aspects of people's lives and not others. For example, I think the government should regulate businesses from polluting, but I don't think the government should regulate whether I eat pancakes or cereal for breakfast.
Many conservatives argue against allowing abortions because they believe that the "baby's" right to life trumps a woman's bodily autonomy. I don't think this makes them hypocrites for not wanting to be taxed.
---
It doesn’t make them a hypocrite for not wanting to be taxed, but it surely makes them a hypocrite for telling someone else how to live. I understand the topic of abortion is touchy for lots of people but at the same time, how in anyway does that effect them?
Being taxed is directly effecting them and they dislike that. The government shouldn’t tell them what to do and let them be. But to turn around and demand your government tell someone else what to do with their body or their sexuality is flat out hypocrisy.
The only way you’re not a hypocrite in that case is if you’re pro-life but you don’t ask the government to pass any laws banning abortions. Go out and advocate and do whatever you think is right (in a reasonable and non harmful manner) to be pro life. But the minute you start asking for governmental regulations and laws to be passed, you’re being hypocritical.
---
> It doesn’t make them a hypocrite for not wanting to be taxed, but it surely makes them a hypocrite for telling someone else how to live.
My argument is that it is sometimes fair to tell someone else how to live and othertimes not. It is fair to tell someone to not kill. It is less fair to tell someone what they can and cannot wear or what they can and cannot buy.
Many conservatives think that abortion falls under the "kill" category, so it's fair game to stop people from doing it.
On the other hand, many conseratives think that buying a gun is not inherently dangerous, so the government shouldn't prevent gun sales.
---
I see that point and I don’t disagree. My question however is what makes it more fair to allow people to easily get a gun, but not to get an abortion?
It’s the same reason I think you can’t be pro-life but anti gun reform.
---
Getting a gun doesn't necessarily kill people, but abortion does.
I'm not actually pro-life, and I think conservative arguments are flawed, but that would be the conservative argument. | hfc6cf | CMV: Conservatives who get upset about government regulations/overreach but are pro-life/anti-gay rights are hypocrites | I find it pretty hypocritical and funny that majority of conservatives hate government overreach and regulations, but are quick to demand such overreach and regulations on others.
God forbid you touch their second amendment right, but its open season for them to tell the LGBTQ community what they can and can’t do. They can have their guns and do whatever they want because some old dudes wrote it in the constitution hundreds of years ago. But, a man and a man getting married? Oh no, we need to fight that to the death. Take it to the courts. Debate it every year. Stand up for what they think is right and tell their leaders to pass a law against it!
A gay couple wants to adopt a kid? Oh no, that kid is going to become gay because of them. This is not what a family is about. They need to fight that. Pass some laws. Don’t allow this. Make it ok for them to discriminate against that couple. The government should pass a law making it ok for them to discriminate.
The government telling them to wear a mask? Oh no, that’s a clear violation of their liberties and rights. It’s completely un American and a major governmental overreach. They can’t tell us we have to wear a mask, it’s our body and we can do what I want.
Does a woman want to get an abortion? Oh no no no, that goes against what they believe and for that reason the government needs to step in and regulate their choice. Debate it every year. Pass MORE laws and regulations to remove their choice. The Supreme Court already made a decision on this 47 years ago? No no nooo we must KEEP fighting for this. Put more conservative judges in place. Vote for MORE government regulations to ban it. Pass more laws that make it harder for doctors to perform abortions. Whatever their conservative leaders can do to make sure their views are protected, go for it.
You can not be anti government regulation/governmental overreach, but impose your views and beliefs on other. Especially when you call upon your elected leaders to pass laws and regulations supporting your belief.
If you hate the government telling you what you can and can’t do with your house, business, guns, etc. Then you have no place to tell someone else what they can and can’t do with their body. | Afromain19 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"id": "fvwmzsm",
"score": 5,
"text": "The thing to understand here is that regulations aren't the same thing as laws. Very few conservatives are suggesting that we have _regulations_ against abortion and gay marriage. Instead, they are calling for _laws_ banning those things.... | [
{
"author": "Computer_Physical",
"id": "fvwmy7i",
"score": 24,
"text": "It's fair to think that the government should control some aspects of people's lives and not others. For example, I think the government should regulate businesses from polluting, but I don't think the government should regulate... | [
"fvwmzsm",
"fvwnlb0",
"fvwnx8h",
"fvwoyb8",
"fvwtqi7"
] | [
"fvwmy7i",
"fvwn8zh",
"fvwnpkb",
"fvwnwyy",
"fvwo4a4"
] |
CMV: Michelle Obama would rather Dictator Trump than to be president herself
She is so against being president
She would rather the chance of Trump being president and stay as a dictator than to do anything herself.
The fact shes the only one who can beat trump. And refuses to step in or “take one foe the team”
She would rather selfishly let Trump win.
Its clear she’s the only one. I understand she doesn’t want to be president. But if shes being told shes the only one who can beat him, and still refuses. Then she’ll rather Trump be president and dictator.
Some people didn’t want to take vaccines. But knew the risk it has on their elderly loved ones if they didn’t take the vaccine. So took the vaccine to help loved ones. Its the same for Michelle Obama.
She doesn’t want to be president. But if its for the good of the country, if she can implement positive change and if she will win. Why would she still say no?
Hence why i say she would rather Trump win, be president and stay president. He loves dictators, hes got supreme court backing and hes said he will be a dictator from day 1. He’s currently unstoppable. | >and hes said he will be a dictator from day 1.
Can you show me the exact quote where he said this, verbatim, without any interpretation or hyperbole?
I'm serious. Please show me the rally, debate, or anything where he literally said "I will be a dictator."
---
Just stumbled upon this, there is [this quote from an intervier](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/dec/07/donald-trump-was-asked-if-he-will-be-a-dictator-if/):
> Hannity: "I want to go back to this one issue though because the media has been focused on this and attacking you. Under no circumstances you're promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?"
> Trump: "Except for Day 1."
> Hannity: "Except for?"
> Trump: (pointing to Hannity) "Look, he’s going crazy. Except for Day 1."
> Hannity: "Meaning?"
> Trump: "I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill."
> Hannity: "That’s not retribution."
> Trump, referring to Hannity: "We love this guy. He says, ‘You are not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, no, other than Day 1.’ We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I am not a dictator, OK?"
> Hannity: "That sounds to me like you’re going back to the policies when you were president."
You can interpret that how you want. | >The fact shes the only one who can beat trump.
>Its clear she’s the only one.
Why do you think that?
---
According to polls | 1e09xo8 | CMV: Michelle Obama would rather Dictator Trump than to be president herself | She is so against being president
She would rather the chance of Trump being president and stay as a dictator than to do anything herself.
The fact shes the only one who can beat trump. And refuses to step in or “take one foe the team”
She would rather selfishly let Trump win.
Its clear she’s the only one. I understand she doesn’t want to be president. But if shes being told shes the only one who can beat him, and still refuses. Then she’ll rather Trump be president and dictator.
Some people didn’t want to take vaccines. But knew the risk it has on their elderly loved ones if they didn’t take the vaccine. So took the vaccine to help loved ones. Its the same for Michelle Obama.
She doesn’t want to be president. But if its for the good of the country, if she can implement positive change and if she will win. Why would she still say no?
Hence why i say she would rather Trump win, be president and stay president. He loves dictators, hes got supreme court backing and hes said he will be a dictator from day 1. He’s currently unstoppable. | MountLH75 | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "drygnfyre",
"id": "le7foip",
"score": 1,
"text": ">and hes said he will be a dictator from day 1.\n\nCan you show me the exact quote where he said this, verbatim, without any interpretation or hyperbole?\n\nI'm serious. Please show me the rally, debate, or anything where he literally sa... | [
{
"author": "ZappSmithBrannigan",
"id": "lclatjy",
"score": 5,
"text": ">The fact shes the only one who can beat trump. \n\n>Its clear she’s the only one.\n\nWhy do you think that?",
"timestamp": 1720653266
},
{
"author": "MountLH75",
"id": "lclaycu",
"score": -10,
"text": "A... | [
"le7foip",
"le7grlp"
] | [
"lclatjy",
"lclaycu"
] |
CMV: Prostitution should be illegal
By this, I meant that no one should be able to buy sex. Selling sex should remain legal so that sex workers can go to cops and report assault.
- The first reason is that it relies on exploiting vulnerable women and children. Rich people aren't the ones who are going to rely on prostitution for sustenance, it's going to be poor people who have no other choice. An evidence of this is that it's people in poor economies who resort to prostitution when "sweatshops" get banned.
- The second reason is that the demand will always be greater than the supply; there's going to be a shortage of sex workers who agree to do it voluntarily. This means that prostitution is at risk of resulting in some kind of trafficking. This is different from trafficking other workers, because of the next point:
- It commodifies human beings, which is horrific. Compared to other forms of wage labour, sex workers are selling their body, not merely their time and effort. | The best perspective I’ve ever heard is the following:
If you think prostitutes are selling their body but coal miners are not selling their body, your concept of ‘selling one’s body’ is being clouded by your views on sexuality.
---
The coal miners are selling their time and effort. No one is using their bodies per se; their bodies aren't the goods being bought.
---
In what way are sex workers selling their bodies? The clients don't walk away owning their body or anything like that. Instead, they're just buying the worker's time and effort.
---
They are buying the body, not the time or effort.
---
So i buy a prostitute but only to have her use a dildo on herself and i watch. Is this the same as a coal miner? | With regard to the first and third reason, is this not also true of all forms of labor (and particularly the more undesirable kinds)? In our society, if you do not own any assets, you are forced to sell the only asset you have, which is your body. Doesn't matter if it's sex work or grueling manual labor, in both cases you are selling your body.
---
It's not the same. Let's say you have no education so the only job available for you is to push buttons. You're not selling your body, you're providing a service.
Sex workers in prositution, on the other hand, literally sell their bodies.
---
[deleted]
---
The commodification of human beings is abhorrent. It means that human beings can be equated to material goods and life isn't intrinsically worth it.
---
[deleted] | sk1y0x | CMV: Prostitution should be illegal | By this, I meant that no one should be able to buy sex. Selling sex should remain legal so that sex workers can go to cops and report assault.
- The first reason is that it relies on exploiting vulnerable women and children. Rich people aren't the ones who are going to rely on prostitution for sustenance, it's going to be poor people who have no other choice. An evidence of this is that it's people in poor economies who resort to prostitution when "sweatshops" get banned.
- The second reason is that the demand will always be greater than the supply; there's going to be a shortage of sex workers who agree to do it voluntarily. This means that prostitution is at risk of resulting in some kind of trafficking. This is different from trafficking other workers, because of the next point:
- It commodifies human beings, which is horrific. Compared to other forms of wage labour, sex workers are selling their body, not merely their time and effort. | doomshroompatent | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Reverse-zebra",
"id": "hviewd3",
"score": 13,
"text": "The best perspective I’ve ever heard is the following:\n\nIf you think prostitutes are selling their body but coal miners are not selling their body, your concept of ‘selling one’s body’ is being clouded by your views on sexuality."... | [
{
"author": "Armitaco",
"id": "hvieet3",
"score": 5,
"text": "With regard to the first and third reason, is this not also true of all forms of labor (and particularly the more undesirable kinds)? In our society, if you do not own any assets, you are forced to sell the only asset you have, which is y... | [
"hviewd3",
"hvifq1p",
"hvihqk9",
"hviilj8",
"hvjx74x"
] | [
"hvieet3",
"hviey8g",
"hvif384",
"hvihcm7",
"hvihiod"
] |
CMV: The media and education system should be state controlled.
Premise:
1) there are three kind people when it comes to mass media:
1.1) People who will believe everything. these people are the vast majority.
1.2) People who will believe nothing. The people in this group are already a minority and most of them belonged in the first group.
1.3) People who will critically analize what they read and form their own opininion. This group is, sadly, just a tiny elite.
2) The media holds an immense power over the first category and will use to further its own agenda which could be damaging directly the agenda of the state.
3) The school system is where the mentality of the next generation, this is, again, an immense power held by professors.
4) The next generation has to think in a way that will strenghten the soul of the nation.
5) For U.S.A. citizens: by state i don't mean Texas or Alabama etc. i mean the federal government.
This idea came to me while reading the Mein Kampf ( wonderful book, in my opinion, but that's beside the point ). At some time during the book, Hitler talks about the importance of the media and how, in good loyal hands, the media has the potential to give courage and strength to a nation and, if in the wrong self centered hands, it could be the greatest poison injected directly into the soul of a people rendering it weak and pacifistic at all cost.
We have seen the disastrous effects of a free press (and not only the press) for the first time during the war in Vietnam: instead of trying to unite the country in the struggle, the media kept on weeping the dead and glorifying the weaklings ( pacifist and people who avoided the draft ) this, in the end, created a nation which did not want to fight anymore, while the morale of The Vietnamese people kept getting better and better.
We see this in every single war when the media is free to do what it wants.
Now, about the school system.
Nowadays, schools are only concerned with givng knowledge to its students. This, in the end, creates weak men and women which are ( in the best case scenario ) compliant erudites or, ( in the worst case scenario ) just people who refused most of the knowledge that was offered to them, and i can't blame them for refusing it: they were only told what they should know, but never *why* they should know what they were being taught. Knowledge has no purpose nowadays, outside of itself, and that's why many people refuse it.
People are given no purpose outside of themselves, and that's where a state controlled education system comes into play, giving the people a sense of beolnging to the state and to their own people. If the state manages to do so, then knowledge gains the puropse of helping your own people getting a better life.
As for what type of education should a state controlled system offer, two subjects should have top priority: history class ( so that the student learns to be proud of the history of his/her people) and gym class ( *mens sana in corpore sano* said the Romans).
In additon to that, the youth should also be taught one and only one, ideology. I'm a nazi, so you can imagine which ideology i'd like to see being taught in schools.
All other subjects come in second place ( i'm not saying they shouldn't be taught, i'm sayiing that the soul and heart of a people should come first in order to give the mind a purpose ).
_____ | > 1) there are three kind people when it comes to mass media:
Which of the three do you consider yourself to be?
>Nowadays, schools are only concerned with givng knowledge to its students.
Actually, a major goal of the modern education system is not just to "give" knowledge, but to develop critical thinking skills. Setting aside whether it achieves this, do you think this is a good goal?
> two subjects should have top priority: history class ( so that the student learns to be proud of the history of his/her people)
In this context, who are "his/her people?" Does a Black child learn the same history as a White child? As an immigrant child?
What if there are aspects of history we should not be proud of - how do we teach this? Is the *only* goal of teaching history to instill pride?
---
no one can categorize himself in one of thes categories, you just find yourself in one withou even knowing.
most of the so called "critical thinking skills" are nothing but liberal propaganda.
Immigrant children should not be a thing, so that takes care of the problem.
History should be taught in a way that promotes unity, minor details can be erased if they achieve the opposite result, or added if they help to create a sense of unity.
Pride and unity are the goal.
---
> History should be taught in a way that promotes unity, minor details can be erased if they achieve the opposite result, or added if they help to create a sense of unity.
So, you don't want to teach history. You want to teach a fictionalized account of the past. Truth doesn't matter to you at all then. | Well, I was about to say that it sounds like you propose a fascist state, but then you freely admitted that you are a Nazi, so it seems you are well aware of what you want.
I will say this though. How well did Nazism work out for you last time? It's a failed ideology because it is built on nothing more than oppression, hate, and misinformation.
Rome is the same way. The Romans didn't have all the answers. If they had, they wouldn't have fallen due to a mix of invasions and internal corruption, incompetency, and just all around bad ideas.
People will always resist it. It is destined to fail.
As for your larger idea, you want to turn America into something that is unrecognizable. Plus, what you propose is unconstitutional as it runs afoul of the 1st amendment.
Additonally, a mentally deranged man ranting about how the Jews are responsible for his shit life does not make for a wonderful book.
---
Yes, we lost, but that was almost a century ago i think we should focus on the present.
I can't see how Rome has to do with anything i just an old roman saying, not taking the Roman Empire as an example. Rome, in its last period, was the epicenter of degeneracy, that's why it fell.
People will resist what is not capable of giving them food, and if it restricts freedom, it will be considered a good trade off by a vast majority of the population.
I'm not concerned with what the constitution says.
---
> I'm not concerned with what the constitution says.
But you want the government to control the media and schools? Why then not follow the governments rules? Do you not want the government to be in control? | 6j1n2e | CMV: The media and education system should be state controlled. | Premise:
1) there are three kind people when it comes to mass media:
1.1) People who will believe everything. these people are the vast majority.
1.2) People who will believe nothing. The people in this group are already a minority and most of them belonged in the first group.
1.3) People who will critically analize what they read and form their own opininion. This group is, sadly, just a tiny elite.
2) The media holds an immense power over the first category and will use to further its own agenda which could be damaging directly the agenda of the state.
3) The school system is where the mentality of the next generation, this is, again, an immense power held by professors.
4) The next generation has to think in a way that will strenghten the soul of the nation.
5) For U.S.A. citizens: by state i don't mean Texas or Alabama etc. i mean the federal government.
This idea came to me while reading the Mein Kampf ( wonderful book, in my opinion, but that's beside the point ). At some time during the book, Hitler talks about the importance of the media and how, in good loyal hands, the media has the potential to give courage and strength to a nation and, if in the wrong self centered hands, it could be the greatest poison injected directly into the soul of a people rendering it weak and pacifistic at all cost.
We have seen the disastrous effects of a free press (and not only the press) for the first time during the war in Vietnam: instead of trying to unite the country in the struggle, the media kept on weeping the dead and glorifying the weaklings ( pacifist and people who avoided the draft ) this, in the end, created a nation which did not want to fight anymore, while the morale of The Vietnamese people kept getting better and better.
We see this in every single war when the media is free to do what it wants.
Now, about the school system.
Nowadays, schools are only concerned with givng knowledge to its students. This, in the end, creates weak men and women which are ( in the best case scenario ) compliant erudites or, ( in the worst case scenario ) just people who refused most of the knowledge that was offered to them, and i can't blame them for refusing it: they were only told what they should know, but never *why* they should know what they were being taught. Knowledge has no purpose nowadays, outside of itself, and that's why many people refuse it.
People are given no purpose outside of themselves, and that's where a state controlled education system comes into play, giving the people a sense of beolnging to the state and to their own people. If the state manages to do so, then knowledge gains the puropse of helping your own people getting a better life.
As for what type of education should a state controlled system offer, two subjects should have top priority: history class ( so that the student learns to be proud of the history of his/her people) and gym class ( *mens sana in corpore sano* said the Romans).
In additon to that, the youth should also be taught one and only one, ideology. I'm a nazi, so you can imagine which ideology i'd like to see being taught in schools.
All other subjects come in second place ( i'm not saying they shouldn't be taught, i'm sayiing that the soul and heart of a people should come first in order to give the mind a purpose ).
_____ | DasNotReich | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "muyamable",
"id": "djax5f5",
"score": 3,
"text": "> 1) there are three kind people when it comes to mass media:\n\nWhich of the three do you consider yourself to be? \n\n>Nowadays, schools are only concerned with givng knowledge to its students.\n\nActually, a major goal of the modern e... | [
{
"author": "MeowzorMeowhai",
"id": "djas0ak",
"score": 16,
"text": "Well, I was about to say that it sounds like you propose a fascist state, but then you freely admitted that you are a Nazi, so it seems you are well aware of what you want. \n\nI will say this though. How well did Nazism work out... | [
"djax5f5",
"djb00fw",
"djbcrok"
] | [
"djas0ak",
"djasgrs",
"djasmtm"
] |
CMV: I feel just as bad for Russian soldiers as I do for Ukranian soldiers. Both sides deserve our compassion for the individuals being sacrificed.
I'm American, far out of harm's way of the Russian-Ukranian war. I 100% support Ukraine's right to defend herself from foreign invaders. I 100% support the Ukranian soldiers using whatever means they have to defend their homeland, families, and freedom as a sovereign nation. When I began watching battle footage, and specifically the myriad of Ukranian drone strikes on Russian infantry, I was rooting for Ukraine all the way. I got pumped up by the background music, I couldn't stop looking for the next video of drones hunting Russian soldiers, and the ensuing carnage. I believe I even laughed a few times at the madness of watching a tiny drone - something I can buy from Amazon - chasing a grown man around and around a truck or tank or tree, until it finally struck with a small but deadly explosion. I watched many dozens of Russian soldiers die - some instantly and some slowly.
Then recently, while doomscrolling for the most recent drone carnage, I realized I couldn't watch anymore. I no longer looked at the men being killed as deadly foreign invading soldiers. After watching so many hide, and run, and get killed trying to save their fellow soldiers, I began to see these soldiers, mostly men, as victims. I started to ask myself, why would that guy go back to stop the other guy's bleeding? Why would those four try to carry out the wounded one? Don't they know they're about to all be blown up? Haven't they watched the same videos on Reddit and YouTube? Don't they know that after the first grenade is dropped or the first kamikaze drone strikes, the Ukranians have a bunch more coming, and you won't outrun them or be able to hide from them? I saw the faces of these young men, and in one instance a young woman, and saw their realization that there's no hope left. I saw them desperately try to outrun, then out maneuver, then incredibly sadly, try to swipe at or shoot at their stalking death, like one lashes out at a stalking wasp in frustration. I began to understand that before these soldiers felt the first explosion, the concussion of the blast, and the molten shrapnel ripping through their bodies, they had young peoples' hope; they could not have really understood what awaited them. The second grenade was always the hardest to watch. That was the one right next to their face or legs or directly on their back as they were already on the ground struggling to make sense of what was happening. Watching a young man or woman writhe in pain and sometimes wave towards the sky for something other than certain death, only to be blown apart one, or two, or three more times, made me ask, who in their right mind would ever volunteer for this or stick with this? No air support, ancient vehicles, poor armor, no way to run or hide from a radar-evading toy equipped with enough explosives to rip you in half...why wouldn't you throw your guns down and surrender, or even more sensibly, avoid signing up in the first place?
Then I learned that these Russian soldiers were put into an impossible situation. They were drafted - involuntary service (sacrifice). As 18, 19, 20 year old boys/girls, they stood strong looking into the wet eyes of their mother; they showed their courage and desire for honor to their father, and off they went in their buses, destined to be abandoned to death. I watched starved Russian soldiers attacked by their fellow countryman for wanting to surrender. I've seen soldiers walk out of bunkers to meet death head on, as the last voluntary act of an ultimately involuntary end. I watched a number of drone-wounded Russian soldiers calmly put their rifle to their chin and blow their brains out.
Can you imagine being a kid, your brain not even fully developed yet, forced to fight for Putin's nonsense, abandoned in a field, hungry and left to die, hunted down by another kid, piloting a video game of your death? In a different time, you and that kid could be playing soccer together, or playing Fortnite against each other from your college dorm room. Now you're attempting to occupy his land at the demand of a dictator, and he's laughing as he watches you crawl under a tree with your legs blown off, as he presses a button which will kill you. Your life, your memories, your pictures from kindergarten, the trinkets in your drawer from just a few years ago, the journal entry you wrote about that girl you like and what you want to be when you're grown up - all of it destroyed by Putin and his scared-shitless henchmen. You're sacrificed, for nothing. A few years from now, none of it will matter, and neither will you, because your healthy and strong body was ripped apart by a grenade and a toy.
You can tell me they have a choice. What choice? Be the guy who says "no"? Bring "dishonor" to yourself, to your family, to your father or uncle who served is some other pointless conflict, and to your mother who knows she must raise iron tough children or else she'll be outcast from society? Have the government arrest you and execute you or send you to Siberia for 10-20 years hard labor? Do you honestly think a 23 year old "man" is going to say no, given the pressure Russian government, society, and culture has placed on him? No, he will fight. He will stand strong and be courageous, regardless of the reason. Wouldn't American young men and women do the same if government, society, and their peers placed such pressures on them? So they go, and give their best, and they carry out their pointless protocol across an empty field, as if acres of land mattered more than years of parenting, schooling, friendship, birthdays, careers, generosity, mentoring, role-modeling, and all of the things that make us human. And it's in that final look up, and that final peace that comes over them after the pain and suffering has subsided, that they realize their task was pointless, and they gave their lives for the pathetic egos of other men, who just happened to get higher up the bullshit ladder before them.
I do not blame young Ukranian men and women (boys and girls) for killing young Russian men and women (boys and girls). I blame Russian "men" and "women" for forcing their young men and women to the slaughter. I'm a man and I have young boys of my own. I've been around long enough to know that there are, in fact, a few things worth dying for. Putin's ego is not one of them. I don't believe Russian soldiers have a choice. They are not defending their homeland and families and freedom. They are not liberating a repressed people from a tyrant. They are not storming a beach to go on the offensive and save the world from a genocidal ideologue. They are kids, born into an oppressive regime, sacrificed by an egomaniac in an ivory tower.
I feel horrible for the Ukranian people and their soldiers who have been forced to sacrifice their lives to defend their people. But theirs is the valiant fight, and they will die with the dignity rewarded to those who acted when history called on them to act. Their deaths may be involuntary, but they are justified. In some ways I feel worse for the Russian soldiers, because what are they dying for? Putin? More land? Old grudges? I see Russian soldiers' deaths just as saddening as Ukrainian soldiers' deaths. I believe 20 years from now, those soldiers who have survived from both sides will look into the eyes of their children and see then what I see now. I believe those who pressed the buttons will regret that they were put in that position, and know that as justified as they were in that moment, they were not killing the enemy; they were killing the victims. The enemy was the Russian ideology - Putin's ideology - and both Ukranian and Russian soldiers were falling victim to the same war criminals. Change my view. | As far as practical implications are concerned, I don't know how you can believe this:
> I 100% support Ukraine's right to defend herself from foreign invaders. I 100% support the Ukranian soldiers using whatever means they have to defend their homeland, families, and freedom as a sovereign nation.
And this at the same time:
>I feel just as bad for Russian soldiers as I do for Ukranian soldiers
I'm not saying we should forget that the Russians are human beings, but one group is defending their home. One is an invader. If you support Ukraine, you're picking a side. You can *say* hold an equal amount of feel bad, but at the end of the day, you're already chosen which side should dish out more cruelty.
---
I do. Ukraine doesn’t have a choice, and neither does Russia, because until the Russian people overthrow their government, their people are sacrificing their young people. I support Ukraine. I’m not forced to pick a side. I don’t “support Russia,” but I don’t believe all Russian soldiers are fighting a war they believe in, and I do believe some of them are being forced to their death by their government and those who allow it to stay in power.
---
> neither does Russia… I don’t believe Russian soldiers are fighting a war they believe in
It seems like you think the russian army is made up of conscripts who were press ganged into service — it is not.
> [volunteers - civilians who joined the armed forces after the start of the war - now make up the highest number of people killed on the battlefield since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022.](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr3255gpjgo.amp) | Those men you feel sorry for were happy to kill innocent men, women and children.
They killed helpless prisoners with hammers. They cut off their body parts. They killed those who were innocent. The burned people alive.
They were happy to kill for those Russian ideas.
If your path to bettering yourself is to kill a child than you don't have a moral ground to stand on.
There was a border. They chose to cross it and commit violence. I do not wish death on any Russian. But once they cross the border with intent to do harm their lives are forfeit.
---
Haha you're right. Fuck those conscripts fighting against their will.
We totally saw them commit atrocities from our absolutely reliable non-propaganda news feeds. How do I know we aren't being fed propaganda? Obviously the only ones getting propaganda are the Russian shill-bots.
---
As they cross a border with intent to harm, yes.
May they have quick and peaceful deaths. But may they die to a man.
Russia attacked. They fired the first shots. They chose to commit violence.
Those ideas exist. Even if you wish they didn't. | 1jhr0cu | CMV: I feel just as bad for Russian soldiers as I do for Ukranian soldiers. Both sides deserve our compassion for the individuals being sacrificed. | I'm American, far out of harm's way of the Russian-Ukranian war. I 100% support Ukraine's right to defend herself from foreign invaders. I 100% support the Ukranian soldiers using whatever means they have to defend their homeland, families, and freedom as a sovereign nation. When I began watching battle footage, and specifically the myriad of Ukranian drone strikes on Russian infantry, I was rooting for Ukraine all the way. I got pumped up by the background music, I couldn't stop looking for the next video of drones hunting Russian soldiers, and the ensuing carnage. I believe I even laughed a few times at the madness of watching a tiny drone - something I can buy from Amazon - chasing a grown man around and around a truck or tank or tree, until it finally struck with a small but deadly explosion. I watched many dozens of Russian soldiers die - some instantly and some slowly.
Then recently, while doomscrolling for the most recent drone carnage, I realized I couldn't watch anymore. I no longer looked at the men being killed as deadly foreign invading soldiers. After watching so many hide, and run, and get killed trying to save their fellow soldiers, I began to see these soldiers, mostly men, as victims. I started to ask myself, why would that guy go back to stop the other guy's bleeding? Why would those four try to carry out the wounded one? Don't they know they're about to all be blown up? Haven't they watched the same videos on Reddit and YouTube? Don't they know that after the first grenade is dropped or the first kamikaze drone strikes, the Ukranians have a bunch more coming, and you won't outrun them or be able to hide from them? I saw the faces of these young men, and in one instance a young woman, and saw their realization that there's no hope left. I saw them desperately try to outrun, then out maneuver, then incredibly sadly, try to swipe at or shoot at their stalking death, like one lashes out at a stalking wasp in frustration. I began to understand that before these soldiers felt the first explosion, the concussion of the blast, and the molten shrapnel ripping through their bodies, they had young peoples' hope; they could not have really understood what awaited them. The second grenade was always the hardest to watch. That was the one right next to their face or legs or directly on their back as they were already on the ground struggling to make sense of what was happening. Watching a young man or woman writhe in pain and sometimes wave towards the sky for something other than certain death, only to be blown apart one, or two, or three more times, made me ask, who in their right mind would ever volunteer for this or stick with this? No air support, ancient vehicles, poor armor, no way to run or hide from a radar-evading toy equipped with enough explosives to rip you in half...why wouldn't you throw your guns down and surrender, or even more sensibly, avoid signing up in the first place?
Then I learned that these Russian soldiers were put into an impossible situation. They were drafted - involuntary service (sacrifice). As 18, 19, 20 year old boys/girls, they stood strong looking into the wet eyes of their mother; they showed their courage and desire for honor to their father, and off they went in their buses, destined to be abandoned to death. I watched starved Russian soldiers attacked by their fellow countryman for wanting to surrender. I've seen soldiers walk out of bunkers to meet death head on, as the last voluntary act of an ultimately involuntary end. I watched a number of drone-wounded Russian soldiers calmly put their rifle to their chin and blow their brains out.
Can you imagine being a kid, your brain not even fully developed yet, forced to fight for Putin's nonsense, abandoned in a field, hungry and left to die, hunted down by another kid, piloting a video game of your death? In a different time, you and that kid could be playing soccer together, or playing Fortnite against each other from your college dorm room. Now you're attempting to occupy his land at the demand of a dictator, and he's laughing as he watches you crawl under a tree with your legs blown off, as he presses a button which will kill you. Your life, your memories, your pictures from kindergarten, the trinkets in your drawer from just a few years ago, the journal entry you wrote about that girl you like and what you want to be when you're grown up - all of it destroyed by Putin and his scared-shitless henchmen. You're sacrificed, for nothing. A few years from now, none of it will matter, and neither will you, because your healthy and strong body was ripped apart by a grenade and a toy.
You can tell me they have a choice. What choice? Be the guy who says "no"? Bring "dishonor" to yourself, to your family, to your father or uncle who served is some other pointless conflict, and to your mother who knows she must raise iron tough children or else she'll be outcast from society? Have the government arrest you and execute you or send you to Siberia for 10-20 years hard labor? Do you honestly think a 23 year old "man" is going to say no, given the pressure Russian government, society, and culture has placed on him? No, he will fight. He will stand strong and be courageous, regardless of the reason. Wouldn't American young men and women do the same if government, society, and their peers placed such pressures on them? So they go, and give their best, and they carry out their pointless protocol across an empty field, as if acres of land mattered more than years of parenting, schooling, friendship, birthdays, careers, generosity, mentoring, role-modeling, and all of the things that make us human. And it's in that final look up, and that final peace that comes over them after the pain and suffering has subsided, that they realize their task was pointless, and they gave their lives for the pathetic egos of other men, who just happened to get higher up the bullshit ladder before them.
I do not blame young Ukranian men and women (boys and girls) for killing young Russian men and women (boys and girls). I blame Russian "men" and "women" for forcing their young men and women to the slaughter. I'm a man and I have young boys of my own. I've been around long enough to know that there are, in fact, a few things worth dying for. Putin's ego is not one of them. I don't believe Russian soldiers have a choice. They are not defending their homeland and families and freedom. They are not liberating a repressed people from a tyrant. They are not storming a beach to go on the offensive and save the world from a genocidal ideologue. They are kids, born into an oppressive regime, sacrificed by an egomaniac in an ivory tower.
I feel horrible for the Ukranian people and their soldiers who have been forced to sacrifice their lives to defend their people. But theirs is the valiant fight, and they will die with the dignity rewarded to those who acted when history called on them to act. Their deaths may be involuntary, but they are justified. In some ways I feel worse for the Russian soldiers, because what are they dying for? Putin? More land? Old grudges? I see Russian soldiers' deaths just as saddening as Ukrainian soldiers' deaths. I believe 20 years from now, those soldiers who have survived from both sides will look into the eyes of their children and see then what I see now. I believe those who pressed the buttons will regret that they were put in that position, and know that as justified as they were in that moment, they were not killing the enemy; they were killing the victims. The enemy was the Russian ideology - Putin's ideology - and both Ukranian and Russian soldiers were falling victim to the same war criminals. Change my view. | Illustrious-Web-1883 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "KokonutMonkey",
"id": "mj9i1bp",
"score": 22,
"text": "As far as practical implications are concerned, I don't know how you can believe this:\n\n> I 100% support Ukraine's right to defend herself from foreign invaders. I 100% support the Ukranian soldiers using whatever means they have ... | [
{
"author": "anewleaf1234",
"id": "mj9f4ll",
"score": 41,
"text": "Those men you feel sorry for were happy to kill innocent men, women and children. \n\nThey killed helpless prisoners with hammers. They cut off their body parts. They killed those who were innocent. The burned people alive. \n\nThey ... | [
"mj9i1bp",
"mj9ju2t",
"mjagozj"
] | [
"mj9f4ll",
"mj9fr52",
"mj9g2ph"
] |
CMV: I might as well humor the possibility of evolution being "impossible"
So my delivery guy, being a middle-aged white guy in Texas, discreetly handed me this small pamphlet titled "Evolution Impossible". It appears to be based upon [this book](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15127587-evolution-impossible) and distributed by the Hope Channel, a network owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. In it, it refutes some science that is usually placed in opposition to religion: the possibility of "large-scale evolution", the accuracy of carbon-14 dating, and the ability of life to generate spontaneously.
I, not being too well-versed in biology, cannot personally refute or support these arguments to a convincing degree. So while I've always passively accepted scientific theories (at least as much as science respects its own theories that are not yet law) I don't often find the need to actively defend or refute them, so my handle on this topic isn't very strong. *I'd like some second opinions on the matter, mostly on the evolution.*
**On Evolution**
So the gist of the evolution segment is that "Scientists today still cannot produce evidence demonstrating that large-scale evolution is even possible". The pamphlet concedes that small evolutionary changes for adaptation do occur and are observed, as a result of mutations in DNA. It follows by saying that the more drastic changes that can change the order of an organism over a long period of time has never been observed. It contrasts the simpler changes such as the development of the Nylonase in micro-organisms through mutation to the mutations that would be required for a fish to change into an amphibian.
*"It is not merely a matter of having enough time for many small changes to accumulate. even the smallest steps would require such huge genetic changes that many honest scientists have concluded it is so improbable as to be essentially impossible..."*
That mostly sums up the core argument. I know my personal opinion is what matters here, but honestly due to my knowledge being rather limited I can't claim that I have any knowledge of observed drastic evolution having changed a species under observation. I know of the differences that Darwin recorded on Galapagos, in the differing structure of bird beaks and the like, and I also know that some drastic mutations actually do occur, even in humans, so it doesn't seem right to rule them out. (e.g Gigantism, extra limbs). And I don't want to leave my understanding of the theory at that, so anyone wanna help me out?
*"Furthermore, DNA has inbuilt repair functions designed to limit major mutations. DNA is actually designed to prevent the evolution of a new type of organism."*
As a side note, this section's logic seems iffy to me. DNA doesn't always work in the same way, hence the mutations, which means either the "design" failed or the mutation is part of the "design". Then the concept of design is rather irrelevant.
**On Carbon Dating**
This relatively short section wants to address the inaccuracy of carbon-dating. It begins with an anecdote on a particular rock formation in the Grand Canyon yielding age ranges from 516 million to 1588 million years old when subjected to different dating methods. It asserts that this inaccuracy is a major flaw in asserting the Earth is millions of years old.
(But that kind of variance seems standard in real-life scientific measurements when you're dealing with such large numbers. To be able to get within an order of magnitude is quite sufficient for the theory proposed (that the Earth is millions of years old.))
Another anecdote speaks of the dating used on volcanic rocks formed in a New Zealand eruption in the 1950s, the result being that the rocks were measured at millions of years old rather than fifty.
The last point refers to the method of Carbon-14 Dating, "the only method that actually dates the fossils and not merely the rocks around them", and how it only yields data in the thousands of years.
I know even less about dating than evolution are these points more refutable or addressable than I know of? Should I just keep living in passive vague apathy on these issues?
*That's about all I was concerned about, what follows is context and useless fluff.*
I have a soft spot for addressing other viewpoints, and it just bothers me right now that I can't do so as well as I'd like. Sorry if this is the wrong sub, it seemed kind of fitting since I wanna give a fair shot to both views. I tried to search for this subreddit's policy for "on the fence" people, but everyone in that comment section is [on the fence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfb0l/meta_is_this_subreddit_an_appropriate_place_for/)
Usually the people who pass out these pamphlets give up their time/effort/dignity to watch them go into the trash, so I always like to give them a read and a thought. Last week I read a pamphlet on Veganism, agreed with every point except "you can still eat delicious foods!" and then decided to ignore it. Anyways, this guy probably shouldn't be passing these out on the job, but I imagine his mindset is something like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYKQwMZnGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m32s).
Edit: A parentheses.
Edit 2: Because I appear to be scaring too many of you, I should qualify that I do definitely believe in evolution, and understand it insofar that it is a combination of genetic variation and natural selection. I was simply at a loss as to how to address these points specifically, and I don't want to believe in something simply because it's convenient for me and backed up by many experts/scientists. And that's not a disdain for experts that some people hold, I hold them in the highest esteem and do trust the word of the experienced, but I'd much rather believe something because I know it for myself.
> *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!* | > The pamphlet concedes that small evolutionary changes for adaptation do occur and are observed, as a result of mutations in DNA.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I think I have a handle on the very basics.
This is exactly what evolution is. A bunch of tiny, mostly random changes in DNA over a long long long period of time resulting in adaptions, sometimes to the point of a new species coming into existence.
We have observed empirically large scale evolution in the fossil record. We observe a bunch of tiny changes in the genus homo for thousands of years resulting in homo sapiens.
---
>A bunch of tiny, mostly random changes in DNA over a long long long period of time resulting in adaptions, sometimes to the point of a new species coming into existence.
The pamphlet qualifies with this:
"It is not merely a matter of having enough time for many small changes to accumulate. even the smallest steps would require such huge genetic changes that many honest scientists have concluded it is so improbable as to be essentially impossible..."
Basically it's a, "nuh-uh."
I'm not familiar with the contents of the fossil records though, that sounds promising. What kind of large scale evolution is observed there?
---
>It is possible to decipher how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil record in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils typical for a specific time period when they formed. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Fossil_record)
That is the general process. The article I linked actually goes into far more depth, so I definitely encourage you to follow the link and take a look. And, as always, the citations are a nice place to look for more scientific rigor: that is, the papers where the scientists presented their findings, hopefully including relevant data in tables and charts. | I think that pamphlet can essentially be boiled down to one argument:
"There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution, therefore, evolution is impossible." Which I think is logically wrong.
There is a difference between a *lack* of evidence, and evidence that disproves. I think scientists will be the first to admit that if rock solid evidence that disproves evolution shows up, they will change their views (the level of scrutiny for such evidence would be massive however).
However, whenever I deal with people who say Evolution isn't real (typically to push the idea of Creationism). I think back to a debate had between Ken Ham and Bill Nye ([Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)).
In it, Bill Nye basically said that should evidence that contradicts Evolution come up, then he'd be willing to change his views. Ken Ham however says something along the lines that no matter what comes up, he will refuse to change his views. And while that doesn't inform you on the value/merit of their argument, it somewhat informs you with the level of stubbornness you are dealing with, and the extent that they would be willing to go to try and impose their views on reality.
Edit: On a side note, iirc major evolution occurs over a long period of time, its the sum of many tiny changes. So of course there is no recorded instance of major evolution in human history. The timeframe is too big, and humans haven't been around nearly long enough for that.
---
Yes, you're right, the pamphlet is obviously trying to push creationism. In fact I left out the last paragraph of the evolution part where it does, for tastefulness. ("Why not consider what the holy bible claims?")
>"There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution, therefore, evolution is impossible." Which I think is logically wrong.
Well, then the creationist would likely say that the first part is enough. "There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution", that seems rather damning for evolution, then it's on the level of everything else that has little evidence but is not technically "impossible". "There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution, why not consider what the holy bible claims?". Like that.
>So of course there is no recorded instance of major evolution in human history.
This seems more like a creationist argument than an evolution supporting one. You can even stick "Why not consider what the holy bible claims?" at the end of it.
>and the extent that they would be willing to go to try and impose their views on reality.
Yes, exactly which is why I appreciate this pamphlet in particular for attempting to address the science, and saving part about "Satan's plan" until the end.
---
>"There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution", that seems rather damning for evolution
Setting aside the fact that there *is* plenty of evidence, do you have a better-supported theory? | 78d2yj | CMV: I might as well humor the possibility of evolution being "impossible" | So my delivery guy, being a middle-aged white guy in Texas, discreetly handed me this small pamphlet titled "Evolution Impossible". It appears to be based upon [this book](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15127587-evolution-impossible) and distributed by the Hope Channel, a network owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. In it, it refutes some science that is usually placed in opposition to religion: the possibility of "large-scale evolution", the accuracy of carbon-14 dating, and the ability of life to generate spontaneously.
I, not being too well-versed in biology, cannot personally refute or support these arguments to a convincing degree. So while I've always passively accepted scientific theories (at least as much as science respects its own theories that are not yet law) I don't often find the need to actively defend or refute them, so my handle on this topic isn't very strong. *I'd like some second opinions on the matter, mostly on the evolution.*
**On Evolution**
So the gist of the evolution segment is that "Scientists today still cannot produce evidence demonstrating that large-scale evolution is even possible". The pamphlet concedes that small evolutionary changes for adaptation do occur and are observed, as a result of mutations in DNA. It follows by saying that the more drastic changes that can change the order of an organism over a long period of time has never been observed. It contrasts the simpler changes such as the development of the Nylonase in micro-organisms through mutation to the mutations that would be required for a fish to change into an amphibian.
*"It is not merely a matter of having enough time for many small changes to accumulate. even the smallest steps would require such huge genetic changes that many honest scientists have concluded it is so improbable as to be essentially impossible..."*
That mostly sums up the core argument. I know my personal opinion is what matters here, but honestly due to my knowledge being rather limited I can't claim that I have any knowledge of observed drastic evolution having changed a species under observation. I know of the differences that Darwin recorded on Galapagos, in the differing structure of bird beaks and the like, and I also know that some drastic mutations actually do occur, even in humans, so it doesn't seem right to rule them out. (e.g Gigantism, extra limbs). And I don't want to leave my understanding of the theory at that, so anyone wanna help me out?
*"Furthermore, DNA has inbuilt repair functions designed to limit major mutations. DNA is actually designed to prevent the evolution of a new type of organism."*
As a side note, this section's logic seems iffy to me. DNA doesn't always work in the same way, hence the mutations, which means either the "design" failed or the mutation is part of the "design". Then the concept of design is rather irrelevant.
**On Carbon Dating**
This relatively short section wants to address the inaccuracy of carbon-dating. It begins with an anecdote on a particular rock formation in the Grand Canyon yielding age ranges from 516 million to 1588 million years old when subjected to different dating methods. It asserts that this inaccuracy is a major flaw in asserting the Earth is millions of years old.
(But that kind of variance seems standard in real-life scientific measurements when you're dealing with such large numbers. To be able to get within an order of magnitude is quite sufficient for the theory proposed (that the Earth is millions of years old.))
Another anecdote speaks of the dating used on volcanic rocks formed in a New Zealand eruption in the 1950s, the result being that the rocks were measured at millions of years old rather than fifty.
The last point refers to the method of Carbon-14 Dating, "the only method that actually dates the fossils and not merely the rocks around them", and how it only yields data in the thousands of years.
I know even less about dating than evolution are these points more refutable or addressable than I know of? Should I just keep living in passive vague apathy on these issues?
*That's about all I was concerned about, what follows is context and useless fluff.*
I have a soft spot for addressing other viewpoints, and it just bothers me right now that I can't do so as well as I'd like. Sorry if this is the wrong sub, it seemed kind of fitting since I wanna give a fair shot to both views. I tried to search for this subreddit's policy for "on the fence" people, but everyone in that comment section is [on the fence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfb0l/meta_is_this_subreddit_an_appropriate_place_for/)
Usually the people who pass out these pamphlets give up their time/effort/dignity to watch them go into the trash, so I always like to give them a read and a thought. Last week I read a pamphlet on Veganism, agreed with every point except "you can still eat delicious foods!" and then decided to ignore it. Anyways, this guy probably shouldn't be passing these out on the job, but I imagine his mindset is something like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYKQwMZnGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m32s).
Edit: A parentheses.
Edit 2: Because I appear to be scaring too many of you, I should qualify that I do definitely believe in evolution, and understand it insofar that it is a combination of genetic variation and natural selection. I was simply at a loss as to how to address these points specifically, and I don't want to believe in something simply because it's convenient for me and backed up by many experts/scientists. And that's not a disdain for experts that some people hold, I hold them in the highest esteem and do trust the word of the experienced, but I'd much rather believe something because I know it for myself.
> *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!* | Excalibursin | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "icecoldbath",
"id": "doswwgj",
"score": 19,
"text": "> The pamphlet concedes that small evolutionary changes for adaptation do occur and are observed, as a result of mutations in DNA.\n\nI'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I think I have a handle on the very basics.\n\nThis is exactl... | [
{
"author": "food_phil",
"id": "dosx44n",
"score": 7,
"text": "I think that pamphlet can essentially be boiled down to one argument:\n\n\"There isn't enough evidence that supports evolution, therefore, evolution is impossible.\" Which I think is logically wrong.\n\nThere is a difference between a *l... | [
"doswwgj",
"dosyrsu",
"dot00hv"
] | [
"dosx44n",
"dosydx0",
"dosyq67"
] |
CMV: America is not exceptional bastion of freedom anymore
A comedian once said something along the lines: I don't get why everyone here is so excited and proud about American freedom. Like yeah, we got freedom. But so does almost everybody else. America is free, sure. So is UK. Canada is free. France is free. Germany is free. Australia and New Zealand are free. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Spain are free. Japan is free. Belgium is free. So get over it.
EDIT: This was the clip I was thinking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA
I agree with him. I understand that in 18th and 19th century USA was exceptional compared to the rest of the world. I understand the historical perspective. But that is not case anymore, has not been in a long while, but still, to this day, Americans spout their freedom-liturgy in news and politics to the annoyance of the rest of the world. I feel like many Americans still believe in that their country is exceptional is some freedom-index, and therefore superior, but I disagree.
What freedoms Americans have that rest of the developed world does not? Speech? Nope. Religion? No-no. I can only think of that your laws about carrying guns are more lenient than elsewhere. But many countries have freedoms Americans do not.
An example: Freedom of movement in nature. In Nordic countries (where I am from) everyone can go to ~~public~~ forests and hang around there, making camp, picking up berries and mushrooms or firewood, and as long as you do not disturb others or nature, it is your right to be there. As I am aware, this is not a thing in USA, but very much a basic freedom here in Nordic countries. If there is a forest or a hill, you are allowed to go there and stay. No one will threaten to shoot you for doing so.
Another example: Political freedom. USA is a two-party system. You can vote for other parties too, but in reality your political leaders and lawmakers always come from either party. You either vote one of them, or whoever you voted is not elected. Many other countries are not two-party systems. If either/none of the current parties appease you or fit your agenda, you can vote for a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) party and chances are they can become big enough to get into the government. There are many recent examples of this, former fringe-parties gaining popularity with changing times and gaining responsibility for the country too. In USA this is only theoretical possibility. Like in some former communist countries, where you could vote, but if you did not vote the party favored candidate, you vote did not actually matter and your candidate did not get elected.
One more example: Freedom to use drugs recreationally. Netherlands (where my brother-in-law is from) is the classic example. You want to smoke weed without getting arrested? Go ahead, in Netherlands there are many places you can do so. In USA prisons are full of drug-users.
Also the big thing is the American dream. But American dream has not been true or exceptional for many, many years. It is less true in America than many other places, as USA's social mobility is in fact, low. If you are American you are less likely to change your social position by hard work, than in many other developed countries. Not more likely, less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Social_mobility_is_lower_in_more_unequal_countries.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png
So, you know, America is fine. Good on freedoms, not bad on social mobility. Before you guys were exemplary, now the rest of the world has caught up. So, can we please tone down the rhetoric a bit? CMV!
EDIT: So far the best arguments have been about freedom of speech. Consider my view at least partly changed.
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.
_____
> *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!* | 1. You talk about US gun freedoms as if they're only better in minor ways. Where I live anyone over 18 can own a gun that isn't semiautomatic or a revolver. At 21 you can own semiautomatics, revolvers and are eligible to apply for further permits. Concealed carry permits are relatively easy and cheap to get but getting licenses for automatic weapons is very expensive and difficult. Gun rights are what all other rights are based on. If someone can take your guns it becomes very easy to take other rights afterwards. How could you successfully violently revolt against an oppressive government without them?
2. With regard to being able to have the right to access nature in Nordic countries and France and getting shot in the US, I'm seeing a huge misconception. The US has 211,000km^2 of national parks which aren't arctic like most Nordic land. This is almost half the total area of Sweden or 5x the area of mainland Denmark. The reason you'll get shot in much of the US is because the land belongs to private individuals and intruding without permission is trespassing. The person who owns the land has the right to keep traffic out of it and also to have privacy on his ow property. I live in the rural south and it's basically all dense subtropical woodland and swamps. Hunting and fishing are very popular here and I'm absolutely sure people from my culture spend much more time on average in nature than modern citizens of Nordic countries. Large portions of the population hunt and it's not uncommon to make it into a tree by sunrise so you can get a kill before you have to be in the office or worksite. Land is so plentiful here that it's not difficult at all to get access to extensive wilderness. All you have to do is ask permission. The Appalachian trail is something else you should look into. It runs from northern Georgia in the Deep South all the way to Maine near the Canadian border. There are very many people who live off the grid and live in Appalachia. Access to nature and freedom to move in nature is very high in the US and includes more diverse environments than the whole of the European continent. At the same time the property right of private individuals must be respected.
3. Freedom of speech is far more expansive in the US than in any other country. People are arrested for hate speech in Europe that doesn't even call for violence. This is horrible and means you have absolutely no freedom of speech. As much as you might not like holocaust denial, Islamaphobia and other things deemed illegal in Europe, making any speech puts the government in the position of determining what types of speech is appropriate and which is harmful. This is a power no government or organization should ever have. Now we see Germany starting to ban fake news. While I understand a distaste for misleading articles being propagated as truth, in order to regulate these things your government must establish some sort of ministry of truth. Once again this is an authority that no organization and especially no government should ever be allowed to have. Always remember that popular speech doesn't need protection. The only measure of a society's freedom of speech is to what degree unpopular speech is allowed.
4. I understand what you're saying about social mobility and that there are statistics that I've read myself that confirm this. Social mobility isn't really considered a freedom in the US but is intrinsically tied to The American Dream which is a separate concept. One benefit that we enjoy in the US is lower rates of taxation which could be argued to be greater freedom of choice over the fruit of ones own labor.
5. In all Nordic countries there exists systems of mandatory government service. The US has a draft but it's only used in times of particular need. It is only used for major wars and hasn't been invoked since the Vietnam war. This is a violation of very basic human freedom to control how they spend their time and energy. The entire US government consists entirely of volunteer (not as in unpaid) workers.
6. Labor unions are far less prevalent in the US. Government support for labor unions is far lower. While there are benefits to labor unions they also violate the freedoms of many individuals outside of the labor union. For example if I were a French factory worker who was willing to work for a lower wage than union workers or because I'm fundamentally ideologically opposed to labor unions, then it's a violation of my personal freedom for the government to stop me from being able to do this. It is also a violation of the rights of the owner of the factory because the government is not letting him be free to control his own means of production.
In conclusion the US is by far the most free nation on the planet.
---
1 Yes, gun rights are more lenient in the states. But it is not like they are non-existing in other places. You can still own a gun in Finland, you just have to go through more legal proceedings.
2 I think the point is not fair. America is big place, bigger than all of Europe combined, and with much less population. The fact you have more nature, well, d'oh. But freedom to roam, as it is in parts of Europe, you do not have. You value the rights of land-owners more, and that is fair. You trade freedom for something else valuable. Just like Europeans value less gun-violence over less legal hoops for gun-owners.
3 Europeans have no freedom of speech? That is like saying that America does not freedom of movement, because you imprison people who break laws. If you use your rights against others or to harm others, you can be punished accordingly. This is true in every country in the world. Yeah, where I come from (Finland) hate speech is viewed as a form of abuse and you can be fined in some rare, extreme cases. And I have to remind you that not that long ago, America imprisoned people who spread socialist/marxist ideas.
5 Some countries have mandatory services, Finland certainly has. Most European countries however don't, to my knowledge.
6 Some countries have strong labor union presence they have to take into account when making political decisions and laws. But they do not have legislative power, they are workers lobbyists. Not different that US politicians taking into account big corporations or minorities when making laws. Think them as one lobbyist among others.
As a counter-point: In Nordic countries we have no minimum wage. It is to my knowledge that USA has.
---
Commenting on point two, I still don't think you get how much land is available for this roaming. I would like to understand more about it though, do you have a link to the laws or documentation of the right to access other peoples' land?
Only taking into account BLM managed lands where you can do literally almost anything from mining and grazing to camping and hunting, over 10% of the country is completely open to roam.
Adding in the other federal lands administered by the forest service, and national parks service, and over 20% of the land is open for the public at the federal level.
There are also many more State, county, or municipal lands that are open.
When it comes to accessing these areas vie the property of others laws vary by locality. For example, there was a prairie reserve behind our property growing up. It was also a horse neighborhood. That meant that the last ten yards of all property was open easement, with another easement between every three houses.
The only places that you are going to have people just shooting at you are pretty rare to start, and typical there is a reason. The person has been harassed, or is protecting land being worked in some way.
In addition, there are the national scenic trails that plot hundreds to thousands of miles of footpaths allowing freedom of movement by foot.
I really think that being able to just pitch your tent in some one else's yard all willy nilly is the crazier idea, and not being forced to quarter strangers was one of the principles that our nation was founded on. | >So, you know, America is fine. Good on freedoms, not bad on social mobility. Before you guys were exemplary, now the rest of the world has caught up. So, can we please tone down the rhetoric a bit?
I'll concede your point if you agree that the rest of the world doesn't need the benefit of the U.S. military policing international territories, or paying for the U.N. How much worse off is Europe if Trump decides to pull out of NATO and stops funding the UN?
Which country is going to step into the void when the US decides not to do anything about North Korea's nuclear program and pulls out of the south China sea? If Canada or the UK wants to step in, I'd be happy to let them.
---
I feel like that is a separate point. People are not saying "yeah, America is POWERFUL and STRONG!", which it undoubtedly is. People are saying "yeah, we are FREE!"
---
Not really. A country can only remain free if it is protected from less free outside powers.
I'm saying that by being strong and powerful, the U.S. is doing more for freedom in the entire world, than those other countries. So while the "freedom score" or whatever of living in other countries is comparable now, many other countries positively benefit in freedom because the US is willing to pay so much money and put their lives at risk for that freedom. | 6ithkj | CMV: America is not exceptional bastion of freedom anymore | A comedian once said something along the lines: I don't get why everyone here is so excited and proud about American freedom. Like yeah, we got freedom. But so does almost everybody else. America is free, sure. So is UK. Canada is free. France is free. Germany is free. Australia and New Zealand are free. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Spain are free. Japan is free. Belgium is free. So get over it.
EDIT: This was the clip I was thinking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA
I agree with him. I understand that in 18th and 19th century USA was exceptional compared to the rest of the world. I understand the historical perspective. But that is not case anymore, has not been in a long while, but still, to this day, Americans spout their freedom-liturgy in news and politics to the annoyance of the rest of the world. I feel like many Americans still believe in that their country is exceptional is some freedom-index, and therefore superior, but I disagree.
What freedoms Americans have that rest of the developed world does not? Speech? Nope. Religion? No-no. I can only think of that your laws about carrying guns are more lenient than elsewhere. But many countries have freedoms Americans do not.
An example: Freedom of movement in nature. In Nordic countries (where I am from) everyone can go to ~~public~~ forests and hang around there, making camp, picking up berries and mushrooms or firewood, and as long as you do not disturb others or nature, it is your right to be there. As I am aware, this is not a thing in USA, but very much a basic freedom here in Nordic countries. If there is a forest or a hill, you are allowed to go there and stay. No one will threaten to shoot you for doing so.
Another example: Political freedom. USA is a two-party system. You can vote for other parties too, but in reality your political leaders and lawmakers always come from either party. You either vote one of them, or whoever you voted is not elected. Many other countries are not two-party systems. If either/none of the current parties appease you or fit your agenda, you can vote for a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) party and chances are they can become big enough to get into the government. There are many recent examples of this, former fringe-parties gaining popularity with changing times and gaining responsibility for the country too. In USA this is only theoretical possibility. Like in some former communist countries, where you could vote, but if you did not vote the party favored candidate, you vote did not actually matter and your candidate did not get elected.
One more example: Freedom to use drugs recreationally. Netherlands (where my brother-in-law is from) is the classic example. You want to smoke weed without getting arrested? Go ahead, in Netherlands there are many places you can do so. In USA prisons are full of drug-users.
Also the big thing is the American dream. But American dream has not been true or exceptional for many, many years. It is less true in America than many other places, as USA's social mobility is in fact, low. If you are American you are less likely to change your social position by hard work, than in many other developed countries. Not more likely, less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Social_mobility_is_lower_in_more_unequal_countries.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png
So, you know, America is fine. Good on freedoms, not bad on social mobility. Before you guys were exemplary, now the rest of the world has caught up. So, can we please tone down the rhetoric a bit? CMV!
EDIT: So far the best arguments have been about freedom of speech. Consider my view at least partly changed.
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.
_____
> *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!* | This_The_Last_Time | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ThePerfectHotSauce",
"id": "dj90u5b",
"score": 45,
"text": "1. You talk about US gun freedoms as if they're only better in minor ways. Where I live anyone over 18 can own a gun that isn't semiautomatic or a revolver. At 21 you can own semiautomatics, revolvers and are eligible to apply ... | [
{
"author": "neofederalist",
"id": "dj8wum8",
"score": 19,
"text": ">So, you know, America is fine. Good on freedoms, not bad on social mobility. Before you guys were exemplary, now the rest of the world has caught up. So, can we please tone down the rhetoric a bit?\n\nI'll concede your point if you... | [
"dj90u5b",
"dj9dvuh",
"dj9kcyy"
] | [
"dj8wum8",
"dj8xapi",
"dj8xio0"
] |
CMV: Putin and Trump have formed an alliance to carve up the world
From a foreign policy perspective the world is split between a Russian and American sphere of influence (there are other spheres of influence but those are the two largest and most contentious). America has been destroying its own sphere of influence, antagonizing allies in Europe who make our wars in the Middle East possible and have even fought alongside us, threatening neighbors to the point where relationships have been permanently damaged.
The Middle East is the most contentious region when it comes to US/Russian foreign policy so this seems like a really stupid move, unless the paradigm has shifted to an extreme degree. Heck, even without our allies strategic importance we still lose a ton of political power not having them on our side.
It does not make sense for Trump/MAGA to give up all that power for no reason, unless they have a backup plan to obtain HARD power in exchange for losing SOFT power.
From everything I have seen it seems like Trump has been very favorable to Putin's interests since the very beginning, even when they interfere with US interests abroad. Back in 2015 he even took on American Imperialism/The Military Industrial Complex by having the GOP change their party platform to reduce support for Ukraine. Agree or disagree with this move, it was certainly an odd one for Trump to be so fixated on.
All his talk of being against foreign wars is nonsense, he employed far more drone strikes than Obama did and is currently helping Israel/Saudi Arabia with their Houthi/Iranian problem. Now he's talking about invading Panama, Canada, Greenland and Mexico so...not quite the isolationist he portrayed himself as.
Meanwhile Europe is fully aware Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine. All these peace talks are just both sides buying time while they prepare their next moves. Ukraine will not give up territory and Trump/Putin will not agree to peace until they do (and even then they won't stick with that peace which is why Ukraine can't accept that peace.)
I don't know how much they'll actually try to conquer or whether they'll just demand filet but it seems pretty clear they've decided who gets what ahead of time and will use whatever power they have to try and get that.
Really looking forward to having my mind changed because if this is true it really sucks lol
| Trump has been favourable to Putin but there is no evidence that Putin has given 1 single thing up for Trump
He is just using a frankly desperate and incompetent negotiating team the US has fielded to sow division in the West and create obstacles for Ukraine
---
But why? Why is Trump hurting himself and his power to help Putin?
Why are so many powerful people going along with it?
---
He's compromised. Plain and simple. Trump is a Russian agent.
---
That’s my opinion but I’m here to have it changed lol. I personally think all Putin had to say was “look at how rich and powerful I am! I’ll show you the ropes, I’ll scratch your back and you’ll scratch mine.” Don’t think it had to be any more complicated than that.
---
I think the difference from your view point here is that things are not better than you think, they are worse.
Trump is actually dumb enough and desperate for praise enough that he has given all of the power to Putin. There is nothing for Trump. Trump has traded everything away for vague non-promises that it will be better for him somehow.
But Trump and Putin are not carving up the world together. Trump is doing whatever Putin says so he can have the privilege of watching Putin eat the whole cake in front of him. He is not a partner, he is a mark or a sub.
And yes, this does mean Putin will kill him the second he has no more world to give him. Trump might even know that and not care. He wants to be dominated that bad. | Lmao China could walk into Russia tomorrow and take half the country if it wanted to
---
They thought the same in 1979
---
I didn’t realize it’s still 1979 and Russia’s army hasn’t just been blown to bits
---
Who's fighting then? Ghosts? Idk if you know, but Russians produce more tanks than rest of the world combined. By contrast Germany is producing 10 a year.
---
Lmaooo tanks don’t mean shit in modern warfare and guess which country just lost 10k in the last 3 years…not the Chinese | 1jmtto1 | CMV: Putin and Trump have formed an alliance to carve up the world |
From a foreign policy perspective the world is split between a Russian and American sphere of influence (there are other spheres of influence but those are the two largest and most contentious). America has been destroying its own sphere of influence, antagonizing allies in Europe who make our wars in the Middle East possible and have even fought alongside us, threatening neighbors to the point where relationships have been permanently damaged.
The Middle East is the most contentious region when it comes to US/Russian foreign policy so this seems like a really stupid move, unless the paradigm has shifted to an extreme degree. Heck, even without our allies strategic importance we still lose a ton of political power not having them on our side.
It does not make sense for Trump/MAGA to give up all that power for no reason, unless they have a backup plan to obtain HARD power in exchange for losing SOFT power.
From everything I have seen it seems like Trump has been very favorable to Putin's interests since the very beginning, even when they interfere with US interests abroad. Back in 2015 he even took on American Imperialism/The Military Industrial Complex by having the GOP change their party platform to reduce support for Ukraine. Agree or disagree with this move, it was certainly an odd one for Trump to be so fixated on.
All his talk of being against foreign wars is nonsense, he employed far more drone strikes than Obama did and is currently helping Israel/Saudi Arabia with their Houthi/Iranian problem. Now he's talking about invading Panama, Canada, Greenland and Mexico so...not quite the isolationist he portrayed himself as.
Meanwhile Europe is fully aware Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine. All these peace talks are just both sides buying time while they prepare their next moves. Ukraine will not give up territory and Trump/Putin will not agree to peace until they do (and even then they won't stick with that peace which is why Ukraine can't accept that peace.)
I don't know how much they'll actually try to conquer or whether they'll just demand filet but it seems pretty clear they've decided who gets what ahead of time and will use whatever power they have to try and get that.
Really looking forward to having my mind changed because if this is true it really sucks lol
| maddsskills | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "astral34",
"id": "mkegkrf",
"score": 88,
"text": "Trump has been favourable to Putin but there is no evidence that Putin has given 1 single thing up for Trump \n\nHe is just using a frankly desperate and incompetent negotiating team the US has fielded to sow division in the West and cre... | [
{
"author": "NatureWanderer07",
"id": "mkei26k",
"score": 2,
"text": "Lmao China could walk into Russia tomorrow and take half the country if it wanted to",
"timestamp": 1743276408
},
{
"author": "Fit-Height-6956",
"id": "mkejuj5",
"score": 1,
"text": "They thought the same i... | [
"mkegkrf",
"mkegvr3",
"mkeh6ml",
"mkeijbb",
"mkekaan"
] | [
"mkei26k",
"mkejuj5",
"mkek0ei",
"mkel7ck",
"mkelz87"
] |
CMV: The United States' hierarchy of strength in governance (Strong Federal, Weak State, Weakest Local) is flawed in today's society and should be inverted.
To start off, I understand that this would be a distinct change from our current method of governance, but it's a responsible citizen's duty to look at how we're doing things and consider changes if need be.
With recent events in mind, I've begun to wonder if the method in which we do 'business' as a nation isn't inherently flawed due to a failure to adapt with the times. A strong central government may have been needed in previous eras, but right now it does nothing but intensify corruption, a disconnect from the people and the government, and an ineffectual government working only by manipulation of law instead of actual leadership and governance.
The ideal position would be leveraging technology and the interconnectedness of our reality these days to create a very strong state-level government and a weaker federal-level government. The states would be left to run their affairs more or less independently as they are the ones who are most engaged and involved with the local situation. They know what their local situations are like and thus can govern more effectively, and in ways that a strong federal government cannot because of their proximity. I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much better off with a local, more intrinsically involved government than a 'high overlord' type of federal government that has no idea what's going on in each individual state (let alone county) and attempts to govern blindly.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | >I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much better off with a local, more intrinsically involved government than a 'high overlord' type of federal government that has no idea what's going on in each individual state (let alone county) and attempts to govern blindly.
So I think the core issue you identify seems to be with an increasingly partisan political system, not with the idea of a federal government in general. There are a few things that are easier to do with a federal government, and the economies of scale:
Defense, Epidemiology (would each state have its own CDC? And do its own quarantines?), negation with other foreign countries, etc. Even issues like regulating radio waves is easier at the federal level. Say a cell phone company wants to license a RF band for their cellular network. Do they need to deal with every state they want coverage in? What if they put a transmitter in a state that broadcasts over state lines causing interference? Or what if it was licensed at the local level? Could you even call someone in the next town over?
Could you point to specific issues that would be better performed at the state level rather than the federal one? Because I agree that the federal government needs improvement, but I’m not sure a drastic revamp is the best way to get there.
---
Sure, there are certain things that are better handled at a federal level, and my opinion isn't to simply nix the entire federal level (if it seemed like that I misworded, and I apologize). I believe that partisanship is in part caused by such a 'high overlord' style of government, and that people sitting in a cozy office in DC have no idea what's happening in a state across the nation since they've likely never even set foot there, let alone lived there.
To take your example, it would be down to the specific states on how they want to deal with them. For example, let's say Company A had a transmitter in Michigan that would broadcast into Indiana and Ohio. Company A would have to work with the Michigan government to place the transmitter on their land, and get confirmation and okays from Indiana and Ohio for operation in their area.
Alternatively, the areas of Defense, CDC, Foreign Affairs, and Communications that are often broad-ranging and affect the entire US could be handled by Federal affairs, but situations such as Education, Transportation (aside from interstates and large-scale transportation like rail and air travel), and very local affair things would be handled, well, locally.
Specific issues could include ones such as education, with very broad policies coming out of DC that really do more harm than good at local levels (for example, defunding local schools in Detroit than working with them on a local level that resulted in major collapses in Detroit educational systems) and are seemingly formed from policy-makers having no idea what's actually going on in the local area aside from what they're told by highly-paid advisors.
---
> but situations such as Education, Transportation (aside from interstates and large-scale transportation like rail and air travel), and very local affair things would be handled, well, locally.
As others have said, this is how it works today. What chances are you proposing? | What specific changes are you proposing?
---
I was going to go into specifics but I felt like I'd rambled on enough as it was.
But what I specifically mean are changes giving much more power to local affairs to local governments, like public works (since the local government knows much better what needs to be done where), education (the local governments in Nevada, per se, are more aware of what the situation is than people sitting in an office in DC), and other such social situations.
---
>education (the local governments in Nevada, per se, are more aware of what the situation is than people sitting in an office in DC),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Organization
>The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[3] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[4]
Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts.
So what you teach is already controlled by the states and local governments. The federal government is making sure you teach black students as much well as white students, which seems like a good thing to have a referee for.
edit: I'm not even going to touch infrastructure since that's often handled in grants (or by having the Army Engineer Corps do it in the past, which was super effective). Plus there's the whole public works success in the 1930s... | 6j3b5x | CMV: The United States' hierarchy of strength in governance (Strong Federal, Weak State, Weakest Local) is flawed in today's society and should be inverted. | To start off, I understand that this would be a distinct change from our current method of governance, but it's a responsible citizen's duty to look at how we're doing things and consider changes if need be.
With recent events in mind, I've begun to wonder if the method in which we do 'business' as a nation isn't inherently flawed due to a failure to adapt with the times. A strong central government may have been needed in previous eras, but right now it does nothing but intensify corruption, a disconnect from the people and the government, and an ineffectual government working only by manipulation of law instead of actual leadership and governance.
The ideal position would be leveraging technology and the interconnectedness of our reality these days to create a very strong state-level government and a weaker federal-level government. The states would be left to run their affairs more or less independently as they are the ones who are most engaged and involved with the local situation. They know what their local situations are like and thus can govern more effectively, and in ways that a strong federal government cannot because of their proximity. I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much better off with a local, more intrinsically involved government than a 'high overlord' type of federal government that has no idea what's going on in each individual state (let alone county) and attempts to govern blindly.
_____
> *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!* | AmethystWarlock | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Huntingmoa",
"id": "djb66cd",
"score": 9,
"text": ">I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much b... | [
{
"author": "cupcakesarethedevil",
"id": "djb5wd7",
"score": 3,
"text": "What specific changes are you proposing?",
"timestamp": 1498245279
},
{
"author": "AmethystWarlock",
"id": "djb6440",
"score": 1,
"text": "I was going to go into specifics but I felt like I'd rambled on ... | [
"djb66cd",
"djb6lis",
"djb6u7w"
] | [
"djb5wd7",
"djb6440",
"djb6cnx"
] |
CMV: The United States' hierarchy of strength in governance (Strong Federal, Weak State, Weakest Local) is flawed in today's society and should be inverted.
To start off, I understand that this would be a distinct change from our current method of governance, but it's a responsible citizen's duty to look at how we're doing things and consider changes if need be.
With recent events in mind, I've begun to wonder if the method in which we do 'business' as a nation isn't inherently flawed due to a failure to adapt with the times. A strong central government may have been needed in previous eras, but right now it does nothing but intensify corruption, a disconnect from the people and the government, and an ineffectual government working only by manipulation of law instead of actual leadership and governance.
The ideal position would be leveraging technology and the interconnectedness of our reality these days to create a very strong state-level government and a weaker federal-level government. The states would be left to run their affairs more or less independently as they are the ones who are most engaged and involved with the local situation. They know what their local situations are like and thus can govern more effectively, and in ways that a strong federal government cannot because of their proximity. I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much better off with a local, more intrinsically involved government than a 'high overlord' type of federal government that has no idea what's going on in each individual state (let alone county) and attempts to govern blindly.
_____
> *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!* | What specific changes are you proposing?
---
I was going to go into specifics but I felt like I'd rambled on enough as it was.
But what I specifically mean are changes giving much more power to local affairs to local governments, like public works (since the local government knows much better what needs to be done where), education (the local governments in Nevada, per se, are more aware of what the situation is than people sitting in an office in DC), and other such social situations.
---
What happens if Nevada is unwilling or unable to enforce rigorous education standards that new York can? You want colleges and employers to be able to trust that everyone is at least getting a basic education or students from those states will find it hard to impossible to get into a good school or get a good job. | What affairs handled by the federal government do you believe would be best in the hands of the states?
---
As I said to the poster above, the ones that come to mind initially are public works, education, and in addition things like relations with neighboring states and local economic issues.
For examples, people in an office in DC should not be working on affairs that they have not seen or lived in personally - such a manner is ineffective and results in untargeted, 'broad' policies that may do more harm than good.
---
Education is already state-run. And public works usually have effects far beyond their physical location. | 6j3b5x | CMV: The United States' hierarchy of strength in governance (Strong Federal, Weak State, Weakest Local) is flawed in today's society and should be inverted. | To start off, I understand that this would be a distinct change from our current method of governance, but it's a responsible citizen's duty to look at how we're doing things and consider changes if need be.
With recent events in mind, I've begun to wonder if the method in which we do 'business' as a nation isn't inherently flawed due to a failure to adapt with the times. A strong central government may have been needed in previous eras, but right now it does nothing but intensify corruption, a disconnect from the people and the government, and an ineffectual government working only by manipulation of law instead of actual leadership and governance.
The ideal position would be leveraging technology and the interconnectedness of our reality these days to create a very strong state-level government and a weaker federal-level government. The states would be left to run their affairs more or less independently as they are the ones who are most engaged and involved with the local situation. They know what their local situations are like and thus can govern more effectively, and in ways that a strong federal government cannot because of their proximity. I'm not a political science major, nor am I intimately familiar with governmental processes, but it seems that in these days of rapid social change and a seeming inability to adapt by a strong central government that we would be much better off with a local, more intrinsically involved government than a 'high overlord' type of federal government that has no idea what's going on in each individual state (let alone county) and attempts to govern blindly.
_____
> *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!* | AmethystWarlock | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "cupcakesarethedevil",
"id": "djb5wd7",
"score": 3,
"text": "What specific changes are you proposing?",
"timestamp": 1498245279
},
{
"author": "AmethystWarlock",
"id": "djb6440",
"score": 1,
"text": "I was going to go into specifics but I felt like I'd rambled on ... | [
{
"author": "Love_Shaq_Baby",
"id": "djb5wl4",
"score": 2,
"text": "What affairs handled by the federal government do you believe would be best in the hands of the states?",
"timestamp": 1498245286
},
{
"author": "AmethystWarlock",
"id": "djb68fk",
"score": 1,
"text": "As I s... | [
"djb5wd7",
"djb6440",
"djb6agq"
] | [
"djb5wl4",
"djb68fk",
"djb6erq"
] |
CMV: The Strategic Bombing of Axis civilian targets was justified.
Basically, in my mind, when the Axis powers decided to wage total wars of annihilation, anything that reduces their ability to wage war is necessary. This can be taken even to the extreme levels, such as the strategic bombing of civilian targets in Japan and Germany. In total war, everything is a military target. Civilians have economic potential, or could even be drafted into the armed forces. Their deaths decrease the ability of Japan and Germany to wage war, and are therefore acceptable. Their deaths are the responsibility of the government and society that dragged them into the war. An important (but not exhaustive) list of things that are not justified in my opinion:
\- Mistreatment of prisoners.
\- Internment of Japanese Americans.
\- Mistreatment of Axis population centers under Allied control
\- Killing for the explicit purpose of retribution. | > In total war, everything is a military target.
There is a very good reason why we do not want to target civilians and that is because in most cases, they did not elect to get into this war, it isn't a war that they are fighting and in many cases, *they may be oppressed and targeted, too*. They are not guilty of fighting and if we label them as 'potential combatants', there is nothing that cannot be considered this.
Total war is a misnomer and an egregious one at that because it implies that all individuals within a country's border are fighting and they are all equally culpable for causing harm. A farmer plowing his fields, school children, homemakers, and people working in a bank are not soldiers, they are not fighting a war effort, and carpet bombing a city is destroying hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives for the purposes of killing a few.
To erase an entire nation to get to the few escalates a war. It encourages people to join up - "well, either I die fighting or I die making cheese in my barn. Guess I know which one I want...", it encourages bombing of innocent people who didn't volunteer for a war, and it causes economic downturns that incentivise further war.
It is the hallmark not of warfare for a purpose but warfare that is without limits, that devastates a population, draws in innocent targets. it is *terrorism*.
"Absolute warfare" is a hallmark of ISIS and Al Quaeda. It is a definition of terrorism in that it does not consider anybody civilians but justified targets as they may potentially *become* a combatent, so it's justified in pre-emptively targeting anything and everything. There are no safe spaces with terrorists and there are no people safe from harm. It is unilateral and it is devastating to a region, destablising it, and making it, ironically, more likely to continue to plunge into warfare and fighting because people cannot be passive and they cannot turn away from it.
The analysis for attacking cities such as Dresden have pointed out that the so called military targets were either not - they were a refugee camp for displaced people - or they were far outside of the city limits and did not actually recieve that much damage from the bombing at all. At the time, the city was not of consequence to the war effort, and the Allied powers were aware of this. They chose a strike that was not just pointed and surgical but caused thousands of people to *burn alive*.
---
How do you feel about this statement I replied to another post:
> Civilians are workers, workers have economic value, economic value has military value, and are therefore a military target.
In the Dresden case, camps of people who are disabled can't work and don't have economic value, so killing them is unjustified.
---
On the other hand, consider the following.
Prisoners consume resources. Resources have economic value. Does that mean that shooting prisoners is justified?
---
No, because they are no longer aiding the Axis war effort. Additionally, treating prisoners well creates an incentive to dessert Axis lines, which did happen en masse towards the end of the war.
---
Prisoners consume resources that could be going to your own troops.
By your rationale, it’s perfectly acceptable to execute prisoners on the spot so you don’t have to waste resources guarding and taking care of them. | So the average civilian living in Dresden (many Germans were not nazis, btw) who has absolutely no clue about many of the atrocities that their government is doing deserves to be needlessly slaughtered? Were the civilians who got dragged into the war the ones planning military strategy?
Many would argue that the United States committed war crimes during its invasion of Iraq.
Just that mean that in the 2000’s it would be justified to bomb your neighborhood and kill you so that the USA will stop invading other countries under false pretense?
---
>who has absolutely no clue about many of the atrocities that their government is doing
This is a myth.
The average german had heard the rumors, they knew about the camps. The government was proud to propagandize their genocidal ambitions, and visibly practiced them in daily life.
When it comes to specific policies, then some doubt might be found, but it's not like you're unaware of atrocities because you think the Jews are sent to a camp to be slowly worked to death instead of shot or gassed on arrival. Either way, the Final solution was clear.
---
Did they know about every single thing that the German government was doing? Were they planning military strategy?
No.
I’ve also heard rumors that the US government planned 9/11… That doesn’t necessary make it true. (No I’m not denying the Holocaust, but at the time, hearing rumors is just that… rumors.)
And again, a lot of German civilians were dragged into this conflict, and many were not nazis… many were just trying to survive. Why should they be needlessly slaughtered?
What would you have them do, exactly?
Its easy for you to say they should just be given to the slaughter from the safety of behind your keyboard.
---
>I’ve also heard rumors that the US government planned 9/11… That doesn’t necessary make it true. (No I’m not denying the Holocaust, but at the time, hearing rumors is just that… rumors.)
This is a bad analogy, because the amount of evidence is so massively different.
If the US government did do 9/11 and was as unsuble about it as the Nazis, we would have the following evidence :
1) Bush, repeatedly and insistently claiming that he was going to bring down the Twin Towers
2) Government propaganda on every street talking about how the Twin towers were going to be destroyed
3) FBI and CIA agents regularly flying small planes into buildings as part of their "anti-skyscraper agenda"
---
And nazi Germany wasn’t a liberal democracy. They were a fascist dictatorship.
So some random German civilian in Dresden hears about the camps…
What exactly do you want them to do?
But they deserve to be burned alive because of what the dictatorship running their country decides to do?
This is literally the justification that terrorists use.
Because the United States government killed many people in the Middle East, Islamic terrorists are justified in indiscriminately killing American civilians. | sjt5wk | CMV: The Strategic Bombing of Axis civilian targets was justified. | Basically, in my mind, when the Axis powers decided to wage total wars of annihilation, anything that reduces their ability to wage war is necessary. This can be taken even to the extreme levels, such as the strategic bombing of civilian targets in Japan and Germany. In total war, everything is a military target. Civilians have economic potential, or could even be drafted into the armed forces. Their deaths decrease the ability of Japan and Germany to wage war, and are therefore acceptable. Their deaths are the responsibility of the government and society that dragged them into the war. An important (but not exhaustive) list of things that are not justified in my opinion:
\- Mistreatment of prisoners.
\- Internment of Japanese Americans.
\- Mistreatment of Axis population centers under Allied control
\- Killing for the explicit purpose of retribution. | Quotes_League | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "budlejari",
"id": "hvgvr4h",
"score": 15,
"text": "> In total war, everything is a military target.\n\nThere is a very good reason why we do not want to target civilians and that is because in most cases, they did not elect to get into this war, it isn't a war that they are fighting and... | [
{
"author": "3720-To-One",
"id": "hvgv05v",
"score": 1,
"text": "So the average civilian living in Dresden (many Germans were not nazis, btw) who has absolutely no clue about many of the atrocities that their government is doing deserves to be needlessly slaughtered? Were the civilians who got dragg... | [
"hvgvr4h",
"hvgx9gr",
"hvgxvn4",
"hvgynr9",
"hvgzqrs"
] | [
"hvgv05v",
"hvgvqqm",
"hvgwcar",
"hvgxiip",
"hvgyj1h"
] |
CMV:CMV:Social Security/Pension plans are inherently unsustainable.
Hi guys,
I believe that Social Security/Pension plans are inherently unsustainable. Every generation of people reaching retirement relies on a significantly larger working population behind them to provide the tax revenue that will pay for their retirement. Assuming a non-extreme fatality rate, this means that each generation of retirees is going to be bigger than the last, effectively requiring an infinitely growing population to sustain infinitely growing retiree populations.
The human population is still growing very quickly, but the rate of that growth is slowing down and therefore its expected that the human race will "stabilize" around 12 billion people. In other words, this system is not sustainable long term. Even if this wasn't the case, the notion that the Earth will have to sustain infinitely growing numbers of humans is obviously something that will cause issues down the line.
This is already starting to create issues.
In most developed nations, the population growth rate is already slowing down if not outright decreasing. Politicians have used this as a justification to bring in refugees or immigrants to increase the population and protect retirees. Germany is a good example. They brought in millions of refugees, and "75% of them face long term unemployment". Young people will now have to pay for retiree benefits AND welfare for immigrants at the same time, sandwiching them between two dependent populations that no longer contribute anything in return.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/820480/Germany-migrant-crisis-refugees-long-term-unemployment-benefits-Angela-Merkel
In the US, job creation isn't matching population growth already. Young people would benefit from a declining population size because it would balance out this trend and make entry level jobs less competitive.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/02/job-creation-not-matching-population-growth/
I argue that a smaller population of young people with high employment is not a bad thing at all, and it is better to embrace that now rather than pushing the can down the road. Its really hard to find a job out of college now, thanks in large part to the fact that the population has been artificially held up with massive immigration that creates more competition for entry level work.
_____
> *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!* | > "inherently unsustainable"
Suppose the taxable portion of the population earns X, and is taxed at a rate r, of which a proportion w is allocated to social security. Suppose pension/welfare costs Y.
Well, clearly this system is sustainable if Y < rwX. So, there's nothing "inherent" about any alleged unsustainability. If Y is currently more than rwX, you can fix the problem by
* reducing Y (favored by right-wing politicians)
* increasing r or w (favored by left-wing politicians)
* increasing X (favored by everybody, but there's disagreements about how)
NB, even if Y > rwX, it is possible for social security to be sustainable, because inflation.
---
Let's remove welfare from the equation because even if its completely eliminated the same issue eventually comes up, just more slowly.
Let's say you have a taxable population (taxable population = X), to take care of 50 retired people (retirees =y). The higher the taxable population is compared to the retired population, the lower the tax rate has to be. (tax = T)
Therefore, the social security system relies on X to always be significantly higher than Y. This has worked in the past because the US Population has actually quadrupled in the past 100 years.
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table
However, what happens when X begins to slow down in growth (which it has to at some point)? Y continues to grow faster because of the lagging effect of people aging into retirees.
This ultimately forces the tax rate to go up. If the population does not begin to grow again quickly, that generation is going to be bogged with debt for its entire lifespan.
My point is that social security only works in one direction (infinite population and financial growth) and will cause rampant tax issues when that infinite growth stops.
Inflation doesn't change this equation because all that does is de-value currently evenly for everyone across the board.
---
It is clearly not unsustainable since people grow old and die. It may become untenable when the constants you need in the equations to get it to work become extreme. But for any given taxation rate you can always pick either a return rate or age cut off that makes it sustainable. A bigger problem is that fluctuations in population takes decades to be felt and it becomes tricky to make adjustments. Typically we don't make them dynamically at all. | > massive immigration that creates more competition for entry level work.
Economic analysis of immigration shows that the effect is neutral or positive.
The reason your thinking here is flawed is you think there is a fixed supply of jobs, which won't go up when the population goes up.
Every time immigrants arrives to work (taking jobs), they also spend the money they earn (boosting the economy, creating jobs).
It is true that it is harder to obtain work nowadays. The reason are not immigration, but:
* low-level jobs first went overseas, and are now being replaced by technology.
* an increasing proportion of the gains from economic growth are going to the wealthy, not the working class.
---
My own research from google searching indicates that people cannot really decide whether its a positive or negative for entry level work, I suspect it would largely fall down political lines.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/what_immigration_means_for_u.s._employment_and_wages/
However, in my opinion, immigrants increasing job opportunities more than they take doesn't make sense. Let's say Sally comes into the US and takes 1 job for $30,000 a year. By taking that job from someone else, she has removed one job from the entry level job pool. Let's then say she spends 80% of that money back into the economy. Now there's $24,000 floating around in the economy that could, in theory, go towards creating another job elsewhere. However, diminishing returns have now been introduced. Not everyone is going to spend 100% of their income, and whatever they choose to not put back into the economy will effectively be money taken out of the economy. Therefore, immigrants have a net impact.
---
A negative net impact. | 77t430 | CMV:CMV:Social Security/Pension plans are inherently unsustainable. | Hi guys,
I believe that Social Security/Pension plans are inherently unsustainable. Every generation of people reaching retirement relies on a significantly larger working population behind them to provide the tax revenue that will pay for their retirement. Assuming a non-extreme fatality rate, this means that each generation of retirees is going to be bigger than the last, effectively requiring an infinitely growing population to sustain infinitely growing retiree populations.
The human population is still growing very quickly, but the rate of that growth is slowing down and therefore its expected that the human race will "stabilize" around 12 billion people. In other words, this system is not sustainable long term. Even if this wasn't the case, the notion that the Earth will have to sustain infinitely growing numbers of humans is obviously something that will cause issues down the line.
This is already starting to create issues.
In most developed nations, the population growth rate is already slowing down if not outright decreasing. Politicians have used this as a justification to bring in refugees or immigrants to increase the population and protect retirees. Germany is a good example. They brought in millions of refugees, and "75% of them face long term unemployment". Young people will now have to pay for retiree benefits AND welfare for immigrants at the same time, sandwiching them between two dependent populations that no longer contribute anything in return.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/820480/Germany-migrant-crisis-refugees-long-term-unemployment-benefits-Angela-Merkel
In the US, job creation isn't matching population growth already. Young people would benefit from a declining population size because it would balance out this trend and make entry level jobs less competitive.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/02/job-creation-not-matching-population-growth/
I argue that a smaller population of young people with high employment is not a bad thing at all, and it is better to embrace that now rather than pushing the can down the road. Its really hard to find a job out of college now, thanks in large part to the fact that the population has been artificially held up with massive immigration that creates more competition for entry level work.
_____
> *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!* | BlueHerring25 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "SurprisedPotato",
"id": "doofoli",
"score": 11,
"text": "> \"inherently unsustainable\"\n\nSuppose the taxable portion of the population earns X, and is taxed at a rate r, of which a proportion w is allocated to social security. Suppose pension/welfare costs Y. \n\nWell, clearly this sy... | [
{
"author": "SurprisedPotato",
"id": "doogcqc",
"score": 3,
"text": "> massive immigration that creates more competition for entry level work.\n\nEconomic analysis of immigration shows that the effect is neutral or positive.\n\nThe reason your thinking here is flawed is you think there is a fixed su... | [
"doofoli",
"doogb7u",
"doohj35"
] | [
"doogcqc",
"doogrtk",
"dooh15o"
] |
CMV: Conservatives are fundamentally uninterested in facts/data.
In fairness, I will admit that I am very far left, and likely have some level of bias, and I will admit the slight irony of basing this somewhat on my own personal anecdotes. However I do also believe this is supported by the trend of more highly educated people leaning more and more progressive.
However I always just assumed that conservatives simply didn't *know* the statistics, and that if they learned them they would change their opinion based on that new information. I have been proven wrong countless times however, both online, in person, while canvasing. It's not a matter of presenting data, neutral sources, meeting them in the middle. They either refuse to engage with things like studies and data completely, or they decide that because it doesn't agree with their intuition that it must be somehow "fake" or invalid.
When I talk to these people and ask them to provide a source of their own, or what is informing their opinion, they either talk directly past it, or the conversation ends right there. I feel like if you're asked a follow up like "Oh where did you get that number?" and the conversation suddenly ends, it's just an admission that you're pulling it out of your ass, or you saw it online and have absolutely no clue where it came from or how legitimate it is. It's frustrating.
I'm not saying there aren't progressives who have lost the plot and don't check their information, however I feel like it's championed among conservatives. Conservatives have pushed for decades at this point to destroy trust in any kind of academic institution, boiling them down to "indoctrination centers." They have to, because otherwise it looks glaring that the 5 highest educated states in the US are the most progressive and the 5 lowest are the most conservative, so their only option is to discredit academic integrity.
I personally am wrong all the time, it's a natural part of life. If you can't remember the last time you were wrong, then you are simply ignorant to it.
| And you’re probably uninterested in the facts/data of illegal immigration under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. About 2.2 million illegals per year. Obama and Trump only let in 400,000 per year on average.
---
So you're fine with Trump shooting down a border protection bill because he wanted to continue using the "border crisis" as a campaign tool? I can cite sources on how [misleading ](https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/) conservatives have been about immigration, however a larger issue is that if you want border security you need to address our Asylum process, not the physical border itself. Most illegal immigrants in the US enter legally through the Asylum process and then leave into the nation and become untracked after not following up their case. Adding more border security would stop 0% of this.
---
A few things you are wrong about: sure Trump shot down that border bill, but from a republican core belief, that was a terrible bill. Besides, that bill wasn't even necessary to cut off illegal entry. What bill has Trump passed that cuts off illegal entry? Ill give you a hint, he hasn't passed any. Joe Biden could have cut illegal immigration off almost entirely through executive order, and yet they decided to continue to allow millions to enter.
Second, you claim "Most illegal immigrants in the US enter legally through the Asylum process and then leave into the nation and become untracked after not following up their case."
This is just simply untrue and tells me that you are taking numbers out of your ass just like you claim conservatives are.
As of 2022, the United States had approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants residing within its borders. This figure represents a slight increase from 10.5 million in 2021, reversing a long-term downward trend observed from 2007 to 2019. Despite this uptick, the 2022 number remains below the peak of 12.2 million recorded in 2007.[Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
In contrast, the number of individuals granted asylum in the U.S. is significantly smaller. Between **1990** and **2021**, the U.S. admitted a **total of 767,950 asylum seekers**. In **2021** alone, **17,692** individuals were granted asylum, marking a 42.9% decrease from the previous year and representing the lowest annual total since 1994. In 2023, an additional 4,790 individuals received derivative asylum status while residing in the U.S. based on a relative’s asylum grant. [USAFacts](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-seek-asylum-in-the-us/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)[Office of Homeland Security Statistics](https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024_1002_ohss_asylees_fy2023.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
It's important to note that while the unauthorized immigrant population is measured in millions, the number of individuals granted asylum each year is in the tens of thousands. Additionally, the U.S. received 945,000 asylum applications in 2023, an 88% increase compared to 2022. However, not all applications result in asylum grants, and many applicants may remain in the country awaiting decisions. | Not a righty but as long as the left believes women have Penises they have no leg to stand on regarding facts.
---
Why did you capitalize penises?
---
I imagine the Penis would be important enough to capitalize given its a major organ of the human body. | 1jmkhau | CMV: Conservatives are fundamentally uninterested in facts/data. | In fairness, I will admit that I am very far left, and likely have some level of bias, and I will admit the slight irony of basing this somewhat on my own personal anecdotes. However I do also believe this is supported by the trend of more highly educated people leaning more and more progressive.
However I always just assumed that conservatives simply didn't *know* the statistics, and that if they learned them they would change their opinion based on that new information. I have been proven wrong countless times however, both online, in person, while canvasing. It's not a matter of presenting data, neutral sources, meeting them in the middle. They either refuse to engage with things like studies and data completely, or they decide that because it doesn't agree with their intuition that it must be somehow "fake" or invalid.
When I talk to these people and ask them to provide a source of their own, or what is informing their opinion, they either talk directly past it, or the conversation ends right there. I feel like if you're asked a follow up like "Oh where did you get that number?" and the conversation suddenly ends, it's just an admission that you're pulling it out of your ass, or you saw it online and have absolutely no clue where it came from or how legitimate it is. It's frustrating.
I'm not saying there aren't progressives who have lost the plot and don't check their information, however I feel like it's championed among conservatives. Conservatives have pushed for decades at this point to destroy trust in any kind of academic institution, boiling them down to "indoctrination centers." They have to, because otherwise it looks glaring that the 5 highest educated states in the US are the most progressive and the 5 lowest are the most conservative, so their only option is to discredit academic integrity.
I personally am wrong all the time, it's a natural part of life. If you can't remember the last time you were wrong, then you are simply ignorant to it.
| King_Lothar_ | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "CocaCola_BestEver",
"id": "mkce7rd",
"score": 4,
"text": "And you’re probably uninterested in the facts/data of illegal immigration under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. About 2.2 million illegals per year. Obama and Trump only let in 400,000 per year on average.",
"timestamp": 1743250... | [
{
"author": "Ninjorp",
"id": "mkcbvf6",
"score": 4,
"text": "Not a righty but as long as the left believes women have Penises they have no leg to stand on regarding facts.",
"timestamp": 1743249052
},
{
"author": "Mike-ipedia",
"id": "mkcbzjk",
"score": 7,
"text": "Why did yo... | [
"mkce7rd",
"mkcga08",
"mkclq77"
] | [
"mkcbvf6",
"mkcbzjk",
"mkcci9d"
] |
CMV: Biden's promise to appoint a black women as justice is bad for multiple reasons
For clarity, I actually don't like the idea of separating everyone into groups based on their race and sex, and then treating those groups as monoliths. But my reasons below are after just accepting that, viewing everything through the lens of race is the norm.
​
1. There are other minority groups with less social capital than black women. If the idea is that having a black woman on the court will make things better for black people, then aren't there other groups that are a bigger priority that need more help?
2. Quote from Biden: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented,”So, Biden believes no one besides a black woman can represent black women. This is a problem, because now Biden has implied he doesn't believe any other race of people besides what's already in the court should be represented. Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Arabs...you don't get to be represented. Evidently, you aren't in the "everyone" group. And let's just circle back on the whole LGBTQ thing okay?
3. What problem is being solved here? How is success of solving the problem being measured? If that hasn't been thought about at all, then this is just straight pandering and virtue signaling.
4. This normalizes the idea that it is acceptable to appoint people based on their immutable characteristics. | I have a question for you: why do you think no black woman has ever been on the Supreme Court and why do you think women in general are such a minority in the court’s history? One would expect that in the last few decades as women have entered these fields the court would more closely reflect American demographics and yet it does not; why?
---
Rather than answer your question, I'm just going to get straight to your point.
It would have been a lot better if Biden had simply said he won't be considering straight white men for the appointment.
---
That wasn’t the point of my question and I’d like you to answer it because I think that this history is very relevant to the steps being taken by the Biden administration.
Why have there been no black women and so few women on the Supreme Court?
---
Because black women and women in general working in areas that would qualify them for the supreme court hasn't always been very common
---
I specifically asked about the last few decades when women, including back women, are indeed lawyers and justices not the period of time prior to them being present in these professions. Why is the first black female justice only happening in 2022 and *only* because a POTUS is specifically pushing it? Why have white men had so much control over the court up to now?
---
Do you have data on the percentage of judges and lawyers that are black women in 2022? I honestly can't find it. But I'm assuming it's pretty low.
You'll probably have to get to a point, because the way you think about these things is different than how I think about them. The idea of the "the first" black woman justice being "history" makes as much sense to me as the first person with red hair and brown eyes being appointed as "history".
And I don't know what you mean by "white men" having "control" over the court. It sounds like the idea is that there is a white men cabal that meets every month to decide how to oppress everyone else.
---
The data's out there. Not for 2022, obviously, but [for 2021](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2021/0721/polp.pdf):
**Lawyers**
* 37% of lawyers are women (33% in 2011)
* 85% of lawyers are non-Hispanic white (88% in 2011)
* 4.7% of lawyers are Black (4.8% in 2011)
**Federal Judges**
* 27.8% of federal judges are women (25.9% in 2016)
* 79.7% of federal judges are non-Hispanic white (79.9% in 2016)
* 9.8% of federal judges are Black (10.8% in 2016)
**State Judges**
* 39% of state supreme court justices are women
* 73% of state supreme court justices are non-Hispanic white
* 22 states have all-white supreme courts (including Nevada, which has a majority non-white population) | Is there value in having a court that reflects the population they represent?
---
If there were, then all justices should be white, since that's the majority
---
In what way does an all-white judiciary reflect a majority-white population?
---
If the idea is that only people of X race can represent X race, then it would make sense to only have white people on the court in order to represent the majority of the population.
---
No, it would make sense to have (non-Hispanic) white people on the court in proportion to the population. Which would mean 5-6 white justices, roughly split between men and women. Instead, we have 7, only two of whom are women.
---
Okay, fine. So I accept this, and accept that representation is important.
But, there must be a line somewhere right? Like if a group is only 1% of the population, then they aren't deserving of representation on the supreme court? If it's not by population, then what metric is used to deny groups representation in the court?
---
With such a small group, it’s impossible to perfectly represent the entire population, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it closer. It makes sense to increase the representation of groups that are A) not currently or historically represented and B) relatively significant in the population. Black women meet both those criteria. | sjpuo7 | CMV: Biden's promise to appoint a black women as justice is bad for multiple reasons | For clarity, I actually don't like the idea of separating everyone into groups based on their race and sex, and then treating those groups as monoliths. But my reasons below are after just accepting that, viewing everything through the lens of race is the norm.
​
1. There are other minority groups with less social capital than black women. If the idea is that having a black woman on the court will make things better for black people, then aren't there other groups that are a bigger priority that need more help?
2. Quote from Biden: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented,”So, Biden believes no one besides a black woman can represent black women. This is a problem, because now Biden has implied he doesn't believe any other race of people besides what's already in the court should be represented. Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Arabs...you don't get to be represented. Evidently, you aren't in the "everyone" group. And let's just circle back on the whole LGBTQ thing okay?
3. What problem is being solved here? How is success of solving the problem being measured? If that hasn't been thought about at all, then this is just straight pandering and virtue signaling.
4. This normalizes the idea that it is acceptable to appoint people based on their immutable characteristics. | ZeusThunder369 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Chronic_Sardonic",
"id": "hvg823p",
"score": 15,
"text": "I have a question for you: why do you think no black woman has ever been on the Supreme Court and why do you think women in general are such a minority in the court’s history? One would expect that in the last few decades as wome... | [
{
"author": "Electronic-Agency-53",
"id": "hvg80hd",
"score": 6,
"text": "Is there value in having a court that reflects the population they represent?",
"timestamp": 1643911792
},
{
"author": "ZeusThunder369",
"id": "hvg8h9y",
"score": -6,
"text": "If there were, then all ju... | [
"hvg823p",
"hvg91ku",
"hvg98wr",
"hvga486",
"hvgac55",
"hvgc24a",
"hvggtce"
] | [
"hvg80hd",
"hvg8h9y",
"hvg9je6",
"hvgaavz",
"hvgb2j2",
"hvgds1k",
"hvge7jw"
] |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with Critical Race Theory.
The recent outrage over Critical Race Theory in the US has caused many people to join a fierce movement against it. It is my view that this movement is misguided, formed on a foundation of misinformation and misunderstanding.
I believe the current mainstream perception of CRT is false. I am looking for someone to convince me either that this perception is true, or that there is something wrong with the fundamental idea of CRT.
First of all, CRT has been around for over 40 years, and was defined in 1994 as "a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view". Essentially, it is an effort to examine the legal system to see if it perpetuates racism or contains racial bias. Most people would not have a problem with this, but very recently, public perception of CRT has dipped drastically. Why?
Many people believe that Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools, and that it is inherently racist. Together, these two premises provide a poignant argument against it.
However, neither of these premises are true.
CRT is not a single ideology; it is not a unified theory about race, much less a racist one. It is a field of legal study, encompassing a wide range of research and ideas. Furthermore, the school curriculum in the US does not contain a single iota of tuition about CRT, and efforts to ban it completely fail to understand what it is.
For example, the following law was described as Iowa's "Anti-Critical Race Theory Law". It makes it illegal to teach that "members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others". Firstly, this particular view is not present anywhere on the US school curriculum, nor does it have anything to do with critical race theory.
In Idaho, it is now illegal to teach that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, colour or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past". Once again, this is not taught anywhere in the US school system, nor is it anything to do with CRT. The law directly references CRT, saying that it "inflames divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin...", and yet it completely fails to understand what it is.
For these reasons, it is my belief that CRT is not in fact a problem, and concerns about it are based on fake news and misunderstanding. I am open to changing this view if provided with a convincing case. With all that said, debate away! | [deleted]
---
My concern with your argument is that you are using CRT as a scapegoat. I don't think what you have described is a "popular version" of CRT at all. It is illogical to blame all the unsavoury aspects of "woke culture" on a critical legal field of study that began 40 years ago.
---
but isn't that a "no true scotsman"?
certainly the people that designed these curricula will tell you they're modeling it after CRT philosophy.
maybe if the academic legal field of study doesn't endorse these things they should be out there confronting these educators that ARE teaching children to hate "whiteness" because of CRT?
attack this abuse FROM the CRT side, show why it's not an accurate interpretation or ethical form of "praxis".
as it stands there no reason for people legitimately outraged by these things NOT to identify them as CRT | My own gripe with CRT comes from the way in which words are twisted around to achieve a particular political end. The most common example of this is the concept of racism. Before you say that this is a fringe viewpoint and doesn't represent CRT - like you've said, CRT is a collection of ideas about race, and this is one of them. I've seen many people argue for it both on Reddit and in real life.
My biggest issue with it is the racism vs systemic racism vs racial discrimination issue. Proponents of CRT have tried to redefine "racism" as "prejudice + power", which means that any race that isn't in a position of power in a particular society isn't capable of "racism". For example, in the US - blacks are believed to be systemically oppressed, therefore when a black person discriminates against a white person (the one in power), the black person isn't showing "racism", they are merely showing "racial discrimination".
As someone who doesn't support this idea, it seems like a bunch of mental gymnastics for CRT believers in order to convince themselves that when they do something against white people on the basis of race, it's not racist and hence it's morally more correct. My opinion is that if CRT proponents were trying to argue for the concept in good faith, there wouldn't be a need to co-opt an existing word that seems to serve the purpose of vilifying whites while glorifying blacks. Words have power, so to make a choice not to come up with a separate term for the phenomenon and instead taking over an existing, morally charged term seems to be an intentional move on the part of CRT supporters.
---
It is indeed true that racism has been defined as prejudice + power, however I fail to see the link to CRT. That definition is part of a broader discussion about racism, rather than the field of study that is CRT.
---
You don't think a theory (more of a hypothesis really) based around discussing racism is going a bit off the rails by redefining that very word so certain people are incapable of being racist? | sjjxtn | CMV: There is nothing wrong with Critical Race Theory. | The recent outrage over Critical Race Theory in the US has caused many people to join a fierce movement against it. It is my view that this movement is misguided, formed on a foundation of misinformation and misunderstanding.
I believe the current mainstream perception of CRT is false. I am looking for someone to convince me either that this perception is true, or that there is something wrong with the fundamental idea of CRT.
First of all, CRT has been around for over 40 years, and was defined in 1994 as "a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view". Essentially, it is an effort to examine the legal system to see if it perpetuates racism or contains racial bias. Most people would not have a problem with this, but very recently, public perception of CRT has dipped drastically. Why?
Many people believe that Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools, and that it is inherently racist. Together, these two premises provide a poignant argument against it.
However, neither of these premises are true.
CRT is not a single ideology; it is not a unified theory about race, much less a racist one. It is a field of legal study, encompassing a wide range of research and ideas. Furthermore, the school curriculum in the US does not contain a single iota of tuition about CRT, and efforts to ban it completely fail to understand what it is.
For example, the following law was described as Iowa's "Anti-Critical Race Theory Law". It makes it illegal to teach that "members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others". Firstly, this particular view is not present anywhere on the US school curriculum, nor does it have anything to do with critical race theory.
In Idaho, it is now illegal to teach that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, colour or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past". Once again, this is not taught anywhere in the US school system, nor is it anything to do with CRT. The law directly references CRT, saying that it "inflames divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin...", and yet it completely fails to understand what it is.
For these reasons, it is my belief that CRT is not in fact a problem, and concerns about it are based on fake news and misunderstanding. I am open to changing this view if provided with a convincing case. With all that said, debate away! | Significant_Mind_127 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "hvfeknk",
"score": 30,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1643900947
},
{
"author": "Significant_Mind_127",
"id": "hvff2sp",
"score": -1,
"text": "My concern with your argument is that you are using CRT as a scapegoat. I don't think what you hav... | [
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"id": "hvf6zsn",
"score": 284,
"text": "My own gripe with CRT comes from the way in which words are twisted around to achieve a particular political end. The most common example of this is the concept of racism. Before you say that this is a fringe viewpoint and doe... | [
"hvfeknk",
"hvff2sp",
"hvfgdvi"
] | [
"hvf6zsn",
"hvf8wh9",
"hvfaluq"
] |
CMV: The US Government should allow transgender people to serve, but should not pay for their surgeries
I'm not interested in arguing whether transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military, I'm more interested in the second part of my title. So starting with the assumption that trans people *can* serve in the military, why should the government pay for their surgeries and hormone treatments?
Two big arguments I think support my case:
1. Sex reassignment surgery is an elective plastic surgery that only changes a person's physical appearance. The government wouldn't pay for an elective nose job or breast enhancement, so why should they pay for sex reassignment? The military medical coverage should only pay for medically necessary procedures and plastic surgery that arises from deformities sustained as part of service (i.e. A nose job for somebody who's nose was mutilated in battle would be justified)
2. I also don't want to set a precedent for pre-op trans people to think that joining the military was a way to get a "free" sex change. That would only encourage more people to sign up for the military only so that they don't have to pay for their own surgery, which is not what the military is for. We shouldn't make military service a bitter pill for desperate, but poor transgender people.
I'm very luke warm in this opinion, so I'm curious what people think.
Edit: just noticed I wasn't clear in my title. I'm referring to military service here, not other civilian government jobs | This is a complicated discussion. Most of our ideas of what is "elective" are complicate too. For example, the military insurance already pays for Viagra for ED. Is that _needed_? Well...depends on how you conceptualize health. I can live just fine without sex on one hand, but on the other it's an important part of health too).
At the very least, gender dysphoria is _more serious_ in terms of quality of life impact than erectile dysfunction is I think. So...where _would_ you draw the line that is rational across medical procedures, drugs,ailments and doesn't single out this particular medical topic in an incongruous way?
---
That's interesting. Where is the line for what's medically necessary? I could argue that even a broken finger isn't a medical necessity because it'll heal on its own eventually. So the line can't just be what will kill you if not treated.
I'd have to think about this, but off the top of my head I would argue that viagra is taken to fix a part of your body that stopped working. That's medically necessary. So is a broken finger and a flue shot.
I think the line for me is between procedures fix or repair something, and ones that only change a person's physical appearance. A sex reassignment surgery doesn't fix something that broke, it just gives a person a different outward appearance. Yes it has emotional/psychological benefits, but some people could get the same emotional boost from a boob job or lip fillers.
---
> A sex reassignment surgery doesn't fix something that broke
Someone who is suffering as a trans-gendered person would _really_ disagree with you there. They would argue that something about them is "broken" and needs to be fixed.
Look, I understand that this is something difficult to understand if you have not personally lived it. Hell, I'm sympathetic towards them and I fully admit that I don't _understand_ it at all; I have no frame of reference as to how someone could feel their body is _wrong_ - it makes no sense to me. The difference is that I trust the medical research that has been done, as well as the testimonials of the people who are trans-gendered; I accept that I don't need to understand it in order for it to be true. If they say this is a serious issue for them and they say that this fixes it (and the doctors agree that this is the right course of action) who are you or I to tell all those people they are wrong? | 1. Many would argue that these treatments are not "elective". Gender dysphoria is a documented mental illness in the DSM-V and one of the established treatments is transitioning (inclusive of the medications and surgeries necessary to enable such a transition). While not all transgendered people are gender dysphoric, many are. To deny them the accepted treatment paths for that disorder would be denying them the same privileges that we give to people with any other diagnosed disorder, be that mental or physical.
2. How would this be any different than people who sign up for free college using the GI bill or free money through enlistment bonuses? We provide financial incentives all the time for people to join the armed forces - why should the financial incentive of free healthcare be any different, so long as they are prepared to meet the obligations of service?
---
I think the surgery part of this is the most contentious, furthermore, it may create an incentive to join the military just for the healthcare options available that are not present in other occupations. While I wouldn't have any issue funding their hormone therapy, the problem is when surgery is involved.
---
I can understand that and I will be honest to say that I don't know enough about the surgery to say whether or not covering that would be reasonable.
I would much rather leave that decision in the hands of the mental health professionals that specialize in the field - if they say that the surgery is necessary to alleviate gender dysphoria, who am I to claim that they are wrong? | 6pxp2b | CMV: The US Government should allow transgender people to serve, but should not pay for their surgeries | I'm not interested in arguing whether transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military, I'm more interested in the second part of my title. So starting with the assumption that trans people *can* serve in the military, why should the government pay for their surgeries and hormone treatments?
Two big arguments I think support my case:
1. Sex reassignment surgery is an elective plastic surgery that only changes a person's physical appearance. The government wouldn't pay for an elective nose job or breast enhancement, so why should they pay for sex reassignment? The military medical coverage should only pay for medically necessary procedures and plastic surgery that arises from deformities sustained as part of service (i.e. A nose job for somebody who's nose was mutilated in battle would be justified)
2. I also don't want to set a precedent for pre-op trans people to think that joining the military was a way to get a "free" sex change. That would only encourage more people to sign up for the military only so that they don't have to pay for their own surgery, which is not what the military is for. We shouldn't make military service a bitter pill for desperate, but poor transgender people.
I'm very luke warm in this opinion, so I'm curious what people think.
Edit: just noticed I wasn't clear in my title. I'm referring to military service here, not other civilian government jobs | agoddamnlegend | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "dkt06y4",
"score": 5,
"text": "This is a complicated discussion. Most of our ideas of what is \"elective\" are complicate too. For example, the military insurance already pays for Viagra for ED. Is that _needed_? Well...depends on how you conceptualize health. I can... | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "dksyylt",
"score": 16,
"text": "1. Many would argue that these treatments are not \"elective\". Gender dysphoria is a documented mental illness in the DSM-V and one of the established treatments is transitioning (inclusive of the medications and surgeries necessary to ... | [
"dkt06y4",
"dkt0qqs",
"dkt0ztg"
] | [
"dksyylt",
"dkszc20",
"dkszfv2"
] |
CMV: The Ending of How I Met Your Mother is Bogus [spoilers]
I finished How I Met Your Mother last fall. Just recently, I watched it again. I was, and continue to be, extremely aggravated by the ending. The mother should not have just died like that. It’s absolutely infuriating. Ted spends 9 seasons, 9 SEASONS, working up to this big reveal and then they go and kill her off. I truly believe that this was the worst thing they could have done. Furthermore, Barney and Robin were perfect for each other. The development of their relationship is virtually as important as Ted finding his true love. The two of them went through hell and back and they should have overcome the odds. It doesn’t make any sense for the writers to essentially return to square one and disregard the growth of the characters over the course of the show.
_____
> *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!* | Sorry, but, you completely missed the point of the show.
The show was *not* about the power of true love, and about Ted and Robin each taking forever to finally find their One True Loves in Tracy and Barney.
The point of the show was that Ted's original season 1 ideas about True Love were immature, idiotic, unrealistic, unappealing, and even dangerous. That's why his pursuit of such ideals always end in failure and disaster, whether with Robin or the long string of other girls he dates throughout the show.
That's why Ted is such an annoying and awful character - that is how the adult, mature Ted *sees himself* back when he was looking for idealistic True Love instead of actually seeing the person in front of him and having a simple, adult relationship with them.
The story of 'How I Met Your Mother' is the story of how Ted got the childish idea of the One True Love slowly, painfully, and begrudgingly beaten out of him over the course of most of a decade, through a series of failure and debacles brought about by his own unrealistic idealism. It's the story of how he became a person who was *ready and able* to have a *mature, adult, stable relationship* with the Mother, about the journey he took to get there - which is why every second of it is relevant to the story of how they met.
The final episode reinforces these themes as clearly as possible, and is a big 'fuck you' to anyone who didn't follow the message of the show and thought it was supposed to be some big standard Disney Romance about finding The One and Living Happily Ever After.
The mother dies because she was not The One, and finding her does not mean that they Live Happily Ever After. They were in love for a long time, but she wasn't Ted's entire world, and his life continued after her, and he could find love again, because that's how the real world works.
Robin and Barney break up because they're *broken people*, and Finding True Love didn't magically fix them and erase all their personality flaws or paper over all the tensions between them. Their relationships didn't make any sense, and relationships that don't make any sense don't cause people to grow and find themselves and stay together in spite of everything, they just suck and make everyone miserable and fall apart.
That's reality, and this show *was always* about showing people what real love is, by showing them all of the things that it's *not* for 8 seasons.
If my own inelegant diatribe doesn't convince you, I suggest [reading this](http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2014/04/02/film-crit-hulk-smash-how-hulk-met-your-mother-and-the-nature-of-finales).
---
Okay. I'll admit it. I'm a sucker for the Disney romance. I always thought that Ted was annoying, but I never thought that was because his older self portrayed him like that. I still don't like the ending because I never particularly enjoyed watching Ted pine over Robin, but I do see the real meaning of the whole thing now.
∆
---
While this guy gives a compelling explanation for why the plot is what it is... I still agree with you op... completely ignoring 9 seasons of character development and screwing everything over in the last few episodes felt terribly...
My little brother loves the show... and I didn't particularly like it but dang when it gets to the end and I watch them throw away a half dozen characters development over 9 seasons... it just felt horrible
---
What character development was thrown out? Every choice had a logical consequence. | Just curious, did you watch the extended finale? The directors cut finale has many more scenes that show Ted and Robin after the death of the mother that makes the ending reveal more bearable. I watched the finale live on TV and also though the ending was bogus. I still don't like it but at least it's less bad in my mind.
---
I didn't watch it because I hopped on the HIMYM bandwagon a bit late and had to watch it all on Netflix. Maybe I'll find it on Youtube somewhere and that'll help me accept the whole scenario
---
Not sure how much it's out there but apparently there was [18 minutes](https://tvline.com/2014/04/26/how-i-met-your-mother-series-finale-funeral-tracy/) that ended up getting cut.
---
Ight I'll take a look at that and see what that does for me. Thanks! | 784ba5 | CMV: The Ending of How I Met Your Mother is Bogus [spoilers] | I finished How I Met Your Mother last fall. Just recently, I watched it again. I was, and continue to be, extremely aggravated by the ending. The mother should not have just died like that. It’s absolutely infuriating. Ted spends 9 seasons, 9 SEASONS, working up to this big reveal and then they go and kill her off. I truly believe that this was the worst thing they could have done. Furthermore, Barney and Robin were perfect for each other. The development of their relationship is virtually as important as Ted finding his true love. The two of them went through hell and back and they should have overcome the odds. It doesn’t make any sense for the writers to essentially return to square one and disregard the growth of the characters over the course of the show.
_____
> *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!* | UncoordinatedDancer | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "darwin2500",
"id": "dor02c1",
"score": 18,
"text": "Sorry, but, you completely missed the point of the show.\n\nThe show was *not* about the power of true love, and about Ted and Robin each taking forever to finally find their One True Loves in Tracy and Barney.\n\nThe point of the show... | [
{
"author": "Zzyzx1618",
"id": "dorr3zb",
"score": 1,
"text": "Just curious, did you watch the extended finale? The directors cut finale has many more scenes that show Ted and Robin after the death of the mother that makes the ending reveal more bearable. I watched the finale live on TV and also tho... | [
"dor02c1",
"dor2k0x",
"dor8rhb",
"dos93s4"
] | [
"dorr3zb",
"dos260c",
"dos4nhg",
"dosj4xk"
] |
CMV: it is more humane to eradict the extreme religious thought than to allow it spreading and leading to massacre and genocide
As we all know some extreme religious thought is prone to violence and simply will not allow the peaceful coexistence with others. Wouldn't using education/force to eradict such extreme thoughts a greater good for both the believer and the others?
I have an example. In the Dungan Revolt (Tongzhi Hui revoltl) of Chinese Qing Dynasty. The Hui people are essentially native Chinese who lately converted to Muslim. Some of them are following an extreme thought branch. So when there is conflict, it tend to be transforming into religous cleansing of non-believers unlike any other peasant revolts or warlords wars. The devastation is so enormous, the Han/Manchurian/Tibet/Mongle people had been massacred by the tens of millions at the start and eventually when General Tsao （yes, general Tsao chicken is using his name) quelled the revolt. The Qing Army and Han Miltia in return butchered most of Dungan people as revenge. In affected GanSu and Shanxi provence the population death ratio is more than 75% and account for more then 20 millions.
What if the Qing dynasty push hard so that the extreme branch of the Hui religion never been able to spread? That could be view as oppress of freedom, but that could save tens of millions of civilian life. Is few dozens and their religous freedom is more valuable than the tens of millions? Is deprive the freedom to convert into extreme religion acctually saved the life for them and the others around them? That is my question.
Sorry for my poor English and grammer. Hope anyone can shed some light.
| Religion isn't the only path to extremist thought. Case in point this very post, you have an extremist view, which you believe justified violence.
With religion out of the equation would you say that you are against all extremism, or only religious extremism?
---
I would say I am against all extremism but not agree on using extreme violence to achieve that. For re-education and brainwash to get rid of extremism that might be ok?
---
Brainwashing isn't a real thing, you're talking about reeducation camps I believe. Which is an extremist "solution".
If you are against all extremism then why the exception for your own?
---
If a man have psychic conditon and want kill the others around him, would you believe sending him into Psychiatric hospital/ward to be extreme?
Do you think stop violence justified?
---
To stop violence you need to cause violence like for example your forcing someone to go to a psych ward against their free will.
---
Wouldn't if an extremist who holds the idea of violence against others equally as dangerous to others as omeone who have to go to a psych ward? I don't know if this is comparable.
---
You are seeking to incarcerate and punish people for something they might do.
In such a scenario, you are the one initiating violence and use of force against another.
The difference between the extremist you wish to send to a re-education camp/psych prison and yourself, is that you are actively seeking to harm someone while the person you are acting against only may theoretically at some future time harm someone.
Of the two, you are a far greater threat to society. | Didn't Hitler believe this exact same thing about Jews?
---
No, I don't think jewish people been violent and runing with machete slahing others on the street. Maybe I am wrong?
---
That's not what I mean. You're making the claim that certain people need to be killed/"re-educated" because they might do something evil. You've dehumanized these people just like how Hitler dehumanized the Jewish people and blamed them for all of the world's evils.
---
No , there is nothing in my any post/comment suggested that. What I am saying is if some extreme thought/religion promote hate and viloence, using means to change their minds might be safer to them and those around them. History just shown how bad it could be.
If Jews start revolt killing tens of millions of people they will deserve revenge. But in fact in German they are lawful citizen and did not promote violence.
---
Let me guess, you want to apply this idea onto only Muslims today, no one else, right?
I want to know where Muslims today have killed "tens of millions"?
---
No, in the post I am just given an example. It could be any extreme thought that advocate extreme violence.
---
So you're comfortable with applying this to Jewish people in Israel who have extremist views about Arabs? This idea that Jews have never done any wrong is so dishonest considering what Israel has done over the last 60 years. | 1e7rsxf | CMV: it is more humane to eradict the extreme religious thought than to allow it spreading and leading to massacre and genocide | As we all know some extreme religious thought is prone to violence and simply will not allow the peaceful coexistence with others. Wouldn't using education/force to eradict such extreme thoughts a greater good for both the believer and the others?
I have an example. In the Dungan Revolt (Tongzhi Hui revoltl) of Chinese Qing Dynasty. The Hui people are essentially native Chinese who lately converted to Muslim. Some of them are following an extreme thought branch. So when there is conflict, it tend to be transforming into religous cleansing of non-believers unlike any other peasant revolts or warlords wars. The devastation is so enormous, the Han/Manchurian/Tibet/Mongle people had been massacred by the tens of millions at the start and eventually when General Tsao （yes, general Tsao chicken is using his name) quelled the revolt. The Qing Army and Han Miltia in return butchered most of Dungan people as revenge. In affected GanSu and Shanxi provence the population death ratio is more than 75% and account for more then 20 millions.
What if the Qing dynasty push hard so that the extreme branch of the Hui religion never been able to spread? That could be view as oppress of freedom, but that could save tens of millions of civilian life. Is few dozens and their religous freedom is more valuable than the tens of millions? Is deprive the freedom to convert into extreme religion acctually saved the life for them and the others around them? That is my question.
Sorry for my poor English and grammer. Hope anyone can shed some light.
| leol1818 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111",
"id": "le274gi",
"score": 28,
"text": "Religion isn't the only path to extremist thought. Case in point this very post, you have an extremist view, which you believe justified violence.\n\n\nWith religion out of the equation would you say that you are against all ext... | [
{
"author": "themapleleaf6ix",
"id": "le26npg",
"score": 11,
"text": "Didn't Hitler believe this exact same thing about Jews?",
"timestamp": 1721468326
},
{
"author": "leol1818",
"id": "le27aub",
"score": -4,
"text": "No, I don't think jewish people been violent and runing wi... | [
"le274gi",
"le27gte",
"le27pcg",
"le291p3",
"le297py",
"le2b0c6",
"le2e6ku"
] | [
"le26npg",
"le27aub",
"le27n42",
"le28tr1",
"le2994m",
"le29jkv",
"le29pi3"
] |
CMV: Islamic ideology destroyed Palestine
Today, Yemeni groups striked Tel Aviv. They are not aware of repercussions. Hamas, which claims to be saviour of Palestinians, is based on Islamic fundamentalist ideology. All the Muslims I see in Al Jazeera comment section talk about cleaning Israel from river to the sea. They don't even talk about cooperation and diplomatic ways to resolve. All they want is to fight with Israel.
Palestine doesn't have a proper military. They have a bunch of terrorists fighting for them. Hezbollah is going to destroy Lebanon as they talk about bombing Israel. All these organizations derive their actions from Quran. Arabs decided to wage war on Israel in 1940s and lost brutally.
No doubt why Palestine is losing territories. Black September and 1980s plane hijack tells a lot about them. Such cheap tricks written in Quran won't help them. | What do you actually mean when you say 'destroyed'? Are you attributing the present devastation in Gaza to Islam rather than IAF bombs? Are you saying the general state(lessness) of the Palestinian people is due to Islam? Exactly how has Islam destroyed Palestine?
---
Arabs picked up fight with Israel and lost badly multiple times in past. Hamas did a big attack on Israel on oct 7 which attracted a severe retaliation. Who asked them to take on Israel by acting violently?
Their holy books believe in the concept of jihad which allows them to indulge in militant behaviour. They had a wish to take the whole Israel instead of agreeing with two state solution. Their holy book also promotes hate against Jews. Hamas thinks violence and targetting armless Israelis is the solution.
---
So would it be more accurate to say that in your opinion, Islamic ideology destroyed the hope of an independent Palestinian state? | They derived fighting against a colonial regime from the Quran ? Huh, didn’t know native Americans were islamists. Before hamas most resistance groups in Palestin were more left leaning (like the pflp). Palestinians did what anyone else would’ve done.
---
Israel is not colonial. Jews were living there 2000 years ago and most of them got converted to Islam. Jews are reclaiming their lost place. It is very cowardly of Hamas to take on civilians.
---
By this logic native Americans can over throw the US govt and they would be justified. | 1e7pc80 | CMV: Islamic ideology destroyed Palestine | Today, Yemeni groups striked Tel Aviv. They are not aware of repercussions. Hamas, which claims to be saviour of Palestinians, is based on Islamic fundamentalist ideology. All the Muslims I see in Al Jazeera comment section talk about cleaning Israel from river to the sea. They don't even talk about cooperation and diplomatic ways to resolve. All they want is to fight with Israel.
Palestine doesn't have a proper military. They have a bunch of terrorists fighting for them. Hezbollah is going to destroy Lebanon as they talk about bombing Israel. All these organizations derive their actions from Quran. Arabs decided to wage war on Israel in 1940s and lost brutally.
No doubt why Palestine is losing territories. Black September and 1980s plane hijack tells a lot about them. Such cheap tricks written in Quran won't help them. | Interesting-You-2986 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Alesus2-0",
"id": "le2aze0",
"score": -4,
"text": "What do you actually mean when you say 'destroyed'? Are you attributing the present devastation in Gaza to Islam rather than IAF bombs? Are you saying the general state(lessness) of the Palestinian people is due to Islam? Exactly how h... | [
{
"author": "iwishmynamewasparsa",
"id": "le2e2h7",
"score": -7,
"text": "They derived fighting against a colonial regime from the Quran ? Huh, didn’t know native Americans were islamists. Before hamas most resistance groups in Palestin were more left leaning (like the pflp). Palestinians did what a... | [
"le2aze0",
"le2bkjb",
"le2ci0u"
] | [
"le2e2h7",
"le2efh1",
"le2h75i"
] |
CMV: In order to explain the complex ideas of evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection to people who cannot grasp them, I use an allegory involving detectives and crime scenes. I feel it works.
I am not a scientist but am passionate about rationality, skepticism, atheism, truth, and the general pursuit of knowledge. Many of my friends and family, while good people, are not interested in any of these things and elect to have a more passive viewpoint on these very important matters.
Thus, I sometimes find myself having to break down complex ideas into more simple terms to help explain them, and the one that comes up the most is evolution and its sister topic the Theory of Natural Selection.
First off, most people don't even know that [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) and [Natural Selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) are two different concepts, nor do they understand that evolution is an absolute 100% provable fact that actually happened without a doubt.
My *de facto* tool to explain these concepts is an allegorical synopsis of a crime scene. It goes like this:
A man is murdered in a hotel room. A detective shows up to the crime scene and starts piecing together the evidence. Through his painstaking examinations of all the evidence available to him, he concludes that the man was murdered by his wife who used a pistol to shoot him once in the head.
In this allegory, the murder of the man is evolution, the detective is science/scientists, and the conclusion drawn of how the crime was committed is the Theory of Natural Selection.
I feel that this gets across the main points that one *needs* to understand to even get a tenuous grasp on these complex ideas:
* Evolution (the murder of the man) happened. There's no doubt, the man is lying there dead on the floor. It cannot be disputed that the man is dead, just like the fact that evolution occurred cannot be argued. It's clear as day.
* The Theory of Natural Selection (the detective's proposed explanation for the murder of the man) is the accepted conclusion for the how's and why's of evolution. Yes, it is of course possible that the detective is wrong in his assessment, but there is so much evidence in the crime scene that it is *very* unlikely. And, even if the detective is slightly wrong in some manner of detail, there is enough evidence to support that the main tenets of his theory are correct, such as the type of gun used and the fact that it was fired by the wife.
Does this work? Am I getting across the ideas in a way that not only is easily for a layman to understand but also rings true?
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | If your goal is to explain the difference between evolution and natural selection, then it's worth pointing out that this statement:
> The Theory of Natural Selection (the detective's proposed explanation for the murder of the man) is the accepted conclusion for the how's and why's of evolution.
is technically incorrect. Natural selection is only one of several evolutionary forces, the others being mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow (some also include recombination). It might be easier to explain the distinction if you can make clear that natural selection is only one of several mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Or they might just find it even more boring and complicated. But at least you'll be more scientifically accurate.
---
Yes! This is exactly what I'm looking for ∆. Your comment combined with comments from /u/Huntingmoa clarified things better for me.
Going forward, I will say something like this:
When a homicide occurs, a detective shows up on the scene. The detective knows that a person is dead because they have the body, but they don't know *how* they died. By going through all the evidence at the scene, the detective can draw a reasonable conclusion of how the homicide took place, sometimes with complete certainty. By this example, the death of the person at the crime scene is evolution, and the detective at the scene is a scientist trying to figure out the explanation for what happened. The bits of evidence collected that form the explanation are agents of evolution, of which natural selection is one.
---
I appreciate the mention. If I assisted in changing your view, you can give more than one delta.
Also, natural selection only works if variation is present. So think about it more like a poison that has 2 parts. First you have variation, and that’s not ‘lethal’. Then you apply natural selection, and the inert variation becomes activated.
| I don't think that does anything to explain evolution or natural selection. What it does is explain, very loosely, the scientific method of gathering evidence to arrive at a theory.
Just going by what you've said about your friends and family, I'd say that you are more passionate about these ideas than they are. It may not be they can't get it because they aren't intelligent enough to grasp the concept, maybe they simply don't care as much about it as you.
While I think it's silly for people to have backwards ideas and misunderstanding, it's really okay that they do. The world didn't come screeching to a halt because people didn't believe Darwin and no one needs to stand on a soap box to teach evolution to the ignorant masses.
Next time you feel it necessary to "explain" evolution to someone, ask yourself if their life will be significantly improved knowing the truth. Mostly the answer will be no. Don't waste your time.
---
I don't agree with this at all. What it seems like you're saying is that if someone appears to not be interested in something that you shouldn't try to convince them to be interested in it. Do you realize how dangerous that is? We already have enough people who don't care about things like climate change, health care reform, or even whether or not the news they read is true or false. Should we simply let those people stay ignorant and make horrible choices based on that ignorance?
---
Whether or not someone believes in evolution isn't going to change anything about their lives in a meaningful way. Millions of people have died believing God snapped his fingers and many of them were quite successful in life. Climate change is a different story, but in the end, if someone doesn't care you can't force them to care, no matter how good your argument might be. | 6pw9n7 | CMV: In order to explain the complex ideas of evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection to people who cannot grasp them, I use an allegory involving detectives and crime scenes. I feel it works. | I am not a scientist but am passionate about rationality, skepticism, atheism, truth, and the general pursuit of knowledge. Many of my friends and family, while good people, are not interested in any of these things and elect to have a more passive viewpoint on these very important matters.
Thus, I sometimes find myself having to break down complex ideas into more simple terms to help explain them, and the one that comes up the most is evolution and its sister topic the Theory of Natural Selection.
First off, most people don't even know that [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) and [Natural Selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) are two different concepts, nor do they understand that evolution is an absolute 100% provable fact that actually happened without a doubt.
My *de facto* tool to explain these concepts is an allegorical synopsis of a crime scene. It goes like this:
A man is murdered in a hotel room. A detective shows up to the crime scene and starts piecing together the evidence. Through his painstaking examinations of all the evidence available to him, he concludes that the man was murdered by his wife who used a pistol to shoot him once in the head.
In this allegory, the murder of the man is evolution, the detective is science/scientists, and the conclusion drawn of how the crime was committed is the Theory of Natural Selection.
I feel that this gets across the main points that one *needs* to understand to even get a tenuous grasp on these complex ideas:
* Evolution (the murder of the man) happened. There's no doubt, the man is lying there dead on the floor. It cannot be disputed that the man is dead, just like the fact that evolution occurred cannot be argued. It's clear as day.
* The Theory of Natural Selection (the detective's proposed explanation for the murder of the man) is the accepted conclusion for the how's and why's of evolution. Yes, it is of course possible that the detective is wrong in his assessment, but there is so much evidence in the crime scene that it is *very* unlikely. And, even if the detective is slightly wrong in some manner of detail, there is enough evidence to support that the main tenets of his theory are correct, such as the type of gun used and the fact that it was fired by the wife.
Does this work? Am I getting across the ideas in a way that not only is easily for a layman to understand but also rings true?
_____
> *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!* | sexpressed | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "grimbaldi",
"id": "dkssx9l",
"score": 2,
"text": "If your goal is to explain the difference between evolution and natural selection, then it's worth pointing out that this statement:\n\n> The Theory of Natural Selection (the detective's proposed explanation for the murder of the man) is... | [
{
"author": "MarcusDrakus",
"id": "dksn6oq",
"score": 13,
"text": "I don't think that does anything to explain evolution or natural selection. What it does is explain, very loosely, the scientific method of gathering evidence to arrive at a theory.\n\nJust going by what you've said about your frien... | [
"dkssx9l",
"dkstq4j",
"dksu1q5"
] | [
"dksn6oq",
"dksnts6",
"dksoe63"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.