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: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.
I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy. | This is a destructive attitude that a lot of unfit/unhealthy people have. By telling yourself that fitness is just about vanity, you allow yourself to feel morally superior in your inactivity and unhealthy lifestyle. “I may not be able to run a mile, but at least I’m not a self-absorbed prick.”
In truth, the vast majority of people who get into fitness do it either because they enjoy the activity or because they want their body to feel and work better. Most kids who enjoy sports are doing it because it’s fun, and most adults who work out do it because their body doesn’t function properly without it. There is, of course a vanity aspect (as there are with most activities), but few people are so self-absorbed that they would be willing to go through hours of hard work per week for years just to be more attractive.
---
Well, I could run a mile a day without having to stand the vanity of people obsessing of their bodies. Or am I wrong? Isn't that's the goal of people going to the gym? I'm not saying it's wrong but it's a lie to sell it as a health benefit when any sport or physical activity could be as good without having to obsess about every inch of your body so you can gain approval by others of your friends at the fitness community.
I
---
Based on your other comments, it seems like you are obsessing over a very narrow portion of the fitness community and completely ignoring the rest of it. You are correct that there is a subset of people, especially young men, who go to the gym in order to obsess over their bodies. For these guys, fitness is mostly about looking good and less about being healthy.
However, there is a much, much larger group of people of all ages and genders that also go to the gym. Strength training is one of the most efficient ways to exercise your body, which is why my gym is full of elderly people, working parents, kids, and more who are all busy doing weight-lifting exercises. Plenty of these people are also doing yoga, running, and other sports, but they also appreciate the benefits of pure strength training. The fitness community is a lot bigger than ab-obsessed gym bros.
---
Well, the narrow portion of the fitness comunity is the most vocal of it so it's hard not to ignore them. I can tell you because I've been to the gym and couldn't stand these guys around me constantly telling me what to do or eat if I wanted to look like them and be more attractive to girls. Like i said, none of these people could tell me what exactly was the health benefit I could get through lifting that I couldn't get through another physical activity.
But I guess, like in other things, the vocal minority might be the one is more seem, the gym bros as you call them. But the thing is, what is the exact benefit of pure strength training? What can it do to your overall health?
---
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Is your argument that there are no health benefits to strength training, or that people who strength train aren't motivated by them? If you're arguing the former, I don't think you know enough about the subject to be posting a view on this sub. As for the latter, your examples aren't people who are even claiming that. You are essentially describing people bodybuilding and then asking us to convince you that they aren't in it to build their bodies.
---
That's why I'm trying to learn about it. What is the benefit you get through strength training if you are not an avid sports person? Like I said, a regular person. What does the regular person gets through lifting that couldn't get from other physical activity?
---
Has it not occurred to you that people may, actually, *enjoy* strength training?
---
This is not an issue of you enjoy it or not. Like I said, if they do it just to be more attractive then that's good but what's the overall health benefit they preach about?
---
You said it's for vanity. I enjoy the feeling of stretching my muscles under a barbell. I enjoy being sore the next day.
That alone means that there's more than vanity | Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol?
Jokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even "cool" gyms. Cardio massively increases your heart's health without making you any more attractive.
---
In my experience, there are less women flaunting their abs gains or putting their daily routine as the sole basis of their personality. I might be wrong and that's why I'm here trying to hear a counterpoint. Is cardio considered a fitness activity? I thought that only lifting was considered to be truly fitness. I mean, the whole bulking and all those gym terms sound more related to lifting.
---
>Is cardio considered a fitness activity?
Lol of course it is.
---
Interesting but would it be a different between cardio made through sport and the one you make in a gym? I mean, you could just play soccer or have a bycicle and could well be fitness without having to be involved in the lifting thing.
---
I'm not sure what you're asking. Playing soccer would lead to cardiovascular gains just like running on a treadmill would. Whether or not you consider that "fitness" is just semantics.
---
Yeah, I mean I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles. If the meaning of fitness is broad and comprehends even sport activities then I can see the benefit of that.
---
> I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles.
I'm curious where you got this misconception.
---
Instagram accounts and gym bros. No, don't judge me. I thought sports were a thing and fitness other.
---
Another reason your perception might be skewed is that strength training is often the common denominator across a wide variety of sports and other physical activities, whether it's running or football or hockey or swimming or cycling or or or .... what do those athletes have in common? They all lift. And they lift not (necessarily) for vanity, but because lifting improves their sport performance. | l1b5h2 | CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. | I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy. | arnodorian96 | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "luigi_itsa",
"id": "gjyg23n",
"score": 10,
"text": "This is a destructive attitude that a lot of unfit/unhealthy people have. By telling yourself that fitness is just about vanity, you allow yourself to feel morally superior in your inactivity and unhealthy lifestyle. “I may not be able... | [
{
"author": "fencient",
"id": "gjya8uq",
"score": 3,
"text": "Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol?\n\nJokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even... | [
"gjyg23n",
"gjyne7f",
"gjypb2k",
"gjyu9p1",
"gjyykvq",
"gjyzqve",
"gjz8exg",
"gjz95nm",
"gk01va0"
] | [
"gjya8uq",
"gjyjx6z",
"gjypfbx",
"gjytsgn",
"gjytzo5",
"gjz0ypu",
"gjzbtyx",
"gjzckr9",
"gjzczzo"
] |
CMV: Basic CPR and first aid training and practice should be a mandatory part of high school curriculums nationwide.
Given the million and one utterly useless things that they teach throughout our education I think the fact that basic lifesaving skills arent taught there is inexcusable. Like a high school could spend a hundred hours drilling you on memorizing dates that have little to no practical application in real life but they're not going to teach you what to do if someone stops breathing, or gets a huge cut, or a back injury?
Ideally I think students should be trained and certified in CPR/first aid early in their freshman year, drilled periodically, and recertified as necessary throughout the remainder of their time in high school. This would probably take a grand total of 10-15hrs over the course of their whole four years of high school. Considering that students spend 2800-4000hrs in high school anyways, and huge swaths of that time is spent having them memorize and regurgitate information that for 98% of them has no practical real life application, spending a tiny fraction of that time teaching them some basic skills needed to keep people alive (or at very least not make medical emergencies worse) seems well worth it, and I don't know why its not already required learning. | The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is a small amount of knowledge.
Mandatory training would produce 100 people who think they know CPR for every person who knows CPR it produces. These people who were only paying enough attention to pass the course or cheating off their friend, possibly many years ago, would then go "no need to call actual EMTs, **I'll** save the day!" and then go up and provide gloriously inept ministrations that save exactly zero lives but actively make things worse for the patient.
---
I see that as more of a problem with potential bad implementation of the course, not the course itself. I've been certified since I was like 16. One of the things that was always impressed upon us every single time is basically that we dont know shit and if EMS isnt called ASAP the person is very likely gonna die.
And I guess I'm also a little curious if you take this same view of everything that is taught in school. Do you think only 1 out of every 100 algebra students actually learned anything about algebra and the other 99 didnt learn shit but are cocky enough about their math skills to think they know more than professional mathematicians?
---
> I've been certified since I was like 16.
As such you probably know that certification only lasts a couple of years. This is for good reason, as we don't want someone who learned CPR 8 years ago figuring they know how to do it. This is even more true with first aid, as it's a larger set of skills that are hammered in less thoroughly. Your plan wouldn't result in everyone knowing CPR. It would result in everyone in the 18-20 age range knowing CPR, which is much less valuable. | This isn't a completely terrible idea.
However the main problem, speaking as someone who is married to a healthcare professional, and who speaks to me about these kinds of things fairly commonly...
We do want more people to know CPR and first aid and such, however we kinda... sorta... don't really want *everyone* ya know?
The people we *do* want are people who have a more indepth education on first aid than a regular HS class is going to provide.
A lot of bad things can occur when CPR is done in instances it should not be done, and there's very little chance a HS class... one time is going to provide the knowledge necessary to make decisions like that.
Not to mention you have to stay up to date on CPR and much of first aid every 2 and 4 years depending on the topic.
We also don't want people who learned CPR 20 years ago in HS thinking they are capable of doing the most up to date and best methods of first aid on people.
---
That had occurred to me, but wouldnt it be better to have someone attempt to do something they were trained on in high school, even if they dont do it 100% correctly, rather than just not do anything at all? Like I'd think having someone doing 35:1 compression:breath (rather than the proper 30:2) would be better than them not doing anything at all.
---
Well I think the choice is more along the lines of
"Should I start up some CPR because I think I'm trained well enough"
or..
"Should I wait a small amount of time, and follow blindly the directions given to me by 911 operator"
A big problem you are going to have is that if you perform CPR on someone and you do it improperly, and they die... there's some lawsuits opening up... there's the guilt of knowing you did it wrong and what if that made the difference... etc | eqoopv | CMV: Basic CPR and first aid training and practice should be a mandatory part of high school curriculums nationwide. | Given the million and one utterly useless things that they teach throughout our education I think the fact that basic lifesaving skills arent taught there is inexcusable. Like a high school could spend a hundred hours drilling you on memorizing dates that have little to no practical application in real life but they're not going to teach you what to do if someone stops breathing, or gets a huge cut, or a back injury?
Ideally I think students should be trained and certified in CPR/first aid early in their freshman year, drilled periodically, and recertified as necessary throughout the remainder of their time in high school. This would probably take a grand total of 10-15hrs over the course of their whole four years of high school. Considering that students spend 2800-4000hrs in high school anyways, and huge swaths of that time is spent having them memorize and regurgitate information that for 98% of them has no practical real life application, spending a tiny fraction of that time teaching them some basic skills needed to keep people alive (or at very least not make medical emergencies worse) seems well worth it, and I don't know why its not already required learning. | World_Spank_Bank | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Zer0Summoner",
"id": "fev2roz",
"score": 230,
"text": "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is a small amount of knowledge. \n\nMandatory training would produce 100 people who think they know CPR for every person who knows CPR it produces. These people who were only paying enoug... | [
{
"author": "NearEmu",
"id": "fev2h84",
"score": 70,
"text": "This isn't a completely terrible idea.\n\nHowever the main problem, speaking as someone who is married to a healthcare professional, and who speaks to me about these kinds of things fairly commonly...\n\nWe do want more people to know CPR... | [
"fev2roz",
"fev7muo",
"fevd7vq"
] | [
"fev2h84",
"fev6glq",
"fev6xqh"
] |
CMV: Forcing shows to have the 'flamboyantly gay' character ruins a potentially good character by shoving sexuality down our throat.
I want to preface by saying that thanks to browsing this sub and exposure to different lifestyles that having a character that represents some aspect of you helps a lot of people relate to shows and helps bring in consistent viewers. This isn't about that aspect of things to me; it is more about writing a character that only has being gay as a distinguishing factor. There are good ways to write a gay character, where it adds to the character, but if you have to act over the top in terms of effeminate traits, such as exaggerated hand gestures, a lisp, having the character ooze with sass or snide out of every crevice, dressing them in really short shorts, a deep v-neck, etc., then you don't really have a unique character, you have the token gay guy as part of the cast.
Edit: I realize that I was more saying that flanderization is toxic and hurtful for many groups of people and was wondering why it seems to be so popular. | Do you feel the same way about straight people showing public affection or the stereotypical Alpha Male depiction in most TV shows or movies?
---
Yeah, I think the 'manly man' stereotype hurt the already toxic masculinity image. Having characters that force themselves into stereotypes hurt that community by putting everyone in that kind of light.
---
I think this comes across as "you're looking to be offended", or "you are easily offended". If you think exaggerating anything for any character, for the good or the bad, is negative then what does that leave us? Where do you draw the line? Every character would just be dull, boring and all the same. When it comes to entertainment mediums, we need to be able to push limits and exaggerate characters. In real life you get these people, that's just how it is. What's wrong with including that personality as a character? Would you call a real flamboyantly gay person a stereotype? and tell them they are just forcing sexuality down your throat for the way they are? | What do you mean by “forcing”? Do you have any examples of specific characters?
---
Cameron from the american show Modern Family is a good example of what I mean. A lot of his character seems to revolve around his sexuality and his mannerisms seem to revolve around that, instead of potentially taking a different route where he has his own personality and his sexuality adds to it, he has a personality where his sexuality overrides it.
---
That’s a good example, but I’d counter with this (keeping in mind that I haven’t watched MF in about four years): He’s far from the only broad stereotype on that show. Phil and Gloria are basically cartoons - probably Haley, too. It’s not like Modern Family is some realistic character drama. | 8orzdb | CMV: Forcing shows to have the 'flamboyantly gay' character ruins a potentially good character by shoving sexuality down our throat. | I want to preface by saying that thanks to browsing this sub and exposure to different lifestyles that having a character that represents some aspect of you helps a lot of people relate to shows and helps bring in consistent viewers. This isn't about that aspect of things to me; it is more about writing a character that only has being gay as a distinguishing factor. There are good ways to write a gay character, where it adds to the character, but if you have to act over the top in terms of effeminate traits, such as exaggerated hand gestures, a lisp, having the character ooze with sass or snide out of every crevice, dressing them in really short shorts, a deep v-neck, etc., then you don't really have a unique character, you have the token gay guy as part of the cast.
Edit: I realize that I was more saying that flanderization is toxic and hurtful for many groups of people and was wondering why it seems to be so popular. | themathturbator | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MasBlanketo",
"id": "e05mdf2",
"score": 47,
"text": "Do you feel the same way about straight people showing public affection or the stereotypical Alpha Male depiction in most TV shows or movies? ",
"timestamp": 1528214764
},
{
"author": "themathturbator",
"id": "e05mqrd"... | [
{
"author": "smellslikebadussy",
"id": "e05m8x6",
"score": 9,
"text": "What do you mean by “forcing”? Do you have any examples of specific characters?",
"timestamp": 1528214651
},
{
"author": "themathturbator",
"id": "e05mjzj",
"score": -1,
"text": "Cameron from the american ... | [
"e05mdf2",
"e05mqrd",
"e05np40"
] | [
"e05m8x6",
"e05mjzj",
"e05n9g9"
] |
CMV: Complete legalization of any registered illegal drugs is a bad idea
I think there is now quite a **strong emotional bias** toward drugs in our generations, and it seems to have driven one of the strongest echo-chamber in the web, with strong opinions that are only reinforced by a complete disregard of any scientific research that hint at harmful effects of said drugs versus the positive effects (excessively publicized here) that they can have on specific pathology and disorders.
This is partially explained by the previously popular, and equally extreme, opposite stance of complete (and literal) demonization of anything drug-related, people shifting from one extreme to the other as usual, but also there are strong components of coping, cognitive dissonance and delusion at key here. Finally, weed is becoming an industry with a lot of financial interests invested in. If the tobacco / climate denial is any indication for it, that can mean a big potential for smokescreen (no pun intended).
Ignoring, or being completely blind to, the potential health crisis that widespread drug use represents **could have disastrous effects** on future generations, that we seem to grow completely oblivious to.
I think there are only two points that really matter in this discussion :
**Are drugs harmful** and **is their prohibition** an **efficient** way to reduce the number of users. I believe we have, at this point of our history, sufficient statistics to allow us to conclude positively to both of those statements, but I will go into details :
**1 - Are drugs harmful ?**
^(\[None of you want to hear or read this, but if you use, I implore you to do a little bit of impartial research on your own. There is a lot of information out there that should at the very least question your certainty in your favorite drug's innocuousness.\])
**Even cannabis**, a drug that is **generally perceived as harmless**, hints at a **lots of potential harmful effects** on public health (**fetal growth** [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252200/) [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628142) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26422004) [4](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/prenatal-marijuana-exposure-age-of-marijuana-initiation-and-the-development-of-psychotic-symptoms-in-young-adults/851CEF437098127246832834D5043409), **decreased cognitive abilities** [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468477/) [6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858977/) that are more serious the [younger you are](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394430/), **brain development** in adolescents [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880314/), reward system / **motivation** [8](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006322313005027) [6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858977/) [9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062456/), **schizophrenia** [10](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386176/) {causal} [11](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861931/) {*through CIP*} [12](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984096/) {causal} \[not linked with genetic vulnerability [13](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31813396)\] \[longitudinal, old : [14](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2892048) [15](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8372691) \], [16](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033190/) {review, 2014} [17](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4108251/) ...) [18](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719106/) {general review} [19](https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=FTW9DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=-igW2X6fnZ&sig=jheaPOxFftI47s51a2aVMrTqfok&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) {general review}, and its ability to **trigger psychotic symptoms** (a specific syndrome called *cannabis induced psychosis*) has been attested by numerous studies [20](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext), [21](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006253/). CUD has been shown to increase in prevalence with THC potency and cannabis use [22](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31839011).
**Cannabis induced psychosis** is, itself, **heavily associated** with future **schizophrenia** diagnoses. [11](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4149/htm)
There is substantial evidence that **most neurotoxic substances** can trigger psychotic disorders [23](https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/59383) {MDMA}, [24](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554477/) {amphetamines, review}, most of them (cannabis included) are *associated with* schizophrenia [25](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166863) [26](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28464965), and gradually decrease cognitive abilities [27](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=23881877) {MDMA}, [28](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=23660456) {MDMA}.
**Even alcohol** can, during the specific state of *delirium tremens* and in the very serious cases of *Korsakoff syndromes* (though prevalence and repartitions is not comparable).
These are specific health issues that arise outside the **specific problem of addiction** (well [documented for cannabis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223748/) despite constant denial : the psychological addiction only has been [debunked](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20001127/heavy-pot-use-can-cause-physical-dependence#1), yet remains popular) and all the related social issues that it provokes. For those reasons, I believe that the public health danger of high and uncontrolled use of various drugs do exist and is potentially (but not necessarily) even more serious than the numerous public health issues caused by high tobacco and alcohol use (with which they can share a co-morbidity, meaning that high cannabis use can increase and maintain tobacco use).
There are a lot of questions left unanswered, but claiming that cannabis, MDMA, ketamin or any illegal drug for that matter is absolutely harmless (no matter how fun they are), is simply disingenuous, specious and irresponsible. As a rule, you shouldn't smoke weed when pregnant or before 21. After that, you should be wary of CUD and stop as soon as you feel that your cognition is started to be affected by it.
**2 - Is their prohibition efficient ?**
Even though proponents of marijuana legalization in the state used to claim that legalization would not impact the number of users, the most recent studies show that the **prevalence of marijuana use** has [**more than doubled** since its legalization](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2464591) ([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31927413) [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31833119) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31722000) [4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31870242)). Contrary to the expectations, MML have also **not slowed down the trend of increased potency** of available marijuana [5](https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017198).
It is difficult to obtain data on the strict impact of legalization on consumption, because social experiments cannot be easily provoked, but whilst there are obviously many different variables that determine drug use in a country, there is definitely a case to make for the efficiency of prohibition in reducing the prevalence of specific drug use. Even though drugs are accessible to the general public when prohibited, the social stigma that surround them and the adverse consequences that can incur when trying to access them may very well be enough, on their own, to significantly decrease the prevalence of drug use.
Also, it seems **disingenuous to me to paint the opioids crisis as a problem caused by prohibition**, when opioids prescriptions are highly controlled in most western countries and none of them has known a similar crisis to the American one, which mainly results from a combination of partial insurance coverage that only covers pill, and specific policies to actively pushed the opioids to the American public since the 90s. The **wide range of symptoms that Purdue's OxyContin was prescribed for**, supported by a **campaign of active disinformation of the public**, are generally identified as the main cause of the epidemic that strikes the U.S.
**3 - So, is it worth it ?**
When considering whether it is worth it to maintain the prohibition of a specific drug, you mostly have to consider the cost in public health and social issues (drug induced crimes, poverty, education etc.), versus the benefits of potentially tremendous increased tax incomes, law enforcement priority relocations etc.
**Criminal activities** and prevalence of risky behaviors **are not entirely determined by criminal opportunities**, but by a lot of different social factors (high wage imbalance, high rate of poverty, ethnic divide and marginalization, cultural and biological markers etc.). In other words, **criminals won't cease to be criminals because their main occupation suddenly cease to be profitable**. As long as the determining factors are still there, you'll still observe financially motivated criminal behaviors, you'll just observe different ones.
People selling weed will just end up stealing cars, fencing stuff, robbing people or smuggling stuff or whatever. They won't suddenly stop having a reason to commit crime to provide for their livelihood, and **decriminalization has** [no decreasing effect](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666903) **on crime rates.** In fact, property crime on adjacent areas has shown increases in some studies [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6651729/),
This is also why **You never win war on crime**. There will always be antisocial behaviors (rape, theft, murders etc.) no matter how hard we try to prevent or deter them, we can only try to minimize their occurrence, but we never definitively "win", per se.
In light of all this, I believe, given the (now better documented) **therapeutic potential benefits** (depression for special K, PTSD for MDMA etc.) of some of those products, that their use should be (for most of them) allowed in **highly controlled and limited medical circumstances**. I also believe that their advertisement (like tobacco and alcohol) should be forbidden, and I honestly don't believe that it is generally a good idea to completely deregulate and allow the general selling of all neurotoxic substances to the public.
**TL/DR : Drugs (MDMA, K, C, LSD, Meth, Hero etc., even weed), are unhealthy, potentially dangerous and frowned upon for a good reason in the first place. Enforcing criminalization of drugs does deter and reduce the prevalence of use of such drugs.**
**Complete decriminalization does not reduce crime rate, and thus arrests, imprisonment etc. So it has no positive effects versus the negative outcomes that it produces. It is therefore a bad idea. CMV.** | Do you want everything that is harmful to be illegal or do you only want to legalize only non-harmful things?
What if something is both? Gasoline is dangerous and harmful. It explodes at temperatures below freezing. It’s dangerous and harmful. Should it be a controlled substance?
---
No, because AFAIK gasoline is not consumed (or at least it is not a concerning social health trend), and it is not addictive.
If it were, then yes, that would be an health crisis waiting to happen.
---
This is ignoring the top-level's point, which is that both drugs and gasoline are purchasable commodities with significant risk attached to them. You seem to be invalidating this analogy simply because the commodity in question doesn't fit some other arbitrary criteria. | > Criminal activities and prevalence of risky behaviors are not entirely determined by criminal opportunities, but by a lot of different social factors (high wage imbalance, high rate of poverty, ethnic divide and marginalization, cultural and biological markers etc.). In other words, criminals won't cease to be criminals because their main occupation suddenly cease to be profitable.
Every single reason you mentioned revolves around money. Your own examples show that criminals are criminals because their main occupation is profitable, and without it they would do something else
---
Yes, so crime rate, arrests, imprisonment etc. wouldn't and doesn't fall.
Or am-I reading you wrong ?
---
> Yes, so crime rate, arrests, imprisonment etc. wouldn't and doesn't fall.
>
>
No, it would only have it fall. | eqjzh2 | CMV: Complete legalization of any registered illegal drugs is a bad idea | I think there is now quite a **strong emotional bias** toward drugs in our generations, and it seems to have driven one of the strongest echo-chamber in the web, with strong opinions that are only reinforced by a complete disregard of any scientific research that hint at harmful effects of said drugs versus the positive effects (excessively publicized here) that they can have on specific pathology and disorders.
This is partially explained by the previously popular, and equally extreme, opposite stance of complete (and literal) demonization of anything drug-related, people shifting from one extreme to the other as usual, but also there are strong components of coping, cognitive dissonance and delusion at key here. Finally, weed is becoming an industry with a lot of financial interests invested in. If the tobacco / climate denial is any indication for it, that can mean a big potential for smokescreen (no pun intended).
Ignoring, or being completely blind to, the potential health crisis that widespread drug use represents **could have disastrous effects** on future generations, that we seem to grow completely oblivious to.
I think there are only two points that really matter in this discussion :
**Are drugs harmful** and **is their prohibition** an **efficient** way to reduce the number of users. I believe we have, at this point of our history, sufficient statistics to allow us to conclude positively to both of those statements, but I will go into details :
**1 - Are drugs harmful ?**
^(\[None of you want to hear or read this, but if you use, I implore you to do a little bit of impartial research on your own. There is a lot of information out there that should at the very least question your certainty in your favorite drug's innocuousness.\])
**Even cannabis**, a drug that is **generally perceived as harmless**, hints at a **lots of potential harmful effects** on public health (**fetal growth** [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252200/) [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628142) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26422004) [4](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/prenatal-marijuana-exposure-age-of-marijuana-initiation-and-the-development-of-psychotic-symptoms-in-young-adults/851CEF437098127246832834D5043409), **decreased cognitive abilities** [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468477/) [6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858977/) that are more serious the [younger you are](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394430/), **brain development** in adolescents [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880314/), reward system / **motivation** [8](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006322313005027) [6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858977/) [9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062456/), **schizophrenia** [10](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386176/) {causal} [11](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861931/) {*through CIP*} [12](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984096/) {causal} \[not linked with genetic vulnerability [13](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31813396)\] \[longitudinal, old : [14](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2892048) [15](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8372691) \], [16](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033190/) {review, 2014} [17](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4108251/) ...) [18](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719106/) {general review} [19](https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=FTW9DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=-igW2X6fnZ&sig=jheaPOxFftI47s51a2aVMrTqfok&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) {general review}, and its ability to **trigger psychotic symptoms** (a specific syndrome called *cannabis induced psychosis*) has been attested by numerous studies [20](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext), [21](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006253/). CUD has been shown to increase in prevalence with THC potency and cannabis use [22](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31839011).
**Cannabis induced psychosis** is, itself, **heavily associated** with future **schizophrenia** diagnoses. [11](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4149/htm)
There is substantial evidence that **most neurotoxic substances** can trigger psychotic disorders [23](https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/59383) {MDMA}, [24](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554477/) {amphetamines, review}, most of them (cannabis included) are *associated with* schizophrenia [25](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166863) [26](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28464965), and gradually decrease cognitive abilities [27](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=23881877) {MDMA}, [28](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=23660456) {MDMA}.
**Even alcohol** can, during the specific state of *delirium tremens* and in the very serious cases of *Korsakoff syndromes* (though prevalence and repartitions is not comparable).
These are specific health issues that arise outside the **specific problem of addiction** (well [documented for cannabis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223748/) despite constant denial : the psychological addiction only has been [debunked](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20001127/heavy-pot-use-can-cause-physical-dependence#1), yet remains popular) and all the related social issues that it provokes. For those reasons, I believe that the public health danger of high and uncontrolled use of various drugs do exist and is potentially (but not necessarily) even more serious than the numerous public health issues caused by high tobacco and alcohol use (with which they can share a co-morbidity, meaning that high cannabis use can increase and maintain tobacco use).
There are a lot of questions left unanswered, but claiming that cannabis, MDMA, ketamin or any illegal drug for that matter is absolutely harmless (no matter how fun they are), is simply disingenuous, specious and irresponsible. As a rule, you shouldn't smoke weed when pregnant or before 21. After that, you should be wary of CUD and stop as soon as you feel that your cognition is started to be affected by it.
**2 - Is their prohibition efficient ?**
Even though proponents of marijuana legalization in the state used to claim that legalization would not impact the number of users, the most recent studies show that the **prevalence of marijuana use** has [**more than doubled** since its legalization](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2464591) ([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31927413) [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31833119) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31722000) [4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31870242)). Contrary to the expectations, MML have also **not slowed down the trend of increased potency** of available marijuana [5](https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017198).
It is difficult to obtain data on the strict impact of legalization on consumption, because social experiments cannot be easily provoked, but whilst there are obviously many different variables that determine drug use in a country, there is definitely a case to make for the efficiency of prohibition in reducing the prevalence of specific drug use. Even though drugs are accessible to the general public when prohibited, the social stigma that surround them and the adverse consequences that can incur when trying to access them may very well be enough, on their own, to significantly decrease the prevalence of drug use.
Also, it seems **disingenuous to me to paint the opioids crisis as a problem caused by prohibition**, when opioids prescriptions are highly controlled in most western countries and none of them has known a similar crisis to the American one, which mainly results from a combination of partial insurance coverage that only covers pill, and specific policies to actively pushed the opioids to the American public since the 90s. The **wide range of symptoms that Purdue's OxyContin was prescribed for**, supported by a **campaign of active disinformation of the public**, are generally identified as the main cause of the epidemic that strikes the U.S.
**3 - So, is it worth it ?**
When considering whether it is worth it to maintain the prohibition of a specific drug, you mostly have to consider the cost in public health and social issues (drug induced crimes, poverty, education etc.), versus the benefits of potentially tremendous increased tax incomes, law enforcement priority relocations etc.
**Criminal activities** and prevalence of risky behaviors **are not entirely determined by criminal opportunities**, but by a lot of different social factors (high wage imbalance, high rate of poverty, ethnic divide and marginalization, cultural and biological markers etc.). In other words, **criminals won't cease to be criminals because their main occupation suddenly cease to be profitable**. As long as the determining factors are still there, you'll still observe financially motivated criminal behaviors, you'll just observe different ones.
People selling weed will just end up stealing cars, fencing stuff, robbing people or smuggling stuff or whatever. They won't suddenly stop having a reason to commit crime to provide for their livelihood, and **decriminalization has** [no decreasing effect](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666903) **on crime rates.** In fact, property crime on adjacent areas has shown increases in some studies [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6651729/),
This is also why **You never win war on crime**. There will always be antisocial behaviors (rape, theft, murders etc.) no matter how hard we try to prevent or deter them, we can only try to minimize their occurrence, but we never definitively "win", per se.
In light of all this, I believe, given the (now better documented) **therapeutic potential benefits** (depression for special K, PTSD for MDMA etc.) of some of those products, that their use should be (for most of them) allowed in **highly controlled and limited medical circumstances**. I also believe that their advertisement (like tobacco and alcohol) should be forbidden, and I honestly don't believe that it is generally a good idea to completely deregulate and allow the general selling of all neurotoxic substances to the public.
**TL/DR : Drugs (MDMA, K, C, LSD, Meth, Hero etc., even weed), are unhealthy, potentially dangerous and frowned upon for a good reason in the first place. Enforcing criminalization of drugs does deter and reduce the prevalence of use of such drugs.**
**Complete decriminalization does not reduce crime rate, and thus arrests, imprisonment etc. So it has no positive effects versus the negative outcomes that it produces. It is therefore a bad idea. CMV.** | RocBrizar | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "TedTschopp",
"id": "fet9zei",
"score": 1,
"text": "Do you want everything that is harmful to be illegal or do you only want to legalize only non-harmful things? \n\nWhat if something is both? Gasoline is dangerous and harmful. It explodes at temperatures below freezing. It’s dangerous... | [
{
"author": "Visible-Way",
"id": "fet5pmt",
"score": 1,
"text": "> Criminal activities and prevalence of risky behaviors are not entirely determined by criminal opportunities, but by a lot of different social factors (high wage imbalance, high rate of poverty, ethnic divide and marginalization, cult... | [
"fet9zei",
"fetcozw",
"fethiop"
] | [
"fet5pmt",
"fet6d83",
"fet6sz4"
] |
CMV: A Mass Boycott of Hogwarts Legacy is Nonsensical and Harmful
Recently there has been a large push toward massively boycotting Hogwarts Legacy, and honestly, I think the whole idea of doing so is extremely nonsensical, I'll explain the views of why we should boycott, and subsequently why I think this is silly, and hopefully, someone can bring up a point I'm missing.
# Apparent Reasons to Boycott:
1. JK Rowling has shown constant support for anti-trans ideology and has identified with the TERF movement. (I personally think this is extremely gross)
2. The Main antagonists of the game are goblins they are doing some shady business. There is a popular theory that JK Rowling wrote goblins to be a representation of Jewish people because they are bankers and have large noses and pointy ears. (I personally don't fully buy into this idea, at the very least I would never have noticed when reading the novels, nor would I have made that distinction, but I don't personally face antisemitic hatred, so I don't really have the proper context to be certain. This is just a theory however, we can't know her true intentions).
1. *Spoiler Alert though, Rowling had nothing to do with the development of this game so... I don't think that this game is secretly trying to be antisemitic, I mean why would it? It has literally nothing to gain, it would lose money if anything.*
I think these statements are fairly solid reasons to hold some *grudges* against Rowling and not want to associate with her as a person. In that sense, I believe that if you don't personally want to buy the game due to issues against the creator of the world the game takes place in, I understand, however, to support a mass boycott is a different story and leads to extremely harmful results.
# Issue 1: This is NOT Her Video Game
If you do a quick Google search, you can find that Rowling had \*nothing\* to do with the development of this game. I bet she looked over the story and setting, but as a creator, **this art piece is not hers, it just takes place in a universe she created.** Yes, she will inevitably gain royalties from sales of this game, but are we really going to ignore the **mass** amount of work that is required from people to make a AAA game of this scale? Are we just going to ignore that the actual people profiting from this are mainly the developers, story writers, artists, modelers, etc of this game? Rowling is already a billionaire, and I don't necessarily *like* the idea of giving her any more money, however, I also understand that my money would also directly support the entire team who created this game.
WB studios will also profit from this yes (so if you have a grudge against WB I guess you could also make a stance here?), but are we really going to boycott a video game created by hundreds of people? Why should I support a boycott of something created by hundreds of people spending thousands upon thousands of hours of *their lives* making a video game for people to enjoy? Making video games is not easy. It's a grueling process that requires an insane amount of resources, and often developers are overworked to meet a deadline.
The people of Avalanche software have families. They didn't get to choose Rowling to be the spearhead of the world they are working in. They didn't get to choose the sociopolitical views of Rowling. Most of them probably had no say in which specific Title they wanted to work on. **These people have nothing to do with JK Rowling.** It's honestly really sickening to me that we'd rather prioritize the hatred of a human that hates others, rather than supporting the people who worked to bring this game into reality.
# Issue 2: Enjoying Art While Hating the Artist
I still read the Harry Potter books to this day. I think a lot of young adults see these novels as fond memories of their childhood. For me, Harry offered a place to escape when life became hard as a child. The books are fun, and the world of HP is one that many of us enjoy, and while we might be able to point out some questionable social issues in the book (elves like being enslaved?), I think we can also just ignore the inconsistencies as we do with every other piece of fiction. Yes, the iffy social ideas presented lead to some awkward consequences, but I think the main ideas of friendship, bravery, and selflessness shine much brighter in the writing.
I still read these books, but I don't care at all about Rowling. I understand the idea that by supporting her further, her platform grows, and she can spread more harmful ideas, but in this case, she already had a **massive** platform by the time she ended up publicly SPEW-ing her disagreements and hatred towards the trans community. But this also means that the base material never attempted to push these ideas as hard as she pushes them on Twitter. The book series is finished, and Rowling's influence on social media is eclipsed and shadowed by the books themselves. Does she profit from book sales? Yes, but those dollars are going toward a person enjoying the Harry Potter books, an experience that many of us cherish. Surely that experience trumps the idea of Rowling getting a few extra dollars in her grandiose bank account.
But now, things are different. The Harry Potter universe is one that will probably continuously be expanded upon. Rowling might have been the creator, but we are reaching an era where the Wizarding World is going to turn into a collaborative art project similar to Star Wars, especially with Disney looking to acquire the rights. At what point do we not care that she was the creator? As long as we don't fetishize her as the grand mind who started the Wizarding World, I don't see anything wrong with supporting art that others created that takes place in the WW.
# Issue 3: Rowling Sucks, but She's Not the Devil Incarnate
While I agree she holds views that I disagree with (and honestly find abhorrent) I can also understand that she's not the worst person on earth.
For some reason, online culture in recent years treats humans as One-Dimensional beings with no other traits. I will admit that Rowling often tries to make this whole TERF thing a key part of her personality, but I don't think that this trait of hers nullifies the good that she has done for this world. Karma doesn't exist as a calculus. Your good deeds don't negate your bad deeds, and your bad deeds don't negate your good deeds. People have histories of **both good and bad**, and to ignore either side would be a gross misrepresentation of a person, basically dehumanizing them (yes she dehumanizes people too, that's not my point though).
Rowling has donated 16% of her total net worth to charity, ironically many of whom will directly support transgender children and adults. Her money might go to places you do not agree with, but her money will also go to places that are undeniably good.
As a society, we should recognize that Rowling has caused widespread harm to a lot of people and created an unsafe environment for groups of people who just wish to live their lives, but that she also created a book series that inspired millions, and supports charities that are undoubtedly beneficial to humanity.
Rowling is morally grey, and so is every single human on Earth.
# Conclusion
Boycotting the video game supports no one. This game was made by a large group of individuals that have nothing to do with Rowling, and these individuals deserve whatever praise (or criticism) this game generates, they do not deserve a mass boycott due to the views of the creator of the world that they are working in, as the creation of the game has **nothing** to do with Rowling. Additionally, Supporting art while not agreeing with an artist is not inherently bad. What you get out of art is not what the creator puts into it, art is interpretive, and this specific art piece has evolved to be far beyond the scope of the initial creator. Finally, Rowling is not the devil, she is a morally grey human with viewpoints that harm people, while simultaneously supporting humanitarian efforts.
To reiterate: If you personally wish to not buy the game because the idea of supporting Rowling herself hurts you, then by all means don't buy this game. However, supporting a mass boycott and pushing the narrative that **this is HER game, and HER property** is absolutely wrong, and I think is an extremely harmful idea to push. | The developers, writers, artists, etc have already been paid. The profits go to the publisher and to Rowling.
Devs get paid upfront, contractually. They often have some bonuses based on performance and sales, but they’ve already been paid. They do not need the game to succeed. *Even if* all of the devs made money based on the games’ success, *the publisher already gave them an advance*. They’d only make money after recouping that advance. There’s no world where the developers are not already paid for developing this game. You fundamentally misunderstand how the finances work in this situation.
Why am I obligated to financially support this team, though? There are all sorts of things I don’t buy; that doesn’t make me responsible for the creator’s lack of success.
We don’t need to do these mental gymnastics here. Your not purchasing Hogwarts Legacy is not going to lead to a developer starving. Even if it did — games flop all the time. Movies flop all the time. *Art is often not commercially viable or successful*. Trying to shame people as villains for not buying an $80 vanity project is a bad argument, a poor appeal to emotions, and one that doesn’t need to be made.
---
Game Dev's careers can depend on the reception and sales that a game makes. If this game flops, people will lose their jobs, and their work history will show they worked on a title that performed poorly. Obviously, this will affect different people in the team differently, but overall the reception of a game can be highly important to developers, even if they are contractually hired. Conversely, if the game is amazing, then that group of people might get hired on higher-paying contracts, or have a better network to work with.
Denying this group of people the ability to even have their game judged due to outside political issues is wrong. The performance of this video game should have nothing to do with the politics of JK Rowling, which is the whole purpose of this post.
If the game flops because it's bad then whatever, it's a bad game, but the game shouldn't be negatively criticized due to an outside political perspective of someone unrelated to the overall development.
---
>If this game flops, people will lose their jobs, and their work history will show they worked on a title that performed poorly.
To be fair, this happens routinely and is dismissed by employers all the time. I'm friends with people that worked on projects that ended up failing due to no fault of the individual employees, and that failure wasn't held over their head either internally or externally. Future employers understand the market, and will see that the failure of Hogwarts Legacy (if it fails because of a boycott) for what it is; a reflection on the story and not on the programming.
It's very unlikely that developers for Hogwarts Legacy would face any real career issues downstream if the game fails due to social boycotts. | Issue 1: Rowling, someone who has actively spread lies about trans people (https://www.mic.com/culture/jk-rowling-transphobic-self-id-laws) still gets money. The entire point of a boycott is to financially oppose someone with terrible views. In fact, the royalties to her and WB are the only thing my sale effects; a developer has already been paid by the time the game is complete.
Issue 2: You still reading the books doesnt support Rowling; she doesnt get royalties for opening a page. Theres a difference between 'I still have nostalgia from a book thats almost 30' and 'I will actively give money to a transphobe'
Issue 3: Lol what? So because she isnt the worst person alive right now, she should face no consequences or pushback for her horrid beliefs and ideals? By that logic, the Zodiac Killer mustve been fine cause at least he didnt kill as many people as he *could* have.
---
1. Why do the careers of game developers need to suffer from Rowling if this game flops due to people not wanting to buy it because of her?
2. Enjoying the books will in some way or another support her. Whether it be me talking about re-reading them, or future children seeing them, by just keeping the books in my house, I inevitably support her.
3. This is a Strawman. How could you disagree that people are morally ambiguous? And how can you even compare the cruelties of the Zodiac Killer to Rowling? I never said that she doesn't deserve criticism or punishment for her harmful words. I just said it's better to view her as someone with a multi-faceted personality, as do **all people on earth.**
---
The developers can work on other projects that arent tied to Rowling. Ultimately there is no obligation for a consumer to purchase a product; you seem to think I should buy every video game ever made because it had developers.
My point with 3 was that just cause some people are worse than others doesnt mean the 'less' bad ones cant be criticized for their actions. Yes, the Zodiac is worse than Rowling. But that doesnt make Rowling immune to facing backlash and losing support for being a transphobe.
At what point does someone cross a line where people are allowed to criticize them and take actions against them like a boycott? Why must I be obligated to spend money to support someone who thinks friends and family of mine are a scourge to society? | 10vhm3t | CMV: A Mass Boycott of Hogwarts Legacy is Nonsensical and Harmful | Recently there has been a large push toward massively boycotting Hogwarts Legacy, and honestly, I think the whole idea of doing so is extremely nonsensical, I'll explain the views of why we should boycott, and subsequently why I think this is silly, and hopefully, someone can bring up a point I'm missing.
# Apparent Reasons to Boycott:
1. JK Rowling has shown constant support for anti-trans ideology and has identified with the TERF movement. (I personally think this is extremely gross)
2. The Main antagonists of the game are goblins they are doing some shady business. There is a popular theory that JK Rowling wrote goblins to be a representation of Jewish people because they are bankers and have large noses and pointy ears. (I personally don't fully buy into this idea, at the very least I would never have noticed when reading the novels, nor would I have made that distinction, but I don't personally face antisemitic hatred, so I don't really have the proper context to be certain. This is just a theory however, we can't know her true intentions).
1. *Spoiler Alert though, Rowling had nothing to do with the development of this game so... I don't think that this game is secretly trying to be antisemitic, I mean why would it? It has literally nothing to gain, it would lose money if anything.*
I think these statements are fairly solid reasons to hold some *grudges* against Rowling and not want to associate with her as a person. In that sense, I believe that if you don't personally want to buy the game due to issues against the creator of the world the game takes place in, I understand, however, to support a mass boycott is a different story and leads to extremely harmful results.
# Issue 1: This is NOT Her Video Game
If you do a quick Google search, you can find that Rowling had \*nothing\* to do with the development of this game. I bet she looked over the story and setting, but as a creator, **this art piece is not hers, it just takes place in a universe she created.** Yes, she will inevitably gain royalties from sales of this game, but are we really going to ignore the **mass** amount of work that is required from people to make a AAA game of this scale? Are we just going to ignore that the actual people profiting from this are mainly the developers, story writers, artists, modelers, etc of this game? Rowling is already a billionaire, and I don't necessarily *like* the idea of giving her any more money, however, I also understand that my money would also directly support the entire team who created this game.
WB studios will also profit from this yes (so if you have a grudge against WB I guess you could also make a stance here?), but are we really going to boycott a video game created by hundreds of people? Why should I support a boycott of something created by hundreds of people spending thousands upon thousands of hours of *their lives* making a video game for people to enjoy? Making video games is not easy. It's a grueling process that requires an insane amount of resources, and often developers are overworked to meet a deadline.
The people of Avalanche software have families. They didn't get to choose Rowling to be the spearhead of the world they are working in. They didn't get to choose the sociopolitical views of Rowling. Most of them probably had no say in which specific Title they wanted to work on. **These people have nothing to do with JK Rowling.** It's honestly really sickening to me that we'd rather prioritize the hatred of a human that hates others, rather than supporting the people who worked to bring this game into reality.
# Issue 2: Enjoying Art While Hating the Artist
I still read the Harry Potter books to this day. I think a lot of young adults see these novels as fond memories of their childhood. For me, Harry offered a place to escape when life became hard as a child. The books are fun, and the world of HP is one that many of us enjoy, and while we might be able to point out some questionable social issues in the book (elves like being enslaved?), I think we can also just ignore the inconsistencies as we do with every other piece of fiction. Yes, the iffy social ideas presented lead to some awkward consequences, but I think the main ideas of friendship, bravery, and selflessness shine much brighter in the writing.
I still read these books, but I don't care at all about Rowling. I understand the idea that by supporting her further, her platform grows, and she can spread more harmful ideas, but in this case, she already had a **massive** platform by the time she ended up publicly SPEW-ing her disagreements and hatred towards the trans community. But this also means that the base material never attempted to push these ideas as hard as she pushes them on Twitter. The book series is finished, and Rowling's influence on social media is eclipsed and shadowed by the books themselves. Does she profit from book sales? Yes, but those dollars are going toward a person enjoying the Harry Potter books, an experience that many of us cherish. Surely that experience trumps the idea of Rowling getting a few extra dollars in her grandiose bank account.
But now, things are different. The Harry Potter universe is one that will probably continuously be expanded upon. Rowling might have been the creator, but we are reaching an era where the Wizarding World is going to turn into a collaborative art project similar to Star Wars, especially with Disney looking to acquire the rights. At what point do we not care that she was the creator? As long as we don't fetishize her as the grand mind who started the Wizarding World, I don't see anything wrong with supporting art that others created that takes place in the WW.
# Issue 3: Rowling Sucks, but She's Not the Devil Incarnate
While I agree she holds views that I disagree with (and honestly find abhorrent) I can also understand that she's not the worst person on earth.
For some reason, online culture in recent years treats humans as One-Dimensional beings with no other traits. I will admit that Rowling often tries to make this whole TERF thing a key part of her personality, but I don't think that this trait of hers nullifies the good that she has done for this world. Karma doesn't exist as a calculus. Your good deeds don't negate your bad deeds, and your bad deeds don't negate your good deeds. People have histories of **both good and bad**, and to ignore either side would be a gross misrepresentation of a person, basically dehumanizing them (yes she dehumanizes people too, that's not my point though).
Rowling has donated 16% of her total net worth to charity, ironically many of whom will directly support transgender children and adults. Her money might go to places you do not agree with, but her money will also go to places that are undeniably good.
As a society, we should recognize that Rowling has caused widespread harm to a lot of people and created an unsafe environment for groups of people who just wish to live their lives, but that she also created a book series that inspired millions, and supports charities that are undoubtedly beneficial to humanity.
Rowling is morally grey, and so is every single human on Earth.
# Conclusion
Boycotting the video game supports no one. This game was made by a large group of individuals that have nothing to do with Rowling, and these individuals deserve whatever praise (or criticism) this game generates, they do not deserve a mass boycott due to the views of the creator of the world that they are working in, as the creation of the game has **nothing** to do with Rowling. Additionally, Supporting art while not agreeing with an artist is not inherently bad. What you get out of art is not what the creator puts into it, art is interpretive, and this specific art piece has evolved to be far beyond the scope of the initial creator. Finally, Rowling is not the devil, she is a morally grey human with viewpoints that harm people, while simultaneously supporting humanitarian efforts.
To reiterate: If you personally wish to not buy the game because the idea of supporting Rowling herself hurts you, then by all means don't buy this game. However, supporting a mass boycott and pushing the narrative that **this is HER game, and HER property** is absolutely wrong, and I think is an extremely harmful idea to push. | ZombieIsTired | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "sophisticaden_",
"id": "j7hgmiv",
"score": 55,
"text": "The developers, writers, artists, etc have already been paid. The profits go to the publisher and to Rowling. \n\nDevs get paid upfront, contractually. They often have some bonuses based on performance and sales, but they’ve alread... | [
{
"author": "Neil-Gayman",
"id": "j7hhwke",
"score": 12,
"text": "Issue 1: Rowling, someone who has actively spread lies about trans people (https://www.mic.com/culture/jk-rowling-transphobic-self-id-laws) still gets money. The entire point of a boycott is to financially oppose someone with terrible... | [
"j7hgmiv",
"j7hic3r",
"j7hiz23"
] | [
"j7hhwke",
"j7hjatd",
"j7hjwvb"
] |
CMV: A Mass Boycott of Hogwarts Legacy is Nonsensical and Harmful
Recently there has been a large push toward massively boycotting Hogwarts Legacy, and honestly, I think the whole idea of doing so is extremely nonsensical, I'll explain the views of why we should boycott, and subsequently why I think this is silly, and hopefully, someone can bring up a point I'm missing.
# Apparent Reasons to Boycott:
1. JK Rowling has shown constant support for anti-trans ideology and has identified with the TERF movement. (I personally think this is extremely gross)
2. The Main antagonists of the game are goblins they are doing some shady business. There is a popular theory that JK Rowling wrote goblins to be a representation of Jewish people because they are bankers and have large noses and pointy ears. (I personally don't fully buy into this idea, at the very least I would never have noticed when reading the novels, nor would I have made that distinction, but I don't personally face antisemitic hatred, so I don't really have the proper context to be certain. This is just a theory however, we can't know her true intentions).
1. *Spoiler Alert though, Rowling had nothing to do with the development of this game so... I don't think that this game is secretly trying to be antisemitic, I mean why would it? It has literally nothing to gain, it would lose money if anything.*
I think these statements are fairly solid reasons to hold some *grudges* against Rowling and not want to associate with her as a person. In that sense, I believe that if you don't personally want to buy the game due to issues against the creator of the world the game takes place in, I understand, however, to support a mass boycott is a different story and leads to extremely harmful results.
# Issue 1: This is NOT Her Video Game
If you do a quick Google search, you can find that Rowling had \*nothing\* to do with the development of this game. I bet she looked over the story and setting, but as a creator, **this art piece is not hers, it just takes place in a universe she created.** Yes, she will inevitably gain royalties from sales of this game, but are we really going to ignore the **mass** amount of work that is required from people to make a AAA game of this scale? Are we just going to ignore that the actual people profiting from this are mainly the developers, story writers, artists, modelers, etc of this game? Rowling is already a billionaire, and I don't necessarily *like* the idea of giving her any more money, however, I also understand that my money would also directly support the entire team who created this game.
WB studios will also profit from this yes (so if you have a grudge against WB I guess you could also make a stance here?), but are we really going to boycott a video game created by hundreds of people? Why should I support a boycott of something created by hundreds of people spending thousands upon thousands of hours of *their lives* making a video game for people to enjoy? Making video games is not easy. It's a grueling process that requires an insane amount of resources, and often developers are overworked to meet a deadline.
The people of Avalanche software have families. They didn't get to choose Rowling to be the spearhead of the world they are working in. They didn't get to choose the sociopolitical views of Rowling. Most of them probably had no say in which specific Title they wanted to work on. **These people have nothing to do with JK Rowling.** It's honestly really sickening to me that we'd rather prioritize the hatred of a human that hates others, rather than supporting the people who worked to bring this game into reality.
# Issue 2: Enjoying Art While Hating the Artist
I still read the Harry Potter books to this day. I think a lot of young adults see these novels as fond memories of their childhood. For me, Harry offered a place to escape when life became hard as a child. The books are fun, and the world of HP is one that many of us enjoy, and while we might be able to point out some questionable social issues in the book (elves like being enslaved?), I think we can also just ignore the inconsistencies as we do with every other piece of fiction. Yes, the iffy social ideas presented lead to some awkward consequences, but I think the main ideas of friendship, bravery, and selflessness shine much brighter in the writing.
I still read these books, but I don't care at all about Rowling. I understand the idea that by supporting her further, her platform grows, and she can spread more harmful ideas, but in this case, she already had a **massive** platform by the time she ended up publicly SPEW-ing her disagreements and hatred towards the trans community. But this also means that the base material never attempted to push these ideas as hard as she pushes them on Twitter. The book series is finished, and Rowling's influence on social media is eclipsed and shadowed by the books themselves. Does she profit from book sales? Yes, but those dollars are going toward a person enjoying the Harry Potter books, an experience that many of us cherish. Surely that experience trumps the idea of Rowling getting a few extra dollars in her grandiose bank account.
But now, things are different. The Harry Potter universe is one that will probably continuously be expanded upon. Rowling might have been the creator, but we are reaching an era where the Wizarding World is going to turn into a collaborative art project similar to Star Wars, especially with Disney looking to acquire the rights. At what point do we not care that she was the creator? As long as we don't fetishize her as the grand mind who started the Wizarding World, I don't see anything wrong with supporting art that others created that takes place in the WW.
# Issue 3: Rowling Sucks, but She's Not the Devil Incarnate
While I agree she holds views that I disagree with (and honestly find abhorrent) I can also understand that she's not the worst person on earth.
For some reason, online culture in recent years treats humans as One-Dimensional beings with no other traits. I will admit that Rowling often tries to make this whole TERF thing a key part of her personality, but I don't think that this trait of hers nullifies the good that she has done for this world. Karma doesn't exist as a calculus. Your good deeds don't negate your bad deeds, and your bad deeds don't negate your good deeds. People have histories of **both good and bad**, and to ignore either side would be a gross misrepresentation of a person, basically dehumanizing them (yes she dehumanizes people too, that's not my point though).
Rowling has donated 16% of her total net worth to charity, ironically many of whom will directly support transgender children and adults. Her money might go to places you do not agree with, but her money will also go to places that are undeniably good.
As a society, we should recognize that Rowling has caused widespread harm to a lot of people and created an unsafe environment for groups of people who just wish to live their lives, but that she also created a book series that inspired millions, and supports charities that are undoubtedly beneficial to humanity.
Rowling is morally grey, and so is every single human on Earth.
# Conclusion
Boycotting the video game supports no one. This game was made by a large group of individuals that have nothing to do with Rowling, and these individuals deserve whatever praise (or criticism) this game generates, they do not deserve a mass boycott due to the views of the creator of the world that they are working in, as the creation of the game has **nothing** to do with Rowling. Additionally, Supporting art while not agreeing with an artist is not inherently bad. What you get out of art is not what the creator puts into it, art is interpretive, and this specific art piece has evolved to be far beyond the scope of the initial creator. Finally, Rowling is not the devil, she is a morally grey human with viewpoints that harm people, while simultaneously supporting humanitarian efforts.
To reiterate: If you personally wish to not buy the game because the idea of supporting Rowling herself hurts you, then by all means don't buy this game. However, supporting a mass boycott and pushing the narrative that **this is HER game, and HER property** is absolutely wrong, and I think is an extremely harmful idea to push. | Response to Issue 1: All the people who worked on this game already got paid. They are not hurt by a boycott. Acting as if they are hurt is silly. If people boycott the game because of Rowling it will not hurt their careers. Multiple members of the dev team have already made statements affirming this. This is the big one, since without this issue that means no one will be collateral damage from a boycott.
Response to issue 2: Separating the art from the artist is about quality, not money. The game may be great, but if by supporting it we give money to bad causes then we are still doing a bad thing. You are not a bad person for enjoying Harry Potter. But giving Rowling money is still bad. And acting as if she already is too rich to hurt is just a rationalization. Just because she already has a lot of money doesn't mean that we should just continually give her more. And acting as if her art is super unique and irreplaceable outside of a nostalgia is just incorrect. This game is a fantasy open world exploration game, there are several others on the market that you could spend time on instead.
Response to issue 3: Rowling has done good in the past, absolutely. Currently, she uses her platform to push evil. If and when she changes that, we should change our attitude towards her. It's that simple. She is currently speaking about and funding TERF causes more than any others.
My conclusion: This game, like it or not, has become a part of a larger conversation. If it is a huge success, Rowling will claim that is tacit support of her views. She already uses her success as good reason to believe that her views are not hateful. As people who support trans people, we should try to avoid this.
Speaking of trans people, try putting yourself in those shoes. The creator of a massive media property makes her entire public persona about hating you and people like you. Then her company releases a massive video game and all the people who say they support you buy it and talk about how fun it is. Imagine how that would hurt.
At the end of the day, Harry Potter IS J.K. Rowling's. This IS her game, set in her world, and the profits from it will largely go to her. Boycotting it hurts nobody and sends a good message.
---
>Multiple members of the dev team have already made statements affirming
this. This is the big one, since without this issue that means no one
will be collateral damage from a boycott.
Fair, but I still believe that denying an artist a means to have their art viewed due to an outsider's dispute is unfair and silly, but if what you said is true then I suppose the dev's probably don't care about Rowling or the issue of boycotting.
​
> But giving Rowling money is still bad. And acting as if she already is
too rich to hurt is just a rationalization. Just because she already has
a lot of money doesn't mean that we should just continually give her
more.
This is hard for me to definitively agree with. Her money will go towards places that I vehemently disagree with, but some of the money will go to places that are undeniably good for humanity, and since these are **very** large sums of money we are talking about, I feel split. Though, a large portion will still directly support her and her platform, which is hard to argue against. It's a win-lose either way.
​
> And acting as if her art is super unique and irreplaceable outside of a
nostalgia is just incorrect. This game is a fantasy open world
exploration game, there are several others on the market that you could
spend time on instead.
I think her art is super unique in the sense that for a fantasy open-world exploration game, Harry Potter would probably be the first choice for a lot of people. The idea itself isn't too unique, but I think the general execution and world building to this point is exciting for people. It's unique in the sense that few other fantasy ideas would be able to make a game as instantly recognizable to it's players.
​
>Speaking of trans people, try putting yourself in those shoes. The
creator of a massive media property makes her entire public persona
about hating you and people like you. Then her company releases a
massive video game and all the people who say they support you buy it
and talk about how fun it is. Imagine how that would hurt.
Id hope that my trans friends would understand that I would want to play a video game set in a world that we all grew up with and in, and not that I'm trying to support a biggot. I don't have any intention to act in harmful a harmful manner, and I also support LGBTQ rights when and where I can considering it's also my own livelihood on the line. Though if I'm being entirely honest, most of my trans friends don't really care, because they "don't give a shit about Rowling" in the first place, not to say that this is the sentiment of all trans people, just my friends.
​
>At the end of the day, Harry Potter IS J.K. Rowling's. This IS her game,
set in her world, and the profits from it will largely go to her.
Boycotting it hurts nobody and sends a good message.
I don't think you can call this her game. The world is hers, but she did none of the work to actively create this game. Sure, the writers probably had an easier time since most of the foundations were already there, but this is like calling every new StarWars spinoff George Lucas's, when it's very clearly not. And the profits will probably only marginally go to her, considering that WB studios produced the game in the first place, not her company. In fact, she will only be receiving royalties, which could be high, but certainly not majority.
I also disagree that this sends a good message. This sends the message that we should actively punish group works due to the actions of a single entity, which I think is one of those things that is pretty upsetting. We shouldn't punish game due to one person who is tangentially related to the process of making the game.
​
>My conclusion: This game, like it or not, has become a part of a larger
conversation. If it is a huge success, Rowling will claim that is tacit
support of her views. She already uses her success as good reason to
believe that her views are not hateful. As people who support trans
people, we should try to avoid this.
I didn't think about how she could manipulate the success of the game to push her hateful agenda, and I think that's actually a fairly good point honestly.
You brought up a lot of good points that I agree with, and I appreciate the effort you made to understand my point of view, some of the other comments strawmanned my arguments, so it's nice to see some additional points that I didn't consider.
Δ
---
>Id hope that my trans friends would understand that I would want to play a video game set in a world that we all grew up with and in, and not that I'm trying to support a biggot. I don't have any intention to act in harmful a harmful manner, and I also support LGBTQ rights when and where I can considering it's also my own livelihood on the line
Maybe your trans friends are different that myself and the trans people I know, but personally? I'd find it incredibly sad and disappointing if a friend just couldn't bear to not get One Video Game from the world of The World's Most Popular TERF (who still gets money from this and yes, DOES claim continued readership and engagement in the HP world as support of her views - she has said as much openly). Not getting a video game is a bare minimum level of sacrifice.
You like... *are* supporting a bigot. Financially in the specific of the video game purchase, and in continuing to support her franchise's success. If fans did not consume her media, she would not continue to have a massive platform. If you keep buying her stuff, you are supporting her. I wouldn't go buy Dave Chappelle tickets and then claim I'm not "trying" to support a transphobe, either. | The developers, writers, artists, etc have already been paid. The profits go to the publisher and to Rowling.
Devs get paid upfront, contractually. They often have some bonuses based on performance and sales, but they’ve already been paid. They do not need the game to succeed. *Even if* all of the devs made money based on the games’ success, *the publisher already gave them an advance*. They’d only make money after recouping that advance. There’s no world where the developers are not already paid for developing this game. You fundamentally misunderstand how the finances work in this situation.
Why am I obligated to financially support this team, though? There are all sorts of things I don’t buy; that doesn’t make me responsible for the creator’s lack of success.
We don’t need to do these mental gymnastics here. Your not purchasing Hogwarts Legacy is not going to lead to a developer starving. Even if it did — games flop all the time. Movies flop all the time. *Art is often not commercially viable or successful*. Trying to shame people as villains for not buying an $80 vanity project is a bad argument, a poor appeal to emotions, and one that doesn’t need to be made.
---
> Why am I obligated to financially support this team, though? There are all sorts of things I don’t buy; that doesn’t make me responsible for the creator’s lack of success.
Who says you are obligated?
There are all sorts of things we all don't buy. That doesn't mean we are actively boycotting the item/company/etc. There is a difference between not buying you don't want/need vs boycotting something and encouraging others to boycott something for social/political reasons.
---
OP’s argument for why the game shouldn’t be boycotted implies an obligation to financially support the developers.
If OP’s premise is true (it isn’t, but let’s assume it is) then I don’t see how the choice to not buy is less morally harmful than the choice to boycott. If the reason we shouldn’t boycott is because the devs might starve (they won’t) or won’t have food on the table (they will), then isn’t that a moral imperative *to buy*, not simply to *not boycott*?
Either way, the proposed financial harm to the developers by boycotting does not exist. The only entities at a risk of serious financial harm are the publisher and JK Rowling. | 10vhm3t | CMV: A Mass Boycott of Hogwarts Legacy is Nonsensical and Harmful | Recently there has been a large push toward massively boycotting Hogwarts Legacy, and honestly, I think the whole idea of doing so is extremely nonsensical, I'll explain the views of why we should boycott, and subsequently why I think this is silly, and hopefully, someone can bring up a point I'm missing.
# Apparent Reasons to Boycott:
1. JK Rowling has shown constant support for anti-trans ideology and has identified with the TERF movement. (I personally think this is extremely gross)
2. The Main antagonists of the game are goblins they are doing some shady business. There is a popular theory that JK Rowling wrote goblins to be a representation of Jewish people because they are bankers and have large noses and pointy ears. (I personally don't fully buy into this idea, at the very least I would never have noticed when reading the novels, nor would I have made that distinction, but I don't personally face antisemitic hatred, so I don't really have the proper context to be certain. This is just a theory however, we can't know her true intentions).
1. *Spoiler Alert though, Rowling had nothing to do with the development of this game so... I don't think that this game is secretly trying to be antisemitic, I mean why would it? It has literally nothing to gain, it would lose money if anything.*
I think these statements are fairly solid reasons to hold some *grudges* against Rowling and not want to associate with her as a person. In that sense, I believe that if you don't personally want to buy the game due to issues against the creator of the world the game takes place in, I understand, however, to support a mass boycott is a different story and leads to extremely harmful results.
# Issue 1: This is NOT Her Video Game
If you do a quick Google search, you can find that Rowling had \*nothing\* to do with the development of this game. I bet she looked over the story and setting, but as a creator, **this art piece is not hers, it just takes place in a universe she created.** Yes, she will inevitably gain royalties from sales of this game, but are we really going to ignore the **mass** amount of work that is required from people to make a AAA game of this scale? Are we just going to ignore that the actual people profiting from this are mainly the developers, story writers, artists, modelers, etc of this game? Rowling is already a billionaire, and I don't necessarily *like* the idea of giving her any more money, however, I also understand that my money would also directly support the entire team who created this game.
WB studios will also profit from this yes (so if you have a grudge against WB I guess you could also make a stance here?), but are we really going to boycott a video game created by hundreds of people? Why should I support a boycott of something created by hundreds of people spending thousands upon thousands of hours of *their lives* making a video game for people to enjoy? Making video games is not easy. It's a grueling process that requires an insane amount of resources, and often developers are overworked to meet a deadline.
The people of Avalanche software have families. They didn't get to choose Rowling to be the spearhead of the world they are working in. They didn't get to choose the sociopolitical views of Rowling. Most of them probably had no say in which specific Title they wanted to work on. **These people have nothing to do with JK Rowling.** It's honestly really sickening to me that we'd rather prioritize the hatred of a human that hates others, rather than supporting the people who worked to bring this game into reality.
# Issue 2: Enjoying Art While Hating the Artist
I still read the Harry Potter books to this day. I think a lot of young adults see these novels as fond memories of their childhood. For me, Harry offered a place to escape when life became hard as a child. The books are fun, and the world of HP is one that many of us enjoy, and while we might be able to point out some questionable social issues in the book (elves like being enslaved?), I think we can also just ignore the inconsistencies as we do with every other piece of fiction. Yes, the iffy social ideas presented lead to some awkward consequences, but I think the main ideas of friendship, bravery, and selflessness shine much brighter in the writing.
I still read these books, but I don't care at all about Rowling. I understand the idea that by supporting her further, her platform grows, and she can spread more harmful ideas, but in this case, she already had a **massive** platform by the time she ended up publicly SPEW-ing her disagreements and hatred towards the trans community. But this also means that the base material never attempted to push these ideas as hard as she pushes them on Twitter. The book series is finished, and Rowling's influence on social media is eclipsed and shadowed by the books themselves. Does she profit from book sales? Yes, but those dollars are going toward a person enjoying the Harry Potter books, an experience that many of us cherish. Surely that experience trumps the idea of Rowling getting a few extra dollars in her grandiose bank account.
But now, things are different. The Harry Potter universe is one that will probably continuously be expanded upon. Rowling might have been the creator, but we are reaching an era where the Wizarding World is going to turn into a collaborative art project similar to Star Wars, especially with Disney looking to acquire the rights. At what point do we not care that she was the creator? As long as we don't fetishize her as the grand mind who started the Wizarding World, I don't see anything wrong with supporting art that others created that takes place in the WW.
# Issue 3: Rowling Sucks, but She's Not the Devil Incarnate
While I agree she holds views that I disagree with (and honestly find abhorrent) I can also understand that she's not the worst person on earth.
For some reason, online culture in recent years treats humans as One-Dimensional beings with no other traits. I will admit that Rowling often tries to make this whole TERF thing a key part of her personality, but I don't think that this trait of hers nullifies the good that she has done for this world. Karma doesn't exist as a calculus. Your good deeds don't negate your bad deeds, and your bad deeds don't negate your good deeds. People have histories of **both good and bad**, and to ignore either side would be a gross misrepresentation of a person, basically dehumanizing them (yes she dehumanizes people too, that's not my point though).
Rowling has donated 16% of her total net worth to charity, ironically many of whom will directly support transgender children and adults. Her money might go to places you do not agree with, but her money will also go to places that are undeniably good.
As a society, we should recognize that Rowling has caused widespread harm to a lot of people and created an unsafe environment for groups of people who just wish to live their lives, but that she also created a book series that inspired millions, and supports charities that are undoubtedly beneficial to humanity.
Rowling is morally grey, and so is every single human on Earth.
# Conclusion
Boycotting the video game supports no one. This game was made by a large group of individuals that have nothing to do with Rowling, and these individuals deserve whatever praise (or criticism) this game generates, they do not deserve a mass boycott due to the views of the creator of the world that they are working in, as the creation of the game has **nothing** to do with Rowling. Additionally, Supporting art while not agreeing with an artist is not inherently bad. What you get out of art is not what the creator puts into it, art is interpretive, and this specific art piece has evolved to be far beyond the scope of the initial creator. Finally, Rowling is not the devil, she is a morally grey human with viewpoints that harm people, while simultaneously supporting humanitarian efforts.
To reiterate: If you personally wish to not buy the game because the idea of supporting Rowling herself hurts you, then by all means don't buy this game. However, supporting a mass boycott and pushing the narrative that **this is HER game, and HER property** is absolutely wrong, and I think is an extremely harmful idea to push. | ZombieIsTired | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "DuhChappers",
"id": "j7hjjd1",
"score": 19,
"text": "Response to Issue 1: All the people who worked on this game already got paid. They are not hurt by a boycott. Acting as if they are hurt is silly. If people boycott the game because of Rowling it will not hurt their careers. Multiple ... | [
{
"author": "sophisticaden_",
"id": "j7hgmiv",
"score": 55,
"text": "The developers, writers, artists, etc have already been paid. The profits go to the publisher and to Rowling. \n\nDevs get paid upfront, contractually. They often have some bonuses based on performance and sales, but they’ve alread... | [
"j7hjjd1",
"j7hrxwi",
"j7kowif"
] | [
"j7hgmiv",
"j7hh093",
"j7hhcew"
] |
CMV: Banning flavored E-cigarettes is either remarkabley foolish or a flat-out ploy, given that tobocca is legal at all. Details inside.
**Sources in comments, otherwise this looks scarily long lol**
The common argument for banning flavored e-cigarettes is that they appeal to minors, thus there is a reason to ban them. What horseshit logic.
If you really do care about the health of these young teens who are exposed to e-cigs, why has smoking near children (or non-consenting adults) not been made **completely** illegal? Thousands of youth are hospitalized and/or DIE every year due to second-hand smoke. As far as I know, ZERO deaths have been confirmed due to vaping, and only one has even been reported (not confirmed). It makes absolutely no sense to pass legislation based on potential harm in the future if you are not passing similar legislation to solve similar problems *right now.*
Furthermore, *if* the logic behind passing such a ban is that it appeals to children, cigarettes in general should already be banned outright. Vaping is only about 2-3x more common than smoking amoung youth, and most health organizations estimate that in terms of mortal health effects, vaping has less than 1% the risk of smoking tobacco. Thus, cigs are doing 33-50 times as much (mortal) damage to youth than e-cigs right now, even more considering second-hand effects. If flavored vapes are such a big deal that it requires legislation, cigarettes are a big enough deal to merit an outright ban, no?
You *could* say that cigs shouldn't be banned because adults want them... but the exact same goes for flavored vape juice. Adults want them; can't ban them. | I’m a cancer researcher, there’s no conclusive evidence that vaping is safer than smoking as far as I’m aware and the common statement of “no deaths” (recently “one death) having ever been reported is dangerously misleading since no deaths were reported from classical smoking either until the 1950’s. Remember that it took a lot of research to show smoking was dangerous and for vaping, we don’t have a lot of research yet. The research we have suggests it’s really bad. If someone gets cancer today, we wouldn’t ever associate it with vaping, but neither would anyone have associated smoking with cancer a century ago. All it takes is one big study and people could start attributing millions of deaths to vaping. Today, people (especially youth) may not be aware that vaping kills or is a health hazard and may believe it helps against smoking, which there’s insufficient evidence of, which is deeply problematic since it basically leads to a “second smoking” where people are as uncritical as they were in the first place in the 1950’s and in my opinion, this is what vaping and cannabis are: “new smoking”, stay away, kids.
>Furthermore, if the logic behind passing such a ban is that it appeals to children, cigarettes in general should already be banned outright.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and smoking is on the way out in many places.
>Vaping is only about 2-3x more common than smoking amoung youth
Considering how common smoking is that’s a lot.
>vaping has less than 1% the risk of smoking tobacco.
I’m going to have to look at the sources of this claim... hold on a minute.
**Edit:** Wow... correct me if I’m wrong but is there a statement on Wikipedia saying vaping is 1% as dangerous as smoking that’s *unsupported*? The reference given is only a review and states crassly that “we estimate” with zero data. I’m also going to have to criticism you for incorrectly including FDA/WHO in the quote you wrote (that’s another sentence), incorrectly stating this was a statement supported by major health organisations, and incorrectly referring to it as “less than 1%” when the reference and Wikipedia clearly state “1%”.
---
!delta
You've definitely made me consider aspects of the problem I hadn't originally, particularly in your first paragraph.
However, the "two wrongs don't make a right" appeal doesn't fit here. It's an issue similar to precendent. You have no grounds to make what you *think* is bad illegal, if you have already proven yourself unwilling to make what you *know* is bad illegal as well.
Also, it's not a matter of "a lot" of teens vaping, it's a matter of relativity. My view in contigent upon cigarettes being legal. It may be "right" to make vapes illegal wholesale; but it doesn't change that it's absurd to make them illegal all the while keeping cigarettes legal.
_____________________________________________
You're an oncologist? If so... thanks, all I have to say. I'm hopefully going into ortho, don't know if I could handle that profession. If you would please, link me some research on that suggests vaping is really bad; and if for whatever reason you can't, please let me know what 'really bad' is in quantifiable terms.
---
I’m a cancer researcher, not a doctor (oncology).
One go-to source is WHO, who recently released a smoking report where vaporisers are called ENDS:
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326043/9789241516204-eng.pdf
A summary of the chapter on ENDS reads:
>What are the consequences of taking up ENDS use at a younger age? Recent surveys in the United States of America (USA) and some European countries have shown marked increases in ENDS use amongst youth. Between 2011 and 2018 in the USA, youth e-cigarette use rates have risen from 1.5% to a staggering 20.8%. Young people who use ENDS are exposed to nicotine, which can have long-term effects on the developing brain and there is a risk of nicotine addiction, given that tobacco product use is primarily established in adolescence. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence in some settings that never-smoker minors who use ENDS at least double their chance of starting to smoke cigarettes later in life.
>What is the harm of ENDS relative to conventional cigarettes?
ENDS’ aerosols are likely to be less toxic than cigarettes but there is insufficient evidence to quantify the precise level of risk associated with them. Also, many factors will impact on the relative risk associated with their use. For example, the amount of nicotine and other toxicants in the heated liquid.
>What are the health effects associated with ENDS?
ENDS pose risks to users and non-users. There is insufficient evidence
to quantify this risk and the long-term effects of exposure to ENDS’ toxic emissions are unknown. In addition to risks associated with emissions of ENDS there are also risks of physical injury brought about by fires or explosions related to ENDS devices.
>Do ENDS help smokers quit tobacco?
As discussed in the background chapter on “O” – Offer help to quit, the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of ENDS as a smoking cessation aid is still being debated. To date, in part due to the diversity of ENDS products and the low certainty surrounding many studies, the potential for ENDS to play a role as a population-level tobacco cessation intervention is unclear.
Under the headline “ENDS are not harmless and must be regulated” we can read “Although the specific level of risk associated with ENDS has not yet been conclusively estimated, ENDS are undoubtedly harmful and should therefore be subject to regulation.”
---
Okay, I see your point. I don't think it hits the crux of my argument though. The debatable view is that an outright ban on flavored vapes for everyone, regardless of age, despite the much more documented negative effects of LEGAL cigarettes, is absolutely absurd.
Sure, flavored vapes *might* be just as bad as cigarettes, despite a lack of conclusive evidence that they are. But we haven't made cigs illegal for everyone. Perhaps both should be banned- that doesn't challenge my view though.
---
Your argument is that, since we legally allow cigarettes, which are known to be bad, we shouldn’t ban flavored vapes, which has less evidence showing their bad effects.
I think this is an illogical conclusion. Fundamentally, the fact that one bad thing is still allowed is not a reason for another bad thing to be allowed as well. If this were true, then simply because smoking is still legal, no prohibition can be put on any new drug emerging in the market. They will always have less evidence against them than smoking, but that doesn’t mean they are good and should be allowed.
The adverse effects of these products are not the only factor taken into account whether to legally allow or prohibition them. Cigarette was introduced into society without anyone knowing their harm, and has since established a huge industry and become a significant part of economy. Even though we now know it to be very bad for our health, prohibiting it by law now would pose a complicated issue. It would kill the entire industry, and disturb the economy in ways I cannot begin to predict. This is true of any big, well rooted industry. Vape is very young in relative, and banning it would not cause nearly as much damage. That is a big reason why cigarette is still legal: it’s here not because it’s beneficial, but because getting rid of it would cause unmanageable damage. This doesn’t mean no one is trying, however. Most countries are already campaigning to reduce smoking, and I believe this is a necessary first step towards completely banning it.
Furthermore, I believe another important reason being raised for banning flavored vapes is that, not only do they appeal to younger targets, they also lead these youths to increased use of cigarette and other drugs. This, combined with more and more evidence showing their direct harm, leads to the conclusion that they should be banned.
In conclusion, the legal status of cigarette is more a practical problem than a moral one, most people would agree that it should be illegal, but we cannot simply impose a ban on it because it would cost the jobs of millions, along with other damages to the economy. In the case of flavored vape, while evidence is lesser, it is still sufficient to rationalize a ban, and since there’s no technical problem in the way, a ban can actually be put in place. We solve the solvable problem first, we don’t need to be stuck on a prior problem simply because it’s a bigger problem. If we do, we’re simply letting more and more problems pile on, getting bigger and bigger while we try to deal with the first one. | Have you considered the cultural aspect of things? If a youngster picks up e-cigs early, he may continue to use it because of the surrounding culture of smoking. If his friends move on to smoking, he might do so as well, since he's already used to using e-cigs.
Furthermore, the use of e-cigs and tobacco cigs are not mutually exclusive. You can use both at the same time. In fact, in your own sources, there is a link to a report by the Surgeon General from the US Department of Health and Human Services. ([https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016\_SGR\_Fact\_Sheet\_508.pdf](https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_SGR_Fact_Sheet_508.pdf)). It states that "In 2015, for example, nearly 6 of 10 high school cigarette smokers also used e-cigarettes. " and "Research has found that youth who use a tobacco product, such as e-cigarettes, are more likely to go on to use other tobacco products like cigarettes."
EDIT: Seeing as how teens who use e-cigs are likely (though not always) to move on to use tobacco products, it seems like it's a pretty good reason to ban them to prevent them to making the transition to tobacco use.
---
edit: sidenote: I don't really believe that vaping *causes* one to be more inclined to smoke, I think that one who is likely to pick up a vape is simply more likely to pick up a cigarette compared to someone who would never vape. But it's irrelevant to the view, and this idea is pure conjecture and not supported by facts anyway. PLUS, it's also purely conjecture to say that vaping leads to smoking as well.
I have. The problem with that argument is that it doesn't address the relative risks of smoking and vaping.
Let's say that vaping *does* cause one to be more inclined to smoke. So we pass legislation to cut down on teen vaping, in order to cut down on teen smoking/ them picking up smoking later. If that is the stated purpose of the legislation... why not simply make the cigarettes illegal? They are the cause of the real issues after all.
It doesn't make sense to make flavored vapes illegal for adults for the sake of kids, if we can't make cigarettes illegal for adults for the sake of kids, *especially* if the concern of kids vaping is that it *leads* to smoking.
---
You shouldn't be making cigarettes illegal because laws shouldn't be made by catering to those who flout them. Would it make sense to make driving illegal because some kids without a driving license drove cars and got into accidents?
And by the way, it is not conjecture that e-cigarettes use increases the risk of tobacco cigarette use. It is explicitly stated in *your own sources*.
The issue right now is that e-cigs are (I assume) unregulated for teenagers under say 18, but tobacco products are illegal for them. Just a number, I don't know your country's rules.
It is conceivable that teenagers might pick up e-cigs, simply because they can. They might not have done this if it was illegal, just as how they wouldn't pick up tobacco because it's illegal. And while e-cigs are likely not addictive, supposedly smokers have reported that the feeling of having something in their mouth is part of the addiction. So it's not impossible that they might move on to cigarettes later on in their life, having gotten used to the mouthfeel.
---
>You shouldn't be making cigarettes illegal because laws shouldn't be made by catering to those who flout them. Would it make sense to make driving illegal because some kids without a driving license drove cars and got into accidents?
> The issue right now is that e-cigs are (I assume) unregulated for teenagers under say 18, but tobacco products are illegal for them. Just a number, I don't know your country's rules.
First of all e-cigs containing any amount of nicotine are not legally allowed to be sold to minors. Secondly, by that logic, why wouldn't the legislation just make flavored vapes (even without any nicotine) illegal to sell to minors? Wouldn't making them illegal to adults violate your first sentence?
> And by the way, it is not conjecture that e-cigarettes use increases the risk of tobacco cigarette use. It is explicitly stated in your own sources.
Correlation does *not* imply causation. Use of one is correlated with the use of the other, yes. On it's own, that does not imply one caused the other. Sure it isn't impossible that they do increase the liklihood, but it's a very bad idea to start basing laws on 'possibilities.'
---
I think I misunderstood your initial position - I assumed you were just talking about banning it in any way shape or form, not banning it outright. I'd agree with you that adults should still be allowed to have it, but not youths.
For your second point: While correlation indeed does not imply causation, that usually only applies to things which are completely unrelated.
For example, if a statistic were to show that "90% of professional athletes watched Endgame", it wouldn't make sense to say that watching Endgame increased people's athletic ability, because that's quite unlikely.
On the other hand, if statistics were to show that "90% of professional athletes started playing sports before the age of 12 ", you could make a pretty good case that getting an early start in sports would be beneficial to having a professional athletic career. I think in fact one would be ridiculed for suggesting that playing sports as a child has no impact on professional careers in light of such evidence.
Likewise, it's the link between the two issues that makes it likely that e-cigarette use encourages people to switch over to cigarettes at some point in their life. | czz8ac | CMV: Banning flavored E-cigarettes is either remarkabley foolish or a flat-out ploy, given that tobocca is legal at all. Details inside. | **Sources in comments, otherwise this looks scarily long lol**
The common argument for banning flavored e-cigarettes is that they appeal to minors, thus there is a reason to ban them. What horseshit logic.
If you really do care about the health of these young teens who are exposed to e-cigs, why has smoking near children (or non-consenting adults) not been made **completely** illegal? Thousands of youth are hospitalized and/or DIE every year due to second-hand smoke. As far as I know, ZERO deaths have been confirmed due to vaping, and only one has even been reported (not confirmed). It makes absolutely no sense to pass legislation based on potential harm in the future if you are not passing similar legislation to solve similar problems *right now.*
Furthermore, *if* the logic behind passing such a ban is that it appeals to children, cigarettes in general should already be banned outright. Vaping is only about 2-3x more common than smoking amoung youth, and most health organizations estimate that in terms of mortal health effects, vaping has less than 1% the risk of smoking tobacco. Thus, cigs are doing 33-50 times as much (mortal) damage to youth than e-cigs right now, even more considering second-hand effects. If flavored vapes are such a big deal that it requires legislation, cigarettes are a big enough deal to merit an outright ban, no?
You *could* say that cigs shouldn't be banned because adults want them... but the exact same goes for flavored vape juice. Adults want them; can't ban them. | throwawaytothetenth | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "BioMed-R",
"id": "ez48hky",
"score": 9,
"text": "I’m a cancer researcher, there’s no conclusive evidence that vaping is safer than smoking as far as I’m aware and the common statement of “no deaths” (recently “one death) having ever been reported is dangerously misleading since no death... | [
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"id": "ez46clk",
"score": 1,
"text": "Have you considered the cultural aspect of things? If a youngster picks up e-cigs early, he may continue to use it because of the surrounding culture of smoking. If his friends move on to smoking, he might do so as well, since h... | [
"ez48hky",
"ez4adml",
"ez4e6g2",
"ez4iorc",
"ez5p33k"
] | [
"ez46clk",
"ez4744c",
"ez49mej",
"ez4bshl",
"ez4f11d"
] |
CMV: The "but she's actually 300 years old" excuse for lewding lolis is perfectly rational as the issue of age based consent is based on the younger party's inability to make an informed decision.
If I'm being completely honest, I'm not even into lolis and loli lewding, but the argument that a fictional character who's several hundred years old shouldn't be lewded and that lewding them makes you a pedophile just because they have a petite figure makes no sense to me.
I know the whole loli lewding thing in the anime community is mostly just a meme, but some people get really heated about it. To me, the issue in real life with an adult having sex with a 16 year old girl isn't that it's biologically improper. Teenagers are physically developed, and much more closely resemble what they would look like as an adult than say a 10-12 year old. The issue is the difference in power and maturity between the two parties that makes it too easy for the younger party to be abused, manipulated, etc. and that is the reason why, at least in the US, the age of consent is 18. The idea is that we are protecting teenagers from that power dynamic.
Extrapolating that, if there's a fictional animated character that doesn't physically look like a child, and yes I know sometimes in anime that line is blurry, but who looks like a physically developed teen who in the context of the show is a vampire or some shit and is actually super old they just don't age... Well first off they aren't real so there's no power dynamic to protect them from, but secondly if they WERE real the only power imbalance would theoretically be in their favor as they would be older and wiser.
I can't even think of specific examples because I literally am only familiar with this debate by way of the memes, but I think it should be clear what my point is. As long as a fictional character isn't literally prepubescent in appearance, being petite or looking like a physically developed teen doesn't make the lewders pedos since the characters aren't real, and especially if the characters are actually old just supernaturally look young. CMV. | The reason is because based on the sexual preference on liking little kids figure.
---
If they actually look like little kids, sure. Most of the time when I see this argument used though it's for a character like Megumin, who in no way has a little kids figure, she's just petite.
---
OddlySpecificReferen
> Most of the time when I see this argument used though it's for a character like Megumin, who in no way has a little kids figure, she's just petite.
>who in no way has a little kids figure
That's not your call. That's the call of the judge and the prosecutor.
And the judge, statistically, is going to be a 50+ white guy who probably had a dad that grew up in WWII, fighting the "japs".
Most judges and prosecutors are, by definition, conservative - they joined to "fight crime" and "provide social stability" - and liking sexual images of *anything* that doesn't look like American cartoon styles of adult women (see the pinups on the side of American bombers in WWII), is seen as "wrong".
In an ironic twist, there's arguably more legal protections for gay people than people that like hentai with lolis, as there is ***no*** legal consensus about the position of "are drawn [fictional] sexual acts or depictions of characters of unspecified age but childlike physique child porn". Many conservative judges would argue yes.
KuroInu has an episode that is a textbook example of what would almost assuredly be considered child porn under that definition. KuroInu episode 1? Definitely not.
That's entirely the reason why hentaihaven removed the loli tag and why /r/hentai_irl bans loli hentai - the reddit admins have threatened ***all*** anime related subreddits if they didn't come down hard on it. | Do they just look young, or do they act young as well? Saying that a fictional character is "really" of age if they look and act underage sounds more like an excuse to sexualize.
---
I think the ops post was caused by LoL champion [zoe](https://www.google.rs/search?q=zoe&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsmu6osLrbAhWEdCwKHYOzBfYQ_AUICigB&biw=1525&bih=705#imgrc=lMO5vvXMtFJt4M:)
---
It actually wasn't but fuck that champion (non sexually) | 8oiawu | CMV: The "but she's actually 300 years old" excuse for lewding lolis is perfectly rational as the issue of age based consent is based on the younger party's inability to make an informed decision. | If I'm being completely honest, I'm not even into lolis and loli lewding, but the argument that a fictional character who's several hundred years old shouldn't be lewded and that lewding them makes you a pedophile just because they have a petite figure makes no sense to me.
I know the whole loli lewding thing in the anime community is mostly just a meme, but some people get really heated about it. To me, the issue in real life with an adult having sex with a 16 year old girl isn't that it's biologically improper. Teenagers are physically developed, and much more closely resemble what they would look like as an adult than say a 10-12 year old. The issue is the difference in power and maturity between the two parties that makes it too easy for the younger party to be abused, manipulated, etc. and that is the reason why, at least in the US, the age of consent is 18. The idea is that we are protecting teenagers from that power dynamic.
Extrapolating that, if there's a fictional animated character that doesn't physically look like a child, and yes I know sometimes in anime that line is blurry, but who looks like a physically developed teen who in the context of the show is a vampire or some shit and is actually super old they just don't age... Well first off they aren't real so there's no power dynamic to protect them from, but secondly if they WERE real the only power imbalance would theoretically be in their favor as they would be older and wiser.
I can't even think of specific examples because I literally am only familiar with this debate by way of the memes, but I think it should be clear what my point is. As long as a fictional character isn't literally prepubescent in appearance, being petite or looking like a physically developed teen doesn't make the lewders pedos since the characters aren't real, and especially if the characters are actually old just supernaturally look young. CMV. | OddlySpecificReferen | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Melonlon-monies",
"id": "e03iw0r",
"score": 1,
"text": "The reason is because based on the sexual preference on liking little kids figure.",
"timestamp": 1528127759
},
{
"author": "OddlySpecificReferen",
"id": "e03j455",
"score": 2,
"text": "If they actually look... | [
{
"author": "jfpbookworm",
"id": "e03j1kl",
"score": 25,
"text": "Do they just look young, or do they act young as well? Saying that a fictional character is \"really\" of age if they look and act underage sounds more like an excuse to sexualize.",
"timestamp": 1528127897
},
{
"author":... | [
"e03iw0r",
"e03j455",
"e03mbl5"
] | [
"e03j1kl",
"e03j6mm",
"e03jibw"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
>The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
You cannot measure the success of treatment by the suicide rate - even comparing before / after treatment statistics is misleading.
If you're looking at suicide statistics, you need to look at the reasons behind those statistics. Can you completely rule out external factors, such as the lack of acceptance of trans people in society, trans people being forced out of their homes, their jobs, their families, the numerous assaults on trans people, the murder rates, etc? Absolutely not, so the suicide statistics are not a good measure.
When using a more valid measure of success (i.e. looking at whether patients still experience dysphoria related distress after treatment), you see a completely different picture. In general, the treatment works.
The other thing to bear in mind is that there is no other form of treatment that has an amount of success. Attempting to counsel patients into being "content" with the body they have has never worked. | For someone to be delusional, the things they believe need to be false. First, it's worth noting that transgender people don't (as a rule) believe anything false about their physical sex. A transgender woman will recognize and acknowledge that she has a male body, for example.
So, their claims are about an internal sense of identity. That is, something related to how the brain behaves. Our understanding of how brains work is *extremely* limited. There are a few things we've noticed, though. For example, on measurable metrics where the average male population has something different about their brains than the average female population, transgender people's brains tend to be closer to the distribution of the gender they identify with than their birth sex.
So in order to call transgender people delusional, you would need to be able to say that their claim about how their brains work is false. We don't have a lot of information about how brains work in terms of gender, but what little we have is suggestive that their claims are true, not the reverse. Additionally, acknowledging their identified gender improves their qualify of life, and trying to change their identity does not.
In short, claiming they're delusional is a very strong claim with little to possibly negatives supporting evidence, which decreases the quality of life of the people you're talking about. Why would you claim it again?
---
I am claiming that a man who thinks he is a woman is delusional. I can be a man who prefers generally feminine activities etc. The world should allow us to still remain men.
---
You're claiming that a person who has the external features of a man, but says that their brain is that of a woman, is delusional. Given the extremely huge variety of developmental abnormalities that occur in humans, is it that inconceivable that they could be correct? | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"id": "e055h6z",
"score": 4,
"text": "For someone to be delusional, the things they believe need to be false. First, it's worth noting that transgender people don't (as a rule) believe anything false about their physical sex. A transgender woman will recognize and acknowle... | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055ztd"
] | [
"e055h6z",
"e055li2",
"e055qwx"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment.
Why do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have more knowledge on mental illness than them?
You can’t compare treatments of different mental illnesses together.
Schizophrenia is treated one way by obviously talking about how the delusions aren’t real.
Depression isn’t treated by talking about how it’s also all in their head.
It is about what is effective. Why do you think that you have come up with a more effective treatment than whole boards of psychologists and psychiatrists? Why do you think the general consensus has been for decades that transitioning is the best treatment method?
---
I would argue that the diagnostic and statistic manual of mental health is heavily biased towards social trends as is the world. I think tolerance is being almost thrust upon us. I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
---
>I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
Current treatment being ineffective - which it isn't btw - still doesn't mean the cause or diagnosis is wrong, which was your original point. | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
Doctors decide what treatment is and they have decided that transitioning is a valid treatment. | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Helpfulcloning",
"id": "e055ia8",
"score": 9,
"text": "You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment. \n\nWhy do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have mo... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
"e055ia8",
"e055osz",
"e056cdm"
] | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055lc3"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | People with transgender identities express no signs of delusion whatsoever. A delusional disorder is one in which a person has a strong conviction in something certifiably untrue. If a man who has undergone no efforts to transition stated "I am a woman in every way shape and form. I have breasts, a vagina, and a uterus." that person would be suffering from a clear delusion. But what you'll notice is that the experience of trans people is something else entirely. They are fully aware of the reality around them. A trans person isn't claiming they have a vagina when they in fact have a penis, they are claiming that their gender identity does not match up with the sex of their body. And this is true! Trans people exhibit a number of physiological differences that are more in line with people of the opposite sex than people of the same sex, most notably[ the structure of the brain.] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/) When a trans person says that how they feel on the inside is different from what is on the outside, they are giving you an accurate description of their condition. That is the exact opposite of delusional!
---
I may be incorrect in using delusional. But I do not believe sex is separate from gender. I do not believe in gender identity. I believe there is a continuum and therefore I do not believe that a word can be used to describe your exact location on that continuum. I think sex is gender. Identity is entirely separate.
---
> I do not believe in gender identity
I hate to break it to you, but your beliefs are not the same thing as reality.
Gender identity is not at all tied to the genitals one has. It's hard to see this because a majority of people do not experience a conflict between their physical body and their mental sense of themselves as male or female.
But a significant portion of the population does, *and always has*.
Many other cultures have had people who gender express differently than their biology, and were treated **as the gender they said they were**.
---
> I hate to break it to you, but your beliefs are not the same thing as reality.
That is the argument im making precisely. If a man believes they are a woman this is not reality.
Again I agree that you can identify as hyper feminine as a male. But I do not believe a male can identify as female without being delusional
---
> If a man believes they are a woman this is not reality.
That is not what is happening here.
A physically male person who says they are female knows perfectly well that their body does not agree with who they feel they are. They are not men at all. Never were. They are women who are born with physical birth defects that must be corrected.
They never once felt they were men. They always knew that there is something wrong about their body compared to who they know themselves to be.
This is not a belief in the sense of an opinion. It's their mental reality and there is physical science (re: brain scans) to support this.
---
I disagree with this fundamentally. Brain scans can find patterns between male and female brains. This does not make one brain male and one female.
I do not separate sex from gender. I do not think "man" is a sense of feeling.
---
> Brain scans can find patterns between male and female brains. This does not make one brain male and one female.
From a person studying science, this is worrying. If brain scans reveal patterns consistent to female brains and patterns consistent to male brains, and can distinguish between the two, it's absurd and unscientific to say that one brain isn't "male" (or at least possesses male traits) and one isn't "female" (or at least possesses female traits). | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
Doctors decide what treatment is and they have decided that transitioning is a valid treatment.
---
I am allowed to disagree with a doctor. This does not make my argument invalid.
---
Unless you are speaking from a position of understanding on par of that of a doctor, that is not sufficient. On that basis, I could refute any scientific principle on the basis of "I am allowed to disagree with X", and claim that my position was justifiable. It is not. The fact you disagree with a doctor is fine, but that does not mean your opinion holds any weight - if you are refuting that doctors are experts in the field then this discussion is moot (moot in the US sense).
I could make any CMV thread and say "mental illness is fake", and when told it isn't, I could say "I disagree with doctors". That immediately kills the debate because fundamentally you are rejecting something assumed as fact; that medical science has the best available understanding of the medical field.
---
I think any doctor who attempted to say transitioning is a poor treatment would be destroyed by activists and therefore will keep their mouth shut
---
So now you've changed your angle, and believe social pressure is what is stopping "the truth" about the best treatment coming out? This is a Red Herring fallacy.
EDIT: Removed tin-foil-hat. The point still stands. | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Love_Shaq_Baby",
"id": "e055vsu",
"score": 7,
"text": "People with transgender identities express no signs of delusion whatsoever. A delusional disorder is one in which a person has a strong conviction in something certifiably untrue. If a man who has undergone no efforts to transition ... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
"e055vsu",
"e055yty",
"e058jea",
"e058npj",
"e058qkh",
"e058xaa",
"e0592wj"
] | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055lc3",
"e055mmw",
"e0561t7",
"e0567i9",
"e056ad5"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
Doctors decide what treatment is and they have decided that transitioning is a valid treatment.
---
I am allowed to disagree with a doctor. This does not make my argument invalid.
---
Unless you are equally qualified then yes it does.
---
No, it does not. Positions of authority do not automatically make an argument valid.
---
They are better than positions of ignorance.
---
Poor argument
---
I think it’s a better argument than, “we can’t trust the medical community because activists are keeping the truth under wraps” based on no evidence.
---
Maybe it is! Still a poor argument.
---
Do you argue with doctors on all topics or only this one?
---
No only topics that I disagree on. Again, poor argument. I do my own research and come to my own conclusions. I am more than willing to critically decompose any point made by any individual, regardless of their position/knowledge until we reach a consensus.
---
But you don't seem to have medical training. What do you know of evidence-based medical practice and how medical guidelines are vetted and produced? What do you know about clinical rationales beyond a layman's understanding?
Clearly your way has flaws because you did not know about the efficacy of transitioning by the deltas you gave. In fact, you cited an often decontextualized statistic from [this study](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885) that has been distorted by conservative and anti-transgender media. So clearly, you don't really know how to do your research as well as you state.
From the study itself:
>For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism.
And from the author's own [AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6q3e8v/science_ama_series_im_cecilia_dhejne_a_fellow_of/dku6xp0/):
>I am aware of some of the misinterpretation of the study in Plos One. Some are as you say difficult to keep track since they are not published in scientific journals. I am grateful to friends all over the world who notify me of publications outside the scientific world. I do answer some of them but I can’t answer all.
>I have no good recommendation what to do. I have said many times that the study is not design to evaluate the outcome of medical transition. It DOES NOT say that medical transition causes people to commit suicide. However it does say that people who have transition are more vulnerable and that we need to improve care. I am happy about that it has also been seen that way and in those cases help to secure more resources to transgender health care.
Clinical guidelines synthesize and vet information across meta-analyses, randomize controlled-trials, case studies, and other studies to form evidence-based guidelines. But you claim them to be politicized? How do you know that? What evidence do you have?
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians released [joint guidelines](https://www.aap.org/en-us/Documents/solgbt_resource_transgenderchildren.pdf) in transgender care that cites many studies to show how they reached their conclusions (including ones that are contradictory).
The Endocrine Society independently released similar [guidelines](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558) that corroborate those evidence findings. | You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment.
Why do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have more knowledge on mental illness than them?
You can’t compare treatments of different mental illnesses together.
Schizophrenia is treated one way by obviously talking about how the delusions aren’t real.
Depression isn’t treated by talking about how it’s also all in their head.
It is about what is effective. Why do you think that you have come up with a more effective treatment than whole boards of psychologists and psychiatrists? Why do you think the general consensus has been for decades that transitioning is the best treatment method?
---
I would argue that the diagnostic and statistic manual of mental health is heavily biased towards social trends as is the world. I think tolerance is being almost thrust upon us. I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
---
>I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
Current treatment being ineffective - which it isn't btw - still doesn't mean the cause or diagnosis is wrong, which was your original point.
---
I did not suggest that the diagnosis is wrong. I am suggesting that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that is being treated like a social issue.
---
But you have provided no evidence for that. You're basically saying "the world is flat because I don't believe scientists".
It's not a credible view and if you won't accept facts then how are we supposed to change your view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
---
It is not postulated by scientists to be fact. It is empirically supported hypotheses. In any case there is always conflicting evidence.
---
OK so now you’re just in denial of current science. Do you also believe cancer is caused by mental illness, because it hasn’t been disproved yet??
Serious question - what would it take to change your view?
---
"In denial of current science".
Current science is in denial of current science. There are often conflicting pieces of empirical evidence. I think that is a poor argument.
---
I repeat - what would it take to change your view?
---
I would need to agree on a definition of gender which I do not. I believe a man is a man if they have a penis and the opposite. I believe a man is a man if they have a penis but deny all social constructs of masculinity. I would call that a hyperfeminine man.
---
I think you're confusing biological sex with gender then, or saying that they're one and the same thing which they are not, there is no such thing as biological gender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
It's worth thinking about sexless objects that do gendered roles, such as action man or similar toy figures. You associate them with being male because of their name, the way they dress, the packaging they're presented in and the roles (manly "action" type stuff) they perform - action man does not have a penis though. The same with feminine dolls - they may have secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, which trans women also have, but they don't have a vagina. The are essentially feminine figures because of the way they are presented and the roles they perform.
As an aside you (or anyone else for that matter) do not get to agree or disagree with definitions; they are what they are, definitions are facts or at the least arbitrary.
---
∆
Fuck, see that's the anecdote I needed I guess.
That's it really. I agree with that discrimination between sex and gender. I am still hesitant but I think that is just belief perseverance. I cannot really see a valid and logical way of maintaining an argument now
I disagree with your aside however.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Douglas0327 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Douglas0327)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART{"comment":"This_is_hidden_text_for_DB3_to_parse._Please_contact_the_author_of_DB3_if_you_see_this","issues":{},"parentUserName":"Douglas0327"}DB3PARAMSEND) | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 13 | 13 | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
{
"author": "Helpfulcloning",
"id": "e055ia8",
"score": 9,
"text": "You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment. \n\nWhy do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have mo... | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055lc3",
"e055mmw",
"e05bbaz",
"e05bdo9",
"e05bfya",
"e05bkdq",
"e05c4cy",
"e05c6uj",
"e05cf1d",
"e05co91",
"e05e4w9"
] | [
"e055ia8",
"e055osz",
"e056cdm",
"e056ea6",
"e056k20",
"e056na9",
"e057am8",
"e057dwy",
"e057so5",
"e057vpf",
"e0594ag",
"e059khj",
"e059kyd"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | For someone to be delusional, the things they believe need to be false. First, it's worth noting that transgender people don't (as a rule) believe anything false about their physical sex. A transgender woman will recognize and acknowledge that she has a male body, for example.
So, their claims are about an internal sense of identity. That is, something related to how the brain behaves. Our understanding of how brains work is *extremely* limited. There are a few things we've noticed, though. For example, on measurable metrics where the average male population has something different about their brains than the average female population, transgender people's brains tend to be closer to the distribution of the gender they identify with than their birth sex.
So in order to call transgender people delusional, you would need to be able to say that their claim about how their brains work is false. We don't have a lot of information about how brains work in terms of gender, but what little we have is suggestive that their claims are true, not the reverse. Additionally, acknowledging their identified gender improves their qualify of life, and trying to change their identity does not.
In short, claiming they're delusional is a very strong claim with little to possibly negatives supporting evidence, which decreases the quality of life of the people you're talking about. Why would you claim it again?
---
I am claiming that a man who thinks he is a woman is delusional. I can be a man who prefers generally feminine activities etc. The world should allow us to still remain men.
---
>I am claiming that a man who thinks he is a woman is delusional.
Trans women are not men who think that they are women. They are women who have male physical features.
"delusional" would be a person with a penis looking down and thinking they have a vagina (or vice versa). This does not describe trans people. A (pre-op) trans woman will look down and see reality - that they have a penis, and it is this that causes them dysphoria. The actual existence of trans people *must* mean that psychological gender is different from physical sex, otherwise that condition could not exist and nobody would experience this dysphoria.
---
I do not agree that sex and gender is seperate. I think a woman looking down to a vagina and claiming to be a man is equal to claiming they have a penis.
---
What evidence do you have that supports that conclusion?
---
I mean that is based on my definition of man and woman. Gender v Sex.
---
As someone who is “really hoping” to change their view on this, you have a fantastic opportunity here: Simply don’t make up your own definitions for words and use the actual definition that the words have and voilà, your view will have been changed! | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
On the suicide rates, what are the numbers pre transition and do individuals who transition experience external circumstances that drive their suicide rates up?
On the gender and sex thing, sex is defined by the gametes of an organism. Gender is how a person feels. We can talk about gendered languages and how they point to gender being a set of traits, but I think that has more to do with gender expression.
---
I disagree with the definition of gender. I think if I am a man who feels feminine then that is what I am. That does not make me a woman
As for the suicide rates, I believe there is a drop of 5%. Although obviously a positive, I do not believe this is anywhere near effective enough to be deemed the right treatment.
---
[deleted]
---
∆ I do much more believe in the efficacy of transitioning after this comment. I still do not believe my definition is incorrect.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kindanuts ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/kindanuts)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART{"comment":"This_is_hidden_text_for_DB3_to_parse._Please_contact_the_author_of_DB3_if_you_see_this","issues":{},"parentUserName":"kindanuts"}DB3PARAMSEND) | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"id": "e055h6z",
"score": 4,
"text": "For someone to be delusional, the things they believe need to be false. First, it's worth noting that transgender people don't (as a rule) believe anything false about their physical sex. A transgender woman will recognize and acknowle... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
"e055h6z",
"e055li2",
"e05670n",
"e056fba",
"e056iqx",
"e057sq5",
"e05bxyc"
] | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055sgz",
"e055uz0",
"e056ec4",
"e056rm3",
"e056tmj"
] |
CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such.
I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment.
Why do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have more knowledge on mental illness than them?
You can’t compare treatments of different mental illnesses together.
Schizophrenia is treated one way by obviously talking about how the delusions aren’t real.
Depression isn’t treated by talking about how it’s also all in their head.
It is about what is effective. Why do you think that you have come up with a more effective treatment than whole boards of psychologists and psychiatrists? Why do you think the general consensus has been for decades that transitioning is the best treatment method?
---
I would argue that the diagnostic and statistic manual of mental health is heavily biased towards social trends as is the world. I think tolerance is being almost thrust upon us. I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
---
>I am not suggesting that i know a more effective treatment. I am suggesting that our current treatment is ineffective.
Current treatment being ineffective - which it isn't btw - still doesn't mean the cause or diagnosis is wrong, which was your original point.
---
I did not suggest that the diagnosis is wrong. I am suggesting that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that is being treated like a social issue.
---
But you have provided no evidence for that. You're basically saying "the world is flat because I don't believe scientists".
It's not a credible view and if you won't accept facts then how are we supposed to change your view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
---
It is not postulated by scientists to be fact. It is empirically supported hypotheses. In any case there is always conflicting evidence.
---
OK so now you’re just in denial of current science. Do you also believe cancer is caused by mental illness, because it hasn’t been disproved yet??
Serious question - what would it take to change your view?
---
"In denial of current science".
Current science is in denial of current science. There are often conflicting pieces of empirical evidence. I think that is a poor argument.
---
I repeat - what would it take to change your view?
---
I would need to agree on a definition of gender which I do not. I believe a man is a man if they have a penis and the opposite. I believe a man is a man if they have a penis but deny all social constructs of masculinity. I would call that a hyperfeminine man.
---
I think you're confusing biological sex with gender then, or saying that they're one and the same thing which they are not, there is no such thing as biological gender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
It's worth thinking about sexless objects that do gendered roles, such as action man or similar toy figures. You associate them with being male because of their name, the way they dress, the packaging they're presented in and the roles (manly "action" type stuff) they perform - action man does not have a penis though. The same with feminine dolls - they may have secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, which trans women also have, but they don't have a vagina. The are essentially feminine figures because of the way they are presented and the roles they perform.
As an aside you (or anyone else for that matter) do not get to agree or disagree with definitions; they are what they are, definitions are facts or at the least arbitrary.
---
WAIT I'M BACK!
I still view gender and sex as co-dependent. I do however understand the concept depending on indiviudal understanding of the definition.
I still fundamentally disagree with the definition. But the following argument is invalid to all who agree with the distinction which i believe to be the majority.
I think referring to inanimate objects such as the dolls as male or female is a colloquialism but I understand how it is essentially common ground for the basis of the argument.
All of the rest of my argument i now disagree with but I still do not perceive it as fact that gender and sex are separate.
---
> I still do not perceive it as fact that gender and sex are separate.
While I understand we’re having a different conversation elsewhere I think I can help here too.
You already treat gender and sex as separate in your mind. How do you define sex? Genitals? Chromosomes? You said, “I believe a man is a man if they have a penis and the opposite.” so I take it you define sex based on genitals.
Think about a man you’re only an acquaintance of. Have you actually *seen* his penis and verified it’s existence? If not, then it’s safe to say you only assume he is a man because of the way he presents. He lacks female secondary sex charasticts, he dresses in a certain way, talks in a certain way, etc. you’ve identified this man as a man without checking in on his junk.
What if it turned out he didn’t have a penis? What if he was in fact a trans-man who did not get any sort of bottom surgery and is passing? You would still consider this person a man until you knew better.
And that, I think, effectively demonstrates how gender and sex are seperate. You gender most other people you see without taking a peak at what they’ve got going on down there.
Of course...maybe you do verify but I imagine that would make social situations incredibly awkward. | There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychological condition called gender dysphoria, but not all transgender people experience dysphoria. This is much in the same way that many people are narcissistic, but do not have narcissistic personality disorder. The treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning, btw.
---
The treatment is not transitioning. Suicide rates post transition are still above 35%. This is not a treatment.
As for the gender does not equal sex debate, I see no difference between sex and gender. If you are arguing that gender is a social construct I do not agree it exists.
Dysphoria is defined as a state of unease. Therefore gender dysphoria is an unease with the individuals birth gender which completely defines trans.
---
Doctors decide what treatment is and they have decided that transitioning is a valid treatment.
---
I am allowed to disagree with a doctor. This does not make my argument invalid.
---
Unless you are speaking from a position of understanding on par of that of a doctor, that is not sufficient. On that basis, I could refute any scientific principle on the basis of "I am allowed to disagree with X", and claim that my position was justifiable. It is not. The fact you disagree with a doctor is fine, but that does not mean your opinion holds any weight - if you are refuting that doctors are experts in the field then this discussion is moot (moot in the US sense).
I could make any CMV thread and say "mental illness is fake", and when told it isn't, I could say "I disagree with doctors". That immediately kills the debate because fundamentally you are rejecting something assumed as fact; that medical science has the best available understanding of the medical field.
---
I think any doctor who attempted to say transitioning is a poor treatment would be destroyed by activists and therefore will keep their mouth shut
---
So now you've changed your angle, and believe social pressure is what is stopping "the truth" about the best treatment coming out? This is a Red Herring fallacy.
EDIT: Removed tin-foil-hat. The point still stands.
---
I disagree entirely, and i disagree with the presence of the fallacy
---
> i disagree with the presence of the fallacy
You said at first you disagreed with doctors that transitioning was a suitable treatment. Upon being told why this was insufficient, you *changed* your argument to say "actually, it's not that the doctors are wrong, it's that loads of doctors don't even agree with this but are scared of social fallout!". This is a Red Herring because you are *distracting* from the fact it is wrong of you to assert your knowledge on the subject is equal to that of a medical professional. You didn't even contest the fact that I explained why disagreeing with doctors is insufficient. That is, by definition, a Red Herring fallacy.
> I disagree entirely
You keep saying "I disagree" but without any justification or coherent argument, so again this whole thread is sort of pointless. You've said "cmv" but are being very evasive and stubborn, and won't bow to logic. The whole point of CMV is having someone logically dissect your position and explain why it is wrong. I explained why your position of disagreeing with doctors doesn't work, and I explained logically why your rebuttal was a Red Herring. The fact you "disagree" is basically irrelevant at this stage because you won't actually explain how or why.
---
It is not logically weak to correct a past statement. I am not stating my knowledge as comparable to a medical professional. I am suggesting that the source has the capacity to be biased based on social pressures and therefore there is not enough evidence to sway my opinion. If a professional presented something I am still allowed to criticise it. I do not think that because they propose a definition that is therefore fact.
---
You didn't correct it, you distracted from it. There is a plethora of medical and empirical evidence to suggest why you are wrong. You came into this with your fingers in your ears, and all you needed to do was google "evidence for transition treatment". I'm so done with this conversation.
---
Again I am going to have to disagree. I would suggest there is also a plethora of evidence to suggest the ineffectiveness of transitioning. I disagree that I was not correcting it. I think a google search for "efficacy of transition treatment" would show a plethora of evidence either way
---
> I would suggest there is also a plethora of evidence to suggest the ineffectiveness of transitioning.
Such as...? | 8opr6t | CMV: Transgenderism is a delusional mental disorder and should be treated as such. | I am very open to changing this belief. In fact kind of hoping that I do. I believe that being transgender is comparable to being schizophrenic, or disassociative identity disorder. I think that the broad majority of the population agrees with this. I think that we have developed this social desirability of tolerance but in reality the majority of people follow what I am putting forward here. I believe that transgenderism should be treated similarly to the conditions I have stated. It would be unhealthy to tell a schizophrenic that the voices are real, similarly it is unhealthy to agree with a transgender that they are not their biological gender. I think the population gawks at transgenders like circus freaks. I do not believe I have to respect their pronoun preferences or anything of the like.
Edit: To conclude my change of opinion.
I neither accept nor deny that gender and sex are separate. I do not believe it within myself. However I do understand the concept. As such I do not see it as a delusion if you accept the distinction. I accept that transition may be the most effective solution currently. I do not believe anything about the majority of societies perception on the trans community.
I do not believe it is healthy to suggest they are born in the wrong body. I do not believe in any institutionalised enforcement of tolerance and anti-discrimination beyond violence and crimes.
_____
> *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!* | jimmy8rar1c0 | 13 | 13 | [
{
"author": "Helpfulcloning",
"id": "e055ia8",
"score": 9,
"text": "You have failed to mention why you think that leading psychologists are wrong in their treatment. \n\nWhy do you think all psychiatry organisations recommend transistioning as a form of treatment? As a joke? Do you think you have mo... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "e055df7",
"score": 18,
"text": "There is no such thing is biological **gender**. Sex is what falls within the domain of biology and transgender people do not believe (as I understand) that they are of a sex that they are not. Additionally, there is a psychol... | [
"e055ia8",
"e055osz",
"e056cdm",
"e056ea6",
"e056k20",
"e056na9",
"e057am8",
"e057dwy",
"e057so5",
"e057vpf",
"e0594ag",
"e05appt",
"e05dqnt"
] | [
"e055df7",
"e055hm6",
"e055lc3",
"e055mmw",
"e0561t7",
"e0567i9",
"e056ad5",
"e056gi0",
"e056tym",
"e0578g9",
"e057hsl",
"e057mo5",
"e058nqz"
] |
CMV: The 14th amendment makes it very clear that the judicial rights of due process apply to all people under the jurisdiction of the USA.
I see people somehow okay with and supporting the constitution being violated in the way it is because of the immigration problem and that somehow makes it okay.
There is a popular quote from after WW2 that I think many of you need to hear.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” - Martin Niemöller.
It doesn’t matter if they broke the law or not it doesn’t matter if they are citizens or non citizens it doesn’t matter if they have been documented at all.
The first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What’s happening is wholly unconstitutional, and anybody who supports it is as un-American as those who wish to take our guns away.
And to those of you who think this is actually just to go after immigrants and not the beginning of a hostile stripping of all of our rights I just want you to remember back to 9/11 and the war on terror and how out rights to privacy were stripped away and we ended up in a surveillance state in the name of “fighting the terrorists” and now we all know especially after Snowden that wasn’t the case.
So are you guys really gonna wait till it’s too late for the same situation to play out again with our judicial rights??
And to those who really think this is about going after illegals, how can they verify who’s legal and illegal without going through the proper judicial prosecutes.
Because right now they can literally grab anybody and ship them off somewhere without any oversight to verification of who they even shipped off. | The 14A references States. Is it obvious that every part of the Constitution that explicitly mentions States applies to all levels of government?
---
As the commenter above said the 5th amendment applies to the federal govt and “cough cough” applies the same rights to “Any Person”
Using the same language and all, even affords even more privileges to “ANY PERSON” than the 14th amendment states.
---
Yeah but your view was the 14th amendment guaranteed it when in fact it guarantees it against state gov action | I actually agree with you, but the way the amendment is worded is not clear to a modern English speaker.
>The first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Yeah, it says that after a long ramble about **who is and is not considered a citizen and the rights of citizens** which could very easily lead someone to believe
---
So it could be me but it’s very clear that it separates out “that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” and that “No state shall deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law” and “Nor deprive ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
To me it’s 100x clearer in modern English and the 2A.
I believe people are just being intentionally cognitively dissonant rather than innocently misinterpreting the document.
---
\>No state shall deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law
Do you think this only applies to states or to the federal government as well? | 1l9x63l | CMV: The 14th amendment makes it very clear that the judicial rights of due process apply to all people under the jurisdiction of the USA. | I see people somehow okay with and supporting the constitution being violated in the way it is because of the immigration problem and that somehow makes it okay.
There is a popular quote from after WW2 that I think many of you need to hear.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” - Martin Niemöller.
It doesn’t matter if they broke the law or not it doesn’t matter if they are citizens or non citizens it doesn’t matter if they have been documented at all.
The first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What’s happening is wholly unconstitutional, and anybody who supports it is as un-American as those who wish to take our guns away.
And to those of you who think this is actually just to go after immigrants and not the beginning of a hostile stripping of all of our rights I just want you to remember back to 9/11 and the war on terror and how out rights to privacy were stripped away and we ended up in a surveillance state in the name of “fighting the terrorists” and now we all know especially after Snowden that wasn’t the case.
So are you guys really gonna wait till it’s too late for the same situation to play out again with our judicial rights??
And to those who really think this is about going after illegals, how can they verify who’s legal and illegal without going through the proper judicial prosecutes.
Because right now they can literally grab anybody and ship them off somewhere without any oversight to verification of who they even shipped off. | FriendofMolly | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ill-Description3096",
"id": "mxg7rb3",
"score": 9,
"text": "The 14A references States. Is it obvious that every part of the Constitution that explicitly mentions States applies to all levels of government?",
"timestamp": 1749762051
},
{
"author": "FriendofMolly",
"id": "... | [
{
"author": "Funny-Dragonfruit116",
"id": "mxg4r3j",
"score": 23,
"text": "I actually agree with you, but the way the amendment is worded is not clear to a modern English speaker. \n\n>The first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, o... | [
"mxg7rb3",
"mxg840r",
"mxg9yil"
] | [
"mxg4r3j",
"mxg6u7a",
"mxg7g2m"
] |
CMV: advertising laws should restrict advertisers from using irrelevant, unfalsifiable, misleading, or anything other than direct and literal speech
People generally understand a basic tenet of markets, supply and demand. However, advertising functions to create demand as the company already has the supply. If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created *by the company itself*.
So the view I'm challenging here is: companies are unethical and factor in human death into their profit margins. Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product. They should be required to advertise for only observable and falsifiable claims directly about the product in question. CMV. | I agree with your sentiment, but don't think that this would solve the problem, since companies could still cherry pick which observable claims to report. Take these claims, for example:
1) The Toyota Corolla model X will get you places
2) The Toyota Corolla model X contains a deadly design flaw
Both are observable and falsifiable. Why wouldn't a company just report statement no. 1 and omit statement no. 2?
---
I agree with you, it won't cause the companies to change in that regard. However I do think it will lower demand if companies are unable to advertise a vacation in paradise rather than a car or a beer, and that's what I'm focused on.
---
I’m not understanding where you’re coming from here.
Why do you think it’s important to lower demand? And how would it be false or misleading advertising to market a vacation as a “vacation in paradise”? Are you taking things in a very literal way? Words like “paradise” tend to be more subjective. So while you personally may not believe this particular vacation spot is a “paradise” to swoon over, it would be viewed as a “paradise” by some people.
Gullible consumers can not be protected and should always do their due diligence. It is not the advertisers’ faults so much as the companies’ faults if they are choosing to provide you with a faulty product. The advertisers’ are employed by companies. You could argue that unethical advertisers will agree take on contracts from unethical companies, but it’s difficult to say this because they don’t have a direct hand in creating the product the consumer receives. That’s the companies’ responsibility. | > If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
People don't know what you want until you show it to them. Also, the goal isn't "to simply make people aware that it exists," it's to make them *remember* that it exists.
> Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
I don't see how this is at all related to the title. Seems like you're just saying that companies tend to save money, just like... everyone else in the world.
> Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created by the company itself.
What *pressure*? This justifies an arbitrary restriction on free speech if it attempts to convince someone of something. Your CMV post should be banned because it just showed up in my Reddit feed and created a societally imposed need to engage with it. I wouldn't have been forced to spend time on it if you never made this post.
The main problem with your view is that it inherently violates free speech by imposing arbitrary restrictions on what advertisements can say. In order to justify a restriction on speech, you'd better have proof of serious and immediate physical harm caused by that speech. Since the only harm you'v identified here is "people might listen to that ad, absorb the information, and then possibly purchase that product in the future," your argument holds no weight. I'd argue ads are actually good for consumers as well, because they are made aware of products they might not know exist.
A secondary issue is that there's absolutely no objective way to determine what information is relevant vs irrelevant, or what is misleading or not.
Now, if you're a hardcore statist bootlicker, this argument won't convince you, because you don't value freedoms and rights.
---
> People don't know what you want until you show it to them. Also, the goal isn't "to simply make people aware that it exists," it's to make them remember that it exists.
This is distinction without a difference. What I'm arguing is that people aren't buying Red Bull because they were reminded sugary drinks exist; they are buying it because of the perception that Red Bull provides via fantasy advertising. People don't *want* a sugary beverage, they want Red Bull, they want the prestige or status of being a person who drinks Red Bull. Replace Red Bull with nearly any brand and the concept still applies. In these situations, the *demand* is irrelevant so long as you keep buying.
> I don't see how this is at all related to the title. Seems like you're just saying that companies tend to save money, just like... everyone else in the world.
I didn't do a good job of connecting these two things, that's my bad. I was trying to say that Red Bull and other companies would rather continue to run the risk of false advertising because what they're doing generates more revenue despite coming with the risk of a lawsuit. I'm arguing that companies choose to lie to us when current laws are attempts to prohibit that specifically.
> What pressure? This justifies an arbitrary restriction on free speech if it attempts to convince someone of something. Your CMV post should be banned because it just showed up in my Reddit feed and created a societally imposed need to engage with it. I wouldn't have been forced to spend time on it if you never made this post.
I'm not selling you anything. If you had referenced an ad that was generated with data that belongs to you which was sold without you benefiting and arguably without your consent, then you'd be arguing on my behalf.
> The main problem with your view is that it inherently violates free speech
Companies and brands aren't people and they should not be given the benefit of free speech. That should be reserved for actual human beings. If anyone holds the view you've presented, it only follows that brands should be allowed to outright lie (typically legal for human beings).
> A secondary issue is that there's absolutely no objective way to determine what information is relevant vs irrelevant, or what is misleading or not.
This is the best argument so far. I don't feel required to have to spell this out here and would defer to the courts to handle it as needed. However, I think it hinges on how the laws are defined. Like Coronas in a cooler on a beach wouldn't be permissible in my view due to the beach being irrelevant to the qualities of the beer itself. Beer gets you drunk, that's what it does.
I touched on your last point. Though I'm no statist, I think the government should intervene when companies have knowingly killed people or allowed them to die.
---
> people aren't buying Red Bull because they were reminded sugary drinks exist; they are buying it because of the perception that Red Bull provides via fantasy advertising. People don't want a sugary beverage, they want Red Bull, they want the prestige or status of being a person who drinks Red Bull. Replace Red Bull with nearly any brand and the concept still applies. In these situations, the demand is irrelevant so long as you keep buying.
Really? I don't know who you associate with, but I don't think has every bought redbull because it has prestige. Ever. I think they just want a sugary caffeinated drink. Maybe if your CMV was exclusively about luxury brand advertisement (which is rare in the first place) this could be relevant, but it seems minor here.
> Red Bull and other companies would rather continue to run the risk of false advertising because what they're doing generates more revenue despite coming with the risk of a lawsuit. I'm arguing that companies choose to lie to us when current laws are attempts to prohibit that specifically.
Lying in advertisements is already illegal, so I guess you mean that companies include "any possibly misleading or irrelevant information" now because there's no risk for them to do so, which is true. All this means is that should this law be implemented, they would be likely to comply with it. But this doesn't justify the law.
> I'm not selling you anything. If you had referenced an ad that was generated with data that belongs to you which was sold without you benefiting and arguably without your consent, then you'd be arguing on my behalf.
1. My main point there was that there's no "pressure" that a company can put on you to force you to buy their product. You act as if people are so simpleminded that as soon as they see an ad for a product, they feel some intense psychological urge to go and buy that product. This is absurd - you being a sheep doesn't justify bans on other people trying to influence you. An analogy would be like someone saying that because they personally are very easily influenced, that it should be made illegal for anyone to discuss politics within their earshot because they could get convinced to switch parties at the drop of a hat.
Psychological studies show that the only "influence" ads exert over people are simply brand recognition, which leads to a slight *preference* when deciding which brand of a certain type of product to buy. There's no compelled force behind advertisements other than their speech. If you're going to argue that ads are a form of coercion then any speech attempting to influence you is also coercion and must be banned too.
2. Targeted advertisement using user data is a whole separate can of worms.
> Companies and brands aren't people and they should not be given the benefit of free speech. That should be reserved for actual human beings. If anyone holds the view you've presented, it only follows that brands should be allowed to outright lie (typically legal for human beings).
1. What if an individual was advertising their youtube channel, or someone was advertising the mobile app they made? Or any other individual advertising anything?
2. Corporations have the right to free speech - this is well established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
> Coronas in a cooler on a beach wouldn't be permissible in my view due to the beach being irrelevant to the qualities of the beer itself.
Seriously? That's ... insanely authoritarian.
But to elaborate on the trouble of defining irrelevance, what if that beer was specifically made for beach parties, and that was key to its branding? Your personal description of what beer should be allowed to advertise itself as is "it gets you drunk," but that seems very restrictive. That's clearly not *only* what beer is - tons of other products get you drunk, beer is drunk in different contexts and by different people. You don't drink wine on the beach, for example. | eqc177 | CMV: advertising laws should restrict advertisers from using irrelevant, unfalsifiable, misleading, or anything other than direct and literal speech | People generally understand a basic tenet of markets, supply and demand. However, advertising functions to create demand as the company already has the supply. If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created *by the company itself*.
So the view I'm challenging here is: companies are unethical and factor in human death into their profit margins. Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product. They should be required to advertise for only observable and falsifiable claims directly about the product in question. CMV. | itsBursty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ChangeMyView0",
"id": "feplnak",
"score": 5,
"text": "I agree with your sentiment, but don't think that this would solve the problem, since companies could still cherry pick which observable claims to report. Take these claims, for example:\n\n1) The Toyota Corolla model X will get you ... | [
{
"author": "myups",
"id": "feplzmj",
"score": 3,
"text": "> If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sel... | [
"feplnak",
"fepm7k3",
"ferwz62"
] | [
"feplzmj",
"fepq8z0",
"feprhc3"
] |
CMV: advertising laws should restrict advertisers from using irrelevant, unfalsifiable, misleading, or anything other than direct and literal speech
People generally understand a basic tenet of markets, supply and demand. However, advertising functions to create demand as the company already has the supply. If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created *by the company itself*.
So the view I'm challenging here is: companies are unethical and factor in human death into their profit margins. Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product. They should be required to advertise for only observable and falsifiable claims directly about the product in question. CMV. | > If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
People don't know what you want until you show it to them. Also, the goal isn't "to simply make people aware that it exists," it's to make them *remember* that it exists.
> Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
I don't see how this is at all related to the title. Seems like you're just saying that companies tend to save money, just like... everyone else in the world.
> Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created by the company itself.
What *pressure*? This justifies an arbitrary restriction on free speech if it attempts to convince someone of something. Your CMV post should be banned because it just showed up in my Reddit feed and created a societally imposed need to engage with it. I wouldn't have been forced to spend time on it if you never made this post.
The main problem with your view is that it inherently violates free speech by imposing arbitrary restrictions on what advertisements can say. In order to justify a restriction on speech, you'd better have proof of serious and immediate physical harm caused by that speech. Since the only harm you'v identified here is "people might listen to that ad, absorb the information, and then possibly purchase that product in the future," your argument holds no weight. I'd argue ads are actually good for consumers as well, because they are made aware of products they might not know exist.
A secondary issue is that there's absolutely no objective way to determine what information is relevant vs irrelevant, or what is misleading or not.
Now, if you're a hardcore statist bootlicker, this argument won't convince you, because you don't value freedoms and rights.
---
> People don't know what you want until you show it to them. Also, the goal isn't "to simply make people aware that it exists," it's to make them remember that it exists.
This is distinction without a difference. What I'm arguing is that people aren't buying Red Bull because they were reminded sugary drinks exist; they are buying it because of the perception that Red Bull provides via fantasy advertising. People don't *want* a sugary beverage, they want Red Bull, they want the prestige or status of being a person who drinks Red Bull. Replace Red Bull with nearly any brand and the concept still applies. In these situations, the *demand* is irrelevant so long as you keep buying.
> I don't see how this is at all related to the title. Seems like you're just saying that companies tend to save money, just like... everyone else in the world.
I didn't do a good job of connecting these two things, that's my bad. I was trying to say that Red Bull and other companies would rather continue to run the risk of false advertising because what they're doing generates more revenue despite coming with the risk of a lawsuit. I'm arguing that companies choose to lie to us when current laws are attempts to prohibit that specifically.
> What pressure? This justifies an arbitrary restriction on free speech if it attempts to convince someone of something. Your CMV post should be banned because it just showed up in my Reddit feed and created a societally imposed need to engage with it. I wouldn't have been forced to spend time on it if you never made this post.
I'm not selling you anything. If you had referenced an ad that was generated with data that belongs to you which was sold without you benefiting and arguably without your consent, then you'd be arguing on my behalf.
> The main problem with your view is that it inherently violates free speech
Companies and brands aren't people and they should not be given the benefit of free speech. That should be reserved for actual human beings. If anyone holds the view you've presented, it only follows that brands should be allowed to outright lie (typically legal for human beings).
> A secondary issue is that there's absolutely no objective way to determine what information is relevant vs irrelevant, or what is misleading or not.
This is the best argument so far. I don't feel required to have to spell this out here and would defer to the courts to handle it as needed. However, I think it hinges on how the laws are defined. Like Coronas in a cooler on a beach wouldn't be permissible in my view due to the beach being irrelevant to the qualities of the beer itself. Beer gets you drunk, that's what it does.
I touched on your last point. Though I'm no statist, I think the government should intervene when companies have knowingly killed people or allowed them to die.
---
One thing that I’ve seen you mention a few times is how product specs should be used in advertising and nothing else. This is information that is generally already provided or readily available to the customer, and in some cases it is legally required to be made available to the customer. But it’s basically only a data point about the product.
If anything, this could actually end up creating an environment where companies have a larger incentive to lie about products because the only thing they can use to show they’re “superior” to their competitors are data points. ie: a company starts advertising their sodas as being 100 calories less than the competition despite it having the same amount of calories.
We tend to be more inclined to buy into brands that share the same values we do. This is why some people will be inclined to buy “heartwarming” toilet paper instead of the best deal.
People who are data and results driven will always disregard advertisements and make decisions purely based on data points that are already available to consumers.
Have you ever enjoyed a commercial despite not buying their product? A lot of advertising is supposed to make people feel good or just get them thinking about the company in a certain light. Why should we get rid of these just to cater to data-driven customers only? | > Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product.
Important distinction, companies are *amoral* not *immoral*. They simply do not care where the money comes from. They are not doing bad things because they think the bad things should be done but because they generate the most revenue. If the best source of revenue is from doing ethical things then they will do that. Anyway, onto the bulk of the CMV.
So OP, I actually run a startup company. I won't give too many details, but we're small for the time being and operate in the food delivery industry. This is edited for anonymity, but our slogan is something along the lines of "groceries in a dash". This is clearly not objective or literal, but it is still a good summary of what we do. Should this be illegal?
Second, who decides what's "irrelevent"? What if I want to emphasise what is ultimately a fairly small part of my business in my marketing because it makes us look good? Who decides how much notice being given to this part of my business becomes illegal? Are use of testimonials in marketing also illegal? Because those can be misleading.
I think this post shows a lack of understanding of how marketing actually operates. Branding and brand perception is a highly important part of running a successful company, and companies trying to be percieved better in the public eye is a battle they spend billions on. No matter how much you try to regulate it, it will happen. Because it's almost impossible to run a successful B2C business without marketing. It's not just "telling the consumer the product exists", it's about making them associate certain emotions with the brand. You might argue that's unethical but it's also unavoidable. Brand emotions are conveyed in logos, in copywriting choices, in packaging design, and so on. Why is advertising specifically unethical while these things are ok?
---
I see the distinction, good point.
I think groceries in a dash is fine. However, I do see the problem with how we define what's acceptable. I suppose I'm focusing specifically on imagery opposed to text. Imagery can be more suggestive and evoke a more emotional response, which I think can be too compelling especially in regards to certain products (alcohol, cars, phones).
I do see that it's likely unavoidable, even if it may be unethical. Perhaps certain things should be more restricted than others depending on the circumstance. I admit that it's too complex at least for me to begin to comment on, though I'm still bothered by the fact that companies seemingly have such influence over our culture. I don't see a way to enforce laws on large companies without hurting smaller ones, so !delta
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Poo-et ([13∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Poo-et)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | eqc177 | CMV: advertising laws should restrict advertisers from using irrelevant, unfalsifiable, misleading, or anything other than direct and literal speech | People generally understand a basic tenet of markets, supply and demand. However, advertising functions to create demand as the company already has the supply. If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sell a fantasy, one that often disregards reality. In other words, advertising acts as a way to instill a false need that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Red Bull has been under fire for the claim that red bull gives you wings. This was obviously figurative, but that's irrelevant. Red Bull is a high sugar, highly caffeinated beverage. That's what it is. There's no fantasy that buying a red bull fulfills, yet that's exactly what they advertise. Companies will opt for the cheaper option whether it's paying out millions of dollars or whatever the alternative, like when automobile companies chose not to recall a fatal fault in their vehicles which inevitably led to the suffering and deaths of human beings. They could have recalled the product, but it would be far cheaper and less damaging to the company if they simply paid the fine so that's what they do.
Under reasonable circumstances I would have no problem, but I'm arguing the entire reason people purchase these products is not because of an inherent need but due to societal pressure which was created *by the company itself*.
So the view I'm challenging here is: companies are unethical and factor in human death into their profit margins. Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product. They should be required to advertise for only observable and falsifiable claims directly about the product in question. CMV. | itsBursty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "myups",
"id": "feplzmj",
"score": 3,
"text": "> If the goal is to simply make people aware that the product exists, then there's no need for anything besides plain text/image advertising the product as is. That's not the case, obviously, as advertisers typically create a scenario to sel... | [
{
"author": "Poo-et",
"id": "fepuaxu",
"score": 2,
"text": "> Due to their reliable and consistent immorality, they should be restricted from attempting to persuade the public into buying their product. \n\nImportant distinction, companies are *amoral* not *immoral*. They simply do not care where t... | [
"feplzmj",
"fepq8z0",
"ff1t0od"
] | [
"fepuaxu",
"feqpkkt",
"feqpq3j"
] |
CMV: There is no practical way for Israel to conduct operations against Hamas that Leftist/Progressive movements will find acceptable
I am defining “Leftist & / or Progressives movements” as the dominating, majority attitudes and narratives of the leftist & progressive movements in western countries in regards to Israel. An argument that “not all leftists think the same” will not win me over.
I do not believe there is a way for the nation of Israel to conduct operations against Hamas that Leftist and/or Progressives movements will find acceptable. I believe this for the following reasons:
https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
In the founding charter of Hamas, it states the organizations goals are to eliminate Israel and to eliminate Jews. The founding charter rejects peaceful solutions, and states this goal must be accomplished via any violence necessary.
To accomplish this goal, Hamas has used the following tactics:
- Suicide Bombings
- Hostage Taking and Kidnappings of Israeli civilians and soldiers
- Indiscriminate Murder when present in Israeli territory
- Continual Rocket Launches
- Utilized Palestinian civilians as human shields
- stolen aid intended for Palestinians
- destroy infrastructure meant to provide resources to the Palestinians instead to reuse as weaponry
These tactics all by themselves are atrocious. However, there is the added caveat that **Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza.** This means that Hamas is using **state resources** that functioning states would use to build infrastructure, feed the population, and develop the nation, Hamas instead divert in order to conduct their war effort against Israel.
When looking at the options that Israel has at its disposal to deal with Hamas, there are **no options available that Leftist/Progressives find acceptable.**
- To prevent suicide bombings and the indiscriminate murder and kidnapping of its citizens, Israel has erected checkpoints and a border wall with the Gaza Strip. But this contributes to leftist and progressive arguments that Gaza is an “open air prison”.
- to prevent Hamas from acquiring advanced weaponry the Iron Dome would be unable to deflect and thus lead to the leveling of cities in Israel, Israel maintains a blockade of Gaza. Again, this has been met with cries from leftist and progressives that Gaza is an open air prison and stopping aid from getting through.
- to prevent Hamas from continuing to launch rockets from a given location within Gaza territory, Israel exterminate the aggressor by liquidating the site with rocket fire. But because Hamas used human shields, Israel is met with accusations from leftists that Israel is targeting civilians with inevitably a hospital or school that is being used as a site to launch rockets ends up having civilian casualties.
- to prevent Palestinians civilians from getting hurt in urban warfare, Israel has attempted to evacuate citizens from areas it plans to do these operations. But once again, Israel is met with accusations from leftists and progressives that Israel is trying to “deport/ethnically cleanse” Gaza.
I am making this post because Leftist and Progressives always are criticizing Israel in how it conducts itself against Hamas. These same groups, however, always fail to provide **practical alternatives** to how the state of Israel should conduct operations in away that guarantee its own safety as a nation while being deemed “morally / ethically acceptable.” I am open to hearing these suggestions, but so far no good answers have been provided.
If a blockade, border security, air strikes, evacuation zones, and military invasion are all unacceptable methods for dealing with Hamas and protecting itself **what solutions do Leftists and Progressives find acceptable**?
| I kinda agree with you that there is no practical way to conduct an operation against Hamas that does not involve mass casualties and ongoing suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis.
But then I also ask- is the current method that Israel is adopting practical? I mean the goal of Israel’s current operation is to destroy Hamas and have the hostages returned. I think both those goals are quite unrealistic.
With regard to the destruction of Hamas- a lot of Hamas’ key leadership is dead with the mastermind behind October 7 also dead, but new leaders just keep popping up. Israel’s current actions also do not endear them to the people of Gaza or the West Bank ensuring that Hamas has ample number of people to recruit from. So the question is- how many people does Israel have to kill to achieve its goal of destroying Hamas, all 2 million Gazans?
As for the second goal of getting the hostages back- that probably isn’t practical either. As we can all agree the hostages are Hamas’ leverage against Israel- so Hamas wouldn’t give them up willingly. So unless Hamas is destroyed, there isn’t a way to get the hostages back unless through negotiations or getting the hostages back in body bags. And as has happened, some hostages have even died due to the bombings conducted by Israel.
So while I agree with some of your points, I think your premise is wrong in the sense that I think there does not exist a practical solution to the conflict- or at least not a solution that exists with the current Israeli government in charge.
---
Hmmm.
….
You’ve raised sort of good points. I’m almost convinced.
If the Israeli government is maintaining impossible goals, then I guess that then makes it impossible to achieve those goals, and therefore when they are not met they can continue to justify harsher and harsher tactics to further chase a goal that’s not obtainable.
However, what makes me doubtful is that I just don’t know how Israel disengages the conflict without the status quo of Hamas returning to power and starting this all over again.
Legitimately asking: is there a way for Israel to wind down the conflict without Hamas returning to power full scale and resuming attacks?
---
Hamas will always retain some level of power because it’s impossible to wipe out their entire force. Look at how Al Qaeda turned into a dozen different organizations, or how no one has ever won Afghanistan. You cannot eliminate terrorist organizations with pure might. You also have a new generation of fighters that was created due to Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th attack. It will take decades to build peace and show the newest generation of Palestinians and Israelis that there’s an alternate path than one side annihilating another.
The real issue is the unwillingness of the Israeli people to allow Palestinians to thrive enough to push out Hamas and ideologies that created Hamas. Realistically Hamas will never be capable of seriously hurting Israel, they simply do not have the forces and equipment necessary. Oct. 7th took everything Hamas had to pull off, and the aftermath has been a complete failure as far as taking down Israel. So Israelis have to decide that they are willing to take the occasional hit as they let the new generation of fighters age out or be converted to a more peaceful ideology. They also have to take those hits without their response being leveling Gaza again. Settlers have to be stopped aggressively by the Israeli state, trade needs to be open with Palestinians, and economic opportunities created for Palestinians. Having outsider auditors for Palestine’s revenue to identify money that’s going to Hamas and cut them off would help a lot too. | Fire at military targets and solely military targets, you know, the literal basics of the international rules of war and most of us leftists and progressives would be fine.
---
And if those military targets are firing rockets from a hospital?
---
Ukraine isn’t having much trouble firing on solely Russian military targets. | 1l9r3wh | CMV: There is no practical way for Israel to conduct operations against Hamas that Leftist/Progressive movements will find acceptable | I am defining “Leftist & / or Progressives movements” as the dominating, majority attitudes and narratives of the leftist & progressive movements in western countries in regards to Israel. An argument that “not all leftists think the same” will not win me over.
I do not believe there is a way for the nation of Israel to conduct operations against Hamas that Leftist and/or Progressives movements will find acceptable. I believe this for the following reasons:
https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
In the founding charter of Hamas, it states the organizations goals are to eliminate Israel and to eliminate Jews. The founding charter rejects peaceful solutions, and states this goal must be accomplished via any violence necessary.
To accomplish this goal, Hamas has used the following tactics:
- Suicide Bombings
- Hostage Taking and Kidnappings of Israeli civilians and soldiers
- Indiscriminate Murder when present in Israeli territory
- Continual Rocket Launches
- Utilized Palestinian civilians as human shields
- stolen aid intended for Palestinians
- destroy infrastructure meant to provide resources to the Palestinians instead to reuse as weaponry
These tactics all by themselves are atrocious. However, there is the added caveat that **Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza.** This means that Hamas is using **state resources** that functioning states would use to build infrastructure, feed the population, and develop the nation, Hamas instead divert in order to conduct their war effort against Israel.
When looking at the options that Israel has at its disposal to deal with Hamas, there are **no options available that Leftist/Progressives find acceptable.**
- To prevent suicide bombings and the indiscriminate murder and kidnapping of its citizens, Israel has erected checkpoints and a border wall with the Gaza Strip. But this contributes to leftist and progressive arguments that Gaza is an “open air prison”.
- to prevent Hamas from acquiring advanced weaponry the Iron Dome would be unable to deflect and thus lead to the leveling of cities in Israel, Israel maintains a blockade of Gaza. Again, this has been met with cries from leftist and progressives that Gaza is an open air prison and stopping aid from getting through.
- to prevent Hamas from continuing to launch rockets from a given location within Gaza territory, Israel exterminate the aggressor by liquidating the site with rocket fire. But because Hamas used human shields, Israel is met with accusations from leftists that Israel is targeting civilians with inevitably a hospital or school that is being used as a site to launch rockets ends up having civilian casualties.
- to prevent Palestinians civilians from getting hurt in urban warfare, Israel has attempted to evacuate citizens from areas it plans to do these operations. But once again, Israel is met with accusations from leftists and progressives that Israel is trying to “deport/ethnically cleanse” Gaza.
I am making this post because Leftist and Progressives always are criticizing Israel in how it conducts itself against Hamas. These same groups, however, always fail to provide **practical alternatives** to how the state of Israel should conduct operations in away that guarantee its own safety as a nation while being deemed “morally / ethically acceptable.” I am open to hearing these suggestions, but so far no good answers have been provided.
If a blockade, border security, air strikes, evacuation zones, and military invasion are all unacceptable methods for dealing with Hamas and protecting itself **what solutions do Leftists and Progressives find acceptable**?
| _Creative_Name_69 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "paikiachu",
"id": "mxeuakd",
"score": 777,
"text": "I kinda agree with you that there is no practical way to conduct an operation against Hamas that does not involve mass casualties and ongoing suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis. \n\nBut then I also ask- is the current method ... | [
{
"author": "CEO-Soul-Collector",
"id": "mxep310",
"score": -31,
"text": "Fire at military targets and solely military targets, you know, the literal basics of the international rules of war and most of us leftists and progressives would be fine. ",
"timestamp": 1749746411
},
{
"author":... | [
"mxeuakd",
"mxew4c1",
"mxezves"
] | [
"mxep310",
"mxepejf",
"mxepn0d"
] |
CMV: The SAT is not racist.
So I have seen multiple articles online that state that "Ending White supremacy means ending racist testing" and study finds that white people on sat score 99 points higher than black people. However, this is not the fault of the SAT itself, but of income inequality between groups. Colleges already combat this through the use of affirmative action to create diversity, providing financial aid to students of low income, and taking into account the income/taxes of their parents when considering applications. The SAT itself is race blind, religion blind, class blind, etc. The SAT is simply a number that summarizes academic skill level, and it is the role of colleges to account for income inequality and race when admitting students. It should be the choice of the college on how they want to be race blind, or enforce racial quotas. | It is not class-blind. That’s for damn sure. The richer you are and the richer your community, the more opportunities you’ve got for SAT prep courses, tutors, and you’ve got access to higher quality public schools due to higher local tax funding.
Regardless of if you’re “smart” or not, you can study and prep enough to ace the SAT, instead of the test fulfilling it’s true purpose of trying to gauge a student’s course proficiency.
---
If you study enough and prep enough to become good at the subject the SAT is testing, then you pass the thing the SAT is testing, your academic knowledge level on mathematics and reading. It doesn't matter where you gain these skills, the SAT makes sure you are good at them. Now, if the poor don't have access to the funding to study, who's fault is that: the SAT's or society's fault? Also, if you are in lower class, colleges understand that, which is why colleges put into consideration your parent's income and race when deciding admissions through affirmative action and other such measures. The colleges can interpret the number the SAT gives them however they want, and artificially raise the scores of the lower class in order to compensate for the opportunities they lacked earlier in their life. This is the college's choice. The SAT is not meant to be the de facto admissions for all colleges, it is simply a gauge of academic knowledge and it serves its purpose. The SAT is not meant to take into account race and class, as that could end horribly wrong because that is not the SAT's purpose. This is why colleges have other metrics of evaluation such as extracurriculars, essays, income status, race for affirmative action, interviews, school grades, etc...
---
> If you study enough and prep enough to become good at the subject the SAT is testing, then you pass the thing the SAT is testing, your academic knowledge level on mathematics and reading.
The SAT doesn't test your academic knowledge level on mathematics and reading. It tests your ability to take the SAT. The kinds of math questions that are asked, are only asked on the SAT. The way they are formatted are entirely unique to the exam. The kind of reading and writing required is done literally nowhere outside of the examination room. More valuable than actual reading comprehension or math skills, are those tricks and tips that teach you the bizarre logic of the exam. Those skills can only be acquired through SAT prep courses and supplements, and those cost money. There is absolutely a class barrier to even have access to the materials needed to do well on the SAT. | If you can understand and accept that black people can dominate the NBA and NFL you can understand and accept that other races can do better in athletics.
Either black people making up 90% of the NBA is racist and sat testing is racist, or neither of them are.
---
Okay, either this point is way beyond my tired brain or you responded to the wrong post.
---
Not your fault. I meant to type academics instead of athletics | l0z87a | CMV: The SAT is not racist. | So I have seen multiple articles online that state that "Ending White supremacy means ending racist testing" and study finds that white people on sat score 99 points higher than black people. However, this is not the fault of the SAT itself, but of income inequality between groups. Colleges already combat this through the use of affirmative action to create diversity, providing financial aid to students of low income, and taking into account the income/taxes of their parents when considering applications. The SAT itself is race blind, religion blind, class blind, etc. The SAT is simply a number that summarizes academic skill level, and it is the role of colleges to account for income inequality and race when admitting students. It should be the choice of the college on how they want to be race blind, or enforce racial quotas. | TheAnonymous123456 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ripecantaloupe",
"id": "gjwgcfc",
"score": 5,
"text": "It is not class-blind. That’s for damn sure. The richer you are and the richer your community, the more opportunities you’ve got for SAT prep courses, tutors, and you’ve got access to higher quality public schools due to higher loca... | [
{
"author": "idonotapologize",
"id": "gjwft7p",
"score": 1,
"text": "If you can understand and accept that black people can dominate the NBA and NFL you can understand and accept that other races can do better in athletics. \n\nEither black people making up 90% of the NBA is racist and sat testing i... | [
"gjwgcfc",
"gjwh5pz",
"gjwruha"
] | [
"gjwft7p",
"gjwg6yh",
"gjwj35b"
] |
CMV: general education is useless past 9th grade
I am writing this as someone who will be studying engineering soon. General education should only serve the purpose of equipping the individual with some basic understandings of certain things and help people figure out what they actually want to study, which typically would be done by the time of 9th grade or so (maybe earlier or later, but before college). For example, for someone who wants to study engineering or medicine, English classes are useful in a sense that they tell us the rules of grammar and spelling, but anything beyond that is useless; in a similar way, to someone who wants to get a job related to literature, anything beyond arithmetic and algebra would be useless. As for the "scientists and engineers need to know how to write" part, there are plenty of lab reports to practice for the kind of writing that are going to be needed once on the job.
_____
> *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!* | Writing is so much more than the rules of grammar and spelling. In STEM fields, good writing is about the organization and presentation of ideas and data. STEM writing is not just confined to lab reports\- researchers in STEM fields need to publish research articles and may sometimes be called upon to write about their work for public consumption. You can have run a great experiment and have intriguing data and analysis, but if you can't present it in a coherent way, your research will not be as accessible to other readers. The ability to write a sophisticated, thoughtful paper is an important asset in the STEM fields. Reading scientific research and publishing research articles require specialized skills and training that you won't get if you quit after ninth grade.
---
If by research paper you mean "abstract, introduction, experiment, results, analysis and conclusion", that's pretty much a standard lab report, isn't it?
---
Research papers are much more complex than that. When you do novel work, you have to convince your readers that the work you are doing is useful and important and you have to impart complex arguments in a few pages.
In my own field, theoretical physics, people generally spend as much time writing the paper as they do doing the actual work. I have seen papers continuously rewritten for months on end with over fifty significant revisions because otherwise it won't be accepted for publication. The more training you have in English in school and University, the faster this process goes. | I think you are also forgetting that education also keeps the mind flowing, and improve general intelligence.
Think of it this way, even if someone never wants to pursue a career that requires using calculus, learning calculus helps strengthen and exercise the brain.
Just like how most of the exercises you do in the gym you will never find a practical use for, they help keep your muscles strong and healthy.
I can't think of a time outside of the gym when I'll actually have to bench press something that weighs 200 lb, but by benching 200 lb weighs at the gym, in strengthens my muscles so they can be used for real\-world activities.
---
Exercising your brain is good, but that should be up to you when you have time to do it. The only thing schools are supposed to do is "training your brain" in a way that is relevant to your career.
---
And by training your brain, and making it so you can think, it makes you a better employee down the road, regardless of your career. | 8om9r9 | CMV: general education is useless past 9th grade | I am writing this as someone who will be studying engineering soon. General education should only serve the purpose of equipping the individual with some basic understandings of certain things and help people figure out what they actually want to study, which typically would be done by the time of 9th grade or so (maybe earlier or later, but before college). For example, for someone who wants to study engineering or medicine, English classes are useful in a sense that they tell us the rules of grammar and spelling, but anything beyond that is useless; in a similar way, to someone who wants to get a job related to literature, anything beyond arithmetic and algebra would be useless. As for the "scientists and engineers need to know how to write" part, there are plenty of lab reports to practice for the kind of writing that are going to be needed once on the job.
_____
> *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] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "firesideflea",
"id": "e04hici",
"score": 6,
"text": "Writing is so much more than the rules of grammar and spelling. In STEM fields, good writing is about the organization and presentation of ideas and data. STEM writing is not just confined to lab reports\\- researchers in STEM fields ... | [
{
"author": "Justgoahead123",
"id": "e04gclx",
"score": 12,
"text": "I think you are also forgetting that education also keeps the mind flowing, and improve general intelligence. \n\n\nThink of it this way, even if someone never wants to pursue a career that requires using calculus, learning calcul... | [
"e04hici",
"e04i37p",
"e04knkp"
] | [
"e04gclx",
"e04gwo5",
"e04h289"
] |
CMV: general education is useless past 9th grade
I am writing this as someone who will be studying engineering soon. General education should only serve the purpose of equipping the individual with some basic understandings of certain things and help people figure out what they actually want to study, which typically would be done by the time of 9th grade or so (maybe earlier or later, but before college). For example, for someone who wants to study engineering or medicine, English classes are useful in a sense that they tell us the rules of grammar and spelling, but anything beyond that is useless; in a similar way, to someone who wants to get a job related to literature, anything beyond arithmetic and algebra would be useless. As for the "scientists and engineers need to know how to write" part, there are plenty of lab reports to practice for the kind of writing that are going to be needed once on the job.
_____
> *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!* | Writing is so much more than the rules of grammar and spelling. In STEM fields, good writing is about the organization and presentation of ideas and data. STEM writing is not just confined to lab reports\- researchers in STEM fields need to publish research articles and may sometimes be called upon to write about their work for public consumption. You can have run a great experiment and have intriguing data and analysis, but if you can't present it in a coherent way, your research will not be as accessible to other readers. The ability to write a sophisticated, thoughtful paper is an important asset in the STEM fields. Reading scientific research and publishing research articles require specialized skills and training that you won't get if you quit after ninth grade.
---
If by research paper you mean "abstract, introduction, experiment, results, analysis and conclusion", that's pretty much a standard lab report, isn't it?
---
That's one type of research paper. There is also the argumentative paper that you need as well. Guess where you learn that? It's not in science classes. It's in composition and rhetoric classes. | I think you are also forgetting that education also keeps the mind flowing, and improve general intelligence.
Think of it this way, even if someone never wants to pursue a career that requires using calculus, learning calculus helps strengthen and exercise the brain.
Just like how most of the exercises you do in the gym you will never find a practical use for, they help keep your muscles strong and healthy.
I can't think of a time outside of the gym when I'll actually have to bench press something that weighs 200 lb, but by benching 200 lb weighs at the gym, in strengthens my muscles so they can be used for real\-world activities.
---
Exercising your brain is good, but that should be up to you when you have time to do it. The only thing schools are supposed to do is "training your brain" in a way that is relevant to your career.
---
The average person changes their career several times over their life so are they training for the one inevitable career?
A diverse education means more informed and a more willing and able to contribute society. This is important for healthy discussion and informed opinions. | 8om9r9 | CMV: general education is useless past 9th grade | I am writing this as someone who will be studying engineering soon. General education should only serve the purpose of equipping the individual with some basic understandings of certain things and help people figure out what they actually want to study, which typically would be done by the time of 9th grade or so (maybe earlier or later, but before college). For example, for someone who wants to study engineering or medicine, English classes are useful in a sense that they tell us the rules of grammar and spelling, but anything beyond that is useless; in a similar way, to someone who wants to get a job related to literature, anything beyond arithmetic and algebra would be useless. As for the "scientists and engineers need to know how to write" part, there are plenty of lab reports to practice for the kind of writing that are going to be needed once on the job.
_____
> *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] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "firesideflea",
"id": "e04hici",
"score": 6,
"text": "Writing is so much more than the rules of grammar and spelling. In STEM fields, good writing is about the organization and presentation of ideas and data. STEM writing is not just confined to lab reports\\- researchers in STEM fields ... | [
{
"author": "Justgoahead123",
"id": "e04gclx",
"score": 12,
"text": "I think you are also forgetting that education also keeps the mind flowing, and improve general intelligence. \n\n\nThink of it this way, even if someone never wants to pursue a career that requires using calculus, learning calcul... | [
"e04hici",
"e04i37p",
"e04j0v3"
] | [
"e04gclx",
"e04gwo5",
"e04htqs"
] |
CMV: Hospital emergency rooms should turn away people who don't have a health emergency in order to make medicaid less of a burden on the American taxpayer.
I was listening to a podcast the other day and they mentioned that one of the big problems in American healthcare is that a lot of people use the emergency room as primary healthcare. I assume two things: that people doing this have medicaid (no cost to them), and that since ER's are very expensive, this inflates health costs and causes a greater burden on those who pay taxes.
So with this in mind, those who use the ER as primary healthcare should simply be turned away from the hospital if they don't have a medical emergency. This actually seems silly to even assert on one level: I mean, "emergency" is in the name. If people aren't using it for its intended purpose, why *not* turn them away? It's not like they're not going to receive care. They can go to an urgent care facility if it's urgent but not an emergency (though I imagine that it often isn't even urgent). But at least if they go there it will have far less of an inflationary effect on healthcare costs for those on medicaid. | Except you can’t tell from just the chief complaint whether someone with shortness of breath has asthma or a pulmonary embolism. And turning people away without proper diagnosis is going to lead to 1) dead people and 2) more lawsuits.
---
I guess the question is how a hospital defines a medical emergency. If they gave a reasonable assessment of the person and determined that there was no obvious signs of a medical emergency, I don't imagine there could be a lawsuit. In fact I wonder if there some cases where a hospital was sued for this scenario so we could see what kind of assessment they did and what the outcome was.
---
>I guess the question is how a hospital defines a medical emergency. If they gave a reasonable assessment of the person and determined that there was no obvious signs of a medical emergency, I don't imagine there could be a lawsuit.
And the emergency room is where they get that reasonable assessment. "My chest feels bad." Could be a cold. Could be a panic attack. Could be you're on the verge of dying from a heart attack. How does one know this prior to someone in the ER administering the appropriate tests? | >I assume two things: that people doing this have medicaid (no cost to them)
Okay, so imagine you're right. People are going straight to the ER as they can't afford other options.
If you take away that other option, they're still going to be sick, right? Then they become an emergency later, likely at even higher cost. Or maybe they can't work and go on benefits. Or maybe they just lay down and die. I don't know. Point is that there is a cost to poor public health - it's bad at the individual and societal level. We need a healthy workforce. We don't want people to simply get sick and have nowhere to turn.
Even at a practical level, you have to look at the patient to determine if it really requires urgent care. You can't simply turn them away because you *suspect* it's not. Some of them will be telling the truth. But if you've got to check them anyway then at that point you might as well treat them.
---
>We don't want people to simply get sick and have nowhere to turn.
They have plenty of places to turn. I don't see any reason why someone would go to the ER when they don't have a health emergency. Just go to urgent care.
>But if you've got to check them anyway then at that point you might as well treat them.
I wonder about that though. It must be the case that assessing someone at a meaningful level and turning them away costs less than assessing someone and giving them some kind of meaningful treatment.
---
>They have plenty of places to turn. I don't see any reason why someone would go to the ER when they don't have a health emergency. Just go to urgent care.
If they have other places to turn, isn't that going against your premise that they go to emergency care because it's their access to medicaid? I'm not from the US so you might have to fill me on the finer points or if this isn't what you meant, but that's how I was taking the problem to be.
My point is there are a lot of non-emergency health problems that become emergencies if left untreated. Say you turn up at the emergency room with a minor infection. That's not an emergency. But if you're not otherwise getting antibiotics then it could easily become one. | 10v7fh7 | CMV: Hospital emergency rooms should turn away people who don't have a health emergency in order to make medicaid less of a burden on the American taxpayer. | I was listening to a podcast the other day and they mentioned that one of the big problems in American healthcare is that a lot of people use the emergency room as primary healthcare. I assume two things: that people doing this have medicaid (no cost to them), and that since ER's are very expensive, this inflates health costs and causes a greater burden on those who pay taxes.
So with this in mind, those who use the ER as primary healthcare should simply be turned away from the hospital if they don't have a medical emergency. This actually seems silly to even assert on one level: I mean, "emergency" is in the name. If people aren't using it for its intended purpose, why *not* turn them away? It's not like they're not going to receive care. They can go to an urgent care facility if it's urgent but not an emergency (though I imagine that it often isn't even urgent). But at least if they go there it will have far less of an inflationary effect on healthcare costs for those on medicaid. | bobsagetsmaid | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "hastur777",
"id": "j7fs9yu",
"score": 6,
"text": "Except you can’t tell from just the chief complaint whether someone with shortness of breath has asthma or a pulmonary embolism. And turning people away without proper diagnosis is going to lead to 1) dead people and 2) more lawsuits.",
... | [
{
"author": "FjortoftsAirplane",
"id": "j7fsvdh",
"score": 14,
"text": ">I assume two things: that people doing this have medicaid (no cost to them)\n\nOkay, so imagine you're right. People are going straight to the ER as they can't afford other options.\n\nIf you take away that other option, they'r... | [
"j7fs9yu",
"j7fugcu",
"j7fwmn2"
] | [
"j7fsvdh",
"j7fuujx",
"j7fvcgj"
] |
CMV: Religious exemptions should not exist in US law or government regulation.
My argument boils down to a few simple points:
* Unless any religion can be claimed, including ones as outlandish as Scientology and Pastafarianism, or as rare as Zoroastrianism, then it is respecting an establishment of religion, ie only the religions the government recognizes as legitimate.
* It establishes religion over irreligion. An atheist person or a secular organization cannot make use of these exceptions.
* It devalues the laws or regulations religions are excempt from. Either something is necessary or it is not.
* It causes more harm than good. Several states allow for parents to kill their kids through neglect, as long as that neglect is rooted in religion.
This isn't the most well thought out post, but I can't think of any benefit of religious exemption that promotes the general welfare or equality. | 1) Freedom of Religion is literally part of the Bill of Rights. The Government has a duty to protect the right of the citizens to practice religion freely - though also a duty to not endorse any particular religion.
2) Almost all religious exceptions, also include Philosophical objections. Atheists can often also hop on the "religious exemption bandwagon" if they want to. These laws often don't exclude atheism.
3) The government cannot promote or endorse any particular religion, but it can acknowledge that religions exist. "Christianity exists" is not a statement which violates the separation of church and state.
---
1. We already have laws restricting religious practices, such as prohibiting animal sacrifice or polygamy. We also have laws restricting when/where protests can happen, and we have some restrictions on speech. I'm arguing that laws should be enforced equally, without regard to religion. If a religion is unduly targeted, then the law can either be ruled constitutional or unconstitutional.
2. Source?
3. Not sure what your argument is here. The government can recognize religion, but it does not recognize every religion.
---
>We already have laws restricting religious practices, such as prohibiting animal sacrifice or polygamy.
When the U.S. does institute those laws, it is completely independent of religious discrimination. When laws such as those are instituted due to religious animus,
[they are struck down as unconstitutional. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah) | [removed]
---
Okay, now what is your argument?
---
His point is that the law already prohibits special exemptions towards religions, and that you're misunderstanding how U.S. law is applied to religious organizations.
| 8ol44d | CMV: Religious exemptions should not exist in US law or government regulation. | My argument boils down to a few simple points:
* Unless any religion can be claimed, including ones as outlandish as Scientology and Pastafarianism, or as rare as Zoroastrianism, then it is respecting an establishment of religion, ie only the religions the government recognizes as legitimate.
* It establishes religion over irreligion. An atheist person or a secular organization cannot make use of these exceptions.
* It devalues the laws or regulations religions are excempt from. Either something is necessary or it is not.
* It causes more harm than good. Several states allow for parents to kill their kids through neglect, as long as that neglect is rooted in religion.
This isn't the most well thought out post, but I can't think of any benefit of religious exemption that promotes the general welfare or equality. | StuStutterKing | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "electronics12345",
"id": "e0468ne",
"score": 45,
"text": "1) Freedom of Religion is literally part of the Bill of Rights. The Government has a duty to protect the right of the citizens to practice religion freely - though also a duty to not endorse any particular religion. \n\n2) Almost... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "e045vw0",
"score": -2,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1528148012
},
{
"author": "StuStutterKing",
"id": "e045xuv",
"score": 5,
"text": "Okay, now what is your argument?",
"timestamp": 1528148063
},
{
"author": "IHAQ",
"id": "... | [
"e0468ne",
"e046hde",
"e0471we"
] | [
"e045vw0",
"e045xuv",
"e0463lr"
] |
CMV: Brazil should be able to sell the Amazon
Before I continue I want to say that I believe in global warming and that the Amazon rainforest is super important to combat it, also, I am a brainlet and genuinely want to to see if there is a better solution.
Every developed country became rich by exploiting their resources, yet Brazil can't do that for ecological reasons, and if they do, they will be destroyed by sanctions. I feel like that is very hipocritical and unfair.
So, Brazil (And other developed countries that are in a similar situation) need to play the hero, save the planet while others got rich destroying it, at least they get paid for the protection right?
eh, **around $370 million USD** a year. (Gemini pulled this number if its wrong blame him). The ones exploiting the Amazon illegally make billions of dollars annually. The comparison is laughable.
Every country says Brazil do a terrible job protecting the Amazon (They ain't wrong) so here is what a I propose, just buy it
Brazil should just let it rip, kill all the damn crocodiles and shit, and if countries are against it, offer them the Amazon, allow other countries to become the Amazon protectors.
Not only will Brazil profit a gorrilion dollars from this (which will all go to Lula's pocket, based), they will no longer be cursed to protect that land.
And the richer countries who now have this unusable piece of land, think of it as way to atone for their past mistakes. (They will likely exploit the shit of that land aswell)
Regarding the indigenous, I don't think this would necesarily be bad for them, in fact, nothing will change
sorry for the english, esl here | The fact that they have the Amazon secures them a LOT more yearly aid then they've recieved so far. In 10 years norway alone has given over a billion dollars. Yearly they get nearly a half billion dollars in aid in general.
"I am a brainlet and genuinely want to to see if there is a better solution"
How is sell something that I acknowledge will be ultimately exploited in my plan vs a plan where the globe helps ensure that a special beautiful tourism attracting region stays beautiful and attractive. Keeping it this way benefits a LOT of people across the country.
---
the aknowlodging will be exploited, was half joking, yes of course they will try, but in theory all the countries are against the exploitation of the land. Maybe adding some rules for the ones buying it would prevent that.
but you did raise a good point, tourism there makes a lot of money, not nearly as much compared to how much they could get by exploiting the land, but long term it could be better, I will think about that, thanks
---
Long term it could be better? Buddy long term it IS better. The Amazon being destroyed would have ecological impacts felt across the global. 16% of oxygen that comes from land based sources comes from the Amazon. The Amazon is responsible for about 1/4 of all carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. There would be the extinction of dozens of animals species, this includes about 10 species of birds that migrate through the Amazon. The soil degradation would impact the world’s oceans due to the amount of soil being washed into the oceans. | I think I have a better plan. The United States, China, and the EU should each provide annually to Brazil sufficient monies to compensate Brazil for protecting the Amazon. Actually, I think parts of the Amazon extend into some neighboring countries, so the funds should be paid to all the Amazon countries proportional to the amount of the rain forest in each country.
How much? $1 billion a year from each should be a good start to fund protection and restoration efforts and to compensate for monies lost by not logging critical Amazon forests. Heck, make it $2 or $3 billion a year from each if necessary. Once lost the Amazon cannot be replaced.
Satellite technology exists for monitoring compliance. I would not even be opposed if Brazil and its neighbors actually made a profit by protecting the Amazon.
---
That would be fantastic, I just have a hard time thinking they would have the incentives for that, politicians in charge of those countries wouldn't see an imediate benefict for them.
In the scenario I proposed would force them to do it.
---
Sadly true. | 1l99gs9 | CMV: Brazil should be able to sell the Amazon | Before I continue I want to say that I believe in global warming and that the Amazon rainforest is super important to combat it, also, I am a brainlet and genuinely want to to see if there is a better solution.
Every developed country became rich by exploiting their resources, yet Brazil can't do that for ecological reasons, and if they do, they will be destroyed by sanctions. I feel like that is very hipocritical and unfair.
So, Brazil (And other developed countries that are in a similar situation) need to play the hero, save the planet while others got rich destroying it, at least they get paid for the protection right?
eh, **around $370 million USD** a year. (Gemini pulled this number if its wrong blame him). The ones exploiting the Amazon illegally make billions of dollars annually. The comparison is laughable.
Every country says Brazil do a terrible job protecting the Amazon (They ain't wrong) so here is what a I propose, just buy it
Brazil should just let it rip, kill all the damn crocodiles and shit, and if countries are against it, offer them the Amazon, allow other countries to become the Amazon protectors.
Not only will Brazil profit a gorrilion dollars from this (which will all go to Lula's pocket, based), they will no longer be cursed to protect that land.
And the richer countries who now have this unusable piece of land, think of it as way to atone for their past mistakes. (They will likely exploit the shit of that land aswell)
Regarding the indigenous, I don't think this would necesarily be bad for them, in fact, nothing will change
sorry for the english, esl here | Agreeable-Path8853 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "eggs-benedryl",
"id": "mxaxyz2",
"score": 8,
"text": "The fact that they have the Amazon secures them a LOT more yearly aid then they've recieved so far. In 10 years norway alone has given over a billion dollars. Yearly they get nearly a half billion dollars in aid in general. \n\n\"I a... | [
{
"author": "Commercial_Stress",
"id": "mxayyha",
"score": 1,
"text": "I think I have a better plan. The United States, China, and the EU should each provide annually to Brazil sufficient monies to compensate Brazil for protecting the Amazon. Actually, I think parts of the Amazon extend into some ne... | [
"mxaxyz2",
"mxb14hl",
"mxbifgc"
] | [
"mxayyha",
"mxaztvq",
"mxb08kd"
] |
CMV: Calc 2 is easier than Calc 1
you guys lied to me. Calc 2 was far easier than calc 1. No my teacher didnt curve or anything like that. The material was way more straight forward. Just solving integrals. Picking the technique to use isnt as bad as people make it out to be. Like I've had people here say u-sub is just guess and check. It isn't. You look for derivative pairs. if that doesnt work, see if it resembles a trig integral and then make it fit, then perform u-sub. If not, go trig sub or integration by parts. I'd say the hardest part was remembering some of the series tests, but just barely.
But calc 1 was a back breaker. I still dont understand how to make a function continous, I dont get how to prove the mean value theorum or IVT. Limits dont seem vary logical to me. Idk how to do related rates and im poor at optimization. Related rates were harder than anything in calc 2. like how the fuck anyone says calc 1 is easy, is beyond me.
here are two problems from my calc 1 related rates test
#1
Suppose that the minute hand of a clock is 15 mm long and the hour hand is
12 mm. How fast is the distance between the hour hand and the minute hand
changing at 2 pm?
Note: This time, assume that both the hour and minute hands are moving!
#2
A water tank has the shape of a horizontal cylinder with radius 1 and length 2.
If water is being pumped into the tank at a rate of 1/6 m^(3) per minute, find the
rate at which the water level is rising when the water is 1/2 m deep.
like fuck this. This isnt easy. Calc 1 was the hardest math Ive ever taken. So much that it made me reconsider my major because of the horror stories I've heard about calc 2. But they were misleading. People just have a hard time deciding which integration method to use, which isnt hard unless you jut pick random u's to see what happens or IBP everything because you missed the part about it being a test and not a rule.
Idk it's pretty simple, you see patterns. Whereas related rates could be anything from calculate some well or figure out the change of a light house | You aren't comparing apples to apples. Take a random sample of people off the street. Make half of them take calc 1 and half take calc 2. Which group do you think gets the lower end-of-semester grade?
It's enormous selection bias in that almost everyone who has taken calc 2 has already taken calc 1. Whereas almost nobody takes calc 1 if they have taken calc 2.
​
You should take stats 1 next year, bud.
---
Well yeah, you can't exactly pass calc 2 without calc 1, since it uses some of the stuff, but that doesn't really make it harder.
---
>Well yeah, you can't exactly pass calc 2 without calc 1, since it uses some of the stuff, but that doesn't really make it harder.
...that seems to explicitly and by definition make it harder.
What sort of argument could we make to change your opinion on this? | This is like arguing about wether organic chemistry or inorganic is easier, there is no comparison, some people find one or the other easier. Organic is like learning a new language, while inorganic is doing math, if people don't like pattern recognition or can't do it well they won't be doing well in Calc 2. That doesn't mean Calc 2 is any more or less difficult objectivly than Calc 1, its subjective.
---
> earning a new language, while inorganic is doing math, if people don't like pattern recognition or can't do it well t
Doesn't seem to the the case for most math or engineering subs. It's all, calc 1 is the easiest shit ever and calc 2 is the STEM gatekeeper class
---
Again it's thier subjective opinion. | eq86y8 | CMV: Calc 2 is easier than Calc 1 | you guys lied to me. Calc 2 was far easier than calc 1. No my teacher didnt curve or anything like that. The material was way more straight forward. Just solving integrals. Picking the technique to use isnt as bad as people make it out to be. Like I've had people here say u-sub is just guess and check. It isn't. You look for derivative pairs. if that doesnt work, see if it resembles a trig integral and then make it fit, then perform u-sub. If not, go trig sub or integration by parts. I'd say the hardest part was remembering some of the series tests, but just barely.
But calc 1 was a back breaker. I still dont understand how to make a function continous, I dont get how to prove the mean value theorum or IVT. Limits dont seem vary logical to me. Idk how to do related rates and im poor at optimization. Related rates were harder than anything in calc 2. like how the fuck anyone says calc 1 is easy, is beyond me.
here are two problems from my calc 1 related rates test
#1
Suppose that the minute hand of a clock is 15 mm long and the hour hand is
12 mm. How fast is the distance between the hour hand and the minute hand
changing at 2 pm?
Note: This time, assume that both the hour and minute hands are moving!
#2
A water tank has the shape of a horizontal cylinder with radius 1 and length 2.
If water is being pumped into the tank at a rate of 1/6 m^(3) per minute, find the
rate at which the water level is rising when the water is 1/2 m deep.
like fuck this. This isnt easy. Calc 1 was the hardest math Ive ever taken. So much that it made me reconsider my major because of the horror stories I've heard about calc 2. But they were misleading. People just have a hard time deciding which integration method to use, which isnt hard unless you jut pick random u's to see what happens or IBP everything because you missed the part about it being a test and not a rule.
Idk it's pretty simple, you see patterns. Whereas related rates could be anything from calculate some well or figure out the change of a light house | [deleted] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "hodadoor",
"id": "feoyo7u",
"score": 2,
"text": "You aren't comparing apples to apples. Take a random sample of people off the street. Make half of them take calc 1 and half take calc 2. Which group do you think gets the lower end-of-semester grade?\n\nIt's enormous selection bias in th... | [
{
"author": "Bookwrrm",
"id": "feovc86",
"score": 9,
"text": "This is like arguing about wether organic chemistry or inorganic is easier, there is no comparison, some people find one or the other easier. Organic is like learning a new language, while inorganic is doing math, if people don't like pa... | [
"feoyo7u",
"fep1bvm",
"fep2dh3"
] | [
"feovc86",
"feoxi0r",
"feoy36q"
] |
CMV: Your childhood doesn't really shape you
Most of your behavior seems to be due to your genetics and your immediate environment. Memory and learned behavior (conditioning) may mediate your responses to environmental stimuli to a degree but the older these are the less they impact you. (People seem to believe the opposite, that your earliest memories and conditionings effect you the most). There are two things that back me up here: more recent memories are stronger (and many childhood memories are completely forgotten) and time causes the extinction of conditioning.
I think of this every time someone claims that they have bad social skills or something because they were bullied in school or were homeschooled. The truth is that social skills are mostly genetic and memory based. | >The truth is that social skills are mostly genetic and memory based.
Source? Psychologists I have heard talk about this claim that a lot of socialization is learned before the age of 5. [Here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXwZtg85zgU) of Jordan Peterson talking about it.
We have seen countless times people having severe mental problems because of how they were treated as children. There are many child molesters that claim they were molested as children.
---
> Source? Psychologists I have heard talk about this claim that a lot of socialization is learned before the age of 5. Here's a video
I'm generally skeptical of the idea of critical periods. I recognize that there are a few in early childhood such as the critical period for language acquisition but without seeing the data I am skeptical that more than exposure to parents is needed to "socialize" a child. One reason I am skeptical is because this is really a political claim meant to support the public school system, which is crazy since people socialized fine before the existence of such a system.
Anyway the null hypothesis for the explanation any behavior is really GxE based (with some modulation from memory). The burden of proof is on those that claim that children have special critical periods in which they must rush to learn a bunch of things that can never be learned later or unlearned.
---
> burden of proof is on those
Yes, that is why they study in this field. There is no reason to believe they would skew findings for political reasons.
---
> There is no reason to believe they would skew findings for political reasons.
Oh yea there is. I know for a fact that psychologists skew IQ research and brain development research. I am very familiar with those fields and given their totalities it is clear that there are certain researchers within them that are there solely to push a political narrative, not to do science.
And that's just how people work. People are political. Psychology has massive political implications. It draws activists while physics draws the apolitical people
---
So that raises an obvious epistemic question. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Because you're asking a psychological question, yet you make it sound like you've already made up your mind that you wouldn't trust any psychological research presented to you.
---
I trust data
---
So here's a few papers, since you trust data:
Mechanisms by Which Childhood Personality Traits Influence Adult Well-being [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757085/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757085/)
Origins of adulthood personality: The role of adverse childhood experiences [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063370/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063370/)
The influence of early experience on personality development [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0732118X94900027](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0732118X94900027)
A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12810-013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12810-013)
I can post literally THOUSANDs of studies going back decades. Personality is formed in childhood. The data is in. | Regarding your points:
* Time does dull memories, but then memories aren't the only source of guiding behavior. Any parent will tell you that their children emulate the parent's behavior. I'm sure *you* have mannerisms that remind others of your parents. Do you remember learning those?
* Is it time that causes extinction of conditioning, or lack of use? Those are two different things.
---
> Any parent will tell you that their children emulate the parent's behavior.
What if this is because the child shares half their genes?
---
What about the other half? Why is it some children take after one parent more than the other? | eq3r00 | CMV: Your childhood doesn't really shape you | Most of your behavior seems to be due to your genetics and your immediate environment. Memory and learned behavior (conditioning) may mediate your responses to environmental stimuli to a degree but the older these are the less they impact you. (People seem to believe the opposite, that your earliest memories and conditionings effect you the most). There are two things that back me up here: more recent memories are stronger (and many childhood memories are completely forgotten) and time causes the extinction of conditioning.
I think of this every time someone claims that they have bad social skills or something because they were bullied in school or were homeschooled. The truth is that social skills are mostly genetic and memory based. | BasicReality777 | 7 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fengmrd",
"score": 6,
"text": ">The truth is that social skills are mostly genetic and memory based.\n\nSource? Psychologists I have heard talk about this claim that a lot of socialization is learned before the age of 5. [Here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watc... | [
{
"author": "saltedfish",
"id": "fenghgr",
"score": 4,
"text": "Regarding your points:\n\n * Time does dull memories, but then memories aren't the only source of guiding behavior. Any parent will tell you that their children emulate the parent's behavior. I'm sure *you* have mannerisms that remind o... | [
"fengmrd",
"fenhao2",
"fenhn65",
"feniqip",
"fenqdgu",
"feo7l11",
"feogmlw"
] | [
"fenghgr",
"fenhgx8",
"feniji0"
] |
CMV: I'm a deist
**EDIT**: Thanks to everyone for the great responses and discussion. At this point, I've changed from being a deist to being an agnostic atheist, with more emphasis on the agnostic. I don't think my search is over. I'm still fairly on the fence about this position, and I'm going to do some reading and watch some more debates on the issue before I come back to discuss it again.
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
Before we get into discussion, let me preface this by saying that it's been a while since I've really delved into the question of the existence of God, so I'm probably going to be a bit rusty on exactly what logical conclusions led me to reject certain answers to the God question \- namely atheism, or polytheism \- and accept deism, and as a result you may have to ask me a number of clarifying questions. Sorry...
I was raised in a religious home, so my philosophical journey began with me being a religious believer in the Abrahamic God of the Bible. I was home\-schooled for most of my education using A Beka \- a fundamentalist Christian curriculum that spans K\-12. During my teenage years I started to question the nature of God, asking myself questions like how do we know we can trust God? What if he's a sadist? What if this is all just a cruel joke and we're all going to go to hell in the end no matter what we do? I was a pretty angsty cynical teenager and it was probably mostly hormones and depression and maybe some anger at my parents that led me to come to these particular conclusions. I say that because by the time I was in my last year of high school I had stopped having such a cynical and dark outlook. I rejected the ideas of my early teens because they hinged on the belief that God is actively involved in our everyday lives. I had become a deist.
I was very much persuaded by a lot the atheistic arguments against God as evidenced by the indescribable acts of evil and suffering that exist in the world, and having grown up in the sphere of Christianity, I never once heard a satisfying answer to that conundrum \- \[the paradox put forth by Epicurus\]\([https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199\-is\-god\-willing\-to\-prevent\-evil\-but\-not\-able\-then](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then)\). However, I couldn't call myself an atheist because I could never find a satisfying answer to the question of the origin of the universe and the life that inhabits it. In that regard I'm very much persuaded by the Intelligent Design argument, or more specifically as I've just learned, the "Fine\-tuned Universe" argument.
I've never read prominent atheists like Nietzsche or Hume or Voltaire. I've never studied the renowned Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas, or C. S. Lewis either. Perhaps if I had I might be in a different place. My journey has mostly been influenced by my own upbringing in religion and watching some debates online between people like Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Sorry atheists, I know he was held in quite high regard, but I wasn't persuaded by Hitchens in that debate, lol. That said, the reason that brings me here today is this tugging on my mind that I can't quite shake. Why am I not an atheist? The older I've gotten, the more I've tried to apply the Socratic method to everything, the God question included, and I guess having done that, I'm starting to second guess my standpoint as a deist. \(And no the irony is not lost on me\).
Now, if you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or even a Buddhist, don't take my view as a struggle between deism and atheism. I'm more than happy to hear your argument for why I should swing back towards belief in an Abrahamic God, rather than further away from it, or instead why you believe that monotheism is clearly not as satisfactory an answer as polytheism to the question of our existence. | **Atheist here!**
Let me first say that I don't think you've put the best examples of arguments from atheists in your post. The indescribable acts of evil and suffering don't argue against god, they argue against a good god. But you're already at deism, those arguments should be pointless to you. You've not assumed a personality.
I don't know the origin of the god concept. I don't know what culture first came up with it, or where in the timeline such a being was first conceived of.
(I believe animals have been known to have some sort of thing that we presume to be worship of some nature or another, but I don't know to what so I believe that's irrelevant)
I don't want to approach this on the angle of there's definitely no god and I know it, even though that is personally at the very least how strong my opinion on the matter is.
But as I understand it, the first concept of god (not pantheism, I'm sure that was before theism) is basically some sort of character with the intention to create the universe. My issue with the god debate AT THE BEGINNING, before any arguments have been made, is that god is already portrayed as a character with unexplainable ***human*** traits. At least the very god we think of when we think of god. This god has will, we have will. This god has a personality, so do we.
I know you're a deist and not a theist, bear with me. My point is that the first concept of a theistic god is basically the origin of the god concept as we see it today. So, to me, dismantling the idea of a theistic god takes the deistic god with it. Not because the deistic god has also been disproven, but because your origin in belief of a deistic god is based on a theistic god but scaled down. If you stop believing in a theistic god for one reason or another, you should no longer care about a deistic god either.
My argument was horribly jumbled, apologies.
---
>Let me first say that I don't think you've put the best examples of arguments from atheists in your post.
Yeah, sorry about that. Like I said, I haven't read any prominent atheist thinkers, so I may be woefully unfamiliar with the best arguments against the existence of any type of god\(s\). But that's what I'm here hoping to learn.
> I don't know the origin of the god concept. I don't know what culture first came up with it, or where in the timeline such a being was first conceived of.
As I understand it, it's a concept that evolutionary psychologists call "agency bias." It evolved as a sort of survival mechanism in the early days of humankind. The example I was given is that if you're standing under a tree, and a branch falls on your head, or near your feet, you could either assume that A\) the branch fell because of the wind, or decay, or some other natural cause or B\) it fell because there's a predator \(the agent\) lurking above your head. The consequence of choosing B and being wrong is some minimal inconvenience, while the consequence of choosing A and being wrong is that you're dead. We are therefore evolutionarily wired to see some agent behind things we can't explain.
Onto your argument...
> My argument was horribly jumbled, apologies.
No worries! I think I followed it just fine. I don't, however, think that disproving a theistic god necessarily disproves the existence of a deistic god. It's a valid criticism to stop people at the inception of a theistic god by saying "Hey, this omnipotent supernatural being you're proposing could have a completely different nature from us, seeing as he's, you know, not a human being." But to me, the logical thing is to just expand your expectation, and understand that he probably doesn't share much in common with humans, rather than to say that he doesn't exist at all.
> I don't want to approach this on the angle of there's definitely no god and I know it, even though that is personally at the very least how strong my opinion on the matter is.
Btw... bit of a tangent, but didn't you reply to a different comment I made earlier arguing from an agnostic point of view?
---
to be fair it's not about disproving a deistic god, it's about rejecting a premise that is flawed, that is what atheism is, it is the answer to the question "do you believe in a god" to which the answer is no. It can be categorized in two ways, agnostic atheism, or gnostic atheism where the agnostic/gnostic part addresses levels of certainty and atheism/theism addresses belief or non belief. It's in the same way as when someone collects stamps, if someone asks if they collect stamps they don't say "i don't know", they usually say yes or no as long as they have a minimal knowledge of stamps and understand the question. |
>However, I couldn't call myself an atheist because I could never find a satisfying answer to the question of the origin of the universe and the life that inhabits it. In that regard I'm very much persuaded by the Intelligent Design argument, or more specifically as I've just learned, the "Fine\-tuned Universe" argument.
Why not just land on "I don't know" here. Because that is the fact regarding the orgigins of the universe. No one knows. Inserting a god here is no different than inserting any other prime mover for which we have no evidence. It's purely to satisfy your minds discomfort with "I don't know."
Sometimes it's important to avoid the temptation to always have an answer for everything. In fact, one or the most brilliant and beautiful things about the world is that we don't have answers for everything. It's OK not to know.
---
>Why not just land on "I don't know" here. Because that is the fact regarding the orgigins of the universe. No one knows.
True, but I don't really see the point in stopping at "I don't know." There may not be strictly scientific evidence, but that doesn't stop people from making persuasive philosophical arguments. Maybe it's a personal preference thing, but those kinds of arguments and their construction interest me. I mean, don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over this question. I fully understand that I will likely never have a definitive answer to the origins of the universe, but that doesn't deter me from doing what I can to reason out a logical explanation.
---
I don't see the point in continuing. No one knows, and you don't have the tools to figure out something that scientists (or... theologians) have been trying for ages.
Philosophical arguments aren't that good. They make assumptions like "well there has to be a reason other than luck, we just need to know what that reason is". There does not have to be a reason other than luck. I mean yeah, whatever happened happened, but there does not need to be a reason other than simply natural causes.
| 8nuotj | CMV: I'm a deist | **EDIT**: Thanks to everyone for the great responses and discussion. At this point, I've changed from being a deist to being an agnostic atheist, with more emphasis on the agnostic. I don't think my search is over. I'm still fairly on the fence about this position, and I'm going to do some reading and watch some more debates on the issue before I come back to discuss it again.
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
Before we get into discussion, let me preface this by saying that it's been a while since I've really delved into the question of the existence of God, so I'm probably going to be a bit rusty on exactly what logical conclusions led me to reject certain answers to the God question \- namely atheism, or polytheism \- and accept deism, and as a result you may have to ask me a number of clarifying questions. Sorry...
I was raised in a religious home, so my philosophical journey began with me being a religious believer in the Abrahamic God of the Bible. I was home\-schooled for most of my education using A Beka \- a fundamentalist Christian curriculum that spans K\-12. During my teenage years I started to question the nature of God, asking myself questions like how do we know we can trust God? What if he's a sadist? What if this is all just a cruel joke and we're all going to go to hell in the end no matter what we do? I was a pretty angsty cynical teenager and it was probably mostly hormones and depression and maybe some anger at my parents that led me to come to these particular conclusions. I say that because by the time I was in my last year of high school I had stopped having such a cynical and dark outlook. I rejected the ideas of my early teens because they hinged on the belief that God is actively involved in our everyday lives. I had become a deist.
I was very much persuaded by a lot the atheistic arguments against God as evidenced by the indescribable acts of evil and suffering that exist in the world, and having grown up in the sphere of Christianity, I never once heard a satisfying answer to that conundrum \- \[the paradox put forth by Epicurus\]\([https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199\-is\-god\-willing\-to\-prevent\-evil\-but\-not\-able\-then](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then)\). However, I couldn't call myself an atheist because I could never find a satisfying answer to the question of the origin of the universe and the life that inhabits it. In that regard I'm very much persuaded by the Intelligent Design argument, or more specifically as I've just learned, the "Fine\-tuned Universe" argument.
I've never read prominent atheists like Nietzsche or Hume or Voltaire. I've never studied the renowned Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas, or C. S. Lewis either. Perhaps if I had I might be in a different place. My journey has mostly been influenced by my own upbringing in religion and watching some debates online between people like Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Sorry atheists, I know he was held in quite high regard, but I wasn't persuaded by Hitchens in that debate, lol. That said, the reason that brings me here today is this tugging on my mind that I can't quite shake. Why am I not an atheist? The older I've gotten, the more I've tried to apply the Socratic method to everything, the God question included, and I guess having done that, I'm starting to second guess my standpoint as a deist. \(And no the irony is not lost on me\).
Now, if you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or even a Buddhist, don't take my view as a struggle between deism and atheism. I'm more than happy to hear your argument for why I should swing back towards belief in an Abrahamic God, rather than further away from it, or instead why you believe that monotheism is clearly not as satisfactory an answer as polytheism to the question of our existence. | ThePwnd | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PenisMcScrotumFace",
"id": "dzykpzt",
"score": 5,
"text": "**Atheist here!**\n\nLet me first say that I don't think you've put the best examples of arguments from atheists in your post. The indescribable acts of evil and suffering don't argue against god, they argue against a good god. ... | [
{
"author": "MasterGrok",
"id": "dzyifls",
"score": 14,
"text": "\n>However, I couldn't call myself an atheist because I could never find a satisfying answer to the question of the origin of the universe and the life that inhabits it. In that regard I'm very much persuaded by the Intelligent Design... | [
"dzykpzt",
"dzynx1d",
"dzyy5n9"
] | [
"dzyifls",
"dzyjtpi",
"dzyk3aj"
] |
CMV: If you don’t need an animal’s consent to kill and eat it for taste pleasure, you don’t need its consent to have sex with it for sexual pleasure.
The usual explanation for why bestiality is wrong is that “an animal cannot consent to sex.” This is bizarre because we don’t seem to care about soliciting the consent of animals before doing any number of other things to them that we could reasonably expect them not to want to happen, such as warehousing them in factory farms and butchering them so that we can consume their dead flesh.
The only exception I can think of for the above principle is in cases where a person needs meat to survive, but even assuming for the sake of argument that it is impossible to live without meat (many a vegetarian Olympic athlete would attest to the contrary), it’s trivially obvious that most first-worlders could eat *less* meat. If so, then a lot of the meat we eat is just for taste pleasure. And this is where my argument comes in.
I think bestiality is morally wrong, but I fail to see why so many people strongly disapprove of bestiality *given* their other views about animals. | Do you think we could have societal issues if it became normalized to have sex with animals? If so, it's probably good to stigmatize it, culturally.
Sure we can think of niche and ideal scenarios where it's harmless, but lots of instances won't be like that. Seems like the cons would be larger than the pros.
---
What societal issues are those?
Why wouldn’t we have societal issues from the normalization of killing and torturing animals in factory farms? Identify the symmetry-breaker between non-consensually killing animals for pleasure and having sex with animals for pleasure.
---
I'm assuming we both agree animal abuse is wrong. Killing animals is generally thought of ok if it's done without unnecessary or excessive suffering. The same we both probably agree would be true if it were legal to have sex with animals. E.g. you can but it can't cause unnecessary or excessive suffering.
But I'm arguing that if it were legal and culturally ok, it'd unintentionally create lots of cases were animals are harmed just by fact of more human-animal contact. Especially by amateur contact. There's gonna be people who have sex with animals haphazardly....which is going to cause unnecessary suffering, and is a hilarious sentence to type out.
When it comes to factory farms, I'm like 99% sure there are laws against torturing animals even if there for consumption.
Are you arguing it's ok to have sex with animals at home or does this need to be a special business that you go to and pay for? Cause the latter would help negate the issue I bring up, but not fully.
---
I don’t see how this reasoning doesn’t extend to condemning factory farming as it currently exists. Factory farms brutally torture animals, despite the existence of animal cruelty laws. They regularly amputate the beaks of chickens without anesthetic, confine cows to miniature pens in the dark for months on end, force them to stand in ammonia and cleaning solvents because cleaning out the pens isn’t worth the effort from a profit maximizing perspective, beat them frequently and frivolously, etc.
I think you’re essentially agreeing with the dichotomy I described in the OP: either factory farming and bestiality are wrong or neither are.
---
>Factory farms brutally torture animals, despite the existence of animal cruelty laws
I don't believe this, and I doubt there's any evidence you could point to that'd justify this belief. You'd need something showing that at least a majority of factory farms go out of their way to torture animals in a way that breaks the law.
It also doesn't even make sense from a business point of view. Why would a business go out of their way to waste time and money to torture animals?
>I think you’re essentially agreeing with the dichotomy I described in the OP: either factory farming and bestiality are wrong or neither are.
Do you think anyone should be allowed to farm animals? No regulations? Is that shared with having sex with animals?
---
No I think factory farming and bestiality are wrong. Tell me why these two propositions do not stand or fall together.
[Wikipedia](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjYwPjegYD9AhV4k4kEHcmMAhcQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIntensive_animal_farming&usg=AOvVaw2Bz1PdTSjyLLHQBBgWld3i) on the conditions on factory farms:
> Between 60 and 70 percent of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 by 7 ft (0.61 by 2.13 m) gestation crates.
---
"I'm arguing that if it were legal and culturally ok, it'd unintentionally create lots of cases were animals are harmed just by fact of more human-animal contact. Especially by amateur contact. There's gonna be people who have sex with animals haphazardly....which is going to cause unnecessary suffering, and is a hilarious sentence to type out."
I feel like I haven't got a direct rebuttal to your average guy on the street having sex with animals, which is undoubtedly going to cause issues. Issues we don't have with farming because it's regulated. Which is why I kept asking about regulations and laws.
Injury, disease, dirt and grime, an incentive to steal animals, probably an increase in loneliness and worse moods, etc.
---
My reply was that if this is true, then it’s also true of killing animals. That is all I claim in the OP: that the moral status of bestiality and factory farming are equivalent, so that if one needs regulations, so does the other. So yes, you could implement analogous regulations in the case of bestiality if you think those are necessary. I don’t know whether the empirical claims you’re making are true, such as whether people would become more lonely if they could have sex with their animals, which is just some random speculation you made up off the top of your head. Likewise, I have no idea why stealing animals isn’t incentivized by the fact that we think it’s okay to eat animals, or why the law against stealing animals is sufficient to prevent it in the case of animal eating but not in the case of animal fucking.
---
That isn't all that you claimed in your post, though. You are arguing that killing animals for consumption is morally equivalent to bestiality. You only cited factory farms as an example. | Eating animals serves a vital function for us. We historically eat animals to survive and stay healthy.
Having sex with them does not serve any vital function.
---
I already addressed this in the OP. I conceded upfront that for cases of necessary animal consumption the argument doesn’t apply. However, most animal consumption in the first world isn’t necessary given the sheer quantities of meat most people eat. Obviously we could eat less meat without suffering a deficit in our health (if anything, we eat too much meat relative to our health concerns, according to the CDC).
> Meat can be a good source of protein and other essential nutrients, but most Americans eat more than 1.5 times the average daily protein requirement,3, and consume more than the recommended amount of foods from the USDA Protein Foods group.
See [this link](https://clf.jhsph.edu/projects/technical-and-scientific-resource-meatless-monday/meatless-monday-resources/meatless-monday-resourcesmeat-consumption-trends-and-health-implications)
---
> I fail to see why so many people strongly disapprove of bestiality given their other views about animals.
So we can eat less meat and still be healthy. That might be better for animal welfare. What does this have to do with beastiality?
---
The number of animals we eat in excess of the necessary amount are eaten for pleasure and without their consent. If that’s okay, then how can the wrongness of bestiality be explained by the fact that animals don’t consent to it?
---
There's a difference between the necessary amount of something not existing and it being zero. There is no necessary amount of animals to be eaten for pleasure, but the necessary amount to have sex with is zero.
I think you're missing the point of it being a vital function. Eating meat serves a practical purpose because eating supports life. Having sex with it does not, it's done purely for your own entertainment. We also consider it wrong to torture animals or kill them purely because we want them to die.
---
My argument doesn’t require that there is a necessary amount of animal sex. It only requires that there is an unnecessary amount of animal eating that people don’t think is wrong and which is done without the animals’ consent. How do you justify non-consensually eating animals unnecessarily, which virtually everyone does?
---
Again, eating is necessary. Regardless of what is being eaten and whether it's life or death to not eat it, you are doing something that supports a function necessary for survival. You cannot equivocate eating anything with fucking it because one serves a vital purpose and the other is done for its own sake.
---
You don’t think there’s such a thing as eating which doesn’t promote survival? What about obese people who eat themselves into an early grave?
---
Intentions matter when assigning moral weight. If someone has ever eaten meat with the intent of killing themselves with it, then yeah that's not great. I'm guessing those examples are few and far between out of the total meat-eating populace. | 10uwi5w | CMV: If you don’t need an animal’s consent to kill and eat it for taste pleasure, you don’t need its consent to have sex with it for sexual pleasure. | The usual explanation for why bestiality is wrong is that “an animal cannot consent to sex.” This is bizarre because we don’t seem to care about soliciting the consent of animals before doing any number of other things to them that we could reasonably expect them not to want to happen, such as warehousing them in factory farms and butchering them so that we can consume their dead flesh.
The only exception I can think of for the above principle is in cases where a person needs meat to survive, but even assuming for the sake of argument that it is impossible to live without meat (many a vegetarian Olympic athlete would attest to the contrary), it’s trivially obvious that most first-worlders could eat *less* meat. If so, then a lot of the meat we eat is just for taste pleasure. And this is where my argument comes in.
I think bestiality is morally wrong, but I fail to see why so many people strongly disapprove of bestiality *given* their other views about animals. | SoccerSkilz | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "CatFewd2",
"id": "j7e95o5",
"score": 4,
"text": "Do you think we could have societal issues if it became normalized to have sex with animals? If so, it's probably good to stigmatize it, culturally.\n\nSure we can think of niche and ideal scenarios where it's harmless, but lots of instan... | [
{
"author": "Rezzone",
"id": "j7e9js9",
"score": 25,
"text": "Eating animals serves a vital function for us. We historically eat animals to survive and stay healthy. \n\n\nHaving sex with them does not serve any vital function.",
"timestamp": 1675655020
},
{
"author": "SoccerSkilz",
... | [
"j7e95o5",
"j7e9h5y",
"j7ea3s2",
"j7eapeu",
"j7eb7la",
"j7ec7tn",
"j7ed2e6",
"j7edhu8",
"j7ee0vc"
] | [
"j7e9js9",
"j7e9sv3",
"j7eakrb",
"j7easgp",
"j7ebvkm",
"j7ece26",
"j7edhvu",
"j7ee8rh",
"j7ef1yk"
] |
CMV: As someone who really appreciates King of The Hill, Hank Hill is an overrated character
While the idea of showcasing overly conservative attitudes about religious beliefs and sexual attitudes and such is a good idea regarding life in small town America, shoehorning it all into one character who happens to be the main character of a TV show is not the best idea. Don't get me wrong, Hank has his funny moments, but I would rather have had Hank be a supporting character while we knew more about Boomhauer, John Redcorn and Dale's families while still focusing on Bobby and Peggy. Hank is arguably one of the least funny characters in the entire show.
Also, one episode shows how Hank is a hypocrite. He talks all day long about how propane is the best way to cook meat yet once Bill uses a wood fire barbecue pit to cook meat using a family recipe, he says that Bill made the best ribs that he has ever tasted. | So, I haven't actually seen the show, but I'm curious what makes you think that Hank is "overrated." You've established why he's not an *interesting* or *compelling* character, but saying that he's overrated implies that people have very strong positive feelings about the character despite this. You've said yourself that you really appreciate the show despite the main character being the most boring guy, so is it possible that the focus of the show isn't the protagonist himself but rather his life?
---
In certain ways, Hank is an interesting and compelling character. Some of the more memorable parts of the show are hank struggling to be a good father to his only son and a good husband to his wife. However, many moments with Hank are not very entertaining.
---
Ultimately that's reflective of society as a whole though. Most people are like that. The show is, to me at least, more about how Hank (the "normal" person) is affected by far more extreme and outlandish characters and circumstances. How he tries to do his best with the challenges he faces.
Dale Gribble is ultimately an in-secure and violent conspiracy theorists that at one point almost starts assassinating people.
Bill is a clinically depressed man suffering from extreme PTSD from both his physically and emotionally abusive father. His time in the service is mentioned and his role as a guinea pig for a "new drug" produced by the army is largely cast as the reason he's overweight and balding since he was originally incredibly athletic with long flowering hair.
​
The thing that unites many of these outlandish characters is their admiration for Hank and their desire to achieve certain aspects of his life (Bill's obsession with Peggy etc.). Without Hank serving as the lead protagonist it would be difficult to cast a setting where these characters are constantly interacting. Even though they all have faults, different background etc. they all still coalesce around the idea of Hank Hills' "American Dream" family. Even though when you go inside that dream/family there are still faults. | Hank Hill, a good portion of the time, is the "straight man" to the various other characters in the show. Some really funny moments from the show come about because he's the one rolling his eyes or scoffing at the ridiculous antics of the other characters. He can also serve as an audience surrogate in many episodes.
I would argue that the show would struggle if we had Hank off to the side. Audiences can really need someone that feels grounded and relatable at the center of the action so the show can remain relatable. Of course, Hank has his quirks and weirdness, but even then how he treats those foilables is relatable. His tendency to quickly feel embarrassed, shy, and exasperated... It's great stuff and a vital part of the formula that King of the Hill needed.
It's arguably THE formula the show was built on.
---
!delta True it does seem like hanks reaction to things is one of the better parts of the show
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/trykes ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/trykes)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | l0p568 | CMV: As someone who really appreciates King of The Hill, Hank Hill is an overrated character | While the idea of showcasing overly conservative attitudes about religious beliefs and sexual attitudes and such is a good idea regarding life in small town America, shoehorning it all into one character who happens to be the main character of a TV show is not the best idea. Don't get me wrong, Hank has his funny moments, but I would rather have had Hank be a supporting character while we knew more about Boomhauer, John Redcorn and Dale's families while still focusing on Bobby and Peggy. Hank is arguably one of the least funny characters in the entire show.
Also, one episode shows how Hank is a hypocrite. He talks all day long about how propane is the best way to cook meat yet once Bill uses a wood fire barbecue pit to cook meat using a family recipe, he says that Bill made the best ribs that he has ever tasted. | overhardeggs | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Khal-Frodo",
"id": "gjusz53",
"score": 1,
"text": "So, I haven't actually seen the show, but I'm curious what makes you think that Hank is \"overrated.\" You've established why he's not an *interesting* or *compelling* character, but saying that he's overrated implies that people have v... | [
{
"author": "trykes",
"id": "gjv5cy6",
"score": 5,
"text": "Hank Hill, a good portion of the time, is the \"straight man\" to the various other characters in the show. Some really funny moments from the show come about because he's the one rolling his eyes or scoffing at the ridiculous antics of the... | [
"gjusz53",
"gjutern",
"gjuvg8p"
] | [
"gjv5cy6",
"gjv5s62",
"gjv5thr"
] |
CMV: Country of Birth will go the way of Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia
I think treating someone different because of where they were born is akin to racism or sexism.
And eventually, we'll get rid of it.
[Edited paragraph]
I think that eventually, Xenophobia will be commonly considered wrong, and where you were born will have little impact on your life compared to how hard you work/your merits etc..
I also mean this further than the usual use of Xenophobia - so that for example denying people a right to live/work somewhere would be wrong, (without other having other valid reasons to deny).
So open borders and right to work everywhere, based on the idea that it's unfair to limit someone due to where they happened to be born.
I think this because:
i) Negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
ii) And the country someone is born in is something they had no control over;
iii) Therefore, negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for the country they were born in is bad;
I'm not saying we are currently at a point in society where we can make people equal regardless of where they were born.
We couldn't immediately treat people the same from all birthplaces, cut back immigration restrictions, give rights to foreign nationals...
I understand society couldn't handle that right now.
And I'm not saying that birthplace discrimination is more or less severe than the things I've compared it to (slavery, racism etc..)
What I am saying is that society will eventually move away from it.
For example, turning down someone for a visa/job due to their gender/skin-colour is currently considered wrong, but that morality would extend to their birth-place too.
Future generations will look back on today's norms the same way we currently look back on Slavery, Homophobia etc..
Kids in school will study the birthplace restrictions we put on peoples lives, and they'll write papers on the movements which ended it.
I'm working from the assumption that Sexism, Homophobia etc.. are all definitely bad.
And that negatively judging someone because they are a Woman, Black, or any other minority is slowly but surely becoming unacceptable.
As you can probably tell, I'm pro-immigration, globalization, freedom of movement etc... (;
And I see those trends as the main path that society would take to make it not matter where you were born.
[ edit: Updated to reference Xenophobia, instead of the undeniably crap term "birthplaceism" ]
_____
> *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) Negatively affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
How do you figure? Is it wrong to discriminate against stupid people (it's not their fault they were born with low IQ) or people with antisocial personality disorder (it's not their fault they were born with a predisposition to be a violent jerk)?
What's special about things people have no control over?
I get that *some* things people have no control over (race, gender, etc) are bad to discriminate against, but then again some things people have some degree of control over are just as bad (religious bigotry, slut shaming, etc).
If we're banning birthplace discrimination that fundamentally means getting rid of birthplace citizenship.
---
> If we're banning birthplace discrimination that fundamentally means getting rid of birthplace citizenship.
Yes, and also restrictions on Visas etc..
That information would still be tracked, you'd still have a listed birthplace, and authorities could still stop you travelling if they had a valid reason (you're wanted, or planning something bad).
No reason to not have a passport, as administration still needs to function in every country. You might even label that citizenship still.
I think it'll just be unacceptable in the future to be denied things based solely on the place you were born.
---
That would make welfare very difficult to administer, no? Do you think countries will want to stop giving benefits to citizens but not noncitizens?
---
> Do you think countries will want to stop giving benefits to citizens but not noncitizens?
I don't think countries will stop giving benefits. They would give them to anyone who's living there, including foreigners.
I think I get your point though, countries will want to look after their own before they look after foreigners.
But that's the mindset I think will eventually become outdated.
If you didn't care where someone was born, and only that they are part of your society, you wouldn't mind giving them welfare/benefits any more or less than someone from the same country.
As I say in the OP I think we're not there yet. People care that you are from Bulgaria, and think they should look after UK people first. I don't think they'll want to, but I think eventually we will change our minds and choose to.
> That would make welfare very difficult to administer
I think it wouldn't make it any harder to administer if your approach to administering welfare was updated to match. Whether you care where someone was born or not, the administrative process for checking means and delivering welfare would remain the same imo.
There would likely be an increase in people moving around, if people couldn't stop you due to your birth-place. So that would admittedly have an increase in administration work.
---
What would stop the billions living in poverty from moving to the place(s) with the best benefits? How would there be a place to live, work and money for these people? | Excepting the future possibility of a single unified 'Government of Earth'... No. No it won't. For exactly the reasons you mentioned it wouldn't work today. This isn't a form of discrimination, it's a logistical problem between citizens of separate nations with separate and distinct laws.
---
Re Needing a Single Government:
I'm not excepting the possibility of a single government.
But I'm not convinced a single government would happen either; I think countries and borders will always exist and serve useful purposes
I think international organisations such as the UN will grow in influence, taking more of the functions that a "government of earth" would have served.
There's already an international layer above all countries, fighting the issues I compared birthplace-ism to.
I think those same organisations would enable the change similarly to how they already are for women's rights etc..
Re logistical problems:
I agree it's a logistical problem. But so were many other rights issues.
---
I'm not touching the UN thing because that's so hilariously wrong I don't even know where to start.
As for this being a rights issue: What rights does someone with dual citizenship not have compared to a natural-born citizen? Literally one: The ability to run for President, which is entirely a concern of national security.
America is predicated on the integration of immigrants from other nations. It's kind of our thing, so we don't discriminate based on birthplace with the one exception of our highest office.
I'll even grant that someday we might remove that one restriction placed on first-generation immigrants who gain citizenship at a time when the governments of the world have achieved a more lasting peace (though I doubt it).
However, without a single unified government, there is no reasonable way to have multiple countries with no functional borders which seems to be what you suggest.
Without borders and controls on who can move in/out of the country as well as some way to keep track of permanent residents, you can't get an accurate census, can't accurately apportion seats in the House of Representatives, can't make any meaningful decisions for voting districts if anyone can come and go and vote as they please, etc. etc.
Basically our entire system of government ceases to be. Same with every other government, and when you take it to its logical extreme of every person on Earth being treated exactly the same as the natural-born citizens of every country on Earth with no exceptions, you've reached the same functional level of a single unified government and there's no point in maintaining separate borders.
So sure, if at some point in the far, far, *far* distant future all of Earth's governments combine, we could all be citizens of Earth instead of countries. That's the only workable circumstance though, and I find it highly unlikely without some outside influence forcing unification.
---
> UN
I guess that is a different debate then, I think that the UN [does a lot more good than bad](https://www.kialo.com/the-un-is-a-good-thing-15052) (:
> However, without a single unified government, there is no reasonable way to have multiple countries with no functional borders which seems to be what you suggest.
The EU is an example which isn't a single unified government, but has open borders "EU Freedom Of movement". They have as might right to go work in a neighbouring country as anyone else in any EU country.. I see that as the first step in making your country of birth irrelevant. If you're born in italy you have as much right to live in Berlin as anyone else.
My point is not to suggest all admin/process is removed from moving countries. You'd still have paperwork to do - that's not a moral problem to me. It's more that your ability to go where you want to would be a given, that you have no barriers based on your country.
So overall, I imagine something like: Seperate nations still, paperwork and applications when you go between some countries. But "I have a german passport so i can travel anywhere" and "I have a lebanese passport so I have less of that ability" would no longer be a thing. As long as you are not breaking any laws/a danger etc... you would never be denied the ability to go somewhere based on the country you were born in.
---
>The EU is an example which isn't a single unified government
Technically correct, but wrong in spirit. The EU is a unified governing *body* to which the member states have given up certain rights. The 50 United States similarly gave up some of their autonomy and all of their internal borders to the federal government.
If we're just talking free travel between countries, then sure. Most countries already allow short-stay travel regardless of national origin.
The kind of internal freedom of movement, work, and resettlement possible in the EU and US isn't really feasible outside of some sort of unified governing structure though.
Every citizen of an EU member state is automatically a citizen of the EU. It's not that they've allowed all of these things to non-citizens, but rather that they've specifically allowed them to all citizens of the EU, which is comprised of multiple countries.
Even within the EU though, there are differences that will remain so long as the member states retain autonomy. None of the EU member states allow EU citizens that are not also citizens of their own nation to vote in national elections. They mostly have multi-year residency policies for acquiring citizenship through naturalization or marriage.
The ultimate form of the EU that you're envisioning is basically the US. Individual entities that give up all of their internal border controls between members, all residents/citizens participate in the same national elections, etc.
What you want is possible in part without a completely cohesive government, but not in whole. | 8og8oe | CMV: Country of Birth will go the way of Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia | I think treating someone different because of where they were born is akin to racism or sexism.
And eventually, we'll get rid of it.
[Edited paragraph]
I think that eventually, Xenophobia will be commonly considered wrong, and where you were born will have little impact on your life compared to how hard you work/your merits etc..
I also mean this further than the usual use of Xenophobia - so that for example denying people a right to live/work somewhere would be wrong, (without other having other valid reasons to deny).
So open borders and right to work everywhere, based on the idea that it's unfair to limit someone due to where they happened to be born.
I think this because:
i) Negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
ii) And the country someone is born in is something they had no control over;
iii) Therefore, negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for the country they were born in is bad;
I'm not saying we are currently at a point in society where we can make people equal regardless of where they were born.
We couldn't immediately treat people the same from all birthplaces, cut back immigration restrictions, give rights to foreign nationals...
I understand society couldn't handle that right now.
And I'm not saying that birthplace discrimination is more or less severe than the things I've compared it to (slavery, racism etc..)
What I am saying is that society will eventually move away from it.
For example, turning down someone for a visa/job due to their gender/skin-colour is currently considered wrong, but that morality would extend to their birth-place too.
Future generations will look back on today's norms the same way we currently look back on Slavery, Homophobia etc..
Kids in school will study the birthplace restrictions we put on peoples lives, and they'll write papers on the movements which ended it.
I'm working from the assumption that Sexism, Homophobia etc.. are all definitely bad.
And that negatively judging someone because they are a Woman, Black, or any other minority is slowly but surely becoming unacceptable.
As you can probably tell, I'm pro-immigration, globalization, freedom of movement etc... (;
And I see those trends as the main path that society would take to make it not matter where you were born.
[ edit: Updated to reference Xenophobia, instead of the undeniably crap term "birthplaceism" ]
_____
> *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!* | jethrogillgren7 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "GnosticGnome",
"id": "e0349nf",
"score": 8,
"text": ">i) Negatively affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;\n\nHow do you figure? Is it wrong to discriminate against stupid people (it's not their fault they were born with low IQ) or people with antisocial pers... | [
{
"author": "RadgarEleding",
"id": "e033c2o",
"score": 5,
"text": "Excepting the future possibility of a single unified 'Government of Earth'... No. No it won't. For exactly the reasons you mentioned it wouldn't work today. This isn't a form of discrimination, it's a logistical problem between citiz... | [
"e0349nf",
"e037xb2",
"e038hcf",
"e039xua",
"e03oaul"
] | [
"e033c2o",
"e033r2k",
"e035jww",
"e037jop",
"e03amk4"
] |
CMV: Country of Birth will go the way of Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia
I think treating someone different because of where they were born is akin to racism or sexism.
And eventually, we'll get rid of it.
[Edited paragraph]
I think that eventually, Xenophobia will be commonly considered wrong, and where you were born will have little impact on your life compared to how hard you work/your merits etc..
I also mean this further than the usual use of Xenophobia - so that for example denying people a right to live/work somewhere would be wrong, (without other having other valid reasons to deny).
So open borders and right to work everywhere, based on the idea that it's unfair to limit someone due to where they happened to be born.
I think this because:
i) Negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
ii) And the country someone is born in is something they had no control over;
iii) Therefore, negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for the country they were born in is bad;
I'm not saying we are currently at a point in society where we can make people equal regardless of where they were born.
We couldn't immediately treat people the same from all birthplaces, cut back immigration restrictions, give rights to foreign nationals...
I understand society couldn't handle that right now.
And I'm not saying that birthplace discrimination is more or less severe than the things I've compared it to (slavery, racism etc..)
What I am saying is that society will eventually move away from it.
For example, turning down someone for a visa/job due to their gender/skin-colour is currently considered wrong, but that morality would extend to their birth-place too.
Future generations will look back on today's norms the same way we currently look back on Slavery, Homophobia etc..
Kids in school will study the birthplace restrictions we put on peoples lives, and they'll write papers on the movements which ended it.
I'm working from the assumption that Sexism, Homophobia etc.. are all definitely bad.
And that negatively judging someone because they are a Woman, Black, or any other minority is slowly but surely becoming unacceptable.
As you can probably tell, I'm pro-immigration, globalization, freedom of movement etc... (;
And I see those trends as the main path that society would take to make it not matter where you were born.
[ edit: Updated to reference Xenophobia, instead of the undeniably crap term "birthplaceism" ]
_____
> *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) Negatively affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
How do you figure? Is it wrong to discriminate against stupid people (it's not their fault they were born with low IQ) or people with antisocial personality disorder (it's not their fault they were born with a predisposition to be a violent jerk)?
What's special about things people have no control over?
I get that *some* things people have no control over (race, gender, etc) are bad to discriminate against, but then again some things people have some degree of control over are just as bad (religious bigotry, slut shaming, etc).
If we're banning birthplace discrimination that fundamentally means getting rid of birthplace citizenship.
---
> If we're banning birthplace discrimination that fundamentally means getting rid of birthplace citizenship.
Yes, and also restrictions on Visas etc..
That information would still be tracked, you'd still have a listed birthplace, and authorities could still stop you travelling if they had a valid reason (you're wanted, or planning something bad).
No reason to not have a passport, as administration still needs to function in every country. You might even label that citizenship still.
I think it'll just be unacceptable in the future to be denied things based solely on the place you were born.
---
That would make welfare very difficult to administer, no? Do you think countries will want to stop giving benefits to citizens but not noncitizens?
---
> Do you think countries will want to stop giving benefits to citizens but not noncitizens?
I don't think countries will stop giving benefits. They would give them to anyone who's living there, including foreigners.
I think I get your point though, countries will want to look after their own before they look after foreigners.
But that's the mindset I think will eventually become outdated.
If you didn't care where someone was born, and only that they are part of your society, you wouldn't mind giving them welfare/benefits any more or less than someone from the same country.
As I say in the OP I think we're not there yet. People care that you are from Bulgaria, and think they should look after UK people first. I don't think they'll want to, but I think eventually we will change our minds and choose to.
> That would make welfare very difficult to administer
I think it wouldn't make it any harder to administer if your approach to administering welfare was updated to match. Whether you care where someone was born or not, the administrative process for checking means and delivering welfare would remain the same imo.
There would likely be an increase in people moving around, if people couldn't stop you due to your birth-place. So that would admittedly have an increase in administration work.
---
> I don't think countries will stop giving benefits. They would give them to anyone who's living there, including foreigners.
I think you need to seriously reflect on this problem. Your idea of a borderless world is noble, but many economists would agree that "welfare" would likely cease to exist. There is an old economics saying "open borders and a welfare state cannot exist at the same time". Think about it. If the world had no borders, and 10% of the countries had welfare and free medical, etc... where do you suppose the other 90% are going to immigrate? Can those 10% really subsidize the poor of the entire planet? You may want to think so, but the answer is no. The reason welfare and uni\-care exists is because it is a promise to your people. Not OTHER people.
I think this is the broader problem with your argument. people on the right do tend to be zenophobic for not always great reasons, and fear change. HOWEVER, people on the left are often naive about the reality of change. Things will change, immigration can bring good things, but it also brings bad things, the left often pretends that is not the case. So, what the left ignores is that often the reason a country is desirable, is because of the people living in it. Switzerland is considered a very desirable place to live. But does that not have something to do with the swiss people? If you replaced the swiss tomorrow with americans, or australians or japanese, or Nigerians, honestly ask yourself if it would be the same country. | I'm confused about your viewpiont. Are you saying we shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of their birthplace? Because we already cannot, at least in the US. National origin (as it is referred to in discrimination law) is already a protected class, alongside race, under the Civil Rights Act and other state civil rights laws. This makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of national origin in certain contexts (like employment or in public accommodations).
So, for example, you can't refuse to hire someone for the reason that they are Canadian, Mexican, etc... any more than you can refuse to to hire someone for being Black, Latino, etc...
---
Unless I've completely misunderstood OP, they're talking about treating everyone equally regardless of citizenship status.
>We couldn't immediately treat people the same from all birthplaces, cut back immigration restrictions, give rights to foreign nationals...
>For example, turning down someone for a visa/job due to their gender/skin-colour is currently considered wrong, but that morality would extend to their birth-place too.
None of this has anything to do with xenophobia or discrimination, they're all issues of citizenship. This is that hippy 'citizen of the world' idea.
---
Yeah, you understand my hippy point correctly (: "Citizen of the world" is definitely a concept I'm suggesting will become more prevalent, as part of not caring where someone was born.
---
You agree with the parent poster that you predict or advocate "treating everyone equally regardless of citizenship status".
If law treats everyone equally regardless of citizenship, then law does not recognize citizenship. The whole point of citizenship is to establish a criterion to legally treat some people differently from others.
Citizenship is an entirely legal construct, determined by nothing other than what the state defines it as, and in most modern states does not depend on any innate physiological, cultural, or familial attribute of an individual. A state could decide that every single person in the world is a citizen of theirs, or that nobody in the world henceforth would be granted citizenship.
A state that does not recognize citizenship has no citizens. Without citizens to define the human composition of a state, it effectively is not a state. What you are predicting is, to use the words of a famous person, the withering away of the state.
This contradicts your other statements saying that there would still be countries and borders, and passports and visas and the concept of foreigners.
---
Citizenship is a multi\-level thing though, so creating a single world government wouldn't require eliminating countries or the borders between them. The EU is a super\-state composed of countries that still have their own citizens and borders. Citizens of those countries just happen to be citizens of the EU as well as of its individual member states. | 8og8oe | CMV: Country of Birth will go the way of Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia | I think treating someone different because of where they were born is akin to racism or sexism.
And eventually, we'll get rid of it.
[Edited paragraph]
I think that eventually, Xenophobia will be commonly considered wrong, and where you were born will have little impact on your life compared to how hard you work/your merits etc..
I also mean this further than the usual use of Xenophobia - so that for example denying people a right to live/work somewhere would be wrong, (without other having other valid reasons to deny).
So open borders and right to work everywhere, based on the idea that it's unfair to limit someone due to where they happened to be born.
I think this because:
i) Negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;
ii) And the country someone is born in is something they had no control over;
iii) Therefore, negatively [unfairly] affecting someone for the country they were born in is bad;
I'm not saying we are currently at a point in society where we can make people equal regardless of where they were born.
We couldn't immediately treat people the same from all birthplaces, cut back immigration restrictions, give rights to foreign nationals...
I understand society couldn't handle that right now.
And I'm not saying that birthplace discrimination is more or less severe than the things I've compared it to (slavery, racism etc..)
What I am saying is that society will eventually move away from it.
For example, turning down someone for a visa/job due to their gender/skin-colour is currently considered wrong, but that morality would extend to their birth-place too.
Future generations will look back on today's norms the same way we currently look back on Slavery, Homophobia etc..
Kids in school will study the birthplace restrictions we put on peoples lives, and they'll write papers on the movements which ended it.
I'm working from the assumption that Sexism, Homophobia etc.. are all definitely bad.
And that negatively judging someone because they are a Woman, Black, or any other minority is slowly but surely becoming unacceptable.
As you can probably tell, I'm pro-immigration, globalization, freedom of movement etc... (;
And I see those trends as the main path that society would take to make it not matter where you were born.
[ edit: Updated to reference Xenophobia, instead of the undeniably crap term "birthplaceism" ]
_____
> *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!* | jethrogillgren7 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "GnosticGnome",
"id": "e0349nf",
"score": 8,
"text": ">i) Negatively affecting someone for something they have no control over is bad;\n\nHow do you figure? Is it wrong to discriminate against stupid people (it's not their fault they were born with low IQ) or people with antisocial pers... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "e034rh2",
"score": 8,
"text": "I'm confused about your viewpiont. Are you saying we shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of their birthplace? Because we already cannot, at least in the US. National origin (as it is referred to in discrimination law) is ... | [
"e0349nf",
"e037xb2",
"e038hcf",
"e039xua",
"e03i5im"
] | [
"e034rh2",
"e035xlc",
"e036f9f",
"e03eu8z",
"e03i3sh"
] |
CMV:Paying for sex shouldn't be seen as a flaw in one's Character nor should it be seen as disgusting
I think as long as consent can be gotten from both parties and the sex worker isnt being trafficked , I don't think this should be used as a judgment of one's character or be shamed in any way, I have seen alot of people shame people more specifically men who pay for sex , they view it as disgusting and i fail to understand why, unless the worker in question is being trafficked I don't see how this can be seen as some sort of moral failing or something to be disgusted by , I get that sex is considered intimate and special to some people but it can happen in different situations and in context , it can be no strings attached and be intimate and they don't have be one or the other so why is it that when money comes into play it , its somehow seen as bad or disgusting | You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not. You can't assume they'd tell you the truth if you asked. They might endanger themselves by telling you the truth. The sex worker wants money, and is willing to have some sexual contact with you in order to get the money. But fundamentally, they're permitting you to do something to their body that they do not want in and of itself. Therefore, their consent is dubious and conditional upon your payment. To me, that's not sufficient consent. I want someone I'm having sex with to genuinely, enthusiastically want to have sex with me for the sole purpose of enjoying sex with me. I don't want to use people as means to ends, and I don't want to be used as a means to anyone else's ends.
I don't morally disapprove of sex work. I just wouldn't support it because it doesn't provide a good or service that interests me. I want actual human connection, which is something money cannot buy. I do morally disapprove of a system that drives people into sex work to get by or get ahead.
---
I get the idea , my problem with this thou is that it applies to every other Job, I get that sex is different and that you have a different view point on the idea of sex and as long as you don't use that as a moral judgement that's fine or view the act of buying sex as disgusting, as for the trafficked situation I think it's possible to analyse depending but while you might never know , deciding not to go through with the service doesn't actually help the victim either , I would argue it puts them in more danger , it's honestly a lose lose and requires more conversation
---
> my problem with this thou is that it applies to every other Job
It is *fantastically* uncommon for someone to be coerced to be a plumber.
It's horrifying *common* for prostitutes to be coerced, intentionally addicted to drugs, or straight-up trafficked.
Yes, technically it's always a risk, but very few actual jobs have more than an infinitesimal rate of that.
And even if they are coerced, you're not *raping* them if you're wrong.
Ignoring that people view rape and buying products made from coerced labor *incredibly* differently is going to get you a view like this.
But it's completely *fair* for people to consider those things differently. Combined with the much higher risk, that's a good reason to look down on someone wiling to take it. | So long as we have to work to live, all jobs are coercive, even sex work. I’m skeptical that there can ever be a consensual exchange within our current economic context.
---
Exactly , I get sex is intimate but if you are willing to view sex work as any other job , you should be willing to treat it as such
---
I’m not sure my point came across. You said you think there’s nothing wrong with hiring a sex worker as long as everything’s consensual, but I’m asking how that exchange could ever be consensual given that one person is performing a sex act in order to live. | 10unvlh | CMV:Paying for sex shouldn't be seen as a flaw in one's Character nor should it be seen as disgusting | I think as long as consent can be gotten from both parties and the sex worker isnt being trafficked , I don't think this should be used as a judgment of one's character or be shamed in any way, I have seen alot of people shame people more specifically men who pay for sex , they view it as disgusting and i fail to understand why, unless the worker in question is being trafficked I don't see how this can be seen as some sort of moral failing or something to be disgusted by , I get that sex is considered intimate and special to some people but it can happen in different situations and in context , it can be no strings attached and be intimate and they don't have be one or the other so why is it that when money comes into play it , its somehow seen as bad or disgusting | Due-Lie-8710 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "KilleenCuckold73",
"id": "j7cwlsi",
"score": 24,
"text": "You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not. You can't assume they'd tell you the truth if you asked. They might endanger themselves by telling you the truth. The sex worker wants money, ... | [
{
"author": "jacobissimus",
"id": "j7cxa3u",
"score": 166,
"text": "So long as we have to work to live, all jobs are coercive, even sex work. I’m skeptical that there can ever be a consensual exchange within our current economic context.",
"timestamp": 1675632966
},
{
"author": "Due-Lie-... | [
"j7cwlsi",
"j7cx692",
"j7deiis"
] | [
"j7cxa3u",
"j7cxgha",
"j7cy9oo"
] |
CMV:Paying for sex shouldn't be seen as a flaw in one's Character nor should it be seen as disgusting
I think as long as consent can be gotten from both parties and the sex worker isnt being trafficked , I don't think this should be used as a judgment of one's character or be shamed in any way, I have seen alot of people shame people more specifically men who pay for sex , they view it as disgusting and i fail to understand why, unless the worker in question is being trafficked I don't see how this can be seen as some sort of moral failing or something to be disgusted by , I get that sex is considered intimate and special to some people but it can happen in different situations and in context , it can be no strings attached and be intimate and they don't have be one or the other so why is it that when money comes into play it , its somehow seen as bad or disgusting | You're not paying too have sex with a prostitute. You're paying to use her body as a masturbatory aid.
Prostitution reduces women to being commodities, objects, things. Every other job, you're providing a skill to produce or exchange goods and services. Prostitution, the woman is the thing you're purchasing. The women are the commodities, they're not viewed as humen, they're viewed as consumable goods.
---
Just like almost every other Job, and any other form of sex work like strippers, onlyfans model , some e girl, girls who post theist traps on social media, so what makes those empowering and not this
---
Strippers, only fans, e-girls are not empowering. It's gross. When it comes down to it, they're sluts. And they're no better than their fuck-boy counterparts. | You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not. You can't assume they'd tell you the truth if you asked. They might endanger themselves by telling you the truth. The sex worker wants money, and is willing to have some sexual contact with you in order to get the money. But fundamentally, they're permitting you to do something to their body that they do not want in and of itself. Therefore, their consent is dubious and conditional upon your payment. To me, that's not sufficient consent. I want someone I'm having sex with to genuinely, enthusiastically want to have sex with me for the sole purpose of enjoying sex with me. I don't want to use people as means to ends, and I don't want to be used as a means to anyone else's ends.
I don't morally disapprove of sex work. I just wouldn't support it because it doesn't provide a good or service that interests me. I want actual human connection, which is something money cannot buy. I do morally disapprove of a system that drives people into sex work to get by or get ahead.
---
I get the idea , my problem with this thou is that it applies to every other Job, I get that sex is different and that you have a different view point on the idea of sex and as long as you don't use that as a moral judgement that's fine or view the act of buying sex as disgusting, as for the trafficked situation I think it's possible to analyse depending but while you might never know , deciding not to go through with the service doesn't actually help the victim either , I would argue it puts them in more danger , it's honestly a lose lose and requires more conversation
---
If there are no customers, there will be no trafficking. It's profit-driven. | 10unvlh | CMV:Paying for sex shouldn't be seen as a flaw in one's Character nor should it be seen as disgusting | I think as long as consent can be gotten from both parties and the sex worker isnt being trafficked , I don't think this should be used as a judgment of one's character or be shamed in any way, I have seen alot of people shame people more specifically men who pay for sex , they view it as disgusting and i fail to understand why, unless the worker in question is being trafficked I don't see how this can be seen as some sort of moral failing or something to be disgusted by , I get that sex is considered intimate and special to some people but it can happen in different situations and in context , it can be no strings attached and be intimate and they don't have be one or the other so why is it that when money comes into play it , its somehow seen as bad or disgusting | Due-Lie-8710 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "tovasshi",
"id": "j7e7a5n",
"score": 26,
"text": "You're not paying too have sex with a prostitute. You're paying to use her body as a masturbatory aid.\n\nProstitution reduces women to being commodities, objects, things. Every other job, you're providing a skill to produce or exchange ... | [
{
"author": "KilleenCuckold73",
"id": "j7cwlsi",
"score": 24,
"text": "You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not. You can't assume they'd tell you the truth if you asked. They might endanger themselves by telling you the truth. The sex worker wants money, ... | [
"j7e7a5n",
"j7en49q",
"j7eovnt"
] | [
"j7cwlsi",
"j7cx692",
"j7cxn6x"
] |
CMV: Most Male Doms (BDSM) Are Creepy AF
((For some background: I'm into BDSM and tend to skew on the dominant side of things. I do not have any vendetta against men in general of any kind. I'm actually rather passionate about advocating for men in my everyday life. ))
From my own personal experience as well as based on what I've viewed online, male dominants compared to female ones (or non-binary ones) seem to be very creepy and predatory in their attitudes and preferences.
A man who is a responsible dominant, who cares for his submissive and treats them with respect out of scene seems to be harder to find. It feels like, whenever I encounter a male dom, he's always got some Daddy thing or is overly aggressive in flirting or ordering people around before he even gets their consent.
This could be an issue of "you just haven't met the right kind of male dom" but I feel as though I HAVE met a couple good ones amongst the shitty ones- My issue is that the majority seem to be creepy and cringey as fuck. It's the contrast between the few good ones and the mass of weird creeps that formed my opinion.
It grosses me out seeing male doms act so possessive of women especially - it often comes off as abusive and manipulative rather than as play. Frankly, it feels to me like many male dominants use their dom interest as an excuse to groom women.
I understand peoples' kinks can be all over the map, this kind of shit just really bothers me. | I mean this kind of behaviour breaks several established pillars in the BDSM community so I don't think it's fair to paint all male doms with the same brush. I think it's just a tendency of compounding personalities - men are generally more aggressive than women, and doms are more aggressive than the average person, so naturally, you can expect dom men to be the most aggressive.
I would wager that this is skewed by survivorship bias. The ones who are creepy and aggressive are far more likely to make themselves known by the very nature of this trait. It very much depends on how your local groups conduct themselves. I never got especially involved in the actual community but problematic behaviours and the lack of tolerance for them was hammered home several times when I enquired into a local munch group.
The way you should look at this is more a "emotional manipulators in the BDSM community are most likely to be male doms" issue than a "most male doms are likely to be emotional manipulators"
---
Here’s another complementary factor: men entering the BDSM community often default to a dom persona, since in porn the male sub is more of a specialty category. So they are new and doing one of the more difficult roles right off the bat. Sex: there’s a learning curve. | The confounding variable here is how are Doms being defined? Just self-identified? That's sampling bias.
---
I personally define doms as somebody who takes a dominant role in a BDSM context. Meaning somebody who is the one in control, the person running the scene, the person inflicting pain or giving/restricting sensory stimulus. | eq2n6a | CMV: Most Male Doms (BDSM) Are Creepy AF | ((For some background: I'm into BDSM and tend to skew on the dominant side of things. I do not have any vendetta against men in general of any kind. I'm actually rather passionate about advocating for men in my everyday life. ))
From my own personal experience as well as based on what I've viewed online, male dominants compared to female ones (or non-binary ones) seem to be very creepy and predatory in their attitudes and preferences.
A man who is a responsible dominant, who cares for his submissive and treats them with respect out of scene seems to be harder to find. It feels like, whenever I encounter a male dom, he's always got some Daddy thing or is overly aggressive in flirting or ordering people around before he even gets their consent.
This could be an issue of "you just haven't met the right kind of male dom" but I feel as though I HAVE met a couple good ones amongst the shitty ones- My issue is that the majority seem to be creepy and cringey as fuck. It's the contrast between the few good ones and the mass of weird creeps that formed my opinion.
It grosses me out seeing male doms act so possessive of women especially - it often comes off as abusive and manipulative rather than as play. Frankly, it feels to me like many male dominants use their dom interest as an excuse to groom women.
I understand peoples' kinks can be all over the map, this kind of shit just really bothers me. | big_borno | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Poo-et",
"id": "fenamvx",
"score": 10,
"text": "I mean this kind of behaviour breaks several established pillars in the BDSM community so I don't think it's fair to paint all male doms with the same brush. I think it's just a tendency of compounding personalities - men are generally mor... | [
{
"author": "dolchmesser",
"id": "fenc7xr",
"score": 3,
"text": "The confounding variable here is how are Doms being defined? Just self-identified? That's sampling bias.",
"timestamp": 1579281573
},
{
"author": "big_borno",
"id": "fenct0c",
"score": 1,
"text": "I personally d... | [
"fenamvx",
"fenbjk0"
] | [
"fenc7xr",
"fenct0c"
] |
CMV: I don't think conservatives are any more prone towards conspiracy theories then left leaning folks.
I totally understand that in this day and age of Donald Trump it sure FEELS like right leaning people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. And the most dramatic example, about the election, clearly has a political bent. That said, I grew up in a day and age where a non-zero number of left leaning people around me believed that GW had some involvement in 911. So - do recent events require me to update my prior?
I just don't think the data supports that conclusion: from [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614567356?journalCode=sppa](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614567356?journalCode=sppa)
"Historical records suggest that the political extremes—at both the “left” and the “right”—substantially endorsed conspiracy beliefs about other-minded groups. The present contribution empirically tests whether extreme political ideologies, at either side of the political spectrum, are positively associated with an increased tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. Four studies conducted in the United States and the Netherlands revealed a quadratic relationship between strength of political ideology and conspiracy beliefs about various political issues. Moreover, participants’ belief in simple political solutions to societal problems mediated conspiracy beliefs among both left- and right-wing extremists. Finally, the effects described here were not attributable to general attitude extremity. Our conclusion is that political extremism and conspiracy beliefs are strongly associated due to a highly structured thinking style that is aimed at making sense of societal events."
But that article is from 2015. Here is another study (from 2017, that talks about past research showing that it is political extremism that predicts belief in conspiracy and not political orientation. [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/193590867.pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/193590867.pdf)
For example, people against childhood vaccination is actually a left leaning group: [https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias](https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias)
I don't think acknowledging that it is extreme political views, and not political orientation that predicts conspiracy views means that you can't call a spade a spade - or some kind of 'both side-ism' or 'enlightened centrism'. In fact, I think that believing that people on 'the other side' are fundamentally different than you actually encourages extreme political views - and thus promotes conspiracy theories. So assuming you are a strong believer in rationality and data, you should be even more compelled to be cautious about the counter claim - that belief in conspiracy theories is some how a republican problem. | Close to 50% of Republicans believe in Q’Anon and a few of them have made their way into congress. When I see Democrats in Congress who believe in an equally batshit conspiracy theory, then we’ll talk.
---
Could you imagine a similar number of democrats agreeing with a new conspiracy theory where rich globalists have secret meetings to divvy up the world's resources? I mean, I could imagine constructing a pretty wacky conspiracy theory that I might still agree with the statement, 'some parts are true'
---
Okay, so then let's discount the 23% who agree with "some parts" of the conspiracy. 33% is still a huge chunk of the Republican base. Do you have anything to suggest that a similar percentage of Democrats believe something equivalently nuts?
>I don't think acknowledging that it is extreme political views, and not political orientation that predicts conspiracy views means that you can't call a spade a spade - or some kind of 'both side-ism' or 'enlightened centrism'. In fact, I think that believing that people on 'the other side' are fundamentally different than you actually encourages extreme political views - and thus promotes conspiracy theories.
The reason that Republicans are more prone to extreme views is because they are, politically, a more extreme party. The skewed overton window of American politics makes us think of Democrats as "left" and Republicans as "right" but the Democrats are center at best and Republicans are far-right.
---
First, 33% is very big.
Next question- I don't know what the question the 33% were agreeing to. If it was "I agree that there is an undercover pedophile ring led by democrats" that is very different than "there is a deep state".
I do think your a right that the current republican party is more extreme than the current democratic party- which just elected a moderate democrat. But isn't that supporting the belief that the current elected republican is more conspiratorial?
If the democrats elected a left wing conspiratorial candidate, would that change your beliefs about democrats in general?
---
> If it was "I agree that there is an undercover pedophile ring led by democrats" that is very different than "there is a deep state".
Sure, but do you really think that "most" of the QAnon conspiracy is just the deep state? It seems to me that the one who just agree with that part would be the "some parts are true" group, which is why I discounted them.
>which just elected a moderate democrat. But isn't that supporting the belief that the current elected republican is more conspiratorial?
I'm not talking about specific candidates, I'm talking politics in general. My point is that because the Republican party is an extreme-right party, the fringe of the group will inherently be more extreme.
>If the democrats elected a left wing conspiratorial candidate, would that change your beliefs about democrats in general?
I think that would depend, but probably. Is this only limited to the presidential election or do local representatives count? Because people don't always vote along party lines in the Presidential election, so the amount of support that each candidate received would be relevant. People are more likely to vote along party lines in smaller elections so the number of conspiracy theorists in Congress would be relevant, like QAnon Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene.
---
You said: Sure, but do you really think that "most" of the QAnon conspiracy is just the deep state? It seems to me that the one who just agree with that part would be the "some parts are true" group, which is why I discounted them.
I say: I associate Qanon with something pretty crazy, but I am not sure if the typical Republican does.
I mean, Greene is a challenging example. She is pretty crazy, although she seems to have tried to "distance herself from Qanon" more recently.
---
> I associate Qanon with something pretty crazy, but I am not sure if the typical Republican does.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused on this point. Are you saying that the Republicans who self-identify as believing QAnon to be "mostly true" think that it means something else, or that they know what it is but just don't find it to be crazy? If the latter, that doesn't really support your point that conservatives aren't more prone to conspiracies because of course nobody thinks "here's this absolute bullshit that I believe." If the former, then I think it's kind of disingenuous to give them that level of benefit of the doubt. If 100% of Republicans said they believed it to be "completely true," would you say "well maybe they just mean the parts that are true"?
> She is pretty crazy, although she seems to have tried to "distance herself from Qanon" more recently.
Do you think that's because she doesn't believe it anymore, or because of the backlash she's facing over it?
Anyway, this may be too far down in the comment chain to introduce an entirely new argument, but two studies from this past year suggest that [conservatives are more likely to consider scientific and non-scientific views as closer in legitimacy](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12706) and that [American conservatives are both more likely to espouse conspiratorial worldviews in general and endorse specific conspiracy theories, attributed to higher paranoid ideation and stronger distrust of officialdom](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681).
---
From the 2nd article:
Still, commentators are quick to point out that “conspiracy theories aren't just for conservatives” (Moore, Parent, & Uscinksi, [**2014**](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681#pops12681-bib-0095)). Some conspiracy theories are assumed to be more popular on the left. In the United States, these include the claims that President George W. Bush possessed advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and chose not to intervene; that agricultural businesses are suppressing evidence of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (or GMOs); and that childhood vaccinations pushed by “Big Pharmaceutical Companies” cause autism and other serious health problems (Sunstein & Vermeule, [**2009**](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681#pops12681-bib-0117)). With respect to antivaccination sentiment, research by Rabinowitz, Latella, Stern, and Jost ([**2016**](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681#pops12681-bib-0110)) found that—contrary to many political stereotypes—U.S. liberals were significantly more likely than conservatives to endorse provaccination statements and to regard them as facts rather than beliefs. The finding that opposition to vaccines is actually more prominent on the right than the left has been reported in several other studies as well (e.g., see Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, [**2013**](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681#pops12681-bib-0078); Lewandowsky, Woike, & Oberauer, [**2020**](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681#pops12681-bib-0081)).
Count of an academic paper to make a simple question more complicated. :)
---
(I'm going to respond to both of your comments here to prevent forking)
So, the question as it was asked was "Do you believe that the QAnon theory about a conspiracy among deep state elites is
true?" Overall, 16% said mostly true and 16% said some parts are true. More specifically, 5% of Democrats, 14% of independents and 33% of Republicans said "mostly true;" 4% of Democrats, 21% of independents, and 23% of Republicans said "some parts are true;" and 73% of Democrats, 39% of independents, and 13% of Republicans said "not true at all." Regardless of what specifically is believed *about* QAnon, there's a clear and significant split between Democrats and Republicans; **Republicans are almost 7x as likely to say "mostly true" compared to Democrats and over twice as likely compared to the population at large.** They were also more likely to believe in QAnon than independents.
>But that person aside, my personal experience is that Qanon is treated as fringe not 30% of conservatives.
I can understand that sentiment, but respectfully, I'm more convinced by a poll of 1,368 people than your own personal experiences, especially since being treated as fringe may cause people to self-censor around other conservatives.
>how are we interpreting the responses to answers to a survey, because in my experience you have to be careful about interpretation. If conservatives don't have the same knowledge of Qanon, then how they react would be different.
We don't need to interpret the responses, though. In fact, even if QAnon was more likely to be true than not, it still doesn't change the fact that when asked if they believe about a conspiracy among deep-state elites, the plurality of Republicans said yes and the majority of Democrats said no.
>Because the salon article that seems to mis-represent the same study
So let's ignore the Salon interpretation of the study and look at the study itself (I can only see the abstract since I don't subscribe to the journal). The authors state "In both studies, conservatives, compared to liberals, evaluated the views of the scientist and the person rejecting the science as closer in legitimacy. Differences in evaluation of the science rejecter were mediated by conservatives' heightened intuitive thinking." To me, that implies that conservatives rely more on intuition than analysis, which would make them more susceptible to conspiratorial thinking.
Regarding the entirety of what you quoted from the second study, doesn't that support that conservatives are more prone to conspiracies? They say that some conspiracy theories are *assumed*to be more popular, but then the one example that they actually look into (vaccination) concludes that conservatives are more likely to be antivax. Your OP isn't that the left is prone to conspiracy theories *at all*, just that they are *equally* prone as conservatives. Don't all both of the studies and the poll pretty effectively refute this?
---
I guess the claim that 9% of democrats believe they are a part of a pedophile ring under cuts the argument. Clearly that is not how people interpreted that question.
That said, I think I am convinced of a correlation between conservatives and proneness to conspiracy thinking.
---
How is it clear that that's not how people interpreted the question?
If someone convinced you you should give them a delta | So, while historically, extreme left wing and extreme right wing beliefs might’ve been equally prone to conspiracies, that doesn’t really take into account how the Internet has changed the dynamic of both parties.
When people say that the right is more prone to conspiracy theories, they’re probably not talking about inherent flaws in the concept of conservatism that create conditions where conspiracy can flourish, they’re most likely referring to the Republican Party encouraging anti-science and anti-journalistic beliefs.
A clear way to examine this is through climate change: the Republican Party runs on a platform of limiting restrictions on businesses, and this includes energy restrictions. They justify this by disagreeing with the consensus of the scientific community that climate change is a man-made issue. Republicans are in a position where their saying that science is so fundamentally flawed and corrupt that they could be so profoundly wrong in the concluding that global warming is a problem.
So, if science is wrong about global warming, what else are they wrong about? This is why you see a lot of anti-mask Republicans. They do not trust the scientific community.
From a purely ideological perspective, there’s no reason that conservatives *should* deny climate change. Yet the Republican Party does because of ‘political contributions’ to key Republicans in power (I.e. Mitch McConnell and the Koch brothers) make lessening climate restrictions personally profitable for lawmakers.
---
I think your last point is the thing I believe. My understanding is that there isn't a huge split between belief in science between liberals and conservatives: although my 10 seconds of google searching doesn't fully support that. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/
But I do agree that people tend to change their faith in a source if it conflicts with their political views. I have a compelling liberal version of this that I can't source here unfortunately.
---
My point is that the Republican platform has adopted mistrusting scientific institutions in a way that the Democrat platform simply hasn’t.
Some democrats probably believe just as crazy shit, but their beliefs are not being validated by Democrat lawmakers in the same way that Republican lawmakers validate and encourage anti-science.
---
I agree that is happening currently - but I don't necessary believe that is going to continue.
---
What shifts in the Republican platform lead you to the conclusion that the anti-science sentiment is being phased out?
When people say that “the right is more susceptible to conspiracy”, they’re talking about the problem that exists currently.
---
Its a valid question, I guess I feel like I used to hear a lot of 'global warming isn't real' type of arguments, and now I am much more likely to hear, we have to be careful about the impacts on the economy - which isn't denying science, it is just a political disagreement. Even Trump during one of the debates acknowledged climate change was real and man made:
from: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-politics-b5ae9468286d92f44c6a10d1e6d2cad0
“You believe that human pollution, gas, greenhouse gas emissions contributes to the global warming of this planet?” Wallace asked.
“I think a lot of things do, but I think to an extent, yes,” Trump finally responded after Wallace’s third question pressing on the point.
Now I don't want to oversell this- but in the 90s-00s there was a pretty full throated belief in sun spots and such which I just don't hear as much.
That said, I remember seeing a study showing democrats were less likely to buy property that would be in a future flood zone compared to republicans which seems to be evidence of an authentic disbelief in the science.
---
>“I think a lot of things do, but I think to an extent, yes,” Trump finally responded after Wallace’s third question pressing on the point.
That's 100%, classic deflection. He dodged the question twice then gave the most basic, non-committal answer he could possibly give. You are leaving out a lot of context with this limited quote. The rest of [what he said](https://grist.org/politics/trump-biden-first-debate-climate-change/) while dodging the question matters quite a bit in the picture you are trying to paint.
---
I agree he did a whole lot of hemming and hawing. I am just saying that 20 years ago that may not have happened.
That said- I just tried to pull up a bush quote and was surprised that he seemed pretty willing at the time to acknowledge global warming (just prevented doing anything about it) so maybe there is less change there than I think. | l0mqe5 | CMV: I don't think conservatives are any more prone towards conspiracy theories then left leaning folks. | I totally understand that in this day and age of Donald Trump it sure FEELS like right leaning people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. And the most dramatic example, about the election, clearly has a political bent. That said, I grew up in a day and age where a non-zero number of left leaning people around me believed that GW had some involvement in 911. So - do recent events require me to update my prior?
I just don't think the data supports that conclusion: from [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614567356?journalCode=sppa](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614567356?journalCode=sppa)
"Historical records suggest that the political extremes—at both the “left” and the “right”—substantially endorsed conspiracy beliefs about other-minded groups. The present contribution empirically tests whether extreme political ideologies, at either side of the political spectrum, are positively associated with an increased tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. Four studies conducted in the United States and the Netherlands revealed a quadratic relationship between strength of political ideology and conspiracy beliefs about various political issues. Moreover, participants’ belief in simple political solutions to societal problems mediated conspiracy beliefs among both left- and right-wing extremists. Finally, the effects described here were not attributable to general attitude extremity. Our conclusion is that political extremism and conspiracy beliefs are strongly associated due to a highly structured thinking style that is aimed at making sense of societal events."
But that article is from 2015. Here is another study (from 2017, that talks about past research showing that it is political extremism that predicts belief in conspiracy and not political orientation. [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/193590867.pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/193590867.pdf)
For example, people against childhood vaccination is actually a left leaning group: [https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias](https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias)
I don't think acknowledging that it is extreme political views, and not political orientation that predicts conspiracy views means that you can't call a spade a spade - or some kind of 'both side-ism' or 'enlightened centrism'. In fact, I think that believing that people on 'the other side' are fundamentally different than you actually encourages extreme political views - and thus promotes conspiracy theories. So assuming you are a strong believer in rationality and data, you should be even more compelled to be cautious about the counter claim - that belief in conspiracy theories is some how a republican problem. | MasterCrumb | 11 | 8 | [
{
"author": "beepbop24",
"id": "gjub1vk",
"score": 11,
"text": "Close to 50% of Republicans believe in Q’Anon and a few of them have made their way into congress. When I see Democrats in Congress who believe in an equally batshit conspiracy theory, then we’ll talk.",
"timestamp": 1611072318
},... | [
{
"author": "MinuteReady",
"id": "gjucmvg",
"score": 23,
"text": "So, while historically, extreme left wing and extreme right wing beliefs might’ve been equally prone to conspiracies, that doesn’t really take into account how the Internet has changed the dynamic of both parties.\n\nWhen people say t... | [
"gjub1vk",
"gjucv1i",
"gjuflep",
"gjujgo9",
"gjukncv",
"gjunkyp",
"gjup753",
"gjv9ovf",
"gjvjdwq",
"gjvlkph",
"gjvxg7w"
] | [
"gjucmvg",
"gjudtig",
"gjuf9z5",
"gjujxjc",
"gjumomk",
"gjuo8i0",
"gjvorfd",
"gjy5760"
] |
CMV: Beer doesn't taste good, and people who say it does are just following social expectations/norms.
As it says on the tin. I've never had a beer that's tasted good. I've had beers that, at best, have tasted neutral or okay. Given the choice between a soda and a beer I'll choose the soda 100% of the time unless I'm wanting to get drunk. Hell, I'll choose lemonade, tea, or practically any other liquid before I reach for a beer.
I believe that people who say that they love the taste of beer are only doing so because of societal pressure. Alcohol is the most socially acceptable drug and to turn your nose up at beer is something that can get you ostracized. To not drink alcohol is to either be seen as an alcoholic or a stick-in-the-mud. Because of this many people erroneously claim beer tastes good. They say that there is nothing like cracking open a nice cold beer after a long day at work. I think most people that drink beer are drinking it to get drunk and not because it tastes good, but it is more fashionable to be a beer connoisseur and say "Oh, this IPA is delicious" as opposed to "I'm drinking this because I want to get drunk."
To clarify, I don't think beer tastes good and at best it tastes "okay". I think anyone that says they enjoy the taste of beer is simply caving to societal pressure and doesn't actually think that beer tastes good.
I know one major shortcoming with my argument is that I can't taste a mile in someone else's tongue, but I truly believe this in my heart of hearts. | I genuinely like the taste of beer.
How can I prove to you this is my actual opinion, and not just me following social expectations, do you think?
---
Good point.
I suppose, if a non-alcoholic version of your favorite beer existed. It tastes exactly the same but can't get you drunk. Would you still drink it?
---
Craft beer lover here. For the most part, I don't drink more than two beers in an evening. Getting drunk or buzzed loses its appeal the older I get. I truly enjoy the flavor of a malty red ale or a piney IPA or a crisp lager. Albeit, some of that flavor inevitably comes from the presence of alcohol; but if that aspect of the flavor could be simulated without intoxicating effects, that would be all the better! There are certainly some NA beers I like. More recently, I've been trying NA hop flavored seltzers that have that grain flavor of beer. They're pretty good with citrus juice too.
Also, I *hated* the taste and smell of beer when I was younger. The first beer I ever had was a Natty Light. It is true what they say - beer is an acquired taste. I find this true of other things - like soda. I was a soda drinker as a kid and didn't stop drinking it until I got to college (and started drinking alcohol.) Now I don't like the taste of soda at all. Can't stand it. I would have to similarly acquire that taste again to like it at all.
People like different things. You don't have to like beer. That doesn't mean the rest of us don't. At this point in beer history, there is a beer for every flavor profile. I'm sure there is one that you would like based on your tastes. | So what about the people who pick beer even if alternatives are offered and acceptable - for example, choosing wine with a meal instead, or drinking cocktails or straight liquors when drinking with friends?
If people are just trying to get drunk, why are they going for one of the least alcoholic drinks?
---
Multiple reasons. I think this is a really nuanced thing and it depends on the person and situation
- they don't care as much about the social pressure of drinking and enjoying the taste of beer.
- they don't want to get hammered, but still want some alcohol.
- drinking beer has a mythos built around it that hard liquor doesn't have. It is more socially acceptable to slam beers as opposed to getting blasted on liquor.
---
> they don't care as much about the social pressure of drinking and enjoying the taste of beer.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. People who don't care as much about the social pressure would be less likely to pick beer.
> they don't want to get hammered, but still want some alcohol.
People in that situation just drink less.
> drinking beer has a mythos built around it that hard liquor doesn't have.
You'll find that Whiskey has a far larger myth around it.
> It is more socially acceptable to slam beers as opposed to getting blasted on liquor.
The social circles that consider it acceptable to slam beers do not object to Vodka. | 1l93wqh | CMV: Beer doesn't taste good, and people who say it does are just following social expectations/norms. | As it says on the tin. I've never had a beer that's tasted good. I've had beers that, at best, have tasted neutral or okay. Given the choice between a soda and a beer I'll choose the soda 100% of the time unless I'm wanting to get drunk. Hell, I'll choose lemonade, tea, or practically any other liquid before I reach for a beer.
I believe that people who say that they love the taste of beer are only doing so because of societal pressure. Alcohol is the most socially acceptable drug and to turn your nose up at beer is something that can get you ostracized. To not drink alcohol is to either be seen as an alcoholic or a stick-in-the-mud. Because of this many people erroneously claim beer tastes good. They say that there is nothing like cracking open a nice cold beer after a long day at work. I think most people that drink beer are drinking it to get drunk and not because it tastes good, but it is more fashionable to be a beer connoisseur and say "Oh, this IPA is delicious" as opposed to "I'm drinking this because I want to get drunk."
To clarify, I don't think beer tastes good and at best it tastes "okay". I think anyone that says they enjoy the taste of beer is simply caving to societal pressure and doesn't actually think that beer tastes good.
I know one major shortcoming with my argument is that I can't taste a mile in someone else's tongue, but I truly believe this in my heart of hearts. | SkullyBoySC | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Icy_River_8259",
"id": "mx9o59l",
"score": 28,
"text": "I genuinely like the taste of beer.\n\nHow can I prove to you this is my actual opinion, and not just me following social expectations, do you think?",
"timestamp": 1749675427
},
{
"author": "SkullyBoySC",
"id": "mx... | [
{
"author": "Sayakai",
"id": "mx9oes0",
"score": 2,
"text": "So what about the people who pick beer even if alternatives are offered and acceptable - for example, choosing wine with a meal instead, or drinking cocktails or straight liquors when drinking with friends?\n\nIf people are just trying to ... | [
"mx9o59l",
"mx9rksu",
"mx9tq9i"
] | [
"mx9oes0",
"mx9t2dm",
"mx9wa3a"
] |
CMV: there's no reason for urinals to be so high
I don't mean as in they're so high no one can reach them, I certainly can, and most people can as well, but what's the point of making them at a height where shorter people, kids, and those who have a condition like dwarfism have an issue with them when they can simply put them lower, closer to the floor, and make it available for everyone?
I don't think you'll get splashed by peeing at that height difference, at worst a little drop of pee on your shoes, aside from that, you can simply pee straight forward and avoid splashing altogether, and you can get splashed on our current urinals as well (which is worse IMO because the splash is at knee level, way more visible than splashing a bit on your shoe).
Also, I don't see "they can just go to the toilet" as an excuse, that's like saying to someone that's on a wheel chair "just go on another street because this one is bad", we should fix the street to accommodate all people, not make them have to do an extra trip.
I am aware of the urinals that are just ice, a wall with a canal, and urinals that reach all the way down, I went shopping yesterday and the mall's WCs were the regular, up to the knee, type, and got me thinking when I saw a guy struggling with it.
I'd like to read someone else's take on this, and if I skipped over a reason as to why they're at that height other than social standards at an age where everything's being challenged and changed.
Edit: it's been brought to my attention that rather than being an issue of height, it's an issue of design. My view has been changed, I keep thinking that they should be changed to accommodate for all men though, but through different means. | I'm a tall guy. If urinals aren't mounted high enough, I pee in top of them. I'm not trying to, but if I zone out while peeing (a frequent thing) and my penis is above the top of the urinal, I get pee all over the top of the urinal. I feel bad about it and try not to, but it happens.
---
∆ I didn't consider that people would be tall enough to pee over them, however i do think that you can pee against an urinal that's set low enough for shorter people if it doesn't have the top portion, and that would also solve your current issue
---
Maybe wall placement isn't the issue but rather the overall dimensions of the standard urinal. A taller model could be mounted at the same place on the wall but would cover the wall higher and lower than a standard model and accommodate a wider range of body configurations and age groups in one urinal, wouldn't even need the low one on the end for children if they all went lower and higher. | [removed]
---
u/youknowihadtodabonem – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+2+Appeal+youknowihadtodabonem&message=youknowihadtodabonem+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/eq04su/-/femrr0j/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). | eq04su | CMV: there's no reason for urinals to be so high | I don't mean as in they're so high no one can reach them, I certainly can, and most people can as well, but what's the point of making them at a height where shorter people, kids, and those who have a condition like dwarfism have an issue with them when they can simply put them lower, closer to the floor, and make it available for everyone?
I don't think you'll get splashed by peeing at that height difference, at worst a little drop of pee on your shoes, aside from that, you can simply pee straight forward and avoid splashing altogether, and you can get splashed on our current urinals as well (which is worse IMO because the splash is at knee level, way more visible than splashing a bit on your shoe).
Also, I don't see "they can just go to the toilet" as an excuse, that's like saying to someone that's on a wheel chair "just go on another street because this one is bad", we should fix the street to accommodate all people, not make them have to do an extra trip.
I am aware of the urinals that are just ice, a wall with a canal, and urinals that reach all the way down, I went shopping yesterday and the mall's WCs were the regular, up to the knee, type, and got me thinking when I saw a guy struggling with it.
I'd like to read someone else's take on this, and if I skipped over a reason as to why they're at that height other than social standards at an age where everything's being challenged and changed.
Edit: it's been brought to my attention that rather than being an issue of height, it's an issue of design. My view has been changed, I keep thinking that they should be changed to accommodate for all men though, but through different means. | Blockable | 3 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Mamertine",
"id": "fems69g",
"score": 7,
"text": "I'm a tall guy. If urinals aren't mounted high enough, I pee in top of them. I'm not trying to, but if I zone out while peeing (a frequent thing) and my penis is above the top of the urinal, I get pee all over the top of the urinal. I fe... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "femrr0j",
"score": 0,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1579267725
},
{
"author": "ZeroPointZero_",
"id": "femrye1",
"score": 1,
"text": "u/youknowihadtodabonem – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hosti... | [
"fems69g",
"femss3q",
"femwg6d"
] | [
"femrr0j",
"femrye1"
] |
CMV: People who watch anime are usually extremely weird
Look, before anybody crucifies me for saying this, it's important to note that, for some weird reason, I've never really liked anime. I guess it comes down to me seeing all that gore and deep suffering as a kid, so with time I just began to think that all anime must be weirdly exaggerated like that. Then there's all the overly-sexualised stuff, as well as all those high-pitched voices and random grunts when somebody moves their eyeball or turns their head. So many things I don't get. And, from what I've found, many people who watch anime seem to have this obsessive introverted nature, which I know might honestly not be true. The reason I post this is because I have this unfortunate bias towards anime and I'm curious if it's just a subjective perception based on misunderstandings or if there's really some truth to that. | So if you randomly selected 1000 people, how would you tell who did or didn't watch anime?
---
I suppose ppl who have lots of anime stuff. Also, I seem to see lots of LGBT and depressed people watching anime for some reason. Might be just a coincidence though *shrug*
---
So of all the people you know, how many have you asked whether they watch anime?
---
It's really mostly people on the internet that I see like this. Irl I live in a rather small town and haven't met too many people like this. But the ones that I have, are kind of into anime and stuff like that indeed
---
So it’s not people who watch anime who seem weird, it is people who are obsessed enough with anime that it becomes an apparent trait of their online presence that seem weird? Isn’t that a bit of confirmation bias?
Think of it this way. Would you say most people who like sex are obsessed weirdos? Probably not, but if your basis for this is just counting people who you see online who confirm they like sex because they talk about it extensively online, then you would think those people are weirdos. | For every "weird" person you encounter who is into anime, there are another 10 who are completely normal who are into it at a normal level, they just don't wear hoodies with hentai faces on it.
---
So you mean to tell me that the majority of anime fans are not weirdos, but rather the minority is?
---
Absolutely, brother. If the majority of anime fans were the weirdos you're saying they are, we would be seeing this shit on CNN every night. But we don't. Look at the numbers. Anime viewership dominates the animated tv show market. Look at Japan. The capitol of Anime. That culture is so repressed that the people who worship is have gained their own name, Hentai or Otaku, because they're outliers. Anime is appreciated by normal people far more than the minority who publicly express their abnormal obsession with it.
---
It's good to know that it's really usually the "abnornal* people that stand out which makes one think most of their group is like that! I have met this person online I genuinely honestly appreciate and I find them to be soo pleasant to spend time with. That said, I know they are really into anime, so I kept wondering if they might be one of those weirdo fanatics without me knowing when they really don't give up such vibes! =)
---
[deleted] | l0f4hy | CMV: People who watch anime are usually extremely weird | Look, before anybody crucifies me for saying this, it's important to note that, for some weird reason, I've never really liked anime. I guess it comes down to me seeing all that gore and deep suffering as a kid, so with time I just began to think that all anime must be weirdly exaggerated like that. Then there's all the overly-sexualised stuff, as well as all those high-pitched voices and random grunts when somebody moves their eyeball or turns their head. So many things I don't get. And, from what I've found, many people who watch anime seem to have this obsessive introverted nature, which I know might honestly not be true. The reason I post this is because I have this unfortunate bias towards anime and I'm curious if it's just a subjective perception based on misunderstandings or if there's really some truth to that. | ZestZeal | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Vesurel",
"id": "gjt63yg",
"score": 3,
"text": "So if you randomly selected 1000 people, how would you tell who did or didn't watch anime?",
"timestamp": 1611042614
},
{
"author": "ZestZeal",
"id": "gjt67a1",
"score": 2,
"text": "I suppose ppl who have lots of an... | [
{
"author": "a_great_perhaps",
"id": "gjt61rn",
"score": 20,
"text": "For every \"weird\" person you encounter who is into anime, there are another 10 who are completely normal who are into it at a normal level, they just don't wear hoodies with hentai faces on it.",
"timestamp": 1611042561
},... | [
"gjt63yg",
"gjt67a1",
"gjt6fih",
"gjt6o1m",
"gjt72or"
] | [
"gjt61rn",
"gjt64si",
"gjt6n2k",
"gjt6xxv",
"gjt77av"
] |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with having body count preferences
How is it that you can have preferences over almost every single thing except body count? Height, hair color, eye color, career, religion, etc… Especially since sex before marriage is often against a religious belief. I’ll admit, it’s a little strange to put “Looking for someone with x Body Count” on a bio or something, since that means you’re obsessed with sex, or a lack there of. But if it’s the third date and you’re trying to get to know their personality, it shouldn’t be taboo to ask about that part of their life if you want to, and if they don’t want to answer, that’s perfectly fine too. Many people who are against body count preferences will say “It shouldn’t matter to YOU” and “People with higher body counts is often better because it means they’re more experienced”. These two statements are contradictory. I am genuinely curious about why this is so off limits. | Because someones sexual history has nothing to do with you.
---
What makes sexual history so covert? If I want to ask about their academic or profession history, or even romantic history, most people agree there is nothing wrong with that. If I want to ask about their religious beliefs, that’s normally not a problem. But if I want to ask about their sexual history, which is often tied to religion, it’s taboo. Most people agree, including me, that there’s nothing wrong with rejecting someone based on height alone, something people can’t control.
---
> What makes sexual history so covert?
It's not covert, it's private. There's nothing covert about the content of my backpack either, but if someone suddenly went through it, I'll get pissed.
---
I do want to clarify that I also don’t think it’s wrong for people who are asked this kind of question to not respond, or even brake up with them over it. It just seems wrong to me that there are many people that think it makes you an awful person if you are asking questions like these to understand your partner’s belief systems.
---
If you want to know about someone's belief system, then ask them about their belief system. Not the number of partners they have. Number of sexual partners doesn't actually tell you anything important about the person. For starters, not all those partners may have been consensual. Also number only tells you about the person's past and not who they are now.
Imagine a person. The first relationship she has is with someone shitty and abusive. Eventually she escapes form him, but she's traumatized by the event and works through her trauma by being hypersexual for a while before settling down and healing. Now imagine the same person met someone actually decent for her first relationship. No trauma, no healing. Her values haven't changed between the two scenarios. The only thing that changed was luck in her first relationship. And yet many many men will judge her as a used up slut for having multiple sexual partners. They'll make assumptions about her value system and think that she's just naturally promiscuous and will cheat on them given half a chance.
If you want to know about a person's belief system, ask them about that. Don't make assumptions based on number of sex partners. | At the end of the day no one can force you to be in a relationship with someone you don't want to be, no matter the reason. That being said, I think it's fair to critique the underlying assumptions you are making about people when you state a preference such as this. Those two things are not at odds with each other.
I've had male acquaintances tell me they wouldn't want someone who's 'worn out and no longer tight' which is a) crude and sexist and b) based on an objectively false assumption about how female anatomy works, because having sex with many people has no impact on your 'tightness.' So while yes, they're entitled to only date virgins if they want to, I can still tell them that there's something wrong with the assumptions they're making and more generally how they're speaking about women as a whole.
---
That is definitely an issue. People who search for virgins like it’s their screwed up fetish to take away people’s virginity. Of course, though, it’s cynical to assume that everyone with body count preferences is thinking this. (Which I know you’re not making that assumption) Personally, I don’t care if someone I’d be interested in is a virgin or not. Just as long as their body count isn’t like 80, and they brag about it like having sex is some kind of achievement.
---
My point wasn't specifically about this situation, that was just an example to illustrate my actual argument: Just because you are entitled to a preference that does not mean you are free from criticism.
You make the assumption that because you are allowed a preference, that preference is somehow untouchable. It isn't. People can critique you for it.
---
!delta That is true! I posted this because I just saw a video of a woman cursing guys out who have body count preferences and then a minute later talking about how she’ll only date tall guys.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/No-Produce-334 ([18∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/No-Produce-334)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 10u6832 | CMV: There is nothing wrong with having body count preferences | How is it that you can have preferences over almost every single thing except body count? Height, hair color, eye color, career, religion, etc… Especially since sex before marriage is often against a religious belief. I’ll admit, it’s a little strange to put “Looking for someone with x Body Count” on a bio or something, since that means you’re obsessed with sex, or a lack there of. But if it’s the third date and you’re trying to get to know their personality, it shouldn’t be taboo to ask about that part of their life if you want to, and if they don’t want to answer, that’s perfectly fine too. Many people who are against body count preferences will say “It shouldn’t matter to YOU” and “People with higher body counts is often better because it means they’re more experienced”. These two statements are contradictory. I am genuinely curious about why this is so off limits. | GenocidalFlower | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Roller95",
"id": "j7a71fv",
"score": -19,
"text": "Because someones sexual history has nothing to do with you.",
"timestamp": 1675580186
},
{
"author": "GenocidalFlower",
"id": "j7a7exq",
"score": 48,
"text": "What makes sexual history so covert? If I want to ask... | [
{
"author": "No-Produce-334",
"id": "j7a71id",
"score": 897,
"text": "At the end of the day no one can force you to be in a relationship with someone you don't want to be, no matter the reason. That being said, I think it's fair to critique the underlying assumptions you are making about people when... | [
"j7a71fv",
"j7a7exq",
"j7a9a6s",
"j7a9k1l",
"j7aazmy"
] | [
"j7a71id",
"j7a7sbi",
"j7a7zl1",
"j7a8oxs",
"j7a8qaw"
] |
CMV: There's no such thing as "talent"
The word "talented" in my experience tends to refer to people who are assumed to have a natural ability to perform a skill better than others, all the way from birth.
For example, if someone sees an artist making a very good sketch, they might say that person is just talented and remark that they wished they could draw that well. However, the artist isn't talented- they didn't come out of the womb able to draw- they've just spent countless hours refining their craft.
People tend to point to a child coming from a musical family also having great musical ability compared to their contemporaries. I think that makes perfect sense, a family where music is important is going to introduce their children to it sooner and more intensely, and also spend greater care nurturing their interest in that field.
I hear this all the time for a variety of different skills, from playing instruments to mental multiplication.
The exception to this is physical differences due to genetics. If you have genes to be tall and have long legs, you're going to tend to be a faster runner, just because of biology and physics. The same doesn't apply to skills.
TLDR: No-one is born talented at anything (within margin of error), you're just seeing the results of countless hours of practice and hard work | Let's take a look at the first good example that came to my mind: [savants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome)
Do you agree that such people do naturally excel at certain things and are born with their talent?
---
I'll admit I only have a very basic understanding of savant syndrome, but in the article you linked one of the theorized causes is that people with related conditions (like autism) tend to over-specialize, practicing that one skill over all others.
As for the type caused by brain injury, I'm not sure that applies here, as hopefully not too many people sustain a brain injury right from birth.
---
You seem to be separating talent and effort - why? I like Angela Duckworth's definition:
> Talent—when I use the word, I mean it as the rate at which you get better with effort. The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent. You know, given that you are putting forth a certain amount of effort. And I absolutely believe—and not everyone does, but I think most people do—that there are differences in talent among us: that we are not all equally talented
Hence why Mozart was writing symphonies at eight. His dedication *and* his talent for music allowed this, while equally dedicated people who started learning music at the same age would take a hell of a lot longer to write one - if at all.
---
>You seem to be separating talent and effort - why?
If I understand your question correctly, it's because of the assumption that talents are set in place from the time of birth/conception. If you just came out of the womb, it's impossible for you to have put any effort into learning anything yet.
>Talent—when I use the word, I mean it as the rate at which you get better with effort. The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent. You know, given that you are putting forth a certain amount of effort. And I absolutely believe—and not everyone does, but I think most people do—that there are differences in talent among us: that we are not all equally talented
To use the soccer example, I think that comes down to factors you can't control for, not an innate difference between the two people. One person might have a better coach, takes the sport more seriously, watches professional matches in his spare time, or any number of things. I don't see why if you took two unrelated people, raised them the exact same, sent them off to the same teacher, and gave them the same amount of time, one would come out more skilled than the other.
---
So... is it that you think every person is born with the exact same genetic code and, given the same conditions, would develop in the exact same way? Because if not, then you would have to accept that some people are born with an inherent predilection towards excelling at certain activities. Talent, if you will.
For example, a person may be born with a natural ability to see a broader range of color than the average person. They may have an inherent ability to visualize things in their mind better than others. This, in turn, may allow them to develop an artistic ability beyond that of their peers. That ability to see color better than others, to be able to visualize objects in their mind in great detail and hold that image, is the talent. It may be developed through training, but if it's not there than it's not there. | Some people's brains are wired to be better at acquiring certain skills than others.
If genetics can bless people with certain advantageous physical traits, why can't it bless them with certain mental ones?
If you believe that's the case, are you then also saying that people can't be born with mental deficits, because people who are dyslexic or ADHD would be inclined to disagree.
---
>If genetics can bless people with certain advantageous physical traits, why can't it bless them with certain mental ones?
Because your brain is in a constant state of change, your body is not. If you're born to have long legs, to reuse my earlier example, there's nothing you can do about it, and certainly not after you've already grown into that trait.
>If you believe that's the case, are you then also saying that people can't be born with mental deficits, because people who are dyslexic or ADHD would be inclined to disagree.
No those exist, I myself have ADD, but they're much more general in nature. Having a brain change that makes you better at one specific thing like playing an instrument is not the same thing at all.
---
>Because your brain is in a constant state of change, your body is not.
So you were born a fully functioning human? I don't think you meant quite what you actually said.
>If you're born to have long legs, to reuse my earlier example, there's nothing you can do about it, and certainly not after you've already grown into that trait.
Sure you can, there are a number of things that can totally change the development of a human being between birth and their twenties when stop growing. Even after that, when the physical frame is roughly set, there are a ton of changes that can alter how it functions. Your legs won't get any longer, but they can get stronger, bones can get denser, you can change how they function by using them in different ways. Long legs are more suited for some things than others, and if you want to get good at a physical task in which long legs are helpful, you will naturally be better at that task.
Mental skills work the same way. If you are born with an innate sense of rhythm and an brain that can recognize perfect pitch, picking up an instrument will be infinitely easier for you than a person without those mental traits. That's talent.
>No those exist, I myself have ADD, but they're much more general in nature. Having a brain change that makes you better at one specific thing like playing an instrument is not the same thing at all.
Why not? That's all a talent for something is- something innate about how a person's brain works makes certain skills easier to pick up from the very beginning. They just get it. After that comes the hundreds of hours of practice necessary to excel.
People without that talent have to do those same hundreds of hours of work just to even get competent. Work the talented person never had to do.
---
>So you were born a fully functioning human? I don't think you meant quite what you actually said.
What I meant was that at birth your brain is essentially a blank slate. It has all the bare necessities but has enormous room for expansion. You can learn linear algebra- something we're not evolutionary built for- but you can't learn to have a 3rd arm.
>Sure you can, there are a number of things that can totally change the development of a human being between birth and their twenties when stop growing. Even after that, when the physical frame is roughly set, there are a ton of changes that can alter how it functions. Your legs won't get any longer, but they can get stronger, bones can get denser, you can change how they function by using them in different ways. Long legs are more suited for some things than others, and if you want to get good at a physical task in which long legs are helpful, you will naturally be better at that task.
I don't claim that all physical traits can't be changed. Most of them can be, like bone and muscle density. What I mean is that you're born with a specific adult blueprint that you'll eventually grow into, with some wiggle room. You aren't going to have a set of identical twins where one is a black dwarf and the other looks like Andre the Giant.
>Mental skills work the same way. If you are born with an innate sense of rhythm and an brain that can recognize perfect pitch, picking up an instrument will be infinitely easier for you than a person without those mental traits. That's talent.
Do we have any evidence for that? I find it hard to believe that at as newborns Michael Jackson had more musical ability than I.
>Why not? That's all a talent for something is- something innate about how a person's brain works makes certain skills easier to pick up from the very beginning. They just get it. After that comes the hundreds of hours of practice necessary to excel.
Well let's take ADHD for example. From some quick reading of Wikipedia, a lot of the cause seems to be a difference in dopamine neurotransmitters. I can understand how that can have enormous effects on a variety of sections in the brain, what we call ADHD. If the same were to apply to a specific skill, like languages, you'd think there would be widespread changes throughout the brain, not a little tweak in the language center. To me that sounds like claiming a car can do 0-60 in 5 seconds but on one specific racetrack it can do it in 4.
Furthermore, some studies have shown ADHD to be at least partially caused by environmental effects, such as artificial sweeteners and/or lead. This would mean it takes place after birth, and hence isn't a talent.
---
Now you're getting into actual neropsychology, and honestly, I'm not a neuropsychologist.
You're saying talent doesn't exist, and that isn't evident in how humans work.
People are born as newborns with eidetic memories, perfect pitch, perfect sense of rhythm, affinities for languages, a powerful sense of logic, all kinds of talents that require no practice to have. When applied to skills that used those talents, those people became prodigies. History is full of them. I'm just as equally sure that people are born with talents that they never applied to skills and therefore never used them to their maximum ability.
You've never met someone with a talent they do no practice in but are naturally good at? My best friend in high school hated math, avoided it whenever he could, but when pressed could do 3 digit multiplication and long division out to three digits in his head, ever since he was taught how. He didn't like math because it *bored* him.
He's an artist now, and the most math he ever does is during tax season and at the grocery store. But he had a talent for math that was there since we were children. Ironically, he was a crappy artist, I had more talent at 10 than he ever did, according to people who saw our work, but because he did nothing but hone his skill his entire childhood and adult life he's actually gotten good enough to make a living from it.
I know that's anecdotal, but I think a lot of people know someone with a raw talent that's unrelated to the things they chose to develop skills in. | epubfk | CMV: There's no such thing as "talent" | The word "talented" in my experience tends to refer to people who are assumed to have a natural ability to perform a skill better than others, all the way from birth.
For example, if someone sees an artist making a very good sketch, they might say that person is just talented and remark that they wished they could draw that well. However, the artist isn't talented- they didn't come out of the womb able to draw- they've just spent countless hours refining their craft.
People tend to point to a child coming from a musical family also having great musical ability compared to their contemporaries. I think that makes perfect sense, a family where music is important is going to introduce their children to it sooner and more intensely, and also spend greater care nurturing their interest in that field.
I hear this all the time for a variety of different skills, from playing instruments to mental multiplication.
The exception to this is physical differences due to genetics. If you have genes to be tall and have long legs, you're going to tend to be a faster runner, just because of biology and physics. The same doesn't apply to skills.
TLDR: No-one is born talented at anything (within margin of error), you're just seeing the results of countless hours of practice and hard work | Deribus | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "nerfnichtreddit",
"id": "feltgrs",
"score": 9,
"text": "Let's take a look at the first good example that came to my mind: [savants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome)\n\nDo you agree that such people do naturally excel at certain things and are born with their talent?",
... | [
{
"author": "periphery72271",
"id": "felsy2x",
"score": 17,
"text": "Some people's brains are wired to be better at acquiring certain skills than others.\n\nIf genetics can bless people with certain advantageous physical traits, why can't it bless them with certain mental ones?\n\nIf you believe tha... | [
"feltgrs",
"felulmu",
"felvclh",
"felxpma",
"felyl8o"
] | [
"felsy2x",
"felttue",
"feluva0",
"felwzp3",
"felz9ev"
] |
CMV: Seeing multiple people at the same time doesn’t make you a bad person or a cheater
Unless you are married to someone, people just seeing each other have made no real commitment to be faithful to each other only. For example I’ve been dating a girl for a few weeks but I’ve recently made moves on my crush. I’m perfectly in my right to do that because I’m not tied down to the first girl. She is assuming that I will stay only loyal to her but as far I’m concerned I’ve never made any vow.
Therefore, Cheating doesn’t exist outside of marriage. I’m not a bad person for simply exercising my freedoms.
I’ve been torn up about this for a few days since I believe cheating is one of the worst things you could do but I think I’ve rationalized it quite well.
Edit: Honestly after reflecting on it for a while and seeing the replies here, you people are completely right. I was just using mental gymnastics to make myself feel better.
I’m a teenager and maybe I’m not mature enough for serious relationships yet. I guess I am a bad person in this instance.
Probably not gonna change anything for me but at least I’m aware. | So the difference between secretly seeing someone on the side before marriage and after marriage is what exactly? i dont get it
---
When you get married, you are actually making a commitment or vowing to only stay loyal to that person. There’s no such thing before.
---
That is very warped, and in my opinion complete BS and you know it. I was "with" my now wife for 16 years before we got married, and its just the unspoken rule of anyone in a relationship with a modicum of emotional intelligence that you don't stray. I think you are just emotionally immature. | It’s cheating if you’re gf doesn’t know or didn’t make clear you could do this. You’re breaking the unspoken vows of relationships
---
There are no commitments unless it’s a marriage. Again I have made no vows. I have no obligation to tell her anything. If she has not explicitly made it clear I can’t, she is only assuming that I will only commit to her.
---
Cheating means breaking the rules of a relationship. You don't need a marriage to have rules.
If you know she is assuming that there is a rule, then it's cheating if you break it without telling her first that you'll do it | 10twxqa | CMV: Seeing multiple people at the same time doesn’t make you a bad person or a cheater | Unless you are married to someone, people just seeing each other have made no real commitment to be faithful to each other only. For example I’ve been dating a girl for a few weeks but I’ve recently made moves on my crush. I’m perfectly in my right to do that because I’m not tied down to the first girl. She is assuming that I will stay only loyal to her but as far I’m concerned I’ve never made any vow.
Therefore, Cheating doesn’t exist outside of marriage. I’m not a bad person for simply exercising my freedoms.
I’ve been torn up about this for a few days since I believe cheating is one of the worst things you could do but I think I’ve rationalized it quite well.
Edit: Honestly after reflecting on it for a while and seeing the replies here, you people are completely right. I was just using mental gymnastics to make myself feel better.
I’m a teenager and maybe I’m not mature enough for serious relationships yet. I guess I am a bad person in this instance.
Probably not gonna change anything for me but at least I’m aware. | HardcoreFanatic247 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Dyeeguy",
"id": "j7978gs",
"score": 8,
"text": "So the difference between secretly seeing someone on the side before marriage and after marriage is what exactly? i dont get it",
"timestamp": 1675559697
},
{
"author": "HardcoreFanatic247",
"id": "j797ttx",
"score": -6... | [
{
"author": "DONT-LOOK-AT_ME",
"id": "j796vuj",
"score": 9,
"text": "It’s cheating if you’re gf doesn’t know or didn’t make clear you could do this. You’re breaking the unspoken vows of relationships",
"timestamp": 1675559523
},
{
"author": "HardcoreFanatic247",
"id": "j797n9b",
... | [
"j7978gs",
"j797ttx",
"j798cs9"
] | [
"j796vuj",
"j797n9b",
"j7986vv"
] |
CMV: Violence and/or murder is sometimes necessary in order to accomplish good, positive change.
I am an 8th grade U.S. History teacher. Over the last week, my students have been reading primary documents and background on Nat Turner. At the end of today, they were to answer the question of "Do you feel Nat Turner is a hero or a madman?" The students vote on this. While some are on the fence, I instruct them to pick one or the other -- you can't choose both! It led to a fascinating debate.
For those who are unaware, let me attempt to state the facts before explaining my opinions. Nat Turner was the organizer of the most well-known slave rebellion. He states in "The Confessions of Nat Turner" that God spoke to him and told him to end slavery. He uses this prophetic approach to rally dozens of slaves. They go from house to house and murder white men, women, and children -- 55-60 of them.
When I first started teaching this lesson, I felt surely I would fall on the side of Nat Turner being a madman. I am a spiritual person with many Christian values at the center of my moral compass. Things like "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye leave us all blind" resonate with me. There is ALWAYS a way to solve a problem without violence...right? I also felt Nat didn't really hear from God. He simply used this message to manipulate slaves to rally around him and follow his revolution.
Leave it to a group of 150 8th graders to help rethink the way I feel about Nat's rebellion.
I also want to note that I regularly challenge my students and their thought processes. The best example of deeper-level thinking I can remember is telling them about all the benefits of public education, our country's laws, systems, etc.....Then I tell them none of that would be possible if there weren't millions of people murdered in revolutions, wars, etc. People felt they were fighting for good, people died, and here we are. Living in what many consider the greatest country in the world.
Back to Nat Turner. At the end of each class period, I had students ask me if I thought he was a hero or madman. The more reasoning I tried to do in my head given the conditions of slavery at the time and the powerless culture they were part of, I started to think Nat Turner was a hero.
Nat's revolution failed. In fact, more slaves were executed and slave codes were made stricter because of his rebellion. However, I feel (sweeping generalization) the public typically doesn't like to make heroes out of failed revolutions.
My students asked me what Nat's alternatives were. He couldn't go door-to-door knocking and asking slaveowners to end slavery. There couldn't be a protest or rally of slaves because they didn't have guns.
The more I thought, the more I felt Nat and/or other slaves needed to start a murderous revolution in order to get the message across that slavery must end.
I feel that violence and/or murder is necessary in order to try and accomplish something for the greater good.
Change my view!
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | I do not justify Nat Turner’s violence because it was necessary to accomplish positive change. Nat Turner’s rebellion, the La Amistad rebellion, the Haitian revolution, are justified on the grounds of self-defense.
Through physical force and threat of murder and torture the slaveholder engages in a continuing act of kidnapping, robbing the victim of labor, liberty, home, children, body and self. I can not imagine a greater violence (at least genocide *ends*, slavery compounds its violence through generations). People have a fundamental right to protect themselves from such a fate using all available force.
This is not to say that violence might not also be justified if in service of a just cause. Yet the idea of “just cause” is more complex, subjective, foggier than the idea “self defense.” Self-defense seems the easiest and strongest ground on which to justify a slave rebellion.
---
So far, this is my favorite reply. I don't know if it's delta worthy....yet. This is my first ever CMV post, so I want to remember it!
If you're saying Nat's rebellion was justified due to self defense, are you saying you agree with my view instead of wanting to change it? You're saying it is ok to get violent and/or murder in self defense to change something for the greater good?
Please don't interpret this in an evil way, but would you consider slavery an institution that deems fighting back on grounds of self-defense?
If the slaves fought back through physical force, they didn't have guns. They would be punished or killed...with guns or other weapons. The more I read your response, the more I feel you agree with me. However, I love your thought processes...You've made me think about it a little differently.
---
The key difference between framing this as "self-defense" and "a force for positive change" is that one is a *response* to violence, and the other is an *initiation* of violence.
When you frame it as "violence is necessary for positive change", all that you need to convince people of in order to instigate violence is that they or someone else will be better off if they do it.
This is massively dangerous. Most of the atrocities of history (let's just use the 20th Century and go with the Fascist and Communist purges of millions of people, because it might raise irrelevant controversy to include the Iraq War) were sold to the masses as attempts to create "positive change", generally by eliminating people who weren't being violent, but instead that "they" were just denying you some kind of entitlement. And it's a very effective tactic when you have this framing. "Jews (Fascism) or "Bourgoisie" and "Counterrevolutionaries" (Communism) are unfairly controlling your money or trying to return you to the slavery of the monied powers", being the respective "positive changes" pushed in those atrocities.
Saying that it's ok to defend yourself with violence *only* against actual violence can lead to issues, of course, but the scope of the damage is limited by the ability to convince people that they are being violently attacked when they are not, which is much more difficult than convincing them that you can make some ill-defined "positive change".
It is, therefore, more nuanced and way less dangerous to frame the issue as "violence is *only* justified as a *response* to violence, it is never justified to initiate violence just to me what you consider 'positive change'".
| By using the word 'necessary' you imply that there are absolutely no alternatives. I would suggest that there are always alternatives. Instead of murdering people, Nat could have imprisoned them, made the white people into slaves themselves, destroy their property and leave them destitute and impoverished, banish them, etc. I don't think these alternatives are any better morally, but they would probably have had similar effects as what murdering them had. In this respect, I only intend on changing your view that murder is the only method that Nat could have got his message through. There are equally brutal methods that could have been just as effective.
---
I don't disagree on the point of no alternatives and just want to point out that OP's premise includes but isn't limited to murder. I think 'could have imprisoned them' and 'made the white people into slaves' would include violence by necessity as I don't believe such things could be accomplished without violence.
---
Yeah, I included the banish option as my non-violent solution. It kind of depends on what OP decides counts as violence. Like, does threatening someone's life unless they abandon their property count as violence, or is it only if you physically hit/beat them until they abandon their property. I know, for instance, that slavery was historically considered a mutual contract in which one party voluntarily enslaved themselves to avoid violence/death. So, even slavery could be considered a non-violent alternative. | 86nbeu | CMV: Violence and/or murder is sometimes necessary in order to accomplish good, positive change. | I am an 8th grade U.S. History teacher. Over the last week, my students have been reading primary documents and background on Nat Turner. At the end of today, they were to answer the question of "Do you feel Nat Turner is a hero or a madman?" The students vote on this. While some are on the fence, I instruct them to pick one or the other -- you can't choose both! It led to a fascinating debate.
For those who are unaware, let me attempt to state the facts before explaining my opinions. Nat Turner was the organizer of the most well-known slave rebellion. He states in "The Confessions of Nat Turner" that God spoke to him and told him to end slavery. He uses this prophetic approach to rally dozens of slaves. They go from house to house and murder white men, women, and children -- 55-60 of them.
When I first started teaching this lesson, I felt surely I would fall on the side of Nat Turner being a madman. I am a spiritual person with many Christian values at the center of my moral compass. Things like "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye leave us all blind" resonate with me. There is ALWAYS a way to solve a problem without violence...right? I also felt Nat didn't really hear from God. He simply used this message to manipulate slaves to rally around him and follow his revolution.
Leave it to a group of 150 8th graders to help rethink the way I feel about Nat's rebellion.
I also want to note that I regularly challenge my students and their thought processes. The best example of deeper-level thinking I can remember is telling them about all the benefits of public education, our country's laws, systems, etc.....Then I tell them none of that would be possible if there weren't millions of people murdered in revolutions, wars, etc. People felt they were fighting for good, people died, and here we are. Living in what many consider the greatest country in the world.
Back to Nat Turner. At the end of each class period, I had students ask me if I thought he was a hero or madman. The more reasoning I tried to do in my head given the conditions of slavery at the time and the powerless culture they were part of, I started to think Nat Turner was a hero.
Nat's revolution failed. In fact, more slaves were executed and slave codes were made stricter because of his rebellion. However, I feel (sweeping generalization) the public typically doesn't like to make heroes out of failed revolutions.
My students asked me what Nat's alternatives were. He couldn't go door-to-door knocking and asking slaveowners to end slavery. There couldn't be a protest or rally of slaves because they didn't have guns.
The more I thought, the more I felt Nat and/or other slaves needed to start a murderous revolution in order to get the message across that slavery must end.
I feel that violence and/or murder is necessary in order to try and accomplish something for the greater good.
Change my view!
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | jakefake3 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "kublahkoala",
"id": "dw6fiw2",
"score": 4,
"text": "I do not justify Nat Turner’s violence because it was necessary to accomplish positive change. Nat Turner’s rebellion, the La Amistad rebellion, the Haitian revolution, are justified on the grounds of self-defense.\n\nThrough physical... | [
{
"author": "SaintBio",
"id": "dw6djeb",
"score": 7,
"text": "By using the word 'necessary' you imply that there are absolutely no alternatives. I would suggest that there are always alternatives. Instead of murdering people, Nat could have imprisoned them, made the white people into slaves themselv... | [
"dw6fiw2",
"dw6hwbw",
"dw6k2k5"
] | [
"dw6djeb",
"dw6fam2",
"dw6fjln"
] |
CMV: Andrew Yang's plan to give all Americans $1,000 per month would do little more than dramatically increase rent prices and other prices as well.
It seems like a universal and equal influx of cash like that without a change in supply will only lead to higher prices. Especially in areas like housing, etc. Most people it seems, who are renters, given an extra $1k/mo would want to move to a nicer apartment. Given a much higher demand for nicer apartments, landlords will be able to increase prices and maintain full occupancy. Similarly, cheaper housing could see an increase in price, because people would have the ability to pay and no other option. This extra money flooding the market does not come from an increase in supply or labor, so I don't see anything to keep market forces from doing their thing. I don't really see the upside.
I understand the arguments for UBI IFF automation and AI take away enough jobs to tank the economy. But right now, unemployment is extremely low, and implementing his plan would just effectively lead to inflation.
You can change my view by demonstrating that areas that have seen extensive UNIVERSAL basic income have not seen price increases. Also, I could be convinced by a logical, coherent argument showing that there's a flaw in my reasoning. | [deleted]
---
∆, for reminding me that supply can always increase. However, I'm not completely convinced because you can't build new apartments in a day, and you say we aren't at Max housing supply, but we sure are close. There aren't really people out there who have no place to live because they can afford it but can't find it.
---
> However, I'm not completely convinced because you can't build new apartments in a day, and you say we aren't at Max housing supply, but we sure are close
You sort of can. For example, if rent prices were to jump by a crazy degree, I'd start renting out my spare bedroom. So I'd get my $1000 from UBI, plus a big chunk of someone else's.
> There aren't really people out there who have no place to live because they can afford it but can't find it.
But if rent prices increased significantly, that is exactly what you'd see. You'd see a lot more people building apartments to compete, even if they struggle to keep it 100% full, because it'd be worthwhile with the higher rent prices. This kind of balancing force is the exact reason why you WOULDN'T see a big jump in rent prices. We're not at max housing supply because we *could* build a lot more, which forces existing landlords to keep their prices reasonable. That is what "not at max housing" means.
But you actually point out an important economic principle about "elasticity of supply" (the economic measure of how much supply changes in response to a price change). It is true that short-term, supply doesn't have much of a chance to change. So short-term, you might see a spike in housing costs... the problem is that housing prices can't respond that quickly either because people are locked into leases. Longer term, the fact that you can't build new apartments in a day becomes irrelevant. People saying, "We can't build new apartments fast enough!" are going to be the people building as many new apartments as quickly as they can.
Both short-term and long-term, the average person is going to spend an additional amount between $0 and $1000 buying the things they normally buy. Where exactly it ends up depends entirely on elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. There WOULD be some degree of inflation. But I highly doubt it would eat most or even more than half of that $1000.
In the short-term, more of it may go to the sellers through increased prices, but especially in the long term, you'd see a lot of that $1000 being in your pocket as extra spending money.
Your also ignoring how happy the increasing rent would make the landlords and how much more they'd be able to spend in response further boosting the economy. | Okay there are two ways of thinking of Universal Basic Income or UBI and it's more from a bureaucratic position than a money system.
Let's say you have to give money to poor people so they won't starve. You've tried proposing killing them but it polled poorly. So you are stuck giving poor people money.
​
Now you have two option, one option is to identify all the poor people. This requires you to hire people to have poor people write paper work, then people review paperwork. But you find out that some poor people can't write, some are disabled so they can't go to the poor people verification sections, and some people are cheating. So you're hire more people to help with the illiterate, you buy special equipment to help the disabled people, and you hire special police to track down the cheaters.
The other option is just to give everyone a thousand bucks, even if they don't need it, it's just mail check here you go.
Now in the second option you are definitely giving people money that don't need, literally most people are getting money they don't need, but when you count all the different agencies (There are like 200) it can be cheaper then paying all the people that are managing the poor people, which is why people are actual for UBI (Also you can increase taxes so people with jobs lose part of their Tax Rebate)
​
As for your housing logic, there isn't enough affordable housing for people period, and there are already enough empty house for all the homeless, so if we use the supply and demand curve there should literally be affordable housing opening everywhere, with out UBI.
---
UBI is universal, not for poor people only. And Andrew Yang's UBI doesn't get rid of the welfare system we already have, it adds to it, I believe.
---
My whole point was that UBI was for everyone, and yes Andrew Yang's program does decrease the number of welfare programs in part to cover it's cost.
*It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.* | b3qc4e | CMV: Andrew Yang's plan to give all Americans $1,000 per month would do little more than dramatically increase rent prices and other prices as well. | It seems like a universal and equal influx of cash like that without a change in supply will only lead to higher prices. Especially in areas like housing, etc. Most people it seems, who are renters, given an extra $1k/mo would want to move to a nicer apartment. Given a much higher demand for nicer apartments, landlords will be able to increase prices and maintain full occupancy. Similarly, cheaper housing could see an increase in price, because people would have the ability to pay and no other option. This extra money flooding the market does not come from an increase in supply or labor, so I don't see anything to keep market forces from doing their thing. I don't really see the upside.
I understand the arguments for UBI IFF automation and AI take away enough jobs to tank the economy. But right now, unemployment is extremely low, and implementing his plan would just effectively lead to inflation.
You can change my view by demonstrating that areas that have seen extensive UNIVERSAL basic income have not seen price increases. Also, I could be convinced by a logical, coherent argument showing that there's a flaw in my reasoning. | jollyrogerninja | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ej1b735",
"score": 372,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1553174797
},
{
"author": "jollyrogerninja",
"id": "ej1bpsg",
"score": 147,
"text": "∆, for reminding me that supply can always increase. However, I'm not completely convinced because yo... | [
{
"author": "NetrunnerCardAccount",
"id": "ej1bkjo",
"score": 146,
"text": "Okay there are two ways of thinking of Universal Basic Income or UBI and it's more from a bureaucratic position than a money system.\n\nLet's say you have to give money to poor people so they won't starve. You've tried propo... | [
"ej1b735",
"ej1bpsg",
"ej1gipm"
] | [
"ej1bkjo",
"ej1bzgg",
"ej1c7o0"
] |
CMV: Porn is normal and does not have a negative effect on people or society when used moderately.
I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes (according to her) has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations.
Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view. | There are different types of porn, from soft core to hard.. from magazines with photos to film.
I assume you do see a problem with kiddie porn and porn that depicts rape with no question as to it being rape. If not then my argument to you would be that in both cases there is a negative effect on the people in the video itself. The creation of the video hurt somebody, or multiple people.
I generally feel that watching porn in moderation is fine. However the concern for me is how it effects those involved in the creation of such. You would think we have enough porn videos right now, but apparently not as more is being created all the time and it is questionable as to how the actors (particularly the women) are effected by being in such roles.
As well not all porn actors use "protection" which puts them at risk for STD's as part of their job which is rather a bad point.
---
That is a very valid point. Quick disclaimer: I most certainly have an issue with illegal pornography of all kinds.
I had not given much thought to the people involved in the making of the videos, but I agree that the environment of the sex industry probably isn't very healthy for the participants.
I was, however, more interested in discussing if there is any scientific proof that shows negative effects from viewing porn. I heard of a study where men were asked to masturbate while viewing porn videoes and answering questions, such as "would you ever rape someone if you were certain of no consequences", to which double the amount said yes while masturbating.
However, this is just something I heard, and I myself have not been able to find the source.
---
First of all, this is hilarious:
>Quick disclaimer: I most certainly have an issue with illegal pornography of all kinds.
Second:
>"would you ever rape someone if you were certain of no consequences", to which double the amount said yes while masturbating.
I wouldn't think this is the case, in the same way how videogames don't make people go commit murder.
However to counter your argument, there are some side effects of porn which can be damaging, mainly it can be addictive like anything else E.g. Gambling, sugar, sex etc. Also you could make the argument that it warps people's perception on sex.
| >Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes.
Porn does have a misogynistic and rapey vibes. Lets be honest, most porn is done for guys. Most porn is the hardcore variety. And most porn focuses on the woman and portrayes her pretty much just as an object for venting one's desire. I dont know if this can be refuted, since its sooo obvious.
However the fault of her reasoning is that, those are negative attributes that cannot be ever portrayed under any circumstances. Or that portrayal is somehow bad for anything. Which is obviously false. Portraying women as objects is both good and bad. Acting out your hardcore rapey fantasies is again, good and bad.
>These vibes (according to her) has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations.
This is true. Porn can indeed have negative influenceo n youth who takes it as a guide. They have overblown expectations about how long should the intercourse last, what should they do, what positions should they be in, etc... IN porn all of those are fabricated. Positions are made to look good on camera with barely any penetration or intimacy. The "lasting longer" effect is done through cuts or other means. The "love talk" is almost always cringy etc...
>Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations.
If porn is used in abundance. Even that won't make one mysoginistic or have unrealistic expectations. It all depends on context and the framework you are moving in. For kid, a single movie can make them have unrealistic expectations.
For adult with plenty of experience, all the porn in the world may not even phase him and change his perception.
>Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life.
Its not about distinguishing the difference. Its about not disclosing properly it is all just an act. How many youngsters think a bang bus is real? Or those public sex flicks? How many do you think can get a stupid idea in their heads?
Maybe none, maybe a lot. The point is that there always is a risk. To say porn is detrimental to society is clearly false. But to say porn has absolutely no negative effect on anything is clearly false too.
---
> Porn does have a misogynistic and rapey vibes.
A lot of porn does, but it's definitely possible to avoid that.
---
>A lot of porn does, but it's definitely possible to avoid tha
We are not morons. A lot of porn does fuck all to a healthy and grown person. Just like a tons of games does not make him murderer, or eating pizza all the time does not make him chef, or the connoseur of the food. | 68fihe | CMV: Porn is normal and does not have a negative effect on people or society when used moderately. | I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes (according to her) has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations.
Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view. | Nylnin | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "exotics",
"id": "dgy17vf",
"score": 7,
"text": "There are different types of porn, from soft core to hard.. from magazines with photos to film.\n\nI assume you do see a problem with kiddie porn and porn that depicts rape with no question as to it being rape. If not then my argument to ... | [
{
"author": "Gladix",
"id": "dgy2ffc",
"score": 20,
"text": ">Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes.\n\nPorn does have a misogynistic and rapey vibes. Lets be honest, most porn is done for guys. Most porn is the hardcore variety. And most ... | [
"dgy17vf",
"dgy1nft",
"dgy25al"
] | [
"dgy2ffc",
"dgy35rq",
"dgy38ap"
] |
CMV: (Child) sexual assault cases should be compulsorily prosecuted even if prosecution witnesses are hostile
Disclaimer: I only have a passing knowledge of sexual assault laws in most common law jurisdictions; I can only comment satisfactorily on Indian laws. Regardless, I hope we can have a discussion on the question of hostile witnesses in general, and their applicability in sexual assault cases in particular.
I'm defining [hostile witnesses](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hostile+witness) as "a witness who from the manner in which he gives his evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling truth to the court", in keeping with the quote by Sir J.P. Wilde in *Coles v. Coles* [L. R. 1 P. & D. 71], thereby becoming so adverse to the party that called them that they are considered to testify on behalf of the opposing party.
In India in particular, Section 154 of the Evidence Act permits a party to cross-examine his own witness the way an adverse party would. [The Act doesn't use the terms 'hostile' or 'adverse' explicitly.] Such statements have evidentiary value to the extent that they support the prosecution's case; they can be (and are being) used to acquit the accused.
Having gone through hundreds of (district court) judgments on child sexual assault, it shocked me to see that the overwhelming majority of cases (nearly 80-85%) are dismissed merely because the witness 'turned hostile' and refused to correctly identify the accused, denied that the offence (as mentioned in previous statements) ever took place, and so on - even where there is explicit material evidence to prove that sexual assault did indeed take place. Such statements are the result of pressure from and fear of the accused, who often exerts considerable local influence.
I find this shocking, and I believe that the value given to victims of sexual assault in general - to decide if and when to prosecute - must be reduced in cases where evidence of guilt can be produced and accepted in court. In such instances, the mere statement of a prosecution witness which doesn't explicitly corroborate previous ones cannot be taken as allowing the court freedom to acquit the accused because the victim "clearly did not want to prosecute" [a quote from multiple judgments].
Why should sexual assault cases be treated any differently from other criminal offences when it comes to the State stepping in to prosecute, regardless of the victim's 'consent'?
_____
> *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 is just an issue of judicial efficiency.
If the witnesses are no cooperating it becomes essentially impossible to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Why should the prosecution waste resources pursuing unwinnable cases?
>Why should sexual assault cases be treated any differently from other criminal offences
Other criminal offences often have tangible evidence that can be used to convict. Murder? you got a dead body. Assault? You got broken bones, etc.
Sexual assault often leaves not physical evidence, so without the victim providing crucial testimony, there simply is is no other evidence that can be used.
---
Fair enough; I suppose I should be clearer about the point that the cases I'm talking about are the ones where the prosecution witnesses refuse to cooperate due to fear and pressure exerted upon them. For instance, it's very easy for women in rural India to refuse to report sexual assault due to fear of loss of 'honour' in the eyes of the community; furthermore, due to insidious corruption, it's hard for the victim alone to go against the power of the accused.
In situations where material evidence (medical reports, plausibility of statements) of sexual assault exists, however, why does the case need to be dropped on the basis of the victim retracting her statement in court?
---
>In situations where material evidence (medical reports, plausibility of statements) of sexual assault exists, however, why does the case need to be dropped on the basis of the victim retracting her statement in court?
While IANAL, I would imagine that even _if_ there is substantial evidence supporting the charge, if the witness turns hostile and there is risk of them getting on the stand and saying, "Nope, no crime happened" it would substantially undermine the prosecution's case. | The problem with this is that most systems of law are presumably founded on the idea of righting wrongs within society, and not causing more harm.
Suppose that we allow hostile witnesses for the prosecution. We're now subjecting children to be harshly cross-examined, and possibly detained and jailed for perjury, to pursue child molesters. Now, there may be a debate to be had about how far we should go to jail child molesters, and I'm normally not one to say that we shouldn't go pretty damn far to do so... but I have to draw the line at potentially causing their victims to suffer actual legal punishment if they don't talk.
---
> The problem with this is that most systems of law are presumably founded on the idea of righting wrongs within society, and not causing more harm.
This is a perspective I hadn't really considered; the fact that going to lengths to terming victims 'hostile witnesses' and then requiring them to be repeatedly re-examined in order to search for cracks/undermine their testimony would definitely cause more difficulty and harm is something that I'm just thinking about.
Not really sure how the delta system works, but Δ for giving me this to think about; it certainly softens my v.v. hardline stance.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Qwerty_Resident ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Qwerty_Resident)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "Qwerty_Resident"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 697jy4 | CMV: (Child) sexual assault cases should be compulsorily prosecuted even if prosecution witnesses are hostile | Disclaimer: I only have a passing knowledge of sexual assault laws in most common law jurisdictions; I can only comment satisfactorily on Indian laws. Regardless, I hope we can have a discussion on the question of hostile witnesses in general, and their applicability in sexual assault cases in particular.
I'm defining [hostile witnesses](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hostile+witness) as "a witness who from the manner in which he gives his evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling truth to the court", in keeping with the quote by Sir J.P. Wilde in *Coles v. Coles* [L. R. 1 P. & D. 71], thereby becoming so adverse to the party that called them that they are considered to testify on behalf of the opposing party.
In India in particular, Section 154 of the Evidence Act permits a party to cross-examine his own witness the way an adverse party would. [The Act doesn't use the terms 'hostile' or 'adverse' explicitly.] Such statements have evidentiary value to the extent that they support the prosecution's case; they can be (and are being) used to acquit the accused.
Having gone through hundreds of (district court) judgments on child sexual assault, it shocked me to see that the overwhelming majority of cases (nearly 80-85%) are dismissed merely because the witness 'turned hostile' and refused to correctly identify the accused, denied that the offence (as mentioned in previous statements) ever took place, and so on - even where there is explicit material evidence to prove that sexual assault did indeed take place. Such statements are the result of pressure from and fear of the accused, who often exerts considerable local influence.
I find this shocking, and I believe that the value given to victims of sexual assault in general - to decide if and when to prosecute - must be reduced in cases where evidence of guilt can be produced and accepted in court. In such instances, the mere statement of a prosecution witness which doesn't explicitly corroborate previous ones cannot be taken as allowing the court freedom to acquit the accused because the victim "clearly did not want to prosecute" [a quote from multiple judgments].
Why should sexual assault cases be treated any differently from other criminal offences when it comes to the State stepping in to prosecute, regardless of the victim's 'consent'?
_____
> *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!* | oneyesterday | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Hq3473",
"id": "dh4cdcf",
"score": 5,
"text": "This is just an issue of judicial efficiency.\n\nIf the witnesses are no cooperating it becomes essentially impossible to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. \n\nWhy should the prosecution waste resources pursuing unwinnable cases? \n... | [
{
"author": "Qwerty_Resident",
"id": "dh4c8zc",
"score": 11,
"text": "The problem with this is that most systems of law are presumably founded on the idea of righting wrongs within society, and not causing more harm.\n\nSuppose that we allow hostile witnesses for the prosecution. We're now subjectin... | [
"dh4cdcf",
"dh4cni5",
"dh4cuhr"
] | [
"dh4c8zc",
"dh4d6vi",
"dh4d7i7"
] |
CMV: Americans' current use of the term "middle-class" is a out of step with standard English and is a politically-motivated con.
In the broader Anglosphere, the term "middle-class" is used to describe the socio-economic class of households that enjoy middle-level incomes but also a suite of social practices. While there is no universal definition, many would include things like a university-level education, salaried position in a profession or "white-collar" job, travel abroad, considerable savings and job/financial security and so on.
In the US, the term "middle-class" has been co-opted to describe now something closer to what the wider world understands as "working class" - people who have paid employment, possibly shiftwork or casualised, often in blue-collar trades, with significant financial precarity. Many American sitcoms show "middle-class" (US-sense) families - like *The Simpsons*. A recent [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/15/middle-class-financial-security/) poll suggested only 30% of Americans consider a college education a marker of being middle class. This is not how the term is used in the UK, Canada, Australia (or other English-speakers in, for example, India).
The point of the term "middle-class" is to indicate there is an economic class "above" (in some sense) and "below". Using the term "middle-class" to describe people who the wider world describe as "working class" is a form of flattery (maybe) but also a piece of political theatre: "hey, you're not on food stamps so you're middle class" is a great way to deflect from people being systematically exploited in ways out-of-step with other English-speaking countries.
America is - on a GDP per capita basis - the richest large country in the world. Even on a median basis, it's top ten. I don't believe a household which [can't cover $400 in an emergency](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/37-of-americans-cant-afford-an-emergency-expense-over-400-according-to-empower-research-302187157.html) should be described as "middle-class".
I would change my view if there is a sizeable (>20%) of households that are persistently substantially poorer again, warranting the description of this level of economic security as genuinely "middle'. | OP, I think the real crux of the difference you perceive is the fact that the US doesn't really have an understanding of "class" in the sense you use it. I grew up in the UK but moved to the US as an adult and what I more see is that Americans don't really recognize the things you suggest such as education, travel and investments as a marker of class.
I would say in the US someone who is wealthy due to trades, a professional job, business acumen or even gambling are seen as more or less the same class wise, even though they likely live completely different lifestyles and there isn't really a particular set of social standards indicating class there. Most likely due to lack of cultural traditions marking these things as being associated with a class, and partly due to ideals of level playing fields and opertunity the country was founded with (think American dream stereotype).
This inevitably means that class is a fuzzier concept here. Frankly I don't think Americans feel as comfortably categorizing a large portion of the population as being somehow fundamentally lower or above themselves and prefer the ambiguity.
As a side note, there is a strong concept of old money versus new money in the US, which tends to be associated with more subtle European like sensibilities as opposed to status symbols and flashy spending, with the cultural differences better encompassed there, and not nessacerily corresponding to the amount of wealth.
Tldr, it isn't that middle class is simply a lower standard here, it's more that folks in the US doesn't really use the concept of class in the same way it's used elsewhere.
---
The issue isn't that wealthy tradespeople identify as middle-class. It's that people with gig economy jobs or minimum wage shift work do.
>I don't think Americans feel as comfortably categorizing a large portion of the population as being somehow fundamentally lower
This is right. It's kind of like an affront to American notions of opportunity and prosperity that a very large chunk of the population is permanently stuck in poor economic conditions. So rather than acknowledge this "shameful truth", a euphemism is created by expanding the term "middle-class" to encompass the working class.
It's exactly the same process that led Americans to use the term "bathroom" when they really mean "toilet".
---
>It's that people with gig economy jobs or minimum wage shift work do.
You keep saying this but I don't think the data backs it up.
[Per this Gallup poll, ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/645281/steady-americans-identify-middle-class.aspx) 68% of households with an annual income of less than 40k describe themselves as working or lower class. Only around a quarter describe themselves as lower.
You're also underestimating the state of the American worker. 36% are gig workers, it's not the majority of workers. The median household post tax income is around 70k per the US census. [The FED ](https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/banking/average-american-savings#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20from%20the,deposit%20accounts%2C%20and%20prepaid%20cards.) has found that the median American has 62k in savings.
Economic mobility has decreased and inequality has grown in the past few decades. But it's hardly as dour as often portrayed. | > Using the term "middle-class" to describe people who the wider world describe as "working class" is a form of flattery
Nah, it’s just a terminology difference. Working class is still middle class as it sits between the leisure class and the unemployed just as middle class sits between rich and poor.
---
So you are saying that Americans say "middle class" to mean what the rest of us call "working class". What do they say for "middle class" then? or "upper class"?
As for "pissed". Yes, that's well-known. Let's add "chips" to the list. Crisps? Fries?
(FWIW, I'm Australian, so we straddle both UK and US and the "chips" thing causes us particular difficulty.)
---
> So you are saying that Americans say "middle class" to mean what the rest of us call "working class".
Yes, with the added breakdown of middle class people being blue collar or white collar, meaning working physically intense jobs or mentally intense, broadly speaking.
> What do they say for "middle class" then? or "upper class"?
Still middle class as they are neither rich nor poor, they’re in the middle.
> or "upper class"?
We don’t really have a term beyond “rich people”.
Remember that Americans generally don’t like to acknowledge interclass struggles due to our history of being anti-Marxist so we have developed alternative language that skits that terminology while describing basically the same thing but with some different boundaries. | 1fpsled | CMV: Americans' current use of the term "middle-class" is a out of step with standard English and is a politically-motivated con. | In the broader Anglosphere, the term "middle-class" is used to describe the socio-economic class of households that enjoy middle-level incomes but also a suite of social practices. While there is no universal definition, many would include things like a university-level education, salaried position in a profession or "white-collar" job, travel abroad, considerable savings and job/financial security and so on.
In the US, the term "middle-class" has been co-opted to describe now something closer to what the wider world understands as "working class" - people who have paid employment, possibly shiftwork or casualised, often in blue-collar trades, with significant financial precarity. Many American sitcoms show "middle-class" (US-sense) families - like *The Simpsons*. A recent [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/15/middle-class-financial-security/) poll suggested only 30% of Americans consider a college education a marker of being middle class. This is not how the term is used in the UK, Canada, Australia (or other English-speakers in, for example, India).
The point of the term "middle-class" is to indicate there is an economic class "above" (in some sense) and "below". Using the term "middle-class" to describe people who the wider world describe as "working class" is a form of flattery (maybe) but also a piece of political theatre: "hey, you're not on food stamps so you're middle class" is a great way to deflect from people being systematically exploited in ways out-of-step with other English-speaking countries.
America is - on a GDP per capita basis - the richest large country in the world. Even on a median basis, it's top ten. I don't believe a household which [can't cover $400 in an emergency](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/37-of-americans-cant-afford-an-emergency-expense-over-400-according-to-empower-research-302187157.html) should be described as "middle-class".
I would change my view if there is a sizeable (>20%) of households that are persistently substantially poorer again, warranting the description of this level of economic security as genuinely "middle'. | thetan_free | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ValityS",
"id": "lp1ryzz",
"score": 8,
"text": "OP, I think the real crux of the difference you perceive is the fact that the US doesn't really have an understanding of \"class\" in the sense you use it. I grew up in the UK but moved to the US as an adult and what I more see is that Ame... | [
{
"author": "destro23",
"id": "lozyrpb",
"score": 10,
"text": "> Using the term \"middle-class\" to describe people who the wider world describe as \"working class\" is a form of flattery\n\nNah, it’s just a terminology difference. Working class is still middle class as it sits between the leisure c... | [
"lp1ryzz",
"lp47rm0",
"lp4f8s5"
] | [
"lozyrpb",
"lozz6qc",
"lozzxyu"
] |
CMV: The media and leftist portion of the world is giving the New Zealand terrorist EXACTLY what he wanted.
The shooter directly stated that his goal was to push social divisiveness. He also obviously pushed this himself by calling out pewdiepie, Candice Owens and President Trump, people he admits he disagrees with, for no other reason than to cause outrage. The media and leftists have embraced his call to outrage by the media twisting it in their mind that Trump(or any of them) is somehow to blame, and some people even blamed Chelsea Clinton. The harassment towards Chelsea was so outrageous that Donald Trump Jr. came to her defense.
The Shooter stated that he had the choice between explosives and firearms. He chose firearms so that the anti-gun vs pro-gun conflict would get fired up again. He succeeded, leftist politicians jumped up on their soap box preaching gun control like a moth to a porch light.
The media has done everything he was hoping for like they read his manifesto and thought "oh that sounds like a great idea!". The only thing they've gotten wrong/ignored is the fact that his political views were ~~far left~~ out there to the left, and are calling him "far-right" for some reason.
_____
> *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!* | His views are not far left, he is a white nationalist. The right wing media including Fox News and pundits like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. have pushed this anti-immigration and anti-muslim bigotry that the shooter believed in. What he said in his manifesto is repeated by right wingers everyday.
Chelsea Clinton was rightly called out for disingenuously piling on Ilham Omar during a slew of Islamophobic attacks against her (republicans calling her filth, her being compared to a terrorist). Chelesea's parents are also directly responsible for millions of deaths in the muslim world and the destruction of muslim countries. For her to show up to a vigil and pretend to care, she should have been harrassed and yelled at. But instead she was calmly told how the students felt about her and her actions.
---
He is pro socialist and pro communist. how much more far left can you get?
So are you blaming Ben, Jordan and Sam for the attack? or are you saying that the shooter, who admittedly disagrees with basically everything those men stand for, was some how inspired by them?
Oh I agree, the Clinton family is disgusting for many reasons. But to somehow do the mental gymnastics to connect Chelesea's criticism of a US congresswoman to a mass shooting litterally on the other side of the world... I don't see the connection.
To change my mind, I'd need to see a definition of "left wing" or "far left" that is pro-capitalism, and anti-socialism.
---
He is definitely not pro-communist.
The shooter repeated the same talking points. This isn't the first time Ben Shapiro has inspired an attack on a mosque. We can go through his whole manifesto point-by-point and relate them back to everything right wing pundits say. It's clear as day. It's not media conspiracy, it's just obvious AF. He even said "subscribe to pewdiepie." And who does pewdiepie follow on twitter, all of the names I mentioned and other right wingers like Stefan Molyneux.
It's not about the Clinton family being disgusting for "many reasons." It is, in this case, specifically about their atrocities against muslims and their complicit behavior toward Islamophobic right wing attacks on muslims, not just Ilhan Omar. That is the connection.
---
He directly says he is pro-communist. I don't understand why this is a argument. Like you said, point by point I have the manifesto pulled up right now. He's anti-conservative, Anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, pro-communist, racist, and insane. If you want to refute 1 might as well refute them all.
---
Is it at all possible that what he says in there is mostly red herrings? I think the only thing you can take at face value is that he wanted to fuck with people. Trying to justify any of his other views or actions is near impossible because of how much of a meme ridden shitfest his ideas are. | Is it possible that you're giving him what he wants? It could be that he is the standard white nationalist who killed some Muslims because simply he doesn't like Muslims immigrating to New Zealand. And his ideology is similar to most people who don't like Islam such as the people he mentions in his manifesto. And because this guy is a fan of 4chan trolling he throws in a few weird points to throw people off what he really thinks.
Like why do you think he is a communist? If a communist was to go on a shooting why would they choose a mosque and not a bank? Or why do you think he is an environmentalist? If he was worried about the environment he could have done the standard eco terrorist stuff of sabotaging equipment.
But he shot up a mosque. So why do you think this isn't a simple case of someone who hates Muslims going out and killing Muslims?
---
I'm pretty sure he thinks those things because the guy wrote all of those things down in his manifesto. His manifesto that is currently being censored into oblivion online because people don't want you have an opinion on this tragedy that doesn't boil down too "the guy was obviously an alt right trump supporter"
Even an opinion like "people on the left and the right can have evil intentions and do bad things" is way too nuanced for the current social/political debate. It's fucking sad.
---
The video is being censored but I'm not having much trouble accessing his manifesto.
And what he wrote down sounds like the ramblings of an alt right 4chan kind of person. There is stuff in there that doesn't make sense but that's to be expected. Nothing suggests he was motivated by anything other than he didn't want Muslims in his country.
Also in what way is "people on the left and the right have evil intentions" nuanced? This has nothing to do with the left. It's not even about the right really. It's about how we talk about things like Muslims or immigration.
---
So you're basically picking and choosing what parts of his manifesto make sense. Anything he says that contradicts your pre-held notion of him is boiled down to the ramblings of an alt right 4channer, and anything that you can use to fit your narrative isn't?
I don't understand how someone saying they're pro-China and pro-communism can be considered alt right.
---
I'm picking and choosing? The guy goes on and on and on about being invaded by foreigners. He mentions communism 4 times, once when he said he was a communist when he was younger, then again when he said he wants them to live under his boot.
Being into China isn't a surprise given how they treat Muslims.
You'd have to ignore like 90% of what he wrote to think he wasn't a white nationalist and 4chan shitposter. | b3moe0 | CMV: The media and leftist portion of the world is giving the New Zealand terrorist EXACTLY what he wanted. | The shooter directly stated that his goal was to push social divisiveness. He also obviously pushed this himself by calling out pewdiepie, Candice Owens and President Trump, people he admits he disagrees with, for no other reason than to cause outrage. The media and leftists have embraced his call to outrage by the media twisting it in their mind that Trump(or any of them) is somehow to blame, and some people even blamed Chelsea Clinton. The harassment towards Chelsea was so outrageous that Donald Trump Jr. came to her defense.
The Shooter stated that he had the choice between explosives and firearms. He chose firearms so that the anti-gun vs pro-gun conflict would get fired up again. He succeeded, leftist politicians jumped up on their soap box preaching gun control like a moth to a porch light.
The media has done everything he was hoping for like they read his manifesto and thought "oh that sounds like a great idea!". The only thing they've gotten wrong/ignored is the fact that his political views were ~~far left~~ out there to the left, and are calling him "far-right" for some reason.
_____
> *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!* | luckyhunterdude | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "uselessrightfoot",
"id": "ej0odzo",
"score": 0,
"text": "His views are not far left, he is a white nationalist. The right wing media including Fox News and pundits like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. have pushed this anti-immigration and anti-muslim bigotry that the shoo... | [
{
"author": "Trotlife",
"id": "ej0ss69",
"score": 13,
"text": "Is it possible that you're giving him what he wants? It could be that he is the standard white nationalist who killed some Muslims because simply he doesn't like Muslims immigrating to New Zealand. And his ideology is similar to most peo... | [
"ej0odzo",
"ej0oxfq",
"ej0px1q",
"ej0qbki",
"ej0qtrh"
] | [
"ej0ss69",
"ej0uwqb",
"ej0v57v",
"ej0w5qq",
"ej0wrj4"
] |
CMV: The media and leftist portion of the world is giving the New Zealand terrorist EXACTLY what he wanted.
The shooter directly stated that his goal was to push social divisiveness. He also obviously pushed this himself by calling out pewdiepie, Candice Owens and President Trump, people he admits he disagrees with, for no other reason than to cause outrage. The media and leftists have embraced his call to outrage by the media twisting it in their mind that Trump(or any of them) is somehow to blame, and some people even blamed Chelsea Clinton. The harassment towards Chelsea was so outrageous that Donald Trump Jr. came to her defense.
The Shooter stated that he had the choice between explosives and firearms. He chose firearms so that the anti-gun vs pro-gun conflict would get fired up again. He succeeded, leftist politicians jumped up on their soap box preaching gun control like a moth to a porch light.
The media has done everything he was hoping for like they read his manifesto and thought "oh that sounds like a great idea!". The only thing they've gotten wrong/ignored is the fact that his political views were ~~far left~~ out there to the left, and are calling him "far-right" for some reason.
_____
> *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!* | His views are not far left, he is a white nationalist. The right wing media including Fox News and pundits like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. have pushed this anti-immigration and anti-muslim bigotry that the shooter believed in. What he said in his manifesto is repeated by right wingers everyday.
Chelsea Clinton was rightly called out for disingenuously piling on Ilham Omar during a slew of Islamophobic attacks against her (republicans calling her filth, her being compared to a terrorist). Chelesea's parents are also directly responsible for millions of deaths in the muslim world and the destruction of muslim countries. For her to show up to a vigil and pretend to care, she should have been harrassed and yelled at. But instead she was calmly told how the students felt about her and her actions.
---
He is pro socialist and pro communist. how much more far left can you get?
So are you blaming Ben, Jordan and Sam for the attack? or are you saying that the shooter, who admittedly disagrees with basically everything those men stand for, was some how inspired by them?
Oh I agree, the Clinton family is disgusting for many reasons. But to somehow do the mental gymnastics to connect Chelesea's criticism of a US congresswoman to a mass shooting litterally on the other side of the world... I don't see the connection.
To change my mind, I'd need to see a definition of "left wing" or "far left" that is pro-capitalism, and anti-socialism.
---
> He is pro socialist and pro communist.
He most certainly wasn't. I suspect someone has been lying to you about the contents of his manifesto by blowing a single statement about China out of proportion.
---
I have the manifesto pulled up right now. He directly says that he is anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, and pro-china.
---
Please provide the quote where he says he is pro-socialist, I didn’t see that anywhere. | Could I ask why you say he is far left instead of alt right?
---
Have you done anything other than watch mainstream news?
Read the manifesto. You dont need anybody to tell you what to think if you just think for yourself.
---
I've gone over his manifesto. He's pretty clearly a white supremacist despite his manifesto being pretty contradictory and rambling.
---
Yeah it’s almost like he’s insane or trying to disrupt common discourse
---
He didn’t seem insane to me, just evil and brainwashed. | b3moe0 | CMV: The media and leftist portion of the world is giving the New Zealand terrorist EXACTLY what he wanted. | The shooter directly stated that his goal was to push social divisiveness. He also obviously pushed this himself by calling out pewdiepie, Candice Owens and President Trump, people he admits he disagrees with, for no other reason than to cause outrage. The media and leftists have embraced his call to outrage by the media twisting it in their mind that Trump(or any of them) is somehow to blame, and some people even blamed Chelsea Clinton. The harassment towards Chelsea was so outrageous that Donald Trump Jr. came to her defense.
The Shooter stated that he had the choice between explosives and firearms. He chose firearms so that the anti-gun vs pro-gun conflict would get fired up again. He succeeded, leftist politicians jumped up on their soap box preaching gun control like a moth to a porch light.
The media has done everything he was hoping for like they read his manifesto and thought "oh that sounds like a great idea!". The only thing they've gotten wrong/ignored is the fact that his political views were ~~far left~~ out there to the left, and are calling him "far-right" for some reason.
_____
> *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!* | luckyhunterdude | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "uselessrightfoot",
"id": "ej0odzo",
"score": 0,
"text": "His views are not far left, he is a white nationalist. The right wing media including Fox News and pundits like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. have pushed this anti-immigration and anti-muslim bigotry that the shoo... | [
{
"author": "Lemerney2",
"id": "ej0o3at",
"score": 7,
"text": "Could I ask why you say he is far left instead of alt right?",
"timestamp": 1553145716
},
{
"author": "maybe-im-crazy",
"id": "ej0ofe4",
"score": -3,
"text": "Have you done anything other than watch mainstream new... | [
"ej0odzo",
"ej0oxfq",
"ej0pizz",
"ej0q117",
"ej1as1t"
] | [
"ej0o3at",
"ej0ofe4",
"ej0sv73",
"ej0u3n6",
"ej1ap3v"
] |
CMV: The police are portrayed unfairly in the public eye
1. Now before you get angry, no, I’m not saying the police never do anything wrong. There have been many incidents where the police were in the wrong, I understand.
2. I’m talking about the police in the United States of America. I would be out of my mind if I were to say the police in some smaller, “failed state” type countries were portrayed unfairly, as they are usually payed off very easily.
Now before I start, I want to make it clear that I am not in any police department, affiliated with any police department, or know anyone who is in any police department. I am basing my opinion solely off of looking at individual incidents that happen both in my city and across the country. I know at this point you have probably stopped reading this part of the post, but if you haven’t, please keep reading.
I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being too quick to assume. The news isn’t gonna have stories about cops being normal cops, because there’s no news in that. It’s not the norm for cops to be horrible, and people who think we should get rid of the police are just completely uneducated.
EDIT: I have not changed my opinion on the matter completely, however, I now will look at the issue with the perspective that there is bias coming from both points of view. | How many times are cops allowed to kill innocents and people guilty of minor crimes before it becomes an issue?
---
I never said it wasn’t an issue, I just said it’s not the norm.
---
>I never said it wasn’t an issue, I just said it’s not the norm.
But what does seem to be the norm, or at least very common, is that the police close ranks and that no one is punished. If every police officer who misbehaved was punished, fired or socially stigmatised within the force, I don't think people would have large an issue, because no one would fear that the police would protect its own. | >I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being quick to assume.
The same can be said about almost everything the news reports on.
For example, you're 4x more likely to die from a heatwave then you are by being killed by a foreign born terrorist. Yet immigrants are constantly in the news as a danger.
News in the US is just there to draw eyeballs, not to inform people.
---
Yes, that’s exact my point. People are following blindly and need to stop. Just because the news is unfair to everything doesn’t make it fair. It doesn’t balance out.
---
So why focus only on the unfair treatment of the police? There are plenty of other groups who face far worse treatment by the news | e1sqoi | CMV: The police are portrayed unfairly in the public eye | 1. Now before you get angry, no, I’m not saying the police never do anything wrong. There have been many incidents where the police were in the wrong, I understand.
2. I’m talking about the police in the United States of America. I would be out of my mind if I were to say the police in some smaller, “failed state” type countries were portrayed unfairly, as they are usually payed off very easily.
Now before I start, I want to make it clear that I am not in any police department, affiliated with any police department, or know anyone who is in any police department. I am basing my opinion solely off of looking at individual incidents that happen both in my city and across the country. I know at this point you have probably stopped reading this part of the post, but if you haven’t, please keep reading.
I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being too quick to assume. The news isn’t gonna have stories about cops being normal cops, because there’s no news in that. It’s not the norm for cops to be horrible, and people who think we should get rid of the police are just completely uneducated.
EDIT: I have not changed my opinion on the matter completely, however, I now will look at the issue with the perspective that there is bias coming from both points of view. | baronvonweezil | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "f8rk94k",
"score": 7,
"text": "How many times are cops allowed to kill innocents and people guilty of minor crimes before it becomes an issue?",
"timestamp": 1574742745
},
{
"author": "baronvonweezil",
"id": "f8rkg8q",
"score": -2,
"text": "I ... | [
{
"author": "SuckMyBike",
"id": "f8rkltr",
"score": 7,
"text": ">I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being quick to assume. \n\nThe same can be said about almost everything the news reports on. \n\nFor example, you're 4x more likely to die from a he... | [
"f8rk94k",
"f8rkg8q",
"f8rwiw8"
] | [
"f8rkltr",
"f8rkpaj",
"f8rkxzj"
] |
CMV: The police are portrayed unfairly in the public eye
1. Now before you get angry, no, I’m not saying the police never do anything wrong. There have been many incidents where the police were in the wrong, I understand.
2. I’m talking about the police in the United States of America. I would be out of my mind if I were to say the police in some smaller, “failed state” type countries were portrayed unfairly, as they are usually payed off very easily.
Now before I start, I want to make it clear that I am not in any police department, affiliated with any police department, or know anyone who is in any police department. I am basing my opinion solely off of looking at individual incidents that happen both in my city and across the country. I know at this point you have probably stopped reading this part of the post, but if you haven’t, please keep reading.
I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being too quick to assume. The news isn’t gonna have stories about cops being normal cops, because there’s no news in that. It’s not the norm for cops to be horrible, and people who think we should get rid of the police are just completely uneducated.
EDIT: I have not changed my opinion on the matter completely, however, I now will look at the issue with the perspective that there is bias coming from both points of view. | > I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being quick to assume.
It's possible the police are too quickly assumed guilty by the media. However this media representation can't be taken in isolation. There has been a generations-long "blue shield" that protected police from any form of public scrutiny. We know that this enabled the police to get away with very bad behavior in the past.
Given this history it makes sense to hold the police, who have the only legitimate authority to apply violence in their daily work, to a very high standard.
---
It is our first amendment right to speak against our government when we see fit, however, that doesn’t make it right to protest just to compensate for something that has been lacking in the past. Yes, there is a legitimate problem, but we are not addressing it in the right way.
---
how should it be addressed?
---
Through proper procedure (protest, sending a letter, etc.). Not ranting on Twitter. I understand this has been done many times before, but that doesn’t mean we should give up.
---
Doesn’t twitter spread awareness? You’re not going to have people show up for a protest if they don’t know there’s a problem to begin with
---
It may spread awareness, but more often it spreads misinformation. Whenever there is a police shooting, Twitter is quick to call the officers involved “murderers” and “evil”. They don’t care if the other man had a gun to the officer’s head, they will still see it as unjustified.
I’m not saying this is the case for all people on Twitter, but many.
---
Can you actually link like...anyone saying a cop shooting a person with a gun to the head of another cop is evil?
Seems like a major strawman tbh. | How many times are cops allowed to kill innocents and people guilty of minor crimes before it becomes an issue?
---
I never said it wasn’t an issue, I just said it’s not the norm.
---
>I never said it wasn’t an issue, I just said it’s not the norm.
But what does seem to be the norm, or at least very common, is that the police close ranks and that no one is punished. If every police officer who misbehaved was punished, fired or socially stigmatised within the force, I don't think people would have large an issue, because no one would fear that the police would protect its own.
---
Δ Now this is a more convincing argument. I agree with you, different police departments should make sure that officers know there will be repercussions for misbehavior.
---
I’m just going to point out that I find the fact that this post wasn’t already your view beyond horrifying - I mean - yeah I don’t even have words for this.
---
It was already my view I just thought that your argument was compelling and should be recognized... calm down.
---
Not me mate, check the user.
My bad then I guess, but the delta is for when your view is changed, why would assume that wasn’t the case? | e1sqoi | CMV: The police are portrayed unfairly in the public eye | 1. Now before you get angry, no, I’m not saying the police never do anything wrong. There have been many incidents where the police were in the wrong, I understand.
2. I’m talking about the police in the United States of America. I would be out of my mind if I were to say the police in some smaller, “failed state” type countries were portrayed unfairly, as they are usually payed off very easily.
Now before I start, I want to make it clear that I am not in any police department, affiliated with any police department, or know anyone who is in any police department. I am basing my opinion solely off of looking at individual incidents that happen both in my city and across the country. I know at this point you have probably stopped reading this part of the post, but if you haven’t, please keep reading.
I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being too quick to assume. The news isn’t gonna have stories about cops being normal cops, because there’s no news in that. It’s not the norm for cops to be horrible, and people who think we should get rid of the police are just completely uneducated.
EDIT: I have not changed my opinion on the matter completely, however, I now will look at the issue with the perspective that there is bias coming from both points of view. | baronvonweezil | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "howlin",
"id": "f8rkz6f",
"score": 26,
"text": "> I think the police get a very bad rep due to many news channels and people online being quick to assume.\n\nIt's possible the police are too quickly assumed guilty by the media. However this media representation can't be taken in isolat... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "f8rk94k",
"score": 7,
"text": "How many times are cops allowed to kill innocents and people guilty of minor crimes before it becomes an issue?",
"timestamp": 1574742745
},
{
"author": "baronvonweezil",
"id": "f8rkg8q",
"score": -2,
"text": "I ... | [
"f8rkz6f",
"f8rl43e",
"f8rldts",
"f8rli5j",
"f8rpbi0",
"f8s4gh2",
"f8tmpfs"
] | [
"f8rk94k",
"f8rkg8q",
"f8rwiw8",
"f8s484o",
"f8s9ebr",
"f8tnci3",
"f8tq360"
] |
CMV: Maxine Waters should be impeached and charged with inciting violence.
Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”
Freedom of speech does not allow you to incite violence.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent\_lawless\_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)
If Donald Trump can get impeached for inciting violence when he asked for a peaceful protest. Surely a politician who is outright asking for violence has to be held to the same standard. | I haven't paid particular attention to this story, so can you clarify: Wasn't the statement you quoted *conditional* upon Chauvin being found not guilty? Like, she wasn't saying protesters need to get more confrontational *now*. She was saying they needed to get more confrontational *if* Chauvin is found not guilty.
---
Why does it matter if it is conditional?
If I give a speech before a Florida vs FSU game telling the Florida fans to burn everything down if Florida loses. Does it make it ok if Florida ends up winning?
---
Yes.
If you found out that the charge of inciting violence requires there to actually be violence that you incited, would it change your view?
If learning that the reality of the law works differently than you thought doesn’t change your view, it would mean your view isn’t dependent on what reality is. | Interpreting "getting confrontational" as "asking for violence" is a massive stretch.
---
Where do you think confrontations lead?
---
To arguments. We're not Klingons. | mupfdm | CMV: Maxine Waters should be impeached and charged with inciting violence. | Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”
Freedom of speech does not allow you to incite violence.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent\_lawless\_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)
If Donald Trump can get impeached for inciting violence when he asked for a peaceful protest. Surely a politician who is outright asking for violence has to be held to the same standard. | barbodelli | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "AskWhyKnot",
"id": "gv71mka",
"score": 3,
"text": "I haven't paid particular attention to this story, so can you clarify: Wasn't the statement you quoted *conditional* upon Chauvin being found not guilty? Like, she wasn't saying protesters need to get more confrontational *now*. She ... | [
{
"author": "murderousbudgie",
"id": "gv728ca",
"score": 2,
"text": "Interpreting \"getting confrontational\" as \"asking for violence\" is a massive stretch.",
"timestamp": 1618923033
},
{
"author": "dasquirelcatcher",
"id": "gv72ngs",
"score": -1,
"text": "Where do you thin... | [
"gv71mka",
"gv71vqz",
"gv73iyg"
] | [
"gv728ca",
"gv72ngs",
"gv72xqa"
] |
CMV: Trans people wouldn't exist if it weren't for a society with limiting gender norms.
I think the idea of transgenderism is that your inner person has to match your genitals right? But that perception is based on the idea that the genitals have some bearing on a person's heart or mind at all. We are taught that if you like certain things, its because you have a vagina, and if you dislike those things, you have a penis. People are made to feel bad for not liking things that their genitals prescribe them to like or that they act in a way that their genitals disagrees with. I can see how many years of this conditioning can lead to dysphoria and depression for people who do not conform well with their genitals. Why do you have to have a penis to do "boy things"? I live in a very liberal environment, so I have seen many families that raise children without ever telling them about gender. These kids are homeschooled, so they never hear about it from the media. From what I have seen in these families, the kids do whatever they want no matter what gender it corresponds to, and they don't care about penises or vaginas. They have no problem going by a pronoun that "goes against" the things they like and the way they act, because they have been taught that the pronoun doesn't mean anything about their personality. I know a little boy who wears a tutu and plays with barbies and hangs out with the girls, but he also likes to wrestle and has no problem playing rough with the boys, too. To kids like these, the idea that genitals have anything to do with their personality is ridiculous. They do whatever they want and they are happy because no one tells them they can't do it. I feel like this is what people would be like if we didn't have such a rigid society. I know people may think that this devalues trans people and their dysphoria, but I have no intention of doing that. I am merely saying that maybe dysphoria happens because of oppression, and it is not something that is part of the human experience. After all, why should people naturally suffer by the body they are born in? I think in a world free of oppression and gender norms we all do whatever we want and wear whatever we want and no one gives a fuck about what's in our pants. | Except the issue is that trans people can't just relax and do things they like, that doesn't really solve anything for them. It has less to do with society as it does with their strong desire to identify as the other gender.
There is a huge difference between a trans person and a guy that just likes ballet, dolls, fancy hair, and other generally feminine interests. I know plenty of tom boys that have no interest in being trans aren't disgusted or even bothered by their genitalia or image. They just like doing boy things.
Have you ever met a guy who was really into guy things for the sake of being masculine? Being a guy is a huge part of their identity and they like doing things just because it makes them feel manly. THAT is a bit more like what a trans person is except it is that person but stuck in a woman's body. And the disconnect causes them actual distress.
I think most people are fully capable of going with the flow of what their body happens to be and going with the flow and pursuing hobbies they happen to like. I think most people are even open to altering their hobbies a bit to match the common cultural themes.
So long story short, being trans isn't about the cloths they like or the hobbies they like. It has everything to do with how they want to be perceived. They WANT to be perceived as a man and it bothers them when they're perceived as a woman. Looking in the mirror is uncomfortable for them because what they see doesn't match how they feel.
---
If they were perceived in the way they want to be perceived regardless of genitalia would they still be dysphoric?
---
I’m not trans but I’ve asked this question before and was fortunate enough to be received in good faith.
Long story short is: it depends on the kind of trans.
What we call “trans” is actually a blanket term for a variety of dysphoric experiences. For some, it’s like you described; a change in labels and perception is sufficient to make them feel better.
For others, it runs deeper than that. There are some trans people who don’t feel better until they biologically transition; until they “become” men/women in literally every sense. Perception doesn’t help here, because the core problem isn’t how other people see you, it’s your unshakable feeling that your genitalia are just *wrong*. | The female and male brain have physical differences [in utero](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929318301245#!). Would you consider a person with male DNA but a "female brain" male or female?
---
I would consider them a male because I feel like having a penis doesn't require you to have a male brain.
---
So despite that person thinking more like a female would think, you're gonna say they must call themselves a male? | e1uif8 | CMV: Trans people wouldn't exist if it weren't for a society with limiting gender norms. | I think the idea of transgenderism is that your inner person has to match your genitals right? But that perception is based on the idea that the genitals have some bearing on a person's heart or mind at all. We are taught that if you like certain things, its because you have a vagina, and if you dislike those things, you have a penis. People are made to feel bad for not liking things that their genitals prescribe them to like or that they act in a way that their genitals disagrees with. I can see how many years of this conditioning can lead to dysphoria and depression for people who do not conform well with their genitals. Why do you have to have a penis to do "boy things"? I live in a very liberal environment, so I have seen many families that raise children without ever telling them about gender. These kids are homeschooled, so they never hear about it from the media. From what I have seen in these families, the kids do whatever they want no matter what gender it corresponds to, and they don't care about penises or vaginas. They have no problem going by a pronoun that "goes against" the things they like and the way they act, because they have been taught that the pronoun doesn't mean anything about their personality. I know a little boy who wears a tutu and plays with barbies and hangs out with the girls, but he also likes to wrestle and has no problem playing rough with the boys, too. To kids like these, the idea that genitals have anything to do with their personality is ridiculous. They do whatever they want and they are happy because no one tells them they can't do it. I feel like this is what people would be like if we didn't have such a rigid society. I know people may think that this devalues trans people and their dysphoria, but I have no intention of doing that. I am merely saying that maybe dysphoria happens because of oppression, and it is not something that is part of the human experience. After all, why should people naturally suffer by the body they are born in? I think in a world free of oppression and gender norms we all do whatever we want and wear whatever we want and no one gives a fuck about what's in our pants. | nuthanger_farm | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "AnythingApplied",
"id": "f8ruz86",
"score": 9,
"text": "Except the issue is that trans people can't just relax and do things they like, that doesn't really solve anything for them. It has less to do with society as it does with their strong desire to identify as the other gender.\n\nTh... | [
{
"author": "DocCannery84",
"id": "f8rtxvc",
"score": 3,
"text": "The female and male brain have physical differences [in utero](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929318301245#!). Would you consider a person with male DNA but a \"female brain\" male or female?",
"timestamp":... | [
"f8ruz86",
"f8rv5pc",
"f8rvrl0"
] | [
"f8rtxvc",
"f8rtzp9",
"f8ru1fu"
] |
CMV: All relationships are Immoral and meaningful Consent is impossible.
Most of the classic examples of a relationship being wrong relate to a power imbalance, such as teacher/student, employer/employee, and large age gaps. However, there will always be a power differential in all relationships because exact copies of people don't exist. Therefore, all relationships are inherently immoral, it's just a matter of degree. Moreover because of this power imbalance, consent is always at least slightly coercive for one party, rendering it meaningless.
I do not accept that you have to have certain relationships to continue the species because that is the end justifying the means. Ultimately it seems like all sex is a form of violence, and all relationships are some level of coercion.
Please CMV. I imagine I'd be considerably less neurotic if I didn't keep coming back to this belief. | This is only true if you make the assumption that a “power imbalance” is inherently negative, evil or immoral in any and all contexts. Which is such a bafflingly broad requirement that I think every aspect of life falls into it.
Power imbalances are bad when they are abused, not when they exist… which is why things like student/teacher or scenarios where there is a direct power hierarchy at play (such as a teacher being able to fail or pass you in class) are frowned upon. This is assuming a case where both parties are of consenting age but a power imbalance is there.
Honestly I get why power dynamics are brought up sometimes, but some people really do put way too much importance onto them when it comes to personal relationships.
---
>This is only true if you make the assumption that a “power imbalance” is inherently negative, evil or immoral in any and all contexts.
I don't see any way away from this axiom except for perhaps "might makes right" or a reliance on deity to make certain things ok.
---
Does the concept of mutual benefit simply not exist in your moral universe? Why is everything assumed to be oppositional?
If I help up a disabled person from the ground when they trip and fall, is that interaction between the two of us immoral because we have a difference in physical capability, age, economic status, and so on and so forth? Is the tiny expenditure of effort on my part not worth the happiness and gratitude I receive by helping? Is the minor embarrassment of the disabled person not worth accepting the assistance they need to get up rather than remaining on the ground? | Do you only find the sexual dynamic to be immoral or every single action anyone has with another human as being immoral.
---
I do have some vague problems with communication as a form of nonconsensual change (due to neurogenesis, and consent requiring communication) and thus a violation of the self. However I am not prepared to fully articulate that position, so I'm going to state it's primarily the sexual dynamic that causes me distress.
---
What does neurogenesis have to do with communication as a form of nonconsensual change? It feels like you're just stringing together random words. | 1mo64pw | CMV: All relationships are Immoral and meaningful Consent is impossible. | Most of the classic examples of a relationship being wrong relate to a power imbalance, such as teacher/student, employer/employee, and large age gaps. However, there will always be a power differential in all relationships because exact copies of people don't exist. Therefore, all relationships are inherently immoral, it's just a matter of degree. Moreover because of this power imbalance, consent is always at least slightly coercive for one party, rendering it meaningless.
I do not accept that you have to have certain relationships to continue the species because that is the end justifying the means. Ultimately it seems like all sex is a form of violence, and all relationships are some level of coercion.
Please CMV. I imagine I'd be considerably less neurotic if I didn't keep coming back to this belief. | Ok-Buy-4545 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ArCSelkie37",
"id": "n89t5vn",
"score": 7,
"text": "This is only true if you make the assumption that a “power imbalance” is inherently negative, evil or immoral in any and all contexts. Which is such a bafflingly broad requirement that I think every aspect of life falls into it.\n\nPow... | [
{
"author": "nubulator99",
"id": "n89sf5q",
"score": 10,
"text": "Do you only find the sexual dynamic to be immoral or every single action anyone has with another human as being immoral.",
"timestamp": 1754998437
},
{
"author": "Ok-Buy-4545",
"id": "n89srbw",
"score": -1,
"te... | [
"n89t5vn",
"n89v466",
"n89x6y2"
] | [
"n89sf5q",
"n89srbw",
"n89tkvm"
] |
CMV: 1.e4 is NOT the opening that chess beginners should be taught
My reasons why I think this are the following:
1) There are lots and lots of ways that opponents will try to counter, and to play well with e4 you need to know how to play a lot of different openings such as the Caro-Kann, French defence, Sicilian defence (which has lots and lots of different variations to it like the Accelerated dragon, for example), and a lot of e4 e5 styles like the Ruy Lopez, Petrov’s defence, three knights game, the list continues. If you play someone with e4 unprepared to face all of these, you may get a nasty surprise.
2) For the people who say ‘it is the strongest opening so we should teach it’, most chess engines prefer 1.d4 now anyway, and see that as the strongest opening.
3) Teaching openings like Nf3, g3 or c4 can help beginners understand the modern style of chess, and if most of their games will be against other beginners, knowing openings that less beginners will know how to play against can dictate the outcome of the game.
Change my view. | Beginners don't know opening theory all that well. You know, because they are beginners.
It does not matter if your opponent plays a first few moves of Caro-Kann, French defence, Sicilian defense or whatever, they are guaranteed to veer of the theory extremely quickly.
What maters is that the e4 move leads to sharp, open positions which present a lot of opportunity for learning tactical maneuvers (both as an attacker and as a defender). A beginner cannot really begin to properly apply long term strategic concept if they keep losing over tactics.
Playing (and analzying your mistakes) in open games created by the e4 opening is one of the best way to pick up on the tactical component of the game. Which is why it's a good opening for beginners to play.
---
I hadn’t really thought much about that, and I am relatively inexperienced so I’m not sure what to reply- so if you could, why does e4 lead to more sharp positions than say, g3 does? And in an actual game, does this give white any extra advantages? While I understand that this might help learn, does it help win games?
---
e4 lets you move the queen, kingside bishop, doesn't block either knight, can be reinforced with the d or f pawns, and naturally opens up toward a kingside castle. It also gives the kingside knight another place to move. For someone learning to play, this amount of freedom allows for a lot of experimentation, trial-and-error, and can lead you to see *why* the popular openings and defenses are, well popular.
A more robust but also more closed opening leads naturally to a similar opening strategy every time, which in my opinion isn't as good for learning. | Unusual openings are a great strategy to throw more experienced opponents off their game.
Yet in one half one’s games, you not be opening; you will be reacting to another’s opening. Good odds you will be reacting to an e4 opening. Always been the opening I’ve encountered most.
The best way to learn an opening is:
1) To use it
2) To defend against it
The reason e4 is popular is, because a player can reasonably expect to defend against it, so they just automatically start learning how to use it. So they use it, so more people use it.
It’s just a logical place to start learning, because you’re already passively learning about t by defending.
---
Even if you are still learning about it by playing against it, you probably will use only one way to counter it, so you still won’t be prepared for all of their responses- whereas with an opening like g3, although you don’t get a lot of practice playing against it, you only really need to know the main line and the line against d5- which is a lot less than the numerous other lines that you have to know for e4.
And plus, as you said, most people start with it so you are playing into their hands by letting them play with the opening they are strongest with.
---
Would you reccomend g3 as a good one to start with then?
genuinely interested in what a good opening to learn may be for my own sake, rather than sake of argument haha. | 86lnf2 | CMV: 1.e4 is NOT the opening that chess beginners should be taught | My reasons why I think this are the following:
1) There are lots and lots of ways that opponents will try to counter, and to play well with e4 you need to know how to play a lot of different openings such as the Caro-Kann, French defence, Sicilian defence (which has lots and lots of different variations to it like the Accelerated dragon, for example), and a lot of e4 e5 styles like the Ruy Lopez, Petrov’s defence, three knights game, the list continues. If you play someone with e4 unprepared to face all of these, you may get a nasty surprise.
2) For the people who say ‘it is the strongest opening so we should teach it’, most chess engines prefer 1.d4 now anyway, and see that as the strongest opening.
3) Teaching openings like Nf3, g3 or c4 can help beginners understand the modern style of chess, and if most of their games will be against other beginners, knowing openings that less beginners will know how to play against can dictate the outcome of the game.
Change my view. | Ha_Ree | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Hq3473",
"id": "dw60605",
"score": 14,
"text": "Beginners don't know opening theory all that well. You know, because they are beginners.\n\nIt does not matter if your opponent plays a first few moves of Caro-Kann, French defence, Sicilian defense or whatever, they are guaranteed to v... | [
{
"author": "kublahkoala",
"id": "dw5zr4y",
"score": 7,
"text": "Unusual openings are a great strategy to throw more experienced opponents off their game.\n\nYet in one half one’s games, you not be opening; you will be reacting to another’s opening. Good odds you will be reacting to an e4 opening. A... | [
"dw60605",
"dw62q4m",
"dw67a8h"
] | [
"dw5zr4y",
"dw60s4h",
"dw61wt2"
] |
CMV: The US economy is partially a ponzi scheme made possible by the status of the US-dollar as the global currency
So according to the dictionary a *ponzi scheme* is defined as the following:
>a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
I believe that the US economy is partially a ponzi scheme. The US economy is heavily reliant on imports from other countries. Among wealthy countries (GDP per capita = $40,000+) only New Zealand and the Cayman Islands have a higher trade deficit as % of GDP. And[ aside from Italy, Japan and Singapore the United States has the highest debt to gdp ratio of any wealthy, industrialized country in the entire world. ](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country)
The difference in imports vs exports allow Americans to consume at the levels they do. And that is made possible only via debt. A lot of countries own large amounts of dollars as a result of exporting goods to the US. So if the US wants to borrow money they often do so by selling treasury bonds from other countries that typically have a maturity date of 20-30 years and pay annual interest. But then those loans are largely not being paid for via taxes but by recruiting new investors, meaning issuing even more treasury bonds. And those loans once again are not financed via taxes but by issuing even more treasury bonds.
And a lot of those shifts seem to have occured only in recent decades. [From 1870 - 1970 the US actually had an average trade surplus of 1.1%. ](https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2019/05/17/historical-u-s-trade-deficits)Only in recent decades has the US persistently run an ever-increasing trade deficit. [For a long time debt as percentage of GDP seemed to be relatively stable, ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S)then rising at a fairly slow rate from 1980 until 2008 but pretty much skyrocketing post-2008. And while the US government had a fairly balanced budget until around the mid 1970s, [the federal budget deficit has gone through the roof recently.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD)
And since 2020 interest payments on loans taken out by the US government [(bond yields) have gone from just under 1% to now over 4%. ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10)There is a good reason to suspect that this is because investors are losing trust in the US economy and therefore demand higher interest rates. As a result in 2023 annual interest payments for the first time crossed the $1 trillion threshold. This number may soon go even further through the roof if the US continues to rely on ever-larger amounts of debt at ever-higher interest rates.
So in essence this means that the current lifestyles enjoyed by Americans are partially based on a ponzi scheme. Loans are taken out that are then paid off by new loans, which are then paid off by obtaining even larger loans. In the long-term Americans have no other choice but to make significant sacrifices in their lifestyle. Either the US pays back back its creditors via massive tax increases or it can just print money or default on its debt which will massively devalue the dollar and make imports much more expensive.
We can probably make the same argument about other wealthy countries but I wanted to focus mainly on the US here.
The US economy is partially a ponzi scheme, made possibly mainly by the status of the US-dollar as a global currency. | If you don’t mind telling us, who/what are, in your view, the non-existent enterprise, the first investors, and the later investors?
---
That's a bit hard to specify because I don't think the US is an actual ponzi scheme but just partially a ponzi scheme. A somewhat decent analogy would be say you have a company that generates $1million in profits each year before wages. But then each year they pay their employees a combined $1.2 million in wages. So they are actually losing $500,000 each year. And the way they finance that is via loans from investors who believe in the strength of that company. And when they lack money to pay off old investors rather than take wage cuts they take out even higher loans from other investors. But really unless that company somehow starts generating vastly more profits this is not a sustainable scenario. In the long-term this company will have to cut wages to a level that would enable them to be profitable as a business.
---
What you have described is not a “partial” Ponzi scheme. It’s just a normal company. The core part of a Ponzi scheme is that the enterprise **does not** exist. If the enterprise exists, it just isn’t a Ponzi scheme. | a) You don't understand what a ponzi scheme is
b) "the fed is a ponzi scheme" is an old debunked 'theory' from soverign citizen circles. If you're treating them as credible, no amount of logic is going to change your view
US debt and spending being unsustainable is a valid view to have. It has zero to do with a "ponzi scheme", which collapses and screws everyone involved at some point. Higher taxes and lower spending =/= collapse of the US economy
---
That's why am I saying that the US is partially a ponzi scheme. Higher taxes and lower spending do not mean the collapse of the entire US economy but it would mean the collapse of present living standards. Some of the consumption that Americans these days take for granted will at some point inevitable have to collapse. I don't want to get too hung up on the word ponzi scheme But the US economy is kind of like a company generating $1 million in annual profits before wages, but which pays their employees a combined $1.2 million in wages. Part of the employee's wages will be financed via debt, and once they run out of money to pay old loans with they just start taking on even larger loans. So this company pays its employees more than they are worth. Unless they see a signfiicant rise in profits they will eventually start to take pay cuts and as such their employees will have to lower their living standards.
---
What you've described has literally nothing to do with a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes do not involve taking out loans. | 1eedbp3 | CMV: The US economy is partially a ponzi scheme made possible by the status of the US-dollar as the global currency | So according to the dictionary a *ponzi scheme* is defined as the following:
>a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
I believe that the US economy is partially a ponzi scheme. The US economy is heavily reliant on imports from other countries. Among wealthy countries (GDP per capita = $40,000+) only New Zealand and the Cayman Islands have a higher trade deficit as % of GDP. And[ aside from Italy, Japan and Singapore the United States has the highest debt to gdp ratio of any wealthy, industrialized country in the entire world. ](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country)
The difference in imports vs exports allow Americans to consume at the levels they do. And that is made possible only via debt. A lot of countries own large amounts of dollars as a result of exporting goods to the US. So if the US wants to borrow money they often do so by selling treasury bonds from other countries that typically have a maturity date of 20-30 years and pay annual interest. But then those loans are largely not being paid for via taxes but by recruiting new investors, meaning issuing even more treasury bonds. And those loans once again are not financed via taxes but by issuing even more treasury bonds.
And a lot of those shifts seem to have occured only in recent decades. [From 1870 - 1970 the US actually had an average trade surplus of 1.1%. ](https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2019/05/17/historical-u-s-trade-deficits)Only in recent decades has the US persistently run an ever-increasing trade deficit. [For a long time debt as percentage of GDP seemed to be relatively stable, ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S)then rising at a fairly slow rate from 1980 until 2008 but pretty much skyrocketing post-2008. And while the US government had a fairly balanced budget until around the mid 1970s, [the federal budget deficit has gone through the roof recently.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD)
And since 2020 interest payments on loans taken out by the US government [(bond yields) have gone from just under 1% to now over 4%. ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10)There is a good reason to suspect that this is because investors are losing trust in the US economy and therefore demand higher interest rates. As a result in 2023 annual interest payments for the first time crossed the $1 trillion threshold. This number may soon go even further through the roof if the US continues to rely on ever-larger amounts of debt at ever-higher interest rates.
So in essence this means that the current lifestyles enjoyed by Americans are partially based on a ponzi scheme. Loans are taken out that are then paid off by new loans, which are then paid off by obtaining even larger loans. In the long-term Americans have no other choice but to make significant sacrifices in their lifestyle. Either the US pays back back its creditors via massive tax increases or it can just print money or default on its debt which will massively devalue the dollar and make imports much more expensive.
We can probably make the same argument about other wealthy countries but I wanted to focus mainly on the US here.
The US economy is partially a ponzi scheme, made possibly mainly by the status of the US-dollar as a global currency. | RandomGuy92x | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "sgraar",
"id": "lfda3ot",
"score": 15,
"text": "If you don’t mind telling us, who/what are, in your view, the non-existent enterprise, the first investors, and the later investors?",
"timestamp": 1722189529
},
{
"author": "RandomGuy92x",
"id": "lfdd8du",
"score": -6,... | [
{
"author": "Objective_Aside1858",
"id": "lfdb9um",
"score": 51,
"text": "a) You don't understand what a ponzi scheme is\n\n\nb) \"the fed is a ponzi scheme\" is an old debunked 'theory' from soverign citizen circles. If you're treating them as credible, no amount of logic is going to change your vi... | [
"lfda3ot",
"lfdd8du",
"lfdfgpb"
] | [
"lfdb9um",
"lfdepnd",
"lfdibde"
] |
CMV: There is nobody I should root for in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
I am very open to having my view changed on this. I can see the horrors unfolding on the palestinian people, and I would really like to be able to see one side as right and the other as wrong. As it stands, it appears to be far more nuanced than that. To the point where I can’t call either side right. I don’t think Israel is perpetuating a genocide, I think they’re being overly destructive in efforts to root out an actual terrorist organization. Of course the Palestinian people didn’t ask for this, and don’t deserve it, but what do you expect Israel to do, ignore the terrorism? It is incredibly difficult to fight a war when you don’t know where the civilians end and fighters begin. Of course it’s wrong for them to be starving innocent Palestinians, but honestly what the hell else are they supposed to do when facing an active terrorist cell just let it happen? I’ve also seen plenty of reason to believe that Palestine deserves to be independent and are fighting for a good cause, just in all the wrong ways.
Again, I am quite open to having my kind changed either way. I am aware my view is probably flawed and not fully educated, though I have made efforts to learn more. I am struggling to find the correct viewpoint, hence I want it changed. | This all sounds very pro-Israel if I’m being honest. What is it that you actually want to be convinced of?
If there’s truly nobody you should root for in the conflict, then you should be pushing to stop funding both sides. As is, we fund one side up the tits.
---
The only reason it sounds that way is because I’m used to a pretty pro-palestine viewpoint being pushed. As I mentioned at the end I see plenty of valid reasons for them to be fighting as well. I don’t think any money should be poured into this conflict.
---
>I don’t think any money should be poured into this conflict.
What do you mean by this? One side is receiving hellfire missiles and the other side is receiving food aid.
---
I don’t see why we should be taking sides in a conflict without a clear aggressor. It seems morally corrupt and entirely political.
---
There's never a "clear aggressor". Jews resisted violently against the Holocaust, the Chinese against imperial Japan, black slaves against their enslavers.
Ask yourself this, is it moral to be neutral during the Holocaust, slavery, genocide?
---
Ask yourself this. Can you draw connections to unconnected things and use them to prove a point?
---
The connection is that despite all these atrocities having their own violent resistance, it's very clear which side is morally correct and which one is morally wrong.
Sorry, I forgot I have to spell out everything on this site to get a point across.
---
The whole point of this post was that I can’t see which side could possibly me morally correct here. I was hoping you could convince me WHY israel is unjustified here. I see good reason for many actions they’re taking tactically.
---
Wont reply? I’ll just note OP seems to be avoiding addressing the elephant in the room that there is clear evidence of genocide before our eyes that the Israeli state is actively committing genocide against the Palestinian people and OP wants to “both sides” this argument. To be clear, there is no “both sides” in a genocide and OPs silence is clear complicity in this atrocity. | \>I don’t think Israel is perpetuating a genocide
Have you seen before and after images of Gaza? I'm just not sure what you can call it other than a genocide. It's utter and complete annihilation. Gaza no longer exists, for all intents and purposes.
Even if you're willing to accept the argument that Israel is annihilating Gaza to "root out an actual terrorist organization," it's completely indefensible that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians. There's no justification other than intentionally inflicting death and suffering.
If you're defending Netanyahu talking points, you're going to be on the wrong side of history. I promise you that.
---
Israel is not intentionally starving them, they are feeding them. Are Ukrainians feeding Russians? Did Kuwait feed Iraq when Saddam invaded? Why is Israel expected to feed Gaza, and then when they do it, people say they're not doing enough?
---
You seem a bit confused about the situation. Are you under the impression that Palestine invaded Israel?
---
Yes they did that on Oct 7. Even if it's the other way around, is Russia feeding Ukraine, did Iraq feed Kuwait?
---
Replying to UncleTio92...comparing the Israel-Gaza conflict to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is so ignorant. Russia did not occupy Ukraine before the war; Ukraine had autonomy. This is not the case with Israel and Gaza. Israel controls everything that goes into Gaza. Educate yourself a bit
---
They don't control the Egypt border. In any case, Israel is feeding Gaza. Outlets like NYT are manufacturing rage by posting images like the one of the sick kid, while avoiding showing the videos of gangs shooting civilians at aid sites. [Here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/07/hunger-gaza-israel-hamas-blame/) is a great opinion piece with references
---
I’m not creating an account to read a biased “opinion piece”. Israel prevented Egyptian aid trucks from entering Gaza. You sound biased yourself. “Israel is feeding Gaza” - you sure? Why are people dying of starvation then?
---
[removed]
---
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). | 1mluod8 | CMV: There is nobody I should root for in the Israel/Palestine conflict. | I am very open to having my view changed on this. I can see the horrors unfolding on the palestinian people, and I would really like to be able to see one side as right and the other as wrong. As it stands, it appears to be far more nuanced than that. To the point where I can’t call either side right. I don’t think Israel is perpetuating a genocide, I think they’re being overly destructive in efforts to root out an actual terrorist organization. Of course the Palestinian people didn’t ask for this, and don’t deserve it, but what do you expect Israel to do, ignore the terrorism? It is incredibly difficult to fight a war when you don’t know where the civilians end and fighters begin. Of course it’s wrong for them to be starving innocent Palestinians, but honestly what the hell else are they supposed to do when facing an active terrorist cell just let it happen? I’ve also seen plenty of reason to believe that Palestine deserves to be independent and are fighting for a good cause, just in all the wrong ways.
Again, I am quite open to having my kind changed either way. I am aware my view is probably flawed and not fully educated, though I have made efforts to learn more. I am struggling to find the correct viewpoint, hence I want it changed. | Sentient2X | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "spicymemesdotcom",
"id": "n7szlus",
"score": 23,
"text": "This all sounds very pro-Israel if I’m being honest. What is it that you actually want to be convinced of? \n\nIf there’s truly nobody you should root for in the conflict, then you should be pushing to stop funding both sides. ... | [
{
"author": "IMakeMyOwnLunch",
"id": "n7t043w",
"score": 26,
"text": "\\>I don’t think Israel is perpetuating a genocide\n\nHave you seen before and after images of Gaza? I'm just not sure what you can call it other than a genocide. It's utter and complete annihilation. Gaza no longer exists, for al... | [
"n7szlus",
"n7szy2m",
"n7t2npi",
"n7t2v3r",
"n7thpox",
"n7tiflg",
"n7uabx9",
"n7ubdsw",
"n7vkkcg"
] | [
"n7t043w",
"n7t0oab",
"n7t1hev",
"n7t1u3a",
"n7t2jpz",
"n7t3fbm",
"n7t4hte",
"n7t4wyz",
"n7t5dy6"
] |
CMV: Social ambivalence around homos, for instance.
Good morning Reddit,
I live in Seattle. And for good reason. I never expected 2025. And in the final months of 2024, I went through something of a breakdown around the current events of the world, or at least my country as I thought I knew it.
All of this would imply I'm very liberal and quite on board with most of our agendas. If not all, down to passively regarding things that are not really my business outside of the ballot box.
HOWEVER. I'm also phenotypically very much a... well... there's a slur for people like JD Vance, even if it's just in appearance. And after living in Seattle (brimming with passive aggression), I've hit a breaking point. I want my would-be allies (fuck them, by the way) to stop sending people over to Trump. Because if I didn't have a Philosophy degree and organic integrity, I'd be on the verge of a hate crime the way I've been treated... for no reason. Other than things I can't blurt out.
I've had a gay waiter (or whatever pronouns he might've picked if I fell for their bait) verbally assault me (as well as everyone else I watched him with) and refuse to answer questions that were explicitly in the menu for him and me. He was slapping the menu as if to clean/dust it and insult me at the same time. All but literally rubbed in my face. Why? Probably because I resemble a lot of guys who variously beat him up and wouldn't touch him if we were gay. I dunno, I'm trying to make him as sane as possible.
I'll keep this where it is. Are "oppressed" peoples I've supported really entitled to act with such pure bigotry towards me, and I'm supposed to support them, when I'm actually worried about democracy and they're just being the fags trumpers gain support over? TF happened to Will and Grace trying to make progress?
And I've got this for all kinds of demographics. When are people going to stop harming their causes and calling Trump's hate-mongering completely made up?
\[MY POSITION IS: We've made plenty of progress for others if they're willing to flaunt their oppression as a weapon. Let them deal with their own problems, and even (for instance) deport them at the ballot box if you have enough bad experiences\] | Ok so you're mad that a waiter was rude to you and he happens to be gay? I don't get it
---
I can't believe you read all that and missed that that was one fucking example. But I see your point... I must be wrong. And clearly you're a genius. So I'll allow that.
---
Looks like your post was deleted due to the title not saying your view clearly. If you try reposting, maybe try to be clearer in the rest of it too. I found a lot of the phrases you used genuinely incomprehensible or impossibly vague. If people's only takeaway is the anecdote about the gay waiter, consider that nobody understands what you're trying to say in the rest of it! | Am I understanding you right that you look like a trump voter in some fashion? And you've experienced discrimination due to that? And the idea, if not stated perfectly is that left leaning Folks need to stop driving people into the Maga camp solely based on assumptions?
If I am right your post title is incredibly misleading
---
I'll just go ahead and step past your judgments, because they come with question marks. But it's a bit sassy, miss.
Okay.... I'm saying what should be apparent to a cogent mind: The left is deriving the right because the left is all talk and a lot of shit. I believe in the ideas, but gay people, Mexicans and other S. American-born people... As they're being hammered by a single administration, they're messing with all their good will. I've also had a black teenager try to get tough with me. And I literally killed people... in very formidable service. Guy's just convinced he's scary because I'm stupid and white.
And most liberals are just so focused on being perceived a certain way, they don't care if it's bad for everyone. They just want their fucking teenager to give them gold stars for parroting whatever drivel they come up with.
---
People are asking for clarification, not even being rude, and you're responding as if everyone is attacking you, being very rude for no reason. I'm suspecting that your attitude is the main reason you seem to be having all of these issues. I also feel like you aren't exactly being honest with your beliefs here and who you say you are. Personally I work with a lot of black and brown people on the west coast, I am white, and I've literally never had any interactions like the ones you claim to have. This all just seems like some rage bait, or you just have a horrible attitude when interacting with anyone, as evidenced by every reply you've made in this thread, that garners out of the ordinary reactions from people. | 1mo790t | CMV: Social ambivalence around homos, for instance. | Good morning Reddit,
I live in Seattle. And for good reason. I never expected 2025. And in the final months of 2024, I went through something of a breakdown around the current events of the world, or at least my country as I thought I knew it.
All of this would imply I'm very liberal and quite on board with most of our agendas. If not all, down to passively regarding things that are not really my business outside of the ballot box.
HOWEVER. I'm also phenotypically very much a... well... there's a slur for people like JD Vance, even if it's just in appearance. And after living in Seattle (brimming with passive aggression), I've hit a breaking point. I want my would-be allies (fuck them, by the way) to stop sending people over to Trump. Because if I didn't have a Philosophy degree and organic integrity, I'd be on the verge of a hate crime the way I've been treated... for no reason. Other than things I can't blurt out.
I've had a gay waiter (or whatever pronouns he might've picked if I fell for their bait) verbally assault me (as well as everyone else I watched him with) and refuse to answer questions that were explicitly in the menu for him and me. He was slapping the menu as if to clean/dust it and insult me at the same time. All but literally rubbed in my face. Why? Probably because I resemble a lot of guys who variously beat him up and wouldn't touch him if we were gay. I dunno, I'm trying to make him as sane as possible.
I'll keep this where it is. Are "oppressed" peoples I've supported really entitled to act with such pure bigotry towards me, and I'm supposed to support them, when I'm actually worried about democracy and they're just being the fags trumpers gain support over? TF happened to Will and Grace trying to make progress?
And I've got this for all kinds of demographics. When are people going to stop harming their causes and calling Trump's hate-mongering completely made up?
\[MY POSITION IS: We've made plenty of progress for others if they're willing to flaunt their oppression as a weapon. Let them deal with their own problems, and even (for instance) deport them at the ballot box if you have enough bad experiences\] | Bitter_Ingenuity_513 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Concordiat",
"id": "n8a0xk3",
"score": 6,
"text": "Ok so you're mad that a waiter was rude to you and he happens to be gay? I don't get it",
"timestamp": 1755001881
},
{
"author": "Bitter_Ingenuity_513",
"id": "n8a13kk",
"score": -3,
"text": "I can't believe you ... | [
{
"author": "shewski",
"id": "n8a1qz5",
"score": 1,
"text": "Am I understanding you right that you look like a trump voter in some fashion? And you've experienced discrimination due to that? And the idea, if not stated perfectly is that left leaning Folks need to stop driving people into the Mag... | [
"n8a0xk3",
"n8a13kk",
"n8a2i1o"
] | [
"n8a1qz5",
"n8a2yto",
"n8a5jvx"
] |
CMV: No matter what you do, you will never be good enough
There are people that kept on trying and trying yet there will always be those who are better and luckier than they are and even they are surpassed by even greater people in terms of ability and luck.
There are people who always make the same mistake no matter how hard they tried, they just kept on doing the same mistake.
There are people who put a lot of effort into their work, only for it to go in vain and be swept under the rug.
There are people who wanted to prove themselves but are just not able to do so.
There are people who fail miserably simply because they were doomed from the very start.
I've failed so many times to the point where I begin to wonder why am I not even giving up at this point. Why do I kept on going for some impossible goal to reach. This idea has been ingrained in my head so greatly that I now claim it as my Philosophy. Because I kept making the same mistakes over and over again. Even if it somehow works out in the end. I just can't accept defeat but at the same time I've lost so much that all I can expect now is to simply lose.
This view has been ingrained in me and will always be ingrained in me, so I need someone here that could open my eyes or atleast sooth the pain of having such a belief in me. | Good enough for what? Despite what you've written you haven't actually set out what your objectives are or what they mean. If you are not good enough, it's because you're trying to hit a bullseye without aiming.
---
Good enough for things in general. Like those that actually make an impact. Basically like Gods amongst men.
---
There's a huge difference between "things in general" and "gods amongst men". Pick.
---
Sorry, it's just that I loathe myself for being worse than others when it comes to performing in life that I've set such unrealistic goals.
---
How old are you? If you’re young(and this is something I dealt with) you may be comparing yourself against people who have literally had more time to be good at things.
One of my best friends got me into my current career field. This man is younger than me, but he had been studying the career field for 8 years before I had.
Skill is not an immutable set point, it is a stop along a life’s journey. | Have you tried therapy? It tends to work better than random internet strangers.
In any event, what do you mean by 'good enough'? Because you never describe that. Do you think that the only way to be 'good enough' is to be the luckiest, best person in the world?
---
I don't have access to therapy. I have this view because I kept making the same mistakes over and over again like a moron
---
>To me, Good enough basically means being a "Life God" (meaning someone who's good at everything or so many things) if I'm being really honest.
Why is that your goal. Take me through the logic that gets you to Good Enough = Life God
Also you multiple times now have alluded to a 'same mistake.' Can you be a little more specific about what this is
---
Being Stupid, Childish, Not getting as much attention compared to others, Not working on my skills when I was younger, Lashing out and having outburst, etc.
---
That's a bit vague. I read your other answers to get context though. You're 18, highly competitive and think that if you win hard enough you can prove something to yourself and others.
The issue is a fewfold. First without a solid goal 'success' doesn't mean anything. It's an ever expanding goal. If I was a magic wish granting genie and I gave you everything you ever wanted, you would be happy for a bit. Then you would look at all the things you don't have and end up exactly where you are now. I could make you the richest man alive and you'd want to be the richest man who ever lived. If I did that you'd want to amass so much wealth that no one could break your record. And on and on. Same with all goals. Without a clear goal you will always chase the nebulous success till you die.
The second is that you seem to have got it into your head that if someone has more than you that means you did something wrong. The truth is that we all have our opportunities, some more than others. Even if you did everything right you might not be in a place to be the best just cause you lack those opportunites. Many of them can be forced out, many are a result of pure chance. | 1fq82dh | CMV: No matter what you do, you will never be good enough | There are people that kept on trying and trying yet there will always be those who are better and luckier than they are and even they are surpassed by even greater people in terms of ability and luck.
There are people who always make the same mistake no matter how hard they tried, they just kept on doing the same mistake.
There are people who put a lot of effort into their work, only for it to go in vain and be swept under the rug.
There are people who wanted to prove themselves but are just not able to do so.
There are people who fail miserably simply because they were doomed from the very start.
I've failed so many times to the point where I begin to wonder why am I not even giving up at this point. Why do I kept on going for some impossible goal to reach. This idea has been ingrained in my head so greatly that I now claim it as my Philosophy. Because I kept making the same mistakes over and over again. Even if it somehow works out in the end. I just can't accept defeat but at the same time I've lost so much that all I can expect now is to simply lose.
This view has been ingrained in me and will always be ingrained in me, so I need someone here that could open my eyes or atleast sooth the pain of having such a belief in me. | Electromad6326 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Medianmodeactivate",
"id": "lp3a3p6",
"score": 9,
"text": "Good enough for what? Despite what you've written you haven't actually set out what your objectives are or what they mean. If you are not good enough, it's because you're trying to hit a bullseye without aiming.",
"timestamp... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "lp3a2n6",
"score": 20,
"text": "Have you tried therapy? It tends to work better than random internet strangers.\n\nIn any event, what do you mean by 'good enough'? Because you never describe that. Do you think that the only way to be 'good enough' is to be the luckie... | [
"lp3a3p6",
"lp3amhy",
"lp3asjj",
"lp3buif",
"lp3dodm"
] | [
"lp3a2n6",
"lp3a7zc",
"lp3b1rh",
"lp3c5i7",
"lp3i5bp"
] |
CMV: Why change the look and feel of something unless it is functional? It just makes the person or object feel wrong to me.
Bear with me now i know its wierd but for example mods or customisation in games, unless i dont care for the object or person i really can't bring myself to change the look of the person or weapons because it takes away the work done for the character design (yes i understand the other cosmetics have the same work done to them) but what about canonically or narratively speaking the object or person wears that outfit and uses that aesthetic of weapons because the character wants it to be that way.
Changing any of the look just seems very wrong and breaks immersion and i cant seem to change it.
Okay the example was more media focused but lets put a different perspective cars, planes, phones, and product in general i do not care and will change the looks of because they are sold as a product and the designers created different schemes of designs and palettes of colours for the customers to choose, it doesn't feel wrong to edit because the designers allow it so (while game developers do allow this a person or object was designed to have a certain symbolism a certain character or iconic feel to it).
For example play a deadpool game and customisation of suit and weapon colour and design is allowed and provided to players, does deadpool feel the same if you changed his suit to be pink or blue, instead of spandex he uses leather padded armor, instead of katanas he uses a medieval sword instead of his twin pistols he uses a world war 2 Luger. Yes I know it is still deadpool inside, same character and personality but why change how he looks that way it just feels different and betrays the design and vision of the character and object.
In contrast if it was more loose and more of a themed icon then i would be okay such as Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 he doesnt have a specific clothes set that defines him or makes him memorable as long as he wears cowboy looking outfit and his face is still visible and voice still recognisable then its still Arthur Morgan and not a betrayal to the design.
And lastly if it is functional then yes makes sense and doesn't feel traitorous to the design if the player puts a scope on a gun because the character needed the accuracy or adding a muzzle brake or something unless it is a iconic object that is narratively set as specified and cannot be changed unless the iconic-ism would be lost. Lightsabers wouldnt be the samr if it was now transparent or Solid metal covered in plasma, Dante's dual guns wouldn't be the same if he used dual glocks instead of the dual 1911s.
So please give me reasons, convince me why changing the look of an object or person can be changed? | The point of video games is to have fun/to entertain you (in the case of games like Dark Souls, where apparently some people enjoy the virtual equivalent of getting punched in the stomach over and over, but I digress).
I personally find that particular cosmetic changes can significantly improve my enjoyment of a game. The most recent example of this that I can think of is *The Outer Worlds*, which I am currently playing, but this particular note also applies to the *Fallout* series (and *The Elder Scrolls* to a lesser extent). TOW and Fallout both have atmospheres of a kind of nihilistic ridiculousness. There's a wacky-yet-bleak retro-future vibe to them. The games can be taken seriously, or they can be taken as satire, or a mix of both.
Although in these games there are clear "in-world" aesthetic choices (Vault Jumpsuit with armor mods, or standard trooper armor), I personally prefer my characters to look ridiculous. In TOW, I am currently wearing ridiculous hot pink heavy armor and carrying the biggest wackiest gun I can find. In *Fallout 4*, I almost always utilize the most ridiculous costumes (Grognak the Barbarian suit, anyone?). I do this because it brings me immense joy to hear my character engage in serious discussions while essentially wearing a loincloth and carrying a giant rocket-powered sledgehammer. That genuinely adds to the game for me.
My point is that while in some games for many people it can be perfectly enjoyable to stay in the setting, for others the most fun comes from taking everything to the extreme and really breaking the aesthetic. Both are perfectly acceptable, and it's all about how you have fun.
---
Ooh i just finished outer worlds Great game, While i do understand and agree to an extent F4, skyrim, outer worlds give you a blank slate character YOU nake your own character thus your own outfit its vastly different from lets say immersive sims such as dishonored 2, deus ex Human revolution and mankind divided and so on you cant change the looks (eventhough you can is deus ex case) because it will remove the iconic feel of a character, adam jenses looks wierd without his implant glasses and trenchcoat, Corvo without his mask and soon.
Good points but not enough for a view change, good try though i like the MY experience point very nice.
---
I used Fallout and TOW as examples because they are the most obvious and uncontroversial examples of what I'm talking about.
Why couldn't the arguments I made also apply to Dishonored 2, Deus Ex, or any other game? Why is it wrong for somebody to find enjoyment in flouting the aesthetic of the game?
---
While yes i wouldn't ban it or anything if they enjoy it go ahead. But what i want to highlight is it still the same feeling same respect for the developers(to an extent). Because of its deviation from its original looks
---
When developers include cosmetic options, you're not disrespecting them at all when you use them. They put them there so that you could have fun customising your appearance. If no one used them, they'd probably feel like their efforts were a waste. Character creation and customisation is actually some really difficult stuff to get working. They didn't put it in there for no reason. | If the designers put the effort into providing those options, aren't you by extension taking away their work by not utilizing some of the features of the game?
---
!delta
That's a really good point. I was having a hard time coming up with a defense
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sawdeanz ([30∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sawdeanz)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | e1h6te | CMV: Why change the look and feel of something unless it is functional? It just makes the person or object feel wrong to me. | Bear with me now i know its wierd but for example mods or customisation in games, unless i dont care for the object or person i really can't bring myself to change the look of the person or weapons because it takes away the work done for the character design (yes i understand the other cosmetics have the same work done to them) but what about canonically or narratively speaking the object or person wears that outfit and uses that aesthetic of weapons because the character wants it to be that way.
Changing any of the look just seems very wrong and breaks immersion and i cant seem to change it.
Okay the example was more media focused but lets put a different perspective cars, planes, phones, and product in general i do not care and will change the looks of because they are sold as a product and the designers created different schemes of designs and palettes of colours for the customers to choose, it doesn't feel wrong to edit because the designers allow it so (while game developers do allow this a person or object was designed to have a certain symbolism a certain character or iconic feel to it).
For example play a deadpool game and customisation of suit and weapon colour and design is allowed and provided to players, does deadpool feel the same if you changed his suit to be pink or blue, instead of spandex he uses leather padded armor, instead of katanas he uses a medieval sword instead of his twin pistols he uses a world war 2 Luger. Yes I know it is still deadpool inside, same character and personality but why change how he looks that way it just feels different and betrays the design and vision of the character and object.
In contrast if it was more loose and more of a themed icon then i would be okay such as Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 he doesnt have a specific clothes set that defines him or makes him memorable as long as he wears cowboy looking outfit and his face is still visible and voice still recognisable then its still Arthur Morgan and not a betrayal to the design.
And lastly if it is functional then yes makes sense and doesn't feel traitorous to the design if the player puts a scope on a gun because the character needed the accuracy or adding a muzzle brake or something unless it is a iconic object that is narratively set as specified and cannot be changed unless the iconic-ism would be lost. Lightsabers wouldnt be the samr if it was now transparent or Solid metal covered in plasma, Dante's dual guns wouldn't be the same if he used dual glocks instead of the dual 1911s.
So please give me reasons, convince me why changing the look of an object or person can be changed? | theassassin53035 | 5 | 3 | [
{
"author": "I_am_the_night",
"id": "f8p2hwt",
"score": 5,
"text": "The point of video games is to have fun/to entertain you (in the case of games like Dark Souls, where apparently some people enjoy the virtual equivalent of getting punched in the stomach over and over, but I digress).\n\nI personal... | [
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"id": "f8p90xz",
"score": 2,
"text": "If the designers put the effort into providing those options, aren't you by extension taking away their work by not utilizing some of the features of the game?",
"timestamp": 1574697654
},
{
"author": "Red-deddit",
"id": "... | [
"f8p2hwt",
"f8p3r4s",
"f8p55fd",
"f8pbgbe",
"f8pjnef"
] | [
"f8p90xz",
"f9j18mm",
"f9j19g9"
] |
CMV: the entire UFO, "flying saucer," etc thing is entirely made up. These types of aircraft do not exist at all, either as alien of military spacecraft. All UFOs are just regular objects, like balloons, that people didn't know how to identify.
The topic of strange, supposedly advanced aircraft has been in popular culture for some time. People have reported seeing "flying saucers" and other disc shaped or triangular shaped aircraft for at least 70 years. However, there has never been any evidence that these things have ever existed.
Everyone has access to a digital camera at all times, but the only "UFO" videos on YouTube are typically blurry and difficult to confirm, or later revealed to be something known like Elon Musk's Starlink satellite. Furthermore, many of the claims made about these craft are impossible given our knowledge of physics, such as accelerating to tremendous speeds near-instantly without causing any kind of sonic boom.
So, my view is, the entire thing is fake. All "UFOs" that exist are simply regular objects that the viewer was simply unable to identify, not any kind of advanced spacecraft.
So CMV! I am mostly looking for reasons why I *should* perhaps think that something interesting is happening with this, because I have never been convinced previously. | Firstly UFO's absolutely exist (the Nimitz "Tic Tac" for example) and there are just stacks and stacks of reports from competent and reliable people who have seen them (forces members, pilots, police officers, etc.). So the idea that there are no unidentified flying objects is incorrect.
But are they advanced spacecraft? Here we run into a different problem, since we have few videos and the ones we do have are generally low quality (ATC/tower videos from airports, the gimbal camera from the Nimitz footage, etc.) we can't for sure say that whatever these things are are definitely spacecraft. But would we be able to identify them even if we saw one given the claims made about these craft and our knowledge of physics? We wouldn't even be cavemen identifying rockets on this, we'd be cavemen identifying computers.
At the least you should be agnostic on this given the scores of reputable eye-witness reports and video from unimpeachable sources. If every instance of UFO sightings was something explainable we'd still be unable to explain why so many of them appear to act in ways that defy our current understanding of physics. So yes, we can discount 95% of UFO cases but as with anything it's the 5% we cannot explain that make it truly interesting.
---
There’s also this from 1952
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident | I do not believe marshins or alien life have visited earth in the timeframe that humanity has been in habitat. However, The United States Air Force has conceptually experimented with dish shaped flying vehicles as far back as 1950. I believe that much of the alleged UFO sightings were merely unknowing witness accounts to experimental aircraft research.
Arguably, modern drones are skeletal flying saucers. Just add skin.
https://www.military.com/video/space-technology/spacecraft/us-air-force-tests-flying-saucer/3943489006001
---
Wow, that's really interesting! I hadn't seen that. I guess the main thing is - do you really think are the "flying saucers" that people were seeing? I mean, sure, it isn't that difficult to believe that the Air Force did, at some point, toy with the idea of a craft that is circularly shaped in some sense. But the so-called flying saucers are claimed to have features like, being able to go to space, accelerating near-instantly to multiple G's, etc, that far exceed what is in the video. The video shows mostly a small "hovercraft" type machine that happens to be shaped like a circle and uses conventional propulsion. Is there any evidence that the Air Force ever deployed these en masse or went beyond than this video?
I guess this is like a "semi-delta" - I really didn't expect to see this, but this video does seem pretty far from the usual claims about the supposed saucer-type craft... | iqa5kg | CMV: the entire UFO, "flying saucer," etc thing is entirely made up. These types of aircraft do not exist at all, either as alien of military spacecraft. All UFOs are just regular objects, like balloons, that people didn't know how to identify. | The topic of strange, supposedly advanced aircraft has been in popular culture for some time. People have reported seeing "flying saucers" and other disc shaped or triangular shaped aircraft for at least 70 years. However, there has never been any evidence that these things have ever existed.
Everyone has access to a digital camera at all times, but the only "UFO" videos on YouTube are typically blurry and difficult to confirm, or later revealed to be something known like Elon Musk's Starlink satellite. Furthermore, many of the claims made about these craft are impossible given our knowledge of physics, such as accelerating to tremendous speeds near-instantly without causing any kind of sonic boom.
So, my view is, the entire thing is fake. All "UFOs" that exist are simply regular objects that the viewer was simply unable to identify, not any kind of advanced spacecraft.
So CMV! I am mostly looking for reasons why I *should* perhaps think that something interesting is happening with this, because I have never been convinced previously. | nothingtoseeherelol | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "boyraceruk",
"id": "g4qhnaj",
"score": 2,
"text": "Firstly UFO's absolutely exist (the Nimitz \"Tic Tac\" for example) and there are just stacks and stacks of reports from competent and reliable people who have seen them (forces members, pilots, police officers, etc.). So the idea that ... | [
{
"author": "LoopsAndBoars",
"id": "g4qd2ff",
"score": 3,
"text": "I do not believe marshins or alien life have visited earth in the timeframe that humanity has been in habitat. However, The United States Air Force has conceptually experimented with dish shaped flying vehicles as far back as 1950. I... | [
"g4qhnaj",
"g4qi4ed"
] | [
"g4qd2ff",
"g4qjx6q"
] |
CMV: The proposed European Super League will be a bad thing for football, making competition less exciting, raising costs for fans and permanently preventing smaller clubs from succeeding
Yesterday, [it was announced](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811) that 12 of the larger football clubs in Europe were forming a breakaway competition, the European Super League (ESL).
The competition would take place in midweek, replacing for these clubs the slots occupied by the Champions League (CL) and the Europa League (EL).
The 'founder members' of the competition would gain permanent access, removing the requirement to qualify via domestic performance that currently exists for the CL and EL.
A very small number of other teams will be able to qualify for the ESL, bringing total participation to around 20.
The outcome of this development will be, in my view:
1. Devaluation of the importance of the domestic league competitions, local rivalries and historic fixtures
2. Worsening of the financial polarisation of European football, with the richest clubs getting richer and no access to that top tier - even theoretically - for smaller clubs
3. Disconnection between these large clubs and their core fan base, both locally and internationally, in favour of 'brand consumers'
I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this, and honestly the above is basically the consensus view. But, I'd like to be wrong.
To be clear: what I think is important is preserving and improving the excitement and interest of fans in top level competition, and a large part of this is driven by the concept of rare 'big games' where your team has progressed by merit to the late stages of a major competition, PLUS the idea that smaller clubs can still succeed (like Leicester winning the English league a few years ago). | Let's face it: the top 15 club in Europe (so the 12 + Bayern, Dortmund and PSG) have already taken power:
* 90% of semifinalist of CL in the last 15 years belong to this top 15
* 100% of finalist of CL in the last 15 years belong to this top 15
* 46/48 national champions in the last 10 years in Liga, Serie A, Premier League, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga belong to this top 15
Domestic leagues are already devaluated with limited interest due to far too big difference of budget and the CL is already almost a closed league dominated by those wealthy club because of
My point is that I totally understand anyone stating that they hate this vision of soccer dominated by money where small clubs don't stand a chance but it has already happened. So yes once every 25 years we can get a Leicester type of victory or we can get in CL a club like Ajax managing to win a few games and going to semi once every 4-5 years but the reality is that it wouldn't even change that much with the Super league format and people are getting angry at something that is already there.
---
> Let's face it: the top 15 club in Europe (so the 12 + Bayern, Dortmund and PSG) have already taken power:
I agree all of this is bad. But I don't see how going further down this road would be anything other than worse.
---
Imo, they should go a step further and just leave entirely. Those teams drive the arms race that has devolved domestic leagues into revenue-thirsty, outside investment-dependent entities. Domestic Leagues can go back to being grassroots orgs and we can stop convincing ourselves that qualifying for Europa is a huge success because we've internalized that most teams don't have a hope in hell of winning their league. | [removed]
---
r/iamverysmart
---
How am I trying to look smart 🤣🤣 just an observation fuck nugget... Why don't you go and shout/beat people up with your little hard man pals? | mu184k | CMV: The proposed European Super League will be a bad thing for football, making competition less exciting, raising costs for fans and permanently preventing smaller clubs from succeeding | Yesterday, [it was announced](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811) that 12 of the larger football clubs in Europe were forming a breakaway competition, the European Super League (ESL).
The competition would take place in midweek, replacing for these clubs the slots occupied by the Champions League (CL) and the Europa League (EL).
The 'founder members' of the competition would gain permanent access, removing the requirement to qualify via domestic performance that currently exists for the CL and EL.
A very small number of other teams will be able to qualify for the ESL, bringing total participation to around 20.
The outcome of this development will be, in my view:
1. Devaluation of the importance of the domestic league competitions, local rivalries and historic fixtures
2. Worsening of the financial polarisation of European football, with the richest clubs getting richer and no access to that top tier - even theoretically - for smaller clubs
3. Disconnection between these large clubs and their core fan base, both locally and internationally, in favour of 'brand consumers'
I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this, and honestly the above is basically the consensus view. But, I'd like to be wrong.
To be clear: what I think is important is preserving and improving the excitement and interest of fans in top level competition, and a large part of this is driven by the concept of rare 'big games' where your team has progressed by merit to the late stages of a major competition, PLUS the idea that smaller clubs can still succeed (like Leicester winning the English league a few years ago). | joopface | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Galious",
"id": "gv31s0f",
"score": 3,
"text": "Let's face it: the top 15 club in Europe (so the 12 + Bayern, Dortmund and PSG) have already taken power:\n\n* 90% of semifinalist of CL in the last 15 years belong to this top 15\n* 100% of finalist of CL in the last 15 years belong to th... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gv3q3xa",
"score": 0,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1618852626
},
{
"author": "joopface",
"id": "gv3r5wx",
"score": 2,
"text": "r/iamverysmart",
"timestamp": 1618853057
},
{
"author": "Competitive_Sun831",
"id": "gv3rcpy",
... | [
"gv31s0f",
"gv32f7i",
"gv3as2y"
] | [
"gv3q3xa",
"gv3r5wx",
"gv3rcpy"
] |
CMV: Palestine is the victim. A modern day genocide is being committed against them.
Ok. Based on all that I've read, which may of course be biased based on my own ideological leaning, Palestine seems to be the victim here. Arguably, they may not be saints, but it seems like Israel is generally the aggressor.
However! There is huge public opinion in the opposite direction too. So I come here with an open mind, to learn more and change my view on what I'm sure is a nuanced matter.
I would be happy to change my mind if given some viewpoints that justify Israel's behaviour and show that both parties are at fault. Of course killing of innocent people is never justifiable, but if you have any evidence or viewpoint that shows that Israel is acting in self defence, or proportionally to the Hamas attack, or actually anything in general in support of Israels position, I will be willing to change my mind.
Will be active and engage here for the next few hours, maybe a day or so. | Hamas literally ran in and is killing innocent people on purpose. Live streamed it on the internet. Used the victims phones to send their families videos of them killing them . Parading sexually assaulted victims on cars . The Israeli children they butchered have to sleep inside their homes bomb shelters every single night because hamas bombs them so indiscriminately. Hamas knew this when they attacked and killed the children who were hiding in there.
Hamas also uses civilians as shields to hide their actions and make any retaliation look worst . They hide in and by hospitals. Civilian homes and by press organization buildings .
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/
The Palestinians are victims of Hamas , they don't like them and no one should. Hamas has been using their bodies as a shield forever now. Not to mention they use threats to hide their crimes
Hamas also uses incendiary ballots that they propel across the boarder , these explode or burn to cause damage to people or even cause wild fires. These bombs have also found their way into Israeli school yards .
Or how about this
Hamas planned killing of young children, secret documents reveal
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/14/hamas-attack-kibbutz-children-gaza-kfar-saad/
The fact Israel needs to even have the iron dome constantly is a statement enough of how much they are attacked .
---
This reminds me of the aggressive resistance that several (if not all) colonised countries mounted against the colonisers. Yes there was aggression on both sides, but it's hard to say that the people whose land was being occupied were the "aggressors".
For example, without doubt, British civilians were killed in the independence struggle around the world. The question really comes down to: is Israel a colonial occupier of the Palestinian land?
---
Jews have always lived in Israel. Actual colonizers include Arabs, the British, Ottomans and Romans.
---
Correct me if I'm wrong. But as per my knowledge the current population of Jews that comprise of Israel are very recent settlers to the land?
---
70% of the jews in Israel today are descended from 2 groups:
1) Have lived there for millenia
2) Were forcibly expelled from ALL Arab nations in 47/48, who had their property stolen from them without compensation in most Arab states.
~30% are descended from the Holocaust (with some immigration happening to/from America regularly as well since the state’s inception). | "Genocide"
"Ethnic cleansing"
"Victims"
Words used to describe the Palestinian condition under Israeli rule. Despite Gaza not being under occupation for the past 18 years. Despite the Palestinian insistance on voting for corrupt, explicitly genocidal organizations who demonstrate their evil intentions. Despite Palestinian population multiplying under Israeli rule.
Meanwhile the Arab world had committed true ethnic cleansing on a global scale against the Jews. There are pracyically 0 Jews in Arab countries. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs who enjoy equal rights under the law.
Palestinians are victims, of their own leaders who keep selling them a fool's errand of "the destruction of Israel" and "from the river to the sea". Hamas' charter explicitly calls for the murder of all Jews worldwide and they have demonstrated their genocidal intentions on oct 7th. Yasser Arafat had 6 billion dollars in various bank accounts when he died. I'm still waiting for global Arab leaders to instruct Hamas to lay down their arms in an unconditional surrender and give up their genocidal cause.
On oct 7th Hamas in a cowerdly terrorist attack committed atrocities against Israeli civilians in a surprize attack. They started this war. The blood of Palestinians is on their hands.
---
> despite Palestinian insistence on voting for corrupt, explicitly genocide all organisations
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the last Palestinian election in 2005?
Furthermore doesn’t Hamas actively disrupt attempts at elections with voter suppression?
---
Being technically correct is the worst type of coeerct.
Gaza has voted for Ham Ass in 2006 and since then has shown 0 attempts at overthrowing them. The PLO distrupted attemts at elections because they are afraid of Ham Ass.
The PLO charter also calls for the destruction of Israel and Arafat himself called Oslo accords the "Khudeiba agreement" a term coined when Muhammad made peace with a strong Jewish tribe just to murder them all in a surprise attack.
When Palestinians give up their murderous cause there will be peace.
---
> being technically correct is the worst type of correct
And yet is still better than being incorrect
> and since then has shown 0 attempts at overthrowing them
So we’ve gone from Palestinians being insistent on voting for certain figures to them simply not overthrowing them.
Someone not overthrowing the government doesn’t mean that they are insistent on having that government.
Furthermore Hamas didn’t even win a majority in the 2006 legislative election, they got 45% with their main opposition getting 42% and the remains votes spread around other parties.
The idea that Palestinians are just insistent on voting for Hamas is just wrong and only acts to vilify an entire nation.
---
As Ive explained, its not just Ham Ass. The PLO is also explicitly calling for the destruction of Israel, and those are by far the two largest factions.
Also, you speaking to the minutia of details instead of looking at the grand theme shows me the seriousness of which you lack. | 17lymm4 | CMV: Palestine is the victim. A modern day genocide is being committed against them. | Ok. Based on all that I've read, which may of course be biased based on my own ideological leaning, Palestine seems to be the victim here. Arguably, they may not be saints, but it seems like Israel is generally the aggressor.
However! There is huge public opinion in the opposite direction too. So I come here with an open mind, to learn more and change my view on what I'm sure is a nuanced matter.
I would be happy to change my mind if given some viewpoints that justify Israel's behaviour and show that both parties are at fault. Of course killing of innocent people is never justifiable, but if you have any evidence or viewpoint that shows that Israel is acting in self defence, or proportionally to the Hamas attack, or actually anything in general in support of Israels position, I will be willing to change my mind.
Will be active and engage here for the next few hours, maybe a day or so. | Educational-Fruit-16 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "kingkellogg",
"id": "k7hdx67",
"score": 30,
"text": "Hamas literally ran in and is killing innocent people on purpose. Live streamed it on the internet. Used the victims phones to send their families videos of them killing them . Parading sexually assaulted victims on cars . The Israeli... | [
{
"author": "MuskyScent972",
"id": "k7hd9g0",
"score": 26,
"text": "\"Genocide\"\n\"Ethnic cleansing\"\n\"Victims\"\nWords used to describe the Palestinian condition under Israeli rule. Despite Gaza not being under occupation for the past 18 years. Despite the Palestinian insistance on voting for co... | [
"k7hdx67",
"k7hj0x4",
"k7hk2v8",
"k7hkcr5",
"k7hqoi6"
] | [
"k7hd9g0",
"k7hdrg9",
"k7hefyy",
"k7hf6e2",
"k7hfh3l"
] |
CMV: A Business Degree is Useless
So this post is going to come off as really offensive to a lot of you who have business degrees and I totally understand, but please keep in mind that this subreddit is for people who are willing to change their minds.
First and foremost, I am an engineering student. It is a common stereotype that we think we are better than everyone and that engineering degrees are the most valuable bachelors degree one can get (I think this is true, but I will save that for another CMV post). I hold STEM degrees in high regard because I feel, in my personal opinion, that STEM degrees will contribute the most in the world we live in. Once again, that is for another CMV.
So let's talk about business degrees. I think a business degree is useless. Why? Well for one, you don't need a business degree to start a business. I know, that is a very obvious reason. A vast amount of entrepreneurs made millions without a degree of any kind, although they were somewhat lucky:
(http://www.businessinsider.com/top-100-entrepreneurs-who-made-millions-without-a-college-degree-2011-1).
Business degrees are over saturated. There are too many business majors out there and I have met a lot of business majors that work in retail or restaurants (not as a manager most of the time). A lot of business majors are working entry level jobs. Jobs that don't need a degree at all, such as being a server at a restraunt or working retail. I have met many business majors while working restraunt and retail jobs.
The unemployment rate of business majors is high. Like as high as a drama/theater majors (http://fortune.com/2013/08/22/picking-a-college-major-in-the-fall-dont-choose-business/).
So why major in business? Most business owners I have met in life either did not have a business degree, or had another degree that was not related to business. A business degree is just not a good investment. Change my view!
Articles backing up my points:
http://fortune.com/2013/08/22/picking-a-college-major-in-the-fall-dont-choose-business/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-graduate-job-ready-skills-dont-major-business-jeff-selingo
http://business.time.com/2012/01/10/why-a-business-major-is-no-longer-the-ticket/
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2014/11/3-reasons-not-to-major-in-business
**EDIT 1** - I should have been clear, but I am only referring to Business Administration and MBA degrees, not finance, marketing, and accounting. Finance, marketing, and accounting have decent employment rates when compared to business administration. | Engineering degrees deal a lot with business I would think you would have more respect for it.
STEM is great for R&D but when it comes to sales and business management its nice to have someone that specializes in that plenty companies built around good products have fallen because they didn't run their business well.
---
> Engineering degrees deal a lot with business I would think you would have more respect for it.
Its not that I disrespect business degrees per say, its just that at my school (a tier 1 university in the US), the business majors are the ones that party a lot or are usually involved in frats/sororites while engineering majors have to work constantly to get good grades.
I have a personal bias as well. I have two family friends who are really well establish business people that happened to major in engineering. They originally majored in engineering, and then became really success in their business. So it seems like a business major is not getting any insider knowledge on being successful compared to a non business major. Like I said, this post comes off as offensive and I apologize, but this is how I really look at it. I don't look at only business this way, but other "high unemployment majors" like philosophy, history, English, ect. No offense of course.
---
Getting an MBA at a top university is more about networking than coursework. Also a lot of engineers lack the social skills required to manage a business or to make a sale, which matters the same if not more than being able to develop a product.
Source: Am mechanical engineer (MSME), think Im better than everyone else, and currently doing an MBA because its one of the few ways to break the salary glass ceiling in the corporate world.
You will do well to network with these business students because, if you ever want to become an entrepreneur; they well serve you much better than another engineer. | I'm a computer information systems students and that's the most sought after degree in America currently for work positions with every business chomping at the bit for great CIS students to join their business.... so I'm not sure how you can even say this.
I literally found an internship for a company and they're offering to sign me for hire after college with a huge starting bonus and I hardly had to try to get that opportunity. (Don't get my wrong I'm honored and extremely excited for it!)
I just don't think you have enough context in your argument to make such a blanket statement sense business is a very vague term... you can major in CIS like me, or management, finance, accounting, marketing, international business, operational science.. to name a few.
---
> you can major in CIS like me, or management, finance, accounting, marketing, international business, operational science.. to name a few
read my edit....
---
I don't think your edit is valid because for an MBA program you have to learn parts of all those subjects | 5s5td6 | CMV: A Business Degree is Useless | So this post is going to come off as really offensive to a lot of you who have business degrees and I totally understand, but please keep in mind that this subreddit is for people who are willing to change their minds.
First and foremost, I am an engineering student. It is a common stereotype that we think we are better than everyone and that engineering degrees are the most valuable bachelors degree one can get (I think this is true, but I will save that for another CMV post). I hold STEM degrees in high regard because I feel, in my personal opinion, that STEM degrees will contribute the most in the world we live in. Once again, that is for another CMV.
So let's talk about business degrees. I think a business degree is useless. Why? Well for one, you don't need a business degree to start a business. I know, that is a very obvious reason. A vast amount of entrepreneurs made millions without a degree of any kind, although they were somewhat lucky:
(http://www.businessinsider.com/top-100-entrepreneurs-who-made-millions-without-a-college-degree-2011-1).
Business degrees are over saturated. There are too many business majors out there and I have met a lot of business majors that work in retail or restaurants (not as a manager most of the time). A lot of business majors are working entry level jobs. Jobs that don't need a degree at all, such as being a server at a restraunt or working retail. I have met many business majors while working restraunt and retail jobs.
The unemployment rate of business majors is high. Like as high as a drama/theater majors (http://fortune.com/2013/08/22/picking-a-college-major-in-the-fall-dont-choose-business/).
So why major in business? Most business owners I have met in life either did not have a business degree, or had another degree that was not related to business. A business degree is just not a good investment. Change my view!
Articles backing up my points:
http://fortune.com/2013/08/22/picking-a-college-major-in-the-fall-dont-choose-business/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-graduate-job-ready-skills-dont-major-business-jeff-selingo
http://business.time.com/2012/01/10/why-a-business-major-is-no-longer-the-ticket/
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2014/11/3-reasons-not-to-major-in-business
**EDIT 1** - I should have been clear, but I am only referring to Business Administration and MBA degrees, not finance, marketing, and accounting. Finance, marketing, and accounting have decent employment rates when compared to business administration. | coulombsvector | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "ddcn729",
"score": 2,
"text": "Engineering degrees deal a lot with business I would think you would have more respect for it. \n\nSTEM is great for R&D but when it comes to sales and business management its nice to have someone that specializes in that plenty companies... | [
{
"author": "Lolsgod",
"id": "ddcpxr4",
"score": 2,
"text": "I'm a computer information systems students and that's the most sought after degree in America currently for work positions with every business chomping at the bit for great CIS students to join their business.... so I'm not sure how you c... | [
"ddcn729",
"ddcoqwf",
"ddcrown"
] | [
"ddcpxr4",
"ddcpzvg",
"ddcq4re"
] |
CMV: All Police Should Have Body Cams and The Tapes Should Be Publically Available Next Day
Every police officer should have a body cam on their person during their shifts, the cameras should be running the entire time they are on duty, and the unedited unabridged footage should be uploaded to a cloud server and available immediately or the next day at the latest. We shouldn't have to wait until September to see what happened in an incident back in March. The police are public servants and should not be doing anything questionable on duty that they wouldn't want people to see. If a police officer is arresting someone in public it is your constitutional right to film the interaction, provided you don't interfere with the arrest. The same logic should be applied to the rest of their time on duty. It should be filmed and publically available immediately. I know this view isn't perfect and I would like to hear the corner cases for why certain aspects of this should be different or modified. From where I sit as of making this post, if you are okay with officers not being extremely transparent with their actions then you are okay with them doing morally, ethically, or legally wrong things in the regular course of their duties. Please, change my view. Is there any reason police either shouldn't be recorded when working or the unedited footage shouldn't be available almost immediately.
UPDATE:: This has been largely successful in evolving my view. I have changed these aspects of my view:: Police should still be recorded all the time when on duty in order to have evidence of misconduct and to discourage misconduct. The release of footage should only be that which is relevant to alleged police misconduct. Remaining footage should be stored when it pertains to investigations of those the police have interacted with. (So like traffic stops, criminal pursuits, investigating a crime scene, interviewing witnesses or alleged criminals) A board of elected civilians would review any footage that has been flagged for review. Flagged conditions would be things like alleged police misconduct, any footage from incidents where people police have interacted with have been injured or killed (whether by police or others at the scene), footage from police finding drugs on a person with no drugs in the system or a history of drug use or drug sales, any interaction police have with protests or protesters, and other conditions I haven't thought of but would be into question if police accounts need to be verified by the body cam footage. Individuals rights to privacy is a concern, so the public version of released footage (which again is only for flagged footage) could be either delayed until after an investigation or have faces, naked bodies, graphic wounds, etc censored to respect people's privacy. | Sometimes I ask police officers to ride in my ambulance. Do you feel the "constitutional right to film police" takes precedence over a patient's right to medical privacy?
Also, where in the constitution does it say you can record police? Did the authors of the constitution have any concept of a video recording?
---
It's permitted through the 1st and 4th Amendments, per [Glik v. Cunniffe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe) and similar decisions in other Circuits. | [deleted]
---
Alright. I could modify the timing aspect of my argument. I know I definitely would be pissed if my loved one was killed by a police officer and it took almost half a year to get the body cam footage to attempt to hold the officer accountable. Maybe a civilian review board that would review the footage and then release it if it doesn't interfere with a current investigation, has footage of victims, is otherwise graphic, or other considerations. It should still, in my view, be released at some point. !delta | iqe8ci | CMV: All Police Should Have Body Cams and The Tapes Should Be Publically Available Next Day | Every police officer should have a body cam on their person during their shifts, the cameras should be running the entire time they are on duty, and the unedited unabridged footage should be uploaded to a cloud server and available immediately or the next day at the latest. We shouldn't have to wait until September to see what happened in an incident back in March. The police are public servants and should not be doing anything questionable on duty that they wouldn't want people to see. If a police officer is arresting someone in public it is your constitutional right to film the interaction, provided you don't interfere with the arrest. The same logic should be applied to the rest of their time on duty. It should be filmed and publically available immediately. I know this view isn't perfect and I would like to hear the corner cases for why certain aspects of this should be different or modified. From where I sit as of making this post, if you are okay with officers not being extremely transparent with their actions then you are okay with them doing morally, ethically, or legally wrong things in the regular course of their duties. Please, change my view. Is there any reason police either shouldn't be recorded when working or the unedited footage shouldn't be available almost immediately.
UPDATE:: This has been largely successful in evolving my view. I have changed these aspects of my view:: Police should still be recorded all the time when on duty in order to have evidence of misconduct and to discourage misconduct. The release of footage should only be that which is relevant to alleged police misconduct. Remaining footage should be stored when it pertains to investigations of those the police have interacted with. (So like traffic stops, criminal pursuits, investigating a crime scene, interviewing witnesses or alleged criminals) A board of elected civilians would review any footage that has been flagged for review. Flagged conditions would be things like alleged police misconduct, any footage from incidents where people police have interacted with have been injured or killed (whether by police or others at the scene), footage from police finding drugs on a person with no drugs in the system or a history of drug use or drug sales, any interaction police have with protests or protesters, and other conditions I haven't thought of but would be into question if police accounts need to be verified by the body cam footage. Individuals rights to privacy is a concern, so the public version of released footage (which again is only for flagged footage) could be either delayed until after an investigation or have faces, naked bodies, graphic wounds, etc censored to respect people's privacy. | WolfgangVolos | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "RRuruurrr",
"id": "g4rl6ww",
"score": 14,
"text": "Sometimes I ask police officers to ride in my ambulance. Do you feel the \"constitutional right to film police\" takes precedence over a patient's right to medical privacy? \n\nAlso, where in the constitution does it say you can record ... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "g4rko9o",
"score": 36,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1599778483
},
{
"author": "WolfgangVolos",
"id": "g4rlxve",
"score": 0,
"text": "Alright. I could modify the timing aspect of my argument. I know I definitely would be pissed if my loved ... | [
"g4rl6ww",
"g4rmzp6"
] | [
"g4rko9o",
"g4rlxve"
] |
CMV: American high schools need to stop funding sports
The purpose of school is to learn, not to play sports. People like to say that sports help to build teamwork skills, hard work, and leadership, but the fact is that it isn't mainly about that. Sports are mainly about winning. If sports were about building character, they would let anyone join. But they don't as the fact is that sports are primarily about winning and performance and have little to do with the academic nature of schools. There are other activities that do a better job of building character and are a better use to the community as a whole. | The purpose of school is to prepare you for your adult life, not simply to learn information. Part of that includes being able to take care of yourself physically. We already live in an era of unprecedented inactivity. People sit at a desk at school, they sit at their desk to do homework, then sit on their computers for fun. People who are active and engage in physical activities as children are more likely to continue to workout later in life. In an age where we have rampant obesity, diabetes, and health problems this is an issue that absolutely needs to be addressed. There have also been several studies that indicate children who participate in sports:
\- Perform better in the classroom;
\- Are less likely to abuse alcohol; and
\- Are less likely to start smoking cigarettes.
---
But don't schools have PE?
---
They do, but PE is different than being part of a team and playing a sport. The individual studies I referenced are for extra curricular or after school sports, so the difference in outcomes includes participating in PE class.
---
Okay, but is it necessary for schools to fund such sports?
---
If schools don't fund them, then those sports will be restricted only to those who can pay for them. That typically isn't much of the population. So, by funding sports through schools, hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of students have access to sports and all the benefits this sports deliver. | People need to stop funding a source the key aspects of a source of monetization?
---
Maybe for football or basketball, but most high school sports generate zero money
---
Ticket sales?
---
Nobody is going out to watch a tennis match or track meet
---
You're not going out to watch a tennis match | e1nsrw | CMV: American high schools need to stop funding sports | The purpose of school is to learn, not to play sports. People like to say that sports help to build teamwork skills, hard work, and leadership, but the fact is that it isn't mainly about that. Sports are mainly about winning. If sports were about building character, they would let anyone join. But they don't as the fact is that sports are primarily about winning and performance and have little to do with the academic nature of schools. There are other activities that do a better job of building character and are a better use to the community as a whole. | [deleted] | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "DillyDillly",
"id": "f8qo85k",
"score": 1,
"text": "The purpose of school is to prepare you for your adult life, not simply to learn information. Part of that includes being able to take care of yourself physically. We already live in an era of unprecedented inactivity. People sit at a ... | [
{
"author": "Horror_Enthusiast_",
"id": "f8qn754",
"score": 0,
"text": "People need to stop funding a source the key aspects of a source of monetization?",
"timestamp": 1574720385
},
{
"author": "makingstuffupp",
"id": "f8qp1lu",
"score": 1,
"text": "Maybe for football or bas... | [
"f8qo85k",
"f8qp9uv",
"f8qpkrz",
"f8qqpey",
"f8qxndt"
] | [
"f8qn754",
"f8qp1lu",
"f8qp4ks",
"f8qpl7j",
"f8qpoge"
] |
CMV: Taxation is theft.
I feel that taxation is theft because the government takes your money by force. You are forced to pay a certain percentage of your income and have no say where it goes. How am I forced to pay taxes? If I choose not to pay them, the government levy's fines against me, then sends me to prison if I continue to not pay. If I make $250k a year, I should have the right to spend every penny of it on anything I want. "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized" -Lysander Spooner.
_____
> *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 entire social and economic framework you rely on to make said income depends upon government. Without this social organization, without regulation, without infrastructure for goods to travel over, defense to secure us and so on, the idea of "your income" would cease to exist.
While it is true that you have your money taken without consent, you also take much without the consent of society, or the systems that provide it.
---
Thank you for the detailed response. Can you please give me a few examples of the things I take from society without consent?
---
Without consent, you're inside your country's borders. You never applied for entrance. You have no right to be inside a country that you're not legally allowed to be inside. If you're consenting to be a citizen of a country then you're bound to the rules therein. If you choose not to consent then you need to move to a location unregulated by a government (ex. The ocean).
If, on the other hand, you do agree that you're a citizen of your country and that you want to live inside your country then your government (that is, the collective will of all the peoples who share that country with you) have decided and decreed that a portion of your income will be used for the common good. Including but not limited to: roads to allow you to travel, regulations that keep the air pollution below set limits, etc. Literally by breathing the air in your country you are benefitting from regulations that control air quality. By drinking water you're benefitting from regulations on municipal water quality and/or water pollution.
You're benefitting from society. You're also a part of your government and as such can't realistically steal from yourself.
Also I apologize that this might be shitty to read. Typing on a phone makes it hard to edit and so this is kind of stream of consciousness. | So you'd rather live in a society where paying taxes was optional and were denied all public resources if you chose not to pay them? You can't drive or walk on roads, call the police/firefighters for help, etc.?
---
I pay for the goods and services I use. Why should I pay for the goods that other people use when I receive no benefit from it?
---
You don't pay for roads to be maintained or police to be available to protect you, your taxes do. | 5s5mvk | CMV: Taxation is theft. | I feel that taxation is theft because the government takes your money by force. You are forced to pay a certain percentage of your income and have no say where it goes. How am I forced to pay taxes? If I choose not to pay them, the government levy's fines against me, then sends me to prison if I continue to not pay. If I make $250k a year, I should have the right to spend every penny of it on anything I want. "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized" -Lysander Spooner.
_____
> *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!* | HaloEvent | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "ddckgw6",
"score": 22,
"text": "The entire social and economic framework you rely on to make said income depends upon government. Without this social organization, without regulation, without infrastructure for goods to travel over, defense to secure us and so on, the i... | [
{
"author": "Herdnerfer",
"id": "ddck3yv",
"score": 0,
"text": "So you'd rather live in a society where paying taxes was optional and were denied all public resources if you chose not to pay them? You can't drive or walk on roads, call the police/firefighters for help, etc.?",
"timestamp": 14862... | [
"ddckgw6",
"ddcmjde",
"ddcnzh0"
] | [
"ddck3yv",
"ddckh9i",
"ddckklz"
] |
CMV: America is not land of the free unless you’re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich.
Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I’m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case. My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).
I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you’re rich and successful already, but if you’re not it’s a rigged system you’re unlikely to beat.
In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free. Regardless where you’re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child’s education won’t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn’t the case.
Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it’s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased. I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.
Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don’t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.
Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.
Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you’d have a much better chance of “freedom” (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America. | >In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.
why do you believe these are essentially to be a true "land of the free".
what land of the free has always meant is that you are free. You are free to quit your job. Free to move. Free to speak. Free to bear arms. Free to vote. Prior to the american revolution we still had mostly kinds and queens. absolute monarchies. The king could take your land. Your lord could deny your request to marry. They could prevent you from moving.
Land of the free just means that you are free. It doesn't mean that you are entitled to receive things from others.
Free healthcare really is the opposite of freedom. It means that the state takes your money in order to pay for a healthcare system and you have no choice in the matter. You don't control how that portion of your money is spent. You don't have the freedom to provide for your own healthcare.
That's not a bad thing, america is the same with education. I must pay my country taxes with fund my local schools. I have no freedom there. I cannot decide to opt out of funding public school. Its not really a bad thing, but it is a limitation on my freedom. Its not an extension of my freedom.
---
I mean free to live a life of a certain standard above the poverty line - which I don’t think America provides. Also I have a safety net of free healthcare, but there’s also private healthcare in the UK too for those who want that.
In my opinion a system where (if you’re poor, which we all are as newborns unless we inherit money) if you’re ill it’ll either bankrupt you or kill you, you can afford education, you don’t get many / any paid days off work, maternity / paternity leave aren’t standard, etc, doesn’t sound very free to me. As per my title you’re only free if you have the financial means to be free.
---
I'm an American and paid for my own education, it cost me about 120k. Now tuition inflation is a whole other problem in this country. I don't see why people that opt out of a college education are required to pay for the education of other people. We all go to K-12 so it makes sense to pay with that through property taxes. Going to college is a personal choice. Maybe providing free Junior college or industrial skills training. But it's not "free" to be forced to pay for other education even if you didn't benefit from the same system. It costs certain taxpayers to give another group of people special benefits.
---
But you also pay a huge amount for defence - is it free to be told to have to do that? I’d rather have my money going on educating the population than arming people to partake in several unnecessary conflicts.
Also, I did a calculation of the take home pay I get in Scotland vs what I’d get in Texas and it’s only 3k difference a year - for that I have attained a completely free 5 year masters degree and several hospital trips over my life!
---
It's worth pointing out that Scotland and the rest of Europe are able to spend more tax dollars on welfare programs because of the US's military. That's why Germany threw a fit a couple months ago when the US moved some of its troops out of Germany.
That's like asking your neighbor why they spend so much money on roads and street lights for the neighborhood instead of just buying a fancy car like everyone else. | I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.
---
Your first sentence is really what it's about. It is what your mindset is in determining what Freedom means. Americans who think they are more free I feel don't actually understand what that constitutes. And I think a lot of us over the years and generations have been lead astray into thinking what freedom is, that we are the only ones that have the freedoms we do, and that makes it better.
---
That stance on the US being more free somehow always puzzled me. I don't need a gun to feel more free lol
---
It's not literally having the gun though, it's the ability to in the government can't tell you differently right? And where the idea of being so free came from obviously was freedom from the perceived tyranny at the time of the United States revolution. In the context of where it came from it is significant in makes sense. But in today's world to think that the United States has a state of Freedom that other countries do not is a very flawed viewpoint
Edit: we are citizens in a system that is free and does not support us. Others are citizens in a system that gives freedom but supports them. I know which one I'm a bigger fan of
---
Well i get that but also I do notice certain cultural aspects that tome indicate a much more regulated society.
Age of consent in my country is 14 legal age you can have sex. Of course both participants engaged are minors.
Honeowner rules lile wht of windows,lawns in general yards uou need to have to be compliant. Unthinkable for me to be regulated by someone else on how uour house/yard should look like.
Drinking age being 21 in oppose to 18 in my country.
Finally I heard its more difficult to vote | iq2or7 | CMV: America is not land of the free unless you’re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. | Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I’m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case. My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).
I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you’re rich and successful already, but if you’re not it’s a rigged system you’re unlikely to beat.
In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free. Regardless where you’re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child’s education won’t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn’t the case.
Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it’s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased. I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.
Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don’t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.
Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.
Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you’d have a much better chance of “freedom” (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America. | odkfn | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"id": "g4o9z21",
"score": 51,
"text": ">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.\n\nwhy do you believe these are essentially to be a true \"land of the free\".\n\nwhat land of the free has always mea... | [
{
"author": "BalkanTrekie",
"id": "g4o6adv",
"score": 3,
"text": "I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.",
"timest... | [
"g4o9z21",
"g4oc4i2",
"g4owtj4",
"g4pjw80",
"g4qh7yb"
] | [
"g4o6adv",
"g4o80u1",
"g4o9lw6",
"g4obmtx",
"g4ocnv0"
] |
CMV: All Organic Creatures are Primarily Digital
By organic creatures, obviously homo-sapiens as well as other animals that can move faster than insect-eating plants.
Thinking about the case of humans, assuming everything starts from vision which is basically electrical signals transmitted by the optic nerve and decoded by the neural vision centers of the brain through a combination of electrical, chemical and finally physical processes and probably lots of quantum machinations going on to produce what gives us our sense of space and orientation. The senses of pain and touch which again aid in giving us impetus to keep balance while standing, walking etc. Seems to me, we are essentially walking electrical creatures without going into the whole complicated and subjective social aspects of any similar organism's perceived and understood definition of life.
Only the meaning of the word "imagination" seems to defy everything that's understood until now since that is something that actually requires humans to talk about it preferably in person or more extensively over any digital or analog medium ? | Digital, as you are using the term, means technology that generates, stores, and processes data in terms of two states: positive and non-positive. The complex processes that govern organic life very much do **not** have only two states - the electric impulses are not just on/off but also have intensity. Similarly, the chemical reactions that govern our metabolisms are affected by intensity as well.
We are analog - represented by a continuously variable physical quantity.
---
Yes, while using the word digital in the post description, I mean "binary" in some form which might be as yet not understood or in this case not reproducible through currently available technology. While complex processes do not have just an on/off or 1/0 or x/y states of representation, is it possible to imagine them at the lowest so called level of understanding is what I was wondering about. Isnt anything being digital also a subset of being analog since it after requires mediums to transmit even the tiniest unit of electricity?
---
No like, words, mean things, right? Analog means that the electrical signals used in whatever technology are analogous to the actual thing being represented. I.e., in analog television, the electrical signal which is transmitted represents the brightness that the electron beam should have in that moment. It's a 1-1 representation of the light level that was recorded by the television camera, and the signal strength is a continuous variable, it can be any precise amount depending on the exact brightness that was recorded. Digital means that the signal isn't a direct analog and instead encoded in, well, digits. Either binary, or number values (which are mostly likely encoded in binary at some level of hardware). Digital signals of course have the extra step of encoding and decoding, but have the bonuses that because the signal isn't a direct analog of the original thing, we can decode the same signal in different ways and the signal can have finer detail.
Neither of these really apply to animal perception or neurology as well | This question of how consciousness, sentience, sapience, etc. arise mechanically has plagued biologists and neurobiologists for centuries and as far as they know we aren't particularly close to an answer except at the fringes.
Which is back to the question, why do you think you've solved this problem that our best and brightest in the scientific domains with some pretty amazing tools at their disposal haven't?
But hey man if you've solved the easy problem of consciousness go ahead and publish your findings!
---
!delta
Yeah, there's so many questions to inquisitive minds that the boundaries always being blurry is getting a little annoying which is not so silly when approached pragmatically but then again like the dizzying contemplation of time to grapple with while talking about what I consider a hard field like philosophy, most if not all organic lifeforms especially humans probably experience much more than what even the present scientific literature and also spiritual views of self and the zeitgeist might reveal to them since they have only so much time to relate to non-digital forms of media and vice versa.
For example, anyone might have ridiculously brilliant ideas that they may not know to express or feel is useless to pursue in meaningful ways unless they really feel it. Not going into the very complicated mental health debate which eventually arises quickly here.
Im just saying that after spending a decent amount of time doing lay-person reading, seems to me that concepts like primality (in mathematics) do seem to be a rising factor in societies evolving with more understanding of the whole of "knowledge" or what it is to feel alive which is almost always the main tenet of most interactions (human) when reduced to the bare bone primalistic analysis maybe by a machine of the future that gets to travel across space and let's say comes across almost homo sapien like creatures ambling about their life and has to make decisions about their "intelligence". The thought is crazy enough to have a lil laugh daresay.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LucidMetal ([134∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LucidMetal)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 17lgm1p | CMV: All Organic Creatures are Primarily Digital | By organic creatures, obviously homo-sapiens as well as other animals that can move faster than insect-eating plants.
Thinking about the case of humans, assuming everything starts from vision which is basically electrical signals transmitted by the optic nerve and decoded by the neural vision centers of the brain through a combination of electrical, chemical and finally physical processes and probably lots of quantum machinations going on to produce what gives us our sense of space and orientation. The senses of pain and touch which again aid in giving us impetus to keep balance while standing, walking etc. Seems to me, we are essentially walking electrical creatures without going into the whole complicated and subjective social aspects of any similar organism's perceived and understood definition of life.
Only the meaning of the word "imagination" seems to defy everything that's understood until now since that is something that actually requires humans to talk about it preferably in person or more extensively over any digital or analog medium ? | jackcat1414 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "k7dyzax",
"score": 35,
"text": "Digital, as you are using the term, means technology that generates, stores, and processes data in terms of two states: positive and non-positive. The complex processes that govern organic life very much do **not** have only two states -... | [
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"id": "k7dz3fe",
"score": 2,
"text": "This question of how consciousness, sentience, sapience, etc. arise mechanically has plagued biologists and neurobiologists for centuries and as far as they know we aren't particularly close to an answer except at the fringes.\n\nWhich ... | [
"k7dyzax",
"k7e5ata",
"k7ebqyk"
] | [
"k7dz3fe",
"k9l5d11",
"k9l5gb2"
] |
CMV: Conservatives do not, in fact, support "free speech" any more than liberals do.
In the past few years (or decades,) conservatives have often touted themselves as the party of free speech, portraying liberals as the party of political correctness, the side that does cancel-culture, the side that cannot tolerate facts that offend their feelings, liberal college administrations penalizing conservative faculty and students, etc.
Now, as a somewhat libertarian-person, I definitely see progressives being indeed guilty of that behavior as accused. Leftists aren't exactly accommodating of free expression. The problem is, I don't see conservatives being any better either.
Conservatives have been the ones banning books from libraries. We all know conservative parents (especially religious ones) who cannot tolerate their kids having different opinions. Conservative subs on Reddit are just as prone to banning someone for having opposing views as liberal ones. Conservatives were the ones who got outraged about athletes kneeling during the national anthem, as if that gesture weren't quintessential free speech. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he promptly banned many users who disagreed with him. Conservatives have been trying to pass "don't say gay" and "stop woke" legislation in Florida and elsewhere (and also anti-BDS legislation in Texas to penalize those who oppose Israel). For every anecdote about a liberal teacher giving a conservative student a bad grade for being conservative, you can find an equal example on the reverse side. Trump supporters are hardly tolerant of anti-Trump opinions in their midst.
​ | There are no banned books, they don’t want them in the grade school library is all. Get your facts straight first. Florida does not have a don’t say gay bill. This makes me crazy. Educate yourself. And just so ya know I’m a fellow libertarian.
---
Okay, I stand corrected.
I would still say, though, that the overall sentiment of "we don't want to tolerate dissent" is as strong on the right as it is on the left.
---
Can I try to change your mind on this? Just look at Congress. The Democrats basically fall over themselves to compromise while the Republicans get death threats from their constituents when they don't go along with the stolen election theories. The left is very amicable to dissent, it just can't be baseless and reactionary. You have to live in the real world. | Banned means not available to anyone ever at all.
---
>Banned means not available to anyone ever at all.
... So if somebody theoretically can access a book or item, it is not banned? Does this mean that, for instance, child pornography is not banned since people can get a hold of it? Or prostitution?
---
not legally | 17llow9 | CMV: Conservatives do not, in fact, support "free speech" any more than liberals do. | In the past few years (or decades,) conservatives have often touted themselves as the party of free speech, portraying liberals as the party of political correctness, the side that does cancel-culture, the side that cannot tolerate facts that offend their feelings, liberal college administrations penalizing conservative faculty and students, etc.
Now, as a somewhat libertarian-person, I definitely see progressives being indeed guilty of that behavior as accused. Leftists aren't exactly accommodating of free expression. The problem is, I don't see conservatives being any better either.
Conservatives have been the ones banning books from libraries. We all know conservative parents (especially religious ones) who cannot tolerate their kids having different opinions. Conservative subs on Reddit are just as prone to banning someone for having opposing views as liberal ones. Conservatives were the ones who got outraged about athletes kneeling during the national anthem, as if that gesture weren't quintessential free speech. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he promptly banned many users who disagreed with him. Conservatives have been trying to pass "don't say gay" and "stop woke" legislation in Florida and elsewhere (and also anti-BDS legislation in Texas to penalize those who oppose Israel). For every anecdote about a liberal teacher giving a conservative student a bad grade for being conservative, you can find an equal example on the reverse side. Trump supporters are hardly tolerant of anti-Trump opinions in their midst.
​ | SteadfastEnd | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Time_Pay_401",
"id": "k7f0nd5",
"score": -30,
"text": "There are no banned books, they don’t want them in the grade school library is all. Get your facts straight first. Florida does not have a don’t say gay bill. This makes me crazy. Educate yourself. And just so ya know I’m a fellow... | [
{
"author": "Time_Pay_401",
"id": "k7f307r",
"score": -3,
"text": "Banned means not available to anyone ever at all.",
"timestamp": 1698872675
},
{
"author": "I_am_the_night",
"id": "k7f3fqw",
"score": 11,
"text": ">Banned means not available to anyone ever at all.\n\n... So ... | [
"k7f0nd5",
"k7f5xaf",
"k7f9jf2"
] | [
"k7f307r",
"k7f3fqw",
"k7f45vx"
] |
CMV: Terms used to describe people
I feel like we should not use terms to describe someone especially for their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. It's so petty that we do because people argue about, "well I'm this" or "I'm that." It shouldn't matter and we shouldn't be arguing about what you are because we shouldn't have these terms in the first place. If we got rid of these terms all over the world, I feel like it would be a better place because it gets rid of discriminating against a certain group of people. We wouldn't have stupid arguments about what god you believe in or what gender you like. We could actually argue about something that is worth arguing.
Edit 1: First time posting here, so sorry if I worded it wrong. What I'm trying to get at is, that if we used terms to describe people which would end up using other terms to describe those same people to use while discriminating them.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | So, no one would be identifiable in any way? How would we even begin to transition to that?
---
No no, I think I worded it wrong, Like if you were gay and transgender ftm, then thats what you want, I shouldn't be able to hate you for that decision or question you for it or be scared of it. Racism or being transphobic wouldn't be a thing anymore. Does that help or did I make it worse?
---
Discrimination would still, and always will exist in some form or another. People aren't discriminating against a single description, they are discriminating against something much greater than that word alone. For example, if someone discriminates against homosexual people, that person is discriminating against people who have sex with others of the same sex. It doesn't matter if you give them the qualifier of "homosexual" because they aren't discriminating against the word. It doesn't matter if you call them homosexual or men/women who have sex with other men/women or if you don't give them a description at all. People discriminate against the idea or act, leading to discrimination of the person. The words involved to describe them are irrelevant except for the sole purpose of describing the person. | Let's say you have two people that have never met, and you would like them to meet. How would you describe one to the other so they could find each other without you?
---
Yeah I think I did word it wrong. So like I shouldn't hate or discriminate you for who you are. Because the terms we use like saying that I discriminate against transgender people because they are transgender would be bad, so if they were transgender, without them telling me, I couldn't discriminate. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, that people shouldn't discriminate against other people for who they are.
---
Oh, then you and I have nothing to disagree on. Haha | 5s5jhs | CMV: Terms used to describe people | I feel like we should not use terms to describe someone especially for their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. It's so petty that we do because people argue about, "well I'm this" or "I'm that." It shouldn't matter and we shouldn't be arguing about what you are because we shouldn't have these terms in the first place. If we got rid of these terms all over the world, I feel like it would be a better place because it gets rid of discriminating against a certain group of people. We wouldn't have stupid arguments about what god you believe in or what gender you like. We could actually argue about something that is worth arguing.
Edit 1: First time posting here, so sorry if I worded it wrong. What I'm trying to get at is, that if we used terms to describe people which would end up using other terms to describe those same people to use while discriminating them.
_____
> *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!* | Ace_teh_Great343 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "iglidante",
"id": "ddcjboy",
"score": 1,
"text": "So, no one would be identifiable in any way? How would we even begin to transition to that?",
"timestamp": 1486268191
},
{
"author": "Ace_teh_Great343",
"id": "ddcjf3y",
"score": 1,
"text": "No no, I think I worde... | [
{
"author": "Sparred4Life",
"id": "ddcjerr",
"score": 3,
"text": "Let's say you have two people that have never met, and you would like them to meet. How would you describe one to the other so they could find each other without you?",
"timestamp": 1486268327
},
{
"author": "Ace_teh_Great... | [
"ddcjboy",
"ddcjf3y",
"ddcjn0m"
] | [
"ddcjerr",
"ddcjkru",
"ddcjnf5"
] |
CMV: The Lefts impression of Trump would be a lot better if he would just shut up and get on with it.
I'm no expert on American politics, and I live in New Zealand, so I'm pretty far removed from everything that is going on. But it appears to me that people who identify with "the Left" have demonised Trump - I think rightly - based primarily on his seemingly poor work ethic, and his tendency to speak out of turn or at unnecessary targets.
My impression is that Trump is not the ideal president, and may not be a good person. But I also think that if he would cut most of the golf days and stop postings inflammatory nonsense on Twitter, the conversation would shift away from Trump specifically, and back to the actual politics of the Republican party.
Trump is flawed, yes, but I think any elected official is going to be - his views are no more obscene than those held by any number of politicians around the world. It's the way Trump vocalises them that is a problem. And if he changed that, he would change how people think of him.
I'm aware this may be a simplistic view of things, but am interested to see what you think!
_____
> *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 are missing a bit of the American perspective. Trump not the illness, but the symptom. Our country trips over its own outrage too much to ever have the proper focus on actual policy that you will find in other democracies.
---
This. I don't mind those who agree or disagree with Trump, but he's no cause of anything, he's very much an effect and a result of the left's shift further to the left, whether you agree or disagree with that makes no difference. We have reach a point where the two parties can't have a real conversation with each other because of a shift in both policy and aggressiveness on both parties. | [removed]
---
Sorry, u/Lateraelus1483 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+Lateraelus1483&message=Lateraelus1483+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/86fstd/cmv_the_lefts_impression_of_trump_would_be_a_lot/dw4r25u/\)+because...). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). | 86fstd | CMV: The Lefts impression of Trump would be a lot better if he would just shut up and get on with it. | I'm no expert on American politics, and I live in New Zealand, so I'm pretty far removed from everything that is going on. But it appears to me that people who identify with "the Left" have demonised Trump - I think rightly - based primarily on his seemingly poor work ethic, and his tendency to speak out of turn or at unnecessary targets.
My impression is that Trump is not the ideal president, and may not be a good person. But I also think that if he would cut most of the golf days and stop postings inflammatory nonsense on Twitter, the conversation would shift away from Trump specifically, and back to the actual politics of the Republican party.
Trump is flawed, yes, but I think any elected official is going to be - his views are no more obscene than those held by any number of politicians around the world. It's the way Trump vocalises them that is a problem. And if he changed that, he would change how people think of him.
I'm aware this may be a simplistic view of things, but am interested to see what you think!
_____
> *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!* | fleastyler | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "DrinkyDrank",
"id": "dw4q8lp",
"score": 5,
"text": "I think you are missing a bit of the American perspective. Trump not the illness, but the symptom. Our country trips over its own outrage too much to ever have the proper focus on actual policy that you will find in other democracies... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dw4r25u",
"score": 1,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1521760421
},
{
"author": "whitef530",
"id": "dw4rgwt",
"score": 1,
"text": "Sorry, u/Lateraelus1483 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV p... | [
"dw4q8lp",
"dw4v0fv"
] | [
"dw4r25u",
"dw4rgwt"
] |
CMV: Why do we need a gay pride.
So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | > My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter?
Pride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large.
Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
> We don't have any other gender orientation event
If you are saying that we don't have events for any other identities then gay people, that's wrong, the the Pride itself has been known as LGBTQ pride, the word salad existing to cover up a wide variety of identities.
If you mean that Pride is the only such event, that's clearly wrong, there are a wide variety of events around the world for various LGBT and queer identities.
---
> Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
Isn't it against the law to discriminate against LGBT people especially in the West? Or rather, countries that care about LGBT issues.
---
In the US people can still be refused service at a restaurant, denied an apartment or house, or fired from their job because of their sexual orientation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States
---
This is where my free market side kicks in.
Why does that matter? If they continue down that route, they are loosing business.
Like the cake makers who refused the gay couple, just go to another cake maker.
---
If you happen to be in a majority Christian area almost everyone may refuse you service, so you have massively increased transport costs to get basic goods and services.
Also, if you have no job you can't afford transportation so easily, if you are fired for being gay.
And they may get increased business, because all the Christians can go to the cake shop to talk about how much they hate gay people and want to kick them out of town. | To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their early relationships so being able to be public about it is a big deal.
Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people. If your straight, around 47% of the population is a potential mate and you can tell what gender they are pretty easily. You don't really have to worry too much about finding someone or and if that person is of the opposite gender the odds are pretty good they are straight and might be interested in dating you. If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
---
> To counter centuries of gay shame.
This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
Its not like they took part in this, so i fail to see how a pride march is useful for countering gay shame, when the people alive and attending gay prides, would have had nothing to do with the shaming of the past?
>Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people.
>>If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
Ok, that is a valid point. Thanks.
So its a giant peacocking session :P
---
>This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
It's not just the past. It's still a problem today. Just a quick search brings up this from just yesterday:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/25/lesbian-couple-stalked-by-man-with-baseball-bat-in-new-york-city/
---
Ok, but few cases don't indicate a systemic wide issue.
---
How about the fact that suicide, drug use, depression is higher then the average among the LGBT population, youth in particular.
IMO, that alone is reason enough to encourage gay pride events. Imagine young teens struggling with their identities, constantly questioning whether people around them will accept them, whether society in general will except them.
Gay pride events send strong messages that it is okay to be and love whatever and whoever you want. | 6jjpzr | CMV: Why do we need a gay pride. | So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | Ashton187 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Genoscythe_",
"id": "djermtn",
"score": 15,
"text": "> My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? \n\nPride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large. \n\nSociet... | [
{
"author": "cupcakesarethedevil",
"id": "djer5ai",
"score": 6,
"text": "To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their ear... | [
"djermtn",
"djetdwb",
"djewosy",
"djex1su",
"djeyif9"
] | [
"djer5ai",
"djerfl8",
"djerhqz",
"djetcw9",
"djev0f6"
] |
CMV: Why do we need a gay pride.
So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | > My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter?
Pride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large.
Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
> We don't have any other gender orientation event
If you are saying that we don't have events for any other identities then gay people, that's wrong, the the Pride itself has been known as LGBTQ pride, the word salad existing to cover up a wide variety of identities.
If you mean that Pride is the only such event, that's clearly wrong, there are a wide variety of events around the world for various LGBT and queer identities.
---
> Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
Isn't it against the law to discriminate against LGBT people especially in the West? Or rather, countries that care about LGBT issues.
---
No, it's not. In the US, there is no federal LGBT anti-discrimination law, and there are various state-wide "religious freedom bills" that actively permit discrimination such as denying housing, employment, or service on the account of being LGBT.
And that's one of the more progressive countries.
---
∆
Interesting, i didn't know that.
So to that i have a question:
If a hard line Christian family ran a business and refused sale to a gay couple, why doesn't the gay couple go elsewhere? And is it not within that families rights to do that?
---
Suppose this occured in a small town hours from anywhere else and that business was a grocery store. Allowing discrimination basically makes it so that gay couple can not live in that town. | To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their early relationships so being able to be public about it is a big deal.
Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people. If your straight, around 47% of the population is a potential mate and you can tell what gender they are pretty easily. You don't really have to worry too much about finding someone or and if that person is of the opposite gender the odds are pretty good they are straight and might be interested in dating you. If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
---
> To counter centuries of gay shame.
This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
Its not like they took part in this, so i fail to see how a pride march is useful for countering gay shame, when the people alive and attending gay prides, would have had nothing to do with the shaming of the past?
>Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people.
>>If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
Ok, that is a valid point. Thanks.
So its a giant peacocking session :P
---
>This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
It's not just the past. It's still a problem today. Just a quick search brings up this from just yesterday:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/25/lesbian-couple-stalked-by-man-with-baseball-bat-in-new-york-city/
---
Ok, but few cases don't indicate a systemic wide issue.
---
Just a few cases is enough to make entire communities feel unsafe going out and being themselves. | 6jjpzr | CMV: Why do we need a gay pride. | So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | Ashton187 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Genoscythe_",
"id": "djermtn",
"score": 15,
"text": "> My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? \n\nPride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large. \n\nSociet... | [
{
"author": "cupcakesarethedevil",
"id": "djer5ai",
"score": 6,
"text": "To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their ear... | [
"djermtn",
"djetdwb",
"djews2n",
"djex3xo",
"djexe4h"
] | [
"djer5ai",
"djerfl8",
"djerhqz",
"djetcw9",
"djev88n"
] |
CMV: Why do we need a gay pride.
So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | These apply to modern Pride:
* It's about exposure. Not everyone knows (out) LGBTs in their lives. Showing our faces humanizes the movement.
* Some of the criticism against equality measures is that we're only a small group, and thus our interests are not that important. By being out there in big numbers, we make ourselves more visible.
* It's about showing our feeling of self-respect and worth; that we don't need to hide who we are, that we are sick of oppression against our community.
* Desensitization; to ensure people get more used to seeing us. E.g. same-sex couples holding hands/kissing, men and women who look/act in non-traditional ways, people whose gender is not immediately clear. Pride offers a fun and safe environment to do this.
---
∆
Am i doing it right? With that icon thing
> Showing our faces humanizes the movement.
I don't think thats true.
If you think about things that are taken for granted/humanised, they are things that don't stick out and just blend in. Its when you make things stand out, that you dehumanise it/make it an issue.
A great example of this is my 5 year old son. In his school class there are couple of Arab kids, some black kids and a Chinese kid. He has NEVER once asked why they are different and we have never had to explain. This we feel has allowed him to think its a "normal" (Which it is) thing, which i feel beats issues like this significantly more then making it stand out. Its normalised it in his view, because we haven't made the issue stand out.
>Some of the criticism against equality measures is that we're only a small group
Thats a fair point, but the conflicting problem i have with this is that the measures that LGBT people want in place, generally effect the larger population as a whole and i'm not sure if its fair to enforce certain things upon everyone.
Another example of this would be the recent controversy around the gay couple refused by the cake bakery, because they were gay. I see no problem with them refusing the gay couple, but through legislation and enforcement, this issue has significantly effected there otherwise successful business. I just can't see why the gay couple didn't go to another bakery. The amount of times I've walked into a shop, been refused service or had bad service and just walked out onto another shop who took my service, it happens to all.
>It's about showing our feeling of self-respect and worth
Do you really need other peoples approval for this? If your gay, be gay, don't care what others think and enjoy your life. It seems that so many gay people are fixated on making sure other people like them for being gay, that they overlook the fact that you don't need other peoples approval.
>Desensitization; to ensure people get more used to seeing us. E.g. same-sex couples holding hands/kissing, men and women who look/act in non-traditional ways, people whose gender is not immediately clear. Pride offers a fun and safe environment to do this.
[I think this articulates my point better then the sentence I've just deleted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCdJmSz65Q)
---
I don't care what people think of me as a person, but whether other people approve of queer people has a huge impact on my quality of life. It's not an emotional issue, it's a logistical one. I want to be hired, promoted, and respected to the same extent as a straight cisgender person. | To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their early relationships so being able to be public about it is a big deal.
Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people. If your straight, around 47% of the population is a potential mate and you can tell what gender they are pretty easily. You don't really have to worry too much about finding someone or and if that person is of the opposite gender the odds are pretty good they are straight and might be interested in dating you. If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
---
> To counter centuries of gay shame.
This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
Its not like they took part in this, so i fail to see how a pride march is useful for countering gay shame, when the people alive and attending gay prides, would have had nothing to do with the shaming of the past?
>Also since only about 3.8% of Americans would call themselves gay it can be hard to find a partner which is why gay people do a lot more signaling than straight people.
>>If you are gay it drops to 1.9%, so naturally they try to make signals with their personal appearance to let other people know they are gay.
Ok, that is a valid point. Thanks.
So its a giant peacocking session :P
---
>This is problematic for me, because how are modern day members of the public at fault for the problems of the past?
It's not just the past. It's still a problem today. Just a quick search brings up this from just yesterday:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/25/lesbian-couple-stalked-by-man-with-baseball-bat-in-new-york-city/ | 6jjpzr | CMV: Why do we need a gay pride. | So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | Ashton187 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ralph-j",
"id": "djess35",
"score": 1,
"text": "These apply to modern Pride:\n\n* It's about exposure. Not everyone knows (out) LGBTs in their lives. Showing our faces humanizes the movement.\n* Some of the criticism against equality measures is that we're only a small group, and thus o... | [
{
"author": "cupcakesarethedevil",
"id": "djer5ai",
"score": 6,
"text": "To counter centuries of gay shame. Historically being gay was shamed in a lot of cultures so if you were gay you had to hide your relationships or were shunned/hated for it. Many Americans alive today even had to hide their ear... | [
"djess35",
"djew8m8",
"djex0lv"
] | [
"djer5ai",
"djerfl8",
"djerhqz"
] |
CMV: Why do we need a gay pride.
So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | > My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter?
Pride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large.
Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
> We don't have any other gender orientation event
If you are saying that we don't have events for any other identities then gay people, that's wrong, the the Pride itself has been known as LGBTQ pride, the word salad existing to cover up a wide variety of identities.
If you mean that Pride is the only such event, that's clearly wrong, there are a wide variety of events around the world for various LGBT and queer identities.
---
> Society at large does "bother" LGBT people, and by bother, I mean legally discriminate against them, rape and murder them on the account of their identity, casually shame and deprecate them, while maintaining a heteronormative culture.
Isn't it against the law to discriminate against LGBT people especially in the West? Or rather, countries that care about LGBT issues.
---
I mean they couldn't marry until 2015 in the USA, so no? | It's important to remember a couple things. First, the first pride was a riot. Though this isn't reflected in the main text of most major pride celebrations today, the existence of pride parades represents and remembers historical struggles by the queer community for justice, equality, and safety - struggles which, for a lot of queer people, are still ongoing. When "pride" began, the very act of existing as a queer person was even more radical and "out there" than pride conventions like nudity, fetish wear, etc. The largest advances in queer equality, like marriage equality, benefit already otherwise privileged members of the community the most. Queer people face higher rates of homicide, substance abuse, domestic abuse, and other types of disadvantage because of the ways in which we have been historically marginalized, not necessarily outright discrimination or legal inequality. Activist and community organizations are often present at pride events to provide and advertise resources on these issues.
Secondly, and this is related, just because someone's sexuality or gender identity isn't important to you, or the way you see them, it may be very important to them and how they see themselves. I am definitely not the same person I would have been if I were straight. I have formative experiences that are gay experiences and I share them with a lot of other people in the queer community. It actually upsets me a little bit when I tell someone I'm gay, and they say "I don't care" because though it's usually intended as "it doesn't bother me", it can come off as, or be functionally the same as "I don't think that's important", when it is very important to me. On the other side of the same coin, just because you' don't care, it doesn't mean other people don't, in the sense that they might be homophobic.
I would consider myself to have faces significant discrimination for being gay, but I still feel pressure to downplay my sexuality in my every day life. If my straight coworkers are talking about cute celebrities, and I mention a woman I find attractive, it usually turns the conversation cold and the topic changes pretty much immediately afterwards. In school, though I was out, I tried to avoid mentioning my sexuality to any girls who were in my gym class, in case they assumed I was checking them out in the locker room, which I wouldn't have done because I wasn't a creep. When acquaintances ask if I have a boyfriend, I have to judge pretty much instantly if I want to just say no, or if I want to say "no, I'm gay" based on how awkward I think it will be, if I think they'll take it as me being confrontational or, as you put it, "advertising my sexuality". Pride is important to me, and most other people, because it removes most of that pressure. It's not about aggravating homophobes, exactly - more about demonstrably not giving a fuck about what they have to say, for at least a few days.
I'm eager to hear what you think.
---
[deleted]
---
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/bannysexdang changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {
"littleText": 1
},
"parentUserName": "bannysexdang"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 6jjpzr | CMV: Why do we need a gay pride. | So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way.
---
So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?**
My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here)
Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people.
I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.
_____
> *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!* | Ashton187 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Genoscythe_",
"id": "djermtn",
"score": 15,
"text": "> My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? \n\nPride parades aren't directed a particular person, but at society at large. \n\nSociet... | [
{
"author": "bannysexdang",
"id": "djerufm",
"score": 1,
"text": "It's important to remember a couple things. First, the first pride was a riot. Though this isn't reflected in the main text of most major pride celebrations today, the existence of pride parades represents and remembers historical str... | [
"djermtn",
"djetdwb",
"djeu4km"
] | [
"djerufm",
"djevrut",
"djevs1m"
] |
CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee.
Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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 sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.
First off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job? Not likely.
Second: Government incompetence. The government is already so laden with incompetent bureaucrats, you wanna add to that filling government offices with people who are so unhireable and incompetent that they have no other options? Pass.
Third:
>Argentina
NEXT!
There's no real guarantee that these people who get government jobs will provide anything, since there's no motivation. I assume they can't be fired, so why would they even show up? If they have to clock in to get paid, what's the motivation to actually get anything done? The government in Argentina is much more heavy handed, so I'm sure they can "persuade" people to get to work, but that's not going to happen in America.
Companies aren't going to like this idea either. You have the government coming in and scooping up their talent pool. Applicants who would otherwise go on to private sector work and work their way up the chain can now just go into a federal job and relax.
Our economy is vastly different than Argentina. It runs on motivation. If you take away the motivation, it collapses.
---
The plan is to raise taxes on the rich by 5%.
I don't really care about the quality of the people who are taking up the jobs guarantee, just whether or not the program would make things better. The theory, and evidence in Argentina, suggest that it does. In terms of government, it's a valid point to bring up government inefficiency, but because this program would be designed to give communities the power to determine what work was done, I feel confident that they can get it done.
I don't know if I really agree with your motivation argument. A government job would be just like any other - you show up, you're paid - you don't, you're fired. The motivation is the same anywhere you go - money. I don't see how just because it's a government job the motivation of money mysteriously diminishes for the workers. It's possible Argentina is heavy-handed in enforcing its job program, but that's not relevant to the overall issue, because if you fail to stay motivated, you get fired, and there's no point in trying to gear this program toward people who won't try to use it.
This federal jobs guarantee would give workers only one wage level, about $25,000, with more money factored in for local cost of living. Anyone who wants to be making significantly more money than the poverty line will continue on to the private sector, and I think that's everyone.
---
$25,000 a year is a pretty significant chunk of change.
That puts you right around 25% in terms of income percentile. That's a pretty significant floor (around double the current minimum wage income).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html | Should it be available to people who can't really do anything? What job would you give Mr. X with the mental capacity of a 7 year old with physical disabilities? What if Mr. Y wanted that same job, not because of disabilities, but because they want to be paid for doing nothing?
Would the American public be willing to pay Mr. Y?
What about Mr. Z who shows up for work a few days, disappears for a whole, but later shows up and wants to try again. And again. And again.
If Democrats support something that can easily be shown to promote moral hazard, it seems like a sure fire way to lose.
---
I'll give you a !delta because there are people who can't do anything in a job, but I think that some sort of job could be found for most people who aren't totally mentally retarded or physically handicapped, though I can't think of what exactly.
My issue with your argument of people sponging off the government is that they'd be monitored and regulated just like a private sector job, so they'd be fired and put lower down the list of priority for getting a job for doing stuff like that.
I think your point on people being able to do whatever they like when they have a guaranteed job is a well-warranted one, but honestly, the benefits of the program for most other motivated people outweigh the few sponging people. I'm sure some sort of jobs could be conceived to limit the damage caused by people who don't show up, or perhaps some other system could be instituted to keep behavior good.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SpockShotFirst ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SpockShotFirst)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "SpockShotFirst"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 86goat | CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee. | Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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!* | Chackoony | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MyUsernameIsJudge",
"id": "dw4wzvt",
"score": 7,
"text": "This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.\n\nFirst off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job... | [
{
"author": "SpockShotFirst",
"id": "dw4xvy2",
"score": 1,
"text": "Should it be available to people who can't really do anything? What job would you give Mr. X with the mental capacity of a 7 year old with physical disabilities? What if Mr. Y wanted that same job, not because of disabilities, but... | [
"dw4wzvt",
"dw4xogp",
"dw4yhei"
] | [
"dw4xvy2",
"dw4y8mq",
"dw4y9bz"
] |
CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee.
Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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 sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.
First off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job? Not likely.
Second: Government incompetence. The government is already so laden with incompetent bureaucrats, you wanna add to that filling government offices with people who are so unhireable and incompetent that they have no other options? Pass.
Third:
>Argentina
NEXT!
There's no real guarantee that these people who get government jobs will provide anything, since there's no motivation. I assume they can't be fired, so why would they even show up? If they have to clock in to get paid, what's the motivation to actually get anything done? The government in Argentina is much more heavy handed, so I'm sure they can "persuade" people to get to work, but that's not going to happen in America.
Companies aren't going to like this idea either. You have the government coming in and scooping up their talent pool. Applicants who would otherwise go on to private sector work and work their way up the chain can now just go into a federal job and relax.
Our economy is vastly different than Argentina. It runs on motivation. If you take away the motivation, it collapses.
---
The plan is to raise taxes on the rich by 5%.
I don't really care about the quality of the people who are taking up the jobs guarantee, just whether or not the program would make things better. The theory, and evidence in Argentina, suggest that it does. In terms of government, it's a valid point to bring up government inefficiency, but because this program would be designed to give communities the power to determine what work was done, I feel confident that they can get it done.
I don't know if I really agree with your motivation argument. A government job would be just like any other - you show up, you're paid - you don't, you're fired. The motivation is the same anywhere you go - money. I don't see how just because it's a government job the motivation of money mysteriously diminishes for the workers. It's possible Argentina is heavy-handed in enforcing its job program, but that's not relevant to the overall issue, because if you fail to stay motivated, you get fired, and there's no point in trying to gear this program toward people who won't try to use it.
This federal jobs guarantee would give workers only one wage level, about $25,000, with more money factored in for local cost of living. Anyone who wants to be making significantly more money than the poverty line will continue on to the private sector, and I think that's everyone.
---
If it's $25k a year, not a single person is showing up to work at McDonald's the day it passes. Industries will struggle and businesses will collapse.
If you can get fired, then what's really the point? A lot of people who are chronically unemployed are people who just keep getting fired. To them, it's just another couple weeks of money.
The only people who stick with it are people who are working low wage or minumum wage jobs. It's going to drain the talent pool immediately, and take up workers for needless projects.
As per your confidence in the program, it doesn't mean much to voters. Argentina's economy operates on a completely different system than ours. It's like saying dog food makes my dogs coat shiny so it should do the same for my pet turtle.
---
I think the biggest reason why I disagree with you is really that I view this as a minimum guarantee, not as an actually attractive job. Having this around doesn't mean the end of private-sector low-income labor, it just means that the private sector will need to offer more than the government to get low-income workers. Considering that the government offer would be $25,000 per year, I don't think it'd be hard at all for companies to offer more money or more benefits to get workers to them. If they can't even do that, then what kind of situation are they putting their workers in? I feel that corporations have more than enough money to do stuff like this, it's simply their desire to take care of shareholders rather than workers that leads to serious issues for workers.
I'll give you a !delta because of handling firings. I imagine that it's possible to make jobs which are not strongly affected by low worker attendance, but that's not really what I'm concerned with - I don't agree that a lot of chronically unemployed people are people who keep getting fired - I have no evidence for that, but it just doesn't seem likely to me, considering how bad many unemployed peoples' lives seem to get. I think that there are way more unemployed people who need this program and who would take advantage of it and would use than people willing to abuse it. On top of benefits to the unemployed, it forces employers to offer more security and benefits for the employed, so to me there's a tremendous benefit that makes it necessary.
How can you say that the people who stick with a federal jobs guarantee program will be low-wage workers, then in the very next line say that it's going to drain the talent pool? Surely you're not suggesting low-wage workers constitute a large part of the talent pool? And how are these projects needless? There's always work to be done that no private sector company will want to do, such as removing the lead from the pipes in Flint, for example. There's a tremendous benefit to having people available to work on improving the infrastructure and services of the country.
I still don't get your argument on Argentina's economy being vastly different from ours. At its heart, it's capitalism, right? And how is the economy type really relevant to the success of the jobs guarantee program?...
---
Contrary to what liberals seem to believe, most small business owners, including those that might own a McDonald's or two, aren't driving around in a Ferrari and a yacht and have a chateau in France and a money-bin like Scrooge McDuck that they can and would give up if only the government would raise minimum wage to force them to. In reality the choices are close or raise prices dramatically. Guess who would be affected most by those prices because they don't have as much income and consume more necessities relative to luxuries- people making the new minimum wage or above. | This last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Party to take this up as a plan.
---
The way I've heard the plan is that they want to raise taxes on the rich by 5%, and the polling done when that was put in the question showed widespread support for the idea.
---
Any call by the Democratic party to raise taxes would ensure them losing the election.
---
Not if such a call were to raise taxes on the rich, surely. I don't think people will raise alarms if the taxes aren't raised on them or people like them.
---
Every single Republican candidate will run ads of their Democratic opponents saying they want to raise taxes. The notoriously under-informed majority of American voters won't know that it is only on the richest because that part will never make it into a political attack ad. It will only be sound bites of dems saying they want a tax increase.
Campaigning on any sort of tax increase is political suicide for the dems. | 86goat | CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee. | Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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!* | Chackoony | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "MyUsernameIsJudge",
"id": "dw4wzvt",
"score": 7,
"text": "This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.\n\nFirst off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job... | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "dw4wt0l",
"score": 1,
"text": "This last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Par... | [
"dw4wzvt",
"dw4xogp",
"dw4ysm8",
"dw4zy1c",
"dw51pze"
] | [
"dw4wt0l",
"dw4x911",
"dw4ys3s",
"dw501a6",
"dw517sy"
] |
CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee.
Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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 last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Party to take this up as a plan.
---
The way I've heard the plan is that they want to raise taxes on the rich by 5%, and the polling done when that was put in the question showed widespread support for the idea.
---
What do we mean by "rich"? The problem with all the "let's pay for it by soaking the rich" is that you have to reach down into what most people would consider middle class to raise substantial amounts of revenue. There just aren't that many really rich people around relative to the not so rich, and they know all the tax loopholes to reduce their tax burden. | This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.
First off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job? Not likely.
Second: Government incompetence. The government is already so laden with incompetent bureaucrats, you wanna add to that filling government offices with people who are so unhireable and incompetent that they have no other options? Pass.
Third:
>Argentina
NEXT!
There's no real guarantee that these people who get government jobs will provide anything, since there's no motivation. I assume they can't be fired, so why would they even show up? If they have to clock in to get paid, what's the motivation to actually get anything done? The government in Argentina is much more heavy handed, so I'm sure they can "persuade" people to get to work, but that's not going to happen in America.
Companies aren't going to like this idea either. You have the government coming in and scooping up their talent pool. Applicants who would otherwise go on to private sector work and work their way up the chain can now just go into a federal job and relax.
Our economy is vastly different than Argentina. It runs on motivation. If you take away the motivation, it collapses.
---
The plan is to raise taxes on the rich by 5%.
I don't really care about the quality of the people who are taking up the jobs guarantee, just whether or not the program would make things better. The theory, and evidence in Argentina, suggest that it does. In terms of government, it's a valid point to bring up government inefficiency, but because this program would be designed to give communities the power to determine what work was done, I feel confident that they can get it done.
I don't know if I really agree with your motivation argument. A government job would be just like any other - you show up, you're paid - you don't, you're fired. The motivation is the same anywhere you go - money. I don't see how just because it's a government job the motivation of money mysteriously diminishes for the workers. It's possible Argentina is heavy-handed in enforcing its job program, but that's not relevant to the overall issue, because if you fail to stay motivated, you get fired, and there's no point in trying to gear this program toward people who won't try to use it.
This federal jobs guarantee would give workers only one wage level, about $25,000, with more money factored in for local cost of living. Anyone who wants to be making significantly more money than the poverty line will continue on to the private sector, and I think that's everyone.
---
If it's $25k a year, not a single person is showing up to work at McDonald's the day it passes. Industries will struggle and businesses will collapse.
If you can get fired, then what's really the point? A lot of people who are chronically unemployed are people who just keep getting fired. To them, it's just another couple weeks of money.
The only people who stick with it are people who are working low wage or minumum wage jobs. It's going to drain the talent pool immediately, and take up workers for needless projects.
As per your confidence in the program, it doesn't mean much to voters. Argentina's economy operates on a completely different system than ours. It's like saying dog food makes my dogs coat shiny so it should do the same for my pet turtle. | 86goat | CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee. | Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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!* | Chackoony | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "dw4wt0l",
"score": 1,
"text": "This last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Par... | [
{
"author": "MyUsernameIsJudge",
"id": "dw4wzvt",
"score": 7,
"text": "This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.\n\nFirst off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job... | [
"dw4wt0l",
"dw4x911",
"dw51c0f"
] | [
"dw4wzvt",
"dw4xogp",
"dw4ysm8"
] |
CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee.
Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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 last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Party to take this up as a plan.
---
The way I've heard the plan is that they want to raise taxes on the rich by 5%, and the polling done when that was put in the question showed widespread support for the idea.
---
Any call by the Democratic party to raise taxes would ensure them losing the election. | >which are that it reduces the unemployment rate,
It's already very low as-is, and you don't actually want a 0% unemployment rate.
>it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need
India instituted a similar program and [crime actually went up](http://www.nber.org/papers/w22499).
>This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics
Not among economists, who would be the actual experts on the matter (but no one listens to them on economic policy anyways). There are lots of alternatives that they prefer such as expanding the EITC, NIT programs, [hiring credits for the private sector](http://www.nber.org/papers/w16866), etc. [Subsidized job training](http://www.nber.org/papers/w13520) also works out better for everyone too, than providing essentially [temporary jobs](http://www.nber.org/papers/w11742). You want [permanent jobs](http://www.nber.org/papers/w11743) not temporary ones.
Despite the fact it's common in the news to think the US has gone downhill, virtually everyone is actually far better off when you look at the actual numbers.
---
Why don't you want 0% unemployment?
!delta, your sources are very new and fascinating to me. I unfortunately can't access them, but they are things I would like to look into. I'm not sure how strong or applicable their conclusions truly are towards this program though, because this is really about making sure people have a fallback when there's nothing else left, not keeping people trapped. Also, I like a lot of the ideas you mentioned, but they're not in conflict with this program.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iserane ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/iserane)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "iserane"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 86goat | CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee. | Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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!* | Chackoony | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "dw4wt0l",
"score": 1,
"text": "This last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Par... | [
{
"author": "iserane",
"id": "dw4z3ol",
"score": 3,
"text": ">which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, \n\nIt's already very low as-is, and you don't actually want a 0% unemployment rate.\n\n>it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime a... | [
"dw4wt0l",
"dw4x911",
"dw4ys3s"
] | [
"dw4z3ol",
"dw70ouc",
"dw70pie"
] |
CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee.
Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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 last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Party to take this up as a plan.
---
The way I've heard the plan is that they want to raise taxes on the rich by 5%, and the polling done when that was put in the question showed widespread support for the idea.
---
What do we mean by "rich"? The problem with all the "let's pay for it by soaking the rich" is that you have to reach down into what most people would consider middle class to raise substantial amounts of revenue. There just aren't that many really rich people around relative to the not so rich, and they know all the tax loopholes to reduce their tax burden.
---
The top 10% or 20% of the country, I'd guess. I think there's merit to considering how rich people avoid taxes, but a lot of that seems to me because of rich people having excessive power in the political system. You've given me some apprehension as to how this plan could be properly executed in the real world, so !delta, but I think that considering the broad approval the plan seems to have evoked in polling, it may be possible to get it done under the Democrats (especially considering how rich people haven't been all that opposed to the Democrats being in power). It's really a question of eradicating loopholes and whatnot - also consider that the plan's costs would reduce significantly over time as people moved off the dole and into higher paying jobs, as well as because of all of the economic activity that the people who have government jobs would be creating.
---
> The top 10% or 20% of the country, I'd guess.
Household or individual? Top 20% of households starts at about $111,000 a year. $80,000 for individuals. That’s a pretty big hike on what is considered a middle class income. | This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.
First off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job? Not likely.
Second: Government incompetence. The government is already so laden with incompetent bureaucrats, you wanna add to that filling government offices with people who are so unhireable and incompetent that they have no other options? Pass.
Third:
>Argentina
NEXT!
There's no real guarantee that these people who get government jobs will provide anything, since there's no motivation. I assume they can't be fired, so why would they even show up? If they have to clock in to get paid, what's the motivation to actually get anything done? The government in Argentina is much more heavy handed, so I'm sure they can "persuade" people to get to work, but that's not going to happen in America.
Companies aren't going to like this idea either. You have the government coming in and scooping up their talent pool. Applicants who would otherwise go on to private sector work and work their way up the chain can now just go into a federal job and relax.
Our economy is vastly different than Argentina. It runs on motivation. If you take away the motivation, it collapses.
---
The plan is to raise taxes on the rich by 5%.
I don't really care about the quality of the people who are taking up the jobs guarantee, just whether or not the program would make things better. The theory, and evidence in Argentina, suggest that it does. In terms of government, it's a valid point to bring up government inefficiency, but because this program would be designed to give communities the power to determine what work was done, I feel confident that they can get it done.
I don't know if I really agree with your motivation argument. A government job would be just like any other - you show up, you're paid - you don't, you're fired. The motivation is the same anywhere you go - money. I don't see how just because it's a government job the motivation of money mysteriously diminishes for the workers. It's possible Argentina is heavy-handed in enforcing its job program, but that's not relevant to the overall issue, because if you fail to stay motivated, you get fired, and there's no point in trying to gear this program toward people who won't try to use it.
This federal jobs guarantee would give workers only one wage level, about $25,000, with more money factored in for local cost of living. Anyone who wants to be making significantly more money than the poverty line will continue on to the private sector, and I think that's everyone.
---
$25,000 a year is a pretty significant chunk of change.
That puts you right around 25% in terms of income percentile. That's a pretty significant floor (around double the current minimum wage income).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html
---
I'll give you a !delta because I didn't know that, but what's your point with that?
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/simplecountrychicken ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/simplecountrychicken)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "simplecountrychicken"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 86goat | CMV: The Democrats should campaign on a federal jobs guarantee. | Most of my support for this idea comes from this article: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/youre-hired/
A federal jobs guarantee is when the government guarantees, but does not force, a job to anyone who wants it. It would be relatively inexpensive compared to its numerous benefits, which are that it reduces the unemployment rate, it reduces crime rates and other social ills by providing jobs, which can keep people out of crime and give them the resources they need, that it forces employers to look at workers as a commodity to compete for more strongly, leading them to offer more benefits and greater job security, and that it could solve many infrastructural and social problems by putting people to work to solving them. This idea, even when posed in the most negative ways possible, polls with upwards of 50% and 60% among all states and demographics, and there's already a 2020 Democrat contender, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is in favor of it. It seems like the perfect thing Democrats can do to get support from voters supported on the economy in a way that matches up with their big government vision.
The setup of the idea would be to have a federal database of workers, listing qualifications and other work-related criteria, perhaps under the Labor Department, and then to have local unemployment offices, with some democratic control from the local community, decide what work to give to job seekers. This idea has been instituted in a stingier form in Argentina, and the unemployment rate there apparently went from 18 to 2 percent within a year or two of the program's initiation. Within the US, the plan would be estimated to cost a maximum of 3.6% of GDP per year, but costs would likely go down as people move on from the federal jobs program to private programs, and as the government had to put less resources into fighting social ills.
_____
> *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!* | Chackoony | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "bguy74",
"id": "dw4wt0l",
"score": 1,
"text": "This last year taxes as a percent of GDP were about 11%. You're suggesting a more than 33% increase in needed tax revenue to fund this. Right out of the gate this makes this plan a non-starter - it would be the ruination of Democratic Par... | [
{
"author": "MyUsernameIsJudge",
"id": "dw4wzvt",
"score": 7,
"text": "This sounds like a nice idea, but wrought with issues. I'll play the role of somebody who would hate this idea.\n\nFirst off: taxes, taxes, taxes. Big government taking my hard earned money to pay some jackoff who can't get a job... | [
"dw4wt0l",
"dw4x911",
"dw51c0f",
"dw52rmj",
"dw53uve"
] | [
"dw4wzvt",
"dw4xogp",
"dw4yhei",
"dw4yvjj",
"dw4ywqy"
] |
CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish
I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
_____
> *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!*
* | Often those names *are* real names, just from a different background. For example, "[Rebekka](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Rebekka)" is the spelling of the name in Germany and Scandinavia.
I also don't think it's such a big deal how your name is spelled. No one knows how to spell or pronounce my last name, but it's not a big deal. If it needs to be correctly spelled or pronounced I tell them how to do so, otherwise I just roll with it. And my first name sounds very much like another name, but in most cases if someone calls me the wrong name or spells it wrong, it's fine. Again, if it's important I can always correct them.
---
They're "real" names, but still uncommonly spelled and it's going to be harder for the child as they go to school and go into the workforce. It's unnecessary.
In the case of last names, it's rather common to have them mispronounced and misspelled frequently, at least here in the U.S. because we have people from all sorts of backgrounds everywhere. The parents can't help their family name, but they have a choice with their child's given name. If their last name is already hard enough, why double the burden?
---
They're not "real" in quotes, they *are* real. Rebekka is honestly just a bad example. Whole countries spell it like that. (I live in one that does.) And as you say, there's people from all sorts of backgrounds.
I'd differentiate between common alternative spellings and genuine made-up ones. Replacing a random vowel with a y or a c/k with a q because you think it looks cool is not the same as using a foreign spelling. | I've only met one Rebekka, spelled exactly like that. To me that's the way it's spelled and I actually had to google it to find the "traditional" spellings you speak of. So I guess what you consider normal is really circumstantial or subjective, it's based on your experience. Is Stefany Stephany, Stefanie or Stefany? Or is Eric Erik, Erick or Eric? I could go on like that for a long time. I've encountered all those variation I can't say which one is the standard one.
---
>Is Stefany Stephany, Stefanie or Stefany?
Actually, it's Stephanie.
---
Exactly. | 5s30ws | CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish | I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
_____
> *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!*
* | AMO14 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "aguafiestas",
"id": "ddc6fbg",
"score": 34,
"text": "Often those names *are* real names, just from a different background. For example, \"[Rebekka](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Rebekka)\" is the spelling of the name in Germany and Scandinavia.\n\nI also don't think it's such a big dea... | [
{
"author": "bitchyeah",
"id": "ddc2upw",
"score": 49,
"text": "I've only met one Rebekka, spelled exactly like that. To me that's the way it's spelled and I actually had to google it to find the \"traditional\" spellings you speak of. So I guess what you consider normal is really circumstantial or ... | [
"ddc6fbg",
"ddc6l1d",
"ddc7p71"
] | [
"ddc2upw",
"ddc4lrj",
"ddc4pvl"
] |
CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish
I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
_____
> *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 have an unusually spelled first name (it's not an unheard of spelling but no one would jump to spell my name that way) and a very unusual surname. I personally like that my name is fairly unique - it makes finding me on Facebook and the like pretty easy, and I think it looks/sounds nice.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where if I need to get my name spelled correctly for a form I just spell it out, and if it's for something where it's irrelevant (Starbucks cup) I just have stopped caring. If you have a more usually spelled name there's always the chance that people will spell it incorrectly (Stephen vs Steven) so spelling your name is most likely what you'll have to do in most scenarios anyway.
You may not like this, but I just don't think it particularly matters much, and I personally like it. Every name has the possibility of being difficult for a child, or being something the child would dislike. I'd personally hate having a normal name, so I'm glad my parents gave me an unusual spelling (and that my dad's surname is unusual).
---
I think that's cool that you like it. In my case I don't particularly like being noticed for it because I have been a stalking victim and because my name is such a rarity it was easy for my stalker to obtain information about me.
I can't really say anything for people who enjoy their unusually-spelled names (which once again, don't have any cultural ties whatsoever), I just don't understand why anyone would just make a spelling up.
---
Where do you think names come from? They all started as made up words.
---
Absolutely. But why spell your son's name Khristian when you can just go with Christian?
---
Why not?
---
Why not spell it Kristian? Because don't you think that's unnecessary?
---
No. I personally don't see a huge deal with it. Like others have said, the "Kristian" spelling is more accurate for the origin of the name, and I personally like the alternate spelling better because I like unique things.
Another person in this post was named Maikol instead of Michael, because the nurse was Latina and spelled it how it sounds in the language. Some people, including yourself, would be shocked as to why they were named that, but I personally think that spelling is infinitely kooler and easier to spell than the original name. It's just about perspective homie
I apologize for your stalking experience, however. That's awful, and hopefully that hasn't happened to you again. But I'm not sure, that even if you did have the *standard* (not correct, just standard) spelling of your name, your stalking experience would have changed. I believe there's a way to make your Facebook profile un-searchable. | [removed]
---
People do that? That should be considered a form of child abuse.
---
Yep. Also I checked the spelling. Its actually E-majyn. Somehow worse.
Justys is the only one I can see being halfway acceptable later in life. I hope those kids have reasonable middle names, but I doubt it.
---
Oh, Christ. Should these people even be having kids?
---
The sad thing is that theyre all super super sweet kids. Justys is insanely smart for such a small kid. They do well in school, they come from loving families. If it wasnt for their names, they have an easy shot as success. I feel real bad for them.
---
I feel them. Studies show that people with hard-to-pronounce names are less likely to be trusted by strangers. Hopefully the ones with totally impossible names can change them when they become adults.
---
That all being said, its time to challenge your view.
My brother's name is Jakob, not Jacob. Its an unusual spelling, but when someone reads it, they instantly know what it is, and when he tells someone his name, either way they write it, people know who its referring to. Alternative spellings of common names are fine. Hell, Kaitlyn/Kaitlin/Caitlin/Caitlyn has gotten to the point where theyre all fairly common. Stefany and Stephanie too. Carl and Karl, Eric and Erik. A lot of times theyre spellings derived from different nationalities. Who are we to say which spellings are "right" and which are "wrong".
Different spellings of common names have always been a thing, and they always will be. Why should I have to name my child Eric instead of Erik, if Erik is the name of his German grandfather? Or Stephanie instead of Stefany after her Dutch great grandmother?
Ana, Anna, Anne. Which one is correct? What about Lilyanna? A combination of two common, easily spelled names? Is that putting my sister with that name at a disadvantage?
While there are definitely names that are clearly unacceptable, alternative spellings are perfectly acceptable in my eyes, because its a common thing right now and nobody I know with a strangely spelled common name is being hurt by it. In fact, my brother's name gets him good attention. Its interesting and does make him more unique. Rebekka, an example you used, its a Hebrew spelling of the name. Is it wrong to name someone a traditional name from your ethnicity? | 5s30ws | CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish | I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
_____
> *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!*
* | AMO14 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "proserpinax",
"id": "ddc896h",
"score": 113,
"text": "I have an unusually spelled first name (it's not an unheard of spelling but no one would jump to spell my name that way) and a very unusual surname. I personally like that my name is fairly unique - it makes finding me on Facebook an... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ddc4wmu",
"score": 6,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1486247003
},
{
"author": "AMO14",
"id": "ddc4y6f",
"score": 7,
"text": "People do that? That should be considered a form of child abuse.",
"timestamp": 1486247063
},
{
"author... | [
"ddc896h",
"ddc8fc0",
"ddcalon",
"ddcasoz",
"ddcbaws",
"ddcbdd1",
"ddd7mvx"
] | [
"ddc4wmu",
"ddc4y6f",
"ddc56pj",
"ddc5bw2",
"ddc6a5w",
"ddc6fmd",
"ddc6wwy"
] |
CMV: Jobs should always go to the native citizen of a country rather than the immigrant who lacks citizenship
I don't get a ton of room to really hash out my view, so let me explain a bit better what I mean: there is a lot of debate over typically lower level, lower class jobs and whether it is fair that they be taken by immigrants. And in those situations where it's a native citizen of a country competing with a first generation immigrant, I believe the preference always needs to be for the native citizen. Once an immigrant achieves actual citizenship of the country, then I don't feel the need to distinguish.
Keep in mind that I am not even bothering to distinguish between an undocumented / illegal immigrant and a documented / green card immigrant since my view is the same either way. If a native citizen actually wants the job, then he should get it.
The biggest reason for this is that a country needs to take care of its own BEFORE it can help others. Yes, as badly as immigrants from other countries need jobs, so do the citizens of that country, so needing a job doesn't feel like a special circumstance.
In addition, a native citizen has most likely already done much more for the country than the newly arrived immigrant. Paid more in taxes, done more to help communities, etc. That needs to be worth something.
I would hope if there were 50 jobs available, and 40 native citizens and 40 immigrants competing for those jobs (where all are reasonably qualified), that 40 jobs would go to native citizens and the remaining 10 go to the immigrants.
CMV.
EDIT: I need to clarify a point I maybe could have made more clearly: I'm specifically referring to situations where the skills and the qualifications of everyone applying for a job are practically equal. And most jobs that immigrants go for are so low skill that I have a hard time believing that qualifications could matter there. If we are talking more skilled positions where there are clear differences between candidates, then yes, I think it's okay for a company to choose the best candidate, regardless of citizenship. | >The biggest reason for this is that a country needs to take care of its own BEFORE it can help others.
But immigrants who live in your country aren't "others", they're as much a part of that country as people who were born there are. Citizenship is a piece of paper, basically. And a flimsy one at that: your policy would favor me for a job in Canada (I'm a Canadian citizen but I've never lived there) over an immigrant who has spent five years in Canada and intends to remain there permanently.
---
Hi, I'm the Canadian immigrant and I'm pretty sure I pay more taxes to Canada than you do. I have more invested in the health system and I care more about the state of the Toronto library system for sure. I have literally participated in protests about the Toronto library system. Why does MercuryAspirations deserve a job in Canada more than me? | I mean this is basically already the case.
Immigrants arent usually hired in jobs where there are plenty of just as qualified native citizens.
Now I think once an immigrant has a true green card then their citizenship should be irrelevant to hiring organizations but otherwise I would argue your point is mostly already true. Its very very hard for a company to hire an immigrant without some valid reason of theyre better qualified.
---
>I mean this is basically already the case.
>
>Immigrants arent usually hired in jobs where there are plenty of just as qualified native citizens.
That's not the case in my field. Any time we post an entry level job, roughly 85% of the applicants are on an H1B visa. They are only just as qualified on paper if you ignore the institutions where they obtained degrees (usually for-profit schools in the US compared to native applicants who went to "regular" universities) and assume they aren't lying about their skills on their resume (which nearly all do). When I do reference checks I confirm that they were in fact hired by other companies despite being under-qualified because they accepted a lower offer. I'm sure they have provided data in their LCA supporting the wages as being the prevailing wages because enforcement of H1B hires is lax at best. | e1i02a | CMV: Jobs should always go to the native citizen of a country rather than the immigrant who lacks citizenship | I don't get a ton of room to really hash out my view, so let me explain a bit better what I mean: there is a lot of debate over typically lower level, lower class jobs and whether it is fair that they be taken by immigrants. And in those situations where it's a native citizen of a country competing with a first generation immigrant, I believe the preference always needs to be for the native citizen. Once an immigrant achieves actual citizenship of the country, then I don't feel the need to distinguish.
Keep in mind that I am not even bothering to distinguish between an undocumented / illegal immigrant and a documented / green card immigrant since my view is the same either way. If a native citizen actually wants the job, then he should get it.
The biggest reason for this is that a country needs to take care of its own BEFORE it can help others. Yes, as badly as immigrants from other countries need jobs, so do the citizens of that country, so needing a job doesn't feel like a special circumstance.
In addition, a native citizen has most likely already done much more for the country than the newly arrived immigrant. Paid more in taxes, done more to help communities, etc. That needs to be worth something.
I would hope if there were 50 jobs available, and 40 native citizens and 40 immigrants competing for those jobs (where all are reasonably qualified), that 40 jobs would go to native citizens and the remaining 10 go to the immigrants.
CMV.
EDIT: I need to clarify a point I maybe could have made more clearly: I'm specifically referring to situations where the skills and the qualifications of everyone applying for a job are practically equal. And most jobs that immigrants go for are so low skill that I have a hard time believing that qualifications could matter there. If we are talking more skilled positions where there are clear differences between candidates, then yes, I think it's okay for a company to choose the best candidate, regardless of citizenship. | IYELLALLTHETIME | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"id": "f8pauib",
"score": 3,
"text": ">The biggest reason for this is that a country needs to take care of its own BEFORE it can help others.\n\nBut immigrants who live in your country aren't \"others\", they're as much a part of that country as people who were bo... | [
{
"author": "iclimbnaked",
"id": "f8p9e2l",
"score": 14,
"text": "I mean this is basically already the case.\n\nImmigrants arent usually hired in jobs where there are plenty of just as qualified native citizens.\n\nNow I think once an immigrant has a true green card then their citizenship should be ... | [
"f8pauib",
"f8pdrg6"
] | [
"f8p9e2l",
"f8pch2g"
] |
CMV: Donald Trump will be reelected, and he doesn't have to cheat to win
I want to preface this by saying that I don't know if Trump is cheating or not, what I'm arguing is that he doesn't have to. While there's actually a lot of factors that go into this argument, I want to focus on the main one here.
It's something that almost everyone except for a few predictors have completely looked over; the primaries. Keep in mind, \*\*no incumbent president has ever lost reelection without a serious opponent for their party's nomination\*\* (since 1912, when primaries were first introduced). And Trump completely obliterated the Republican primaries, winning every state, most by 90%+ margins, and winning 95% of the popular vote overall. No incumbent has done this well since Reagan in 1984. I'm willing to bet a good number of you didn't even know the name of Trump's main challenger, that's how terrible he did.
Comparing with the Democratic primaries, Biden didn't do terrible, but not even close to Trump's performance. He lost or barely won the progressive vote in California, Washington, Nevada etc. And split the vote down the middle with Sanders in New Hampshire and Minnesota. Not to mention only winning 51% of the popular vote. Historically speaking, Biden cannot win with these numbers compared to Trump. But, feel free to change my view. | the last two presidents to lose re-election were Bush and Carter. In your analysis, the key characteristic they shared was facing a serious primary challenge from within their own party. This seems silly - Buchanan got 18 delegates where Bush got 2166.
I think a far more important data point was that the poor economy both incumbents were facing going into the election. Which is the exact problem Trump is facing now.
---
My point is that their general opponent did better in their primaries, which is true in the Bush/Clinton case. Clinton carried 52% of the popular vote among 5 opponents in the primaries, which Trump couldn't even hit those number's in 2016 and he still won.
But I actually agree with you on the second point, except that the way I see it, it's not about the state of the economy, it's about who gets blamed for it. And we've seen this translate to Trump constantly pushing that it's china's fault, whereas Biden has been pushing it's Trump's fault. But since Trump's approval rating has been surprisingly steady, and even hitting an all time high in may, I don't feel as though Trump is taking enough blame to lead to losing reelection.
---
I think he could potentially be taking enough blame to motivate voters that wouldn't normally vote. You might not care about income tax but you might care that grandma and uncle Joe both died. You might care that your kid *still* isn't in school and it's affecting your job. I mean, you can't vote against China but you absolutely can vote against Trump. I think people who have been impacted by covid19 and blame Trump might be more motivated to vote than people impacted who don't blame trump.
I think the real deciding factor will be how voting by mail is handled. Potentially a lot more people will vote if voting by mail is made really accessible. And those people are potentially more aware of/concerned by coronavirus, which likely won't to in Trump's favour. | You can’t possibly be comparing Trump’s incumbent 2020 primary to the Democrat’s 2020 primary... you just can’t do that. It doesn’t work.
---
You uh.. care to elaborate there?
---
You don’t run against the candidate in which your party supports. it’s a gesture. Unless you really don’t believe in them. bill weld didn’t stand a chance, Bc republicans get behind one candidate after they’re up for re-election. He basically runs unopposed. | iq41tz | CMV: Donald Trump will be reelected, and he doesn't have to cheat to win | I want to preface this by saying that I don't know if Trump is cheating or not, what I'm arguing is that he doesn't have to. While there's actually a lot of factors that go into this argument, I want to focus on the main one here.
It's something that almost everyone except for a few predictors have completely looked over; the primaries. Keep in mind, \*\*no incumbent president has ever lost reelection without a serious opponent for their party's nomination\*\* (since 1912, when primaries were first introduced). And Trump completely obliterated the Republican primaries, winning every state, most by 90%+ margins, and winning 95% of the popular vote overall. No incumbent has done this well since Reagan in 1984. I'm willing to bet a good number of you didn't even know the name of Trump's main challenger, that's how terrible he did.
Comparing with the Democratic primaries, Biden didn't do terrible, but not even close to Trump's performance. He lost or barely won the progressive vote in California, Washington, Nevada etc. And split the vote down the middle with Sanders in New Hampshire and Minnesota. Not to mention only winning 51% of the popular vote. Historically speaking, Biden cannot win with these numbers compared to Trump. But, feel free to change my view. | MrExpressions | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "warlocktx",
"id": "g4oqlng",
"score": 6,
"text": "the last two presidents to lose re-election were Bush and Carter. In your analysis, the key characteristic they shared was facing a serious primary challenge from within their own party. This seems silly - Buchanan got 18 delegates whe... | [
{
"author": "DYouNoWhatIMean",
"id": "g4olv8w",
"score": 3,
"text": "You can’t possibly be comparing Trump’s incumbent 2020 primary to the Democrat’s 2020 primary... you just can’t do that. It doesn’t work.",
"timestamp": 1599747489
},
{
"author": "MrExpressions",
"id": "g4om6kj",
... | [
"g4oqlng",
"g4ow8ml",
"g4p4lnq"
] | [
"g4olv8w",
"g4om6kj",
"g4ooiax"
] |
CMV: we will never tackle climate change without massively investing in nuclear energy
Although some countries make be able to rely solely on renewable energies IF (and that's one hell of an if) new long term energy storage solutions are invented quickly, I don't think there is a way for most countries to lower their emissions both enough and soon enough without relying on nuclear energy.
I live in France, and here we have quite a high percentage of our electricity (around 10%) comes from hydro and we're already pretty much at maximum capacity.
There are some wind turbines, but you cannot really rely on constant wind especially inland.
Solar energy is a challenge as some parts of the country only have around 2000 hours of sun a year and land use is already quite high.
The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.
The same can be said for a lot of countries. And keep in mind that if we want to be even remotely close to being carbon neutral, we need to drastically increase our electricity production to be able to power everything that is now running on fossile fuel.
France currently has a low carbon energy, with 70% coming from nuclear energy. With massive investments and collaboration between the countries, others can achieve sililar results in the next few decades.
That being said, I would be delighted to learn that there is another solution, so feel free to share your knowledge. | >The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.
There's enhanced geothermal too. I don't know if that satisfies your low land footprint criteria but it's something. I wouldn't consider it preferable to nuclear though.
---
Is it powerful enough to have it provide 70% of a European country's needs (genuine question)
---
A country of 300k inhabitants that's basically a small island full of volcanoes | That would be a great idea except nuclear power is typically regulated by the government and I don't trust them to maintain it on a larger scale.
---
Who would you trust then ?
---
Honestly. No one. It's far too powerful and unstable to be trusted to anyone.
There's no way not to have a government involved in anything nuclear anyway | muah4c | CMV: we will never tackle climate change without massively investing in nuclear energy | Although some countries make be able to rely solely on renewable energies IF (and that's one hell of an if) new long term energy storage solutions are invented quickly, I don't think there is a way for most countries to lower their emissions both enough and soon enough without relying on nuclear energy.
I live in France, and here we have quite a high percentage of our electricity (around 10%) comes from hydro and we're already pretty much at maximum capacity.
There are some wind turbines, but you cannot really rely on constant wind especially inland.
Solar energy is a challenge as some parts of the country only have around 2000 hours of sun a year and land use is already quite high.
The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.
The same can be said for a lot of countries. And keep in mind that if we want to be even remotely close to being carbon neutral, we need to drastically increase our electricity production to be able to power everything that is now running on fossile fuel.
France currently has a low carbon energy, with 70% coming from nuclear energy. With massive investments and collaboration between the countries, others can achieve sililar results in the next few decades.
That being said, I would be delighted to learn that there is another solution, so feel free to share your knowledge. | morysh | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Fit-Order-9468",
"id": "gv4nxke",
"score": 16,
"text": ">The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.\n\nThere's enha... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gv4mxtw",
"score": 1,
"text": "That would be a great idea except nuclear power is typically regulated by the government and I don't trust them to maintain it on a larger scale.",
"timestamp": 1618866736
},
{
"author": "morysh",
"id": "gv4niq1",
"sc... | [
"gv4nxke",
"gv4oiru",
"gv4sbaw"
] | [
"gv4mxtw",
"gv4niq1",
"gv4ntpk"
] |
CMV: we will never tackle climate change without massively investing in nuclear energy
Although some countries make be able to rely solely on renewable energies IF (and that's one hell of an if) new long term energy storage solutions are invented quickly, I don't think there is a way for most countries to lower their emissions both enough and soon enough without relying on nuclear energy.
I live in France, and here we have quite a high percentage of our electricity (around 10%) comes from hydro and we're already pretty much at maximum capacity.
There are some wind turbines, but you cannot really rely on constant wind especially inland.
Solar energy is a challenge as some parts of the country only have around 2000 hours of sun a year and land use is already quite high.
The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.
The same can be said for a lot of countries. And keep in mind that if we want to be even remotely close to being carbon neutral, we need to drastically increase our electricity production to be able to power everything that is now running on fossile fuel.
France currently has a low carbon energy, with 70% coming from nuclear energy. With massive investments and collaboration between the countries, others can achieve sililar results in the next few decades.
That being said, I would be delighted to learn that there is another solution, so feel free to share your knowledge. | I think we have a couple different options:
1) Better battery technology. Your main complaint about solar/wind was their inconsistency, but with massive batteries, we could solve the consistency problem as long as the total energy produced meets the needs of those areas.
2) Carbon capture. Obviously carbon capture still takes energy, but it doesn't have to take power generation. For example, algae farms consume carbon out of the air powered by the sun, so are technically solar powered, but can be done without the losses associated with trying to convert that solar power into usable electricity. Or, even if it does take power generation, maybe we'll be able to find a very power efficient solution.
To me, #2 is the ultimate necessary solution because we'll always have *some* of our activities producing carbon, so in order to get to net 0, we will be reliant on having negative carbon activities.
---
The thing is we could, in a hypothetical future. But we don't have the capacity yet to store massive amount of energy from summer to winter, which is what countries like European ones need.
Same goes with carbon capture, it's not yet efficient enough to balance to crazy amounts of co2 we emit, and it's too risky to just bet our future on the fact that it will
---
> But we don't have the capacity yet to store massive amount of energy from summer to winter, which is what countries like European ones need.
Would they need it? I'm not as familiar with Europe, but solar grid solutions in places in the US operate year round. And it's not just from just putting the panels in a place like Arizona. Estimates i've seen say we can do ~80% of needs with current battery technology.
---
The thing is that solar produces less in the winter, which is precisely when we consume more (we freezing in here). The solutions are either to store from summer to winter, or massively over-scale the production capacity
---
The Northern US freezes too, and the southern from time to time of you look at Texas this year. One of the things to remember is that at times of year when solar reduces, the wind still blows. Even then, it is a misconception that solar only works on hot days- just as you can still get sunburnt beneath cloud cover, solar will still generate some across winter so longas the panels are kept clear. In fact one issue with solar is that panels get less effective in hot weather, and so you are either producing less energy, or needing to actively keep the panels cool when you hit warmer days
For a link to, an admittedly optimistic, approach by qualified professionals specifically thinking about the European context can be found here: https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/proven-100-renewable-energy-across-europe-is-more-cost-effective-than-the-current-energy-system-76199f5920dd
Note that this review targets 2050, which is the time frame newly proposed nuclear would start becoming effective if we were to be building it now. It would be obsolete before it had a chance to even try and kill coal. All it would do would be to muddy the waters and make the funding of renewables, which nuclear actively competes with, more uncertain for 30 years, and keeping more carbon on the grid for that duration. Near was a great solution a few decades ago, and France is to be commended for embracing it. The time has come, however, to look at ways to build up renewables, to stop building new nuclear, and transition to a more renewable led future. | [removed]
---
Nuclear is scary the same way sharks are. When there is a shark attack, there is a lot of munched meat and blood, but you are a million times more likely to die from mosquitoes.
Nuclear plants go big boom boom, but hundreds of thousands of people die each year from polluted air, in large part due to burning shit.
---
We also need to consider that most nuclear energy catastrophes occurred in outdated and less safe nuclear plants. Today we build much safer reactors.
---
One of the reasons new reactor projects in France are years overdue and go several times above initial budget is because regulations are so tight they had to replace whole parts because of small defects
---
Are you saying we are possible being too safe, blowing out the production time and cost?
I suppose that could ultimately impact the viability of nuclear energy as a legitimate solution to our energy problems. | muah4c | CMV: we will never tackle climate change without massively investing in nuclear energy | Although some countries make be able to rely solely on renewable energies IF (and that's one hell of an if) new long term energy storage solutions are invented quickly, I don't think there is a way for most countries to lower their emissions both enough and soon enough without relying on nuclear energy.
I live in France, and here we have quite a high percentage of our electricity (around 10%) comes from hydro and we're already pretty much at maximum capacity.
There are some wind turbines, but you cannot really rely on constant wind especially inland.
Solar energy is a challenge as some parts of the country only have around 2000 hours of sun a year and land use is already quite high.
The only energy source available with low emissions, controllable and reliable output and low land footprint that is available right now is nuclear energy. It has flaws, sure, but not quite as much as burning shit.
The same can be said for a lot of countries. And keep in mind that if we want to be even remotely close to being carbon neutral, we need to drastically increase our electricity production to be able to power everything that is now running on fossile fuel.
France currently has a low carbon energy, with 70% coming from nuclear energy. With massive investments and collaboration between the countries, others can achieve sililar results in the next few decades.
That being said, I would be delighted to learn that there is another solution, so feel free to share your knowledge. | morysh | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "AnythingApplied",
"id": "gv4ocvr",
"score": 6,
"text": "I think we have a couple different options:\n\n1) Better battery technology. Your main complaint about solar/wind was their inconsistency, but with massive batteries, we could solve the consistency problem as long as the total ene... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gv4mked",
"score": 0,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1618866574
},
{
"author": "morysh",
"id": "gv4ndy2",
"score": 3,
"text": "Nuclear is scary the same way sharks are. When there is a shark attack, there is a lot of munched meat and blood, ... | [
"gv4ocvr",
"gv4p0hx",
"gv4qcmf",
"gv4qp5i",
"gv4vgr1"
] | [
"gv4mked",
"gv4ndy2",
"gv4pxjh",
"gv4qezg",
"gv4rjji"
] |
CMV: In some cases (especially worldwide, but even in America), the Age of Consent is a Human Right's Violation.
I tried asking about this over on r/asklegal and nobody had any answers for me. But you guys usually do, so I figured we'd give it a spin over here.
I'm going over [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States) and unless I'm mistaken, there are precisely (and thankfully only) two states that have an AoC of 18 and no close-in-age exemptions (California and Wisconsin).
So far as I can tell, this means that in these two states, any minor engaging in any amount of sexual activity whatsoever (even with another minor) is committing a crime. The California section of the Wiki explicitly states as much:
>By the letter of the law, if a 17-year-old willingly has sex with another 17-year-old, both have committed a crime, although it is only a misdemeanor.
No engaging your biology. No engaging your humanity. Illegal. We don't do that shit here.
Can somebody explain to me how exactly that *isn't* a human right's violation? | >Can somebody explain to me how exactly that isn't a human right's violation?
I mean, first we have to understand why you think it is a human right's violation.
I can understand if you think it's wrong and people should only be allowed to have sex at 18, period. But what kind of human rights are minors who have sex even between minors violating?
---
I don't know how you managed to read that backwards but I'm saying that the law presents a human rights violation.
---
How? If a law restricts something, it is only a human rights violation if “having sex” is a human right, which it isn’t.
---
> it is only a human rights violation if “having sex” is a human right
How on earth would engaging in one of the most basic functions of being alive, being a human, being a mammal, being an *anything* not fall under the umbrella of an inalienable right?
---
Because having sex isn't just about you. Having sex is an act that requires 2 people. And you have no rights to another humans body. | > "The Age of Consent is a Human Right's Violation."
Your argument is completely misguided.
First, the age of consent laws are designed to **protect** minors from exploitation and abuse. Saying these laws are a human rights violation is a blatant misunderstanding of their purpose.
> "Any minor engaging in any amount of sexual activity whatsoever (even with another minor) is committing a crime."
This is **false**. You're ignoring the **close-in-age exemptions** that many states have, which means minors of similar ages engaging in consensual sex aren't usually prosecuted. Even in states like California and Wisconsin, prosecutors rarely go after consensual sexual activity between minors.
Why would you trust your own interpretation over the consensus of legal experts and child psychologists who support these laws for the well-being of minors?
Think about it. These laws are there to **prevent abuse and exploitation**. Without them, adults could legally prey on children, which would be a real human rights violation, wouldn't it? The whole point is to **protect** the vulnerable, not to control consensual relationships between minors.
Imagine a world where there are no age of consent laws. Predators would have a field day, right? It's about creating a safe environment for minors, not about restricting their freedoms.
So, why are you twisting this into a human rights issue? The real issue is protecting minors from harm, and these laws are essential for that. How would you propose to protect minors without such regulations?
---
>First, the age of consent laws are designed to protect minors
Give the law's [history](https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-legacy-of-1885-girls-and-the-age-of-sexual-consent) and that the very first AoC law ever passed didn't have jack shit to do with protecting anyone and instead applied only to girls and was put in place to prevent a girl from becoming a 'fallen woman' before she could be married off, I'm a bit skeptical of their intent.
I think they might actually be a bit more about control than protection, and so does [Victoria Bates](https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-legacy-of-1885-girls-and-the-age-of-sexual-consent).
>This is false. You're ignoring the close-in-age exemptions that many states have
Really? I read the entire Wiki and mentioned close-in-age exemptions in my OP.
>Without them, adults could legally prey on children
Could they? We have laws about contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Felony Enticement of a Minor, etc. Pretty sure you could have charged Epstein with nothing but that and still put him away for several lifetimes.
>Imagine a world where there are no age of consent laws.
You mean like France all the way up until 2017?
>So, why are you twisting this into a human rights issue?
Because so far as I can tell, having a law on the books that makes it completely illegal for a human being to engage their sexuality absolutely *is* a human rights issue.
---
> "Give the law's history and that the very first AoC law ever passed didn't have jack shit to do with protecting anyone and instead applied only to girls and was put in place to prevent a girl from becoming a 'fallen woman' before she could be married off, I'm a bit skeptical of their intent.
You're picking and choosing history to fit your narrative. Sure, the origins of age of consent laws might be messy, but so is the origin of a lot of laws that have evolved to protect people. Are you really saying because a law had a flawed beginning, its current purpose is invalid? That's a **genetic fallacy**. Let's look at the present, not cherry-pick the past.
> "I think they might actually be a bit more about control than protection, and so does Victoria Bates."
Victoria Bates and historical context aside, the overwhelming majority of child psychologists, legal experts, and human rights organizations today support age of consent laws. Are you dismissing all these professionals?
> "You mean like France all the way up until 2017?"
Guess what? They introduced those laws because they recognized the need to protect minors. Before 2017, they had massive public outcry over child exploitation cases. Is that the kind of society you want?
> "Could they? We have laws about contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Felony Enticement of a Minor, etc. Pretty sure you could have charged Epstein with nothing but that and still put him away for several lifetimes."
You seem to think laws about contributing to the delinquency of a minor or felony enticement are enough. Are you seriously suggesting those laws can cover all bases? Epstein was charged with a whole slew of crimes, including statutory rape. Without age of consent laws, how would you clearly define
---
> Guess what? They introduced those laws because they recognized the need to protect minors.
Actually I know the story quite well which really shouldn't surprise you at this point. In 2017, there were two cases of two separate 28yos engaging two separate 11yos.
France already had laws on the book that prosecute sex with people under the age of 15, then more harshly for under 13, then more harshly for under 11. These are the types of laws I agree with. They are directed at predators and do not serve as a complete removal of a young person's agency.
Both men were prosecuted to the fullest extent of France's existing laws. No argument here. And yet, there was still public outcry about these cases in France. And the reason was that neither of the men were able to be charged with rape. Why? Because neither of the 11yos felt as though they'd been raped.
And that's when France said, 'Oh. We don't like it when 11yos get to decide for themselves whether or not they just got raped. So we're finally gonna join hands with the rest of planet and pass a law that essentially says: Don't feel like ya got raped? Too bad bitch ya got raped anyway. See? It says so. Right there on the paper'.
Thereby completely removing the young person's agency and greatly diminishing their capacity to conceptualize their experience for themselves. Removing their own perception of their experience and replacing it with society's perception of their experience.
I'd ask you this, if France was disappointed by the resultant penalties of these two cases, why not just increase the penalties for the existing laws that they already had that were directed at predators? Why is it necessary to pass a law that at its heart serves as a complete removal of a young person's agency and voice?
---
>And the reason was that neither of the men were able to be charged with rape. Why? Because neither of the 11yos felt as though they'd been raped.
Because they're 11. They don't feel as if they were rape because they're 11 and do not fully understand what it means. That's why they lack capacity, because children do not understand enough to consent to sex even if they say they do. That's nothing to do with agency or whatever, that's just simple facts about childhood development. Children do not have the capacity to understand sex.
It's frankly gross that you'd try and claim otherwise. That's how predators justify their crimes. | 1edip1n | CMV: In some cases (especially worldwide, but even in America), the Age of Consent is a Human Right's Violation. | I tried asking about this over on r/asklegal and nobody had any answers for me. But you guys usually do, so I figured we'd give it a spin over here.
I'm going over [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States) and unless I'm mistaken, there are precisely (and thankfully only) two states that have an AoC of 18 and no close-in-age exemptions (California and Wisconsin).
So far as I can tell, this means that in these two states, any minor engaging in any amount of sexual activity whatsoever (even with another minor) is committing a crime. The California section of the Wiki explicitly states as much:
>By the letter of the law, if a 17-year-old willingly has sex with another 17-year-old, both have committed a crime, although it is only a misdemeanor.
No engaging your biology. No engaging your humanity. Illegal. We don't do that shit here.
Can somebody explain to me how exactly that *isn't* a human right's violation? | Aggressive-Carob6256 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "ToranjaNuclear",
"id": "lf7cqw0",
"score": 1,
"text": ">Can somebody explain to me how exactly that isn't a human right's violation?\n\n\nI mean, first we have to understand why you think it is a human right's violation. \n\n\nI can understand if you think it's wrong and people should o... | [
{
"author": "Ok-Swimmer-934",
"id": "lf76qdx",
"score": 3,
"text": "> \"The Age of Consent is a Human Right's Violation.\"\n\nYour argument is completely misguided.\n\nFirst, the age of consent laws are designed to **protect** minors from exploitation and abuse. Saying these laws are a human rights ... | [
"lf7cqw0",
"lf7d903",
"lf7e88l",
"lf7h8lb",
"lf7i7yl"
] | [
"lf76qdx",
"lf77xri",
"lf79w3z",
"lf7emby",
"lf7hkjb"
] |
CMV: Star Wars movies are extremely boring and overhyped
I’m a millennial and I just watched A New Hope last year as I was out of the loop when it comes to most pop culture references about the Star Wars series and most people consider them as the best movies ever made.
I found it to be very boring and painful to watch. Nothing exciting happens at any point. Mind you, I’m not talking about the graphics as I understand that they’re apt at the time of their release.
I was dumbstruck as to why so many people love those movies. It’s understandable that liking a movie is subjective, but I can’t think of any possible reason why people love them. | Have you heard of the Seinfeld effect?
---
What is it?
---
When something is so influential to a genre that most works in the genre follow its example, which causes a new viewer to to watch the original piece to see it as uninteresting due to the (current) commonality of the tropes and techniques used, even though they were revolutionary at the time.
It's named for the sitcom Seinfeld which made a show about basically nothing into a huge success, which was thus emulated by other shows. This causes modern viewers, who did not watch Seinfeld until being exposed to the modern itterations of the format, to consider Seinfeld boring and predictable because seinfeld *created* the standards for the genre. | Okay so this is a Seinfeld/Friends problem.
I would bet that if you went and watched Seinfeld, you'd find a lot of the jokes stale and a lot of the premises overdone and cliche.
That's because **it was so God damned hilarious** when it happened, EVERYONE copied it and now 20 years later, you've seen the jokes 10 and 15 times before the first time you watch the Seinfeld episode.
**SURE** the Disney Star Wars movies are shit. And **SURE** the prequels are shit (there is a very suspicious coincidence between Disney buying the property and internet entities throwing out "no this is was always good" fan theories and memes but that's a rant for another day).
And I kind of feel bad for younger people because there's no twists anymore. You've definitely seen the "Luke I am your father" (misquote by the way) reference before you saw the movie and knew who Yoda was before you ever met the little hermit.
But try your best to imagine what a mindfuck it was for people the first time we saw, with no spoilers, that this little fucking Muppet was the most powerful warrior in the galaxy. We GENUINELY expected some Conan motherfucker. And *WHAT?!* that crazy recluse shit was a ruse to teach him a lesson? We never ever saw that before.
And this isn't even exclusive to old people, just to people who grew up without the internet to spoil it for us. And that wasn't even that long ago. Like 10 years, 15 max. Sure the internet *existed* in 2005, but not everyone had it, by a long shot.
---
[deleted]
---
Did I change your view? | 86eb6g | CMV: Star Wars movies are extremely boring and overhyped | I’m a millennial and I just watched A New Hope last year as I was out of the loop when it comes to most pop culture references about the Star Wars series and most people consider them as the best movies ever made.
I found it to be very boring and painful to watch. Nothing exciting happens at any point. Mind you, I’m not talking about the graphics as I understand that they’re apt at the time of their release.
I was dumbstruck as to why so many people love those movies. It’s understandable that liking a movie is subjective, but I can’t think of any possible reason why people love them. | JustHi5 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "dw4di9y",
"score": 3,
"text": "Have you heard of the Seinfeld effect? ",
"timestamp": 1521747380
},
{
"author": "JustHi5",
"id": "dw4dxp8",
"score": 2,
"text": "What is it?",
"timestamp": 1521747773
},
{
"author": "Sand_Trout",
... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dw4er0j",
"score": 8,
"text": "Okay so this is a Seinfeld/Friends problem.\n\nI would bet that if you went and watched Seinfeld, you'd find a lot of the jokes stale and a lot of the premises overdone and cliche.\n\nThat's because **it was so God damned hilarious** whe... | [
"dw4di9y",
"dw4dxp8",
"dw4e5tk"
] | [
"dw4er0j",
"dw4faow",
"dw4fkoo"
] |
CMV: If whatever makes your character different (sexual identity/disability etc) is your main selling point, your book is probably boring.
Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about race. Some may think race should be included in this, but I don't. I'm not sure why, maybe because the stories I've read (featuring black or black-coded characters) have in some way centred around race and so it adds to the story. I guess as a white person I have that privilege. Anyway, this isn't about race. Knowing a character's race in advance wouldn't put me off, and what I'm about to explain below isn't something I've found (in my experience) to occur in relation to race.
Without further ado...
If the first line of a summary is that a bisexual girl with ADHD enters a realm and- Whatever follows doesn't really matter. The thing you want your audience to know is that your character isn't straight, and they're neurodiverse. These aren't bad things, but if they're your selling points then it tells me you haven't got much more to follow - that your goal wasn't to write a story, but to get something - anything - out there which is representative. This applies to gender, it applies to religion, sexuality and ability.
I mean, in an age where self-publication is a thing I guess it works. But, books can be tagged as LGBT (for example) without knowing in advance who it relates to and people seem to forget this (or, as I say, haven't written anything good enough for the information to be omitted). Same goes for the other groups I listed (except perhaps disability, but there are ways to say things without it just being a dull, monotonous list). As I say, getting character information in advance tells me nothing good. Especially if it isn't relevant to the plot. If it's just a detail then you're either a) trying to 'profit' (not necessarily in monetary terms) off an identity, condition or 'disorder', etc, or b) it's really all you've thought about and even you can't find anything that makes your book otherwise interesting.
I want to meet characters gradually, and get to know them as I get to know their narrative. If it's being spoon-fed before I've even turned a page then the chances are it really isn't worth my time.
​
Edit: It would be superb if people had more examples which were novels, rather than TV or Film. TV and Film are marketed differently - trailers exist to add details, and so summaries do not stand alone. Consequently, such examples don't really serve to contest my view. | I think you're looking at a bad example of advertising a character's sexuality and applying this concern broadly. Sexuality, gender, religion, or ability do not make an interesting story by themselves, but conflict arising from any of those things can.
A story about a religious man going to church might not be interesting, but a story about a man struggling with his faith in the face of tragedy absolutely could be. It sets up a conflict where the man's religion could be essential.
A story about a transgender woman learning how to do makeup might not be exciting, but a well-written biography of an activist battling oppression absolutely could be. Her conflict with the government or her family could easily be centered around the fact that she is trans
Rather than saying "Samantha is bisexual and has ADHD" you might communicate those things in other ways. Perhaps Samantha is struggling with her academics partly due to her ADHD and has been studying with her mild-mannered friend Chris, who she is slowly growing more attracted to. But, oh? Something happens, she falls into the fae realm and begins to fall in love with the faerie woman who saved her from an angry gnome. Who will she choose? And how does she balance her time saving the fae realm against her time catching up in class? Sure, I don't really love love triangles, but many people seem to eat them up. More importantly, this introduces several conflicts that could be important to the story.
I think the novel *The Traitor Baru Cormoran*t is a great example of this in action. Rather than saying "her parents are pan," the books says "The Empire of Masks is coming, armed with coin and ink, doctrine and compass, soap and lies. They'll conquer Baru’s island, rewrite her culture, criminalize her customs, and dispose of one of her fathers. But Baru is patient. She'll swallow her hate, prove her talent, and join the Masquerade." That certainly sets up some serious conflict and it communicates that LGBT characters will be present, and why the relationships of those LGBT characters is going to be important to the conflict. Later on, the description says "To survive, Baru will need to untangle this land’s intricate web of treachery - and conceal her attraction to the dangerously fascinating Duchess Tain Hu." Again, the description indicates there will be LGBT characters and how this will add to the conflict. True to its well-written description, *The Traitor Baru Cormorant* is a cleverly written novel, with no shortage of intrigue (if you're looking for book recommendations, this one was seriously good).
I'm sure you've seen examples of this done poorly, but it absolutely can be done well
---
Agreed, it seems like the main issue OP is getting at here is just bad writing. Showing vs telling is one of the most basic writing rules taught even in schools from a young age. When they put everything out on the table in the opening line like the example it just shows poor writing. It would be the same as if the description for A Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde was “suspectedly closeted gay man with narcissistic tendencies and a lack of depth learns the consequences of a life focused on looks”. Obviously that doesn’t sound very intriguing, there isn’t anything there to draw you in or create mystery about what may happen. The blurb should be about hinting at the main points while creating interest through things like imagery, questions, setting, general concept of struggles to come, etc. without giving everything away. If the author cannot show vs tell in even this small portion of their writing which is meant to draw people in, they are likely just not a good writer and so yes the description will be indicative of what’s to come.
I do somewhat agree though in that many PC ideas are over advertised. It’s not that the representation is bad or not needed in anyway, but it’s how’s it’s presented. I walked into a Barnes and noble the other day looking for an interesting memoir and almost all of them were very pointedly about race, gender, or chronic/terminal illness. While these are all real issues, and things that should be written about, it’s hard to be drawn into a story when it seems like they’re all the same or very similar because the book advertising focuses so much on being about said issue that it fails to grab your interest with the actually attributes of the story and the writing. The narrative should be the focal point, and the representation almost a side note. Not because it isn’t important but because when a book isn’t screaming at you that it’s representative of a larger issue you can become engrossed in the story and realize for yourself through the eyes of the characters where the issues really are. Throughout the journey within the story is where that representation should be focused on, when it become a real road block for the main characters in some way and you can see a very clear example of why this issue is important as it unfolds rather than just being told upfront. In some ways I think the noise that is created upfront can tend to undermine the issue at hand and perpetuate the division being addressed. “Samantha has ADHD”, now as you read if you don’t share that trait with the character it becomes something that stands out to you as different right away rather than a story that draws you in and gives you a relatable look from a new perspective while slowly/tactfully revealing such details, but that’s another argument entirely. | I can think of some alternatives involving disability: Daredevil, Elephant Man, Mr Glass in Unbreakable, even Rain Man. Disabilities as a focus sometimes do make for good stories. Even Breaking Bad, my all-time favorite show, can be summarized starting with “a teacher with lung cancer” (although it can be argued what the defining features of those characters is)
---
!delta for Breaking Bad. I thought for sure in a decent piece of art you wouldn't mention characters' disabilities in a one sentence description, but sure enough there's an above average show where thebling cancer is likely to be mentioned in a one sentence synopsis. | mu84wm | CMV: If whatever makes your character different (sexual identity/disability etc) is your main selling point, your book is probably boring. | Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about race. Some may think race should be included in this, but I don't. I'm not sure why, maybe because the stories I've read (featuring black or black-coded characters) have in some way centred around race and so it adds to the story. I guess as a white person I have that privilege. Anyway, this isn't about race. Knowing a character's race in advance wouldn't put me off, and what I'm about to explain below isn't something I've found (in my experience) to occur in relation to race.
Without further ado...
If the first line of a summary is that a bisexual girl with ADHD enters a realm and- Whatever follows doesn't really matter. The thing you want your audience to know is that your character isn't straight, and they're neurodiverse. These aren't bad things, but if they're your selling points then it tells me you haven't got much more to follow - that your goal wasn't to write a story, but to get something - anything - out there which is representative. This applies to gender, it applies to religion, sexuality and ability.
I mean, in an age where self-publication is a thing I guess it works. But, books can be tagged as LGBT (for example) without knowing in advance who it relates to and people seem to forget this (or, as I say, haven't written anything good enough for the information to be omitted). Same goes for the other groups I listed (except perhaps disability, but there are ways to say things without it just being a dull, monotonous list). As I say, getting character information in advance tells me nothing good. Especially if it isn't relevant to the plot. If it's just a detail then you're either a) trying to 'profit' (not necessarily in monetary terms) off an identity, condition or 'disorder', etc, or b) it's really all you've thought about and even you can't find anything that makes your book otherwise interesting.
I want to meet characters gradually, and get to know them as I get to know their narrative. If it's being spoon-fed before I've even turned a page then the chances are it really isn't worth my time.
​
Edit: It would be superb if people had more examples which were novels, rather than TV or Film. TV and Film are marketed differently - trailers exist to add details, and so summaries do not stand alone. Consequently, such examples don't really serve to contest my view. | doriangraiy | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "MenacingCatgirl",
"id": "gv5aq8t",
"score": 2,
"text": "I think you're looking at a bad example of advertising a character's sexuality and applying this concern broadly. Sexuality, gender, religion, or ability do not make an interesting story by themselves, but conflict arising from any... | [
{
"author": "th3empirial",
"id": "gv480ig",
"score": 23,
"text": "I can think of some alternatives involving disability: Daredevil, Elephant Man, Mr Glass in Unbreakable, even Rain Man. Disabilities as a focus sometimes do make for good stories. Even Breaking Bad, my all-time favorite show, can be s... | [
"gv5aq8t",
"gv61l3a"
] | [
"gv480ig",
"gv49252"
] |
CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017
I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being "unintelligible to the masses." They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being "unintelligible to the masses" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because of this, I'm unclear what your view is.
---
It's too expensive for most people to give their kids classical music lessons, the people in those music lessons are probably racist, you have to force your kid to like it from an early age to achieve results, and most people don't listen to it anyway.
---
> the people in those music lessons are probably racist
I'm sorry, but what? That's not only a completely baseless accusation, but one that still has no bearing as to what /u/PreacherJudge mentioned regarding you just coming up with reasons why you think it's bad.
> you have to force your kid to like it from an early age to achieve results
You don't nesesarily, any more than you need to force your kid to like X other genre of music.
> and most people don't listen to it anyway.
It's still relatively popular. And by your logic most genres of music would be useless based on how many people listen to them. It's like saying a movie is bad because Transformers had a better box office success. It doesn't nesesarily imply Transformers is a better movie. | What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment?
---
Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!
---
Same could be said about NFL or Oprah's and Ellen's shows. | 5s30h1 | CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017 | I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | [deleted] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "ddc18qt",
"score": 17,
"text": "None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being \"unintelligible to the masses.\" They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being \"unintelligible to the masses\" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because ... | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "ddc1gfj",
"score": 7,
"text": "What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment? \n\n",
"timestamp": 1486242102
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ddc1i4i",
"score": 0,
"text": "Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!",
... | [
"ddc18qt",
"ddc1de8",
"ddc1sma"
] | [
"ddc1gfj",
"ddc1i4i",
"ddc1ldi"
] |
CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017
I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment?
---
Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!
---
Same could be said about NFL or Oprah's and Ellen's shows.
---
Oprah and Ellen provide hope to historically disadvantaged communities, the NFL raises a lot of money for charity. What could be said about classical music?
---
Classical music and instruments are many people's first real ventures into playing music.
---
Okay but why don't people continue in that route?
---
They do. Who do you think is writing music for film, TV, video games, commercials, backing tracks for pop music, playing in your local theater pit orchestra, preparing sheet music, teaching music, local community orchestra or concert band, and so on? | None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being "unintelligible to the masses." They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being "unintelligible to the masses" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because of this, I'm unclear what your view is.
---
It's too expensive for most people to give their kids classical music lessons, the people in those music lessons are probably racist, you have to force your kid to like it from an early age to achieve results, and most people don't listen to it anyway.
---
What conclusion do you reach from these things, exactly?
---
That classical music is materially and socially inaccessible to most people and therefore has no social value.
---
You can literally walk into any public high school music program and watch hundreds of children performing classical music.
---
What part of the country do you live in?
---
Midwest, suburbs currently of a large metro area. | 5s30h1 | CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017 | I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | [deleted] | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "ddc1gfj",
"score": 7,
"text": "What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment? \n\n",
"timestamp": 1486242102
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ddc1i4i",
"score": 0,
"text": "Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!",
... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "ddc18qt",
"score": 17,
"text": "None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being \"unintelligible to the masses.\" They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being \"unintelligible to the masses\" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because ... | [
"ddc1gfj",
"ddc1i4i",
"ddc1ldi",
"ddc1o3g",
"ddc3bl0",
"ddc3ksl",
"ddc3zi8"
] | [
"ddc18qt",
"ddc1de8",
"ddc1eey",
"ddc1gz3",
"ddc1ux2",
"ddc1xs0",
"ddc21ea"
] |
CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017
I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment?
---
Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!
---
By dictating what you think the masses like and don't like, you're an elitist. You also accuse classical music of being elitist. Oh, the double irony.
> isn't even entertaining to most people!
Neither is jazz. But I don't see you bashing jazz. And I could make the case that classical music is actually popular, since it's experiencing a huge rise in Asia. I mean, thousands upon thousands of kids in America take classical music lessons, but that's beside the point, right? | None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being "unintelligible to the masses." They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being "unintelligible to the masses" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because of this, I'm unclear what your view is.
---
It's too expensive for most people to give their kids classical music lessons, the people in those music lessons are probably racist, you have to force your kid to like it from an early age to achieve results, and most people don't listen to it anyway.
---
What conclusion do you reach from these things, exactly? | 5s30h1 | CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017 | I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | [deleted] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "ddc1gfj",
"score": 7,
"text": "What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment? \n\n",
"timestamp": 1486242102
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ddc1i4i",
"score": 0,
"text": "Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!",
... | [
{
"author": "PreacherJudge",
"id": "ddc18qt",
"score": 17,
"text": "None of your reasons relate whatsoever to being \"unintelligible to the masses.\" They're just kind of reasons why you think it's bad. Also, being \"unintelligible to the masses\" doesnt relate to the title of your post. Because ... | [
"ddc1gfj",
"ddc1i4i",
"ddcrrcc"
] | [
"ddc18qt",
"ddc1de8",
"ddc1eey"
] |
CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017
I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | You've given reasons why you don't like people who play it, but you haven't actually really explained *why it's useless to society*. In the end, it's no more or less useless than most other genres of music are.
> It is associated with classism and racism.
By virtue of being associated with the past due to having been developed and widely enjoyed earlier. That's not really the greatest argument.
> The vast majority of people don't listen to it.
The vast majority of people don't listen to most genres of music. Are you going to tell me the only music that matters is generic pop?
> You need to come from money, like, a lot of money, to make it professionally.
Not nesesarily. You do however need to put in lots of work, much like any other musical genre (with certain exceptions).
> I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
From what world?
---
1. The past is also kind of traumatic to certain groups of people. I also know from personal experience that black musicians are still kind of a big deal in the classical music world, in 2017...
2. Classical music is associated with rich, old, white people, always will be, and therefore makes a poor conduit for any kind of social action compared to jazz or pop.
3. There are exceptions, but you hear about them because they prove the rule.
4. The classical music world. It mattered how expensive your instrument was and what college you went to.
---
> The past is also kind of traumatic to certain groups of people.
That's an incredibly vague point.
> I also know from personal experience that black musicians are still kind of a big deal in the classical music world, in 2017...
Yes, but that does not imply they are being systematically excluded.
> Classical music is associated with rich, old, white people, always will be, and therefore makes a poor conduit for any kind of social action compared to jazz or pop.
For starters, what do you mean by social action? Secondly, classical has the key benefit of being the foundation, (or at least part of the foundation) of many genres of music including jazz. So I wouldnt' discount it right quite yet.
> There are exceptions, but you hear about them because they prove the rule.
The exceptions in my view would be something along the lines of pre-written pop music, where the artist does little to no actual work. Pretty much any other major or minor genre takes a lot of work to master.
> The classical music world. It mattered how expensive your instrument was and what college you went to.
Last I checked what college you went to matters for any world especially the business world.
And again, you've not really explained why this makes classical music useless to society.
---
> That's an incredibly vague point.
Ever heard of [Nina Simone](http://blogs.wfmt.com/offmic/2015/06/09/nina-simones-career-as-a-classical-pianist/)?
> Yes, but that does not imply they are being systematically excluded.
[They are](http://www.classicfm.com/music-news/latest-news/classical-music-racist/). From experience and from evidence.
>For starters, what do you mean by social action? Secondly, classical has the key benefit of being the foundation, (or at least part of the foundation) of many genres of music including jazz. So I wouldnt' discount it right quite yet.
I mean that while rock, jazz, rnb, country, etc. are used to express dissent or address some kind of social problem, classical can't really do that because it's part of the "Man" or the "establishment".
> The exceptions in my view would be something along the lines of pre-written pop music, where the artist does little to no actual work. Pretty much any other major or minor genre takes a lot of work to master.
Yes but the time and effort you need to master classical music precludes having a job when you're young. Your parents have to buy your instrument, pay for lessons, donate to the youth orchestra so you get to be concertmaster .... ok, that happens in Texas football too, but still.
> Last I checked what college you went to matters for any world especially the business world.
In the classical music world, it matters what private teachers your parents paid for in high school on top of it. But, aside from anecdote, there are entire orchestras that only admit people who went to the Ivy League regardless of how well you play.
---
> I mean that while rock, jazz, rnb, country, etc. are used to express dissent or address some kind of social problem, classical can't really do that because it's part of the "Man" or the "establishment".
So you're discounting the pains and turmoil of what someone like Dmitri Shostakovich experienced in the Soviet Union for example and poured into his compositions? His use of Jewish themes in some compositions that caused his music to be banned?
> Yes but the time and effort you need to master classical music precludes having a job when you're young. Your parents have to buy your instrument, pay for lessons, donate to the youth orchestra so you get to be concertmaster .... ok, that happens in Texas football too, but still.
Wait, are you describing becoming a professional? None of that is needed to participate in the vast majority of public school music programs.
> In the classical music world, it matters what private teachers your parents paid for in high school on top of it. But, aside from anecdote, there are entire orchestras that only admit people who went to the Ivy League regardless of how well you play.
Sure, and this occurs for just about every activity you think of under the sun. There's elitists in the Jazz world even.
---
> So you're discounting the pains and turmoil of what someone like Dmitri Shostakovich experienced in the Soviet Union for example and poured into his compositions? His use of Jewish themes in some compositions that caused his music to be banned?
Shosty was relevant in his time period. He isn't relevant now other than as a museum piece. Nobody played his music at the Women's March in DC recently. Too Russian.
> Wait, are you describing becoming a professional? None of that is needed to participate in the vast majority of public school music programs.
Yes, I am talking about becoming a professional, because IMO that's one level of how successful a genre is. Everyone wants to be a football player, or a rapper, or a pop star, but nobody wants to be a classical musician when they grow up - or they do, and then they realize it's hard/elitist/whatever.
---
> Too Russian.
I think this is a very Americentric responce. Less than 5% of the people in the world lives in the United States. Yet your measurement of relevance is what's been played at an US protest recently. What music do the [protesters in Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Romanian_protests) play? Or those in [Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2016_Polish_protests) and [Catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ahead,_Catalan_Republic)? The world is bigger than the United States. If something is irrelevant for 5% of the people it doesn't make it irrelevant for the other 95%.
I'm European and classical music is still very relevant here. In the Netherlands there are over 100 locations where Bach's Matthäus Passion is played every Easter. The song "À toi la gloire O Ressuscité", with a melody from Handel, is sung in various languages during weddings and funerals. A part of van Beethoven's 9th symphony became the European anthem.
There are countless more examples where classical music is relevant. But if you're only focus on your own country you won't find them. | What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment?
---
Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!
---
Same could be said about NFL or Oprah's and Ellen's shows.
---
Oprah and Ellen provide hope to historically disadvantaged communities, the NFL raises a lot of money for charity. What could be said about classical music?
---
Classical music and instruments are many people's first real ventures into playing music.
---
Okay but why don't people continue in that route?
---
Many do. I knew many kids in Orchestra that continued through college (many with some form of scholarship) and still play as a hobby. I would say they got more use than any simple garage rock band | 5s30h1 | CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017 | I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | [deleted] | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "FlyingFoxOfTheYard_",
"id": "ddc1miu",
"score": 11,
"text": "You've given reasons why you don't like people who play it, but you haven't actually really explained *why it's useless to society*. In the end, it's no more or less useless than most other genres of music are.\n\n> It is asso... | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "ddc1gfj",
"score": 7,
"text": "What use is it supposed to have besides entertainment? \n\n",
"timestamp": 1486242102
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "ddc1i4i",
"score": 0,
"text": "Exactly! And it isn't even entertaining to most people!",
... | [
"ddc1miu",
"ddc1un3",
"ddc24us",
"ddc2m4z",
"ddc2yop",
"ddc3gwu",
"ddf65ks"
] | [
"ddc1gfj",
"ddc1i4i",
"ddc1ldi",
"ddc1o3g",
"ddc3bl0",
"ddc3ksl",
"ddc6n65"
] |
CMV: Completely deregulate AM/FM radio
Just let anyone with the equipment broadcast whatever they want with no fees and no censorship.
Most of the radio is static or bad reception in most places, with just a few stations that work. There are other wireless technologies now and radio is less popular, and fewer listeners makes it that much harder to overcome barriers to broadcast.
The free activity of humans would naturally fill in the available bandwidths, but government regulations keep this from happening unless it makes a profit needed to pay fees.
Hobbyists equipment would have a small range, but they would naturally want to fill in gaps in the coverage with their own shows or playlists. If they didn't have to pay royalties or government fees, their only costs would be the equipment and electricity and some of their own time, they wouldn't need to advertise if they didn't want to.
Currently, if you broadcast any farther than, say, a church parking lot or a drive in theater or a synchronized Christmas light show, then there are onerous regulatory hurdles and fees and licensing.
This means that for the most part, nobody broadcosts except big media companies, and they broadcost things that their advertisers, parent companies, and the government want to hear.
If it was completely deregulated, there could be bad things. Some people might broadcast offensive things like porn noises, hate speech, etc. Record companies wouldn't make money when their music is played. The broadcasters would have lower overhead and would advertise less because that would mean more listeners, so other companies would lose advertising opportunities. In some areas, some bandwidths might be crowded with multiple broadcasts.
For offensive stuff, I don't really care, people could just change the station. I know... "think of the children", what is you turn on the radio on a random station and you hear the F word? I don't really care.
Then there's the piracy debate... 🦜
And the advertising debate... 🤡
(Which I think are related, because the advertising is necessary to pay for the IP and to pay to guard the IP)
Fow crowding, first of all that would be a good problem to have because most of the radio is a barren wasteland of static right now, but I think broadcasters would regulate themselves to avoid overlap, because they wouldn't want that, nobody would want that. They would try to broadcast over static rather than broadcast over other people's shows, unless the intent was to drown something out. There might be arms races between broadcasters to upgrade their equipment to overpower a competing signal, or they might switch frequencies at different times of the day to avoid other people's shows. Or just not bother getting into it if they live in an area with that already has stuff on every channel.
I think that radio could be a good technology for freedom, it could allow people to broadcast directly to people that live around them. It's difficult to censor short of sending law enforcement to someone's house and taking away their equipment, but that is exactly what they will do in the status quo. I think the status quo is bad, change my view.
| If you let anyone broadcast unregulated, you basically kill radio as a commercial endeavor. Any radio station can be worn down by a single hobbyist or group that broadcasts porn on their frequency. And there's no way that switching frequencies becomes a common strategy; the only way to find a station is by knowing their current frequency.
Imagine a TV but the networks change which channel they're on randomly and where every show you watch can be interrupted with static-y porn at any time. No company would invest in that at all.
Your best bet would be to have a set of radio frequencies that are allowed for public use. Not the whole thing.
---
But in most areas most stations are static. They wouldn't have to compete over frequencies untill the full spectrum is filled.
The range and signal strength of anything that could fit in or on a house would only be able to overpower a commercial radio tower for a very small area unless they are very far away from the tower.
TV networks do sorta just that. A channel have something made by CBS, then something made by Fox, then something Disney, then something BBC...
On a local radio scale maybe I do my show every day at midnight and the guy down the street down a show at 8 on the same channel.
I agree public frequencies would be a good start.
---
You're kind of assuming everyone has good intentions, which hasn't really been true throughout all of human history. If I have a beef with my local rock station I can purposely mess them up. | The regulation is not for censorship. There is a danger in opportunity of certain resonant frequencies. This is why the licenses to broadcast are strictly monitored by the US military itself.
---
what is the danger
---
There are many things I could tell you on here and not bat an eye because they just seem silly.
This topic however is explicit and I’m already under surveillance for things I’ve previously said, so you’ll have to accept the following:
It’s classified. | 1mnc90a | CMV: Completely deregulate AM/FM radio | Just let anyone with the equipment broadcast whatever they want with no fees and no censorship.
Most of the radio is static or bad reception in most places, with just a few stations that work. There are other wireless technologies now and radio is less popular, and fewer listeners makes it that much harder to overcome barriers to broadcast.
The free activity of humans would naturally fill in the available bandwidths, but government regulations keep this from happening unless it makes a profit needed to pay fees.
Hobbyists equipment would have a small range, but they would naturally want to fill in gaps in the coverage with their own shows or playlists. If they didn't have to pay royalties or government fees, their only costs would be the equipment and electricity and some of their own time, they wouldn't need to advertise if they didn't want to.
Currently, if you broadcast any farther than, say, a church parking lot or a drive in theater or a synchronized Christmas light show, then there are onerous regulatory hurdles and fees and licensing.
This means that for the most part, nobody broadcosts except big media companies, and they broadcost things that their advertisers, parent companies, and the government want to hear.
If it was completely deregulated, there could be bad things. Some people might broadcast offensive things like porn noises, hate speech, etc. Record companies wouldn't make money when their music is played. The broadcasters would have lower overhead and would advertise less because that would mean more listeners, so other companies would lose advertising opportunities. In some areas, some bandwidths might be crowded with multiple broadcasts.
For offensive stuff, I don't really care, people could just change the station. I know... "think of the children", what is you turn on the radio on a random station and you hear the F word? I don't really care.
Then there's the piracy debate... 🦜
And the advertising debate... 🤡
(Which I think are related, because the advertising is necessary to pay for the IP and to pay to guard the IP)
Fow crowding, first of all that would be a good problem to have because most of the radio is a barren wasteland of static right now, but I think broadcasters would regulate themselves to avoid overlap, because they wouldn't want that, nobody would want that. They would try to broadcast over static rather than broadcast over other people's shows, unless the intent was to drown something out. There might be arms races between broadcasters to upgrade their equipment to overpower a competing signal, or they might switch frequencies at different times of the day to avoid other people's shows. Or just not bother getting into it if they live in an area with that already has stuff on every channel.
I think that radio could be a good technology for freedom, it could allow people to broadcast directly to people that live around them. It's difficult to censor short of sending law enforcement to someone's house and taking away their equipment, but that is exactly what they will do in the status quo. I think the status quo is bad, change my view.
| Memignorance | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Anchuinse",
"id": "n83s0w1",
"score": 27,
"text": "If you let anyone broadcast unregulated, you basically kill radio as a commercial endeavor. Any radio station can be worn down by a single hobbyist or group that broadcasts porn on their frequency. And there's no way that switching freq... | [
{
"author": "Mairon12",
"id": "n83rgc5",
"score": 0,
"text": "The regulation is not for censorship. There is a danger in opportunity of certain resonant frequencies. This is why the licenses to broadcast are strictly monitored by the US military itself.",
"timestamp": 1754917361
},
{
"au... | [
"n83s0w1",
"n83tzls",
"n83wi3b"
] | [
"n83rgc5",
"n83s5ju",
"n83siif"
] |
CMV: The chance that there is a dormant virus, cancer or disease in your system is high
All it would take is for some food or some water or a mosquito bite. It doesn't have to be planned. But lets say someone *introduced* you to cancer. How would they be found out for doing so? It's easier to make a biological weapon and sneak it in "drip feeding" it over a period of time than it is to find out where the source is or who started it. To make it even more difficult you can have 5 or more sources drip feed it. If one scientist was in charge of the operation, they could release it in America, then fly over to Vietnam, release it, fly over to South america and do the same. But the method used to do this may fail initially as it takes a while to expand and appears more dead than dormant. Someone could release it in 5 different locations in under a week and years down the line it would be unexplained as to how it crossed the border. Maybe it's "airborne" let's lock down this area, nobody in or out!
As for "The WHO is monitoring all mosquitoes and water supplies, we've heard nothing from them and this is impossible, there's nothing out there" Let me ask you. Is the WHO underfunded or overfunded? Are they going to alert the public the moment they find something, or wait until it's causing chaos to notify you it's out there? History can repeat itself. All it takes is a look at history to know how late the public are informed of the present.
This is not to scare you. Just to open your mind to the plausibilities out there. Enjoy your life while it lasts. If cancer doesn't get you something will! | How exactly do you want this view to be changed? You're pretty much stating a fact.
Tuberculosis is one such example. Tuberculosis is caused by *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*, a bacteria. When a person has TB, they spread that shit around, and once you're infected, you can have a latent form of the disease that has no effects. Under certain circumstances this could cause it to turn into the active form of the disease, to put it simply. It is estimated that 25% of the world population has latent TB.
Secondly, you don't understand how cancer works. You can't introduce cancer. It's not that easy. While certain carcinogens can increase the risk of cancer, cancer is ultimately something that starts in the cell. The process is so specific that it would be pretty much impossible (at least at this point of biological technology) to cause someone to have cancer intentionally. Without going into too much detail, cancer basically involves mutations in multiple different genes, all at the same time.
---
How long has cancer been around? Ive only heard of risingly cancer rates since the 60s. Why is that.
And also skincancer is a thing dont use sunscreen in australia youll be sure to get it a few decades later
---
You've only heard of it since the 60s because of technology. Prior to the existence of X-ray machines and MRI machines, there would be no way to detect cancer unless you have an obvious tumour growing on the surface of your skin.
So cancer rates increasing isn't more people getting cancer - it's people who already had cancer, but the rate of identifying it is getting higher due to better technology and also experience in noticing the signs.
Compare this to cells. The microscope was only invented in the 1800s. Since then we've had rising rates of cell observation. Are you going to tell me cells didn't exist until the 1800s? | You are making the case that having a dormant cancer or virus is possible, not that it is high. Also, how do you define high? Almost half the people in the world have some form of herpes, even if they never have symptoms. If 50% counts as high, that part of your view is a fact.
It is also possible that you have an invisible unicorn standing right next to you. You can’t disprove the possibility. Saying that the unicorn’s presence is likely is hyperbole.
---
Also everyone, and I mean everyone no exceptions, has cancerous cells. It's just usually a cell or two and our immune system is really good addy recognizing it and eliminating it before it can cause any problems. Cancer doesn't cause a problem till the immune system isn't fighting it for what ever reason. So that part of his view is also fact but doesn't change anything.
---
Okay but what about my opinion that the WHO will not release every little bit of information. Or how it's more likely that someone has already released something and it's already here. Because there's not much in the way of stopping insane people from doing insane things if that's their #1 priority | e0yhv0 | CMV: The chance that there is a dormant virus, cancer or disease in your system is high | All it would take is for some food or some water or a mosquito bite. It doesn't have to be planned. But lets say someone *introduced* you to cancer. How would they be found out for doing so? It's easier to make a biological weapon and sneak it in "drip feeding" it over a period of time than it is to find out where the source is or who started it. To make it even more difficult you can have 5 or more sources drip feed it. If one scientist was in charge of the operation, they could release it in America, then fly over to Vietnam, release it, fly over to South america and do the same. But the method used to do this may fail initially as it takes a while to expand and appears more dead than dormant. Someone could release it in 5 different locations in under a week and years down the line it would be unexplained as to how it crossed the border. Maybe it's "airborne" let's lock down this area, nobody in or out!
As for "The WHO is monitoring all mosquitoes and water supplies, we've heard nothing from them and this is impossible, there's nothing out there" Let me ask you. Is the WHO underfunded or overfunded? Are they going to alert the public the moment they find something, or wait until it's causing chaos to notify you it's out there? History can repeat itself. All it takes is a look at history to know how late the public are informed of the present.
This is not to scare you. Just to open your mind to the plausibilities out there. Enjoy your life while it lasts. If cancer doesn't get you something will! | cathetic_punt | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"id": "f8k14py",
"score": 4,
"text": "How exactly do you want this view to be changed? You're pretty much stating a fact.\n\nTuberculosis is one such example. Tuberculosis is caused by *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*, a bacteria. When a person has TB, they spread that ... | [
{
"author": "sgraar",
"id": "f8jobwc",
"score": 10,
"text": "You are making the case that having a dormant cancer or virus is possible, not that it is high. Also, how do you define high? Almost half the people in the world have some form of herpes, even if they never have symptoms. If 50% counts as ... | [
"f8k14py",
"f8kt2f0",
"f8nhu4y"
] | [
"f8jobwc",
"f8kmwoi",
"f8mukcs"
] |
CMV:General Ed class in college are useless
By the time you are in college, it shouldn’t be expected of you to take classes unrelated to your major. As a stem major, I don’t see the point of learning about world war 2 for the 4th time in the past 5 years. I also don’t think taking an art class of any sort will benefit me in getting my degree. Other major also face similar problems having to take Calculus when honestly they will not be using it. I even know some stem majors who have to take linear algebra but won't be using it in their jobs. I think by college we should have the right to take the classes we want instead of paying for extra classes that don't benefit us. | There's definitely a link between humanities classes and STEM. For example, it's been shown that drawing/painting classes improve learning in geology, general biology, and anatomy courses. That is to say, observation skills in drawing/painting classes help students to write field notes and lab observations. Science fiction courses have also been shown to improve learning outcomes in engineering courses.
The reality is that there are emergent benefits between classes that aren't always predictable because they can depend on the exact coupling of classes.
To a large degree, what you should be doing as a student is to find those links and see how those courses benefit you. There's benefit to being a well-rounded individual.
---
I personally do enjoy some of the humanities and don't mind doing them in my personal time but it just seems absurd that I should be tested and expected to pass a class about American Cinema to be able to get my degree. I am a STEM major; I pay money to my college so that I can learn more in depth knowledge about the field of my choosing. Also even if I am in a class that will be benefitting my observational skills will it really help me if I am not really paying attention and just trying to get a grade.
---
Most colleges I’m aware of have gen eds in broad categories, so it’s not that everyone has to take a course in “American Cinema” but “the humanities.” People can then choose a course which interests them or might come in handy later. In my college, I ended up switching my major because I took a general education class that interested me and found that I enjoyed it more than my intended major.
---
I simply chose that class because it was an easy A. My college has a pretty though art department and most students who just want get their art recruitment out of the way take American Cinema. It is even offered as a shortened and condensed online class which was one of the reason I took it. I simply didn’t have time and it seemed like a good option.
---
Look, if people don’t want to make the most of their educations, they absolutely can, but it’s good to incentivize people to take classes outside of their wheelhouse so that they have a broader skill and knowledge base.
---
But does it actually benefit people? Look at it the other way, you are a journalism major and you have to take calculus 2. The journalism major will most likely not benefit from the class in any measurable way. Secondly, I wrote this once before but sometimes because of scheduling you are forced to take specific classes.
---
The journalism major is probably, if they're serious about being journalists, going to have to do a story on financial markets. While Calc isn't directly applicable, knowing how to jiggle numbers around to do the math might be useful. It gives someone a general base to work on.
Knowledge is always useful.
STEM needs humanities, because the humanities are where you learn to ask if you should | I'd imagine the argument is two-fold:
1. It teaches different ways of thinking and apporaching topics; and
2. It produces more well-rounded students and people.
The result will see graduates with more soft skills which will help both in the workplace, and in life more generally.
---
It sounds good but in reality very few experience this sort of personal growth from a multi-thousand dollar gen ed class being learned over a few months of their life.
---
Others seem to have more empirical evidence to stress this point more fully.
But, I would ask how is this different to any other module that you only take for a few months?
---
Because your major-related classes build upon each other over 4 years to ultimately give you a good enough foundation to *start* a career related to your studies.
Its hard to justify the thousands spent on gen eds, the resultant compounding interest and the postponement of ones career to learn something for a brief period.
---
And this module provides a part of that foundation to learning.
Learning is more than about simply starting a career.
---
That's a stretch. I took an anthropology class to cover a science elective as a non science major--was actually somewhat interested in the class--and can strongly state that I remember almost nothing from that class that was covered for 4 months 8 years ago. By almost every measure that was not worth the $2,500, 4 month ~100 hours of study commitment.
---
It isn't about remembering facts. It is about learning new ways of thinking.
These aren't necessarily things you would remember, but would become part of your process of analysing information. | e14qap | CMV:General Ed class in college are useless | By the time you are in college, it shouldn’t be expected of you to take classes unrelated to your major. As a stem major, I don’t see the point of learning about world war 2 for the 4th time in the past 5 years. I also don’t think taking an art class of any sort will benefit me in getting my degree. Other major also face similar problems having to take Calculus when honestly they will not be using it. I even know some stem majors who have to take linear algebra but won't be using it in their jobs. I think by college we should have the right to take the classes we want instead of paying for extra classes that don't benefit us. | parallax_xallarap | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Ethan-Wakefield",
"id": "f8mggvh",
"score": 10,
"text": "There's definitely a link between humanities classes and STEM. For example, it's been shown that drawing/painting classes improve learning in geology, general biology, and anatomy courses. That is to say, observation skills in dra... | [
{
"author": "CraigThomas1984",
"id": "f8mewje",
"score": 4,
"text": "I'd imagine the argument is two-fold:\n\n1. It teaches different ways of thinking and apporaching topics; and\n2. It produces more well-rounded students and people.\n\nThe result will see graduates with more soft skills which will ... | [
"f8mggvh",
"f8mixce",
"f8mjq8k",
"f8mqbnm",
"f8mw2zk",
"f8mx6d9",
"f8myi9s"
] | [
"f8mewje",
"f8mgjsd",
"f8mhwri",
"f8mj6vm",
"f8mjuv2",
"f8mlb65",
"f8mm8dp"
] |
CMV: If you're REALLY good at something, practice is more or less arbitrary
This is based on a debate I'm having with a friend who's been putting in insane amounts of practice time into his hobby with the expectation that he'll become successful solely off of effort alone.
I'm not saying that practice isn't important, or even that it's not vital to succeed, nor am I diminishing anyone's hard work, but I do believe that if you're really the cream of the crop, you don't need to put in an extraneous amount of effort in the first place.
Example: A musician that's only slightly above average naturally could put in a ton of hours of practice, market themselves aggressively, study the ins and outs of music, play whatever shows they can, and they might achieve some level of success, but a musician that actually has the talent doesn't need to practice more than a few hours per week to get "good" and succeed. Their minimum output is better than the diligent person's maximum effort, and if they put in insane amounts of work like the other person does, they reach legendary status. The same goes for sports, acting, writing, "high-level" business, ect.
I'm not diminishing anyone's hard work, but if you have to exert yourself to an extreme extent, especially in a field where your odds of success are slim in the first place, you're probably just wasting your time. Practice might be the way for "average folks" to make it to the top, but after a certain threshold, we get filtered out. | Mastery at music, for instance, means being able to play something perfectly every time, without really putting a lot of thought in it.
Getting to that level requires extensive practice.
---
Music was actually the focal point of the debate the two of us had.
Yes, it's true that mastery requires extensive practice, you can't teach perfect pitch, the ability to replicate a song verbatim after only hearing it once or twice, or musical intuition. You can practice your way to a skill level very close to that, but you'll never think the way that those people think naturally. For someone with perfect pitch, an ever so slightly out of tune guitar sounds VERY out of tune, but for anyone else, it might sound fine to the extent that they can't tell the difference between before and after even when it is tuned, and when push comes to shove, the latter musician is going to rise to the top.
---
I remember learning in jazz class how Charlie Parker would practice his chops 8 hours a day. A similar example is I've heard the other two members of Nirvana complain that Kurt Cobain was extremely insistent on practice and took it very seriously. In other words I'm very skeptical that top musicians don't practice hard. They would get beat out constantly by top musicians who do practice hard. | Jimi Hendrix is famous for never putting his guitar down. Charlie Parker was known for practicing sax 12 hours a day for several years.
Practice isn't arbitrary, practice is how one gets good at something.
---
Yes, but had Jimi Hendrix and Charlie Parker practiced for only a few hours per week, they'd still have been pretty good, but not a legendary. Their natural skill level sits at a level that most people wouldn't have achieved regardless of effort.
---
How do you make that assessment? That's like saying Einstein could've come up with general relativity even if he never learned math. What are you talking about? The reason they are legendary is 1% talent and 99% that they practiced their craft in almost every waking moment.
The proof is in the pudding. The people who practice all day are famous while the people who don't practice at all are not. Find me a musician who practices 5 minutes a day but plays as well as Hendrix. I won't wait because it'll never happen. | 5s2a84 | CMV: If you're REALLY good at something, practice is more or less arbitrary | This is based on a debate I'm having with a friend who's been putting in insane amounts of practice time into his hobby with the expectation that he'll become successful solely off of effort alone.
I'm not saying that practice isn't important, or even that it's not vital to succeed, nor am I diminishing anyone's hard work, but I do believe that if you're really the cream of the crop, you don't need to put in an extraneous amount of effort in the first place.
Example: A musician that's only slightly above average naturally could put in a ton of hours of practice, market themselves aggressively, study the ins and outs of music, play whatever shows they can, and they might achieve some level of success, but a musician that actually has the talent doesn't need to practice more than a few hours per week to get "good" and succeed. Their minimum output is better than the diligent person's maximum effort, and if they put in insane amounts of work like the other person does, they reach legendary status. The same goes for sports, acting, writing, "high-level" business, ect.
I'm not diminishing anyone's hard work, but if you have to exert yourself to an extreme extent, especially in a field where your odds of success are slim in the first place, you're probably just wasting your time. Practice might be the way for "average folks" to make it to the top, but after a certain threshold, we get filtered out. | believeinwhatyouwant | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "trickcandle",
"id": "ddbwvif",
"score": 2,
"text": "Mastery at music, for instance, means being able to play something perfectly every time, without really putting a lot of thought in it.\n\nGetting to that level requires extensive practice. ",
"timestamp": 1486235694
},
{
"... | [
{
"author": "salsawood",
"id": "ddbxxzv",
"score": 1,
"text": "Jimi Hendrix is famous for never putting his guitar down. Charlie Parker was known for practicing sax 12 hours a day for several years. \n\nPractice isn't arbitrary, practice is how one gets good at something. ",
"timestamp": 1486237... | [
"ddbwvif",
"ddbx8q4",
"ddby9p8"
] | [
"ddbxxzv",
"ddby2d5",
"ddbyb25"
] |
CMV: The downvote function here should not be allowed without a comment included, stating why
Right now the downvote button is too easily used by those not contributing to discussion, despite heavily confusing the flow of the discussion.
Not one does this feed into toxic personality traits surrounding confirmation bias, it can be used frivolously and maliciously as well.
You can even buy downvotes for comments you don’t like, made by others.
Lastly, a requirement to add your opinion and reasoning for the downvote allows for less double comments or similar statements made by others since users will be more likely to do their due diligence before contributing.
This may hurt overall contribution to certain posts, but it allows for more substance, and productive discourse in the content. | So... let's assume what you suggest is implemented.
First of all: how does this work? Is the comment a normal comment to the initial post that explains the downvote?
Beyond that: what's stopping a poster from just "commenting" a garbled mess of letters to be able to downvote?
---
I can’t call you names otherwise I’ll get removed and banned, right? Same idea.
The downvote function still shows the volume of downvotes but also includes an additional comment highlighting it was a downvote comment.
I hope that makes sense.
---
A few counterpoints:
- Bad posts will be flooded with useless short downvote comments like "irrelevant" or "sucks" or "no", because needing to provide a comment doesn't suddenly make non-constructive people feel like being constructive. See: report system which requires you to say why you're reporting post, still leading to stupid amounts of spam
- Bots are unaffected. Any bot that can auto downvote can also auto comment for a negligible amount of processing power. LLM unnecessary.
- Even assuming it works as intended, comments to downvote are a barrier to entry for downvotes, meaning less relevant content isn't pushed down as easily. Users who browse NEW are particularly affected by this, and will likely stop, but their curation of content is extremely valuable data which will absolutely affect relevance sorting. So expect to see less relevant content on a regular basis.
---
Since you can upvote comments that are associated with a downvote, it could actually increase relevancy for some.
Filter by NEW would show everything chronologically wouldn’t it? Downvotes have no impact I thought.
Mods can add character counts or anything else to ensure downvote reasons are of quality.
---
>Mods can add character counts or anything else to ensure downvote reasons are of quality.
Do we really need 50 comments explaining why that one comment is bad? When one comment can do the trick?
If someone has already explained why it's bad I do not need to dogpile onto the comment harrasing the poster to say why they are wrong again.
It would be borderline harrasment to have to be confronted by 50 to sometimes 1000's of comments explaining why you are an idiot and wrong. | Just cause I disagree with you, or don't like your opinion doesn't mean I need to explain why when I show it.
---
What about in situations such as brigading? You don’t think this would be beneficial?
---
Nope.
Fake internet points mean nothing.
---
It impacts relevancy though, which results in bias or swayed discussion.
---
Swaying people who only look at the irrelevant internet point number value? Nothing of importance was lost there. | 1edcbtg | CMV: The downvote function here should not be allowed without a comment included, stating why | Right now the downvote button is too easily used by those not contributing to discussion, despite heavily confusing the flow of the discussion.
Not one does this feed into toxic personality traits surrounding confirmation bias, it can be used frivolously and maliciously as well.
You can even buy downvotes for comments you don’t like, made by others.
Lastly, a requirement to add your opinion and reasoning for the downvote allows for less double comments or similar statements made by others since users will be more likely to do their due diligence before contributing.
This may hurt overall contribution to certain posts, but it allows for more substance, and productive discourse in the content. | LeftLump | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "AleristheSeeker",
"id": "lf5zigv",
"score": 9,
"text": "So... let's assume what you suggest is implemented.\n\nFirst of all: how does this work? Is the comment a normal comment to the initial post that explains the downvote?\n\nBeyond that: what's stopping a poster from just \"commentin... | [
{
"author": "Everyday_Hero1",
"id": "lf60vry",
"score": 1,
"text": "Just cause I disagree with you, or don't like your opinion doesn't mean I need to explain why when I show it.",
"timestamp": 1722073513
},
{
"author": "LeftLump",
"id": "lf61hyk",
"score": -1,
"text": "What a... | [
"lf5zigv",
"lf5zqwc",
"lf60zxp",
"lf61z0l",
"lf6483b"
] | [
"lf60vry",
"lf61hyk",
"lf62al3",
"lf62otm",
"lf63ybs"
] |
CMV: It is reasonable and prudent for an American to plan a refundable trip to the UK this August
I'm beginning to plan a summer vacation to Europe for this August. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but I've gotten horrified reactions from the couple of people I've told. So I'd like to at least understand the rational version of the counterarguments. Here is my chain of reasoning:
1. Given current vaccination rates, it is likely that the COVID pandemic will be substantially controlled in the US and UK by mid-summer. My wife and I will certainly be vaccinated by then.
2. It is therefore likely that travel will safe by late July.
3. It is likely that prices will rise in the next few months as more and more people realize that travel is becoming safe again.
4. By booking refundable arrangements, one can lock in the more favorable prices now available but, in the event of new variants, it is possible to cancel without losing money.
Feel free to change my view on any of those sub-elements or by refuting the entire argument. I will say that this all hinges on #1. If the chances of traveling safely were low for August, then I wouldn't bother (better not to get hopes up, take time researching and making arrangements, etc.). I am also aware that there is a cognitive risk of becoming reluctant to cancel a trip I'm looking forward to if circumstances in August are semi-safe but travel is rationally a bad idea. | I think the more important question to ask is how long you want to go and what you want to do on this trip?
If you have a loose schedule and can spend a few weeks in quarantine, I think it makes sense. Alternatively, if you need to ensure you get back exactly two weeks later, huge risk.
If you are going to go expecting to visit museums, go to restaurants and see shows, I suspect it would be a huge disappointment.
Lastly, I think the destination country really matters. If you fly the US, doesn't really matter cause the virus has already went through the population. If you fly to NZ and your actions directly tie to 20 deaths, you would be a horrible person.
---
>If you are going to go expecting to visit museums, go to restaurants and see shows, I suspect it would be a huge disappointment.
Why? My expectation is that by late summer in the US and the UK there will be sufficiently widespread vaccination that the pandemic will be effectively over. In that case, there would be no continuing need to continue draconian restrictions such as total closures of museums. Shows seem more iffy to me but aren't of particular interest.
The US is on track to vaccinate all adults by early July. The UK is planning to give everyone the vaccine by late July, and over there (of course we won't ever see 100% but we should be able to basically end the pandemic between vaccines and natural immunity).
---
Because the first waves of travelers will be people who missed a year of families, weddings, births, funerals, holidays, etc. Not vacationers. It's entirely possible that international tourism industry wont be in full swing by summer if they're only anticipating 1/10th of the traffic. At the same time, theres a year and a half's worth of all that domestic stuff thats been waiting to happen, too. And a year and a half's worth of typically international stuff that has become domestic.
Theres also reports of compression bookings that might affect some activities. Basically everything booked in 2020 just got pushed off onto 2021 and 2022. Some hotels are already reporting 80+% occupancy for this summer and anticipating 100% by june or july.
If you prebook tickets, you prob also want to prebook hotels and activities just to be safe, and those might not be quite as discounted or refundable as youre hoping.
But a lot will depend on what you plan to do. Stay in a London hotel and just walk around and live life? Prob easy. Book a week at a quaint English cottage in a coastal village? Prob not happening. Whatever domestic vacationers tend to do, look into availability asap. | Counter-arguments through said horrified reactions may have been directed more so in the direction of (refundable) trips *anywhere*, with the UK just being one of many, or not judged as a particularly good exception.
The risk of mutations isn't going away anytime soon, with India and Brazil being hotspots where it is particularly likely to happen due to [sheer numbers](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).
It is of course hard to measure likelihood of mutations developing, and AFAIK, the primary effect of vaccines right now is preventing hospitalization, **not preventing mutation**, let alone spread. I.e. you can still suffer symptoms. The virus may still spread from those with symptoms, or this should be presumed, to err on the side of caution.
Imagine everybody gets a vaccine but the virus is still hanging around, in something of a seasonal state or less infectious state. Mutation is still a risk as long as people keep spreading the virus around.
... but the monetary argument is hard to defeat.
---
Do you have an over-under on when you think the mutations won’t be an issue? My guess is 2067 or sometime around then. I do hope to get to travel in retirement
---
No idea. I for one have enough trust in the scientific community that I'd listen to whatever epidemiologists have to say, and generally presume their advice to be the best.
Knowing how little the truth seems to matter in parts of the world and how wanton people can be and thus bad at containing a pandemic, IDK man. I'm not prepared to lose more years of my life like this but I wouldn't be surprised. Some countries are sure to have issues both greater and more lasting, the USA being a notable one. | mu3toi | CMV: It is reasonable and prudent for an American to plan a refundable trip to the UK this August | I'm beginning to plan a summer vacation to Europe for this August. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but I've gotten horrified reactions from the couple of people I've told. So I'd like to at least understand the rational version of the counterarguments. Here is my chain of reasoning:
1. Given current vaccination rates, it is likely that the COVID pandemic will be substantially controlled in the US and UK by mid-summer. My wife and I will certainly be vaccinated by then.
2. It is therefore likely that travel will safe by late July.
3. It is likely that prices will rise in the next few months as more and more people realize that travel is becoming safe again.
4. By booking refundable arrangements, one can lock in the more favorable prices now available but, in the event of new variants, it is possible to cancel without losing money.
Feel free to change my view on any of those sub-elements or by refuting the entire argument. I will say that this all hinges on #1. If the chances of traveling safely were low for August, then I wouldn't bother (better not to get hopes up, take time researching and making arrangements, etc.). I am also aware that there is a cognitive risk of becoming reluctant to cancel a trip I'm looking forward to if circumstances in August are semi-safe but travel is rationally a bad idea. | chadtr5 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "aussieincanada",
"id": "gv3h3yo",
"score": 1,
"text": "I think the more important question to ask is how long you want to go and what you want to do on this trip?\n\nIf you have a loose schedule and can spend a few weeks in quarantine, I think it makes sense. Alternatively, if you need ... | [
{
"author": "Quint-V",
"id": "gv3gftn",
"score": 2,
"text": "Counter-arguments through said horrified reactions may have been directed more so in the direction of (refundable) trips *anywhere*, with the UK just being one of many, or not judged as a particularly good exception.\n\nThe risk of mutatio... | [
"gv3h3yo",
"gv3m3as",
"gv3plwx"
] | [
"gv3gftn",
"gv3li8i",
"gv3mn62"
] |
CMV: EA's NFL monopoly should be broken up by the government.
For many years, EA has been the only company allowed to make nfl games. I believe that this is a monopoly because nobody's going to want to buy a football game with real NFL players and teams. This is clearly an anti competitive measure taken by the NFL and EA to earn money and protect their image. I think that an antitrust lawsuit should be filed and that EA should have the monopoly taken away from them. Companies should be able to use NFL teams without the permission of the NFL unless some magical competitor to the NFL rises up and legitimately threatens the NFL. This also applies to other monopoly's like EA's FIFA monopoly. | This is like saying JK Rowling has a monopoly on writing harry potter books and that monopoly should be broken up. Or Marvel has a monopoly on making movies with Marvel super heroes.
Should antitrust laws be used to break up those "monopolies"?
The NFL owns many things that prevent this from happening, such as team names and logos. You can't just sell your own patriots jerseys without permission, right? So why would you be able to sell a video game that uses the patriot's logo and team name?
Even if we were to use the government to make it so other companies could make NFL games, it wouldn't be "an antitrust lawsuit" because it is neither antitrust nor a lawsuit... it'd be by simply getting rid of the government enforced trademark and copyright rules that allow the NFL to do this in the first place.
A lawsuit wouldn't work because the NFL is legally allowed to do this. Lawsuits only work when someone else is breaking the law.
NFL owning the rights to their teams isn't an antitrust violation in the same way that Marvel having a monopoly of Marvel superheroes isn't an antitrust violation.
---
I guess it wouldn't be a lawsuit, it would be changing the law.
---
That's a pretty massive blow to control over IPs. In fact, you're basically saying it should be illegal to control your IP, aren't you? That the second you create it it's no longer yours. | I get why you want this but the only way to fix it would open up a huge can of worms.
Companies are allowed to license their image/products etc.
EA pays the NFL for the rights. Another company is free to pay the NFL more for the rights and the NFL likely wouldn't turn it down. (Big picture there's no one stopping a company from outbidding ea)
If you argue the NFL has to allow everyone to use their content. Then well how does that work.
You can't say the NFL can't only let their be one video game but also allow them to only let ESPN stream Monday night football.
You basically make it impossible for the NFL to make money off anything besides tickets.
---
College football exists for streaming. Making a CFB game is damn near impossible for likeliness reasons.
---
That doesn't really address my point at all.
My point is why is it okay for the NFL to say only certain companies can show our games but not okay for them to say only certain companies can make video games using us | b33h2m | CMV: EA's NFL monopoly should be broken up by the government. | For many years, EA has been the only company allowed to make nfl games. I believe that this is a monopoly because nobody's going to want to buy a football game with real NFL players and teams. This is clearly an anti competitive measure taken by the NFL and EA to earn money and protect their image. I think that an antitrust lawsuit should be filed and that EA should have the monopoly taken away from them. Companies should be able to use NFL teams without the permission of the NFL unless some magical competitor to the NFL rises up and legitimately threatens the NFL. This also applies to other monopoly's like EA's FIFA monopoly. | Wide_right_yes | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "AnythingApplied",
"id": "eiwvvxh",
"score": 7,
"text": "This is like saying JK Rowling has a monopoly on writing harry potter books and that monopoly should be broken up. Or Marvel has a monopoly on making movies with Marvel super heroes.\n\nShould antitrust laws be used to break up th... | [
{
"author": "iclimbnaked",
"id": "eiwvf17",
"score": 2,
"text": "I get why you want this but the only way to fix it would open up a huge can of worms. \n\nCompanies are allowed to license their image/products etc. \n\nEA pays the NFL for the rights. Another company is free to pay the NFL more for th... | [
"eiwvvxh",
"eiwvyez",
"eiww5qa"
] | [
"eiwvf17",
"eiwvl1w",
"eiwvqt0"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.