Split (2)

train · 8.7k rows

claim string	positive string	negative string	post_id string	post_title string	post_text string	post_author string	positive_chain_length int64	negative_chain_length int64	positive_comments list	negative_comments list	positive_comment_ids list	negative_comment_ids list
CMV: People who move into less desirable areas with established infrastructure should not be able to lodge complaints about any negative impact of that A discussion in my local area has raised several complaints about noise, vibration and dust particles from a nearby, well-established mine. The mine dates back to the early 1900s, prior to the area's development, and offers free subscriptions to SMS alerts prior to any explosives use. There are regulations stating they must comply with purchasing of "buffer" land, and as such is satisfactory with the law. My city is fairly uncommon in how the population has spread outwards, rather than a residential skyrise boom. This has resulted in many developments, previously built in paddocks and farmland, being "swamped" by residential estates and suburbia. Similar movements have occurred in suburbs surrounding my city's only international airport, stunting planned expansion, and a large motorsport arena, resulting in its permanent closure. Both of these were built in what was considered outer suburbs at the time of development, but is now well within metropolitan limits. I believe by buying, leasing, or otherwise electing to reside in similar areas voids your rights to complain about noise, dust or declining property values as a direct or indirect result of these landmarks. Properties are approximately valued by proximity, and any money saved is "compensation" of sorts for inconveniences. It is up to the potential residents to conduct appropriate research on the areas they are looking into. EDIT: struggling to explain myself concisely, but I'll give it another go. My opinion is specifically that complaints about expected actions surrounding the sites should not be considered. E.g. Noise around a mine/racetrack/airport, smell around a sewage plant etc. EDIT 2: deltas awarded for terrible wording of question. Happy to discuss the outcome further if you can raise new points. It has been raised multiple times that complaints aren't inherently bad, and that my issue is with expecting outcomes of complaints to restrict business practice or enforce closure of the service. FINAL EDIT: Man what a roller-coaster. I get it, reddit likes to complain. Got a very convincing point about the valuable outcomes of complaints that made me CMV. I don't think it applies in my situation, nor in many that were brought up in the thread, but a strong point none-the-less. Won't be replying anymore as I feel it wouldn't be progressing the discussion, rather chasing an argument.	Without the ability to lodge complaints, what reason would a city have to improve the area? --- I agree complaints should be able to be lodged, particularly if, say in this situation, a mine wanted to develop nuclear power abilities or make significant changes to normal operation. However I don't think it's fair for residents to move in, then 6 months later lodge a complaint that an explosion "made their home shake" --- Title: > should not be able to lodge complaints This reply^: > I agree complaints should be able to be lodged How have you not awarded a Delta? EDIT: And talking about the merits or lack of in the complaint is irrelevant because complaints can only ever be assessed AFTER they're lodged.	They should be able to lodge complaints if the negative impact is greater than what is permitted or increased relative to when they moved in past the point of being tolerable. Light dust around your house which is close to a mine? That’s fair. Thick dust cloud you can’t even see through when you open your door? That isn’t fair and wasn’t necessarily what they signed up for. FYI the law on this discussion is basically governed by the tort of public nuisance --- Australia is fairly strict in governance of public nuisance. For discussion's sake, would you be able to argue that businesses should have to comply with new changes based on said complaints? Say, this mine having an explosive's restriction/ban being enforced as a result of resident complaints. EDIT: Didn't know it was possible, but you can have a Δ too for highlighting the flaw in my title. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DHAN150 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DHAN150)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	gf4pq5	CMV: People who move into less desirable areas with established infrastructure should not be able to lodge complaints about any negative impact of that	A discussion in my local area has raised several complaints about noise, vibration and dust particles from a nearby, well-established mine. The mine dates back to the early 1900s, prior to the area's development, and offers free subscriptions to SMS alerts prior to any explosives use. There are regulations stating they must comply with purchasing of "buffer" land, and as such is satisfactory with the law. My city is fairly uncommon in how the population has spread outwards, rather than a residential skyrise boom. This has resulted in many developments, previously built in paddocks and farmland, being "swamped" by residential estates and suburbia. Similar movements have occurred in suburbs surrounding my city's only international airport, stunting planned expansion, and a large motorsport arena, resulting in its permanent closure. Both of these were built in what was considered outer suburbs at the time of development, but is now well within metropolitan limits. I believe by buying, leasing, or otherwise electing to reside in similar areas voids your rights to complain about noise, dust or declining property values as a direct or indirect result of these landmarks. Properties are approximately valued by proximity, and any money saved is "compensation" of sorts for inconveniences. It is up to the potential residents to conduct appropriate research on the areas they are looking into. EDIT: struggling to explain myself concisely, but I'll give it another go. My opinion is specifically that complaints about expected actions surrounding the sites should not be considered. E.g. Noise around a mine/racetrack/airport, smell around a sewage plant etc. EDIT 2: deltas awarded for terrible wording of question. Happy to discuss the outcome further if you can raise new points. It has been raised multiple times that complaints aren't inherently bad, and that my issue is with expecting outcomes of complaints to restrict business practice or enforce closure of the service. FINAL EDIT: Man what a roller-coaster. I get it, reddit likes to complain. Got a very convincing point about the valuable outcomes of complaints that made me CMV. I don't think it applies in my situation, nor in many that were brought up in the thread, but a strong point none-the-less. Won't be replying anymore as I feel it wouldn't be progressing the discussion, rather chasing an argument.	GemTheGerm	3	3	[ { "author": "DocCannery84", "id": "fprd3py", "score": 2, "text": "Without the ability to lodge complaints, what reason would a city have to improve the area?", "timestamp": 1588850710 }, { "author": "GemTheGerm", "id": "fprdb3k", "score": 1, "text": "I agree complaints should be able to be lodged, particularly if, say in this situation, a mine wanted to develop nuclear power abilities or make significant changes to normal operation. However I don't think it's fair for residents to move in, then 6 months later lodge a complaint that an explosion \"made their home shake\"", "timestamp": 1588850894 }, { "author": "SorryForTheRainDelay", "id": "fprecap", "score": 2, "text": "Title:\n\n> should not be able to lodge complaints\n\nThis reply^:\n\n> I agree complaints should be able to be lodged \n\nHow have you not awarded a Delta?\n\nEDIT: And talking about the merits or lack of in the complaint is irrelevant because complaints can only ever be assessed AFTER they're lodged.", "timestamp": 1588851784 } ]	[ { "author": "DHAN150", "id": "fpreff8", "score": 6, "text": "They should be able to lodge complaints if the negative impact is greater than what is permitted or increased relative to when they moved in past the point of being tolerable. Light dust around your house which is close to a mine? That’s fair. Thick dust cloud you can’t even see through when you open your door? That isn’t fair and wasn’t necessarily what they signed up for. \n\nFYI the law on this discussion is basically governed by the tort of public nuisance", "timestamp": 1588851858 }, { "author": "GemTheGerm", "id": "fprfzid", "score": 1, "text": "Australia is fairly strict in governance of public nuisance.\n\nFor discussion's sake, would you be able to argue that businesses should have to comply with new changes based on said complaints? Say, this mine having an explosive's restriction/ban being enforced as a result of resident complaints.\n\nEDIT: Didn't know it was possible, but you can have a Δ too for highlighting the flaw in my title.", "timestamp": 1588853107 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "fprgdjk", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DHAN150 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DHAN150)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1588853415 } ]	[ "fprd3py", "fprdb3k", "fprecap" ]	[ "fpreff8", "fprfzid", "fprgdjk" ]
CMV: People shouldn't do good deeds just to do good deeds. I feel this way because of the "generous to a fault" premise. If you do a good deed, then that just gets people to recognize that you are a target to take advantage of. And they'll take advantage of that. And if you do good deeds and people look at you in a positive light for it, people can make you look bad by flipping people's perspective of you. So, you can look like a bad person, even if you are actually a generous person because someone can influence people's perception of you and turn them against you. And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. And people "put to work" people who are generous by making it that their generosity is what is expected of them and so their generosity isn't appreciated. And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. And if you are generous, it will make people expect your generosity and if you don't deliver they will treat you badly and sometimes treat you as if you weren't generous before. So, it doesn't behoove people to be generous because most people are not grateful for it and it is detrimental to you, if you don't have the ability to counter people who try to take advantage of you or try to hurt your reputation or try to "put you to work."	A good person doesn't really care what people think about her/his actions. She/He does them because she/he is a good person and the deed is a good deed. That's it. --- That's true but then since he or she doesn't care, he or she doesn't care if someone is trying to take advantage of them and they let it happen, not even feeling that they are being taken advantage of when they are. --- It can also be a good deed to say "no" at times.	Suppose I volunteer at a soup kitchen serving food to the homeless... how does someone notice me as a target and how does someone take advantage of that? Why would that turn people against me? > And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. That is a super weird attitude. Most people would respect and admire people that do good deeds. > And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. I've never seen this happen. If someone stops volunteering, if for example they get busier at work or have kids or whatnot, I've never seen a negative outcome like this. > So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. I give money to charities. Nobody knows how much I give apart from the IRS and the charity. How could this be a bad thing? How are people going to treat me badly and look at me as selfish? How does this open me up to be a target? And even with your strange ideas that volunteering is going to make people think worse of you, when the opposite is true, most people aren't volunteering for selfish reasons of making their personal perceptions better. They are volunteering because they want to help people. So even if every one of your points are true, that only means that "People shouldn't do good deeds to make others perceive them better", which actually MAKES the case that people who do good deeds should do it for the sake of doing the good deeds. --- I'm talking more in terms of someone taking advantage of a friend or someone that they know they can take advantage of and they do it. It's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true. If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated. I've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him. I wouldn't know how someone can find out in those two situations you provided. --- > It's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true. Sure, it isn't always true that it improves your reputation, but it usually is and is among most people. > If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated. Sure, someone could trash your reputation, but usually doing good deeds make people less want to trash your reputation. And people aren't generally doing good deeds to be appreciated anyway. > I've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him. That's more an example of ungratefulness, which is absolutely the case for many types of charity. But again, people aren't doing good deeds because others are grateful. I'm not sure how having a bad reputation among homeless people you'd otherwise not interact with is going to hurt him. But just because doing charity work CAN hurt your reputation with SOME people, doesn't mean it's going to and doesn't mean it will or hurt it with those people whose opinions you care about. For the most part it'll only improve your reputation. And that assumes you're doing the charity for the sake of your reputation, which just isn't the case for most people that volunteer or give.	abw5pz	CMV: People shouldn't do good deeds just to do good deeds.	I feel this way because of the "generous to a fault" premise. If you do a good deed, then that just gets people to recognize that you are a target to take advantage of. And they'll take advantage of that. And if you do good deeds and people look at you in a positive light for it, people can make you look bad by flipping people's perspective of you. So, you can look like a bad person, even if you are actually a generous person because someone can influence people's perception of you and turn them against you. And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. And people "put to work" people who are generous by making it that their generosity is what is expected of them and so their generosity isn't appreciated. And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. And if you are generous, it will make people expect your generosity and if you don't deliver they will treat you badly and sometimes treat you as if you weren't generous before. So, it doesn't behoove people to be generous because most people are not grateful for it and it is detrimental to you, if you don't have the ability to counter people who try to take advantage of you or try to hurt your reputation or try to "put you to work."	mcpon14	3	3	[ { "author": "SubmittedRationalist", "id": "ed3eg5l", "score": 2, "text": "A good person doesn't really care what people think about her/his actions. She/He does them because she/he is a good person and the deed is a good deed. That's it.", "timestamp": 1546455320 }, { "author": "mcpon14", "id": "ed3esaj", "score": 2, "text": "That's true but then since he or she doesn't care, he or she doesn't care if someone is trying to take advantage of them and they let it happen, not even feeling that they are being taken advantage of when they are. ", "timestamp": 1546455565 }, { "author": "kburjr", "id": "ed3xwas", "score": 1, "text": "It can also be a good deed to say \"no\" at times.", "timestamp": 1546468593 } ]	[ { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "ed3dal7", "score": 2, "text": "Suppose I volunteer at a soup kitchen serving food to the homeless... how does someone notice me as a target and how does someone take advantage of that? Why would that turn people against me?\n\n> And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity.\n\nThat is a super weird attitude. Most people would respect and admire people that do good deeds.\n\n> And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before.\n\nI've never seen this happen. If someone stops volunteering, if for example they get busier at work or have kids or whatnot, I've never seen a negative outcome like this.\n\n> So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them.\n\nI give money to charities. Nobody knows how much I give apart from the IRS and the charity. How could this be a bad thing? How are people going to treat me badly and look at me as selfish? How does this open me up to be a target?\n\nAnd even with your strange ideas that volunteering is going to make people think worse of you, when the opposite is true, most people aren't volunteering for selfish reasons of making their personal perceptions better. They are volunteering because they want to help people.\n\nSo even if every one of your points are true, that only means that \"People shouldn't do good deeds to make others perceive them better\", which actually MAKES the case that people who do good deeds should do it for the sake of doing the good deeds.", "timestamp": 1546454483 }, { "author": "mcpon14", "id": "ed3e7ih", "score": 1, "text": "I'm talking more in terms of someone taking advantage of a friend or someone that they know they can take advantage of and they do it.\n\nIt's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true. If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated. \n\nI've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him. \n\nI wouldn't know how someone can find out in those two situations you provided. ", "timestamp": 1546455148 }, { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "ed3eoat", "score": 2, "text": "> It's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true.\n\nSure, it isn't always true that it improves your reputation, but it usually is and is among most people.\n\n> If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated.\n\nSure, someone could trash your reputation, but usually doing good deeds make people less want to trash your reputation. And people aren't generally doing good deeds to be appreciated anyway.\n\n> I've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him.\n\nThat's more an example of ungratefulness, which is absolutely the case for many types of charity. But again, people aren't doing good deeds because others are grateful. I'm not sure how having a bad reputation among homeless people you'd otherwise not interact with is going to hurt him.\n\nBut just because doing charity work CAN hurt your reputation with SOME people, doesn't mean it's going to and doesn't mean it will or hurt it with those people whose opinions you care about. For the most part it'll only improve your reputation. And that assumes you're doing the charity for the sake of your reputation, which just isn't the case for most people that volunteer or give.", "timestamp": 1546455485 } ]	[ "ed3eg5l", "ed3esaj", "ed3xwas" ]	[ "ed3dal7", "ed3e7ih", "ed3eoat" ]
CMV: People shouldn't do good deeds just to do good deeds. I feel this way because of the "generous to a fault" premise. If you do a good deed, then that just gets people to recognize that you are a target to take advantage of. And they'll take advantage of that. And if you do good deeds and people look at you in a positive light for it, people can make you look bad by flipping people's perspective of you. So, you can look like a bad person, even if you are actually a generous person because someone can influence people's perception of you and turn them against you. And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. And people "put to work" people who are generous by making it that their generosity is what is expected of them and so their generosity isn't appreciated. And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. And if you are generous, it will make people expect your generosity and if you don't deliver they will treat you badly and sometimes treat you as if you weren't generous before. So, it doesn't behoove people to be generous because most people are not grateful for it and it is detrimental to you, if you don't have the ability to counter people who try to take advantage of you or try to hurt your reputation or try to "put you to work."	What if you're just smart enough to know when you're being taken advantage of so you doll out your 'good deeds for their own sake' only when you're comfortable? Seems a bit odd to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to being a kind person. --- What if you don't feel like you are being taken advantage of or aren't aware of it but you are? For example, churches who give out meals to the homeless are being taken advantage of but they don't feel like it because they are doing it to serve God. --- A church is supported by people and donors. Do you think giving away food is a net loss for a church, or is it possible that giving away food is actually a revenue maximization strategy?	Suppose I volunteer at a soup kitchen serving food to the homeless... how does someone notice me as a target and how does someone take advantage of that? Why would that turn people against me? > And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. That is a super weird attitude. Most people would respect and admire people that do good deeds. > And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. I've never seen this happen. If someone stops volunteering, if for example they get busier at work or have kids or whatnot, I've never seen a negative outcome like this. > So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. I give money to charities. Nobody knows how much I give apart from the IRS and the charity. How could this be a bad thing? How are people going to treat me badly and look at me as selfish? How does this open me up to be a target? And even with your strange ideas that volunteering is going to make people think worse of you, when the opposite is true, most people aren't volunteering for selfish reasons of making their personal perceptions better. They are volunteering because they want to help people. So even if every one of your points are true, that only means that "People shouldn't do good deeds to make others perceive them better", which actually MAKES the case that people who do good deeds should do it for the sake of doing the good deeds. --- I'm talking more in terms of someone taking advantage of a friend or someone that they know they can take advantage of and they do it. It's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true. If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated. I've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him. I wouldn't know how someone can find out in those two situations you provided. --- Feels like you can only understand doing good deeds for the fame of it, and you're salty sometimes that fame isnt a positive. This isnt doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds. It's doing good deeds for the sake of having the fame of being a good person.	abw5pz	CMV: People shouldn't do good deeds just to do good deeds.	I feel this way because of the "generous to a fault" premise. If you do a good deed, then that just gets people to recognize that you are a target to take advantage of. And they'll take advantage of that. And if you do good deeds and people look at you in a positive light for it, people can make you look bad by flipping people's perspective of you. So, you can look like a bad person, even if you are actually a generous person because someone can influence people's perception of you and turn them against you. And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity. And people "put to work" people who are generous by making it that their generosity is what is expected of them and so their generosity isn't appreciated. And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before. So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them. And if you are generous, it will make people expect your generosity and if you don't deliver they will treat you badly and sometimes treat you as if you weren't generous before. So, it doesn't behoove people to be generous because most people are not grateful for it and it is detrimental to you, if you don't have the ability to counter people who try to take advantage of you or try to hurt your reputation or try to "put you to work."	mcpon14	3	3	[ { "author": "TheVioletBarry", "id": "ed3d1eq", "score": 5, "text": "What if you're just smart enough to know when you're being taken advantage of so you doll out your 'good deeds for their own sake' only when you're comfortable? \n\nSeems a bit odd to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to being a kind person.", "timestamp": 1546454295 }, { "author": "mcpon14", "id": "ed3dr7g", "score": 1, "text": "What if you don't feel like you are being taken advantage of or aren't aware of it but you are? For example, churches who give out meals to the homeless are being taken advantage of but they don't feel like it because they are doing it to serve God.", "timestamp": 1546454821 }, { "author": "Det_", "id": "ed3es8o", "score": 2, "text": "A church is supported by people and donors. Do you think giving away food is a net loss for a church, or is it possible that giving away food is actually a revenue maximization strategy?", "timestamp": 1546455564 } ]	[ { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "ed3dal7", "score": 2, "text": "Suppose I volunteer at a soup kitchen serving food to the homeless... how does someone notice me as a target and how does someone take advantage of that? Why would that turn people against me?\n\n> And people do this if they don't like the positive perception that people have of you due to your generosity.\n\nThat is a super weird attitude. Most people would respect and admire people that do good deeds.\n\n> And if they aren't generous anymore, they will be looked upon as being selfish in comparison, when, in actuality, they are more generous than most but are simply not as generous as before.\n\nI've never seen this happen. If someone stops volunteering, if for example they get busier at work or have kids or whatnot, I've never seen a negative outcome like this.\n\n> So, if they are generous and they become less generous, it will hurt them.\n\nI give money to charities. Nobody knows how much I give apart from the IRS and the charity. How could this be a bad thing? How are people going to treat me badly and look at me as selfish? How does this open me up to be a target?\n\nAnd even with your strange ideas that volunteering is going to make people think worse of you, when the opposite is true, most people aren't volunteering for selfish reasons of making their personal perceptions better. They are volunteering because they want to help people.\n\nSo even if every one of your points are true, that only means that \"People shouldn't do good deeds to make others perceive them better\", which actually MAKES the case that people who do good deeds should do it for the sake of doing the good deeds.", "timestamp": 1546454483 }, { "author": "mcpon14", "id": "ed3e7ih", "score": 1, "text": "I'm talking more in terms of someone taking advantage of a friend or someone that they know they can take advantage of and they do it.\n\nIt's idealistic to think that people will respect and admire people that do good deeds but that's not always true. If someone doesn't want you to be looked upon in that light, they can hurt your reputation and make you look bad so your good deeds are not appreciated. \n\nI've seen a negative outcome like this. There was this guy who used to give out cigarettes among the homeless but after he stopped doing that by refusing them when they ask, they talked badly about him. \n\nI wouldn't know how someone can find out in those two situations you provided. ", "timestamp": 1546455148 }, { "author": "SaltyMaia", "id": "ed3ewbd", "score": 2, "text": "Feels like you can only understand doing good deeds for the fame of it, and you're salty sometimes that fame isnt a positive. This isnt doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds. It's doing good deeds for the sake of having the fame of being a good person.", "timestamp": 1546455646 } ]	[ "ed3d1eq", "ed3dr7g", "ed3es8o" ]	[ "ed3dal7", "ed3e7ih", "ed3ewbd" ]
CMV: The best way for US citizens to resist the new fascist regime is to stop paying. I've seen a lot of posts from Americans saying we can't protest, whys the point etc and I think an effective way to protest and resist the fall into fascism is to stop cooperating with the system. A democracy works by consent and most people who aren't Maga fanatics do not consent to the destruction of the constitution and government. The idea of waiting years to vote is unworkable as no dictator allows actual elections to affect their rule. My idea is for everyone against the regime to stop cooperating with the regime. Don't pay taxes, don't pay fines, ignore the law. Because the law no longer applies. Keep things "fiscal", vs just do what Donald does, ignore any rulings against you and claim immunity, as the president is not upholding the laws as he is sworn to do, and breaking them at will. And as no one is above the law, then once he is, then everyone is. The system works on consent and if thousands (not even millions) stop consenting, the system can't handle it.	i don’t disagree with the sentiment but unfortunately it would have to be A LOT of us doing it abruptly and simultaneously otherwise we will face serious consequences. nobody else can just claim immunity. trump can’t even claim immunity but he does a lot of things he’s not supposed to be able to do. the ONLY way this would work is to get it to a point of “well they can’t arrest all of us” and that would require mass coordination and cooperation, which americans are notoriously averse to doing. too many people have families, or are living paycheck to paycheck or in poverty, and can’t afford a brief stint in jail for this without their entire lives falling apart, and that is not conducive to change, it just puts us at a further disadvantage. --- The idea is not to go big, but just ignore little things, not pay little fines (like speeding tickets / parking fines / road tax / whatever what you can think of) Clog the system and refuse to give them money. Not go crazy and go to jail. --- None of those go to the federal government. All you’d be doing is starving your local or state government of funds which, ironically, could make them more dependent on federal aid.	Most people have taxes taken out of their paycheck, they can't really choose --- Can't they ask their company not to do it? No idea how it works in the US. --- The company wont actually do that as the company still owes those taxes . . . .	1k1gbcw	CMV: The best way for US citizens to resist the new fascist regime is to stop paying.	I've seen a lot of posts from Americans saying we can't protest, whys the point etc and I think an effective way to protest and resist the fall into fascism is to stop cooperating with the system. A democracy works by consent and most people who aren't Maga fanatics do not consent to the destruction of the constitution and government. The idea of waiting years to vote is unworkable as no dictator allows actual elections to affect their rule. My idea is for everyone against the regime to stop cooperating with the regime. Don't pay taxes, don't pay fines, ignore the law. Because the law no longer applies. Keep things "fiscal", vs just do what Donald does, ignore any rulings against you and claim immunity, as the president is not upholding the laws as he is sworn to do, and breaking them at will. And as no one is above the law, then once he is, then everyone is. The system works on consent and if thousands (not even millions) stop consenting, the system can't handle it.	yIdontunderstand	3	3	[ { "author": "ghoulxgrl22", "id": "mnltpmw", "score": 8, "text": "i don’t disagree with the sentiment but unfortunately it would have to be A LOT of us doing it abruptly and simultaneously otherwise we will face serious consequences. nobody else can just claim immunity. trump can’t even claim immunity but he does a lot of things he’s not supposed to be able to do. \n\nthe ONLY way this would work is to get it to a point of “well they can’t arrest all of us” and that would require mass coordination and cooperation, which americans are notoriously averse to doing. \n\ntoo many people have families, or are living paycheck to paycheck or in poverty, and can’t afford a brief stint in jail for this without their entire lives falling apart, and that is not conducive to change, it just puts us at a further disadvantage.", "timestamp": 1744905954 }, { "author": "yIdontunderstand", "id": "mnluyjj", "score": -5, "text": "The idea is not to go big, but just ignore little things, not pay little fines (like speeding tickets / parking fines / road tax / whatever what you can think of)\n\nClog the system and refuse to give them money.\n\nNot go crazy and go to jail.", "timestamp": 1744906319 }, { "author": "speedyjohn", "id": "mnlwmhf", "score": 4, "text": "None of those go to the federal government. All you’d be doing is starving your local or state government of funds which, ironically, could make them more dependent on federal aid.", "timestamp": 1744906805 } ]	[ { "author": "Rabbid0Luigi", "id": "mnlsxox", "score": 11, "text": "Most people have taxes taken out of their paycheck, they can't really choose", "timestamp": 1744905727 }, { "author": "yIdontunderstand", "id": "mnltvxr", "score": -4, "text": "Can't they ask their company not to do it? No idea how it works in the US.", "timestamp": 1744906007 }, { "author": "smokeyphil", "id": "mnlu8wu", "score": 5, "text": "The company wont actually do that as the company still owes those taxes . . . .", "timestamp": 1744906112 } ]	[ "mnltpmw", "mnluyjj", "mnlwmhf" ]	[ "mnlsxox", "mnltvxr", "mnlu8wu" ]
CMV: "SJWS" Have done more harm for LGBT people and other minority groups than they have good. I say this knowing their hearts are in the right place but sadly their heads may not, as a gay man myself I've had many unpleasant experiences with far left social justice types. They expect you to conform to a certain stereotype to meet their criteria of an oppressed person and if you don't you are branded a traitor and their obnoxious behaviors are part of the reason there is such a huge backlash against minority groups in things such as sports and video gaming communities today because we are automatically lumped in with the loudest and most obnoxious people from their side of the political compass. Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people. Edit: I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term "sjw" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an "sjw" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns.	So could you give me some specific examples of how 'SJWs' have harmed you and LGBT people in general? My experience of social justicey spaces is that they're very accepting so long as you offer them the same courtesy, although they can be very over earnest. --- Most of my examples could be seen as objective but constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation has led to many video game devs including it, normally in a way that could be described as shoe horned in for pandering, this has led to a reaction over the years from others who have started talking about "political agendas" and "forced diversity". The behavior is the problem, the harrasment and the anger, you can ptition for these things in a more civil way and allow developers to include them in a way that feels more organic, and in life all I want is to be free and happy, plating as a gay character in a game isn't on the top of my priorities but has created a lot of venom over the past several years. --- > constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation Who exactly was doing this, and how was it uncivil? What would a 'more civil way' of asking to be represented in media even look like? What is the more civil alternative to just, like, saying it in words in blog posts or whatever, which is, I'm fairly sure, the only thing that has ever happened? Moreover, even if the SJWs were 'uncivil' in their demands, why should they be held responsible, not the reactionaries who actually did the bad thing here? Everyone who wants the world to be good must always walk on tiptoe because doing otherwise will 'create venom'? Why?	>Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people. You've used "many" so often, I think even you know that the queer person who experiences little more than inconvenience, that they are willing to except, is in the minority. Or would you disagree? --- The thing is, and I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term "sjw" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an "sjw" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns. --- Do you agree with what I said, though?	gf4ni1	CMV: "SJWS" Have done more harm for LGBT people and other minority groups than they have good.	I say this knowing their hearts are in the right place but sadly their heads may not, as a gay man myself I've had many unpleasant experiences with far left social justice types. They expect you to conform to a certain stereotype to meet their criteria of an oppressed person and if you don't you are branded a traitor and their obnoxious behaviors are part of the reason there is such a huge backlash against minority groups in things such as sports and video gaming communities today because we are automatically lumped in with the loudest and most obnoxious people from their side of the political compass. Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people. Edit: I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term "sjw" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an "sjw" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns.	3and202	3	3	[ { "author": "prettysureitsmaddie", "id": "fprd1vv", "score": 34, "text": "So could you give me some specific examples of how 'SJWs' have harmed you and LGBT people in general? My experience of social justicey spaces is that they're very accepting so long as you offer them the same courtesy, although they can be very over earnest.", "timestamp": 1588850663 }, { "author": "3and202", "id": "fprdifj", "score": -1, "text": "Most of my examples could be seen as objective but constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation has led to many video game devs including it, normally in a way that could be described as shoe horned in for pandering, this has led to a reaction over the years from others who have started talking about \"political agendas\" and \"forced diversity\".\n\nThe behavior is the problem, the harrasment and the anger, you can ptition for these things in a more civil way and allow developers to include them in a way that feels more organic, and in life all I want is to be free and happy, plating as a gay character in a game isn't on the top of my priorities but has created a lot of venom over the past several years.", "timestamp": 1588851076 }, { "author": "MercurianAspirations", "id": "fprefx7", "score": 25, "text": "> constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation\n\nWho exactly was doing this, and how was it uncivil? What would a 'more civil way' of asking to be represented in media even look like? What is the more civil alternative to just, like, saying it in words in blog posts or whatever, which is, I'm fairly sure, the only thing that has ever happened?\n\nMoreover, even if the SJWs were 'uncivil' in their demands, why should they be held responsible, not the reactionaries who actually did the bad thing here? Everyone who wants the world to be good must always walk on tiptoe because doing otherwise will 'create venom'? Why?", "timestamp": 1588851869 } ]	[ { "author": "DocCannery84", "id": "fprcqdm", "score": 15, "text": ">Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people.\n\nYou've used \"many\" so often, I think even you know that the queer person who experiences little more than inconvenience, that they are willing to except, is in the minority. Or would you disagree?", "timestamp": 1588850379 }, { "author": "3and202", "id": "fprd3jy", "score": -2, "text": "The thing is, and I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term \"sjw\" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an \"sjw\" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns.", "timestamp": 1588850706 }, { "author": "DocCannery84", "id": "fprd53c", "score": 4, "text": "Do you agree with what I said, though?", "timestamp": 1588850743 } ]	[ "fprd1vv", "fprdifj", "fprefx7" ]	[ "fprcqdm", "fprd3jy", "fprd53c" ]
CMV: "SJWS" Have done more harm for LGBT people and other minority groups than they have good. I say this knowing their hearts are in the right place but sadly their heads may not, as a gay man myself I've had many unpleasant experiences with far left social justice types. They expect you to conform to a certain stereotype to meet their criteria of an oppressed person and if you don't you are branded a traitor and their obnoxious behaviors are part of the reason there is such a huge backlash against minority groups in things such as sports and video gaming communities today because we are automatically lumped in with the loudest and most obnoxious people from their side of the political compass. Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people. Edit: I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term "sjw" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an "sjw" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns.	So could you give me some specific examples of how 'SJWs' have harmed you and LGBT people in general? My experience of social justicey spaces is that they're very accepting so long as you offer them the same courtesy, although they can be very over earnest. --- Most of my examples could be seen as objective but constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation has led to many video game devs including it, normally in a way that could be described as shoe horned in for pandering, this has led to a reaction over the years from others who have started talking about "political agendas" and "forced diversity". The behavior is the problem, the harrasment and the anger, you can ptition for these things in a more civil way and allow developers to include them in a way that feels more organic, and in life all I want is to be free and happy, plating as a gay character in a game isn't on the top of my priorities but has created a lot of venom over the past several years. --- Again, it just seems like you’re conflating online trolling with SJW movement. It’s not like harassment online, even with regards to video games, is the sole purchase of SJWs. That’s a common occurrence from all sides of the political and social spectrum, including fans getting angry about female or LGBTQ characters being put in their games or movies.	This argument is filled with generalizations. I feel like you’re referring more to online trolls than you are to the actual social justice movement. Can you give a concrete example of the harm they have done? You don’t provide one in your post... --- Here's an article that elaborates on my thoughts https://medium.com/human-development-project/sjw-behaviors-that-hurt-social-justice-a445916583ce And another https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/sullivan-the-gay-rights-movement-is-undoing-its-best-work.html --- So, having quickly read through these articles, both criticize extremist factions of the SJW and leftist movements but neither make the contention you are making i.e. that they have done more harm than good.	gf4ni1	CMV: "SJWS" Have done more harm for LGBT people and other minority groups than they have good.	I say this knowing their hearts are in the right place but sadly their heads may not, as a gay man myself I've had many unpleasant experiences with far left social justice types. They expect you to conform to a certain stereotype to meet their criteria of an oppressed person and if you don't you are branded a traitor and their obnoxious behaviors are part of the reason there is such a huge backlash against minority groups in things such as sports and video gaming communities today because we are automatically lumped in with the loudest and most obnoxious people from their side of the political compass. Many of us simply want to get on with our lives whilst being aware of the disadvantages we may have but still wish to just get on with it and not make a big deal out of our situations and just simply want to be happy, and many of us are but we're constantly told we need to be angry over something and then people on the right attack us for complaining and asking for special treatment when as a matter of fact we have done no such thing and this has all came from a vocal minority of people. Edit: I should elaborate on this, firstly I hate the term "sjw" because social justice is a good thing, their should be safety and acceptable for lgbt people and black people and femenism should be embraced, but being an "sjw" and believing in social justice are not the same thing as sjw as a term refers to the screeching idiots who constantly feel the need to insult people and generally act like asses, they're the people making things worse for not just minorities but more level headed people who are still fighting the good fight without falling into their mindset and behavioural patterns.	3and202	3	3	[ { "author": "prettysureitsmaddie", "id": "fprd1vv", "score": 34, "text": "So could you give me some specific examples of how 'SJWs' have harmed you and LGBT people in general? My experience of social justicey spaces is that they're very accepting so long as you offer them the same courtesy, although they can be very over earnest.", "timestamp": 1588850663 }, { "author": "3and202", "id": "fprdifj", "score": -1, "text": "Most of my examples could be seen as objective but constantly decrying a video game for not including any aspects of lgbt representation has led to many video game devs including it, normally in a way that could be described as shoe horned in for pandering, this has led to a reaction over the years from others who have started talking about \"political agendas\" and \"forced diversity\".\n\nThe behavior is the problem, the harrasment and the anger, you can ptition for these things in a more civil way and allow developers to include them in a way that feels more organic, and in life all I want is to be free and happy, plating as a gay character in a game isn't on the top of my priorities but has created a lot of venom over the past several years.", "timestamp": 1588851076 }, { "author": "Altar_Falter", "id": "fpre43i", "score": 27, "text": "Again, it just seems like you’re conflating online trolling with SJW movement. It’s not like harassment online, even with regards to video games, is the sole purchase of SJWs. That’s a common occurrence from all sides of the political and social spectrum, including fans getting angry about female or LGBTQ characters being put in their games or movies.", "timestamp": 1588851591 } ]	[ { "author": "Altar_Falter", "id": "fprdiqt", "score": 12, "text": "This argument is filled with generalizations. I feel like you’re referring more to online trolls than you are to the actual social justice movement. Can you give a concrete example of the harm they have done? You don’t provide one in your post...", "timestamp": 1588851084 }, { "author": "3and202", "id": "fpre1br", "score": 2, "text": "Here's an article that elaborates on my thoughts\n\nhttps://medium.com/human-development-project/sjw-behaviors-that-hurt-social-justice-a445916583ce\n\nAnd another\n\nhttps://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/sullivan-the-gay-rights-movement-is-undoing-its-best-work.html", "timestamp": 1588851525 }, { "author": "Altar_Falter", "id": "fprf8xe", "score": 11, "text": "So, having quickly read through these articles, both criticize extremist factions of the SJW and leftist movements but neither make the contention you are making i.e. that they have done more harm than good.", "timestamp": 1588852522 } ]	[ "fprd1vv", "fprdifj", "fpre43i" ]	[ "fprdiqt", "fpre1br", "fprf8xe" ]
CMV: Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports There is so much controversy about trans women competing against cis women and how it's "unfair" because they can dominate in sports, but I don't see how it's any different at all from other types of people dominating in sports with no controversy. A very easily noticeable example is black people's dominance of multiple sports, a huge (but not only) one being basketball. Some might say something like, "it's not fair to cis women who've trained their whole lives to be beaten by a trans woman who has a natural advantage". So how is this any different, at all, from say white or Asian women who've trained all their lives being beaten by a black woman who has a natural advantage? There is no difference! However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports. My view is of course based on only trans women who meet qualifications (female hormone levels, etc.) for women's divisions being allowed to compete.	Just.....wow. Black men do not have an inherent biological advantage over men of any other race. On the contrary, males have an immense biological advantage over women because they’re bigger and stronger. That’s an over simplification, but I’m not sure how much value there’d be in going into more detail with someone who thinks ethnicity makes an individual superior to an individual of a different race. --- You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage? Also, this isn't solely about black people dominating, it could be any type of person dominating a certain type of sport, it's just that this example was the most obvious and noticeable. --- Because, culturally, they are raised to play basketball more. Culturally, whites are not. Scandinavians, for example, are among the tallest people in the world on average, and yet you never see them play the sport where height is an advantage. Why? Because it's not a part of their culture. --- But there are basketball teams in all schools across America, and most of those schools are majority/all white, so the basketball teams are majority/all white. So there are loads of white people raised to play basketball, and would love to be pro, but know they wouldn't be able to professionally compete because of their biology. Also, pro basketball teams were mostly/all white for a long time, so white people playing basketball is definitely part of their culture too. Basketball only became more stereotypical "black" culture because blacks started dominating the professional teams so much. Also, it's not just basketball, that was just an obvious example. Black people tend to do better at track events too. And black people make up a much larger percentage of pro football teams than their population percentage. --- Because typically white people know that if they can’t go pro they have other career opportunities to fall back on. Many black people don’t have those same opportunities, and often have additional barriers to their success outside of professional sports.	>However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports. It all hinges on whether you believe trans women are women. If you do, then for the sake of logical consistency, you must allow them to compete in women's sports. If, on the other hand, you believe trans women are men, then you musn't allow them to compete in women's sports. Is that the pertinent point you're missing, or is your assertion directed at proponents of gender ideology? --- > It all hinges on whether you believe trans women are women. If you do, then for the sake of logical consistency, you must allow them to compete in women's sports. Not true. The point of creating womens leagues is because we recognized there was a large enough genetic disadvantage that female athletes would never have a place in professional leagues without a Womens league. As we've moved to separating the idea of gender and sex we now are realizing people can be transgender. Something that wasn't at all recognized in the past. The spirit of this separation in leagues was to give female athletes a platform to compete. You can still recognize that a transgender person is a women, but think they should be banned from female athletics as they still have genetic advantages. --- >You can still recognize that a transgender person is a women, but think they should be banned from female athletics as they still have genetic advantages. That's right. You'd create what is a cis women's league, not a women's league. That is one of many ways of addressing the inconsistency I presented. --- It's the difference between the spirit of the law and letter of the law. The initial spirit was to separate by genetic advantages males had over females. What people consider a woman changed. Up until a few years ago, and in many leagues still, the womans league meant the cis womans league. Gender identity had nothing to do with it. --- >Up until a few years ago, and in many leagues still, the womans league meant the cis womans league. Right. "Woman" got redefined, and now women's leagues are faced with the problem of deciding what to do about it and whether even to acknowledge it.	d5k3lh	CMV: Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports	There is so much controversy about trans women competing against cis women and how it's "unfair" because they can dominate in sports, but I don't see how it's any different at all from other types of people dominating in sports with no controversy. A very easily noticeable example is black people's dominance of multiple sports, a huge (but not only) one being basketball. Some might say something like, "it's not fair to cis women who've trained their whole lives to be beaten by a trans woman who has a natural advantage". So how is this any different, at all, from say white or Asian women who've trained all their lives being beaten by a black woman who has a natural advantage? There is no difference! However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports. My view is of course based on only trans women who meet qualifications (female hormone levels, etc.) for women's divisions being allowed to compete.	blitheobjective	5	5	[ { "author": "Skip-7o-my-lou-", "id": "f0mbhd6", "score": 15, "text": "Just.....wow. \n\nBlack men do not have an inherent biological advantage over men of any other race. On the contrary, males have an immense biological advantage over women because they’re bigger and stronger. That’s an over simplification, but I’m not sure how much value there’d be in going into more detail with someone who thinks ethnicity makes an individual superior to an individual of a different race.", "timestamp": 1568741194 }, { "author": "blitheobjective", "id": "f0mbour", "score": -7, "text": "You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage? Also, this isn't solely about black people dominating, it could be any type of person dominating a certain type of sport, it's just that this example was the most obvious and noticeable.", "timestamp": 1568741326 }, { "author": "malachai926", "id": "f0mcb4v", "score": 8, "text": "Because, culturally, they are raised to play basketball more. Culturally, whites are not. Scandinavians, for example, are among the tallest people in the world on average, and yet you never see them play the sport where height is an advantage. Why? Because it's not a part of their culture.", "timestamp": 1568741727 }, { "author": "blitheobjective", "id": "f0md83j", "score": 2, "text": "But there are basketball teams in all schools across America, and most of those schools are majority/all white, so the basketball teams are majority/all white. So there are loads of white people raised to play basketball, and would love to be pro, but know they wouldn't be able to professionally compete because of their biology. Also, pro basketball teams were mostly/all white for a long time, so white people playing basketball is definitely part of their culture too. Basketball only became more stereotypical \"black\" culture because blacks started dominating the professional teams so much.\n\nAlso, it's not just basketball, that was just an obvious example. Black people tend to do better at track events too. And black people make up a much larger percentage of pro football teams than their population percentage.", "timestamp": 1568742318 }, { "author": "TheTigersAreNotReal", "id": "f0mgn9k", "score": 5, "text": "Because typically white people know that if they can’t go pro they have other career opportunities to fall back on. Many black people don’t have those same opportunities, and often have additional barriers to their success outside of professional sports.", "timestamp": 1568744534 } ]	[ { "author": "unRealEyeable", "id": "f0mesy3", "score": -1, "text": ">However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports.\n\nIt all hinges on whether you believe trans women are women. If you do, then for the sake of logical consistency, you must allow them to compete in women's sports. If, on the other hand, you believe trans women are men, then you musn't allow them to compete in women's sports. Is that the pertinent point you're missing, or is your assertion directed at proponents of gender ideology?", "timestamp": 1568743330 }, { "author": "Apprehensive_Clock", "id": "f0mjv5c", "score": 1, "text": "> It all hinges on whether you believe trans women are women. If you do, then for the sake of logical consistency, you must allow them to compete in women's sports. \n\nNot true. The point of creating womens leagues is because we recognized there was a large enough genetic disadvantage that female athletes would never have a place in professional leagues without a Womens league. \n\nAs we've moved to separating the idea of gender and sex we now are realizing people can be transgender. Something that wasn't at all recognized in the past. The spirit of this separation in leagues was to give female athletes a platform to compete. \n\nYou can still recognize that a transgender person is a women, but think they should be banned from female athletics as they still have genetic advantages.", "timestamp": 1568746637 }, { "author": "unRealEyeable", "id": "f0njgc7", "score": 1, "text": ">You can still recognize that a transgender person is a women, but think they should be banned from female athletics as they still have genetic advantages.\n\nThat's right. You'd create what is a cis women's league, not a women's league. That is one of many ways of addressing the inconsistency I presented.", "timestamp": 1568771682 }, { "author": "Apprehensive_Clock", "id": "f0njqua", "score": 1, "text": "It's the difference between the spirit of the law and letter of the law. The initial spirit was to separate by genetic advantages males had over females. What people consider a woman changed. Up until a few years ago, and in many leagues still, the womans league meant the cis womans league. Gender identity had nothing to do with it.", "timestamp": 1568771904 }, { "author": "unRealEyeable", "id": "f0nnata", "score": 1, "text": ">Up until a few years ago, and in many leagues still, the womans league meant the cis womans league.\n\nRight. \"Woman\" got redefined, and now women's leagues are faced with the problem of deciding what to do about it and whether even to acknowledge it.", "timestamp": 1568774685 } ]	[ "f0mbhd6", "f0mbour", "f0mcb4v", "f0md83j", "f0mgn9k" ]	[ "f0mesy3", "f0mjv5c", "f0njgc7", "f0njqua", "f0nnata" ]
CMV: Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports There is so much controversy about trans women competing against cis women and how it's "unfair" because they can dominate in sports, but I don't see how it's any different at all from other types of people dominating in sports with no controversy. A very easily noticeable example is black people's dominance of multiple sports, a huge (but not only) one being basketball. Some might say something like, "it's not fair to cis women who've trained their whole lives to be beaten by a trans woman who has a natural advantage". So how is this any different, at all, from say white or Asian women who've trained all their lives being beaten by a black woman who has a natural advantage? There is no difference! However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports. My view is of course based on only trans women who meet qualifications (female hormone levels, etc.) for women's divisions being allowed to compete.	Just.....wow. Black men do not have an inherent biological advantage over men of any other race. On the contrary, males have an immense biological advantage over women because they’re bigger and stronger. That’s an over simplification, but I’m not sure how much value there’d be in going into more detail with someone who thinks ethnicity makes an individual superior to an individual of a different race. --- You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage? Also, this isn't solely about black people dominating, it could be any type of person dominating a certain type of sport, it's just that this example was the most obvious and noticeable. --- >You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage? Not who you responded to but overall because of a cultural popularity in the sport and dedication to it. Its also why the US doesn't dominate soccer, at least the men. Culturally, its not important to us and our best athletes don't play soccer. Its why US women dominate soccer as culturally, women sports are more important here than most of the rest of the world and therefore, they have a huge advantage in training and getting into the sport at all as kids. Same goes for the demographics of baseball. Lots of Caribbean players because of the popularity of the sport. Lacrosse has a lot of rich white kids. Hockey has a lot of white people as well. Nascar, cricket, etc. There could be a high level Caribbean Nascar driver but chances are, a driver from the Caribbean wouldn't have the same oppurtunities in their home country to make it and chances are would not even think to try it out because of the culture they grew up in.	>Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports I would argue that the divide between men and women, athletically, is much greater than the divide between men and men, racially. Having a longer limbs because you're black or a longer torso because you're white or asian gives you a tiny advantage in certain sports that might matter at the very most elite level, when tenths of a second matter. But being male versus being female can be an enormous difference that starts mattering at nearly all levels past, like, 14. There are some sports race-dominated sports, like sprinting or swimming. And maybe cultural and economic differences don't account for those disparities. But there are very, very few female-dominated sports, where the most elite women performs better, consistently, than the most elite men in the exact same event. --- I agree with you on all that, though it doesn't change my view because hormone therapy changes everything. It puts a trans woman's hormones on the same level as as cis woman's. It reduces her muscle mass and strength to below the level of a cis man. This is illustrated in the case of the trans male (female to male) high school student wrestler who was forced to compete against females even though he wanted to compete against males. Even though born a woman, because of hormone therapy, he absolutely dominated because of the changes brought about by the hormone therapy. --- > It reduces her muscle mass and strength to below the level of a cis man. Right... But below the level of a cis man is not necessarily the same as "to levels equal of a cis woman". >his is illustrated in the case of the trans male (female to male) high school student wrestler who was forced to compete against females even though he wanted to compete against males. Even though born a woman, because of hormone therapy, he absolutely dominated because of the changes brought about by the hormone therapy. Sure, but would he have dominated against cis male athletes at the same level?	d5k3lh	CMV: Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports	There is so much controversy about trans women competing against cis women and how it's "unfair" because they can dominate in sports, but I don't see how it's any different at all from other types of people dominating in sports with no controversy. A very easily noticeable example is black people's dominance of multiple sports, a huge (but not only) one being basketball. Some might say something like, "it's not fair to cis women who've trained their whole lives to be beaten by a trans woman who has a natural advantage". So how is this any different, at all, from say white or Asian women who've trained all their lives being beaten by a black woman who has a natural advantage? There is no difference! However, I wonder if I've missed some pertinent point or piece of info that would make me think differently on this subject, since so many people always get up in arms about trans women competing against cis women but don't care about other types of people dominating in sports. My view is of course based on only trans women who meet qualifications (female hormone levels, etc.) for women's divisions being allowed to compete.	blitheobjective	3	3	[ { "author": "Skip-7o-my-lou-", "id": "f0mbhd6", "score": 15, "text": "Just.....wow. \n\nBlack men do not have an inherent biological advantage over men of any other race. On the contrary, males have an immense biological advantage over women because they’re bigger and stronger. That’s an over simplification, but I’m not sure how much value there’d be in going into more detail with someone who thinks ethnicity makes an individual superior to an individual of a different race.", "timestamp": 1568741194 }, { "author": "blitheobjective", "id": "f0mbour", "score": -7, "text": "You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage? Also, this isn't solely about black people dominating, it could be any type of person dominating a certain type of sport, it's just that this example was the most obvious and noticeable.", "timestamp": 1568741326 }, { "author": "letstrythisagain30", "id": "f0mcnd1", "score": 4, "text": ">You say that, but then why do black men dominate in basketball if not for a biological advantage?\n\nNot who you responded to but overall because of a cultural popularity in the sport and dedication to it. Its also why the US doesn't dominate soccer, at least the men. Culturally, its not important to us and our best athletes don't play soccer. Its why US women dominate soccer as culturally, women sports are more important here than most of the rest of the world and therefore, they have a huge advantage in training and getting into the sport at all as kids.\n\nSame goes for the demographics of baseball. Lots of Caribbean players because of the popularity of the sport. Lacrosse has a lot of rich white kids. Hockey has a lot of white people as well. Nascar, cricket, etc. There could be a high level Caribbean Nascar driver but chances are, a driver from the Caribbean wouldn't have the same oppurtunities in their home country to make it and chances are would not even think to try it out because of the culture they grew up in.", "timestamp": 1568741945 } ]	[ { "author": "iamasecretthrowaway", "id": "f0mfp96", "score": 2, "text": ">Trans women competing (and possible dominating against) cis women is no different than say black men dominating against men of other races in many sports\n\nI would argue that the divide between men and women, athletically, is much greater than the divide between men and men, racially. \n\nHaving a longer limbs because you're black or a longer torso because you're white or asian gives you a tiny advantage in certain sports that might matter at the very most elite level, when tenths of a second matter. But being male versus being female can be an enormous difference that starts mattering at nearly all levels past, like, 14. \n\nThere are some sports race-dominated sports, like sprinting or swimming. And maybe cultural and economic differences don't account for those disparities. But there are very, very few female-dominated sports, where the most elite women performs better, consistently, than the most elite men in the exact same event.", "timestamp": 1568743917 }, { "author": "blitheobjective", "id": "f0misfh", "score": 1, "text": "I agree with you on all that, though it doesn't change my view because hormone therapy changes everything. It puts a trans woman's hormones on the same level as as cis woman's. It reduces her muscle mass and strength to below the level of a cis man.\n\nThis is illustrated in the case of the trans male (female to male) high school student wrestler who was forced to compete against females even though he wanted to compete against males. Even though born a woman, because of hormone therapy, he absolutely dominated because of the changes brought about by the hormone therapy.", "timestamp": 1568745937 }, { "author": "iamasecretthrowaway", "id": "f0mjaam", "score": 1, "text": "> It reduces her muscle mass and strength to below the level of a cis man.\n\nRight... But below the level of a cis man is not necessarily the same as \"to levels equal of a cis woman\". \n\n>his is illustrated in the case of the trans male (female to male) high school student wrestler who was forced to compete against females even though he wanted to compete against males. Even though born a woman, because of hormone therapy, he absolutely dominated because of the changes brought about by the hormone therapy.\n\nSure, but would he have dominated against cis male athletes at the same level?", "timestamp": 1568746260 } ]	[ "f0mbhd6", "f0mbour", "f0mcnd1" ]	[ "f0mfp96", "f0misfh", "f0mjaam" ]
CMV: It’s not considered “irresponsible” to not vote in an election if you can’t decide on a political/party. I know the main argument against this is typically “pick who you agree with most”. The problem lies in what is considered more important and less important to you. Let’s say for example your views on immigration are considered liberal and your views on healthcare are conservative. Typically it’s hard to find a candidate who will agree with your opinions on both subjects, it’s usually one or the other. But what if both subjects hold equal importance to you? Politics have become very black and white in recent years (or, red and blue). And it feels like if you’re in the middle, you’re stuck. It should not be every citizen’s responsibility to vote, and I know that in some countries it’s straight up required. I think if you strongly support a candidate then you should vote for them, but if you can’t seem to make up your mind you shouldn’t have to pick a side. You should just be able to not vote so long as you can accept whatever outcome happens. EDIT: I’m in class currently, so I may be slow to respond. Also for context, I’m in the US. 2nd EDIT: It seems a lot of you are suggesting spoiling a ballot, which I feel is a good temporary solution until you can find a candidate that speaks to you. As much as I’d love to continue this discussion in the comments, I’d pretty much be repeating myself a lot. So I’m off for the day. Thanks again for all the positive input. I was nervous that bringing up politics would cause a dumpster fire, but I’m pleasantly surprised. :) Bye for now!	If you've truly done all the research and learned as much as you can about the differences between all candidates available -- beyond the buzzwords either party is throwing out about themselves and each other -- and you absolutely cannot weigh one option that you prefer over the other, you should still go vote. When you vote, you can leave the option for that specific election blank. Rarely is the primary election the only thing on the ticket. A blank or spoiled vote is different than a no-show. The first says "No options were worth voting for" and the second says "I'm too lazy to get to the polls and vote." (provided that the option to vote exists and they were not otherwise impaired from doing so) --- So, just do a write in for each one and say “no options worth voting for” or something similar? I suppose I don’t see how that’s any different from not voting. --- That actually shows the people running the party that you are worthy enough to try to get your vote in the future instead of just showing voter apathy. If you aren't willing to go to vote, then no parties will care to go after your vote. They'll count you as not caring. Also, there are usually other things that are being voted at at the same time. You'll frequently hear things like vote No on prop 8, or something else similar. There are lots of votes on local things that will affect you more and you can actually have a chance to help change	You are ignoring a lot of options that are available. For example, you can strategically vote. Some people tend to vote for the party that is not in power because they feel uncomfortable with a large imbalance of power in the government. --- That’s a good idea. But what if you don’t feel comfortable voting for anyone in that party? Or what if you prefer an imbalance of power? --- If you prefer an imbalance then vote for whoever makes that imbalance larger. Not feeling comfortable about voting for anyone is not really different from not bothering to vote. You are not supposed to do whats comfortable, you are supposed to do what you think makes the country better.	apw1n3	CMV: It’s not considered “irresponsible” to not vote in an election if you can’t decide on a political/party.	I know the main argument against this is typically “pick who you agree with most”. The problem lies in what is considered more important and less important to you. Let’s say for example your views on immigration are considered liberal and your views on healthcare are conservative. Typically it’s hard to find a candidate who will agree with your opinions on both subjects, it’s usually one or the other. But what if both subjects hold equal importance to you? Politics have become very black and white in recent years (or, red and blue). And it feels like if you’re in the middle, you’re stuck. It should not be every citizen’s responsibility to vote, and I know that in some countries it’s straight up required. I think if you strongly support a candidate then you should vote for them, but if you can’t seem to make up your mind you shouldn’t have to pick a side. You should just be able to not vote so long as you can accept whatever outcome happens. EDIT: I’m in class currently, so I may be slow to respond. Also for context, I’m in the US. 2nd EDIT: It seems a lot of you are suggesting spoiling a ballot, which I feel is a good temporary solution until you can find a candidate that speaks to you. As much as I’d love to continue this discussion in the comments, I’d pretty much be repeating myself a lot. So I’m off for the day. Thanks again for all the positive input. I was nervous that bringing up politics would cause a dumpster fire, but I’m pleasantly surprised. :) Bye for now!	paperslacker	3	3	[ { "author": "UnauthorizedUsername", "id": "egbk17j", "score": 438, "text": "If you've truly done all the research and learned as much as you can about the differences between all candidates available -- beyond the buzzwords either party is throwing out about themselves and each other -- and you absolutely cannot weigh one option that you prefer over the other, you should still go vote.\n\nWhen you vote, you can leave the option for that specific election blank. Rarely is the primary election the only thing on the ticket. A blank or spoiled vote is different than a no-show. The first says \"No options were worth voting for\" and the second says \"I'm too lazy to get to the polls and vote.\" (provided that the option to vote exists and they were not otherwise impaired from doing so)", "timestamp": 1549994518 }, { "author": "paperslacker", "id": "egbqap6", "score": 45, "text": "So, just do a write in for each one and say “no options worth voting for” or something similar? I suppose I don’t see how that’s any different from not voting.", "timestamp": 1549998629 }, { "author": "slowmode1", "id": "egbr106", "score": 201, "text": "That actually shows the people running the party that you are worthy enough to try to get your vote in the future instead of just showing voter apathy. If you aren't willing to go to vote, then no parties will care to go after your vote. They'll count you as not caring.\n\n\n\nAlso, there are usually other things that are being voted at at the same time. You'll frequently hear things like vote No on prop 8, or something else similar. There are lots of votes on local things that will affect you more and you can actually have a chance to help change", "timestamp": 1549999121 } ]	[ { "author": "MasterGrok", "id": "egbjbzj", "score": 84, "text": "You are ignoring a lot of options that are available. For example, you can strategically vote. Some people tend to vote for the party that is not in power because they feel uncomfortable with a large imbalance of power in the government. ", "timestamp": 1549994055 }, { "author": "paperslacker", "id": "egbjt8l", "score": 14, "text": "That’s a good idea. But what if you don’t feel comfortable voting for anyone in that party? Or what if you prefer an imbalance of power?", "timestamp": 1549994372 }, { "author": "ElysiX", "id": "egbl0oa", "score": 51, "text": "If you prefer an imbalance then vote for whoever makes that imbalance larger. Not feeling comfortable about voting for anyone is not really different from not bothering to vote. You are not supposed to do whats comfortable, you are supposed to do what you think makes the country better.", "timestamp": 1549995174 } ]	[ "egbk17j", "egbqap6", "egbr106" ]	[ "egbjbzj", "egbjt8l", "egbl0oa" ]
CMV: I don’t care about climate change. Let’s stipulate that human activity influences the climate, and that the climate also ebbs and flows on its own accord. I don’t care about climate change because I’m not convinced that getting a bit warmer is a bad thing. Concern over global warming makes the arbitrary assumption that the global temperature just before the 2nd industrial revolution is the ideal temperature. But the temperature in the mid 19th century was unusually cold compared to the flux of climate we’ve endured since the last ice age. And I’d rather the world get warmer than get colder. Also, I think it’s folly to act as if the earth is a patient on our operating table whose health is resting in our hands. Nature is violent and unruly. Sea levels rise and fall, cities become ocean ruins, winds change and make new deserts and turn others into savannah. So what? We should just be happy to be alive. Our energy is better spent worrying about asteroids, solar flares, and nuclear weapons. The cynical part of me thinks we worry about climate instead because there’s money to be made doing so.	The vast majority of people live very close to a coast line, which means if sea levels rise by any significant margin there's going to be a refugee crisis the likes of which the world has never seen. Like relocate all of New York City, and LA, and San Fran, and a ton more. And that's just in the US. That'll be happening world wide. That's a crisis that may not be as bad as an asteroid but is still absolutely awful and far far more likely than an asteroid. --- Sea levels will rise slowly. People will move to higher ground. Just like humans have always done when the sea level changes. --- People will not move to higher ground. They will build things to try and control nature like we have always done. This will eventually fail. But the bigger problem is that we have spent trillions of dollars building on lower ground. It's going to cost even more to move to higher ground. And there will be less land to move to.	Climate change concern has zero to do with harming the Earth. The Earth will survive whether average temps increase 20 degrees or plummet 20 degrees. Climate change concern is about humans. Humans have spent the last 300 years creating society with the assumption that weather will be X. Climate change means weather will become Y. What this means for humans is a lot of problems. Changes in sea level means less land for us and since we've built on coastlines it means huge costs for either rebuilding and/or dikes and other measures. Farming has been built around assumptions that it is certain temperatures in certain areas. If climate change means optimal farming weather moves a few degrees North then we will lose a lot of food production and it will cause huge costs to do that. Climate change causes weather pattern changes too and that can be good or bad for us. Warmer Atlantic oceans means more hurricanes. The Earth doesn't care it holds up. The Earth didn't build houses that cost thousands to rebuild. The Earth built trees that regrow. If the climate 50 years from now had been the climate of 500 years ago we would be fine. We would have built society based on that climate. But we didn't. We built it on the one 500 years ago. And it's going to cost us a lot of money and misery to adjust to the new one. If we can reduce climate change we can reduce that cost. --- Building society around the assumption of a stable temperature was stupid. Temperature changes even if we leave it alone. The solution is to adapt to the reality that climate is volatile. --- Well they weren’t as smart as us about climate changing in 1700. But to your point the bigger issue is the greatly increased rate of change. Climate change issues today are much more rapid changes that in the past. So we don’t have the time now to naturally adapt.	96i78u	CMV: I don’t care about climate change.	Let’s stipulate that human activity influences the climate, and that the climate also ebbs and flows on its own accord. I don’t care about climate change because I’m not convinced that getting a bit warmer is a bad thing. Concern over global warming makes the arbitrary assumption that the global temperature just before the 2nd industrial revolution is the ideal temperature. But the temperature in the mid 19th century was unusually cold compared to the flux of climate we’ve endured since the last ice age. And I’d rather the world get warmer than get colder. Also, I think it’s folly to act as if the earth is a patient on our operating table whose health is resting in our hands. Nature is violent and unruly. Sea levels rise and fall, cities become ocean ruins, winds change and make new deserts and turn others into savannah. So what? We should just be happy to be alive. Our energy is better spent worrying about asteroids, solar flares, and nuclear weapons. The cynical part of me thinks we worry about climate instead because there’s money to be made doing so.	MorningCoffeeCraps	3	3	[ { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "e40m12c", "score": 9, "text": "The vast majority of people live very close to a coast line, which means if sea levels rise by any significant margin there's going to be a refugee crisis the likes of which the world has never seen. Like relocate all of New York City, and LA, and San Fran, and a ton more. And that's just in the US. That'll be happening world wide. That's a crisis that may not be as bad as an asteroid but is still absolutely awful and far far more likely than an asteroid. ", "timestamp": 1534008270 }, { "author": "MorningCoffeeCraps", "id": "e40m69w", "score": 0, "text": "Sea levels will rise slowly. People will move to higher ground. Just like humans have always done when the sea level changes.", "timestamp": 1534008416 }, { "author": "gaviidae", "id": "e40mf4d", "score": 13, "text": "People will not move to higher ground. They will build things to try and control nature like we have always done. This will eventually fail.\n\nBut the bigger problem is that we have spent trillions of dollars building on lower ground. It's going to cost even more to move to higher ground. And there will be less land to move to.", "timestamp": 1534008659 } ]	[ { "author": "gaviidae", "id": "e40m9ck", "score": 17, "text": "Climate change concern has zero to do with harming the Earth. The Earth will survive whether average temps increase 20 degrees or plummet 20 degrees. Climate change concern is about humans.\n\nHumans have spent the last 300 years creating society with the assumption that weather will be X. Climate change means weather will become Y. What this means for humans is a lot of problems. Changes in sea level means less land for us and since we've built on coastlines it means huge costs for either rebuilding and/or dikes and other measures.\n\nFarming has been built around assumptions that it is certain temperatures in certain areas. If climate change means optimal farming weather moves a few degrees North then we will lose a lot of food production and it will cause huge costs to do that.\n\nClimate change causes weather pattern changes too and that can be good or bad for us. Warmer Atlantic oceans means more hurricanes. The Earth doesn't care it holds up. The Earth didn't build houses that cost thousands to rebuild. The Earth built trees that regrow.\n\nIf the climate 50 years from now had been the climate of 500 years ago we would be fine. We would have built society based on that climate. But we didn't. We built it on the one 500 years ago. And it's going to cost us a lot of money and misery to adjust to the new one. If we can reduce climate change we can reduce that cost.", "timestamp": 1534008500 }, { "author": "MorningCoffeeCraps", "id": "e40my4k", "score": -4, "text": "Building society around the assumption of a stable temperature was stupid. Temperature changes even if we leave it alone. The solution is to adapt to the reality that climate is volatile.", "timestamp": 1534009186 }, { "author": "gaviidae", "id": "e40n8ss", "score": 6, "text": "Well they weren’t as smart as us about climate changing in 1700.\n\nBut to your point the bigger issue is the greatly increased rate of change. Climate change issues today are much more rapid changes that in the past. So we don’t have the time now to naturally adapt.", "timestamp": 1534009488 } ]	[ "e40m12c", "e40m69w", "e40mf4d" ]	[ "e40m9ck", "e40my4k", "e40n8ss" ]
CMV: I don’t care about climate change. Let’s stipulate that human activity influences the climate, and that the climate also ebbs and flows on its own accord. I don’t care about climate change because I’m not convinced that getting a bit warmer is a bad thing. Concern over global warming makes the arbitrary assumption that the global temperature just before the 2nd industrial revolution is the ideal temperature. But the temperature in the mid 19th century was unusually cold compared to the flux of climate we’ve endured since the last ice age. And I’d rather the world get warmer than get colder. Also, I think it’s folly to act as if the earth is a patient on our operating table whose health is resting in our hands. Nature is violent and unruly. Sea levels rise and fall, cities become ocean ruins, winds change and make new deserts and turn others into savannah. So what? We should just be happy to be alive. Our energy is better spent worrying about asteroids, solar flares, and nuclear weapons. The cynical part of me thinks we worry about climate instead because there’s money to be made doing so.	Climate change concern has zero to do with harming the Earth. The Earth will survive whether average temps increase 20 degrees or plummet 20 degrees. Climate change concern is about humans. Humans have spent the last 300 years creating society with the assumption that weather will be X. Climate change means weather will become Y. What this means for humans is a lot of problems. Changes in sea level means less land for us and since we've built on coastlines it means huge costs for either rebuilding and/or dikes and other measures. Farming has been built around assumptions that it is certain temperatures in certain areas. If climate change means optimal farming weather moves a few degrees North then we will lose a lot of food production and it will cause huge costs to do that. Climate change causes weather pattern changes too and that can be good or bad for us. Warmer Atlantic oceans means more hurricanes. The Earth doesn't care it holds up. The Earth didn't build houses that cost thousands to rebuild. The Earth built trees that regrow. If the climate 50 years from now had been the climate of 500 years ago we would be fine. We would have built society based on that climate. But we didn't. We built it on the one 500 years ago. And it's going to cost us a lot of money and misery to adjust to the new one. If we can reduce climate change we can reduce that cost. --- Building society around the assumption of a stable temperature was stupid. Temperature changes even if we leave it alone. The solution is to adapt to the reality that climate is volatile. --- It's not just climate. We built our civilization on the assumption Nature is an immutable cost sink for our economies and socioeconomic activity. This means temperature, air and ocean currents, biodiversity and balanced ecosystems, etc. They're all at stake now in a way that would completely destabilize our civilization. It's as if we were given a credit card and thought it was income. We're now facing the mountain of debt we achieved through centuries of "grow and expand now, worry about the consequences later". And the same methods and way of life that brought us here today are being lauded as the solutions to these problems. So this is why it is an important concern. Unless you don't really care about your life or the life of other humans, or any other life on this planet at all, this is a concern you should have.	The vast majority of people live very close to a coast line, which means if sea levels rise by any significant margin there's going to be a refugee crisis the likes of which the world has never seen. Like relocate all of New York City, and LA, and San Fran, and a ton more. And that's just in the US. That'll be happening world wide. That's a crisis that may not be as bad as an asteroid but is still absolutely awful and far far more likely than an asteroid. --- Sea levels will rise slowly. People will move to higher ground. Just like humans have always done when the sea level changes. --- But this is the displacement of millions upon millions, billions, of people, in a couple decades sure, but our infrastructure is not set up to handle that. This isn't some people deciding to move. This is the majority of the world's population moving into places that are not fully equipped to handle such a large influx of people, even if it's spread out over a couple decades. And sea levels rising is just one effect. Crops will have more trouble growing, weather will get worse, among other things.	96i78u	CMV: I don’t care about climate change.	Let’s stipulate that human activity influences the climate, and that the climate also ebbs and flows on its own accord. I don’t care about climate change because I’m not convinced that getting a bit warmer is a bad thing. Concern over global warming makes the arbitrary assumption that the global temperature just before the 2nd industrial revolution is the ideal temperature. But the temperature in the mid 19th century was unusually cold compared to the flux of climate we’ve endured since the last ice age. And I’d rather the world get warmer than get colder. Also, I think it’s folly to act as if the earth is a patient on our operating table whose health is resting in our hands. Nature is violent and unruly. Sea levels rise and fall, cities become ocean ruins, winds change and make new deserts and turn others into savannah. So what? We should just be happy to be alive. Our energy is better spent worrying about asteroids, solar flares, and nuclear weapons. The cynical part of me thinks we worry about climate instead because there’s money to be made doing so.	MorningCoffeeCraps	3	3	[ { "author": "gaviidae", "id": "e40m9ck", "score": 17, "text": "Climate change concern has zero to do with harming the Earth. The Earth will survive whether average temps increase 20 degrees or plummet 20 degrees. Climate change concern is about humans.\n\nHumans have spent the last 300 years creating society with the assumption that weather will be X. Climate change means weather will become Y. What this means for humans is a lot of problems. Changes in sea level means less land for us and since we've built on coastlines it means huge costs for either rebuilding and/or dikes and other measures.\n\nFarming has been built around assumptions that it is certain temperatures in certain areas. If climate change means optimal farming weather moves a few degrees North then we will lose a lot of food production and it will cause huge costs to do that.\n\nClimate change causes weather pattern changes too and that can be good or bad for us. Warmer Atlantic oceans means more hurricanes. The Earth doesn't care it holds up. The Earth didn't build houses that cost thousands to rebuild. The Earth built trees that regrow.\n\nIf the climate 50 years from now had been the climate of 500 years ago we would be fine. We would have built society based on that climate. But we didn't. We built it on the one 500 years ago. And it's going to cost us a lot of money and misery to adjust to the new one. If we can reduce climate change we can reduce that cost.", "timestamp": 1534008500 }, { "author": "MorningCoffeeCraps", "id": "e40my4k", "score": -4, "text": "Building society around the assumption of a stable temperature was stupid. Temperature changes even if we leave it alone. The solution is to adapt to the reality that climate is volatile.", "timestamp": 1534009186 }, { "author": "lucasvb", "id": "e40o0fz", "score": 4, "text": "It's not just climate. We built our civilization on the assumption Nature is an immutable cost sink for our economies and socioeconomic activity. This means temperature, air and ocean currents, biodiversity and balanced ecosystems, etc. They're all at stake now in a way that would completely destabilize our civilization.\n\nIt's as if we were given a credit card and thought it was income.\n\nWe're now facing the mountain of debt we achieved through centuries of \"grow and expand now, worry about the consequences later\". And the same methods and way of life that brought us here today are being lauded as the solutions to these problems. So this is why it is an important concern.\n\nUnless you don't really care about your life or the life of other humans, or any other life on this planet at all, this is a concern you should have. ", "timestamp": 1534010258 } ]	[ { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "e40m12c", "score": 9, "text": "The vast majority of people live very close to a coast line, which means if sea levels rise by any significant margin there's going to be a refugee crisis the likes of which the world has never seen. Like relocate all of New York City, and LA, and San Fran, and a ton more. And that's just in the US. That'll be happening world wide. That's a crisis that may not be as bad as an asteroid but is still absolutely awful and far far more likely than an asteroid. ", "timestamp": 1534008270 }, { "author": "MorningCoffeeCraps", "id": "e40m69w", "score": 0, "text": "Sea levels will rise slowly. People will move to higher ground. Just like humans have always done when the sea level changes.", "timestamp": 1534008416 }, { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "e40mmo0", "score": 2, "text": "But this is the displacement of millions upon millions, billions, of people, in a couple decades sure, but our infrastructure is not set up to handle that. This isn't some people deciding to move. This is the majority of the world's population moving into places that are not fully equipped to handle such a large influx of people, even if it's spread out over a couple decades. \n\nAnd sea levels rising is just one effect. Crops will have more trouble growing, weather will get worse, among other things. ", "timestamp": 1534008866 } ]	[ "e40m9ck", "e40my4k", "e40o0fz" ]	[ "e40m12c", "e40m69w", "e40mmo0" ]
CMV: Not everyone's vote should have the same weight I was having an argument with my friend just now, and I have come to the conclusion that not everyone's vote should be have the same weight. While I am sure that most people have come to their decision after careful evaluation and deliberation, there is still a sizeable minority of people who may not exactly think things through. This could potentially lead to the rise of demagogues and populists, who while appealing to the masses, may lead the nation down the wrong path. Furthermore, an erudite professor, for example, is able to evaluate all the pros and cons of a policy, before coming to a decision. However, from what I have observed, a substantial group of people seem to vote based on party lines. They vote based on the letter before the candidate's name, without considering the policies proposed. This is troubling to me because they may not fully consider the ramifications of their decision. I find it hard to reconcile the fact that someone who has carefully thought things out should have the same power as someone who just wings it and does not consider what his decision might result in. Side note: Lately, I've been reading about the Roman Republic and found something interesting. It seemed to be a tiered system, where people were grouped based on their wealth. The wealthiest had the most number of votes per person. Tribunes of the Plebs and could veto any bills that directly harmed the plebeians. (I'm new to this sub-reddit so I hope I haven't violated any rules, I hope a meaningful discussion can take place.) Edit: So it seems that the Republic is not exactly a good example, what about a technocracy? People have said that you may be good in one area, but not the other, this seems to play into the strengths of a technocracy. There will be biases, but this can be resolved by welcoming different opinions.	Who decides how much each person's vote is worth? And what reason does anyone have to respect a system that values the vote of someone else over theres? --- I am not entirely sure, I still thinking about it, but a roman-styled system could be considered. Education and wealth could be taken into consideration. Of course, a roman-styled system will need modifications. --- How do you measure how educated someone is? And why do you think wealth is a good standard? --- Possibly qualifications and maybe a civics test? Rethinking it, I'm not sure if wealth is a good standard right now. My original idea was very few people are win the lottery or hit the jackpot, most people had to make good decisions to come by it, but thinking it over, I'm not so sure if that's a good idea anymore. --- Poll tests are explicitly banned in the USA. The reason is that the questions were structured in such a way that minorities would fail the test. By advocating for people's votes to be worth more or less you will keep everyone who's not a middle-class white guy politically disadvantaged.	So how would you fairly decide whose vote should be worth extra, how should it work? --- That is something I am not entirely sure of, I still thinking about it, but a roman-styled system could be considered. Modifications have to be made to suit modern society of course. Education and possibly wealth could be taken into consideration. --- So these groups have their own motivations and vested interests. E.g. the wealthy generally want to pay less tax because they get less benefits from social services, relative to the amount that they pay. If you prioritise these groups, you will prioritise their interests over everyone else's. The point is that ranking voters biases society towards your favoured groups and can silence people who might have pressing concerns but who don't meet the criteria. --- Well I mean of course there will be biases, but I feel like a) that is a compromise that needs to be made to ensure that the country is not run by some demagogue b) there will be checks in place that rights are not being trampled over. --- Right but I think those biases are worse than the prospect of the occasional demagogue. One has a much longer term effect on the course of society than the other. Checks and balances are an inadequate solution because you have created an asymmetric system. It is inevitable that they will have unequal power and have differing levels of power in different areas. You talked about tribunes in another post. Have a look at [Tiberius Gracchus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus) for a famous example of how unstable that system was.	gf42en	CMV: Not everyone's vote should have the same weight	I was having an argument with my friend just now, and I have come to the conclusion that not everyone's vote should be have the same weight. While I am sure that most people have come to their decision after careful evaluation and deliberation, there is still a sizeable minority of people who may not exactly think things through. This could potentially lead to the rise of demagogues and populists, who while appealing to the masses, may lead the nation down the wrong path. Furthermore, an erudite professor, for example, is able to evaluate all the pros and cons of a policy, before coming to a decision. However, from what I have observed, a substantial group of people seem to vote based on party lines. They vote based on the letter before the candidate's name, without considering the policies proposed. This is troubling to me because they may not fully consider the ramifications of their decision. I find it hard to reconcile the fact that someone who has carefully thought things out should have the same power as someone who just wings it and does not consider what his decision might result in. Side note: Lately, I've been reading about the Roman Republic and found something interesting. It seemed to be a tiered system, where people were grouped based on their wealth. The wealthiest had the most number of votes per person. Tribunes of the Plebs and could veto any bills that directly harmed the plebeians. (I'm new to this sub-reddit so I hope I haven't violated any rules, I hope a meaningful discussion can take place.) Edit: So it seems that the Republic is not exactly a good example, what about a technocracy? People have said that you may be good in one area, but not the other, this seems to play into the strengths of a technocracy. There will be biases, but this can be resolved by welcoming different opinions.	[deleted]	5	5	[ { "author": "Vesurel", "id": "fpra670", "score": 7, "text": "Who decides how much each person's vote is worth? And what reason does anyone have to respect a system that values the vote of someone else over theres?", "timestamp": 1588847919 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fpraqi3", "score": 1, "text": " I am not entirely sure, I still thinking about it, but a roman-styled system could be considered. Education and wealth could be taken into consideration. Of course, a roman-styled system will need modifications.", "timestamp": 1588848480 }, { "author": "Vesurel", "id": "fpratki", "score": 7, "text": "How do you measure how educated someone is? And why do you think wealth is a good standard?", "timestamp": 1588848562 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fprfg1g", "score": 1, "text": "Possibly qualifications and maybe a civics test? Rethinking it, I'm not sure if wealth is a good standard right now. My original idea was very few people are win the lottery or hit the jackpot, most people had to make good decisions to come by it, but thinking it over, I'm not so sure if that's a good idea anymore.", "timestamp": 1588852681 }, { "author": "Mamertine", "id": "fprgy5z", "score": 1, "text": "Poll tests are explicitly banned in the USA. The reason is that the questions were structured in such a way that minorities would fail the test. By advocating for people's votes to be worth more or less you will keep everyone who's not a middle-class white guy politically disadvantaged.", "timestamp": 1588853858 } ]	[ { "author": "prettysureitsmaddie", "id": "fpr9ocv", "score": 1, "text": "So how would you fairly decide whose vote should be worth extra, how should it work?", "timestamp": 1588847425 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fpr9xof", "score": 1, "text": "That is something I am not entirely sure of, I still thinking about it, but a roman-styled system could be considered. Modifications have to be made to suit modern society of course. Education and possibly wealth could be taken into consideration.", "timestamp": 1588847681 }, { "author": "prettysureitsmaddie", "id": "fpraotn", "score": 1, "text": "So these groups have their own motivations and vested interests. E.g. the wealthy generally want to pay less tax because they get less benefits from social services, relative to the amount that they pay. \n\nIf you prioritise these groups, you will prioritise their interests over everyone else's.\n\nThe point is that ranking voters biases society towards your favoured groups and can silence people who might have pressing concerns but who don't meet the criteria.", "timestamp": 1588848435 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fprb3nj", "score": 1, "text": "Well I mean of course there will be biases, but I feel like a) that is a compromise that needs to be made to ensure that the country is not run by some demagogue b) there will be checks in place that rights are not being trampled over.", "timestamp": 1588848832 }, { "author": "prettysureitsmaddie", "id": "fprbtoa", "score": 1, "text": "Right but I think those biases are worse than the prospect of the occasional demagogue. One has a much longer term effect on the course of society than the other. \n\nChecks and balances are an inadequate solution because you have created an asymmetric system. It is inevitable that they will have unequal power and have differing levels of power in different areas.\n\nYou talked about tribunes in another post. Have a look at [Tiberius Gracchus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus) for a famous example of how unstable that system was.", "timestamp": 1588849529 } ]	[ "fpra670", "fpraqi3", "fpratki", "fprfg1g", "fprgy5z" ]	[ "fpr9ocv", "fpr9xof", "fpraotn", "fprb3nj", "fprbtoa" ]
Cmv: Hawaii shouldnt be an American state and its culture is vastly different from the rest of America. i dont know too much about the history of hawaii, but i feel uncomfortable thinking about Hawaii as an american state, it almost feels like america has tainted its culture by making it a state. Theyre doing their own thing and it like when you go to a family reunion and you see the family members that kind of associate but only because theyre related lol i have no hate for Hawaii or anything, but it feels so awkward to think about. you dont see any other states that hsve a distinct culture. thats something you find in countries. Hawaii is too unique to be just a state. its more than that and i think America is weighing it down like a chain or something. anarchy	where do you think Hawaii would be better suited? --- as an independent nation, or a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico --- Uh, you do realize that being a territory comes with less representation at the national level, right? There's a reason that the Puerto Rico statehood movement has been going on for so long.	Ultimately people should have a choice in whether they're part of the USA. And it sounds like the vast majority of residents in Hawaii support remaining part of the USA. Hawaiian sovereignty has never been a popular movement. --- im sure thats got a lot to do with Hawaiis dependence on the states for protection. --- It might be a defence reason, or economic or political or cultural. I trust Hawaiian residents to be best able to make the decision about whether its all worth it. So far it sounds like the majority of Hawaiians think it's worth staying in the USA.	gf1j0q	Cmv: Hawaii shouldnt be an American state and its culture is vastly different from the rest of America.	i dont know too much about the history of hawaii, but i feel uncomfortable thinking about Hawaii as an american state, it almost feels like america has tainted its culture by making it a state. Theyre doing their own thing and it like when you go to a family reunion and you see the family members that kind of associate but only because theyre related lol i have no hate for Hawaii or anything, but it feels so awkward to think about. you dont see any other states that hsve a distinct culture. thats something you find in countries. Hawaii is too unique to be just a state. its more than that and i think America is weighing it down like a chain or something. anarchy	dejael	3	3	[ { "author": "debate_instigator", "id": "fpqwlid", "score": 1, "text": "where do you think Hawaii would be better suited?", "timestamp": 1588834435 }, { "author": "dejael", "id": "fpqwo0g", "score": 1, "text": "as an independent nation, or a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico", "timestamp": 1588834496 }, { "author": "YossarianWWII", "id": "fpr2wjd", "score": 3, "text": "Uh, you do realize that being a territory comes with less representation at the national level, right? There's a reason that the Puerto Rico statehood movement has been going on for so long.", "timestamp": 1588840462 } ]	[ { "author": "WeRegretToInform", "id": "fpqwphg", "score": 7, "text": "Ultimately people should have a choice in whether they're part of the USA. And it sounds like the vast majority of residents in Hawaii support remaining part of the USA.\n\nHawaiian sovereignty has never been a popular movement.", "timestamp": 1588834533 }, { "author": "dejael", "id": "fpqwspq", "score": 0, "text": "im sure thats got a lot to do with Hawaiis dependence on the states for protection.", "timestamp": 1588834614 }, { "author": "WeRegretToInform", "id": "fpqx0o1", "score": 3, "text": "It might be a defence reason, or economic or political or cultural. I trust Hawaiian residents to be best able to make the decision about whether its all worth it.\n\nSo far it sounds like the majority of Hawaiians think it's worth staying in the USA.", "timestamp": 1588834815 } ]	[ "fpqwlid", "fpqwo0g", "fpr2wjd" ]	[ "fpqwphg", "fpqwspq", "fpqx0o1" ]
Cmv: Hawaii shouldnt be an American state and its culture is vastly different from the rest of America. i dont know too much about the history of hawaii, but i feel uncomfortable thinking about Hawaii as an american state, it almost feels like america has tainted its culture by making it a state. Theyre doing their own thing and it like when you go to a family reunion and you see the family members that kind of associate but only because theyre related lol i have no hate for Hawaii or anything, but it feels so awkward to think about. you dont see any other states that hsve a distinct culture. thats something you find in countries. Hawaii is too unique to be just a state. its more than that and i think America is weighing it down like a chain or something. anarchy	Being a state is purely a governmental arrangement. There's no requirement that they adopt any part of American culture, or of any culture for that matter. You say that you think America is weighing Hawaii down, but you don't say how. Where does Hawaii want to go that its membership in the union prevents it from going? It seems to me that you're just not appreciating the extent to which the terms "country" and "state" are entirely artificial. Have you ever traveled abroad? Because I can certainly tell you that most other countries contain very distinct cultural areas. --- no i havent traveled abroad. my statement of america wieghing down Hawaii is based off of the admittedly little research ive done on Hawaiian history, the U.S. overtook Hawaii and this arrangement wasnt initially consentual. --- That exact same arrangement is true of literally every nation state in history. Certain areas gained disproportionate power and then either coerced or conquered surrounding regions to form larger, unified entities now known as nation states. It's no more true for Hawaii than any other place on the planet. The Americas were comprised of numerous, distinct native populations which slowly conquered each other and formed larger empires like the Aztecs and Incas. It's the whole story of human progress for the past 5000+ years. Larger and larger administrative systems are created to help leverage the power and ingenuity of larger populations of people. And if you don't think other states have "distinct cultures" then I seriously doubt you have visited Texas or Alaska either. To exist in the 21st century, you are either protected by a powerful military (most of the "1st world" countries are protected by the American defense umbrella) or you are easy prey for larger powers.	where do you think Hawaii would be better suited? --- as an independent nation, or a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico --- why do you think that making them an independent nation or US territory would significantly effect their culture? also, how do you feel about reservations?	gf1j0q	Cmv: Hawaii shouldnt be an American state and its culture is vastly different from the rest of America.	i dont know too much about the history of hawaii, but i feel uncomfortable thinking about Hawaii as an american state, it almost feels like america has tainted its culture by making it a state. Theyre doing their own thing and it like when you go to a family reunion and you see the family members that kind of associate but only because theyre related lol i have no hate for Hawaii or anything, but it feels so awkward to think about. you dont see any other states that hsve a distinct culture. thats something you find in countries. Hawaii is too unique to be just a state. its more than that and i think America is weighing it down like a chain or something. anarchy	dejael	3	3	[ { "author": "YossarianWWII", "id": "fpr2p9v", "score": 3, "text": "Being a state is purely a governmental arrangement. There's no requirement that they adopt any part of American culture, or of any culture for that matter. You say that you think America is weighing Hawaii down, but you don't say how. Where does Hawaii want to go that its membership in the union prevents it from going? \n\nIt seems to me that you're just not appreciating the extent to which the terms \"country\" and \"state\" are entirely artificial. Have you ever traveled abroad? Because I can certainly tell you that most other countries contain very distinct cultural areas.", "timestamp": 1588840262 }, { "author": "dejael", "id": "fpr36vo", "score": -2, "text": "no i havent traveled abroad. my statement of america wieghing down Hawaii is based off of the admittedly little research ive done on Hawaiian history, the U.S. overtook Hawaii and this arrangement wasnt initially consentual.", "timestamp": 1588840749 }, { "author": "KvotheOfCali", "id": "fpr54tc", "score": 1, "text": "That exact same arrangement is true of literally every nation state in history. \n\nCertain areas gained disproportionate power and then either coerced or conquered surrounding regions to form larger, unified entities now known as nation states. \n\nIt's no more true for Hawaii than any other place on the planet. The Americas were comprised of numerous, distinct native populations which slowly conquered each other and formed larger empires like the Aztecs and Incas. \n\nIt's the whole story of human progress for the past 5000+ years. Larger and larger administrative systems are created to help leverage the power and ingenuity of larger populations of people. \n\nAnd if you don't think other states have \"distinct cultures\" then I seriously doubt you have visited Texas or Alaska either.\n\nTo exist in the 21st century, you are either protected by a powerful military (most of the \"1st world\" countries are protected by the American defense umbrella) or you are easy prey for larger powers.", "timestamp": 1588842742 } ]	[ { "author": "debate_instigator", "id": "fpqwlid", "score": 1, "text": "where do you think Hawaii would be better suited?", "timestamp": 1588834435 }, { "author": "dejael", "id": "fpqwo0g", "score": 1, "text": "as an independent nation, or a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico", "timestamp": 1588834496 }, { "author": "debate_instigator", "id": "fpqxomr", "score": 3, "text": "why do you think that making them an independent nation or US territory would significantly effect their culture? \n\n\nalso, how do you feel about reservations?", "timestamp": 1588835418 } ]	[ "fpr2p9v", "fpr36vo", "fpr54tc" ]	[ "fpqwlid", "fpqwo0g", "fpqxomr" ]
CMV: Animal Testing is Never Okay There are very valuable things to be gotten from animal testing (re: for medicine, obv not for cosmetics), but humans, the de-facto stewards of the planet, should - as a rule - never create pain/suffering/torture, no matter to what end; I imagine my cat's face when she's trapped in an uncomfortable position and unhappy; you can imagine your own little pet. Your heart pangs for them, because they are living, sentient, individualistic beings with consciousness and self-awareness. The animals being tested are no different. The discomfort/unhappiness (to put it lightly) being inflicted, but permanently and until death, on other identical-minded animals is 100% unacceptable - torture cannot be legal / sanctioned by the gov't. A life of suffering - any life - is antithetical so the philosophy of a moral people. Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter. There would also be very valuable things to be gotten in practicing eugenics, killing all disabled/impaired babies, turning away all refugees, ratcheting up the death penalty, etc., but we embed morals into our laws. The only reason animal testing and the 100 million animals burned / poisoned / tortured to death each year are allowed is because all is fully hidden from the public. If you knew the reality of what happens - the vivisection, the burning alive, the unimaginable mental torture - you'd feel the same about animal testing as you felt about any other clinically-good but morally-bad practices that we've already outlawed. That, and if you're going for utility over morality you might as well just forcibly test humans. There are many alternatives, too: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ It's for these reasons - and because we shouldn't give any wiggle room when sentient beings' lives are on the line - that I see this issue in black and white. I'll find more eloquent ways to say it as time moves on. Much like factory farming, animal testing has no place in a morally-advanced society.	Suppose testing some drug on ants saves countless human lives. Is this not worth? A utilitarian would say yes. Pretty much every moral framework would say yes. I see animal testing as very morally troubling, but to have such a black and white view on this seems extreme. --- Sorry, I should have specified that ants / insects don't produce this reaction in me. ∆ --- Isn't this in conflict with one of your central themes? > Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter. Why do insect lives matter less than other animal lives? Aren't you just making the same value judgement (some lives are more valuable than others), but drawing the line in a different place?	So a couple of prying questions: * Do you believe that a humans' pain and suffering is equal in value to an animals'? * Do you believe that compensation in the form of a money or food can be given to any human or animal to 'right the wrong' of suffering? * Is it better to test on humans without any prior testing on any life? --- 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Is it definitely worse? --- Clarification for point 1, all animals or just "cute" animals	d5kptn	CMV: Animal Testing is Never Okay	There are very valuable things to be gotten from animal testing (re: for medicine, obv not for cosmetics), but humans, the de-facto stewards of the planet, should - as a rule - never create pain/suffering/torture, no matter to what end; I imagine my cat's face when she's trapped in an uncomfortable position and unhappy; you can imagine your own little pet. Your heart pangs for them, because they are living, sentient, individualistic beings with consciousness and self-awareness. The animals being tested are no different. The discomfort/unhappiness (to put it lightly) being inflicted, but permanently and until death, on other identical-minded animals is 100% unacceptable - torture cannot be legal / sanctioned by the gov't. A life of suffering - any life - is antithetical so the philosophy of a moral people. Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter. There would also be very valuable things to be gotten in practicing eugenics, killing all disabled/impaired babies, turning away all refugees, ratcheting up the death penalty, etc., but we embed morals into our laws. The only reason animal testing and the 100 million animals burned / poisoned / tortured to death each year are allowed is because all is fully hidden from the public. If you knew the reality of what happens - the vivisection, the burning alive, the unimaginable mental torture - you'd feel the same about animal testing as you felt about any other clinically-good but morally-bad practices that we've already outlawed. That, and if you're going for utility over morality you might as well just forcibly test humans. There are many alternatives, too: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ It's for these reasons - and because we shouldn't give any wiggle room when sentient beings' lives are on the line - that I see this issue in black and white. I'll find more eloquent ways to say it as time moves on. Much like factory farming, animal testing has no place in a morally-advanced society.	WoofWoofington	3	3	[ { "author": "Resident_Egg", "id": "f0mfi3y", "score": 5, "text": "Suppose testing some drug on ants saves countless human lives. Is this not worth? A utilitarian would say yes. Pretty much every moral framework would say yes. I see animal testing as very morally troubling, but to have such a black and white view on this seems extreme.", "timestamp": 1568743787 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mfssk", "score": 1, "text": "Sorry, I should have specified that ants / insects don't produce this reaction in me. ∆", "timestamp": 1568743982 }, { "author": "Ansuz07", "id": "f0mg0qt", "score": 5, "text": "Isn't this in conflict with one of your central themes?\n\n> Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter.\n\nWhy do insect lives matter less than other animal lives? Aren't you just making the same value judgement (some lives are more valuable than others), but drawing the line in a different place?", "timestamp": 1568744127 } ]	[ { "author": "stevenjo28", "id": "f0mfft1", "score": 11, "text": "So a couple of prying questions:\n\n* Do you believe that a humans' pain and suffering is equal in value to an animals'?\n* Do you believe that compensation in the form of a money or food can be given to any human or animal to 'right the wrong' of suffering?\n* Is it better to test on humans without any prior testing on any life?", "timestamp": 1568743745 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mfpfq", "score": 3, "text": "1) Yes.\n\n2) No.\n\n3) Is it definitely worse?", "timestamp": 1568743920 }, { "author": "figsbar", "id": "f0mftfb", "score": 7, "text": "Clarification for point 1, all animals or just \"cute\" animals", "timestamp": 1568743994 } ]	[ "f0mfi3y", "f0mfssk", "f0mg0qt" ]	[ "f0mfft1", "f0mfpfq", "f0mftfb" ]
CMV: Animal Testing is Never Okay There are very valuable things to be gotten from animal testing (re: for medicine, obv not for cosmetics), but humans, the de-facto stewards of the planet, should - as a rule - never create pain/suffering/torture, no matter to what end; I imagine my cat's face when she's trapped in an uncomfortable position and unhappy; you can imagine your own little pet. Your heart pangs for them, because they are living, sentient, individualistic beings with consciousness and self-awareness. The animals being tested are no different. The discomfort/unhappiness (to put it lightly) being inflicted, but permanently and until death, on other identical-minded animals is 100% unacceptable - torture cannot be legal / sanctioned by the gov't. A life of suffering - any life - is antithetical so the philosophy of a moral people. Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter. There would also be very valuable things to be gotten in practicing eugenics, killing all disabled/impaired babies, turning away all refugees, ratcheting up the death penalty, etc., but we embed morals into our laws. The only reason animal testing and the 100 million animals burned / poisoned / tortured to death each year are allowed is because all is fully hidden from the public. If you knew the reality of what happens - the vivisection, the burning alive, the unimaginable mental torture - you'd feel the same about animal testing as you felt about any other clinically-good but morally-bad practices that we've already outlawed. That, and if you're going for utility over morality you might as well just forcibly test humans. There are many alternatives, too: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ It's for these reasons - and because we shouldn't give any wiggle room when sentient beings' lives are on the line - that I see this issue in black and white. I'll find more eloquent ways to say it as time moves on. Much like factory farming, animal testing has no place in a morally-advanced society.	What if the animal testing facilitated breakthroughs that greatly reduced the suffering of animals in the future? --- I'm sure it would. And I'm sure eugenics would improve our species, and I'm sure that slavery would be the most efficient way to propel one race above another. --- So you wouldn’t support testing a new experimental cat cancer treatment on cats, even if it could yield breakthroughs that meant cats moving forwarded would have longer, better, less painful lives? --- Correct. It is just as likely that it would yield zero breakthroughs, and you would have created suffering / pain for this living being. --- Statistically, it isn’t just as likely. Animal welfare boards are quite strict in the proposals they grant - so the likelihood of a breakthrough is high. Even if the experiment doesn’t show anything, that is still advancing science. Additionally there are strict rules regarding the suffering of an animal; In some cases, we treat animal research subjects better than humans in terms of their comfort level. Did you ever take a medication, maybe an antibiotic? Most likely it has been tested on animals. So if one went by your theory, then no vaccines and no meds allowed. I suffer from debilitating Narcolepsy and had to be on disability at the age of 38. You better believe my life, and the research of a cure for those of us with this horrible disorder, are ‘worth’ several hundred animals. It is an insult to say otherwise. (Certainly I agree with the strict animal welfare standards!)	So a couple of prying questions: * Do you believe that a humans' pain and suffering is equal in value to an animals'? * Do you believe that compensation in the form of a money or food can be given to any human or animal to 'right the wrong' of suffering? * Is it better to test on humans without any prior testing on any life? --- 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Is it definitely worse? --- Clarification for point 1, all animals or just "cute" animals --- I should have specified that I am not counting insects. --- Why not? What about birds? Cephalopods? Fish? What are your criteria for something to have "equal" pain and suffering to a human's? Just something you connect with? Seems pretty arbitrary and not really black and white	d5kptn	CMV: Animal Testing is Never Okay	There are very valuable things to be gotten from animal testing (re: for medicine, obv not for cosmetics), but humans, the de-facto stewards of the planet, should - as a rule - never create pain/suffering/torture, no matter to what end; I imagine my cat's face when she's trapped in an uncomfortable position and unhappy; you can imagine your own little pet. Your heart pangs for them, because they are living, sentient, individualistic beings with consciousness and self-awareness. The animals being tested are no different. The discomfort/unhappiness (to put it lightly) being inflicted, but permanently and until death, on other identical-minded animals is 100% unacceptable - torture cannot be legal / sanctioned by the gov't. A life of suffering - any life - is antithetical so the philosophy of a moral people. Each life and its quality should be regarded as representative of all life as a whole, and so the quality of each life should matter. There would also be very valuable things to be gotten in practicing eugenics, killing all disabled/impaired babies, turning away all refugees, ratcheting up the death penalty, etc., but we embed morals into our laws. The only reason animal testing and the 100 million animals burned / poisoned / tortured to death each year are allowed is because all is fully hidden from the public. If you knew the reality of what happens - the vivisection, the burning alive, the unimaginable mental torture - you'd feel the same about animal testing as you felt about any other clinically-good but morally-bad practices that we've already outlawed. That, and if you're going for utility over morality you might as well just forcibly test humans. There are many alternatives, too: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ It's for these reasons - and because we shouldn't give any wiggle room when sentient beings' lives are on the line - that I see this issue in black and white. I'll find more eloquent ways to say it as time moves on. Much like factory farming, animal testing has no place in a morally-advanced society.	WoofWoofington	5	5	[ { "author": "miguelguajiro", "id": "f0mfe6l", "score": 3, "text": "What if the animal testing facilitated breakthroughs that greatly reduced the suffering of animals in the future?", "timestamp": 1568743715 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mfm8n", "score": 0, "text": "I'm sure it would. And I'm sure eugenics would improve our species, and I'm sure that slavery would be the most efficient way to propel one race above another.", "timestamp": 1568743862 }, { "author": "miguelguajiro", "id": "f0mfzz0", "score": 5, "text": "So you wouldn’t support testing a new experimental cat cancer treatment on cats, even if it could yield breakthroughs that meant cats moving forwarded would have longer, better, less painful lives?", "timestamp": 1568744113 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mgr31", "score": -1, "text": "Correct. It is just as likely that it would yield zero breakthroughs, and you would have created suffering / pain for this living being.", "timestamp": 1568744603 }, { "author": "drjamiop", "id": "f0mhyu1", "score": 3, "text": "Statistically, it isn’t just as likely. Animal welfare boards are quite strict in the proposals they grant - so the likelihood of a breakthrough is high. Even if the experiment doesn’t show anything, that is still advancing science. Additionally there are strict rules regarding the suffering of an animal; In some cases, we treat animal research subjects better than humans in terms of their comfort level. \n\nDid you ever take a medication, maybe an antibiotic? Most likely it has been tested on animals. So if one went by your theory, then no vaccines and no meds allowed. \n\nI suffer from debilitating Narcolepsy and had to be on disability at the age of 38. You better believe my life, and the research of a cure for those of us with this horrible disorder, are ‘worth’ several hundred animals. It is an insult to say otherwise. (Certainly I agree with the strict animal welfare standards!)", "timestamp": 1568745396 } ]	[ { "author": "stevenjo28", "id": "f0mfft1", "score": 11, "text": "So a couple of prying questions:\n\n* Do you believe that a humans' pain and suffering is equal in value to an animals'?\n* Do you believe that compensation in the form of a money or food can be given to any human or animal to 'right the wrong' of suffering?\n* Is it better to test on humans without any prior testing on any life?", "timestamp": 1568743745 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mfpfq", "score": 3, "text": "1) Yes.\n\n2) No.\n\n3) Is it definitely worse?", "timestamp": 1568743920 }, { "author": "figsbar", "id": "f0mftfb", "score": 7, "text": "Clarification for point 1, all animals or just \"cute\" animals", "timestamp": 1568743994 }, { "author": "WoofWoofington", "id": "f0mfyyu", "score": -1, "text": "I should have specified that I am not counting insects.", "timestamp": 1568744095 }, { "author": "figsbar", "id": "f0mg374", "score": 10, "text": "Why not? What about birds? Cephalopods? Fish?\n\nWhat are your criteria for something to have \"equal\" pain and suffering to a human's?\n\nJust something you connect with? Seems pretty arbitrary and not really black and white", "timestamp": 1568744172 } ]	[ "f0mfe6l", "f0mfm8n", "f0mfzz0", "f0mgr31", "f0mhyu1" ]	[ "f0mfft1", "f0mfpfq", "f0mftfb", "f0mfyyu", "f0mg374" ]
CMV: Children are increasingly exposed to content they should not be and our society should work to preventing them from accessing harmful material. You can see this in almost any space geared toward children. The “gacha heat” and “Minecraft monster school” trends are incredibly pervasive, pseudo-pornographic material that are geared toward children that deal with themes of rape, beastality, mind control, bondage, sex slavery etc. (You can find YouTube video documentation that goes further in-depth into this issue on YouTube.) With the increasing access children have to internet enabled devices, it’s becoming apparent that more moderation is required to prevent young children from accessing potentially sensitive material. You’re also seeing the recent attention of children being exposed to drag shows. Most commonly the defense of this is “well what about straight events?” This defense does not defend the practice of exposing children to drag, and is a whataboutism targeting something else that children shouldn’t be exposed to either. There have been instances where drag shows have introduced children to sexually provocative dances, bondage, etc. The heterosexual ual equivalent might be a stripclub. (I’m not just talking about small events about sexuality.) This issue could literally be solved by having members of the LGBT community remove or block children from being exposed to sexually provocative drag shows, along with heterosexual individuals blocking children’s access to other sexually explicit straight content. These are not hard asks. The effect of pornography on the teenage brain is well understood to be detrimental. Children’s brains are also understood to be more susceptible than teenagers, if we as a society already acknowledge the risks and harms of young men and women sexualizing themselves and others why do we not even more vigorously acknowledge the adverse effects of young boys and girls sexualizing themselves? These are not the only possible problems or solutions. Law enforcement could also moderate larger sexual events, both drag shows and “straight sex fests” or charge strippers/drag performers with indecent exposure.	Can you provide sources that children are being exposed to bondage and sexually provacative dances in any significant way? Cause I live in an extremely progressive area full of drag shows, have a small child, and work in young children's education. I've never heard of it happening. --- That’s not the only issue I listed and honestly it’s not my main contention. I mostly included it to provide an example in recent memory of this issue being brought into the light, even if it’s not the most pervasive. Additionally I’d argue even a few children being exposed to sexual content in person is much more harmful to them and thus is unacceptable. But you can find various articles discussing this issue online. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-sinister-rise-of-drag-shows-for-children/ --- Do you happen to have any source that is not highly biased? James Esses has been on a widely anti-trans publicity campaign. It’s very hard to find any credence in his “trust me I’m a therapist” rationale for effectively eliminating education on trans topics. I will extend this issue. Are you media literate? You make sweeping statements about these issues as if they are readily apparent. The source you provided is by a therapist who makes up his own stats by saying he does therapy for trans people and they all hate being trans so it should end. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322769/#:~:text=Examples%20from%20the%20medical%20research,al.%2C%202022%2C%20p. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/ Both articles are based on real research and statistics rather than a man’s anecdotal experience. The NCBI article was written by an author who was funded by evidence based gender research. Which depending on your view could be biased. However the funding was only to receive access to records which was vital to the research. But Reuters offers a more wide perspective and it still does not support any of the claims James made. Reuters is a good source because the writers there write articles that are bought by both right and left leaning media outlets. The only reason I am harping on this is because any claim you have made without a credible source is suspect. I know this issue is not your main concern but it is the only point you offered a source for. It makes me think you are not checking sources or doing any research to ensure the information you are basing your argument off of is credible. Which if we are going to argue such important topics as freedom of speech and children safety, you need to have your sources known. If not, then making an argument from first result google searches is wildly irresponsible. Not only to those who are affected by these issues, but to your own beliefs. Which brings me to, why do believe all these things are happening at an alarming rate so fast that we need to institute laws to correct them? These biased articles and your own experiences? Or from verified sources that have presented evidence to support your argument?	Do you mean fight governmentally? For example there has been recent push for a requirement to show id to access online porn in some states and the UK. If things like this are what you mean then we have to be careful. Many protections can be harmful in other ways. The above example would be a fear that the ID verification is saved which creates a digital footprint of your actual name. If done incorrectly it could open up to more identity theft. I would agree that platforms need to do a better job. I get worried about government intervention since governments aren't known to do things like this correctly. Parents also need to actually set up proper parental controls. --- Literally basic captchas would be a step in the right direction. It would stop literal 5 year olds from accessing porn if they can’t even read the captcha. --- A 5 year old should have no way of accessing this stuff because the parents should prevent them. But my 4 year old could probably solve a captcha. And this certainly wouldn't help with someone who's 7 or older. I'm just curious about what you want. This is "change my view". So nobody is going to try to change your view that we should just let all kids access all of the Internet or say that we can't do better. I'm guessing everyone agrees with your main statement. What people disagree on would be on the measures we put in place. For example, I'm nervous about government measures. I just feel like you need to clarify more on what you want done.	1aicm5a	CMV: Children are increasingly exposed to content they should not be and our society should work to preventing them from accessing harmful material.	You can see this in almost any space geared toward children. The “gacha heat” and “Minecraft monster school” trends are incredibly pervasive, pseudo-pornographic material that are geared toward children that deal with themes of rape, beastality, mind control, bondage, sex slavery etc. (You can find YouTube video documentation that goes further in-depth into this issue on YouTube.) With the increasing access children have to internet enabled devices, it’s becoming apparent that more moderation is required to prevent young children from accessing potentially sensitive material. You’re also seeing the recent attention of children being exposed to drag shows. Most commonly the defense of this is “well what about straight events?” This defense does not defend the practice of exposing children to drag, and is a whataboutism targeting something else that children shouldn’t be exposed to either. There have been instances where drag shows have introduced children to sexually provocative dances, bondage, etc. The heterosexual ual equivalent might be a stripclub. (I’m not just talking about small events about sexuality.) This issue could literally be solved by having members of the LGBT community remove or block children from being exposed to sexually provocative drag shows, along with heterosexual individuals blocking children’s access to other sexually explicit straight content. These are not hard asks. The effect of pornography on the teenage brain is well understood to be detrimental. Children’s brains are also understood to be more susceptible than teenagers, if we as a society already acknowledge the risks and harms of young men and women sexualizing themselves and others why do we not even more vigorously acknowledge the adverse effects of young boys and girls sexualizing themselves? These are not the only possible problems or solutions. Law enforcement could also moderate larger sexual events, both drag shows and “straight sex fests” or charge strippers/drag performers with indecent exposure.	LowPressureUsername	3	3	[ { "author": "Oborozuki1917", "id": "kotthmt", "score": 79, "text": "Can you provide sources that children are being exposed to bondage and sexually provacative dances in any significant way?\n\nCause I live in an extremely progressive area full of drag shows, have a small child, and work in young children's education. I've never heard of it happening.", "timestamp": 1707015633 }, { "author": "LowPressureUsername", "id": "koudn27", "score": -5, "text": "That’s not the only issue I listed and honestly it’s not my main contention. I mostly included it to provide an example in recent memory of this issue being brought into the light, even if it’s not the most pervasive. Additionally I’d argue even a few children being exposed to sexual content in person is much more harmful to them and thus is unacceptable.\n\nBut you can find various articles discussing this issue online. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-sinister-rise-of-drag-shows-for-children/", "timestamp": 1707025682 }, { "author": "Mint_JewLips", "id": "kouph0q", "score": 7, "text": "Do you happen to have any source that is not highly biased? James Esses has been on a widely anti-trans publicity campaign. It’s very hard to find any credence in his “trust me I’m a therapist” rationale for effectively eliminating education on trans topics.\n\nI will extend this issue. Are you media literate? You make sweeping statements about these issues as if they are readily apparent. The source you provided is by a therapist who makes up his own stats by saying he does therapy for trans people and they all hate being trans so it should end.\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322769/#:~:text=Examples%20from%20the%20medical%20research,al.%2C%202022%2C%20p.\n\nhttps://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/\n\nBoth articles are based on real research and statistics rather than a man’s anecdotal experience.\n\nThe NCBI article was written by an author who was funded by evidence based gender research. Which depending on your view could be biased. However the funding was only to receive access to records which was vital to the research.\n\nBut Reuters offers a more wide perspective and it still does not support any of the claims James made. Reuters is a good source because the writers there write articles that are bought by both right and left leaning media outlets.\n\nThe only reason I am harping on this is because any claim you have made without a credible source is suspect. I know this issue is not your main concern but it is the only point you offered a source for. It makes me think you are not checking sources or doing any research to ensure the information you are basing your argument off of is credible.\n\nWhich if we are going to argue such important topics as freedom of speech and children safety, you need to have your sources known. If not, then making an argument from first result google searches is wildly irresponsible. Not only to those who are affected by these issues, but to your own beliefs.\n\nWhich brings me to, why do believe all these things are happening at an alarming rate so fast that we need to institute laws to correct them? These biased articles and your own experiences? Or from verified sources that have presented evidence to support your argument?", "timestamp": 1707033419 } ]	[ { "author": "4-5Million", "id": "kotnukv", "score": 73, "text": "Do you mean fight governmentally? For example there has been recent push for a requirement to show id to access online porn in some states and the UK. \n\n\nIf things like this are what you mean then we have to be careful. Many protections can be harmful in other ways. The above example would be a fear that the ID verification is saved which creates a digital footprint of your actual name. If done incorrectly it could open up to more identity theft. \n\n\nI would agree that platforms need to do a better job. I get worried about government intervention since governments aren't known to do things like this correctly. Parents also need to actually set up proper parental controls. ", "timestamp": 1707013150 }, { "author": "LowPressureUsername", "id": "koto3bc", "score": -16, "text": "Literally basic captchas would be a step in the right direction. It would stop literal 5 year olds from accessing porn if they can’t even read the captcha.", "timestamp": 1707013255 }, { "author": "4-5Million", "id": "kotqmvh", "score": 73, "text": "A 5 year old should have no way of accessing this stuff because the parents should prevent them. But my 4 year old could probably solve a captcha. And this certainly wouldn't help with someone who's 7 or older. \n\n\nI'm just curious about what you want. This is \"change my view\". So nobody is going to try to change your view that we should just let all kids access all of the Internet or say that we can't do better. I'm guessing everyone agrees with your main statement. What people disagree on would be on the measures we put in place. For example, I'm nervous about government measures.\n\n\nI just feel like you need to clarify more on what you want done. ", "timestamp": 1707014369 } ]	[ "kotthmt", "koudn27", "kouph0q" ]	[ "kotnukv", "koto3bc", "kotqmvh" ]
CMV: In Groupon’s “Pool Boy” commercial, Tiffany Haddish sexually harasses the pool boy. [Link](https://youtu.be/XniR5aa6uZQ) for those that haven’t seen it. A catcall is definite by [Marriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catcall) as: >a loud, sexually suggestive call or comment directed at someone publicly (as on the street) In the commercial, Tiffany Haddish says: >[..] The pool boy and me, 100% on. Then proceeds to yell at the pool boy, suggestively saying “Hi” when she gets his attention. So she was 1) loud, 2) sexually suggestive, and 3) in public which perfectly fits the definition of catcalling According to the [Wikipedia article on Street Harrasment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_harassment): >Street harassment is a form of sexual harassment that consists of unwanted comments, gestures, honking, wolf-whistlings, catcalling [..] So Reddit, change my view and tell me how Tiffany Haddish isn’t sexually harassing the pool boy.	Well first the "pool boy" is an actor in a commercial and not actually being sexually harassed, because it's a part he consented to prior to filming. Second, and more importantly, the ad does not depict Haddish's character sexual harassment in a positive light. By close-zooming on the discomfort of the pool boy, it is made clear that the conduct Haddish's character is undertaking is not welcome or acceptable. --- The commercial makes it clear that her actions make the pool boy uncomfortable, but, in my opinion, doesn’t portray her actions in a negative light. Tiffany Haddish is a comedian and this commercial is supposed to be funny and shows that her actions are considered normal --- > Tiffany Haddish is a comedian and this commercial is supposed to be funny and shows that her actions are considered normal. Could you expand on why you think the commercial suggests her actions are considered normal. Is it because she is joking about them? Comedians often joke about things they disapprove of, such as capitalist fat cats or even rape. A comedian joking about rape isn't endorsing rape.	The nature of their relationship is not known. It's likely this isn't their first interaction. Maybe he has a crush on her and she knows, maybe she's giving him a hard time, or maybe they're hooking up on the regular and having a good time. If that's the first time they spoke, you'd have a point, but that's not clear. --- In the [extended cut](https://youtu.be/pGCli3lYhb4) of the commercial, it’s a bit more obvious that she’s on some sort of vacation at the hotel. Also, if you look at his face, he’s obviously a little uncomfortable and isn’t sure that she’s talking to him at first. --- I get she's on vacation, but she could have been there for a while and started a fling with the pool boy. Since she says "me and the pool boy 100% on" I kind of assumed they had been hooking up.	8hodvz	CMV: In Groupon’s “Pool Boy” commercial, Tiffany Haddish sexually harasses the pool boy.	[Link](https://youtu.be/XniR5aa6uZQ) for those that haven’t seen it. A catcall is definite by [Marriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catcall) as: >a loud, sexually suggestive call or comment directed at someone publicly (as on the street) In the commercial, Tiffany Haddish says: >[..] The pool boy and me, 100% on. Then proceeds to yell at the pool boy, suggestively saying “Hi” when she gets his attention. So she was 1) loud, 2) sexually suggestive, and 3) in public which perfectly fits the definition of catcalling According to the [Wikipedia article on Street Harrasment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_harassment): >Street harassment is a form of sexual harassment that consists of unwanted comments, gestures, honking, wolf-whistlings, catcalling [..] So Reddit, change my view and tell me how Tiffany Haddish isn’t sexually harassing the pool boy.	Dlrlcktd	3	3	[ { "author": "huadpe", "id": "dyl9b6n", "score": 12, "text": "Well first the \"pool boy\" is an actor in a commercial and not actually being sexually harassed, because it's a part he consented to prior to filming.\n\nSecond, and more importantly, the ad does not depict Haddish's character sexual harassment in a positive light. By close-zooming on the discomfort of the pool boy, it is made clear that the conduct Haddish's character is undertaking is not welcome or acceptable. ", "timestamp": 1525708038 }, { "author": "Dlrlcktd", "id": "dyl9rdf", "score": 4, "text": "The commercial makes it clear that her actions make the pool boy uncomfortable, but, in my opinion, doesn’t portray her actions in a negative light. Tiffany Haddish is a comedian and this commercial is supposed to be funny and shows that her actions are considered normal", "timestamp": 1525708462 }, { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "dylbulr", "score": 2, "text": "> Tiffany Haddish is a comedian and this commercial is supposed to be funny and shows that her actions are considered normal.\n\nCould you expand on why you think the commercial suggests her actions are considered normal. Is it because she is joking about them? Comedians often joke about things they disapprove of, such as capitalist fat cats or even rape. A comedian joking about rape isn't endorsing rape.", "timestamp": 1525710443 } ]	[ { "author": "MyUsernameIsJudge", "id": "dyl951g", "score": 1, "text": "The nature of their relationship is not known. It's likely this isn't their first interaction. Maybe he has a crush on her and she knows, maybe she's giving him a hard time, or maybe they're hooking up on the regular and having a good time.\n\nIf that's the first time they spoke, you'd have a point, but that's not clear.", "timestamp": 1525707873 }, { "author": "Dlrlcktd", "id": "dyl9fso", "score": 1, "text": "In the [extended cut](https://youtu.be/pGCli3lYhb4) of the commercial, it’s a bit more obvious that she’s on some sort of vacation at the hotel. Also, if you look at his face, he’s obviously a little uncomfortable and isn’t sure that she’s talking to him at first.", "timestamp": 1525708158 }, { "author": "MyUsernameIsJudge", "id": "dyl9nkr", "score": 0, "text": "I get she's on vacation, but she could have been there for a while and started a fling with the pool boy. Since she says \"me and the pool boy 100% on\" I kind of assumed they had been hooking up. ", "timestamp": 1525708363 } ]	[ "dyl9b6n", "dyl9rdf", "dylbulr" ]	[ "dyl951g", "dyl9fso", "dyl9nkr" ]
CMV: The food industry has no moral obligation to consider the health of Americans; they are not responsible for the American obesity crisis. My argument for this is fairly simple: * The aim of a corporation is to make money * A corporation can morally work towards their aim with any actions or inactions, as long as they are honest and legal. * Nutrition and food related health issues are public health issues which are the responsibility of individuals and the government. Some other beliefs that I hold which stem from this belief: * It is reasonable for companies to label their products as "Natural", "Healthy", "Green", etc. within the FDA limits of those terms, even if they are nutritionally misleading (ex. [fruit snacks](http://media.fooducate.com/products/images/180x180/5017DD42-F3F9-85C1-4FB6-8B5D1873A549.jpeg)). * It is the responsibility of the public health system to educate Americans towards skepticism and nutritional literacy. * It is the responsibility of schools and parents to educate their children ..." " * It is not unethical for corporations to engage in lobbying practices (though it is immoral for our government to support a lobbying system). Limits of this argument: * Not discussing environmental ethics or health impacts of environmental actions (pollution, etc). * Not including examples of illegal or dishonest practices I am aware that my use of the term "honest" is probably weak and I'd love some productive pushback on that. 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!*	Processed foods are the product of corporations looking to make money off the fact that most people are too lazy to make full meals from scratch like they used to. No parent in the USA buying Kraft Mac and Cheese thinks how bad that stuff is for their kids. They think it's quick and easy and relatively healthy. But.. the product sold in the USA is vastly different than what is sold in the UK. (I could be wrong as they may have very recently changed but I know 2 years ago and before hand this was true).. In the UK people are very aware of the problems caused by red and yellow food dyes so these are not used in their Kraft Dinner - but in the USA they are. Red and yellow food dyes are linked to behavioral problems in kids - the food companies obviously know this and still don't care. Imagine if you knew something was bad for kids, but you still put it in your food because you figured you would sell more than if you made your food better but risked selling less. Are you responsible for the problems it caused? I would say you are. Cigarette companies were forced to warn buyers that their products caused cancer. Maybe Kraft Dinner could be forced to have a picture of a fidget spinner on their box and a warning saying "Warning this product contains ingredients known to cause hyper activity and attention problems in some children.". For sure people should make better choices but let's be honest, most people are stupid about how unhealthy some products actually are. If cigarette companies must give warnings when they know something is bad, why don't food companies? --- I agree with you on a lot of those points. However, I shift the burden to the government and regulatory agencies to create policies and regulations (in response to peer reviewed, sufficient evidence) that warn consumers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect companies to volunteer to sacrifice their profits (when their competitors likely aren't) to benefit the health of their consumer. I'm pretty confident that the companies that do offer healthier products do so not for their conscience but for their business strategy. --- Clingwrap is a good example of a product that did change due to ethics. It was found to contain a toxic chemical that made the plastic cling better but wasn't good for the environment. They removed it without being forced to. It was in a TIL a few weeks ago. If you owned a company and you knew you were making people sick or obese you still have a choice. You can make your product better or stop making it.. or warn people and risk a slight loss of profits (although to be fair most people don't care as is evidenced by the fact that soda pop sales are still high and Twinkies are still on the market). I guess you have no moral obligation as a company, but as a human you do. Or you are a sellout. It hurts us all when people are not healthy. It costs the health care system a lot of money and ties up doctors because they are kept busy treating people for entirely preventable conditions. --- The personal responsibility and morality element, I totally agree with. I expect that I would judge the people who run companies like Monsanto and Coca Cola as whole immoral. That being said, it's not the business practices or the corporation that is immoral, IMO. It's the people who continue to lead companies that are immoral for continuing to associate themselves with companies that are producing products that are harming the public. That being said, your comment is illuminating the fact that I'm being sloppy with my use of the terms morals and ethics, along with my inability to clearly separate corporate entities from individual humans. I'll do some reading and thinking on that. --- A British judge is supposed once to have said “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like”. Although you are talking explicitly about the US, it's interesting to note that here in the UK the law has recently been changed such that _all_ the directors of a company must be natural persons, equipped very much with bodies, at least. In the UK, one company—a legal entity distinct from any of its members, directors, employees—may no longer be a director of another, as was the case. Here are the things that a UK company director (I am a director a couple of companies here, as it happens, and have professional qualifications in company direction) must, by law, work towards when making decisions about the company: >172 Duty to promote the success of the company > (1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members [that is, its “subscribers”, usually the shareholders] as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to— > (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, > (b) the interests of the company's employees, > (c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, > (d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, > (e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and > (f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company. > (2) Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes. > (3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company. ——Companies Act 2006 Note items (a), (c), and (d). And also part 2. This section of the act is a mess, and results from a badly compromised attempt to write Shareholder Primacy explicitly in to UK statue. Since you are taking about US corporations, that essentially means Delaware corporations and the Delaware Court of Chancery, having won the race to the bottom, gives very few damns at all what the corporations registered there get up to. It is also well established here and there that the shareholders of a company have little-to-no say in what the companies they invest in do, or how. Ownership—not that shareholders own companies—has been separated from control. So, I think you confuse yourself by wondering about the _moral_ position of corporations. US corporations have no moral status. They have no souls, remember? I agree with /u/McKoijion that the food companies bear responsibility for at least part of the obesity epidemic in the US. Flooding the food market there with empty calories, provided from high GI, high GL ingredients didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen as a result of strong consumer demand for emptier, less healthy calories. To so flood the market and then shrug when that turns out to have undesirable effects seems like a bad thing. But it is a bad thing that certain (natural) people choose to do. The corporate veil allows them to evade moral scrutiny for that—so long as no whistle-blower turns up, Jeffrey Wigand style, to tell us that the executives in the food companies know full well that they are doing harm.	You can have no moral obligation to deal with something, and still be responsible for it. In fact that's often the case. If I own a factory that is not profitable, I have no moral obligation to keep it open. But I'm still responsible for shutting it down. I'm responsible for not keeping the business healthy enough for the factory to stay profitable. If I have to fire everyone who works for me, I'm at least partially responsible for the fact that they are out of work. The food industry might not have any moral obligation to consider the health of Americans, but then they are at least partially responsible for their obesity. I'd argue that most negative things in life are due to ignorance rather than malice. Not considering how things might affect some other stakeholder is a bigger cause of problems than those who actively try to hurt others. --- That's a very good point and you're right, responsibility is an issue apart from moral obligation. In my head I think I actually hold this argument as, "stop blaming the food industry, it's not their job to keep you healthy". In terms of responsibility, though, you've ∆ changed my mind. However, I do still hold that it's not their job (i.e. no moral obligation). --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion ([166∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/McKoijion)). ^[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": "McKoijion" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6kjk4l	CMV: The food industry has no moral obligation to consider the health of Americans; they are not responsible for the American obesity crisis.	My argument for this is fairly simple: * The aim of a corporation is to make money * A corporation can morally work towards their aim with any actions or inactions, as long as they are honest and legal. * Nutrition and food related health issues are public health issues which are the responsibility of individuals and the government. Some other beliefs that I hold which stem from this belief: * It is reasonable for companies to label their products as "Natural", "Healthy", "Green", etc. within the FDA limits of those terms, even if they are nutritionally misleading (ex. [fruit snacks](http://media.fooducate.com/products/images/180x180/5017DD42-F3F9-85C1-4FB6-8B5D1873A549.jpeg)). * It is the responsibility of the public health system to educate Americans towards skepticism and nutritional literacy. * It is the responsibility of schools and parents to educate their children ..." " * It is not unethical for corporations to engage in lobbying practices (though it is immoral for our government to support a lobbying system). Limits of this argument: * Not discussing environmental ethics or health impacts of environmental actions (pollution, etc). * Not including examples of illegal or dishonest practices I am aware that my use of the term "honest" is probably weak and I'd love some productive pushback on that. 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!*	Pr0veIt	5	3	[ { "author": "exotics", "id": "djnf8ar", "score": 1, "text": "Processed foods are the product of corporations looking to make money off the fact that most people are too lazy to make full meals from scratch like they used to. No parent in the USA buying Kraft Mac and Cheese thinks how bad that stuff is for their kids. They think it's quick and easy and relatively healthy. But.. the product sold in the USA is vastly different than what is sold in the UK. (I could be wrong as they may have very recently changed but I know 2 years ago and before hand this was true).. In the UK people are very aware of the problems caused by red and yellow food dyes so these are not used in their Kraft Dinner - but in the USA they are. Red and yellow food dyes are linked to behavioral problems in kids - the food companies obviously know this and still don't care.\n\nImagine if you knew something was bad for kids, but you still put it in your food because you figured you would sell more than if you made your food better but risked selling less. Are you responsible for the problems it caused? I would say you are. Cigarette companies were forced to warn buyers that their products caused cancer. Maybe Kraft Dinner could be forced to have a picture of a fidget spinner on their box and a warning saying \"Warning this product contains ingredients known to cause hyper activity and attention problems in some children.\".\n\nFor sure people should make better choices but let's be honest, most people are stupid about how unhealthy some products actually are. If cigarette companies must give warnings when they know something is bad, why don't food companies? ", "timestamp": 1498925782 }, { "author": "Pr0veIt", "id": "djnfm7e", "score": 1, "text": "I agree with you on a lot of those points. However, I shift the burden to the government and regulatory agencies to create policies and regulations (in response to peer reviewed, sufficient evidence) that warn consumers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect companies to volunteer to sacrifice their profits (when their competitors likely aren't) to benefit the health of their consumer. I'm pretty confident that the companies that do offer healthier products do so not for their conscience but for their business strategy. ", "timestamp": 1498926298 }, { "author": "exotics", "id": "djng2qf", "score": 1, "text": "Clingwrap is a good example of a product that did change due to ethics. It was found to contain a toxic chemical that made the plastic cling better but wasn't good for the environment. They removed it without being forced to. It was in a TIL a few weeks ago.\n\nIf you owned a company and you knew you were making people sick or obese you still have a choice. You can make your product better or stop making it.. or warn people and risk a slight loss of profits (although to be fair most people don't care as is evidenced by the fact that soda pop sales are still high and Twinkies are still on the market).\n\nI guess you have no moral obligation as a company, but as a human you do. Or you are a sellout.\n\nIt hurts us all when people are not healthy. It costs the health care system a lot of money and ties up doctors because they are kept busy treating people for entirely preventable conditions.\n\n", "timestamp": 1498926921 }, { "author": "Pr0veIt", "id": "djngeui", "score": 1, "text": "The personal responsibility and morality element, I totally agree with. I expect that I would judge the people who run companies like Monsanto and Coca Cola as whole immoral. That being said, it's not the business practices or the corporation that is immoral, IMO. It's the people who continue to lead companies that are immoral for continuing to associate themselves with companies that are producing products that are harming the public. That being said, your comment is illuminating the fact that I'm being sloppy with my use of the terms morals and ethics, along with my inability to clearly separate corporate entities from individual humans. I'll do some reading and thinking on that. ", "timestamp": 1498927379 }, { "author": "keithb", "id": "djp6t32", "score": 1, "text": "A British judge is supposed once to have said “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like”.\n\nAlthough you are talking explicitly about the US, it's interesting to note that here in the UK the law has recently been changed such that _all_ the directors of a company must be natural persons, equipped very much with bodies, at least. In the UK, one company—a legal entity distinct from any of its members, directors, employees—may no longer be a director of another, as was the case.\n\nHere are the things that a UK company director (I am a director a couple of companies here, as it happens, and have professional qualifications in company direction) must, by law, work towards when making decisions about the company:\n\n>172 Duty to promote the success of the company\n\n> (1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members [that is, its “subscribers”, usually the shareholders] as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—\n\n> (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,\n\n> (b) the interests of the company's employees,\n\n> (c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,\n\n> (d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,\n\n> (e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and\n\n> (f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company.\n\n> (2) Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.\n\n> (3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company. ——Companies Act 2006\n\nNote items (a), (c), and (d). And also part 2. This section of the act is a mess, and results from a badly compromised attempt to write Shareholder Primacy explicitly in to UK statue. \n\nSince you are taking about US corporations, that essentially means Delaware corporations and the Delaware Court of Chancery, having won the race to the bottom, gives very few damns at all what the corporations registered there get up to. It is also well established here and there that the shareholders of a company have little-to-no say in what the companies they invest in do, or how. Ownership—not that shareholders own companies—has been separated from control.\n\nSo, I think you confuse yourself by wondering about the _moral_ position of corporations. US corporations have no moral status. They have no souls, remember? I agree with /u/McKoijion that the food companies bear responsibility for at least part of the obesity epidemic in the US. Flooding the food market there with empty calories, provided from high GI, high GL ingredients didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen as a result of strong consumer demand for emptier, less healthy calories. To so flood the market and then shrug when that turns out to have undesirable effects seems like a bad thing. But it is a bad thing that certain (natural) people choose to do. The corporate veil allows them to evade moral scrutiny for that—so long as no whistle-blower turns up, Jeffrey Wigand style, to tell us that the executives in the food companies know full well that they are doing harm.", "timestamp": 1499032963 } ]	[ { "author": "McKoijion", "id": "djn0svk", "score": 6, "text": "You can have no moral obligation to deal with something, and still be responsible for it. In fact that's often the case. If I own a factory that is not profitable, I have no moral obligation to keep it open. But I'm still responsible for shutting it down. I'm responsible for not keeping the business healthy enough for the factory to stay profitable. If I have to fire everyone who works for me, I'm at least partially responsible for the fact that they are out of work. The food industry might not have any moral obligation to consider the health of Americans, but then they are at least partially responsible for their obesity. I'd argue that most negative things in life are due to ignorance rather than malice. Not considering how things might affect some other stakeholder is a bigger cause of problems than those who actively try to hurt others.", "timestamp": 1498893890 }, { "author": "Pr0veIt", "id": "djnc8b3", "score": 2, "text": "That's a very good point and you're right, responsibility is an issue apart from moral obligation. In my head I think I actually hold this argument as, \"stop blaming the food industry, it's not their job to keep you healthy\". In terms of responsibility, though, you've ∆ changed my mind. However, I do still hold that it's not their job (i.e. no moral obligation). ", "timestamp": 1498921522 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "djnc8h2", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion ([166∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/McKoijion)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"McKoijion\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1498921529 } ]	[ "djnf8ar", "djnfm7e", "djng2qf", "djngeui", "djp6t32" ]	[ "djn0svk", "djnc8b3", "djnc8h2" ]
CMV: Bookstores are Obsolete and Should be Replaced by Libraries When I say "Bookstore" I mean brick and mortar physical book stores you walk into. When I say obsolete I mean that their way of selling books to customers is inferior to checking out the book from the store/library, followed by buying it from Amazon. Lets look at what book stores provide: 1 - selling books 2 - allowing immediate viewing of books For # 1, the prices of books at book stores is more expensive than prices on Amazon (atleast for where I live). For # 2, I can view the book at a library, or even get a free electronic preview, before ordering the physical copy of the book. Therefore, it makes sense to view the book at a library and order from amazon. In order to change my view, you must convince me that there is a significant number of them that sell books cheaper than Amazon, or that they provide some other benefit/service that Amazon and Libraries cannot provide. Edit 1: I am not saying libraries are obsolete. Libraries provide a service for customers that an online bookstore (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. Overall to change my view I need a reason as to why bookstores are good for customers. The fundamental question is "Why should I pay more money for the exact same book, that I can buy cheaper online (from Amazon or otherwise) while at the same time, I can either wait or borrow from a library until the book arrives?" Edit 2: My view has been partially changed as circumstances have been presented to me in which it makes more sense to buy a book on the spot from a physical store, rather than read it in a library/book store and order online (from amazon or otherwise) for a lower price: 1- The book is not available online but is available at a physical bookstore 2- You do not have convenient access to receiving mail. These circumstances are infrequent, but realistic and often enough that they are relevant and have partially changed my view. I can see book stores being good in tourist destinations or airports. However, outside of those circumstances, I still believe that ordering books from amazon (for a lower price than a physical bookstore), after checking it out in a bookstore/library, is superior to buying it on the spot from a physical bookstore. Edit 3: Another circumstance in which book stores are not obsolete is as a venue for authors to market their books. It would be silly for authors to turn away customers and tell them "order it online"	Oftentimes people go to book stores (and libraries) to find books that they normally wouldn't find on Amazon. I have a rare book store near my house that I walk around in and every time I go there I find something new, some rare textbook from the 40s, or some storybook I would have never otherwise come across. So if you want to look up and purchase popular books for the best price, online is probably your best choice. But in terms of pure exploration, books stores are still valuable to have. --- Alright but it wouldn't make sense to buy the book from the bookstore when its cheaper on Amazon. Furthermore, what's the difference between finding these less visible books in a library versus a book store? --- What they're saying is not all books are on amazon..	I have a problem with a single gigantic corporation controlling what books will be profitable and how books will be marketed. The great thing about a good book store is the curation — Amazon is allwaya going to push the most profitable books, not necessarily the best ones. --- There are other online vendors for books that are still cheaper than physical book stores. --- Most of these are independent book stores who also sell books online. Without local support Amazon would drive these out of business.	96icic	CMV: Bookstores are Obsolete and Should be Replaced by Libraries	When I say "Bookstore" I mean brick and mortar physical book stores you walk into. When I say obsolete I mean that their way of selling books to customers is inferior to checking out the book from the store/library, followed by buying it from Amazon. Lets look at what book stores provide: 1 - selling books 2 - allowing immediate viewing of books For # 1, the prices of books at book stores is more expensive than prices on Amazon (atleast for where I live). For # 2, I can view the book at a library, or even get a free electronic preview, before ordering the physical copy of the book. Therefore, it makes sense to view the book at a library and order from amazon. In order to change my view, you must convince me that there is a significant number of them that sell books cheaper than Amazon, or that they provide some other benefit/service that Amazon and Libraries cannot provide. Edit 1: I am not saying libraries are obsolete. Libraries provide a service for customers that an online bookstore (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. Overall to change my view I need a reason as to why bookstores are good for customers. The fundamental question is "Why should I pay more money for the exact same book, that I can buy cheaper online (from Amazon or otherwise) while at the same time, I can either wait or borrow from a library until the book arrives?" Edit 2: My view has been partially changed as circumstances have been presented to me in which it makes more sense to buy a book on the spot from a physical store, rather than read it in a library/book store and order online (from amazon or otherwise) for a lower price: 1- The book is not available online but is available at a physical bookstore 2- You do not have convenient access to receiving mail. These circumstances are infrequent, but realistic and often enough that they are relevant and have partially changed my view. I can see book stores being good in tourist destinations or airports. However, outside of those circumstances, I still believe that ordering books from amazon (for a lower price than a physical bookstore), after checking it out in a bookstore/library, is superior to buying it on the spot from a physical bookstore. Edit 3: Another circumstance in which book stores are not obsolete is as a venue for authors to market their books. It would be silly for authors to turn away customers and tell them "order it online"	boredom_slayer	3	3	[ { "author": "Inovox", "id": "e40neyb", "score": 8, "text": "Oftentimes people go to book stores (and libraries) to find books that they normally wouldn't find on Amazon. I have a rare book store near my house that I walk around in and every time I go there I find something new, some rare textbook from the 40s, or some storybook I would have never otherwise come across. So if you want to look up and purchase popular books for the best price, online is probably your best choice. But in terms of pure exploration, books stores are still valuable to have.", "timestamp": 1534009664 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40nkqr", "score": 2, "text": "Alright but it wouldn't make sense to buy the book from the bookstore when its cheaper on Amazon. Furthermore, what's the difference between finding these less visible books in a library versus a book store?", "timestamp": 1534009820 }, { "author": "shadowwolfsl", "id": "e40nmji", "score": 7, "text": "What they're saying is not all books are on amazon..", "timestamp": 1534009870 } ]	[ { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "e40nhla", "score": 5, "text": "I have a problem with a single gigantic corporation controlling what books will be profitable and how books will be marketed.\n\nThe great thing about a good book store is the curation — Amazon is allwaya going to push the most profitable books, not necessarily the best ones. \n\n", "timestamp": 1534009737 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40p9dh", "score": 1, "text": "There are other online vendors for books that are still cheaper than physical book stores.", "timestamp": 1534011530 }, { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "e40pes5", "score": 3, "text": "Most of these are independent book stores who also sell books online. Without local support Amazon would drive these out of business.", "timestamp": 1534011685 } ]	[ "e40neyb", "e40nkqr", "e40nmji" ]	[ "e40nhla", "e40p9dh", "e40pes5" ]
CMV: Bookstores are Obsolete and Should be Replaced by Libraries When I say "Bookstore" I mean brick and mortar physical book stores you walk into. When I say obsolete I mean that their way of selling books to customers is inferior to checking out the book from the store/library, followed by buying it from Amazon. Lets look at what book stores provide: 1 - selling books 2 - allowing immediate viewing of books For # 1, the prices of books at book stores is more expensive than prices on Amazon (atleast for where I live). For # 2, I can view the book at a library, or even get a free electronic preview, before ordering the physical copy of the book. Therefore, it makes sense to view the book at a library and order from amazon. In order to change my view, you must convince me that there is a significant number of them that sell books cheaper than Amazon, or that they provide some other benefit/service that Amazon and Libraries cannot provide. Edit 1: I am not saying libraries are obsolete. Libraries provide a service for customers that an online bookstore (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. Overall to change my view I need a reason as to why bookstores are good for customers. The fundamental question is "Why should I pay more money for the exact same book, that I can buy cheaper online (from Amazon or otherwise) while at the same time, I can either wait or borrow from a library until the book arrives?" Edit 2: My view has been partially changed as circumstances have been presented to me in which it makes more sense to buy a book on the spot from a physical store, rather than read it in a library/book store and order online (from amazon or otherwise) for a lower price: 1- The book is not available online but is available at a physical bookstore 2- You do not have convenient access to receiving mail. These circumstances are infrequent, but realistic and often enough that they are relevant and have partially changed my view. I can see book stores being good in tourist destinations or airports. However, outside of those circumstances, I still believe that ordering books from amazon (for a lower price than a physical bookstore), after checking it out in a bookstore/library, is superior to buying it on the spot from a physical bookstore. Edit 3: Another circumstance in which book stores are not obsolete is as a venue for authors to market their books. It would be silly for authors to turn away customers and tell them "order it online"	Oftentimes people go to book stores (and libraries) to find books that they normally wouldn't find on Amazon. I have a rare book store near my house that I walk around in and every time I go there I find something new, some rare textbook from the 40s, or some storybook I would have never otherwise come across. So if you want to look up and purchase popular books for the best price, online is probably your best choice. But in terms of pure exploration, books stores are still valuable to have. --- Alright but it wouldn't make sense to buy the book from the bookstore when its cheaper on Amazon. Furthermore, what's the difference between finding these less visible books in a library versus a book store? --- What they're saying is not all books are on amazon.. --- I'll give you a !delta, as being able to sell a book not available online counts as a service that online vendors (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. I don't know how many books this applies to and its probably not a lot. But if I was looking for a particular book, and its only available in a physical book store, of course I'd get it from that physical bookstore because that's my only option. With that being said, the reverse is more likely, that Amazon or another online vendor has a book that the physical store does not have in stock. --- You also have to consider that a lot of people (myself included) like collecting the books that they read. A library wouldn't allow me to do that. I like being able to keep, re-read and share the books that I've read. Also, a lot of time when I'm travelling I don't have the time to order from an online retailer. When I need a book on the road, I love being able to just walk into a store, find what I like, and walk out with it. Bookstores may not be as viable as they have been in the past, but they still serve a particular market.	I'm going ignore your last sentence because you can't really stipulate that there are only two ways to change your view. Personally I think you would be hurting authors and other people who make money out of the sale of books. You would be taking away an entire section of the market - people who buy books at book stores. Not all of those people would buy an equal number of books on Amazon as they would have bought in a store. Maybe those people would all go to libraries. But from the point of view of people who make a living out of the sale of books, that's not really a good thing. From an industry point of view, I would be more inclined to agree with you if you said libraries should all shut down and replaced with some kind of online streaming service. Also you would be increasing Amazon's monopoly and Jeff Bezos would get so rich that his head would explode. --- I don't think my contribution to amazon's monopoly is big enough to warrant willingly paying more money for the exact same product. Furthermore, if I really am concered about contributing to Amazon's monopoly, there are other online vendors who sell books at a price cheaper than physical book stores. --- I'm curious what your response is to the rest of my comment. --- I'm only looking at it from the customer perspective. I can see hurting authors as bad for customers because it can lower the quality of books available, but would need more elaboration as to how it hurts authors. --- To put it simply, booksellers pay publishers, publishers pay authors. Take away a section of the book-buying market, and booksellers, publishers and authors all make less money.	96icic	CMV: Bookstores are Obsolete and Should be Replaced by Libraries	When I say "Bookstore" I mean brick and mortar physical book stores you walk into. When I say obsolete I mean that their way of selling books to customers is inferior to checking out the book from the store/library, followed by buying it from Amazon. Lets look at what book stores provide: 1 - selling books 2 - allowing immediate viewing of books For # 1, the prices of books at book stores is more expensive than prices on Amazon (atleast for where I live). For # 2, I can view the book at a library, or even get a free electronic preview, before ordering the physical copy of the book. Therefore, it makes sense to view the book at a library and order from amazon. In order to change my view, you must convince me that there is a significant number of them that sell books cheaper than Amazon, or that they provide some other benefit/service that Amazon and Libraries cannot provide. Edit 1: I am not saying libraries are obsolete. Libraries provide a service for customers that an online bookstore (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. Overall to change my view I need a reason as to why bookstores are good for customers. The fundamental question is "Why should I pay more money for the exact same book, that I can buy cheaper online (from Amazon or otherwise) while at the same time, I can either wait or borrow from a library until the book arrives?" Edit 2: My view has been partially changed as circumstances have been presented to me in which it makes more sense to buy a book on the spot from a physical store, rather than read it in a library/book store and order online (from amazon or otherwise) for a lower price: 1- The book is not available online but is available at a physical bookstore 2- You do not have convenient access to receiving mail. These circumstances are infrequent, but realistic and often enough that they are relevant and have partially changed my view. I can see book stores being good in tourist destinations or airports. However, outside of those circumstances, I still believe that ordering books from amazon (for a lower price than a physical bookstore), after checking it out in a bookstore/library, is superior to buying it on the spot from a physical bookstore. Edit 3: Another circumstance in which book stores are not obsolete is as a venue for authors to market their books. It would be silly for authors to turn away customers and tell them "order it online"	boredom_slayer	5	5	[ { "author": "Inovox", "id": "e40neyb", "score": 8, "text": "Oftentimes people go to book stores (and libraries) to find books that they normally wouldn't find on Amazon. I have a rare book store near my house that I walk around in and every time I go there I find something new, some rare textbook from the 40s, or some storybook I would have never otherwise come across. So if you want to look up and purchase popular books for the best price, online is probably your best choice. But in terms of pure exploration, books stores are still valuable to have.", "timestamp": 1534009664 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40nkqr", "score": 2, "text": "Alright but it wouldn't make sense to buy the book from the bookstore when its cheaper on Amazon. Furthermore, what's the difference between finding these less visible books in a library versus a book store?", "timestamp": 1534009820 }, { "author": "shadowwolfsl", "id": "e40nmji", "score": 7, "text": "What they're saying is not all books are on amazon..", "timestamp": 1534009870 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40oq0x", "score": 2, "text": "I'll give you a !delta, as being able to sell a book not available online counts as a service that online vendors (Amazon or otherwise) cannot provide. I don't know how many books this applies to and its probably not a lot. But if I was looking for a particular book, and its only available in a physical book store, of course I'd get it from that physical bookstore because that's my only option. With that being said, the reverse is more likely, that Amazon or another online vendor has a book that the physical store does not have in stock.", "timestamp": 1534010982 }, { "author": "TheTruthStillMatters", "id": "e40qxts", "score": 3, "text": "You also have to consider that a lot of people (myself included) like collecting the books that they read. A library wouldn't allow me to do that. I like being able to keep, re-read and share the books that I've read. Also, a lot of time when I'm travelling I don't have the time to order from an online retailer. When I need a book on the road, I love being able to just walk into a store, find what I like, and walk out with it. Bookstores may not be as viable as they have been in the past, but they still serve a particular market. ", "timestamp": 1534013262 } ]	[ { "author": "theguyfromchicago6", "id": "e40nwnx", "score": 3, "text": "I'm going ignore your last sentence because you can't really stipulate that there are only two ways to change your view. \n\nPersonally I think you would be hurting authors and other people who make money out of the sale of books. You would be taking away an entire section of the market - people who buy books at book stores. Not all of those people would buy an equal number of books on Amazon as they would have bought in a store. \n\nMaybe those people would all go to libraries. But from the point of view of people who make a living out of the sale of books, that's not really a good thing. \n\nFrom an industry point of view, I would be more inclined to agree with you if you said libraries should all shut down and replaced with some kind of online streaming service.\n\nAlso you would be increasing Amazon's monopoly and Jeff Bezos would get so rich that his head would explode. ", "timestamp": 1534010156 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40oilo", "score": 1, "text": "I don't think my contribution to amazon's monopoly is big enough to warrant willingly paying more money for the exact same product. Furthermore, if I really am concered about contributing to Amazon's monopoly, there are other online vendors who sell books at a price cheaper than physical book stores.", "timestamp": 1534010767 }, { "author": "theguyfromchicago6", "id": "e40qqmi", "score": 1, "text": "I'm curious what your response is to the rest of my comment. ", "timestamp": 1534013056 }, { "author": "boredom_slayer", "id": "e40tg4v", "score": 1, "text": "I'm only looking at it from the customer perspective. I can see hurting authors as bad for customers because it can lower the quality of books available, but would need more elaboration as to how it hurts authors. ", "timestamp": 1534015975 }, { "author": "theguyfromchicago6", "id": "e40tzsy", "score": 1, "text": "To put it simply, booksellers pay publishers, publishers pay authors. Take away a section of the book-buying market, and booksellers, publishers and authors all make less money. ", "timestamp": 1534016561 } ]	[ "e40neyb", "e40nkqr", "e40nmji", "e40oq0x", "e40qxts" ]	[ "e40nwnx", "e40oilo", "e40qqmi", "e40tg4v", "e40tzsy" ]
CMV: NiceGuys/Incels are the result of cultural shifts that render unto them a psychological void. I'm a recovering NiceGuy. I read a book recently by a male therapist who has meetup groups around North America regarding the same, passive-aggressiveness, resentment, and lack of self-esteem that comes with NiceGuy Syndrome. I've found it really enlightening. The author sees this phenomenon occuring for 2 reasons. I tend to be persuaded by them, but I wanted to bring it into dialogue because I sense there may be more depth to the story. 1. Women's financial and cultural autonomy - It used to be that a mediocre man could easily find a wife because women were financially dependent upon men for their basic needs, as well as access into certain areas of society deemed only fit for men. It was also culturally ingrained that a woman's purpose was to be a homemaker, and there weren't many careers open to them. Therefore, women often married men that were stable, close in proximity, and shared their cultural upbringing. With more cultural and financial freedom for women, they have a wider array of choice and they don't need to just "pick" a guy to carry on in life throughout their 20s. This allows them to be more choosy, and leaves, average, unindustrious, middle of the road talent and income, "nice guys" as very uncompetitive in the dating market. What came easy to dad or grandpa won't come easy for them. 2. Feminization of the school system - Since the second wave of feminism, the marginalization of girls has been recognized in certain social institutions and there has been a push for a celebratory attitude toward girls and conventionally feminine traits. Since boys are schooled with girls, usually, their rambunctious, hyper, boundary-testing tendencies are seen as toxic (and they're often medicated for it). They are socialized to be docile and passive, and then wonder why women don't find them attractive. The reason, the author says, is that the very masculine traits that women often find attractive are being drummed out in favor of a gender egalitarianism. He says that those very boyish traits society finds toxic or problematic are often, on balance, what women find appealing and interesting, in a yin-yang kind of way.	The incel ideology is fundamentally not that different from what Aristotle, Genghis Khan, or Napoleon Bonaparte would have believed about the nature and proper role of women. It isn't some brand new school of thought that was recently created by anything, it is just baseline sexism. If you want to focus on the unique flavor of resentfulness that gives modern sexism it's quirks, then sure, we can point out that a value system that is finding itself in the minority, will express itself a bit differently than back when it was taken for granted, but that's a bit self-evident. The problems that people have with incels weren't caused by modern culture, they were revealed by it. --- So are you arguing that incels are just sexist men who have always existed in all cultures where there are groups of dispossessed men? --- > So are you arguing that incels are just sexist men Chronically single men are not necessarily sexist. But anyone who identifies as an "incel" is absolutely sexist. The entire concept of "incel" is about blaming women for men's shortcomings and viewing women as objects/rewards that men should be entitled to instead of individual human beings. --- Hmm. So a guy complaining that women's standards are unfair or unrealistic would be sexist? And if so, would a woman be sexist for saying the same thing about men's standards? --- The definition of "incel" is not "a guy complaining that women's standards are unfair or unrealistic." I specifically said that "anyone who identifies as an "incel" is absolutely sexist," not anyone who complains about being single and/or lack of luck in dating or anything else related to dating. --- That's pretty reasonable. I see those terms thrown around whenever a guy vents about lack of dating success on the internet. I think there's a kind of circular logic here. Woke culture is all about smashing gender roles and encouraging men to be vulnerable and not having to act macho and all that. But I often see that the moment men ARE vulnerable and share it, those very same people get squeamish about hearing it. --- Venting about being single is fine. Blaming women for being single is wrong as that implies you have an inherent right to women's attention. If women aren't interested in someone, the fault lies with themselves, not with the women that aren't interested in them. --- Agree or disagree with this statement: "If person x is isn't interested in person y, the fault lies with person y, not with the person x that isn't interested in them." I'm trying to make your axiom genderless, and see if you hold to it. --- hi, different person than you were talking to here. In this hypothetical there is no "fault", it is what it is. If someone doesn't like someone that way, they don't like someone that way. It is just a fact and to try an prescribe blame in such a situation is silly. Person X likes Person Y that way but isn't liked that way by Person Y and that is just how the cookie crumbles.	>and they're often medicated for it ADHD is a very real and very serious disorder that can have a detrimental impact on a person's ability to succeed in life. It is not "boys being boys", and I would question the credentials of any "therapist" who says that boys are being medicated simply because they are rambunctious. That said, from what I've seen the "nice guys" and "incels" aren't having anything rendered unto them, rather they feel entitled to the affections of women while at the same time are unable to talk to women or treat them as individuals and as equals. --- But any psychiatric diagnosis isn't hard science in the Popperian sense, and always comes with social bias. Think of the possible sexism in diagnosing teenage girls as "borderline." How do you know that these diagnoses don't come with cultural attitudes that aren't purely scientific? --- How do you think diagnosis become standardized? The brain is an organ just like any other, and it can malfunction or be dysfunctional in many ways. To just wave your hand dismissively at the decades of research that has been done and say, "Yeah, but it's not Popperian innit?" is just intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. The position you seem to take, that mental and learning disabilities aren't "real" is the same ignorant position that has been preventing people from getting the treatment they need for a very long time now. Yes, psychiatric diagnosis isn't 100% accurate and treatment isn't 100% effective... but nothing in medical science is. --- It's inductively reliable, but also subject to biases we should examine and question. There are plenty of things that aren't "strictly science" in the falsifiable sense that I accept, but that doesn't mean I don't question it at all. History for instance is a field I accept, but I realize that when I read a historical text there are going to be editorial biases that I'm aware of. Would you read Ben Shapiro's The Right Side of History as "just the facts, man"? Probably not. --- What does Ben Shapiro have to do with this? What does the study of history have to do with medical science? Could you perhaps provide examples of how psychiatric diagnosis are... influenced by culture? --- https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/11/28/how-culture-shapes-your-mind-and-your-mental-illness/sMlhWP5LGSOvQAFd83I3qN/story.html --- Did you read that article? I'm not sure how it supports your position. Culture influences how some mental disorders are expressed and/or experienced. Perhaps doctors and medical professionals should be cognizant of cultural differences and how may affect the expression of psychiatric conditions outside of their own culture, but beyond that I'm not sure why you linked this article. Could you explain please? --- Because the very nature of these disorders are subjective. What is "normal" behavior to one culture is not so for another. Depression, for instance, is not seen the same way in East Asia as it is in North America, partially because of cultural expectations about happiness. --- Which is why people in East Asia go without treatment for their mental disorders. My wife and her father are both Japanese. My wife suffers from bipolar disorder, a disorder that has affected her life but was never diagnosed, let alone treated, until she came to the US. She was always blamed for her mood swings and her inability to hold onto a job or finish school or stay married for more than a year. Her father very likely suffered from a similar condition and died as a result of it, never seeking treatment because there was no treatment to be sought. As the article discusses, these conditions still exist. The disease still exists. They are just perceived differently by culture. That does not mean that my wife, for example, didn't have a mood disorder that we in the US would define as Bipolar when she was in Japan. She still had it and still suffered from it.	d5iu07	CMV: NiceGuys/Incels are the result of cultural shifts that render unto them a psychological void.	I'm a recovering NiceGuy. I read a book recently by a male therapist who has meetup groups around North America regarding the same, passive-aggressiveness, resentment, and lack of self-esteem that comes with NiceGuy Syndrome. I've found it really enlightening. The author sees this phenomenon occuring for 2 reasons. I tend to be persuaded by them, but I wanted to bring it into dialogue because I sense there may be more depth to the story. 1. Women's financial and cultural autonomy - It used to be that a mediocre man could easily find a wife because women were financially dependent upon men for their basic needs, as well as access into certain areas of society deemed only fit for men. It was also culturally ingrained that a woman's purpose was to be a homemaker, and there weren't many careers open to them. Therefore, women often married men that were stable, close in proximity, and shared their cultural upbringing. With more cultural and financial freedom for women, they have a wider array of choice and they don't need to just "pick" a guy to carry on in life throughout their 20s. This allows them to be more choosy, and leaves, average, unindustrious, middle of the road talent and income, "nice guys" as very uncompetitive in the dating market. What came easy to dad or grandpa won't come easy for them. 2. Feminization of the school system - Since the second wave of feminism, the marginalization of girls has been recognized in certain social institutions and there has been a push for a celebratory attitude toward girls and conventionally feminine traits. Since boys are schooled with girls, usually, their rambunctious, hyper, boundary-testing tendencies are seen as toxic (and they're often medicated for it). They are socialized to be docile and passive, and then wonder why women don't find them attractive. The reason, the author says, is that the very masculine traits that women often find attractive are being drummed out in favor of a gender egalitarianism. He says that those very boyish traits society finds toxic or problematic are often, on balance, what women find appealing and interesting, in a yin-yang kind of way.	[deleted]	9	9	[ { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "f0m4cyk", "score": 25, "text": "The incel ideology is fundamentally not that different from what Aristotle, Genghis Khan, or Napoleon Bonaparte would have believed about the nature and proper role of women.\n\nIt isn't some brand new school of thought that was recently created by anything, it is just baseline sexism.\n\nIf you want to focus on the unique flavor of resentfulness that gives modern sexism it's quirks, then sure, we can point out that a value system that is finding itself in the minority, will express itself a bit differently than back when it was taken for granted, but that's a bit self-evident.\n\nThe problems that people have with incels weren't caused by modern culture, they were revealed by it.", "timestamp": 1568736484 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m5ydp", "score": 6, "text": "So are you arguing that incels are just sexist men who have always existed in all cultures where there are groups of dispossessed men?", "timestamp": 1568737579 }, { "author": "LilSebs_MrsF", "id": "f0m8msp", "score": 23, "text": "> So are you arguing that incels are just sexist men\n\nChronically single men are not necessarily sexist. But anyone who identifies as an \"incel\" is absolutely sexist. The entire concept of \"incel\" is about blaming women for men's shortcomings and viewing women as objects/rewards that men should be entitled to instead of individual human beings.", "timestamp": 1568739328 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m8xfl", "score": 7, "text": "Hmm. So a guy complaining that women's standards are unfair or unrealistic would be sexist? And if so, would a woman be sexist for saying the same thing about men's standards?", "timestamp": 1568739521 }, { "author": "LilSebs_MrsF", "id": "f0m949w", "score": 12, "text": "The definition of \"incel\" is not \"a guy complaining that women's standards are unfair or unrealistic.\" I specifically said that \"anyone who identifies as an \"incel\" is absolutely sexist,\" not anyone who complains about being single and/or lack of luck in dating or anything else related to dating.", "timestamp": 1568739643 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m9ojz", "score": 6, "text": "That's pretty reasonable. I see those terms thrown around whenever a guy vents about lack of dating success on the internet. I think there's a kind of circular logic here. Woke culture is all about smashing gender roles and encouraging men to be vulnerable and not having to act macho and all that. But I often see that the moment men ARE vulnerable and share it, those very same people get squeamish about hearing it.", "timestamp": 1568740014 }, { "author": "SuckMyBike", "id": "f0macyx", "score": 19, "text": "Venting about being single is fine. Blaming women for being single is wrong as that implies you have an inherent right to women's attention. \n\nIf women aren't interested in someone, the fault lies with themselves, not with the women that aren't interested in them.", "timestamp": 1568740460 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0makul", "score": 4, "text": "Agree or disagree with this statement: \"If person x is isn't interested in person y, the fault lies with person y, not with the person x that isn't interested in them.\" I'm trying to make your axiom genderless, and see if you hold to it.", "timestamp": 1568740602 }, { "author": "dudeidontknoww", "id": "f0mbkln", "score": 11, "text": "hi, different person than you were talking to here. In this hypothetical there is no \"fault\", it is what it is. If someone doesn't like someone that way, they don't like someone that way. It is just a fact and to try an prescribe blame in such a situation is silly. Person X likes Person Y that way but isn't liked that way by Person Y and that is just how the cookie crumbles.", "timestamp": 1568741251 } ]	[ { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0m3lo4", "score": 14, "text": ">and they're often medicated for it\n\nADHD is a very real and very serious disorder that can have a detrimental impact on a person's ability to succeed in life. It is not \"boys being boys\", and I would question the credentials of any \"therapist\" who says that boys are being medicated simply because they are rambunctious.\n\nThat said, from what I've seen the \"nice guys\" and \"incels\" aren't having anything rendered unto them, rather they feel entitled to the affections of women while at the same time are unable to talk to women or treat them as individuals and as equals.", "timestamp": 1568735980 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m560n", "score": -1, "text": "But any psychiatric diagnosis isn't hard science in the Popperian sense, and always comes with social bias. Think of the possible sexism in diagnosing teenage girls as \"borderline.\" How do you know that these diagnoses don't come with cultural attitudes that aren't purely scientific?", "timestamp": 1568737036 }, { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0m62wu", "score": 11, "text": "How do you think diagnosis become standardized? The brain is an organ just like any other, and it can malfunction or be dysfunctional in many ways. To just wave your hand dismissively at the decades of research that has been done and say, \"Yeah, but it's not Popperian innit?\" is just intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. The position you seem to take, that mental and learning disabilities aren't \"real\" is the same ignorant position that has been preventing people from getting the treatment they need for a very long time now. Yes, psychiatric diagnosis isn't 100% accurate and treatment isn't 100% effective... but nothing in medical science is.", "timestamp": 1568737665 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m6x37", "score": 0, "text": "It's inductively reliable, but also subject to biases we should examine and question. There are plenty of things that aren't \"strictly science\" in the falsifiable sense that I accept, but that doesn't mean I don't question it at all. History for instance is a field I accept, but I realize that when I read a historical text there are going to be editorial biases that I'm aware of. Would you read Ben Shapiro's The Right Side of History as \"just the facts, man\"? Probably not.", "timestamp": 1568738220 }, { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0m7ccl", "score": 5, "text": "What does Ben Shapiro have to do with this? What does the study of history have to do with medical science? Could you perhaps provide examples of how psychiatric diagnosis are... influenced by culture?", "timestamp": 1568738494 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m7j13", "score": -1, "text": "https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/11/28/how-culture-shapes-your-mind-and-your-mental-illness/sMlhWP5LGSOvQAFd83I3qN/story.html", "timestamp": 1568738614 }, { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0m8jmr", "score": 5, "text": "Did you read that article? I'm not sure how it supports your position. Culture influences how some mental disorders are expressed and/or experienced. Perhaps doctors and medical professionals should be cognizant of cultural differences and how may affect the expression of psychiatric conditions outside of their own culture, but beyond that I'm not sure why you linked this article.\n\nCould you explain please?", "timestamp": 1568739271 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f0m8sro", "score": 1, "text": "Because the very nature of these disorders are subjective. What is \"normal\" behavior to one culture is not so for another. Depression, for instance, is not seen the same way in East Asia as it is in North America, partially because of cultural expectations about happiness.", "timestamp": 1568739435 }, { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0m95vw", "score": 8, "text": "Which is why people in East Asia go without treatment for their mental disorders. My wife and her father are both Japanese. My wife suffers from bipolar disorder, a disorder that has affected her life but was never diagnosed, let alone treated, until she came to the US. She was always blamed for her mood swings and her inability to hold onto a job or finish school or stay married for more than a year. Her father very likely suffered from a similar condition and died as a result of it, never seeking treatment because there was no treatment to be sought.\n\nAs the article discusses, these conditions still exist. The disease still exists. They are just perceived differently by culture. That does not mean that my wife, for example, didn't have a mood disorder that we in the US would define as Bipolar when she was in Japan. She still had it and still suffered from it.", "timestamp": 1568739673 } ]	[ "f0m4cyk", "f0m5ydp", "f0m8msp", "f0m8xfl", "f0m949w", "f0m9ojz", "f0macyx", "f0makul", "f0mbkln" ]	[ "f0m3lo4", "f0m560n", "f0m62wu", "f0m6x37", "f0m7ccl", "f0m7j13", "f0m8jmr", "f0m8sro", "f0m95vw" ]
CMV: Game mechanics should be available for anyone to use, and games having closed source code is not useful. I think that letting any game mechanic be used by anyone is more beneficial. Like how you can patent game mechanics, I think that that is harmful to games in general, and limits the ability for that mechanic to be expanded upon or used. What benefit do we get from certain game mechanics being limited to the people who made them, that doesn't help them get better. I also don't think that games should be closed source. By this I don't mean that someone can grab the game and just recopy the whole game and sell it for less, I mean that we should be able to see the code of the game. It would allow for games to more easily expand upon such mechanics and would be helpful for people who want to recreate such mechanics.	> I also don't think that games should be closed source The thing about making games, is that often the people that fund the studio making the game, don't have infinite money. They want their money back, ideally more than their money back. If others can grab and compile your code wherever, you can't make money, because they can get the game for free by compiling it themselves. They can copy it and make their own service and whatnot, and then you'd end up bankrupt. With nobody willing to put money or time into making games because they won't make any money, we'd just no longer have games beyond what a few people work on as a hobby project. > By this I don't mean that someone can grab the game and just recopy the whole game and sell it for less They wouldn't sell it for less, no. They'd share it for free. Good luck stopping it. --- That already happens though. Piracy. --- Is the gaming industry better overall because piracy exists?	Do you have any examples? --- The nemesis system comes to mind. --- I’m not familiar with it. Does it have a patent number?	1bzyoel	CMV: Game mechanics should be available for anyone to use, and games having closed source code is not useful.	I think that letting any game mechanic be used by anyone is more beneficial. Like how you can patent game mechanics, I think that that is harmful to games in general, and limits the ability for that mechanic to be expanded upon or used. What benefit do we get from certain game mechanics being limited to the people who made them, that doesn't help them get better. I also don't think that games should be closed source. By this I don't mean that someone can grab the game and just recopy the whole game and sell it for less, I mean that we should be able to see the code of the game. It would allow for games to more easily expand upon such mechanics and would be helpful for people who want to recreate such mechanics.	DesideriumScientiae	3	3	[ { "author": "eloel-", "id": "kysxood", "score": 20, "text": "> I also don't think that games should be closed source\n\nThe thing about making games, is that often the people that fund the studio making the game, don't have infinite money. They want their money back, ideally more than their money back.\n\n If others can grab and compile your code wherever, you can't make money, because they can get the game for free by compiling it themselves. They can copy it and make their own service and whatnot, and then you'd end up bankrupt. With nobody willing to put money or time into making games because they won't make any money, we'd just no longer have games beyond what a few people work on as a hobby project.\n\n \n> By this I don't mean that someone can grab the game and just recopy the whole game and sell it for less\n\nThey wouldn't sell it for less, no. They'd share it for free. Good luck stopping it.", "timestamp": 1712686332 }, { "author": "DesideriumScientiae", "id": "kysxxa9", "score": -10, "text": "That already happens though. Piracy.", "timestamp": 1712686413 }, { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "kysy7u9", "score": 4, "text": "Is the gaming industry better overall because piracy exists?", "timestamp": 1712686511 } ]	[ { "author": "PublicFurryAccount", "id": "kysw6sy", "score": 11, "text": "Do you have any examples?", "timestamp": 1712685822 }, { "author": "DesideriumScientiae", "id": "kysw96l", "score": 2, "text": "The nemesis system comes to mind.", "timestamp": 1712685843 }, { "author": "PublicFurryAccount", "id": "kyswdqx", "score": 1, "text": "I’m not familiar with it. Does it have a patent number?", "timestamp": 1712685887 } ]	[ "kysxood", "kysxxa9", "kysy7u9" ]	[ "kysw6sy", "kysw96l", "kyswdqx" ]
CMV: We should practice rigorous authenticity most of the time, and we should deceive when it best advances our purposes Some of these assertions only apply in cultures where authenticity is valued more than conformity. I've created a diagram of my arguments here: https://imgur.com/ehBkC8B Gray arrows represent one assertion supporting or implying another. Pink arrows represent an assertion contradicting another some of the time. Here's a list of assumptions from the diagram: We should practice rigorous authenticity as often as possible The better someone knows us, the easier it is for them to detect deception from us. The better we know someone, the easier it is to deceive them. Some methods of deception are effective. Some methods of detecting deception are effective. There is great motivation to become skilled at detecting deception. Most people dislike being deceived, and will try to discern the truth in most situations. There is always risk of being discovered when being deceptive. Being caught in a deception can result in damaged reputation. People will trust us less if they believe we are willing to deceive them. We should appear to be honest. The best way to appear to embody a value in unpredictable circumstances is to actually embody that value. Certain information can prove deception in a given circumstance, regardless of other factors. We can sometimes predict what information would prove deception, and work to hide that information. No prediction is perfect. We cannot predict the effects of the growth of knowledge. We cannot be certain that a person’s method of detecting deception is vulnerable to our method of deception. We cannot be certain that our deception won’t be discovered in the future. It is psychologically taxing to conceal the truth. Anti-rational memes can autonomously suppress certain truths. We can accidentally deceive by failing to provide information Believing a deception causes a distorted understanding A distorted understanding can result in destructive behavior Authenticity builds trust. Trust is required for cooperation. Cooperation is required for a community to be resilient. We should deceive when it best advances our purposes Some people want to be deceived about some things. Some truths would cause unacceptable damage if discovered. Deception is often necessary to defeat an opponent in competition or combat Rarely, it is necessary to temporarily deceive in order to influence someone’s behavior for their own good. Temporary deception is sometimes necessary to create humor or surprise. Most people like good surprises and humor. Humor can help build trust. In summary, deception is sometimes unavoidable, but will usually still cause damage. I would love for you all to tear these arguments and assumptions apart piece-by-piece. Even if you agree with the premise, please look for flaws in my assumptions and causal chains. It would be interesting to hear how this argument interacts with your own arguments. I would also love to have input on how to better structure this information - right now, the text lacks any real structure besides the diagram. This is a mode of thinking that I have only just began to codify and structure.	> I would love for you all to tear these arguments and assumptions apart piece-by-piece. Even if you agree with the premise, please look for flaws in my assumptions and causal chains. You've not really made any sort of argument. You just have a list of statements and fairly nonsenical diagram. --- Can you explain why you think that this is not an argument? Google defines an argument as "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong." I have provided a massive set of reasons for the assertions in the title. How could I improve the diagram to make more sense? --- 99% of the people will agree with you on all those statements. Some statements however only 50% agree upon and the other 50% disagree. An argument has to be when there are a ton of people who agrees and also a ton of people disagree. Nearly all your statements have the right solution already. Literally no-one will disagree with you when you say: " deception is sometimes unavoidable, but will usually still cause damage. " Because we already know that deception is unavoidable and as a result, we all experience the damage that deception causes. Instead, you can say deception is the most important skill to have. I can then argue that honesty is more important and being truthful is better than deception.	You live in a society. That means conforming to the beliefs and mores of that society except when it is particularly important. Rigorous authenticity will get you quickly shunned, better to be authentic only in moderation. --- That makes sense. My argument is only valid in cultures where authenticity is valued, because there are cultures that value conformity more than authenticity. I'll change my post to reflect that. Thanks for your input! Δ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GnosticGnome ([389∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GnosticGnome)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	hkryl5	CMV: We should practice rigorous authenticity most of the time, and we should deceive when it best advances our purposes	Some of these assertions only apply in cultures where authenticity is valued more than conformity. I've created a diagram of my arguments here: https://imgur.com/ehBkC8B Gray arrows represent one assertion supporting or implying another. Pink arrows represent an assertion contradicting another some of the time. Here's a list of assumptions from the diagram: We should practice rigorous authenticity as often as possible The better someone knows us, the easier it is for them to detect deception from us. The better we know someone, the easier it is to deceive them. Some methods of deception are effective. Some methods of detecting deception are effective. There is great motivation to become skilled at detecting deception. Most people dislike being deceived, and will try to discern the truth in most situations. There is always risk of being discovered when being deceptive. Being caught in a deception can result in damaged reputation. People will trust us less if they believe we are willing to deceive them. We should appear to be honest. The best way to appear to embody a value in unpredictable circumstances is to actually embody that value. Certain information can prove deception in a given circumstance, regardless of other factors. We can sometimes predict what information would prove deception, and work to hide that information. No prediction is perfect. We cannot predict the effects of the growth of knowledge. We cannot be certain that a person’s method of detecting deception is vulnerable to our method of deception. We cannot be certain that our deception won’t be discovered in the future. It is psychologically taxing to conceal the truth. Anti-rational memes can autonomously suppress certain truths. We can accidentally deceive by failing to provide information Believing a deception causes a distorted understanding A distorted understanding can result in destructive behavior Authenticity builds trust. Trust is required for cooperation. Cooperation is required for a community to be resilient. We should deceive when it best advances our purposes Some people want to be deceived about some things. Some truths would cause unacceptable damage if discovered. Deception is often necessary to defeat an opponent in competition or combat Rarely, it is necessary to temporarily deceive in order to influence someone’s behavior for their own good. Temporary deception is sometimes necessary to create humor or surprise. Most people like good surprises and humor. Humor can help build trust. In summary, deception is sometimes unavoidable, but will usually still cause damage. I would love for you all to tear these arguments and assumptions apart piece-by-piece. Even if you agree with the premise, please look for flaws in my assumptions and causal chains. It would be interesting to hear how this argument interacts with your own arguments. I would also love to have input on how to better structure this information - right now, the text lacks any real structure besides the diagram. This is a mode of thinking that I have only just began to codify and structure.	Sanwi	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fwup01o", "score": 3, "text": "> I would love for you all to tear these arguments and assumptions apart piece-by-piece. Even if you agree with the premise, please look for flaws in my assumptions and causal chains.\n\nYou've not really made any sort of argument. You just have a list of statements and fairly nonsenical diagram.", "timestamp": 1593818004 }, { "author": "Sanwi", "id": "fwupgkb", "score": 0, "text": "Can you explain why you think that this is not an argument?\n\nGoogle defines an argument as \"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.\" I have provided a massive set of reasons for the assertions in the title.\n\nHow could I improve the diagram to make more sense?", "timestamp": 1593818273 }, { "author": "powergogorangers", "id": "fwuqq8t", "score": 1, "text": "99% of the people will agree with you on all those statements. Some statements however only 50% agree upon and the other 50% disagree. An argument has to be when there are a ton of people who agrees and also a ton of people disagree. Nearly all your statements have the right solution already. \n\nLiterally no-one will disagree with you when you say: \" deception is sometimes unavoidable, but will usually still cause damage. \" Because we already know that deception is unavoidable and as a result, we all experience the damage that deception causes. \n\n\nInstead, you can say deception is the most important skill to have. I can then argue that honesty is more important and being truthful is better than deception.", "timestamp": 1593819034 } ]	[ { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "fwusau1", "score": 2, "text": "You live in a society. That means conforming to the beliefs and mores of that society except when it is particularly important. Rigorous authenticity will get you quickly shunned, better to be authentic only in moderation.", "timestamp": 1593819994 }, { "author": "Sanwi", "id": "fwut6gv", "score": 1, "text": "That makes sense. My argument is only valid in cultures where authenticity is valued, because there are cultures that value conformity more than authenticity. I'll change my post to reflect that. Thanks for your input! Δ", "timestamp": 1593820535 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "fwut7z6", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GnosticGnome ([389∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GnosticGnome)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1593820562 } ]	[ "fwup01o", "fwupgkb", "fwuqq8t" ]	[ "fwusau1", "fwut6gv", "fwut7z6" ]
CMV: Drunk people CAN consent to sex It seems common now to say that drunk/intoxicated people cannot give consent. This seems like an absurd claim to me for a couple of reasons. 1. We hold drunk people accountable for their actions in all kinds of scenarios. If a drunk person chooses to get behind a wheel and drive they are legally responsible for the fallout. If they get pulled over, or God forbid kill someone before their able to be pulled over, they go to jail. The fact that their judgment was impaired due to alcohol does not exonerate their responsibility for their choices. Yet, if a person drinks the same amount of alcohol chooses to engage in sexual activity then they cannot give “true consent” and they're not responsible for the actions they choose to engage in? That seems widely inconsistent to me. If a drunk person is responsible in their choice to drive under the influence then a drunk person is responsible in their choice to engage in sexual activity under the influence. The regret of either choice after the fact doesn't negate their responsibility for the choice in the moment. 2. Imagine the insanity if this were true. A happily married couple pops open a bottle of wine gets tipsy and heads to the bedroom. Now, under this belief system they are both rapists (cause they had sex with a drunk person) and rape victims (cause someone had sex with them while they were drunk). That’s not to say this is a scenario where they are likely to be arrested or prosecuted (due to the improbability of them reporting each other), but if you believe that a) drunk people can’t consent to sex and b)sex without consent is rape, then logically you must believe the married couple are both rape victims and rapists. ——— Ultimately, if an intoxicated legal adult, who is awake and conscious, is enthusiastically engaging in and consenting to sexual activity that should be considered consensual sex. ____ Edit: So, my view has shifted slightly here is my slightly edited take if someone’s still wishes to try to CMV Ultimately, if an intoxicated adult, who is awake and conscious, is enthusiastically engaging in and consent to sexual activity, and would do so also if sober that should be considered consenual sex.	Let’s take a situation: I take you out to a bar and get you drink. The next day you wake up and all your stuff is outside your house/apartment and I’m living it it. Why? Because while you were drunk I had you sogn it over to me. You don’t remember it but I do have a contract with your signature on it. Is that consensual? --- I think it would depend on a few things A) Was I awake and conscious B) Did I, myself, actually give consent and sign C) Was I manipulated or coerced into doing so, or was this something I expressed desire to do D) We’re whatever obligations of the other party in the contract met Part of this goes into my over all belief about what alcohol does. It lowers inhibitions, it doesn’t fundamentally change a person. Alcohol won’t make a non-racist person start shouting racist slurs, nor make someone who respects women forcible rape one, nor make a genuinely mental healthy and stable person contemplate or commit suicide, . Alcohol lowers your inhibitions to make more likely you’d do things you or some part of you already wants to to but don’t due to your inhibitions (fear, reason, ability to access pros and cons, good and bad, etc.), but fundamentally the desire is still there. So if I, while intoxicated but still awake and conscious, having not been manipulated or coerced, having truly wanting and desiring to sell my house gave consent, and all the obligations of the contract were met from the other end. Than I don’t see anything wrong with that per se --- You did not sell your house, however. This is not a give and take scenario. It is purely a take scenario. You were drunk, could not think straight, gave your house away, and that's that. There is nothing in it for you, except the pain if losing your house. In no world, would I believe you would be fine with that. You can claim to be fine with it for the sake of your argurement, but I would not believe it. Moral of the story, while drunk you cannot make clear and conscious decisions. Your mind is clouded and your decision should not be trusted. I mean honestly, how can you believe you're able to consent to anything after being blackout drunk. So drunk that you can't remember what you did.	Drunk driving is illegal - so if you are equating the two then you must believe that having sex while drunk is illegal as well. Driving while drunk is dangerous, so you are punished for the danger that you are posing to other people. What danger do you pose to other people when you are intoxicated and choose to have sex? The concept that drunk people cannot consent to sex is not intended to divert any blame from the drunk person, but to put a big warning label in front of the sober person that is trying to take advantage of them. I also assume that you don't want companies to get you wasted and have you sign over your life savings to them? --- If a girl and guy are equally as drunk and have sex with each other, who is at fault? --- Both would be, but I don't think it would be taken to trial.	rgjr8l	CMV: Drunk people CAN consent to sex	It seems common now to say that drunk/intoxicated people cannot give consent. This seems like an absurd claim to me for a couple of reasons. 1. We hold drunk people accountable for their actions in all kinds of scenarios. If a drunk person chooses to get behind a wheel and drive they are legally responsible for the fallout. If they get pulled over, or God forbid kill someone before their able to be pulled over, they go to jail. The fact that their judgment was impaired due to alcohol does not exonerate their responsibility for their choices. Yet, if a person drinks the same amount of alcohol chooses to engage in sexual activity then they cannot give “true consent” and they're not responsible for the actions they choose to engage in? That seems widely inconsistent to me. If a drunk person is responsible in their choice to drive under the influence then a drunk person is responsible in their choice to engage in sexual activity under the influence. The regret of either choice after the fact doesn't negate their responsibility for the choice in the moment. 2. Imagine the insanity if this were true. A happily married couple pops open a bottle of wine gets tipsy and heads to the bedroom. Now, under this belief system they are both rapists (cause they had sex with a drunk person) and rape victims (cause someone had sex with them while they were drunk). That’s not to say this is a scenario where they are likely to be arrested or prosecuted (due to the improbability of them reporting each other), but if you believe that a) drunk people can’t consent to sex and b)sex without consent is rape, then logically you must believe the married couple are both rape victims and rapists. ——— Ultimately, if an intoxicated legal adult, who is awake and conscious, is enthusiastically engaging in and consenting to sexual activity that should be considered consensual sex. ____ Edit: So, my view has shifted slightly here is my slightly edited take if someone’s still wishes to try to CMV Ultimately, if an intoxicated adult, who is awake and conscious, is enthusiastically engaging in and consent to sexual activity, and would do so also if sober that should be considered consenual sex.	Legoless0234	3	3	[ { "author": "LongLiveSmoove", "id": "hokwm1m", "score": 86, "text": "Let’s take a situation:\n\nI take you out to a bar and get you drink. The next day you wake up and all your stuff is outside your house/apartment and I’m living it it. Why? Because while you were drunk I had you sogn it over to me. You don’t remember it but I do have a contract with your signature on it.\n\nIs that consensual?", "timestamp": 1639527308 }, { "author": "Legoless0234", "id": "hokz1ed", "score": 27, "text": "I think it would depend on a few things\nA) Was I awake and conscious\nB) Did I, myself, actually give consent and sign\nC) Was I manipulated or coerced into doing so, or was this something I expressed desire to do\nD) We’re whatever obligations of the other party in the contract met\n\nPart of this goes into my over all belief about what alcohol does. It lowers inhibitions, it doesn’t fundamentally change a person. Alcohol won’t make a non-racist person start shouting racist slurs, nor make someone who respects women forcible rape one, nor make a genuinely mental healthy and stable person contemplate or commit suicide, . Alcohol lowers your inhibitions to make more likely you’d do things you or some part of you already wants to to but don’t due to your inhibitions (fear, reason, ability to access pros and cons, good and bad, etc.), but fundamentally the desire is still there. \n\nSo if I, while intoxicated but still awake and conscious, having not been manipulated or coerced, having truly wanting and desiring to sell my house gave consent, and all the obligations of the contract were met from the other end. Than I don’t see anything wrong with that per se", "timestamp": 1639528417 }, { "author": "MrBeaar", "id": "hol7rke", "score": 12, "text": "You did not sell your house, however. This is not a give and take scenario. It is purely a take scenario. You were drunk, could not think straight, gave your house away, and that's that. There is nothing in it for you, except the pain if losing your house.\n\nIn no world, would I believe you would be fine with that. You can claim to be fine with it for the sake of your argurement, but I would not believe it. \n\nMoral of the story, while drunk you cannot make clear and conscious decisions. Your mind is clouded and your decision should not be trusted. \n\nI mean honestly, how can you believe you're able to consent to anything after being blackout drunk. So drunk that you can't remember what you did.", "timestamp": 1639532416 } ]	[ { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "hoknzto", "score": -1, "text": "Drunk driving is illegal - so if you are equating the two then you must believe that having sex while drunk is illegal as well. \n\nDriving while drunk is dangerous, so you are punished for the danger that you are posing to other people. What danger do you pose to other people when you are intoxicated and choose to have sex? \n\nThe concept that drunk people cannot consent to sex is not intended to divert any blame from the drunk person, but to put a big warning label in front of the sober person that is trying to take advantage of them. \n\nI also assume that you don't want companies to get you wasted and have you sign over your life savings to them?", "timestamp": 1639523435 }, { "author": "Pinkpanther_99", "id": "hokodx0", "score": 0, "text": "If a girl and guy are equally as drunk and have sex with each other, who is at fault?", "timestamp": 1639523607 }, { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "hokomal", "score": 1, "text": "Both would be, but I don't think it would be taken to trial.", "timestamp": 1639523708 } ]	[ "hokwm1m", "hokz1ed", "hol7rke" ]	[ "hoknzto", "hokodx0", "hokomal" ]
CMV: Domestic abuse is acceptable as long as it is safe sane and consensual I think that behaviors commonly characterized as domestic abuse such as men physically beating their wives should be characterized as impromptu BDSM sessions within a relationship and thus should be permissible as long as they fall within the boundaries of safe sane and consensual. There should be established safewords in all romantic relationships. Sex-ed programs should teach that it is natural for a man to strike his wife but a safeword should be used to ensure that she does not get hurt as well as a hard limit on the usage of certain objects such as knives and fire. BDSM was always practiced by humans, but modern people stopped the practice of it during the Temperance movement when they became more prudish. The previous accounts of so-called "abuses" was just proto-BDSM. _____ > 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!*	Domestic abuse is by definition not safe, not sane, and not consensual. BDSM is not domestic abuse. Your argument is totally nonsensical and the equivalent of saying that theft is ok if you get permission and pay for it first. --- What I am saying is that domestic abuse is an unhealthy manifestation of the same urges that occur in BDSM and that we have suppressed the urges instead of channeling them into something productive. --- >What I am saying is that domestic abuse is an unhealthy manifestation of the same urges that occur in BDSM and that we have suppressed the urges instead of channeling them into something productive. I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Domestic abuse is not about sexual gratification, pleasure, or anything of that nature. It is about power, anger, and persuasion through fear. BDSM is none of those things. In a healthy BDSM situation, each party is respected, and mutual pleasure/a good time is the goal. I think your view on what causes domestic violence is not particularly realistic. EDIT. I missed that you said this: >I think that it is because abuse is a perversion of BDSM rather than the reverse. Abuse is a manifestation of a man lacking self-discipline rather than of a man being overly aggressive. This is 100% false. Abuse doesn't mean that someone lacks "self-discipline", as that would mean that everyone wants to abuse their partners when angry, but doesn't due to discipline. Most healthy people do not feel that way.	If it's consensual then why no knives or fire? --- Agreed, I want the freedom to be cut and branded. I've done both and it is thrilling. --- There is a difference between BDSM practices that leaves behind no harm to the person, compared to what you want to do. In any traditional society where you'd cut yourself or get cut up by your partner, you'd be considered a degenerate. Even Saudis aren't this retarded.	6kpifd	CMV: Domestic abuse is acceptable as long as it is safe sane and consensual	I think that behaviors commonly characterized as domestic abuse such as men physically beating their wives should be characterized as impromptu BDSM sessions within a relationship and thus should be permissible as long as they fall within the boundaries of safe sane and consensual. There should be established safewords in all romantic relationships. Sex-ed programs should teach that it is natural for a man to strike his wife but a safeword should be used to ensure that she does not get hurt as well as a hard limit on the usage of certain objects such as knives and fire. BDSM was always practiced by humans, but modern people stopped the practice of it during the Temperance movement when they became more prudish. The previous accounts of so-called "abuses" was just proto-BDSM. _____ > 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!*	Sentakusuru	3	3	[ { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "djo4k1a", "score": 7, "text": "Domestic abuse is by definition not safe, not sane, and not consensual. BDSM is not domestic abuse. Your argument is totally nonsensical and the equivalent of saying that theft is ok if you get permission and pay for it first. ", "timestamp": 1498962572 }, { "author": "Sentakusuru", "id": "djo59by", "score": 1, "text": "What I am saying is that domestic abuse is an unhealthy manifestation of the same urges that occur in BDSM and that we have suppressed the urges instead of channeling them into something productive.", "timestamp": 1498963684 }, { "author": "PM_PICS_OF_MANATEES", "id": "djo87vu", "score": 6, "text": ">What I am saying is that domestic abuse is an unhealthy manifestation of the same urges that occur in BDSM and that we have suppressed the urges instead of channeling them into something productive.\n\nI disagree wholeheartedly with this. Domestic abuse is not about sexual gratification, pleasure, or anything of that nature. It is about power, anger, and persuasion through fear. BDSM is none of those things. In a healthy BDSM situation, each party is respected, and mutual pleasure/a good time is the goal. I think your view on what causes domestic violence is not particularly realistic. \n\nEDIT. I missed that you said this:\n\n>I think that it is because abuse is a perversion of BDSM rather than the reverse. Abuse is a manifestation of a man lacking self-discipline rather than of a man being overly aggressive.\n\nThis is 100% false. Abuse doesn't mean that someone lacks \"self-discipline\", as that would mean that everyone wants to abuse their partners when angry, but doesn't due to discipline. Most healthy people do not feel that way. ", "timestamp": 1498968635 } ]	[ { "author": "XXX69694206969XXX", "id": "djns8lj", "score": 3, "text": "If it's consensual then why no knives or fire? ", "timestamp": 1498943812 }, { "author": "quepanbia", "id": "djnsgkz", "score": 3, "text": "Agreed, I want the freedom to be cut and branded. I've done both and it is thrilling. ", "timestamp": 1498944126 }, { "author": "Sentakusuru", "id": "djnt4j1", "score": 0, "text": "There is a difference between BDSM practices that leaves behind no harm to the person, compared to what you want to do. In any traditional society where you'd cut yourself or get cut up by your partner, you'd be considered a degenerate. Even Saudis aren't this retarded.", "timestamp": 1498945055 } ]	[ "djo4k1a", "djo59by", "djo87vu" ]	[ "djns8lj", "djnsgkz", "djnt4j1" ]
CMV: Domestic abuse is acceptable as long as it is safe sane and consensual I think that behaviors commonly characterized as domestic abuse such as men physically beating their wives should be characterized as impromptu BDSM sessions within a relationship and thus should be permissible as long as they fall within the boundaries of safe sane and consensual. There should be established safewords in all romantic relationships. Sex-ed programs should teach that it is natural for a man to strike his wife but a safeword should be used to ensure that she does not get hurt as well as a hard limit on the usage of certain objects such as knives and fire. BDSM was always practiced by humans, but modern people stopped the practice of it during the Temperance movement when they became more prudish. The previous accounts of so-called "abuses" was just proto-BDSM. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	That's like saying that people should be able to rape others as long as they get consent first. Rape is nonconsensual sex by definition. If you get consent first, it's just voluntary sex, maybe with a roleplaying element to it. In the same way, If you mean that couples should be able to engage in consensual BDSM with a safe word, then sure. But by definition the word "abuse" means there is no safe word and there is no consent. Just for fun, here are some more examples I came up with: * CMV: Stealing is acceptable as long as you give them money and get permission first. * CMV: Physical assault is acceptable as long as you both agree to do it in a boxing ring on TV with the permission of the Nevada Athletic Commission. * CMV: Stabbing someone is acceptable as long as you go to medical school first and get consent from the person being stabbed. * CMV: Kidnapping someone is acceptable as long as you get the parents' permission and get paid afterwards. * CMV: Molesting children is acceptable as long as they agree to it and are over the age of 18. --- My real point in this thread is not saying that BDSM is acceptable but rather saying that it is the natural order of human sexuality, historical accounts of spousal abuse were just proto-BDSM, and that there was and often still is implicit consent in so-called abusive relationships. --- Read historical accounts, esp from the woman's side. These were not "proto bdsm", they were violent abuses largely by men who were conditioned to only express emotion through violence. As someone who enjoys a little bdsm, violent relationships have NO resemblance to mine, and pretending they do actually harms the normalization of CONSENSUAL play. Edit: I'd also note that abuse was not fun for either person, being an expression of anger for the abuser (though obviously worse for the abused)	If it's consensual then why no knives or fire? --- Agreed, I want the freedom to be cut and branded. I've done both and it is thrilling. --- You seem like a fun chick.	6kpifd	CMV: Domestic abuse is acceptable as long as it is safe sane and consensual	I think that behaviors commonly characterized as domestic abuse such as men physically beating their wives should be characterized as impromptu BDSM sessions within a relationship and thus should be permissible as long as they fall within the boundaries of safe sane and consensual. There should be established safewords in all romantic relationships. Sex-ed programs should teach that it is natural for a man to strike his wife but a safeword should be used to ensure that she does not get hurt as well as a hard limit on the usage of certain objects such as knives and fire. BDSM was always practiced by humans, but modern people stopped the practice of it during the Temperance movement when they became more prudish. The previous accounts of so-called "abuses" was just proto-BDSM. _____ > 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!*	Sentakusuru	3	3	[ { "author": "McKoijion", "id": "djnshbe", "score": 20, "text": "That's like saying that people should be able to rape others as long as they get consent first. Rape is nonconsensual sex by definition. If you get consent first, it's just voluntary sex, maybe with a roleplaying element to it. \n\nIn the same way, If you mean that couples should be able to engage in consensual BDSM with a safe word, then sure. But by definition the word \"abuse\" means there is no safe word and there is no consent.\n\nJust for fun, here are some more examples I came up with:\n\n* CMV: Stealing is acceptable as long as you give them money and get permission first.\n* CMV: Physical assault is acceptable as long as you both agree to do it in a boxing ring on TV with the permission of the Nevada Athletic Commission. \n* CMV: Stabbing someone is acceptable as long as you go to medical school first and get consent from the person being stabbed.\n* CMV: Kidnapping someone is acceptable as long as you get the parents' permission and get paid afterwards.\n* CMV: Molesting children is acceptable as long as they agree to it and are over the age of 18.", "timestamp": 1498944154 }, { "author": "Sentakusuru", "id": "djnsxyr", "score": -7, "text": "My real point in this thread is not saying that BDSM is acceptable but rather saying that it is the natural order of human sexuality, historical accounts of spousal abuse were just proto-BDSM, and that there was and often still is implicit consent in so-called abusive relationships.", "timestamp": 1498944802 }, { "author": "sillybonobo", "id": "djntiuq", "score": 16, "text": "Read historical accounts, esp from the woman's side. These were not \"proto bdsm\", they were violent abuses largely by men who were conditioned to only express emotion through violence.\n\nAs someone who enjoys a little bdsm, violent relationships have NO resemblance to mine, and pretending they do actually harms the normalization of CONSENSUAL play.\n\nEdit: I'd also note that abuse was not fun for either person, being an expression of anger for the abuser (though obviously worse for the abused)", "timestamp": 1498945624 } ]	[ { "author": "XXX69694206969XXX", "id": "djns8lj", "score": 3, "text": "If it's consensual then why no knives or fire? ", "timestamp": 1498943812 }, { "author": "quepanbia", "id": "djnsgkz", "score": 3, "text": "Agreed, I want the freedom to be cut and branded. I've done both and it is thrilling. ", "timestamp": 1498944126 }, { "author": "XXX69694206969XXX", "id": "djnt8lp", "score": 3, "text": "You seem like a fun chick. ", "timestamp": 1498945216 } ]	[ "djnshbe", "djnsxyr", "djntiuq" ]	[ "djns8lj", "djnsgkz", "djnt8lp" ]
CMV: Voting Republican is bad for the economy and bad for personal freedom There used to be a time, in the 19th century, when the Republican Party stood for what was right - a time when it defended the freedom of all Americans. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Republican policies restrict both the economy and the individual. Let's start with the latter point first. Below is a non-exhaustive list of Republican policies that impinge on individual freedom : -abortion bans -denying adoptions to queer couples - school censorship - punishment for protesting - opposition to election day being a national holiday -military in US cities - government seizure of property with no criminal conviction -policies that restrict unionization -allow employers to deny Healthcare coverage Not to mention the rhetoric. Republicans simply cannot mind their own business. Now, it can't be true that Republicans are bad for the economy, can it? After all, Republicans are the ones who most support free market Capitalism, right? Well, here's the thing - not really. Republican policies support monopolies and restrict access into the market, lowering competition. This in turn leads to stagnant or slow wage growth coupled with an accelerated rise in prices. There is a reason why of 12 post-WWII recessions, 11 have happened under Republican leadership. There is a reason why Republicans inherit growing economies and Democrats inherit a mess. There is a reason why Republicans have created less than half the jobs as Democrats since Truman (policies that favor major corporations and keep new businesses down). There is a reason why stocks post higher returns under Democrat leadership and often remain stagnant or post losses under Republican leadership. MAGA bullshit aside, Republican party policies are bad for anyone who values personal freedom and economic growth.	Personal freedom is complicated because both parties care about different forms of freedoms and not others. Similarly with economy. One economy is not going to be best for everyone. The goal is to do the best for most people. --- I see it this way, Republicans value freedom to and Democrats value freedom from. Republicans want the freedom to own guns, the freedom to choose their own insurance, the freedom to discriminate. Democrats want freedom from senseless gun deaths, freedom from religious governance, freedom from crippling medical debt. They are fundamentally different interpretations of freedom, one is entirely self serving and the other is about the avoidance of persecution and oppression.	I think the premise implies that Dems are good for personal freedom and economic growth? Or are you arguing it's a uniparty and political parties are irrelevant? --- I'd say it implies that Dems are less bad than Republicans, not necessarily good.	1pnim7i	CMV: Voting Republican is bad for the economy and bad for personal freedom	There used to be a time, in the 19th century, when the Republican Party stood for what was right - a time when it defended the freedom of all Americans. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Republican policies restrict both the economy and the individual. Let's start with the latter point first. Below is a non-exhaustive list of Republican policies that impinge on individual freedom : -abortion bans -denying adoptions to queer couples - school censorship - punishment for protesting - opposition to election day being a national holiday -military in US cities - government seizure of property with no criminal conviction -policies that restrict unionization -allow employers to deny Healthcare coverage Not to mention the rhetoric. Republicans simply cannot mind their own business. Now, it can't be true that Republicans are bad for the economy, can it? After all, Republicans are the ones who most support free market Capitalism, right? Well, here's the thing - not really. Republican policies support monopolies and restrict access into the market, lowering competition. This in turn leads to stagnant or slow wage growth coupled with an accelerated rise in prices. There is a reason why of 12 post-WWII recessions, 11 have happened under Republican leadership. There is a reason why Republicans inherit growing economies and Democrats inherit a mess. There is a reason why Republicans have created less than half the jobs as Democrats since Truman (policies that favor major corporations and keep new businesses down). There is a reason why stocks post higher returns under Democrat leadership and often remain stagnant or post losses under Republican leadership. MAGA bullshit aside, Republican party policies are bad for anyone who values personal freedom and economic growth.	Major_Lie_7110	2	2	[ { "author": "AleroRatking", "id": "nu7y9fy", "score": 43, "text": "Personal freedom is complicated because both parties care about different forms of freedoms and not others.\n\nSimilarly with economy. One economy is not going to be best for everyone. The goal is to do the best for most people.", "timestamp": 1765832065 }, { "author": "ChazzLamborghini", "id": "nu87rfw", "score": -1, "text": "I see it this way, Republicans value freedom to and Democrats value freedom from. Republicans want the freedom to own guns, the freedom to choose their own insurance, the freedom to discriminate. Democrats want freedom from senseless gun deaths, freedom from religious governance, freedom from crippling medical debt. They are fundamentally different interpretations of freedom, one is entirely self serving and the other is about the avoidance of persecution and oppression.", "timestamp": 1765834899 } ]	[ { "author": "k0unitX", "id": "nu7xje4", "score": 47, "text": "I think the premise implies that Dems are good for personal freedom and economic growth? Or are you arguing it's a uniparty and political parties are irrelevant?", "timestamp": 1765831848 }, { "author": "Cydrius", "id": "nu7xtsp", "score": 81, "text": "I'd say it implies that Dems are less bad than Republicans, not necessarily good.", "timestamp": 1765831935 } ]	[ "nu7y9fy", "nu87rfw" ]	[ "nu7xje4", "nu7xtsp" ]
CMV: Scotland is not a country. As a Scot living in Scotland, I often hear that Scotland is a country. When explaining the United Kingdom, people say that it is a country of countries. They call the Home Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) various things, including constituent countries and non-independent countries. I believe this unhelpful and confusing, especially to people that are not from the UK. I believe that a country is a sovereign state that is internationally recognised. Almost everyone agrees that Scotland is not a sovereign state, and therefore I do not believe it is a country. To be considered sovereign, I believe that at the very least there needs to be a government. Even if it was argued that Scotland has devolved powers and therefore is sovereign, England has none of this. I believe that England has equal status to Scotland, and hence I believe if England is not a country then Scotland is not a country. One argument used is that Scotland has a long history of being an independent country, and that due to this it is still a country today despite being part of the UK. I disagree with this because this seems to be exclusive to Scotland and the other Home Nations. For example, Strathclyde, a region I live in within Scotland, used to be an ancient independent kingdom, but it is not considered a country today, so I do not understand why Scotland is considered one. Another reason that people use is that Scotland takes part in international sporting events, like having a national football (soccer) team. However, I believe that this is because Scotland is considered a country, and not because it actually is one. Additionally, Scotland only take part is certain sporting events, as Scotland sometimes competes as part of team GB. I believe that this highlights the confusion caused by calling both Scotland and the UK countries, and why I believe Scotland should not be considered a country.	> I believe that a country is a sovereign state that is internationally recognised. That's not the only definition of country. You are selectively choosing one of the multiple definitions of country to make your argument. It's like if I say chocolate bar isn't a bar because it's not a retail establishment where alcoholic beverages are served. The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article describe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country > Almost everyone agrees that Scotland is not a sovereign state, and therefore I do not believe it is a country. The UK government officially lists Scotland as a country. A bunch of independent entities from universities to Wikipedia to National Geographic list it as a country. So either every single other organization is wrong, or Scotland meets one of the definitions of country. As a final point consider that we are talking about two arbitrary social constructs here here: government and language. Unlike physical laws (e.g., speed of light, gravity) social constructs are created by people. Humans can make arbitrary borders and call them different countries if they want. If we decide to collectively change our mind, we can relabel Scotland as a country, a sovereign state, a colony of another place etc. Even the concept of a sovereign state is somewhat arbitrary. If the USA and rest of the world decide to invade the UK, if would likely not remain a sovereign state for long. Meanwhile, the speed of light will never change. Plus, language is arbitrary. Just like there's bars, pubs, speakeasies, clubs, etc. there's words like nation, state, country, region, etc. They all vaguely describe the same thing, but we've created small distinctions between them. But language can change. We can make new words, kill old ones, and change the definitions as we see fit. If everyone starts describing Scotland as an apple, then Scotland would be an apple. It wouldn't a fruit or a cell phone, but we'd create a new dictionary definition to reflect the fact that apple is a new synonym for nation, state, country, etc. As a final point, recognize that you are entering into a highly politically charged discussion. People who support Scottish independence want to push the idea that Scotland is a country under an occupying oppressor and should be independant. People who support "preserving the Union" as Lincoln used to say, would say that Scotland is not a country. Both groups are right under one definition and wrong under the other. They are relying on people who hear the argument to not understand the nuances of the definition. --- I’m aware that it’s not the only definition, but I never claimed it was. I gave my definition, and I’m open to a better one by someone changing my mind. I know that other people and organisations label Scotland as a country, as I mentioned previously that Scotland sometimes competes in sporting competitions. I disagree with the labelling, as I have explained. I do not know anyone that considers Scotland a sovereign state, which is why I don’t believe it’s a county. I’m aware language can be arbitrary, but I believe it is unhelpful to label anything a country just because you can. For example, I don’t think anyone can start calling a cat a country. I also don’t believe you can call any region a country, because this corrupts the term and makes it meaningless. This is why I disagree with the other definitions that suggest that anything can be a country, because it is not helpful. I am open to a better definition than my own however. As I said, I live in Scotland and know about the pro-independence campaign. But this is somewhat irrelevant because almost all Scots, including pro-British, believe Scotland is a country. --- You mentioned Strathclyde in your post. The difference between Scotland and Strathclyde is that the latter doesn't have much of a recognizable identity as a country anymore, whereas Scotland still has a form of this, albeit very slowly diluted. Scotland may likely meet the fate of Strathclyde in later generations but at this point in time there is a recognizable form of 'countryness'. Being a sovereign state isn't the only criteria for that. It doesn't dilute the term. Some 'legitimate' states have even lost control over large swathes of their territory, such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq...	So I think the confusion comes from the tangled history of the colonial empire maintained by the UK. For quite a long time, the UK maintained a colonial empire of wholly (or partially) controlled colonies subject to it. These colonies were frequently considered "countries" and most are today fully independent states. So let's take an example of one of those colonies: [Canada.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_history_of_Canada) Was Canada a country: * Before 1791 when it was ruled by a British governor with no local legislature. * From 1791 to 1840 when it was split into two colonies (modern Quebec and Ontario) each with independent legislatures who could be overriden by the British governor?^1 * From 1840-1867 when Quebec and Ontario merged into a single colony with a unified legislature whose acts were generally respected by the British governor?^2 * From 1867-1931 when the bulk of the remainder of the northern North American territories were added, and the British governor deferred to the elected government for all but certain foreign policy and constitutional questions?^3 * From 1931-1982 when the governor became appointed by the Canadians and the only control by Britain was that the Parliament of the UK had to approve constitutional changes?^4 * After 1982 when the UK Parliament disavowed its control over Canada's constitution and all constitutional power was vested in the Parliament of Canada and the 10 provinces?^5 So, assuming that we agree that Canada is a separate country today, can you tell me when on that timeline it became a separate country? --- ^1 Constitutional Act (1791) ^2 Act of Union (1840) ^3 Constitution Act, 1867 (aka British North America Act, 1867) ^4 Statute of Westminster, 1931 ^5 Constitution Act, 1982 / Canada Act, 1982 --- I would say either 1931 or 1982, leaning towards 1982 because by what you have told me that is when they were granted full independence from the UK, whereas before Britain had sovereignty, meaning Canada was merely a dominion of the British Empire. From what I have gathered, Canada’s sovereignty was somewhat disputed, and therefore I would believe it’s status as a country was disputed. However, Scotland has never been a colony or dominion and has been part of the UK since the Acts of Union in 1707. While I could see how a comparison between Canada and Australia could be drawn, I cannot see how the status of Canada and England could be seen as equal. I do believe the the status of England and Scotland is equal. So while Canada and other dominions have had questionable sovereignty, I do not believe these were equal to the situation of either Scotland or England. --- So I think you would be very hard pressed in 1981 to find a citizen of Canada who would say that Canada was not a country. At that point in time Canada operated independent foreign policy, had a separate and distinct citizenship from the UK (forcing UK nationals to go through a full immigration process to move to Canada), and had a distinct army, navy, and air force not subject to UK command. Scotland is obviously not in quite the same position, but I think an important feature that can make a claim to Scottish countrydom valid is that by custom, the Parliament of the UK would be bound by a sufficiently strong request from Scotland for independence. As demonstrated in the 2014 independence referendum, Scotland as a distinct entity within the UK has the democratic right of independence in a way that other subnational entities do not. That is importantly similar to Canada's status in 1981 where amendments to Canada's constitution were only considered and adopted at the request of the elected government of Canada, and de facto Parliament had ceded that power to Canada long ago. Inasmuch as Parliament by convention has to accede to constitutional requests from Scotland, Scotland is a country in a very important respect. It happens to be a country which chooses subordination to the United Kingdom, but which retains the right to choose otherwise.	8hfr95	CMV: Scotland is not a country.	As a Scot living in Scotland, I often hear that Scotland is a country. When explaining the United Kingdom, people say that it is a country of countries. They call the Home Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) various things, including constituent countries and non-independent countries. I believe this unhelpful and confusing, especially to people that are not from the UK. I believe that a country is a sovereign state that is internationally recognised. Almost everyone agrees that Scotland is not a sovereign state, and therefore I do not believe it is a country. To be considered sovereign, I believe that at the very least there needs to be a government. Even if it was argued that Scotland has devolved powers and therefore is sovereign, England has none of this. I believe that England has equal status to Scotland, and hence I believe if England is not a country then Scotland is not a country. One argument used is that Scotland has a long history of being an independent country, and that due to this it is still a country today despite being part of the UK. I disagree with this because this seems to be exclusive to Scotland and the other Home Nations. For example, Strathclyde, a region I live in within Scotland, used to be an ancient independent kingdom, but it is not considered a country today, so I do not understand why Scotland is considered one. Another reason that people use is that Scotland takes part in international sporting events, like having a national football (soccer) team. However, I believe that this is because Scotland is considered a country, and not because it actually is one. Additionally, Scotland only take part is certain sporting events, as Scotland sometimes competes as part of team GB. I believe that this highlights the confusion caused by calling both Scotland and the UK countries, and why I believe Scotland should not be considered a country.	benjamintimeline	3	3	[ { "author": "McKoijion", "id": "dyjhi8o", "score": 6, "text": "> I believe that a country is a sovereign state that is internationally recognised. \n\nThat's not the only definition of country. You are selectively choosing one of the multiple definitions of country to make your argument. It's like if I say chocolate bar isn't a bar because it's not a retail establishment where alcoholic beverages are served. The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article describe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country\n\n> Almost everyone agrees that Scotland is not a sovereign state, and therefore I do not believe it is a country.\n\nThe UK government officially lists Scotland as a country. A bunch of independent entities from universities to Wikipedia to National Geographic list it as a country. So either every single other organization is wrong, or Scotland meets one of the definitions of country.\n\nAs a final point consider that we are talking about two arbitrary social constructs here here: government and language. Unlike physical laws (e.g., speed of light, gravity) social constructs are created by people. Humans can make arbitrary borders and call them different countries if they want. If we decide to collectively change our mind, we can relabel Scotland as a country, a sovereign state, a colony of another place etc. Even the concept of a sovereign state is somewhat arbitrary. If the USA and rest of the world decide to invade the UK, if would likely not remain a sovereign state for long. Meanwhile, the speed of light will never change.\n\nPlus, language is arbitrary. Just like there's bars, pubs, speakeasies, clubs, etc. there's words like nation, state, country, region, etc. They all vaguely describe the same thing, but we've created small distinctions between them. But language can change. We can make new words, kill old ones, and change the definitions as we see fit. If everyone starts describing Scotland as an apple, then Scotland would be an apple. It wouldn't a fruit or a cell phone, but we'd create a new dictionary definition to reflect the fact that apple is a new synonym for nation, state, country, etc.\n\nAs a final point, recognize that you are entering into a highly politically charged discussion. People who support Scottish independence want to push the idea that Scotland is a country under an occupying oppressor and should be independant. People who support \"preserving the Union\" as Lincoln used to say, would say that Scotland is not a country. Both groups are right under one definition and wrong under the other. They are relying on people who hear the argument to not understand the nuances of the definition. ", "timestamp": 1525623186 }, { "author": "benjamintimeline", "id": "dyjjxih", "score": 0, "text": "I’m aware that it’s not the only definition, but I never claimed it was. I gave my definition, and I’m open to a better one by someone changing my mind. \n\nI know that other people and organisations label Scotland as a country, as I mentioned previously that Scotland sometimes competes in sporting competitions. I disagree with the labelling, as I have explained. I do not know anyone that considers Scotland a sovereign state, which is why I don’t believe it’s a county. \n\nI’m aware language can be arbitrary, but I believe it is unhelpful to label anything a country just because you can. For example, I don’t think anyone can start calling a cat a country. I also don’t believe you can call any region a country, because this corrupts the term and makes it meaningless. This is why I disagree with the other definitions that suggest that anything can be a country, because it is not helpful. I am open to a better definition than my own however.\n\nAs I said, I live in Scotland and know about the pro-independence campaign. But this is somewhat irrelevant because almost all Scots, including pro-British, believe Scotland is a country. \n\n", "timestamp": 1525625860 }, { "author": "Fuzzy_Fly", "id": "dykubai", "score": 1, "text": "You mentioned Strathclyde in your post. The difference between Scotland and Strathclyde is that the latter doesn't have much of a recognizable identity as a country anymore, whereas Scotland still has a form of this, albeit very slowly diluted. Scotland may likely meet the fate of Strathclyde in later generations but at this point in time there is a recognizable form of 'countryness'. Being a sovereign state isn't the only criteria for that. It doesn't dilute the term. Some 'legitimate' states have even lost control over large swathes of their territory, such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq...\n", "timestamp": 1525687932 } ]	[ { "author": "huadpe", "id": "dyjgobu", "score": 3, "text": "So I think the confusion comes from the tangled history of the colonial empire maintained by the UK. For quite a long time, the UK maintained a colonial empire of wholly (or partially) controlled colonies subject to it. These colonies were frequently considered \"countries\" and most are today fully independent states.\n\nSo let's take an example of one of those colonies: [Canada.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_history_of_Canada)\n\nWas Canada a country:\n\n* Before 1791 when it was ruled by a British governor with no local legislature.\n\n* From 1791 to 1840 when it was split into two colonies (modern Quebec and Ontario) each with independent legislatures who could be overriden by the British governor?^1\n\n* From 1840-1867 when Quebec and Ontario merged into a single colony with a unified legislature whose acts were generally respected by the British governor?^2 \n\n* From 1867-1931 when the bulk of the remainder of the northern North American territories were added, and the British governor deferred to the elected government for all but certain foreign policy and constitutional questions?^3\n\n* From 1931-1982 when the governor became appointed by the Canadians and the only control by Britain was that the Parliament of the UK had to approve constitutional changes?^4\n\n* After 1982 when the UK Parliament disavowed its control over Canada's constitution and all constitutional power was vested in the Parliament of Canada and the 10 provinces?^5\n\nSo, assuming that we agree that Canada is a separate country today, can you tell me when on that timeline it became a separate country?\n\n---\n\n^1 Constitutional Act (1791)\n\n^2 Act of Union (1840)\n\n^3 Constitution Act, 1867 (aka British North America Act, 1867)\n\n^4 Statute of Westminster, 1931\n\n^5 Constitution Act, 1982 / Canada Act, 1982", "timestamp": 1525622258 }, { "author": "benjamintimeline", "id": "dyjiftc", "score": 1, "text": "I would say either 1931 or 1982, leaning towards 1982 because by what you have told me that is when they were granted full independence from the UK, whereas before Britain had sovereignty, meaning Canada was merely a dominion of the British Empire.\n\nFrom what I have gathered, Canada’s sovereignty was somewhat disputed, and therefore I would believe it’s status as a country was disputed. \n\nHowever, Scotland has never been a colony or dominion and has been part of the UK since the Acts of Union in 1707. While I could see how a comparison between Canada and Australia could be drawn, I cannot see how the status of Canada and England could be seen as equal. I do believe the the status of England and Scotland is equal. So while Canada and other dominions have had questionable sovereignty, I do not believe these were equal to the situation of either Scotland or England. ", "timestamp": 1525624206 }, { "author": "huadpe", "id": "dyjluih", "score": 3, "text": "So I think you would be very hard pressed in 1981 to find a citizen of Canada who would say that Canada was not a country. At that point in time Canada operated independent foreign policy, had a separate and distinct citizenship from the UK (forcing UK nationals to go through a full immigration process to move to Canada), and had a distinct army, navy, and air force not subject to UK command.\n\nScotland is obviously not in quite the same position, but I think an important feature that can make a claim to Scottish countrydom valid is that by custom, the Parliament of the UK would be bound by a sufficiently strong request from Scotland for independence. As demonstrated in the 2014 independence referendum, Scotland as a distinct entity within the UK has the democratic right of independence in a way that other subnational entities do not.\n\nThat is importantly similar to Canada's status in 1981 where amendments to Canada's constitution were only considered and adopted at the request of the elected government of Canada, and de facto Parliament had ceded that power to Canada long ago.\n\nInasmuch as Parliament by convention has to accede to constitutional requests from Scotland, Scotland is a country in a very important respect. It happens to be a country which chooses subordination to the United Kingdom, but which retains the right to choose otherwise. ", "timestamp": 1525627914 } ]	[ "dyjhi8o", "dyjjxih", "dykubai" ]	[ "dyjgobu", "dyjiftc", "dyjluih" ]
CMV: Astrology is scientifically sound, but as in all fields, there is a lot of bad science Coming to this as a skeptic, but also a believer that ancient technology + knowledge is not properly utilized in modern society. I’ve read many of the previous versions of this topic, and have yet to see it presented this way. I agree that there are many factors that shape a person’s life, + astrology cannot completely determine your personality or path in life. Also, I understand that many “mystical” therapies are just blissed-out bed-side manner + placebo. Finally, focusing on one aspect of any form of advice can be incredibly unhealthy. This is my argument against astrology. My assertion is that knowing and understanding your natal chart is scientifically proven to improve quality of life, as many of the most successful people in society throughout time have used their charts to help guide their lives to greater prosperity. My next assertion is that most scientists doing studies on astrology, + furthermore most of the practitioners of astrology, are performing bad science. This should negate the credibility of the practitioner, not the system itself. I see both sides guilty of all sorts of bias. For the folks that say, “what if I make up a birthday + it’s still accurate”, then I would inquire into the nature of that person’s life. I’m not saying a chart knows more about a person than they do. What I will say is many people have skewed perception of themselves, spend no time observing the world, lie to themselves + others, follow the rules that provide them with the most comfort, + are incredibly repressed. Not living their “true will” as it were. I would also consider the source, who is another person with these obstacles in their way, capable of projecting. If this person is truly happy + successful + super self-aware + not lying, I’d suggest trying to live your life based on that false chart for at least one year as an experiment. My hypothesis is that you will not see the same success you have up to that point, + conversely, someone who is not having a good go at it will see an improvement in their life by following their properly read natal chart. Try it out. The best argument I’ve seen against astrology is “there is no mechanism”. No observed mechanism. The mechanism is THE MIND. It takes ideas (beyond form), attaches them to symbols (geometry, vague form), which are then attributed to celestial bodies (macro, distant form), which then connect to our personal consciousness (micro, physical form). Why does materialist science so often ignore the mind as creator + manipulator of reality, relegating it to mere observer? EDIT: on mobile, didn’t realize how hard it was to respond! Thank for jumping in my first post, be back soon! EDIT 2: deltas awarded, my view is in fact that astrology is scientifically valid + deserving or rigorous study, + not immediate dismissal. The evidence I have is extensive but anecdotal. EDIT 3: the system of astrology is not well-defined, + therefore treads into the nature of symbolism + it’s connection to consciousness, which is important, but not what I originally stated. 0 upvotes, 100 comments. This is what reddit is all about people. Thank you for discussing this with me!	Your claim is not scientific. To argue that astrology is scientifically sound, you'll have to provide at least one scientific (i.e, falsifiable) theory predicted by astrology and then scientific evidence for it. Anecdotes about people who used astrology and were also successful are not scientific. --- I have observed a consistently improved quality of life from those who develop an understanding + utilize the information of their western natal chart. I have observed inconsistency when attributing false natal charts to myself + others. Does “scientifically sound” mean the same thing as “accepted by the mainstream science community”? I’m using science (continued observation of experiments over time with no bias) to come to these conclusions, while criticizing the scientific community EDIT: Do 5000+ years of anecdotes from all cultures not warrant a serious, non-biased study? --- If your observations are on yourself, youre biased.	[deleted] --- I’m not saying any of them are more than true others, I’m saying they can work as psychologically beneficial tools if used correctly, + and should not be written off so quickly --- To have a more meaningful CMV we're going to need you to provides some sources for statements like this: >My assertion is that knowing and understanding your natal chart is scientifically proven to improve quality of life. As well as some more responses (any more responses) to people wanting to engage you in a discussion.	8950ra	CMV: Astrology is scientifically sound, but as in all fields, there is a lot of bad science	Coming to this as a skeptic, but also a believer that ancient technology + knowledge is not properly utilized in modern society. I’ve read many of the previous versions of this topic, and have yet to see it presented this way. I agree that there are many factors that shape a person’s life, + astrology cannot completely determine your personality or path in life. Also, I understand that many “mystical” therapies are just blissed-out bed-side manner + placebo. Finally, focusing on one aspect of any form of advice can be incredibly unhealthy. This is my argument against astrology. My assertion is that knowing and understanding your natal chart is scientifically proven to improve quality of life, as many of the most successful people in society throughout time have used their charts to help guide their lives to greater prosperity. My next assertion is that most scientists doing studies on astrology, + furthermore most of the practitioners of astrology, are performing bad science. This should negate the credibility of the practitioner, not the system itself. I see both sides guilty of all sorts of bias. For the folks that say, “what if I make up a birthday + it’s still accurate”, then I would inquire into the nature of that person’s life. I’m not saying a chart knows more about a person than they do. What I will say is many people have skewed perception of themselves, spend no time observing the world, lie to themselves + others, follow the rules that provide them with the most comfort, + are incredibly repressed. Not living their “true will” as it were. I would also consider the source, who is another person with these obstacles in their way, capable of projecting. If this person is truly happy + successful + super self-aware + not lying, I’d suggest trying to live your life based on that false chart for at least one year as an experiment. My hypothesis is that you will not see the same success you have up to that point, + conversely, someone who is not having a good go at it will see an improvement in their life by following their properly read natal chart. Try it out. The best argument I’ve seen against astrology is “there is no mechanism”. No observed mechanism. The mechanism is THE MIND. It takes ideas (beyond form), attaches them to symbols (geometry, vague form), which are then attributed to celestial bodies (macro, distant form), which then connect to our personal consciousness (micro, physical form). Why does materialist science so often ignore the mind as creator + manipulator of reality, relegating it to mere observer? EDIT: on mobile, didn’t realize how hard it was to respond! Thank for jumping in my first post, be back soon! EDIT 2: deltas awarded, my view is in fact that astrology is scientifically valid + deserving or rigorous study, + not immediate dismissal. The evidence I have is extensive but anecdotal. EDIT 3: the system of astrology is not well-defined, + therefore treads into the nature of symbolism + it’s connection to consciousness, which is important, but not what I originally stated. 0 upvotes, 100 comments. This is what reddit is all about people. Thank you for discussing this with me!	vansvch	3	3	[ { "author": "47ca05e6209a317a8fb3", "id": "dwozlhh", "score": 14, "text": "Your claim is not scientific. To argue that astrology is scientifically sound, you'll have to provide at least one scientific (i.e, falsifiable) theory predicted by astrology and then scientific evidence for it.\n\nAnecdotes about people who used astrology and were also successful are not scientific.", "timestamp": 1522701931 }, { "author": "vansvch", "id": "dwp7gsh", "score": -2, "text": "I have observed a consistently improved quality of life from those who develop an understanding + utilize the information of their western natal chart. I have observed inconsistency when attributing false natal charts to myself + others.\n\nDoes “scientifically sound” mean the same thing as “accepted by the mainstream science community”? I’m using science (continued observation of experiments over time with no bias) to come to these conclusions, while criticizing the scientific community\n\nEDIT: Do 5000+ years of anecdotes from all cultures not warrant a serious, non-biased study?", "timestamp": 1522711691 }, { "author": "nodorioussmd", "id": "dwp8uye", "score": 4, "text": "If your observations are on yourself, youre biased.", "timestamp": 1522713448 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dwozmke", "score": 3, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1522701960 }, { "author": "vansvch", "id": "dwp280q", "score": 0, "text": "I’m not saying any of them are more than true others, I’m saying they can work as psychologically beneficial tools if used correctly, + and should not be written off so quickly", "timestamp": 1522704914 }, { "author": "ViewedFromTheOutside", "id": "dwp4gi8", "score": 2, "text": "To have a more meaningful CMV we're going to need you to provides some sources for statements like this: \n>My assertion is that knowing and understanding your natal chart is scientifically proven to improve quality of life.\n\nAs well as some more responses (any more responses) to people wanting to engage you in a discussion.", "timestamp": 1522707735 } ]	[ "dwozlhh", "dwp7gsh", "dwp8uye" ]	[ "dwozmke", "dwp280q", "dwp4gi8" ]
CMV: Authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change Basically, I am a fascist. I view democracy as flawed, seeing how the general population is extremely susceptible to politicians and ideas. In my eyes, democracy is nothing more than who can lie the most. Take Trump, for example. On the campaign trail he garnered lots of support for being the "outsider" and non establishment candidate. In my eyes, he is the opposite, and the establishment has the ear of Trump. Trump was born an insider. How can someone be born into extreme wealth and has everything done for them their entire lives say they are the outsider? Yet it was enough, and he was praised for being the outsider. These days most modern politicians are bought by big industries and make decisions on behalf of their donors, which in turn don't end up doing anything for the people, and will lie or do anything to gain support and power. Although authoritarianism and totalitarianism has a very bad track record, my crude, yet deeply held belief is that with the right person in office, with meaningful motives, given absolute/a lot of power, is most effective. I am not any kind of supremacist or anything, I just simply believe that a strong leader with a strong government is the most effective tool for meaningful change.	What kind of change though? Good change or bad change? Change is only good if something changes for the better. --- Good change. In my eyes, if I rose to power, I wouldn't use any of it for personal gain. I would set aside avarice and greed for the greater good. Universal healthcare, rebuilding the infrastructure, pulling out of unnecessary wars, etc --- The highway to hell is paved with good intentions. There has yet to be an evil dictator that has not believed themselves to be acting in the best interest of their people. Your proposal relies on your judgement being near infallible and your character being uniquely uncorruptible. We do not have a system of checks and balances because the founding fathers knew that the most corrupt individuals would inexplicably keep getting elected. We have a system of checks and balances because they knew that no individual would ever be beyond the flaws of the common man. Secondly your proposal does not address how you would deal with citizens who take issue with your rule. Would they be free to peaceably assemble for the purpose of attempting to overturn your decisions? Could they campaign to have you removed as supreme dictator? If they are allowed to, how would you maintain power and if they are not by what method could you humanely suppress a large movement which opposes you. Dictatorships are run by corrupt officials because to rule as a dictator necessitates corruption. Take for example Kim Jon Un. Kim Jon Un does not execute top government officals because he gets off on it or something. He executes them because that is how he retains power over his lieutenants. They have to believe that a challenge to his absolute power is a death sentence. He has to coerce the people of North Korea that his power is absolute because if he does not his power erodes. Dictatorships are only sustainable through military supremacy or fanaticism. A just and benevolent ruler should never aspire to either of those as his primary means of control over his people.	I think you're looking at this wrong. The most effective tool for change isn't dictators or authoritarians. The most effective tool for change is through culture, education, or media. Take the example of Chile. Pinochet overthrew the socialist government and took control to establish a right wing military dictatorship. But what is Chile like now? They are moving back towards socialism. Clearly this authoritarianism wasn't enough to affect actual, real change in the public. The same is true for Spain under Franco. Franco had said, Where ever I am, there will be no communism. But Franco is gone, and communism returns. So if you want meaningful change, you have to capture the mechanisms of culture. And this can be done without totalitarianism or authoritarianism. --- But wouldn't someone be needed to send those changes into effect? Can't you use vital components like culture to make change, even if you use authoritarianism to do it? --- Law is downstream of culture. A legislature will put culture changes into law after they become popular enough, but that of course is not in itself authoritarianism. And of course one can use authoritarianism to push culture. But I would say the most effective method by far of changing culture, and afterwords, law, is not heavy handed state force, but rather political correctness. Political correctness isn't enforced by the state, but yet it is a much greater force for change than authoritarian politicians. Just look at what it's accomplished, gay marriage across all states, that Christians must bake cakes for gay weddings, and so on and so forth	6kw9sl	CMV: Authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change	Basically, I am a fascist. I view democracy as flawed, seeing how the general population is extremely susceptible to politicians and ideas. In my eyes, democracy is nothing more than who can lie the most. Take Trump, for example. On the campaign trail he garnered lots of support for being the "outsider" and non establishment candidate. In my eyes, he is the opposite, and the establishment has the ear of Trump. Trump was born an insider. How can someone be born into extreme wealth and has everything done for them their entire lives say they are the outsider? Yet it was enough, and he was praised for being the outsider. These days most modern politicians are bought by big industries and make decisions on behalf of their donors, which in turn don't end up doing anything for the people, and will lie or do anything to gain support and power. Although authoritarianism and totalitarianism has a very bad track record, my crude, yet deeply held belief is that with the right person in office, with meaningful motives, given absolute/a lot of power, is most effective. I am not any kind of supremacist or anything, I just simply believe that a strong leader with a strong government is the most effective tool for meaningful change.	Um_No_LXIX	3	3	[ { "author": "PenisMcScrotumFace", "id": "djpa4ss", "score": 2, "text": "What kind of change though? Good change or bad change? Change is only good if something changes for the better.", "timestamp": 1499037764 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpacb9", "score": -1, "text": "Good change. In my eyes, if I rose to power, I wouldn't use any of it for personal gain. I would set aside avarice and greed for the greater good. Universal healthcare, rebuilding the infrastructure, pulling out of unnecessary wars, etc", "timestamp": 1499038076 }, { "author": "runawaytoaster", "id": "djpd1b0", "score": 2, "text": "The highway to hell is paved with good intentions. There has yet to be an evil dictator that has not believed themselves to be acting in the best interest of their people. Your proposal relies on your judgement being near infallible and your character being uniquely uncorruptible. We do not have a system of checks and balances because the founding fathers knew that the most corrupt individuals would inexplicably keep getting elected. We have a system of checks and balances because they knew that no individual would ever be beyond the flaws of the common man. \n\nSecondly your proposal does not address how you would deal with citizens who take issue with your rule. Would they be free to peaceably assemble for the purpose of attempting to overturn your decisions? Could they campaign to have you removed as supreme dictator? If they are allowed to, how would you maintain power and if they are not by what method could you humanely suppress a large movement which opposes you. \n\nDictatorships are run by corrupt officials because to rule as a dictator necessitates corruption. Take for example Kim Jon Un. Kim Jon Un does not execute top government officals because he gets off on it or something. He executes them because that is how he retains power over his lieutenants. They have to believe that a challenge to his absolute power is a death sentence. He has to coerce the people of North Korea that his power is absolute because if he does not his power erodes.\n\nDictatorships are only sustainable through military supremacy or fanaticism. A just and benevolent ruler should never aspire to either of those as his primary means of control over his people. ", "timestamp": 1499042096 } ]	[ { "author": "activatedalmondz", "id": "djpa1bw", "score": 7, "text": "I think you're looking at this wrong. The most effective tool for change isn't dictators or authoritarians. The most effective tool for change is through culture, education, or media. \n\nTake the example of Chile. Pinochet overthrew the socialist government and took control to establish a right wing military dictatorship. But what is Chile like now?\n\nThey are moving back towards socialism. Clearly this authoritarianism wasn't enough to affect actual, real change in the public. The same is true for Spain under Franco.\n\nFranco had said, Where ever I am, there will be no communism. But Franco is gone, and communism returns. So if you want meaningful change, you have to capture the mechanisms of culture. \n\nAnd this can be done without totalitarianism or authoritarianism. ", "timestamp": 1499037619 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpag7p", "score": -1, "text": "But wouldn't someone be needed to send those changes into effect? Can't you use vital components like culture to make change, even if you use authoritarianism to do it?", "timestamp": 1499038237 }, { "author": "activatedalmondz", "id": "djpasho", "score": 1, "text": "Law is downstream of culture. A legislature will put culture changes into law after they become popular enough, but that of course is not in itself authoritarianism. \n\nAnd of course one can use authoritarianism to push culture. But I would say the most effective method by far of changing culture, and afterwords, law, is not heavy handed state force, but rather political correctness. \n\n\nPolitical correctness isn't enforced by the state, but yet it is a much greater force for change than authoritarian politicians. Just look at what it's accomplished, gay marriage across all states, that Christians must bake cakes for gay weddings, and so on and so forth", "timestamp": 1499038752 } ]	[ "djpa4ss", "djpacb9", "djpd1b0" ]	[ "djpa1bw", "djpag7p", "djpasho" ]
CMV: Authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change Basically, I am a fascist. I view democracy as flawed, seeing how the general population is extremely susceptible to politicians and ideas. In my eyes, democracy is nothing more than who can lie the most. Take Trump, for example. On the campaign trail he garnered lots of support for being the "outsider" and non establishment candidate. In my eyes, he is the opposite, and the establishment has the ear of Trump. Trump was born an insider. How can someone be born into extreme wealth and has everything done for them their entire lives say they are the outsider? Yet it was enough, and he was praised for being the outsider. These days most modern politicians are bought by big industries and make decisions on behalf of their donors, which in turn don't end up doing anything for the people, and will lie or do anything to gain support and power. Although authoritarianism and totalitarianism has a very bad track record, my crude, yet deeply held belief is that with the right person in office, with meaningful motives, given absolute/a lot of power, is most effective. I am not any kind of supremacist or anything, I just simply believe that a strong leader with a strong government is the most effective tool for meaningful change.	What kind of change though? Good change or bad change? Change is only good if something changes for the better. --- Good change. In my eyes, if I rose to power, I wouldn't use any of it for personal gain. I would set aside avarice and greed for the greater good. Universal healthcare, rebuilding the infrastructure, pulling out of unnecessary wars, etc --- Universal healthcare would not happen under a totalitarian regime. Such a government would be greedy as well. Don't expect to se a social democrat dictator. --- That's what I would do. I would set aside what I could do to make myself richer, and use it for the people. It could happen --- You can imagine it, but it won't happen. I have another question, don't you want the citizens to decide what should happen to themselves? --- It's not that I don't. I think a well rounded leader needs to know the wants and needs of the people he represents. My problems with democracy is how politicians lie to gain their power, and then they don't do anything when they get it. I also see it as a roadblock for progress. When a leader does end up getting power and does intend to bring meaningful change, the partisanship of our two sided political spectrum stand in the way --- But instead of relying on a group of people elected by the public (and therefore trusted by the public), you're putting faith into a single (or very few) person. It's not like politicians will stop lying in an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, just look at North Korea. Look at Nazi Germany. Politicians will lie anywhere. The difference is that in a democracy, the public can choose who they trust will do the job they want done. It's not like it's completely blind faith in this case, politicians (aside from Trump...) have been doing it for years and show what they're capable of. If you want actual good change, authoritarianism or totalitarianism aren't the answers. Where's the scrutiny in such regimes? --- Your right, in those regimes there is a lot of deception. But my problem lies within the deception of just gaining power. In my system, however one gains power must be transparent so everyone knows what they are about --- You haven't explained how you're going to keep everything so transparent and still stay in power. You can't just say "Everyone would automatically do what I say and stay loyal" unless the country you're ruling over is Fantasyland. Maintaining control means keeping the people who actually run things happy, which means using your power to give them what they want. If you're not willing to do that, they can find another dictator who will.	It is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change. And that's exactly the problem. Consistency is important. You don't want businesses worrying about if someone's going to suddenly change all the rules on a whim. Or knowing that once this guy dies they have no idea what's going to come next. It's better to have a larger group that makes changes more slowly so that people can figure out what's going to happen. > with the right person in office, How exactly do you plan to ensure that? Are you just hoping that they'd consistently name smart, compassionate people as heirs? People change. Especially when you give them a lot of power. You could just go for an authoritarian democracy, but if you give them too much power they can use it to ensure that they stay in power. Remember Nixon? I don't mind so much if the autocrat doesn't care a lot about other people. He can be as corrupt as he wants and he's not going to drain the budget of an entire country. The problem is when you get fractal corruption. If you have an authoritarian leader, then there's going to be a lot of other people that want his position, which means to keep them from getting it he has to have a lot of allies, so he has to give them a lot of wealth and power. And now they have enviable positions, so they have to do the same thing, until the entire government is filled with people with way too much power making way too much money. --- In regards to how to get the right guy in office, all of these ideas stem from the hypothetical idea that I could step in. There are no safeguards from me doing whatever the hell I want that makes my life better, but I would trust myself to do the right thing. The thing is, I wouldn't like to leave the system open ended to where anyone can step in and assume power. Maybe while I'm in power (hypothetically) I could appoint someone to come after me. Someone I deem good --- > In regards to how to get the right guy in office, all of these ideas stem from the hypothetical idea that I could step in. Yes. From the hypothetical that you are an authoritarian it would be good to continue being an authoritarian. But I'd make sure that when you die you switch to democracy. Although even then, you can be a consistent leader, but other people would feel safer starting businesses if you took steps to weaken your power and make sure it stays consistent. > Maybe while I'm in power (hypothetically) I could appoint someone to come after me. Someone I deem good And they do the same thing? How long do you expect that to work before someone just starts appointing their kid?	6kw9sl	CMV: Authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change	Basically, I am a fascist. I view democracy as flawed, seeing how the general population is extremely susceptible to politicians and ideas. In my eyes, democracy is nothing more than who can lie the most. Take Trump, for example. On the campaign trail he garnered lots of support for being the "outsider" and non establishment candidate. In my eyes, he is the opposite, and the establishment has the ear of Trump. Trump was born an insider. How can someone be born into extreme wealth and has everything done for them their entire lives say they are the outsider? Yet it was enough, and he was praised for being the outsider. These days most modern politicians are bought by big industries and make decisions on behalf of their donors, which in turn don't end up doing anything for the people, and will lie or do anything to gain support and power. Although authoritarianism and totalitarianism has a very bad track record, my crude, yet deeply held belief is that with the right person in office, with meaningful motives, given absolute/a lot of power, is most effective. I am not any kind of supremacist or anything, I just simply believe that a strong leader with a strong government is the most effective tool for meaningful change.	Um_No_LXIX	9	3	[ { "author": "PenisMcScrotumFace", "id": "djpa4ss", "score": 2, "text": "What kind of change though? Good change or bad change? Change is only good if something changes for the better.", "timestamp": 1499037764 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpacb9", "score": -1, "text": "Good change. In my eyes, if I rose to power, I wouldn't use any of it for personal gain. I would set aside avarice and greed for the greater good. Universal healthcare, rebuilding the infrastructure, pulling out of unnecessary wars, etc", "timestamp": 1499038076 }, { "author": "PenisMcScrotumFace", "id": "djpal7c", "score": 1, "text": "Universal healthcare would not happen under a totalitarian regime. Such a government would be greedy as well. Don't expect to se a social democrat dictator.", "timestamp": 1499038450 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpan95", "score": 1, "text": "That's what I would do. I would set aside what I could do to make myself richer, and use it for the people. It could happen ", "timestamp": 1499038536 }, { "author": "PenisMcScrotumFace", "id": "djpapc6", "score": 1, "text": "You can imagine it, but it won't happen.\n\nI have another question, don't you want the citizens to decide what should happen to themselves?", "timestamp": 1499038621 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpavb7", "score": 1, "text": "It's not that I don't. I think a well rounded leader needs to know the wants and needs of the people he represents. My problems with democracy is how politicians lie to gain their power, and then they don't do anything when they get it. I also see it as a roadblock for progress. When a leader does end up getting power and does intend to bring meaningful change, the partisanship of our two sided political spectrum stand in the way ", "timestamp": 1499038866 }, { "author": "PenisMcScrotumFace", "id": "djpb9nn", "score": 1, "text": "But instead of relying on a group of people elected by the public (and therefore trusted by the public), you're putting faith into a single (or very few) person.\n\nIt's not like politicians will stop lying in an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, just look at North Korea. Look at Nazi Germany. Politicians will lie anywhere. The difference is that in a democracy, the public can choose who they trust will do the job they want done. It's not like it's completely blind faith in this case, politicians (aside from Trump...) have been doing it for years and show what they're capable of.\n\nIf you want actual good change, authoritarianism or totalitarianism aren't the answers. Where's the scrutiny in such regimes?", "timestamp": 1499039447 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpccgc", "score": 1, "text": "Your right, in those regimes there is a lot of deception. But my problem lies within the deception of just gaining power. In my system, however one gains power must be transparent so everyone knows what they are about ", "timestamp": 1499041055 }, { "author": "parentheticalobject", "id": "djpcvi3", "score": 1, "text": "You haven't explained how you're going to keep everything so transparent and still stay in power. You can't just say \"Everyone would automatically do what I say and stay loyal\" unless the country you're ruling over is Fantasyland. Maintaining control means keeping the people who actually run things happy, which means using your power to give them what they want. If you're not willing to do that, they can find another dictator who will.", "timestamp": 1499041848 } ]	[ { "author": "DCarrier", "id": "djpb8n7", "score": 9, "text": "It is the most effective tool to accomplish meaningful change. And that's exactly the problem. Consistency is important. You don't want businesses worrying about if someone's going to suddenly change all the rules on a whim. Or knowing that once this guy dies they have no idea what's going to come next. It's better to have a larger group that makes changes more slowly so that people can figure out what's going to happen.\n\n> with the right person in office,\n\nHow exactly do you plan to ensure that? Are you just hoping that they'd consistently name smart, compassionate people as heirs? People change. Especially when you give them a lot of power. You could just go for an authoritarian democracy, but if you give them too much power they can use it to ensure that they stay in power. Remember Nixon?\n\nI don't mind so much if the autocrat doesn't care a lot about other people. He can be as corrupt as he wants and he's not going to drain the budget of an entire country. The problem is when you get fractal corruption. If you have an authoritarian leader, then there's going to be a lot of other people that want his position, which means to keep them from getting it he has to have a lot of allies, so he has to give them a lot of wealth and power. And now they have enviable positions, so they have to do the same thing, until the entire government is filled with people with way too much power making way too much money.", "timestamp": 1499039406 }, { "author": "Um_No_LXIX", "id": "djpcmxp", "score": 1, "text": "In regards to how to get the right guy in office, all of these ideas stem from the hypothetical idea that I could step in. There are no safeguards from me doing whatever the hell I want that makes my life better, but I would trust myself to do the right thing. The thing is, I wouldn't like to leave the system open ended to where anyone can step in and assume power. Maybe while I'm in power (hypothetically) I could appoint someone to come after me. Someone I deem good", "timestamp": 1499041495 }, { "author": "DCarrier", "id": "djpdbob", "score": 4, "text": "> In regards to how to get the right guy in office, all of these ideas stem from the hypothetical idea that I could step in. \n\nYes. From the hypothetical that you are an authoritarian it would be good to continue being an authoritarian. But I'd make sure that when you die you switch to democracy. Although even then, you can be a consistent leader, but other people would feel safer starting businesses if you took steps to weaken your power and make sure it stays consistent.\n\n> Maybe while I'm in power (hypothetically) I could appoint someone to come after me. Someone I deem good\n\nAnd they do the same thing? How long do you expect that to work before someone just starts appointing their kid?", "timestamp": 1499042533 } ]	[ "djpa4ss", "djpacb9", "djpal7c", "djpan95", "djpapc6", "djpavb7", "djpb9nn", "djpccgc", "djpcvi3" ]	[ "djpb8n7", "djpcmxp", "djpdbob" ]
CMV: National parks are not justified by the public interest I'm very much into camping and the outdoors. I personally benefit from the parks, and have spent months of my life exploring many national parks. My own life is much richer thanks to the national park systems. I know I'm not alone. But I'm troubled when I consider whether the benefits to all of us interested in recreation outweigh the massive costs of preserving what can amount to literally thousands of square miles in a single park. If the benefits of a park exceeded the costs, wouldn't a private recreational company be able to collect enough in admissions fees to outbid development companies, mining companies, etc.? Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land? Edit: I'm including an elaboration I made below that I hope improves the discussion: A park seems predominantly to benefit the people who visit it, and not the people who don't. I could be persuaded if there is compelling evidence that the spillover benefits of parks are sufficiently large. I've thought a bit about what these spillover benefits might be and have come up with some examples, though I haven't convinced myself with any of them yet: * Parks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere. * Biodiversity might have really large spillover benefits. I've heard this said before but I frankly don't really understand much of what these benefits look like. Could they really be large enough to compensate for the costs of preservation? I don't know. I'm open to learning more about this. What else am I missing? Have I underestimated the scale of these examples?	Simple example, pollution isn't something we can count on free market forces to correct. You might naively assume that consumers would prefer the company which limits their pollution the most, but that's not the case. For that reason we really do require the EPA to actively regulate companies. >Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land? This is correct. We likely would generate far more revenue by opening up the parks to resource extraction, land development, etc. For that reason, we can't trust that a private company would preserve the land as the government does. The key thing to keep in mind is that there's more "value" out there besides pure monetary gain. We've decided that the value of having large tracts of mostly preserved land is more important. --- I totally agree that we can't rely on the free market when it comes to pollution and that we need government intervention. My hesitation about applying that to the parks example is that pollution affects all of us, whether we want to buy the polluter's products or not. But a park seems predominantly to benefit the people who visit it, and not the people who don't. I could be persuaded if there is compelling evidence that the spillover benefits of parks are sufficiently large. I've thought a bit about what these spillover benefits might be and have come up with some examples, though I haven't convinced myself with any of them yet: Parks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere. Biodiversity might have really large spillover benefits. I've heard this said before but I frankly don't really understand much of what these benefits look like. Could they really be large enough to compensate for the costs of preservation? I don't know. I'm open to learning more about this. What else am I missing? Have I underestimated the scale of these examples? --- Obviously, there's the scientific data, as well. As land is developed, scientists lose out on the ability to observe wildlife and learn things. National parks give them this opportunity. But I think what you're missing is that nature is inherently valuable. The parks in turn give us value that's not purely quantitative, or at least would be extraordinarily hard to quantify. The parks are our commitment as a nation to preserving nature. It's a sacrifice: we're giving up potential money in order to preserve natural beauty. This is a point of pride for many people. Even if I'm never able to visit Yellowstone, I can be proud that our country had the foresight to set aside that region of land for everyone to enjoy. The cities and citizens that work and live near the parks can be proud that they contribute to these public works. This nebulous pride is worth far more than the money that might be earned by exploiting the parks. Or put another way, aside from money, what would be the benefit of selling off the parks to private industry? --- I had not considered the benefits of scientific research. That's a good point. Δ As for the intrinsic/inherent value of nature, I'm probably not going to be persuaded by arguments along that line, to be honest, given my worldview. I might consider the pride of citizens though. But I would need some way to think about how far that pride goes. When faced with the question about a new park, how should our lawmakers account for this nebulous pride? Obviously not every bit of land should be a park, even though the pride argument could be made about any proposed park. There needs to be some limiting principle. A justification that would apply equally if 1% of land is preserved in parks and if 95% of land were preserved is not a good justification. Edit: I realize I didn't answer your question about the benefits of selling off parks other than money. Presumably that money represents value to real people, primarily in the form of lower costs for consumer goods that use resources that would come from the land. Even if you don't think this is a full accounting, and that I'm ignoring lots of value, surely this doesn't count for nothing. --- I think you might underestimate the economic benefits of biodiversity. For example, if we sold all the public land and cut down most of the trees, [air quality in the entire country would go down](https://blog.nature.org/science/2017/04/06/trees-air-pollution-balance-ecosystem-services-ozone/). We'd have much worse allergies, far more dust and other pollutants irritating our skin/eyes/mouth, and more lung problems. The ozone layer would also degrade. Lots of trees and plants take pollutants and small particulates out of the air, making it cleaner for everyone. Having lots of greenspace improves air quality and and benefits everyone in the United States. However, if we sold all the public land and prioritized short-term profit as capitalist markets tend to do, we'd end up with a [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) wherein something very important to everyone (air quality) is harmed in exchange for higher profits for a few people (namely the ones redeveloping green space). I don't want to live in an entire country covered with LA's urban smog. --- Copied from above: >Parks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere. That said, even if parks weren't trying to optimize returns to air quality, their greenspace might still justify their costs. Do you have any idea about the magnitude of the benefits of national parks from greenspace? Also, you said you thought I was underestimating the benefits of biodiversity. Could you elaborate? --- So biodiversity is generally defined as the variety or variability of life on earth. On a macro scale, the biosphere of the United States affects a huge portion of its economy, including agriculture, forestation, fishing, soil fertility, and disease control. For more concrete economic benefits: * Approximately 75% (by weight) of the 100,000 chemicals released into the environment can be degraded by biological organisms and are potential targets of both bioremediation and biotreatment. The savings gained by using bioremediation instead of the other available techniques; physical, chemical and thermal; to remediate chemical pollution worldwide give an annual benefit of $135 billion (1997 calculation). Maintaining biodiversity in soils and water is imperative to the continued and improved effectiveness of bioremediation and biotreatment. * There are 6 million tons of food products harvested annually from terrestrial wild biota in the United States including large and small animals, maple syrup, nuts, blueberries and algae. The 6 billion tons of food are valued at $57 million and add $3 billion to the country’s economy (1995 calculations). * A loss of biodiversity leads to an increase in the spread of disease. Researchers speculate this is because some species are better at buffering disease transmission. An example of this is that species that have low rates of reproduction or invest heavily in immunity tend to be more strongly impacted by losses of biodiversity than those with high reproduction rates or those that invest less in immunity (and would consequently be more likely disease hosts). for further reading on the subject, I'd point you to the source I got all this from: [economic benefits of biodiversity](https://conservationtools.org/guides/95-economic-benefits-of-biodiversity). --- Yeah, I know what biodiversity is. But what are the marginal benefits from biodiversity by conservation through parks? --- The economic benefits are really hard to quantify. But what we do know is that it takes a really long time to rebuild an ecosystem. So the question is: if we degrade these ecosystems and find out that we don't like the consequences (which is what happened in the gulf, where we messed up a lot of the wetlands that could have mitigated storm surge during hurricanes), is that worth the risk?	>If the benefits of a park exceeded the costs, wouldn't a private recreational company be able to collect enough in admissions fees to outbid development companies, mining companies, etc.? No. Private rec companies are small and normally local. You actually don't have fairly large ones in comparison to most mining companies or development companies. So just as an economic reality they wouldn't be able to outbid a mining corperation or development corporation (which normally are fairly large and even international). >Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land? There are different types of value. A mine may work for say 10-20 years then be done. It worked a lot of value out of the land but then its over and on to the next deposit. In the process the land is pretty much ruined and delicate ecosystems get destroyed. Development totally destroys the ecosystem and may create value for a while, but that's more a crapshot than anything else, and you could end up destroying an environment for a project that never has value and no one buys. On the other hand the park itself is a renewable resource in that its very existence is what creates value. Basically by leaving it alone and letting nature do its thing you create value. If you were to develop or mine you would destroy that value permanently (or at least until nature took it back which could be a long time). So its the question of long term vs short term investment. Long term investments tend to pay off far better over time than short term investments. And the NPS is the longest term sort of investment. --- This answer about long-term vs short-term investments is appealing to me but I have a few hangups: First, your mining example is a good one but it isn't obvious it would apply to other kinds of development, like ranching, farming, real estate, lumber, etc. Second, if it's true that parks are a long-term value proposition to visitors, a rec company could presumably go to an investment bank and make that pitch. To be clear, I'm not saying I'd prefer private to public ownership of parks. I only bring it up to question how high the value really is. The biggest reason rec companies are small seems to be the fact that the value to park visitors just isn't that high in the grand scheme of everything people could do with, say, a thousand square miles of land. --- > First, your mining example is a good one but it isn't obvious it would apply to other kinds of development, like ranching, farming, real estate, lumber, etc. Well much of the lumber work is done in national forests and is a part of public land management already (and that's a complex process that involves planting and replacing trees and refurbishing the land so there are less long term effects). Same with quite a bit of ranching (public land makes up quite a bit of grazing land since it's far too expensive for most ranchers to own that much land). Even then all of these activities still involve a hell of a lot of destruction to the environment. You can't grow a cash crop without pretty much reshaping an environment. You can't do real estate without subdividing ecosystems. In the end you get to choose between the natural state or the invested use of the land. >Second, if it's true that parks are a long-term value proposition to visitors, a rec company could presumably go to an investment bank and make that pitch. Or we could you know just have them be public use and managed by the government allowing more investment in actually making a rec business so there are larger profits based off of public investment. Just saying public investment often increases profits of companies in a local area. >The biggest reason rec companies are small seems to be the fact that the value to park visitors just isn't that high in the grand scheme of everything people could do with, say, a thousand square miles of land. Biggest reason rec companies are small is they are local. If your business is being a guide of the everglades you aren't inherently going to be able to just expand to giving tours in the grand tetons. There is a difference in business models that may just make expansion not profitable for a small business. --- > it's far too expensive for most ranchers to own that much land This is kind of my point, it's expensive to own that much land precisely because land is valuable for other purposes. Generally, we don't think it's good policy to give massive subsidies to groups of people unless they are doing something that is good for society at large. So, unless parks are providing a public good (I've listed a few examples of potential public goods in reply to /u/10twenty4 's comment and some reasons for skepticism), it doesn't make sense to prefer them to alternative values. In the end, we have to choose, you're right. But in the absence of a compelling public good argument, it seems better to choose the highest value thing. --- > Generally, we don't think it's good policy to give massive subsidies to groups of people unless they are doing something that is good for society at large. Except you are missing the whole aspect of public land management. Much of the public land actually is used for things like public grazing for cattle alongside all the other uses. So it is a public investment that is doing economic good for society at large by pushing down prices on commodities. Do you really think we would have wood for as cheap as we do without national forests and that land managment? >But in the absence of a compelling public good argument, it seems better to choose the highest value thing. Except that would also be ignoring the whole long term vs short term investment thing again. Just focusing on "value" vs "value over time" isn't always contextualizing the thing properly. --- Yeah, it's not clear to me that ranchers should be subsidized through free grazing on public land or timber companies through the National Forest Service's below-cost timber programs or other similar subsidies. --- Is there not a public good or economic gain across the board from the practice? --- Timber and cattle seem like textbook examples of private goods, where the benefits basically entirely go to the company and its customers. That is not to say there aren't spillover costs. We want to prevent deforestation or overgrazing so I do think we should regulate and tax them. And in my opinion, if we allow access to public land, we should charge them, not give it away below cost --- We do charge them. Thats how public land management works. Remember the whole Bundy Ranch Standoff thing? It was because the dude was refusing to pay fees for grazing his cattle on public lands. Foresting companies have to pay leases for land and fees for the trees taken. They also pay to replant.	8hjury	CMV: National parks are not justified by the public interest	I'm very much into camping and the outdoors. I personally benefit from the parks, and have spent months of my life exploring many national parks. My own life is much richer thanks to the national park systems. I know I'm not alone. But I'm troubled when I consider whether the benefits to all of us interested in recreation outweigh the massive costs of preserving what can amount to literally thousands of square miles in a single park. If the benefits of a park exceeded the costs, wouldn't a private recreational company be able to collect enough in admissions fees to outbid development companies, mining companies, etc.? Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land? Edit: I'm including an elaboration I made below that I hope improves the discussion: A park seems predominantly to benefit the people who visit it, and not the people who don't. I could be persuaded if there is compelling evidence that the spillover benefits of parks are sufficiently large. I've thought a bit about what these spillover benefits might be and have come up with some examples, though I haven't convinced myself with any of them yet: * Parks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere. * Biodiversity might have really large spillover benefits. I've heard this said before but I frankly don't really understand much of what these benefits look like. Could they really be large enough to compensate for the costs of preservation? I don't know. I'm open to learning more about this. What else am I missing? Have I underestimated the scale of these examples?	throwaway16168888	9	9	[ { "author": "10twenty4", "id": "dyke0ct", "score": 20, "text": "Simple example, pollution isn't something we can count on free market forces to correct. You might naively assume that consumers would prefer the company which limits their pollution the most, but that's not the case. For that reason we really do require the EPA to actively regulate companies.\n\n>Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land?\n\nThis is correct. We likely would generate far more revenue by opening up the parks to resource extraction, land development, etc. For that reason, we can't trust that a private company would preserve the land as the government does.\n\nThe key thing to keep in mind is that there's more \"value\" out there besides pure monetary gain. We've decided that the value of having large tracts of mostly preserved land is more important. ", "timestamp": 1525659260 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykfjpq", "score": 0, "text": "I totally agree that we can't rely on the free market when it comes to pollution and that we need government intervention. My hesitation about applying that to the parks example is that pollution affects all of us, whether we want to buy the polluter's products or not. But a park seems predominantly to benefit the people who visit it, and not the people who don't. I could be persuaded if there is compelling evidence that the spillover benefits of parks are sufficiently large. \n\nI've thought a bit about what these spillover benefits might be and have come up with some examples, though I haven't convinced myself with any of them yet:\n\nParks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere. \n\nBiodiversity might have really large spillover benefits. I've heard this said before but I frankly don't really understand much of what these benefits look like. Could they really be large enough to compensate for the costs of preservation? I don't know. I'm open to learning more about this. \n\nWhat else am I missing? Have I underestimated the scale of these examples? ", "timestamp": 1525660958 }, { "author": "10twenty4", "id": "dykhidg", "score": 6, "text": "Obviously, there's the scientific data, as well. As land is developed, scientists lose out on the ability to observe wildlife and learn things. National parks give them this opportunity.\n\nBut I think what you're missing is that nature is inherently valuable. The parks in turn give us value that's not purely quantitative, or at least would be extraordinarily hard to quantify.\n\nThe parks are our commitment as a nation to preserving nature. It's a sacrifice: we're giving up potential money in order to preserve natural beauty. This is a point of pride for many people. Even if I'm never able to visit Yellowstone, I can be proud that our country had the foresight to set aside that region of land for everyone to enjoy. The cities and citizens that work and live near the parks can be proud that they contribute to these public works. This nebulous pride is worth far more than the money that might be earned by exploiting the parks.\n\nOr put another way, aside from money, what would be the benefit of selling off the parks to private industry?", "timestamp": 1525663331 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykits1", "score": 2, "text": "I had not considered the benefits of scientific research. That's a good point. Δ\n\nAs for the intrinsic/inherent value of nature, I'm probably not going to be persuaded by arguments along that line, to be honest, given my worldview. I might consider the pride of citizens though. But I would need some way to think about how far that pride goes. When faced with the question about a new park, how should our lawmakers account for this nebulous pride? Obviously not every bit of land should be a park, even though the pride argument could be made about any proposed park. There needs to be some limiting principle. A justification that would apply equally if 1% of land is preserved in parks and if 95% of land were preserved is not a good justification.\n\nEdit: I realize I didn't answer your question about the benefits of selling off parks other than money. Presumably that money represents value to real people, primarily in the form of lower costs for consumer goods that use resources that would come from the land. Even if you don't think this is a full accounting, and that I'm ignoring lots of value, surely this doesn't count for nothing. ", "timestamp": 1525664997 }, { "author": "VortexMagus", "id": "dykl9ap", "score": 6, "text": "I think you might underestimate the economic benefits of biodiversity. For example, if we sold all the public land and cut down most of the trees, [air quality in the entire country would go down](https://blog.nature.org/science/2017/04/06/trees-air-pollution-balance-ecosystem-services-ozone/). We'd have much worse allergies, far more dust and other pollutants irritating our skin/eyes/mouth, and more lung problems. The ozone layer would also degrade. Lots of trees and plants take pollutants and small particulates out of the air, making it cleaner for everyone.\n\nHaving lots of greenspace improves air quality and and benefits everyone in the United States. However, if we sold all the public land and prioritized short-term profit as capitalist markets tend to do, we'd end up with a [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) wherein something very important to everyone (air quality) is harmed in exchange for higher profits for a few people (namely the ones redeveloping green space). I don't want to live in an entire country covered with LA's urban smog.", "timestamp": 1525668502 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykllbr", "score": 1, "text": "Copied from above: \n\n>Parks preserve large amounts of trees, which can at least somewhat slow down global warming. My concern here is that this doesn't seem to be the actual purpose of parks, as they exist. Neither the selection of parks nor the management of parks seems aligned with this primary goal. If this is the primary justification, it would be better to preserve the highest density forests of the kinds of trees that absorb the most CO2. The government could even sell off parks in the desert and use the funds to grow more forests elsewhere.\n\nThat said, even if parks weren't trying to optimize returns to air quality, their greenspace might still justify their costs. Do you have any idea about the magnitude of the benefits of national parks from greenspace?\n\nAlso, you said you thought I was underestimating the benefits of biodiversity. Could you elaborate? ", "timestamp": 1525669020 }, { "author": "VortexMagus", "id": "dykm2sv", "score": 2, "text": "So biodiversity is generally defined as the variety or variability of life on earth. On a macro scale, the biosphere of the United States affects a huge portion of its economy, including agriculture, forestation, fishing, soil fertility, and disease control. For more concrete economic benefits:\n\n* Approximately 75% (by weight) of the 100,000 chemicals released into the environment can be degraded by biological organisms and are potential targets of both bioremediation and biotreatment. The savings gained by using bioremediation instead of the other available techniques; physical, chemical and thermal; to remediate chemical pollution worldwide give an annual benefit of $135 billion (1997 calculation). Maintaining biodiversity in soils and water is imperative to the continued and improved effectiveness of bioremediation and biotreatment.\n\n* There are 6 million tons of food products harvested annually from terrestrial wild biota in the United States including large and small animals, maple syrup, nuts, blueberries and algae. The 6 billion tons of food are valued at $57 million and add $3 billion to the country’s economy (1995 calculations).\n\n* A loss of biodiversity leads to an increase in the spread of disease. Researchers speculate this is because some species are better at buffering disease transmission. An example of this is that species that have low rates of reproduction or invest heavily in immunity tend to be more strongly impacted by losses of biodiversity than those with high reproduction rates or those that invest less in immunity (and would consequently be more likely disease hosts).\n\nfor further reading on the subject, I'd point you to the source I got all this from: [economic benefits of biodiversity](https://conservationtools.org/guides/95-economic-benefits-of-biodiversity).", "timestamp": 1525669780 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykm5hu", "score": 1, "text": "Yeah, I know what biodiversity is. But what are the marginal benefits from biodiversity by conservation through parks? ", "timestamp": 1525669895 }, { "author": "Helicase21", "id": "dyl8f23", "score": 2, "text": "The economic benefits are really hard to quantify. But what we do know is that it takes a really long time to rebuild an ecosystem. So the question is: if we degrade these ecosystems and find out that we don't like the consequences (which is what happened in the gulf, where we messed up a lot of the wetlands that could have mitigated storm surge during hurricanes), is that worth the risk? ", "timestamp": 1525707175 } ]	[ { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dykfr4l", "score": 2, "text": ">If the benefits of a park exceeded the costs, wouldn't a private recreational company be able to collect enough in admissions fees to outbid development companies, mining companies, etc.? \n\nNo. Private rec companies are small and normally local. You actually don't have fairly large ones in comparison to most mining companies or development companies. So just as an economic reality they wouldn't be able to outbid a mining corperation or development corporation (which normally are fairly large and even international).\n\n>Therefore, isn't the fact that we need the federal government to establish a park in the first place evidence that a park isn't the most valuable use of some massive amount of land?\n\nThere are different types of value. A mine may work for say 10-20 years then be done. It worked a lot of value out of the land but then its over and on to the next deposit. In the process the land is pretty much ruined and delicate ecosystems get destroyed.\n\nDevelopment totally destroys the ecosystem and may create value for a while, but that's more a crapshot than anything else, and you could end up destroying an environment for a project that never has value and no one buys.\n\nOn the other hand the park itself is a renewable resource in that its very existence is what creates value. Basically by leaving it alone and letting nature do its thing you create value. If you were to develop or mine you would destroy that value permanently (or at least until nature took it back which could be a long time). \n\nSo its the question of long term vs short term investment. Long term investments tend to pay off far better over time than short term investments. And the NPS is the longest term sort of investment.", "timestamp": 1525661201 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykgn0n", "score": -1, "text": "This answer about long-term vs short-term investments is appealing to me but I have a few hangups: \n\nFirst, your mining example is a good one but it isn't obvious it would apply to other kinds of development, like ranching, farming, real estate, lumber, etc. \n\nSecond, if it's true that parks are a long-term value proposition to visitors, a rec company could presumably go to an investment bank and make that pitch. To be clear, I'm not saying I'd prefer private to public ownership of parks. I only bring it up to question how high the value really is. The biggest reason rec companies are small seems to be the fact that the value to park visitors just isn't that high in the grand scheme of everything people could do with, say, a thousand square miles of land. ", "timestamp": 1525662263 }, { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dykhq64", "score": 2, "text": "> First, your mining example is a good one but it isn't obvious it would apply to other kinds of development, like ranching, farming, real estate, lumber, etc.\n\nWell much of the lumber work is done in national forests and is a part of public land management already (and that's a complex process that involves planting and replacing trees and refurbishing the land so there are less long term effects). Same with quite a bit of ranching (public land makes up quite a bit of grazing land since it's far too expensive for most ranchers to own that much land). Even then all of these activities still involve a hell of a lot of destruction to the environment. You can't grow a cash crop without pretty much reshaping an environment. You can't do real estate without subdividing ecosystems. In the end you get to choose between the natural state or the invested use of the land.\n\n>Second, if it's true that parks are a long-term value proposition to visitors, a rec company could presumably go to an investment bank and make that pitch.\n\nOr we could you know just have them be public use and managed by the government allowing more investment in actually making a rec business so there are larger profits based off of public investment. Just saying public investment often increases profits of companies in a local area.\n\n>The biggest reason rec companies are small seems to be the fact that the value to park visitors just isn't that high in the grand scheme of everything people could do with, say, a thousand square miles of land.\n\nBiggest reason rec companies are small is they are local. If your business is being a guide of the everglades you aren't inherently going to be able to just expand to giving tours in the grand tetons. There is a difference in business models that may just make expansion not profitable for a small business. ", "timestamp": 1525663595 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykjrq5", "score": 0, "text": "> it's far too expensive for most ranchers to own that much land\n\nThis is kind of my point, it's expensive to own that much land precisely because land is valuable for other purposes. Generally, we don't think it's good policy to give massive subsidies to groups of people unless they are doing something that is good for society at large. So, unless parks are providing a public good (I've listed a few examples of potential public goods in reply to /u/10twenty4 's comment and some reasons for skepticism), it doesn't make sense to prefer them to alternative values. In the end, we have to choose, you're right. But in the absence of a compelling public good argument, it seems better to choose the highest value thing. \n\n", "timestamp": 1525666318 }, { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dykk361", "score": 2, "text": "> Generally, we don't think it's good policy to give massive subsidies to groups of people unless they are doing something that is good for society at large. \n\nExcept you are missing the whole aspect of public land management. Much of the public land actually is used for things like public grazing for cattle alongside all the other uses. So it is a public investment that is doing economic good for society at large by pushing down prices on commodities. Do you really think we would have wood for as cheap as we do without national forests and that land managment?\n\n>But in the absence of a compelling public good argument, it seems better to choose the highest value thing.\n\nExcept that would also be ignoring the whole long term vs short term investment thing again. Just focusing on \"value\" vs \"value over time\" isn't always contextualizing the thing properly. ", "timestamp": 1525666769 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dykknue", "score": 0, "text": "Yeah, it's not clear to me that ranchers should be subsidized through free grazing on public land or timber companies through the National Forest Service's below-cost timber programs or other similar subsidies. ", "timestamp": 1525667603 }, { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dykkpyn", "score": 1, "text": "Is there not a public good or economic gain across the board from the practice?", "timestamp": 1525667690 }, { "author": "throwaway16168888", "id": "dyklduv", "score": 1, "text": "Timber and cattle seem like textbook examples of private goods, where the benefits basically entirely go to the company and its customers. That is not to say there aren't spillover costs. We want to prevent deforestation or overgrazing so I do think we should regulate and tax them. And in my opinion, if we allow access to public land, we should charge them, not give it away below cost", "timestamp": 1525668697 }, { "author": "Ardonpitt", "id": "dyklk1y", "score": 2, "text": "We do charge them. Thats how public land management works. Remember the whole Bundy Ranch Standoff thing? It was because the dude was refusing to pay fees for grazing his cattle on public lands. Foresting companies have to pay leases for land and fees for the trees taken. They also pay to replant. ", "timestamp": 1525668966 } ]	[ "dyke0ct", "dykfjpq", "dykhidg", "dykits1", "dykl9ap", "dykllbr", "dykm2sv", "dykm5hu", "dyl8f23" ]	[ "dykfr4l", "dykgn0n", "dykhq64", "dykjrq5", "dykk361", "dykknue", "dykkpyn", "dyklduv", "dyklk1y" ]
CMV: People that watch "Reality TV" have subpar IQs By "Reality Television" I mean Kardashians, Curse Of Oak Island, Gypsy Trash (or whatever it's called), even TMZ. Do these people honestly believe that there is anything "real" about it? I will even buy the argument "Oh I know it's not real" - but armed with that knowledge, what is even interesting about it? And to make matters worse, the people on these shows are what are considered "influencers" - an ironic euphemism indeed. One method I use to judge the demographic of a particular show is who the main advertisers are. And in the case of these shows, it always seems to be Personal Injury Attorneys and companies of that ilk This is very telling of the type of people who watch. Is it the "drama" involved when Actor A (let's call them what they really are) has "beef" with Actor B? I just don't get it. I "grew up" about 30 years ago. I'm over it. Now that my rant is done, can someone please defend these shows? I am open to any decent argument to Change My View. Please and thank you	There's such a thing as guilty pleasures. I'm a musician and big music nut. I pride myself on having a very high quality and often intricate, complex, difficult, and impressive library of music... but if I want to kick back and bump some over-produced, cheap, simple-minded pop music like Katy Perry, I reserve my right to do so and still be seen as a music buff, because it's a guilty pleasure. That said, I will grant you that people who watch reality TV and actually think it's real might be a bit dumber than someone who knows it's all a show and just watches for fun. But I mean think about it. During GoT I would meet up with a bunch of my office mates every Monday to discuss what happened in the episode and where we think things will go next. If some asshole popped their head in and was like "uh, you know Jon Snow isn't a real person, right?" it would be like... duh... but that deliberate suspension of disbelief is part of what makes watching the show fun. People can do that with the Bachelor or whatever, too. As long as they don't actually think it's real I don't see any reason to berate them or their intelligence for enjoying a little trashy TV. --- I definitely agree with your mentioning of having a “guilty pleasure.” I’m enrolled in university and consider myself pretty involved with my academics (conducting research, staff writer for a student publication, etc), but I absolutely love watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, 90-Day Fiancé, etc. Simply put, I think it’s entertaining and a nice way to unwind from my studies. It’s unfair to say that people who watch reality TV have subpar IQs. I think the critical question we have to ask here is what impressions one gets from watching reality TV. If someone just watches it to relax, it’s way too premature to judge their level of intelligence. It’s unfair to judge someone’s IQ because they’re not watching documentaries or content-heavy TV shows all the time. But if someone watches reality TV to relax AND believes what they’re watching is real and religiously follows the lives of these celebrities, then we can possibly question their IQ and their general lifestyle.	[removed] --- This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta. Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others. If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	gevs2n	CMV: People that watch "Reality TV" have subpar IQs	By "Reality Television" I mean Kardashians, Curse Of Oak Island, Gypsy Trash (or whatever it's called), even TMZ. Do these people honestly believe that there is anything "real" about it? I will even buy the argument "Oh I know it's not real" - but armed with that knowledge, what is even interesting about it? And to make matters worse, the people on these shows are what are considered "influencers" - an ironic euphemism indeed. One method I use to judge the demographic of a particular show is who the main advertisers are. And in the case of these shows, it always seems to be Personal Injury Attorneys and companies of that ilk This is very telling of the type of people who watch. Is it the "drama" involved when Actor A (let's call them what they really are) has "beef" with Actor B? I just don't get it. I "grew up" about 30 years ago. I'm over it. Now that my rant is done, can someone please defend these shows? I am open to any decent argument to Change My View. Please and thank you	Fufishiswaz	2	2	[ { "author": "World_Spank_Bank", "id": "fppwn65", "score": 17, "text": "There's such a thing as guilty pleasures. \n\nI'm a musician and big music nut. I pride myself on having a very high quality and often intricate, complex, difficult, and impressive library of music... but if I want to kick back and bump some over-produced, cheap, simple-minded pop music like Katy Perry, I reserve my right to do so and still be seen as a music buff, because it's a guilty pleasure. \n\nThat said, I will grant you that people who watch reality TV and actually think it's real might be a bit dumber than someone who knows it's all a show and just watches for fun. But I mean think about it. During GoT I would meet up with a bunch of my office mates every Monday to discuss what happened in the episode and where we think things will go next. If some asshole popped their head in and was like \"uh, you know Jon Snow isn't a real person, right?\" it would be like... duh... but that deliberate suspension of disbelief is part of what makes watching the show fun. People can do that with the Bachelor or whatever, too. As long as they don't actually think it's real I don't see any reason to berate them or their intelligence for enjoying a little trashy TV.", "timestamp": 1588810595 }, { "author": "romani9012", "id": "fppyc5l", "score": 4, "text": "I definitely agree with your mentioning of having a “guilty pleasure.” I’m enrolled in university and consider myself pretty involved with my academics (conducting research, staff writer for a student publication, etc), but I absolutely love watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, 90-Day Fiancé, etc. Simply put, I think it’s entertaining and a nice way to unwind from my studies. It’s unfair to say that people who watch reality TV have subpar IQs. I think the critical question we have to ask here is what impressions one gets from watching reality TV. If someone just watches it to relax, it’s way too premature to judge their level of intelligence. It’s unfair to judge someone’s IQ because they’re not watching documentaries or content-heavy TV shows all the time. But if someone watches reality TV to relax AND believes what they’re watching is real and religiously follows the lives of these celebrities, then we can possibly question their IQ and their general lifestyle.", "timestamp": 1588811528 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fpqjcv2", "score": 1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1588824151 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "fpqjeg5", "score": 1, "text": "This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.\n\nAllowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.\n\nIf you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1588824180 } ]	[ "fppwn65", "fppyc5l" ]	[ "fpqjcv2", "fpqjeg5" ]
CMV: "Cancel culture" is not a problem, and public backlash is an acceptable downside to being a celebrity I always hear comedians, youtubers, musicians, etc. complaining about how cancel culture is a menace and must be stopped. However, it is known that when somebody decides to pursue fame and fortune, the downside is that their entire life is now broadcasted to the masses. This is especially true with things like social media. You can't expect to be able to spew whatever comes into your head on the internet without running the risk of not being liked anymore. Now I will concede that the simplifying of opinions through tweets, clickbait headlines, and outrage culture has taken this idea and intensified it, but at the end of the day, I don't believe a celebrity should feel like the public owes them any affection.	The problem with public backlash destroying careers is that there are no checks and balances for any claim that someone makes. Hell, Projared is a great example. He was accused of sending nudes to minors, and accusation put out by two individuals, both teenage males. People ran that narrative into the ground and basically destroyed his public credibility, over essentially two tweets (highly doubt most people even bothered to read the full accusation, I know I didn’t) So Projared was branded a Pedophile and essentially shooed out of every circle he was involved in; the few people that did try to defend him were instantly hanged up on and silenced. Few months later, he comes back and shows that at the very least, both people accusing him of being a predator were either lying to him about their age (in that particular case, Projared didn’t even send any nudes to that person, it was a sexually charged conversation but under the guise of him being over 18. Jared asked, said person lied). The other accuser wrote in a previous blog post that he had suffered a major head injury and suffered severe memory loss which lasted during the period that he claimed Jared sent photos to him. Both individuals removed their accusations from Twitter, but were more than happy to leave their Patreon donor pages up. So essentially, two shitty teenagers drag a man through the mud, leveling a VERY serious accusation against him, it catches on and people decide “oh hey lol fuck Jared, he’s wrong and it feels good to beat down on him without actually asking questions” Cancel culture has the power to absolutely destroy someone’s image and life, with absolutely zero accountability for spreading lies and half truths. Why support that at all? --- I would agree that in the case of projared, he was wrongfully accused and was undeserving of his treatment. But, couldn't you say that being a public figure as he was, especially with an audience of children, knew the risks of being in such a state when he started making videos (or at least when he decided to do it full time)? He made a choice to put all of his chips into his online personality, and along with that comes the inherent risk of being misconstrued. --- Is your position seriously that it's Jared's fault someone else did something? Being a public figure means you suddenly become responsible for the actions of others? --- Not necessarily (I'm not too well versed in the Jared situation specifically, so I apologise if I miss something). I definitely believe the teenagers were in the wrong. I also believe Jared has every right to defend himself, and I'm glad he did. However, the job he had COMES WITH the risk of being hated by your audience, and that should be considered and planned for when someone has a significant following. Especially since Jared was known to sext with fans and individuals online (I believe he even publicly said he'd be willing to do this with legal aged fans). I believe he should have had an alibi for these things and should have responded immediately after he was accused. Or had some kind of backup plan for when the YouTube job doesn't work out. --- This feels like a bit of a pivot. The point isn't really about whether Jared has any share of the blame. It's about cancel culture, which at least in this case, was unambiguously the root of the problem. It's like saying, "Well if you don't want to get robbed, you shouldn't walk alone in dangerous parts of town at night". It may be true to some degree, but it distracts from the actual problem, which is the people doing the robbing.	There’s maybe a place for some kind of cancel culture, but it’s definitely too extreme. Take the Kevin Hart situation. He tweeted a few joke and a decade later he couldn’t host the Oscars. Does that sound right? Or someone like James Gunn. Between the time he made the tweets that got him in a trouble and they actually came to light, he had apologized for them. Does getting him fired after that seem just? --- Well, first, Disney and the oscars do not owe those people jobs. They can hire whoever they want. You could argue that those companies are overly cautious of potentially being "cancelled", but that's neither here nor there. If I made a joke on twitter, and thousands of people were offended by it, I could expect to be fired from my job, and thus, I am careful about what I say non-anonymously. I'm not even remotely famous, but the company I work for does not want that traced back to them. --- I dont think you should expect to lose your job. Thats a family relying on income to survive. Just because you happen to make a bad joke. Or even if you are a complete cunt irl that shouldnt effect your place of work. It sucks that we live in a world where that happens --- Why shouldn't it affect your place at work if you're a complete cunt? As an employee, you represent your employer... especially if you are a high profile employee. If you make racist or sexist or homophobic remarks on social media and those remarks catch the ire of the public, then this will not only reflect poorly on you but also on those who associate with you. You know, like your employer. Not only that, but you also have to work with other people in the company, people who may be women or gay or persons of color... and it's gonna make it a little more difficult to have a cohesive team when one person on that team is off making very disparaging and very public remarks about others on that team. So, whether or not it "sucks that we live in a world where that happens", and I agree that it sucks that we live in a world where people think it's okay to make racist remarks on social media, those people really only have themselves to blame. They knew the consequences when they made those comments. --- I agree with your sentiment although find it interesting you seem to have hypothetically focused on racism. I rarely post my thoughts on social media but they are typically targeted at anti science type retards. (Christians/ anti vaxxers) My thoughts about whether large chunks of society are fit to use up our oxygen supply shouldnt result in me being fired.	d5alh2	CMV: "Cancel culture" is not a problem, and public backlash is an acceptable downside to being a celebrity	I always hear comedians, youtubers, musicians, etc. complaining about how cancel culture is a menace and must be stopped. However, it is known that when somebody decides to pursue fame and fortune, the downside is that their entire life is now broadcasted to the masses. This is especially true with things like social media. You can't expect to be able to spew whatever comes into your head on the internet without running the risk of not being liked anymore. Now I will concede that the simplifying of opinions through tweets, clickbait headlines, and outrage culture has taken this idea and intensified it, but at the end of the day, I don't believe a celebrity should feel like the public owes them any affection.	Blue97	5	5	[ { "author": "JizzGuzzler42069", "id": "f0ktgi2", "score": 10, "text": "The problem with public backlash destroying careers is that there are no checks and balances for any claim that someone makes.\n\nHell, Projared is a great example. He was accused of sending nudes to minors, and accusation put out by two individuals, both teenage males. \n\nPeople ran that narrative into the ground and basically destroyed his public credibility, over essentially two tweets (highly doubt most people even bothered to read the full accusation, I know I didn’t)\n\nSo Projared was branded a Pedophile and essentially shooed out of every circle he was involved in; the few people that did try to defend him were instantly hanged up on and silenced.\n\nFew months later, he comes back and shows that at the very least, both people accusing him of being a predator were either lying to him about their age (in that particular case, Projared didn’t even send any nudes to that person, it was a sexually charged conversation but under the guise of him being over 18. Jared asked, said person lied).\n\nThe other accuser wrote in a previous blog post that he had suffered a major head injury and suffered severe memory loss which lasted during the period that he claimed Jared sent photos to him.\n\nBoth individuals removed their accusations from Twitter, but were more than happy to leave their Patreon donor pages up.\n\nSo essentially, two shitty teenagers drag a man through the mud, leveling a VERY serious accusation against him, it catches on and people decide “oh hey lol fuck Jared, he’s wrong and it feels good to beat down on him without actually asking questions”\n\nCancel culture has the power to absolutely destroy someone’s image and life, with absolutely zero accountability for spreading lies and half truths. Why support that at all?", "timestamp": 1568687649 }, { "author": "Blue97", "id": "f0kujya", "score": -4, "text": "I would agree that in the case of projared, he was wrongfully accused and was undeserving of his treatment. But, couldn't you say that being a public figure as he was, especially with an audience of children, knew the risks of being in such a state when he started making videos (or at least when he decided to do it full time)? He made a choice to put all of his chips into his online personality, and along with that comes the inherent risk of being misconstrued.", "timestamp": 1568688488 }, { "author": "Ast3roth", "id": "f0kvil0", "score": 13, "text": "Is your position seriously that it's Jared's fault someone else did something? Being a public figure means you suddenly become responsible for the actions of others?", "timestamp": 1568689228 }, { "author": "Blue97", "id": "f0kwghl", "score": -3, "text": "Not necessarily (I'm not too well versed in the Jared situation specifically, so I apologise if I miss something). I definitely believe the teenagers were in the wrong. I also believe Jared has every right to defend himself, and I'm glad he did. However, the job he had COMES WITH the risk of being hated by your audience, and that should be considered and planned for when someone has a significant following. Especially since Jared was known to sext with fans and individuals online (I believe he even publicly said he'd be willing to do this with legal aged fans). I believe he should have had an alibi for these things and should have responded immediately after he was accused. Or had some kind of backup plan for when the YouTube job doesn't work out.", "timestamp": 1568689996 }, { "author": "Puddinglax", "id": "f0kxgfy", "score": 11, "text": "This feels like a bit of a pivot. The point isn't really about whether Jared has any share of the blame. It's about cancel culture, which at least in this case, was unambiguously the root of the problem.\n\nIt's like saying, \"Well if you don't want to get robbed, you shouldn't walk alone in dangerous parts of town at night\". It may be true to some degree, but it distracts from the actual problem, which is the people doing the robbing.", "timestamp": 1568690838 } ]	[ { "author": "empurrfekt", "id": "f0kti4q", "score": 13, "text": "There’s maybe a place for some kind of cancel culture, but it’s definitely too extreme. \n\nTake the Kevin Hart situation. He tweeted a few joke and a decade later he couldn’t host the Oscars. Does that sound right?\n\nOr someone like James Gunn. Between the time he made the tweets that got him in a trouble and they actually came to light, he had apologized for them. Does getting him fired after that seem just?", "timestamp": 1568687683 }, { "author": "Blue97", "id": "f0kv79e", "score": 4, "text": "Well, first, Disney and the oscars do not owe those people jobs. They can hire whoever they want. You could argue that those companies are overly cautious of potentially being \"cancelled\", but that's neither here nor there. If I made a joke on twitter, and thousands of people were offended by it, I could expect to be fired from my job, and thus, I am careful about what I say non-anonymously. I'm not even remotely famous, but the company I work for does not want that traced back to them.", "timestamp": 1568688990 }, { "author": "ir_ryan", "id": "f0kwhvh", "score": 7, "text": "I dont think you should expect to lose your job. Thats a family relying on income to survive. Just because you happen to make a bad joke. Or even if you are a complete cunt irl that shouldnt effect your place of work. It sucks that we live in a world where that happens", "timestamp": 1568690029 }, { "author": "drpussycookermd", "id": "f0kxddb", "score": 10, "text": "Why shouldn't it affect your place at work if you're a complete cunt? As an employee, you represent your employer... especially if you are a high profile employee. If you make racist or sexist or homophobic remarks on social media and those remarks catch the ire of the public, then this will not only reflect poorly on you but also on those who associate with you. You know, like your employer. Not only that, but you also have to work with other people in the company, people who may be women or gay or persons of color... and it's gonna make it a little more difficult to have a cohesive team when one person on that team is off making very disparaging and very public remarks about others on that team.\n\nSo, whether or not it \"sucks that we live in a world where that happens\", and I agree that it sucks that we live in a world where people think it's okay to make racist remarks on social media, those people really only have themselves to blame. They knew the consequences when they made those comments.", "timestamp": 1568690763 }, { "author": "ir_ryan", "id": "f0ky6ve", "score": 3, "text": "I agree with your sentiment although find it interesting you seem to have hypothetically focused on racism. I rarely post my thoughts on social media but they are typically targeted at anti science type retards. (Christians/ anti vaxxers) My thoughts about whether large chunks of society are fit to use up our oxygen supply shouldnt result in me being fired.", "timestamp": 1568691489 } ]	[ "f0ktgi2", "f0kujya", "f0kvil0", "f0kwghl", "f0kxgfy" ]	[ "f0kti4q", "f0kv79e", "f0kwhvh", "f0kxddb", "f0ky6ve" ]
CMV: The discourse surrounding the California fires proves the differences between Americans are now irreconcilable. The last few days have really confirmed a suspicion that I’ve held for a few years now: the “United” States might as well be two different countries already. Before anybody asks, the point of this post isn’t “why can’t we all be nice to each other?,” I genuinely feel the chasm between right and left in the United States cannot be bridged; both sides are on completely different teams, and they, especially the left, would rather see America destroyed than the other team be successful. The front page of reddit is currently chock-full of threads calling Republicans “heartless” and “inhuman” for their response to the California fire, which is fair enough. However, it hasn’t been lost on me that these are the same people who were just a few months ago filling comment sections about the Panhandle fires and the Florida hurricanes with comments to the tune of “Serves those inbred Trumptards right!” They expect compassion and sympathy, but they have none to give. My argument is that both sides of the political spectrum, especially the left, now view the opposition not as dissidents, but as inferiors; a defective, detestable cancer worthy of hatred and scorn, and deserving of suffering. I truly believe that the United States is not salvageable. That said, I am open to changing this view. The United States has weathered storms before, and while I believe the crisis we face is unprecedented and unique, I also understand that the U.S. is an unprecedented and unique country, and that it’s not too late for us to change course. Please, change my view.	You need to spend some time off the internet. Those people who you claim can't coexist live together, work together, and play together out in the real world every day. All without even thinking to question the political views of the people they're coexisting with. --- Yes, because they're forced to. If you start threatening or killing people with different political beliefs than you, you're going to go to jail. If you want to know what people actually think of the people around them, read their internet posts. --- \> If you want to know what people actually think of the people around them, read their internet posts. Just this part here I want to tease out: I'm not sure it's a good idea (or even wise) to consider Internet Actions to be a true manifestation of the Self. In many ways we know the internet exacerbates & amplifies the worst parts of human nature; devoid of direct, face-to-face accountability for example, people will say things to each other they wouldn't dream of saying in person. I don't think that's because they Really Believe Those Things and it's just pesky Society that stops them. I think the nature of the Internet makes it easier to express negative/inflammatory things. It's like a pipeline to the ID, no Superego/Ego around to stop it. It's what people do IRL that does a better job of showing you where they are at, IMO.	Do you really think that the left dehumanizes the right more than the right dehumanizes the left? Why "especially the left"? Do you hold them to a higher standard? --- Absolutely. No question at all. Republicans make fun of naive liberals, but a lot of Democrats think Trump supporters are basically akin to Nazi supporters. --- Pretty easy to make that connection	1i2e12c	CMV: The discourse surrounding the California fires proves the differences between Americans are now irreconcilable.	The last few days have really confirmed a suspicion that I’ve held for a few years now: the “United” States might as well be two different countries already. Before anybody asks, the point of this post isn’t “why can’t we all be nice to each other?,” I genuinely feel the chasm between right and left in the United States cannot be bridged; both sides are on completely different teams, and they, especially the left, would rather see America destroyed than the other team be successful. The front page of reddit is currently chock-full of threads calling Republicans “heartless” and “inhuman” for their response to the California fire, which is fair enough. However, it hasn’t been lost on me that these are the same people who were just a few months ago filling comment sections about the Panhandle fires and the Florida hurricanes with comments to the tune of “Serves those inbred Trumptards right!” They expect compassion and sympathy, but they have none to give. My argument is that both sides of the political spectrum, especially the left, now view the opposition not as dissidents, but as inferiors; a defective, detestable cancer worthy of hatred and scorn, and deserving of suffering. I truly believe that the United States is not salvageable. That said, I am open to changing this view. The United States has weathered storms before, and while I believe the crisis we face is unprecedented and unique, I also understand that the U.S. is an unprecedented and unique country, and that it’s not too late for us to change course. Please, change my view.	RoboticsGuy277	3	3	[ { "author": "rmttw", "id": "m7dqq63", "score": 22, "text": "You need to spend some time off the internet. Those people who you claim can't coexist live together, work together, and play together out in the real world every day. All without even thinking to question the political views of the people they're coexisting with.", "timestamp": 1736992821 }, { "author": "RoboticsGuy277", "id": "m7ds5le", "score": -4, "text": "Yes, because they're forced to. If you start threatening or killing people with different political beliefs than you, you're going to go to jail. If you want to know what people actually think of the people around them, read their internet posts.", "timestamp": 1736993312 }, { "author": "Khyrberos", "id": "m7e4bst", "score": 2, "text": "\\> If you want to know what people actually think of the people around them, read their internet posts. \nJust this part here I want to tease out: I'm not sure it's a good idea (or even wise) to consider Internet Actions to be a true manifestation of the Self. In many ways we know the internet exacerbates & amplifies the worst parts of human nature; devoid of direct, face-to-face accountability for example, people will say things to each other they wouldn't dream of saying in person.\n\nI don't think that's because they Really Believe Those Things and it's just pesky Society that stops them. I think the nature of the Internet makes it easier to express negative/inflammatory things. It's like a pipeline to the ID, no Superego/Ego around to stop it.\n\nIt's what people do IRL that does a better job of showing you where they are at, IMO.", "timestamp": 1736997640 } ]	[ { "author": "tomtomglove", "id": "m7dqikj", "score": 29, "text": "Do you really think that the left dehumanizes the right more than the right dehumanizes the left? \n\nWhy \"especially the left\"? Do you hold them to a higher standard?", "timestamp": 1736992748 }, { "author": "zeperf", "id": "m7drfap", "score": 1, "text": "Absolutely. No question at all. Republicans make fun of naive liberals, but a lot of Democrats think Trump supporters are basically akin to Nazi supporters.", "timestamp": 1736993060 }, { "author": "ClarkCant06", "id": "m7drtlu", "score": 6, "text": "Pretty easy to make that connection", "timestamp": 1736993198 } ]	[ "m7dqq63", "m7ds5le", "m7e4bst" ]	[ "m7dqikj", "m7drfap", "m7drtlu" ]
CMV: Pink collar work is more physically and mentally straining than white collar work. My reasoning behind this is that pink-collar work, which includes food, sales, hotel, teaching, and anything to do with the consumer/customer means you're on your feet all day long trying to please people. Continually having customers treat you rudely takes a considerable mental toll not found in white collar work. Not to mention white collar work is usually 9-5 while pink collar could be anytime. White collar is at a desk, while a pink collar job is especially hectic on the weekends and night hours.	I can give engineering examples of difficulty for white collar work. 1. If there is a deadline, and the job is expected to be done. If that means pulling 20 hour shifts then you do that. 2. There is constant stress to have something finished, rather than coming in every day to do the same job with a fresh start (Discounting Teachers, Managers, etc..) 3. You can be sued for all you have if you mess up. Also you can kill people. 4. Things don't work the first time. You need to try again and again to get something that's functional. It's tough to tell how long this will take, but you can end up wasting resources and working lots of extra hours if you make the wrong choices. --- Isn't engineering pushing more on the blue collar side of work? --- Blue collar generally means manual labour or in other words, someone working with their. I'm no engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but engineers generally work in an office setting, while occassionly visiting a worksite to supervise etc, not physically doing the work.	I am confused by the premise of this question, isn't pink collar a term used to describe work traditionally or presently done by women while white collar defines just office workers? Aren't those overlapping? Wouldn't the argument by anyone using the term pink collar be something comparing and contrasting it with blue collar work? --- I think OP's definition of the person serving the end customer/consumer has some problems. Think of a character in the show The Office, selling paper over the phone. Are they considered pink collar, as a salesperson, or white collar, as they work in an office? --- When I mentioned sales, I meant door to door	8hjtyh	CMV: Pink collar work is more physically and mentally straining than white collar work.	My reasoning behind this is that pink-collar work, which includes food, sales, hotel, teaching, and anything to do with the consumer/customer means you're on your feet all day long trying to please people. Continually having customers treat you rudely takes a considerable mental toll not found in white collar work. Not to mention white collar work is usually 9-5 while pink collar could be anytime. White collar is at a desk, while a pink collar job is especially hectic on the weekends and night hours.	revive_kevin	3	3	[ { "author": "linux_vegan", "id": "dykbs40", "score": 5, "text": "I can give engineering examples of difficulty for white collar work. \n\n1. If there is a deadline, and the job is expected to be done. If that means pulling 20 hour shifts then you do that. \n\n2. There is constant stress to have something finished, rather than coming in every day to do the same job with a fresh start (Discounting Teachers, Managers, etc..) \n\n3. You can be sued for all you have if you mess up. Also you can kill people.\n\n4. Things don't work the first time. You need to try again and again to get something that's functional. It's tough to tell how long this will take, but you can end up wasting resources and working lots of extra hours if you make the wrong choices.\n", "timestamp": 1525656760 }, { "author": "revive_kevin", "id": "dykddct", "score": -1, "text": "Isn't engineering pushing more on the blue collar side of work?", "timestamp": 1525658568 }, { "author": "burned00", "id": "dykehlb", "score": 5, "text": "Blue collar generally means manual labour or in other words, someone working with their. I'm no engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but engineers generally work in an office setting, while occassionly visiting a worksite to supervise etc, not physically doing the work.", "timestamp": 1525659783 } ]	[ { "author": "cupcakesarethedevil", "id": "dykbe3x", "score": 3, "text": "I am confused by the premise of this question, isn't pink collar a term used to describe work traditionally or presently done by women while white collar defines just office workers? Aren't those overlapping? Wouldn't the argument by anyone using the term pink collar be something comparing and contrasting it with blue collar work? ", "timestamp": 1525656333 }, { "author": "burned00", "id": "dykbqq2", "score": 1, "text": "I think OP's definition of the person serving the end customer/consumer has some problems. Think of a character in the show The Office, selling paper over the phone. Are they considered pink collar, as a salesperson, or white collar, as they work in an office?", "timestamp": 1525656717 }, { "author": "revive_kevin", "id": "dykdey8", "score": 1, "text": "When I mentioned sales, I meant door to door", "timestamp": 1525658617 } ]	[ "dykbs40", "dykddct", "dykehlb" ]	[ "dykbe3x", "dykbqq2", "dykdey8" ]
CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech. As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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!*	Interesting question... In my view, boycotting a company for sponcering someone who you disagree with is against the spirit of free speech, but it is still fair economically. Just remember that your speech has consequences. Recently, some corporations have been boycotted for funding pro-gun avocates... this has resulted in many more people spending money on the boycotted companies in protest. The NRA has also been receiving a lot more money than usual, due to people pushing back. I personally have no hard opinion on boycotts, but if you have a problem with someone because of a difference in opinion, you gain a lot more tackling their opinion than their funding. --- Is it against the "spirit of free speech"? Because as I believe it in some cases where political pundits are straw-man criticizing the character of certain people (i.e. the Parkland students), then I think that it's actually very strongly for the spirit free speech. Free speech's spirit, I believe, is in accord to the spirit of pursuing civil discussion, and I think pulling someone's funding is probably more civil than getting into a shouting match over "who's being more stupid." Also, in the NRA example you provided, that while I do think it's unfortunate that the NRA is receiving more money because I myself do not personally support their work, I have no qualms how the backlash functions. It's a shame, but people will throw money at things they believe in, and my hope is that it spurs more money to be thrown to the side that represents my own views. --- > Is it against the "spirit of free speech"? It is. Boycotts make more sense from a "right of free association" point of view. From a legal standpoint, the right of expression does protect the organization of a boycott. But, from a philosophical perspective, the "spirit of free speech" is to encourage the exchange of ideas. Boycotts tend to make people clam up to avoid being caught in the crossfire, which is not in the spirit of free speech. The point is to bend them to your will using economic might instead of convincing them with a good argument. I want to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to boycott. I would be seriously against anyone trying to make boycotts illegal (including several of the measures we currently have that do make certain types of boycotts illegal), but they definitely don't fit within the spirit of free speech.	If by "legitimate" you mean "legal", then yeah boycotts aren't illegal unless if there's some particular reason for a specific one to be. The bigger issue that I see here is that the boycotting doesn't really make any attempt to engage with or refute any of their arguments. The boycotters often times don't seriously look at or consider the arguments on the other side, and I think this is partly because the sort of mob mentality pressures them into not doing it (I've had that feeling before myself - mocking things I sort of thought deep down held merit because everything else was). --- Some things you can't refute, that person has had such beliefs questioned time and again and they are objectively wrong, but they maintain them regardless. Recently in the UK a popular newspaper ran a story attacking the rights of gay couples to have children and claiming that it shouldn't be allowed as it was tantamount to child abuse. They've been at this for years and have no intention of changing their views to align with facts, they just bash LGBT people because they want to. There is no refuting that. --- I've also seen people boycott reasonable people like Sam Harris and Pewdiepie (re: WSJ). There's more often than not not much of an intelligent, reasoned discussion over who to boycott.	896cbc	CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech.	As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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!*	BookishRipple	3	3	[ { "author": "OpinionOfAllWomen", "id": "dwpaa8o", "score": 14, "text": "Interesting question... In my view, boycotting a company for sponcering someone who you disagree with is against the spirit of free speech, but it is still fair economically. Just remember that your speech has consequences. Recently, some corporations have been boycotted for funding pro-gun avocates... this has resulted in many more people spending money on the boycotted companies in protest. The NRA has also been receiving a lot more money than usual, due to people pushing back.\nI personally have no hard opinion on boycotts, but if you have a problem with someone because of a difference in opinion, you gain a lot more tackling their opinion than their funding.\n", "timestamp": 1522715135 }, { "author": "BookishRipple", "id": "dwpaq0r", "score": 2, "text": "Is it against the \"spirit of free speech\"? Because as I believe it in some cases where political pundits are straw-man criticizing the character of certain people (i.e. the Parkland students), then I think that it's actually very strongly for the spirit free speech. Free speech's spirit, I believe, is in accord to the spirit of pursuing civil discussion, and I think pulling someone's funding is probably more civil than getting into a shouting match over \"who's being more stupid.\" \n\nAlso, in the NRA example you provided, that while I do think it's unfortunate that the NRA is receiving more money because I myself do not personally support their work, I have no qualms how the backlash functions. It's a shame, but people will throw money at things they believe in, and my hope is that it spurs more money to be thrown to the side that represents my own views. ", "timestamp": 1522715647 }, { "author": "Chrighenndeter", "id": "dwphi0p", "score": 14, "text": "> Is it against the \"spirit of free speech\"?\n\nIt is. Boycotts make more sense from a \"right of free association\" point of view.\n\nFrom a legal standpoint, the right of expression does protect the organization of a boycott. But, from a philosophical perspective, the \"spirit of free speech\" is to encourage the exchange of ideas. Boycotts tend to make people clam up to avoid being caught in the crossfire, which is not in the spirit of free speech. The point is to bend them to your will using economic might instead of convincing them with a good argument.\n\nI want to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to boycott. I would be seriously against anyone trying to make boycotts illegal (including several of the measures we currently have that do make certain types of boycotts illegal), but they definitely don't fit within the spirit of free speech.", "timestamp": 1522722844 } ]	[ { "author": "AndyLucia", "id": "dwp8ebr", "score": 50, "text": "If by \"legitimate\" you mean \"legal\", then yeah boycotts aren't illegal unless if there's some particular reason for a specific one to be.\n\nThe bigger issue that I see here is that the boycotting doesn't really make any attempt to engage with or refute any of their arguments. The boycotters often times don't seriously look at or consider the arguments on the other side, and I think this is partly because the sort of mob mentality pressures them into not doing it (I've had that feeling before myself - mocking things I sort of thought deep down held merit because everything else was).", "timestamp": 1522712870 }, { "author": "whinymess", "id": "dwp8qys", "score": 11, "text": "Some things you can't refute, that person has had such beliefs questioned time and again and they are objectively wrong, but they maintain them regardless. \n\nRecently in the UK a popular newspaper ran a story attacking the rights of gay couples to have children and claiming that it shouldn't be allowed as it was tantamount to child abuse. \nThey've been at this for years and have no intention of changing their views to align with facts, they just bash LGBT people because they want to. There is no refuting that. ", "timestamp": 1522713307 }, { "author": "AndyLucia", "id": "dwp8tyk", "score": 5, "text": "I've also seen people boycott reasonable people like Sam Harris and Pewdiepie (re: WSJ). There's more often than not not much of an intelligent, reasoned discussion over who to boycott.", "timestamp": 1522713414 } ]	[ "dwpaa8o", "dwpaq0r", "dwphi0p" ]	[ "dwp8ebr", "dwp8qys", "dwp8tyk" ]
CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech. As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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 suggest you consider what we can learn from history about free speech. There was a time when people lived in small towns and villages, and everyone knew everyone else. It was a world of bigotry and prejudice. If you dissented against the popular religion, you could be killed. If you were of a different race to the locals, they might mistreat you. If you were gay, you had to hide it. In some cases you could get away with these things, if the locals liked you, but this was obviously completely unfair as if they took a dislike to you you had to conform. That world was changed by people saying things that were not only at the time very unpopular, they were often thought to be extremely dangerous. And free speech proved to be just as dangerous as people felt. The Catholic Church tried to stop people reading the Bible in their own language, fearing that they would make up their own minds and not follow Church teaching. They were right. Rulers tried to stop the lower classes criticising them, fearing that they would be overthrown. They were right. Similarly, suffrage spread from wealthy landowners to poorer men and to women. Major changes to society are preceeded by people debating the changes, if you can suppress these sufficiently, you can delay the changes and hope to avert them. So if you believe strongly that you are right, it is natural to try to suppress opposing views. But note that the dissent comes before the change. After the change there is no need to suppress the opposing view as the direction of change suggests that it will be a long time before it can be reversed, if ever. If a group of people had the power to suppress dissent, that would be a disaster as it would make it difficult for their views to be challenged. If views are correct they should withstand challenge, so it would entrench whetever is wrong about their views. In the specific case you mention, Laura Ingraham seems to be a somewhet obnoxious person based on her prior record, and her mocking of David Hogg was a childish ad hominem showing that she cannot face a debate on the facts. As a media presenter, this could reasonably be grounds for firing her from her job, but it is wrong to use what are basically bullying tactics against her - though David Hogg is too young to really grasp the long term significance of the situation. --- >If a group of people had the power to suppress dissent, that would be a disaster as it would make it difficult for their views to be challenged. If views are correct they should withstand challenge, so it would entrench whatever is wrong about their views. If we're speaking historically, then all groups of people technically have the power to suppress dissent in varying degrees, and it's important to distinguish whether it's a group of citizens banding together to form a boycott or a corporation seeking to further its agenda. Again, living in America under Citizens United, these two are treated with equal value under the law. It seems no different that a group tries to suppress dissent through boycotts than trying to suppress dissent using advertising dollars. > As a media presenter, this could reasonably be grounds for firing her from her job, but it is wrong to use what are basically bullying tactics against her - though David Hogg is too young to really grasp the long term significance of the situation. I would disagree with the characterization of "bullying tactics" because to do so would be ignoring the tone in which the dialogue occurred. Ingraham mocked Hogg, and Hogg responded by listing public information about Inagraham's advertisers (which is important to note, because he's not doing the same thing as, say, publicizing her home address, he's merely shedding light to what is already public information). To call what he's doing "bullying" is not taking into account the play-by-play of how this particular incident went down. --- > it's important to distinguish whether it's a group of citizens banding together to form a boycott or a corporation seeking to further its agenda A corporation is just a group of people. Often boycotts are called for by corporations such as labor unions, advocacy groups, etc. A boycott is, at it's core, the leveraging of collective economic power to advocate for change. Sometimes that's the best way for a relatively small or socially-disempowered group to be noticed (such as the bus boycotts). But use of power is always a two-edged sword. Would it be "legitimate" for a nearly-all-white town to boycott an Arab immigrant family's restaurant, forcing it to close and the family to leave? It's certainly legal, but taken to it's extreme it serves as an extra-legal mechanism of segregation. There's often a fuzzy line between social pressure and bullying.	Mostly in agreement, however there is a snafu in terms of the free speech of the sponsor/provider That's assuming the theory of advocates basically say to a sponsor - you will face a commercial backlash OR I suppose a commercial success (if you do) don't withdraw support of said person. That means in theory the advocates are imposing coerced speech onto the sponsor - now that process is sort of allowed through the process of consumerism and the free market and it could be considered a deft political move but its not pure "free speech" --- But what is "pure" free speech? Also, how can citizens taking advantage of the process of consumerism be considered "less pure" than corporations funding super PACs to essentially do the same function? --- I didn't say there was any comparison to corporations - but your view is "perfectly legitimate" exercise of free-speech so I'm just pointing out a potential flaw in the process from the perspective of "free speech" personally I wouldn't say a fatal flaw realistically. It's all completely "above board" and in my opinion legit - its just not perfect its is using political power to force the actions of the sponsor	896cbc	CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech.	As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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!*	BookishRipple	3	3	[ { "author": "indoremeter", "id": "dwpci0b", "score": 7, "text": "I suggest you consider what we can learn from history about free speech. There was a time when people lived in small towns and villages, and everyone knew everyone else. It was a world of bigotry and prejudice. If you dissented against the popular religion, you could be killed. If you were of a different race to the locals, they might mistreat you. If you were gay, you had to hide it. In some cases you could get away with these things, if the locals liked you, but this was obviously completely unfair as if they took a dislike to you you had to conform. That world was changed by people saying things that were not only at the time very unpopular, they were often thought to be extremely dangerous.\n\nAnd free speech proved to be just as dangerous as people felt. The Catholic Church tried to stop people reading the Bible in their own language, fearing that they would make up their own minds and not follow Church teaching. They were right. Rulers tried to stop the lower classes criticising them, fearing that they would be overthrown. They were right. Similarly, suffrage spread from wealthy landowners to poorer men and to women. Major changes to society are preceeded by people debating the changes, if you can suppress these sufficiently, you can delay the changes and hope to avert them. So if you believe strongly that you are right, it is natural to try to suppress opposing views. But note that the dissent comes before the change. After the change there is no need to suppress the opposing view as the direction of change suggests that it will be a long time before it can be reversed, if ever.\n\nIf a group of people had the power to suppress dissent, that would be a disaster as it would make it difficult for their views to be challenged. If views are correct they should withstand challenge, so it would entrench whetever is wrong about their views.\n\nIn the specific case you mention, Laura Ingraham seems to be a somewhet obnoxious person based on her prior record, and her mocking of David Hogg was a childish ad hominem showing that she cannot face a debate on the facts. As a media presenter, this could reasonably be grounds for firing her from her job, but it is wrong to use what are basically bullying tactics against her - though David Hogg is too young to really grasp the long term significance of the situation.", "timestamp": 1522717781 }, { "author": "BookishRipple", "id": "dwpdn9n", "score": 8, "text": ">If a group of people had the power to suppress dissent, that would be a disaster as it would make it difficult for their views to be challenged. If views are correct they should withstand challenge, so it would entrench whatever is wrong about their views.\n\nIf we're speaking historically, then all groups of people technically have the power to suppress dissent in varying degrees, and it's important to distinguish whether it's a group of citizens banding together to form a boycott or a corporation seeking to further its agenda. Again, living in America under Citizens United, these two are treated with equal value under the law. It seems no different that a group tries to suppress dissent through boycotts than trying to suppress dissent using advertising dollars. \n\n> As a media presenter, this could reasonably be grounds for firing her from her job, but it is wrong to use what are basically bullying tactics against her - though David Hogg is too young to really grasp the long term significance of the situation.\n\nI would disagree with the characterization of \"bullying tactics\" because to do so would be ignoring the tone in which the dialogue occurred. Ingraham mocked Hogg, and Hogg responded by listing public information about Inagraham's advertisers (which is important to note, because he's not doing the same thing as, say, publicizing her home address, he's merely shedding light to what is already public information). To call what he's doing \"bullying\" is not taking into account the play-by-play of how this particular incident went down. ", "timestamp": 1522719055 }, { "author": "curien", "id": "dwpgw5y", "score": 7, "text": "> it's important to distinguish whether it's a group of citizens banding together to form a boycott or a corporation seeking to further its agenda\n\nA corporation is just a group of people. Often boycotts are called for by corporations such as labor unions, advocacy groups, etc.\n\nA boycott is, at it's core, the leveraging of collective economic power to advocate for change. Sometimes that's the best way for a relatively small or socially-disempowered group to be noticed (such as the bus boycotts).\n\nBut use of power is always a two-edged sword. Would it be \"legitimate\" for a nearly-all-white town to boycott an Arab immigrant family's restaurant, forcing it to close and the family to leave? It's certainly legal, but taken to it's extreme it serves as an extra-legal mechanism of segregation.\n\nThere's often a fuzzy line between social pressure and bullying.", "timestamp": 1522722288 } ]	[ { "author": "ThomasEdmund84", "id": "dwp8zhi", "score": 1, "text": "Mostly in agreement, however there is a snafu in terms of the free speech of the sponsor/provider \n\nThat's assuming the theory of advocates basically say to a sponsor - you will face a commercial backlash OR I suppose a commercial success (if you do) don't withdraw support of said person.\n\nThat means in theory the advocates are imposing coerced speech onto the sponsor - now that process is sort of allowed through the process of consumerism and the free market and it could be considered a deft political move but its not pure \"free speech\"", "timestamp": 1522713601 }, { "author": "BookishRipple", "id": "dwp934x", "score": 1, "text": "But what is \"pure\" free speech? Also, how can citizens taking advantage of the process of consumerism be considered \"less pure\" than corporations funding super PACs to essentially do the same function? ", "timestamp": 1522713722 }, { "author": "ThomasEdmund84", "id": "dwp9tnm", "score": 1, "text": "I didn't say there was any comparison to corporations - but your view is \"perfectly legitimate\" exercise of free-speech so I'm just pointing out a potential flaw in the process from the perspective of \"free speech\" personally I wouldn't say a fatal flaw realistically.\n\nIt's all completely \"above board\" and in my opinion legit - its just not perfect its is using political power to force the actions of the sponsor \n\n ", "timestamp": 1522714595 } ]	[ "dwpci0b", "dwpdn9n", "dwpgw5y" ]	[ "dwp8zhi", "dwp934x", "dwp9tnm" ]
CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech. As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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!*	[removed] --- Also I don't want to be "winning" this argument without a fight! That's a pyrrhic victory in my eyes. I am trying to hone my political sensibilities in general when considering proper courses of action to make political change, and the subject of boycotts interest me as one of the most viable ways to achieve things. --- As with pretty much anything in this world, it's not black and white. ALL boycotts are neither good or bad. Everything has context, everything has nuance, and every specific situation will be different. Like any tool, it can be used for good or for harm. Life in general would be much easier if we could just make hard and fast rules like, "Boycotts are always a good thing" or "Water is always good for you." But even something as seemingly straight forward as water, something that is a basic human need for survival, can still be bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much of it. So if we can't make black and white rules for something like that without exceptions, then everything has exceptions. And if everything has an exception, then everything has to be judged on its own merits. We just gotta use the wisdom that we've gained from studying the past and looking at objective facts and scientific evidence and make the best judgement we can on a case-by-case basis for basically everything in life. We try to make laws and live by general codes and some things are basically universally agreed upon to the point that anyone who doesn't agree isn't really someone we want around on the planet (like someone who would disagree with the belief that "no child should be raped" or something that basically our entire species has a consensus on). But for everything else, we just do the best we can to be good people and try to advance the species and make life better for the next generations to come after us in any way we can, the best way we know how.	Mostly in agreement, however there is a snafu in terms of the free speech of the sponsor/provider That's assuming the theory of advocates basically say to a sponsor - you will face a commercial backlash OR I suppose a commercial success (if you do) don't withdraw support of said person. That means in theory the advocates are imposing coerced speech onto the sponsor - now that process is sort of allowed through the process of consumerism and the free market and it could be considered a deft political move but its not pure "free speech" --- But what is "pure" free speech? Also, how can citizens taking advantage of the process of consumerism be considered "less pure" than corporations funding super PACs to essentially do the same function? --- I think this point right here is where it all falls apart for the political right. - if corporations are legally persons, and money is free speech, then boycotts are exactly the tool that's left to the general populace to utilize to have their voice recognized by the political process.	896cbc	CMV: Using boycotts to pressure an "offensive" public figure's sponsors to drop them is a perfectly legitimate form of exercising free speech.	As I'm sure all of the Internet knows now, boycotting corporate brands to pressure them to drop "offensive" content has become a popular form of political protest. The boycott du jour is circling around Laura Ingraham and the Parkland students, and there are talks of Russian bots being involved. I fully support the idea of coordinating pressure on sponsors to stop funding "offensive" public speakers as an extension of the democratic spirit. My logic is this: if corporations can fund huge lobbying forces and be considered "people" with the right to participate in political speech a la Citizens United, then citizens should be able to unite on their own to initiate a chain of events that streams money away from voices that these boycotters believe do more harm than good. Oppositional stances that I've heard seem to revolve around "the tyranny of political correctness" or "the culture of silencing dissent," yet these seem illogical to me, because as I see it, the right to free speech does not guarantee one to a livelihood making money off of their right to free speech, and that this "silencing" or "political correctness tyranny" is simply an extension of both democratic and free-market virtues. Sure, some might think it underhanded to rob someone of their livelihood because of something they said, but it seems counterintuitive to claim that the "stage" from which one spouts their "offensive" (putting the word offensive in quotes because I understand this is a subjective point of view dependent on the boycotters' beliefs, and I believe it's not quite relevant to this discussion lest it reap too many responses trying to parse out the meaning of the word "offensive" rather than focusing on the act of boycotting) beliefs should merit some kind of protection from boycotts, or even scolding/punishment of the boycotters, as this would be directly oppositional to democratic and free-market virtues. To be fair, most of these boycotts seem to tend to target (and effectively so) public figures with conservative leanings (if anyone has an example of a successful boycott campaign in the past ten years that had taking down a liberal-leaning speaker because the "boycott machine" (not to imply conspiracy here, just referring to the people who advocate boycotts) is upholding conservative values, I'd love to know about them), and so I can see this sort of discussion turning down partisan lines. Also, I understand that these boycotts do not necessarily fall down partisan lines, as there have been boycotts targeted against accused sexual harassers/abusers. While I am on the side that tends to believe that victims aren't lying when they accuse their alleged abusers, I am aware that there are numerous cases (though they are very, very far away from the majority) where accusations are unjust. I hold this view even in light of comedians and entertainers who, in some cases, have said something "offensive" long, long ago, like a racist quip, face a coordinated backlash through peoples' boycotts and may find their careers and livelihoods ruined. Like politicians, comedians and entertainers make their living off selling their publicity, and I believe boycotting is a legitimate form of free speech equal to the politician/comedian/entertainer's right of free speech. Essentially, free speech is free speech, but that doesn't mean it should create a world where free speech shouldn't have economic consequences, just a world free from governments and authorities using their power to punish free speech. EDIT: Wow! I'm a new-ish reddit user that has mostly stuck to lurking, but it's been an amazing experience of watching this post blow up in both upvotes and discussions. I've never felt this level or brand of "exposure" before, and I definitely feel like my views have been challenged on many different fronts. I tried to award deltas where I could, and I probably could have given more if I had the time to read more thoroughly with each and every post, but for time's sake, I could only respond to the handful that really caught my eye. I apologize if I did not engage with any particular person who really wanted their viewpoint engaged with specifically. At this point, I can report that my view had shifted every so slightly towards taking a more "moderate" level of conviction defining what boycotts are and what effect they have in reality. Here are some of my distilled interpretations of the various points that shifted my thinking: 1) Taking the implication of "ruining livelihoods" more seriously: I read a lot of arguments on this, and the main one that got to me was the idea that a boycott's inherent weakness is its propensity to "misfire" on its target and, thus, open the way for more backlash than intended. This doesn't change my views on the legal or even moral right (or even imperative, in a few cases, in examples like Rosa Parks) to boycott, but it has made my perspective more cautious when it comes to analyzing the processes behind boycotts. 2) The shadow-y realities of the way money moves: I've never been one to take pride in affiliating with any particular point on the political spectrum, but if forced to self-identify, I would identify myself as progressive-leaning. Because I'm progressive-leaning, I understand that I may not give as much time and analysis to more conservative voices when it comes to both social and fiscal issues, and my view shifted in terms of understanding how money moves in accordance to both react and instigate political change. 3) What is the nature of political participation in general?: This was an argument that I would summarize as questioning the very premise of how politics play out in general. Some posts were, I would say, more nihilistic-leaning, tearing apart the assumptions that support my general feelings about how politics play out. Other posts were more moderate, taking note of some relevant historical and legal context that I felt adequately addressed a weakness in my original viewpoint. In general, I lean towards a vision where I try to hold the ideals of democracy (the people's voice mattering) while trying to learn about all the various hindrances preventing this actually being the reality (because we know it's not that simple). I'm not ending my participation in this post, but I am saying that I've read a lot that has been distilled and added to my original way of thinking, thus shifting it. Because LIFE, I cannot keep as close an eye on this post as it continues to develop as I'd like. I just wanted to say my views did shift to view boycotts not as an entirely neutral or, in some cases, even valorous endeavor, as there are organizational and effectual limitations as wells as potential for less-than-noble agendas to flourish. _____ > 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!*	BookishRipple	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dwp8lb0", "score": 1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1522713111 }, { "author": "BookishRipple", "id": "dwp9c98", "score": 2, "text": "Also I don't want to be \"winning\" this argument without a fight! That's a pyrrhic victory in my eyes. I am trying to hone my political sensibilities in general when considering proper courses of action to make political change, and the subject of boycotts interest me as one of the most viable ways to achieve things. ", "timestamp": 1522714026 }, { "author": "Teeklin", "id": "dwpgeng", "score": 2, "text": "As with pretty much anything in this world, it's not black and white. ALL boycotts are neither good or bad. Everything has context, everything has nuance, and every specific situation will be different.\n\nLike any tool, it can be used for good or for harm. Life in general would be much easier if we could just make hard and fast rules like, \"Boycotts are always a good thing\" or \"Water is always good for you.\" But even something as seemingly straight forward as water, something that is a basic human need for survival, can still be bad for you. You can literally die from drinking too much of it.\n\nSo if we can't make black and white rules for something like that without exceptions, then everything has exceptions. And if everything has an exception, then everything has to be judged on its own merits. We just gotta use the wisdom that we've gained from studying the past and looking at objective facts and scientific evidence and make the best judgement we can on a case-by-case basis for basically everything in life.\n\nWe try to make laws and live by general codes and some things are basically universally agreed upon to the point that anyone who doesn't agree isn't really someone we want around on the planet (like someone who would disagree with the belief that \"no child should be raped\" or something that basically our entire species has a consensus on).\n\nBut for everything else, we just do the best we can to be good people and try to advance the species and make life better for the next generations to come after us in any way we can, the best way we know how.", "timestamp": 1522721842 } ]	[ { "author": "ThomasEdmund84", "id": "dwp8zhi", "score": 1, "text": "Mostly in agreement, however there is a snafu in terms of the free speech of the sponsor/provider \n\nThat's assuming the theory of advocates basically say to a sponsor - you will face a commercial backlash OR I suppose a commercial success (if you do) don't withdraw support of said person.\n\nThat means in theory the advocates are imposing coerced speech onto the sponsor - now that process is sort of allowed through the process of consumerism and the free market and it could be considered a deft political move but its not pure \"free speech\"", "timestamp": 1522713601 }, { "author": "BookishRipple", "id": "dwp934x", "score": 1, "text": "But what is \"pure\" free speech? Also, how can citizens taking advantage of the process of consumerism be considered \"less pure\" than corporations funding super PACs to essentially do the same function? ", "timestamp": 1522713722 }, { "author": "DodGamnBunofaSitch", "id": "dwpbdij", "score": 2, "text": "I think this point right here is where it all falls apart for the political right. - if corporations are legally persons, and money is free speech, then boycotts are exactly the tool that's left to the general populace to utilize to have their voice recognized by the political process.", "timestamp": 1522716436 } ]	[ "dwp8lb0", "dwp9c98", "dwpgeng" ]	[ "dwp8zhi", "dwp934x", "dwpbdij" ]
CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids. iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung? My first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. I asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. Most of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. Edit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. --- My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system? --- Android and Samsung have matured a lot in the last 5 years, both in terms of fluidity and build quality. The parent commenter is referring to how Apple is referred to as a "walled garden" where you can get almost anything you want and everything works, but you can't really step outside that ecosystem. --- [deleted] --- What's wrong with the walled garden? What really is so bad in it? I don't use my phone's charging cable to charge anything else. How do you get locked in software and services ecosystem? Can you tell me an example? When I used an iPhone I never experienced getting locked in their ecosystem. I still had my gmail what I use for example. --- Forced iOS updates, proprietary hardware with a premium price for replacement parts, product lines that consist entirely of one or two products at a time with a marketing scheme brilliant enough to pull in the masses, getting them hyped for features that have been available for months or years on other platforms. For most use cases, now iPhones are fine. 5-8 years ago in the beginnings of development they were closed, inaccessible devices that we're hell to develop for. I don't have a problem with the product so much as the mindset and support behind it. You buy a car. Two years later, you have the options of: that car, only slightly improved. While with Android, yes you can get those cheap $130 phones that can do calling and texting and that's about it, but if you look at devices in the same price range as the current Apple product, you will find something in the Android market that will 95% of the time blow the iPhone out of the water in terms of hardware and features.	Android is more customisable and allows greater freedom than iPhone. If this is important to you it's a no brainer. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was that on iPhone I couldn't even change the default browser (ie which browser opens when you clink on a link elsewhere). Maybe they changed this (I dont think they did) but it was symbolic to me of apple's "we'll tell you what you want, it isn't up to you". --- Oh! I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I would have a reason not to use their products. I mean what's wrong with their browser? --- The problems with their browser aren't really the point, the point is that they don't give the user options to do what they want. They just presume to know what users want. Although the actual problem I had with Safari since you asked was simply that I wanted my bookmarks to sync with my computer's browser, which wasn't a mac so wasn't Safari. Another problem that always pissed me off was how you couldn't get a file directory and explore the contents just by plugging the phone into your computer, i.e you couldn't use it like a USB stick. I can do that easily on my android (except, of course, using a macbook- trying to transfer files between android and mac is like eating glass). --- Oh I understand what you're saying, but I would be happy to use their options because they're good. And I never used my phone as a USB stick. I don't need that. I like how it has simple things that you can do and nothing too much. --- Are you saying that you prefer having less functionality? --- I'm saying I prefer less functionality if I'm not using it and don't need it.	96e235	CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids.	iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	0jcis	6	6	[ { "author": "Willivan0604", "id": "e3zswru", "score": 10, "text": "You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung?\n\nMy first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. \n\nI asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. \n\nMost of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. \n\nEdit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. ", "timestamp": 1533964386 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3ztxa8", "score": 0, "text": "My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system?", "timestamp": 1533965936 }, { "author": "MontiBurns", "id": "e3zu38q", "score": 5, "text": "Android and Samsung have matured a lot in the last 5 years, both in terms of fluidity and build quality.\n\nThe parent commenter is referring to how Apple is referred to as a \"walled garden\" where you can get almost anything you want and everything works, but you can't really step outside that ecosystem. ", "timestamp": 1533966200 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e3zvbtn", "score": 3, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1533968260 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3zw3wm", "score": 2, "text": "What's wrong with the walled garden? What really is so bad in it? I don't use my phone's charging cable to charge anything else. How do you get locked in software and services ecosystem? Can you tell me an example? When I used an iPhone I never experienced getting locked in their ecosystem. I still had my gmail what I use for example.", "timestamp": 1533969629 }, { "author": "youcanreachardy", "id": "e3zxcqn", "score": 4, "text": "Forced iOS updates, proprietary hardware with a premium price for replacement parts, product lines that consist entirely of one or two products at a time with a marketing scheme brilliant enough to pull in the masses, getting them hyped for features that have been available for months or years on other platforms. \n\nFor most use cases, now iPhones are fine. 5-8 years ago in the beginnings of development they were closed, inaccessible devices that we're hell to develop for. I don't have a problem with the product so much as the mindset and support behind it. \n\nYou buy a car. Two years later, you have the options of: that car, only slightly improved. While with Android, yes you can get those cheap $130 phones that can do calling and texting and that's about it, but if you look at devices in the same price range as the current Apple product, you will find something in the Android market that will 95% of the time blow the iPhone out of the water in terms of hardware and features. ", "timestamp": 1533971947 } ]	[ { "author": "PumpkinFeet", "id": "e3zvf19", "score": 5, "text": "Android is more customisable and allows greater freedom than iPhone. If this is important to you it's a no brainer.\n\nThe straw that broke the camel's back for me was that on iPhone I couldn't even change the default browser (ie which browser opens when you clink on a link elsewhere). Maybe they changed this (I dont think they did) but it was symbolic to me of apple's \"we'll tell you what you want, it isn't up to you\". ", "timestamp": 1533968418 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3zwbof", "score": 2, "text": "Oh! I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I would have a reason not to use their products. I mean what's wrong with their browser?", "timestamp": 1533970024 }, { "author": "PumpkinFeet", "id": "e3zwjxt", "score": 4, "text": "The problems with their browser aren't really the point, the point is that they don't give the user options to do what they want. They just presume to know what users want. \n\nAlthough the actual problem I had with Safari since you asked was simply that I wanted my bookmarks to sync with my computer's browser, which wasn't a mac so wasn't Safari. \n\nAnother problem that always pissed me off was how you couldn't get a file directory and explore the contents just by plugging the phone into your computer, i.e you couldn't use it like a USB stick. I can do that easily on my android (except, of course, using a macbook- trying to transfer files between android and mac is like eating glass).", "timestamp": 1533970444 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3zxhaq", "score": 2, "text": "Oh I understand what you're saying, but I would be happy to use their options because they're good. And I never used my phone as a USB stick. I don't need that. I like how it has simple things that you can do and nothing too much.", "timestamp": 1533972191 }, { "author": "claireapple", "id": "e40dy7c", "score": 2, "text": "Are you saying that you prefer having less functionality?", "timestamp": 1534000049 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e414j9e", "score": 1, "text": "I'm saying I prefer less functionality if I'm not using it and don't need it.", "timestamp": 1534027850 } ]	[ "e3zswru", "e3ztxa8", "e3zu38q", "e3zvbtn", "e3zw3wm", "e3zxcqn" ]	[ "e3zvf19", "e3zwbof", "e3zwjxt", "e3zxhaq", "e40dy7c", "e414j9e" ]
CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids. iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	Comparing mid range Android phones to Apple is really apples and oranges, both in terms of price and in quality/features. Especially, budget/midrange Samsung and LG phones from a few years ago. Fingerprint readers are basically standard, and metal or glass build is pretty much universal on every phone.over $200 bucks. Objectively speaking the galaxy s9 build is fucking fantastic. My friend was showing me his new iPhone X, and he was kind of disappointed, by the fact that he had bezels around the edges. He was much more impressed by the s8/s9, where the screen bends around the edges. As far as camera, they're all really close, but Samsung Galaxy S and Google Pixel are consistently rated higher than the iPhone, though it really comes down to personal preference. As for software and features, you can find shit like removable SD cards, and while you never remove them, it's much cheaper to spend $20 on a 64 gb SD card than it is to pay $100 more to jump up to 128gb internal storage. If you go cheap on the 32gb option, you might find yourself bogged down with photos and apps, and you're always trying to manufacture more space. As far as software and features are concerned, yes, Apple has better long term support, but it's really not that big.of a deal. An android phone running 4 year old Android 4.4 kit Kat won't have any compatibility issues with modern apps. A big advantage of Android is customizability. I have a custom launcher that I got off the play store and I have my homrscreen the way I like it, with the apps I use the most frequently organized in a way that works for me. Apple lacks that type of customizability. If you're looking to save money, there are a lot of compelling Android options out there, that offer different features and dimensions based on what you're looking for. I'm not gonna lie, the iPhone se is a good choice, and if it works for you, it works for you, but what works for you doesn't work for other people. --- Δ Wow! I can't disagree with you. I love iPhone's body and buttons and especially that mute switch! It's so awesome. But you're right. Everyone has their own preferences. You got a point there for storage. Can you suggest any phone to me that has a good performance and looks good? --- OnePlus consistently make phones that are comparable on specs to contemporary iPhones, and you might be particularly tempted by the fact that they generally have hardware mute-switches too (actually, it's a three-position slider, from normal-ring to vibrate to silent).	You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung? My first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. I asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. Most of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. Edit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. --- My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system? --- You can't use any apps from any other source but the app store.	96e235	CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids.	iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	0jcis	3	3	[ { "author": "MontiBurns", "id": "e3ztw63", "score": 17, "text": "Comparing mid range Android phones to Apple is really apples and oranges, both in terms of price and in quality/features. Especially, budget/midrange Samsung and LG phones from a few years ago. Fingerprint readers are basically standard, and metal or glass build is pretty much universal on every phone.over $200 bucks. \n\nObjectively speaking the galaxy s9 build is fucking fantastic. My friend was showing me his new iPhone X, and he was kind of disappointed, by the fact that he had bezels around the edges. He was much more impressed by the s8/s9, where the screen bends around the edges. \n\nAs far as camera, they're all really close, but Samsung Galaxy S and Google Pixel are consistently rated higher than the iPhone, though it really comes down to personal preference. \n\nAs for software and features, you can find shit like removable SD cards, and while you never remove them, it's much cheaper to spend $20 on a 64 gb SD card than it is to pay $100 more to jump up to 128gb internal storage. If you go cheap on the 32gb option, you might find yourself bogged down with photos and apps, and you're always trying to manufacture more space. \n\nAs far as software and features are concerned, yes, Apple has better long term support, but it's really not that big.of a deal. An android phone running 4 year old Android 4.4 kit Kat won't have any compatibility issues with modern apps. \n\nA big advantage of Android is customizability. I have a custom launcher that I got off the play store and I have my homrscreen the way I like it, with the apps I use the most frequently organized in a way that works for me. Apple lacks that type of customizability. \n\nIf you're looking to save money, there are a lot of compelling Android options out there, that offer different features and dimensions based on what you're looking for.\n\nI'm not gonna lie, the iPhone se is a good choice, and if it works for you, it works for you, but what works for you doesn't work for other people.", "timestamp": 1533965890 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3zvgo6", "score": 3, "text": " Δ Wow! I can't disagree with you. I love iPhone's body and buttons and especially that mute switch! It's so awesome. But you're right. Everyone has their own preferences. You got a point there for storage. Can you suggest any phone to me that has a good performance and looks good?", "timestamp": 1533968501 }, { "author": "DaraelDraconis", "id": "e400x3w", "score": 4, "text": "OnePlus consistently make phones that are comparable on specs to contemporary iPhones, and you might be particularly tempted by the fact that they generally have hardware mute-switches too (actually, it's a three-position slider, from normal-ring to vibrate to silent).", "timestamp": 1533979494 } ]	[ { "author": "Willivan0604", "id": "e3zswru", "score": 10, "text": "You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung?\n\nMy first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. \n\nI asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. \n\nMost of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. \n\nEdit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. ", "timestamp": 1533964386 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3ztxa8", "score": 0, "text": "My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system?", "timestamp": 1533965936 }, { "author": "Willivan0604", "id": "e3ztzb5", "score": 3, "text": "You can't use any apps from any other source but the app store. ", "timestamp": 1533966026 } ]	[ "e3ztw63", "e3zvgo6", "e400x3w" ]	[ "e3zswru", "e3ztxa8", "e3ztzb5" ]
CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids. iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	* No filesystem access Big pain for people who carry around their music libraries on portable media players (phones with DACs). Big pain for developers. * No debugging of an app unless iPhone hijacked to a Mac Massive pain for developers. * No system-level back button I guess it only matters if you're used to it, like a two button mouse. It does cause some pain with apps that don't implement their back button UIs, though. * Proprietary charging port Big pain for audiophiles, techies, folks with peripherals, etc. * Hard wired to Apple ecosystems Need an Apple account to use most features, need a Mac to do anything with the phone, need iTunes to transfer music, need Apple cables, Apple headsets, Apple everything. Most worthwhile Android devices use open standards for as much as they can, being compatible with pretty much anything. --- It's simplicity. I don't need to access my phone's filesystem. I don't think it's meant to do all that. Just simple everyday things to access calendar, check e-mail, listen music on Spotify, post on Instagram. At the beginning It was weird not having the back button, but you get used to it quickly and it feels great. It has everything I need in a phone nothing too much just very simple. That's what I like. I use charging port just to charge my phone. And don't you need a google account on androids to use most features? The only thing I needed was iTunes installed on my PC, but I don't think I need a mac. That would be crazy. --- >I don't need to access my phone's filesystem. But some do. And those aren't a few people We also do not need to have braille on medicine because most people are not blind but I think you agree it should be done Most people don't use the calendar functions of their phones but it would a big turn off to not have one Some people want more than simplicity on their phones	You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung? My first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. I asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. Most of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. Edit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. --- My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system? --- Android and Samsung have matured a lot in the last 5 years, both in terms of fluidity and build quality. The parent commenter is referring to how Apple is referred to as a "walled garden" where you can get almost anything you want and everything works, but you can't really step outside that ecosystem.	96e235	CMV: Apple iPhones seem better than androids.	iPhone smartphones seem a lot better to me. I don't know anything how good is the iPhone X and stuff, but from my experience I think they're well built, they look nice, IOS is convenient and clean. All my life I've used not too expensive android phones and I've also had a Microsoft windows phone. I've never owned any iPhone, but my girlfriend once gave me her iPhone 5s to use for a while and I was very surprised how premium it feels in hand and how good it looks. I loved the switch to mute sounds for it. That made it feel even a lot more fancy and stuff. And it was just the right weight and I've never seen any other smartphone built like iPhone with aluminum frame and looking so nice. I was using it and I loved the typing. I swear it was the best typing experience for me ever. I don't know how, but it just felt so quick, correct and simple. And IOS was so fancy looking with it's animations and it felt very handy. It was so smooth and clean to me. The camera was the greatest! I've never had so good camera in a phone like 5s had. It even had slow motion! And I loved the touch-ID unlocking. Without that experience I would have never even considered buying any iPhone, but now I see why people are buying them. I was amazed how long apple even supports them and sends new IOS updates. Now all androids just look very plastic and crappy to me by even just looking at their bodies. Now I'm about to buy a used iPhone SE and I don't understand why people are freaking out that androids have better functions and stuff. I didn't lack any. And they definitely don't feel as fancy and clean as iPhones do. I don't care that It doesn't have an SD card slot, I don't even ever take an SD card out of my android. There, can you change my mind? Maybe I decide to buy and android after all as I'm hearing that people are switching to androids and liking them better.	0jcis	3	3	[ { "author": "ludonarrator", "id": "e3zvmvi", "score": 3, "text": "* No filesystem access\n\nBig pain for people who carry around their music libraries on portable media players (phones with DACs). Big pain for developers.\n\n* No debugging of an app unless iPhone hijacked to a Mac\n\nMassive pain for developers.\n\n* No system-level back button\n\nI guess it only matters if you're used to it, like a two button mouse. It does cause some pain with apps that don't implement their back button UIs, though.\n\n* Proprietary charging port\n\nBig pain for audiophiles, techies, folks with peripherals, etc.\n\n* Hard wired to Apple ecosystems\n\nNeed an Apple account to use most features, need a Mac to do anything with the phone, need iTunes to transfer music, need Apple cables, Apple headsets, Apple everything. Most worthwhile Android devices use open standards for as much as they can, being compatible with pretty much anything.", "timestamp": 1533968795 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3zwzzd", "score": 0, "text": "It's simplicity. I don't need to access my phone's filesystem. I don't think it's meant to do all that. Just simple everyday things to access calendar, check e-mail, listen music on Spotify, post on Instagram. At the beginning It was weird not having the back button, but you get used to it quickly and it feels great. It has everything I need in a phone nothing too much just very simple. That's what I like. I use charging port just to charge my phone. And don't you need a google account on androids to use most features? The only thing I needed was iTunes installed on my PC, but I don't think I need a mac. That would be crazy.", "timestamp": 1533971268 }, { "author": "waitforitalex", "id": "e4020cp", "score": 3, "text": ">I don't need to access my phone's filesystem.\n\nBut some do. And those aren't a few people\n\nWe also do not need to have braille on medicine because most people are not blind but I think you agree it should be done\n\nMost people don't use the calendar functions of their phones but it would a big turn off to not have one\n\nSome people want more than simplicity on their phones", "timestamp": 1533982030 } ]	[ { "author": "Willivan0604", "id": "e3zswru", "score": 10, "text": "You admitted it yourself. You said your android phones have been cheap. iPhones are actually quality phones, because they aren't cheap. Ever try an expensive Samsung?\n\nMy first smartphone was an apple, because that's what I knew most about. \n\nI asked my android carrying friends about that system. I liked what I heard. So, my next phone was a Samsung. The quality of the device was awesome. The screen was bigger, but the Samsung was lighter. \n\nMost of all, I liked the freedom to choose where i got my music and where to store my files. I wasn't slave to one system. \n\nEdit: my current device has enough memory that I don't need an SD card. ", "timestamp": 1533964386 }, { "author": "0jcis", "id": "e3ztxa8", "score": 0, "text": "My dad got himself a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 back in 2012. I think it was a pretty expensive phone back then and I've used his phone. It didn't and doesn't feel as nice and clean as iPhone 5 for example. It's body is just made out of plastic with plastic buttons. Android software doesn't feel as clean. smooth and optimised as IOS. What do you mean by slave to one system?", "timestamp": 1533965936 }, { "author": "MontiBurns", "id": "e3zu38q", "score": 5, "text": "Android and Samsung have matured a lot in the last 5 years, both in terms of fluidity and build quality.\n\nThe parent commenter is referring to how Apple is referred to as a \"walled garden\" where you can get almost anything you want and everything works, but you can't really step outside that ecosystem. ", "timestamp": 1533966200 } ]	[ "e3zvmvi", "e3zwzzd", "e4020cp" ]	[ "e3zswru", "e3ztxa8", "e3zu38q" ]
CMV: People should not confide in friends for their mental health solutions. Edit: I more so mean if an \acquaintance\ whom I've \never told I was comfortable with them bringing up a serious and possibly triggering topic for me\ suddenly begins talking about \a very serious mental issue at an escalated level\, I don't think that should be my own responsibility. It would be different if you are close friends, if the mental situation is not at a very escalated level to the point of requiring professional attention, if the other person has expressed that they're comfortable listening to serious and possibly triggering topics. I just believe that there's a line to be drawn, and conditions to be met before confiding in another person. I've been in situations now and in the past where some people I know have confided in me for their mental health support/needs. I understand that they may need support, advice, comfort, etc. (I myself needed that a few years ago), but I think it's unfair to put that responsibility on friends instead of professionals like a therapist or a mental health hotline. It's not right to put something as serious as your own mental health onto other people who although may be your friend or acquaintance, are not trained in the handling of a serious and sensitive situation. It may come off as heartless and unsupportive to say that I don't want my friends to dump their mental problems on me, but there's a line to be drawn. I'm willing to help very close friends in minor mental health situations, but nothing further than that. This can lead to problems for both people involved -- the friend being told this info may feel guilty if something happens, they may say something triggering, they may simply stress and worry about how they handled the situation. The other person should know better than to bring a huge responsibility like their own mental health to a friend.	I don't believe someone should hold their friends "responsible" for their mental health, but taking that statement to the extreme of "don't communicate your mental health challenges to your friends" doesn't line up for me. Denying the interdependence we have with our social sphere is just the sort of thing that can bring about mental illness - you're describing a willfull self-isolation for all intents and purposes, and that is in contrast to nearly everything we know about mental illness (which is that it is often a social disease, rooted in challenges of relationships with others). Put another way, your _therapist_ would absolutely be concerned if you were not confiding in your friends that you were struggling - this would become part of the understanding of the problems of the patient and something to work on. --- Gotcha I understand. But next q, how can I as the friend receiving this information be there for the person without feeling a weight of responsibility? Where's the line for what you say to a therapist versus a friend? Also, in my situation now, and I didn't mention this before, the person confiding in me is not a close friend at all. We've only known each other for a little while, and the friendship is one-sided, where I have less of an interest in getting closer as friends. Should I still be there for him? --- Speaking as someone who both has her own mental health struggles and has in the past taken on too much responsibility for the mental health of her friends, it's all about striking a balance between support and treatment. If your friend is telling you what they're going through, be an open and nonjudgmental ear. Tell them their experience sounds hard, you're proud of them for pushing onward, you're here for them if they need anything. Provide support by checking in on them, by helping them get out of the house, by reminding them you care. If it seems appropriate, or if they start to lean on you too hard, ask if they're seeing a therapist. It's totally okay to tell a friend that while you love them, you're not a professional and can't treat them. "You know I'm always here for you, but I'm not a mental health expert or anything. Are you seeing a therapist? (Or, "It really sounds like you should see a therapist.") They can help you work through this a lot better than I can." It's also okay to tell a friend if you're not up for supporting them in a given moment. One of the hardest things for me to learn was how to say, "I love you and I hope you're okay, but I cannot be this person for you tonight. Do you have someone else you can call?" We all want to give of ourselves when we can, but sometimes we haven't got the spoons, and that's okay.	Everything is related to mental health. We wouldn't be able to have any conversations at all with our friends if this was our rule. I think the main thing you're pointing out here that I agree with is the way this sort of thing can create a bad power dynamic (usually accidentally). But this can be mitigated with communication: making it ok to bow out, giving people space to say they simply don't know how to help, etc. --- Gotcha. I think the person who confided in me should've said something like 'Can I talk to you about this or that,' or 'Are you okay with talking about something serious like ___.' And on my side, I should say that I'm not willing to talk about it and would rather refer you to another friend or a professional. I guess it comes off as a little cold, but I'm really not okay with talking to this person about his mental state (especially because we are not close friends, and I used to be mentally ill years ago and do not want to continue conversations on the topic, as I'm in a better state now). Thank you for your help!Δ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PreacherJudge ([257∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PreacherJudge)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	gepgje	CMV: People should not confide in friends for their mental health solutions.	Edit: I more so mean if an \acquaintance\ whom I've \never told I was comfortable with them bringing up a serious and possibly triggering topic for me\ suddenly begins talking about \a very serious mental issue at an escalated level\, I don't think that should be my own responsibility. It would be different if you are close friends, if the mental situation is not at a very escalated level to the point of requiring professional attention, if the other person has expressed that they're comfortable listening to serious and possibly triggering topics. I just believe that there's a line to be drawn, and conditions to be met before confiding in another person. I've been in situations now and in the past where some people I know have confided in me for their mental health support/needs. I understand that they may need support, advice, comfort, etc. (I myself needed that a few years ago), but I think it's unfair to put that responsibility on friends instead of professionals like a therapist or a mental health hotline. It's not right to put something as serious as your own mental health onto other people who although may be your friend or acquaintance, are not trained in the handling of a serious and sensitive situation. It may come off as heartless and unsupportive to say that I don't want my friends to dump their mental problems on me, but there's a line to be drawn. I'm willing to help very close friends in minor mental health situations, but nothing further than that. This can lead to problems for both people involved -- the friend being told this info may feel guilty if something happens, they may say something triggering, they may simply stress and worry about how they handled the situation. The other person should know better than to bring a huge responsibility like their own mental health to a friend.	00evilhag	3	3	[ { "author": "iamintheforest", "id": "fpotga9", "score": 14, "text": "I don't believe someone should hold their friends \"responsible\" for their mental health, but taking that statement to the extreme of \"don't communicate your mental health challenges to your friends\" doesn't line up for me.\n\nDenying the interdependence we have with our social sphere is just the sort of thing that can bring about mental illness - you're describing a willfull self-isolation for all intents and purposes, and that is in contrast to nearly everything we know about mental illness (which is that it is often a social disease, rooted in challenges of relationships with others). \n\nPut another way, your _therapist_ would absolutely be concerned if you were not confiding in your friends that you were struggling - this would become part of the understanding of the problems of the patient and something to work on.", "timestamp": 1588790366 }, { "author": "00evilhag", "id": "fpovf90", "score": 0, "text": "Gotcha I understand. But next q, how can I as the friend receiving this information be there for the person without feeling a weight of responsibility? Where's the line for what you say to a therapist versus a friend?\nAlso, in my situation now, and I didn't mention this before, the person confiding in me is not a close friend at all. We've only known each other for a little while, and the friendship is one-sided, where I have less of an interest in getting closer as friends. Should I still be there for him?", "timestamp": 1588791328 }, { "author": "palacesofparagraphs", "id": "fpqiqbs", "score": 3, "text": "Speaking as someone who both has her own mental health struggles and has in the past taken on too much responsibility for the mental health of her friends, it's all about striking a balance between support and treatment.\n\nIf your friend is telling you what they're going through, be an open and nonjudgmental ear. Tell them their experience sounds hard, you're proud of them for pushing onward, you're here for them if they need anything. Provide support by checking in on them, by helping them get out of the house, by reminding them you care.\n\nIf it seems appropriate, or if they start to lean on you too hard, ask if they're seeing a therapist. It's totally okay to tell a friend that while you love them, you're not a professional and can't treat them. \"You know I'm always here for you, but I'm not a mental health expert or anything. Are you seeing a therapist? (Or, \"It really sounds like you should see a therapist.\") They can help you work through this a lot better than I can.\"\n\nIt's also okay to tell a friend if you're not up for supporting them in a given moment. One of the hardest things for me to learn was how to say, \"I love you and I hope you're okay, but I cannot be this person for you tonight. Do you have someone else you can call?\" We all want to give of ourselves when we can, but sometimes we haven't got the spoons, and that's okay.", "timestamp": 1588823729 } ]	[ { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "fpot4dh", "score": 2, "text": "Everything is related to mental health. We wouldn't be able to have any conversations at all with our friends if this was our rule.\n\nI think the main thing you're pointing out here that I agree with is the way this sort of thing can create a bad power dynamic (usually accidentally). But this can be mitigated with communication: making it ok to bow out, giving people space to say they simply don't know how to help, etc.", "timestamp": 1588790203 }, { "author": "00evilhag", "id": "fpovtka", "score": 1, "text": "Gotcha. I think the person who confided in me should've said something like 'Can I talk to you about this or that,' or 'Are you okay with talking about something serious like ___.' And on my side, I should say that I'm not willing to talk about it and would rather refer you to another friend or a professional. I guess it comes off as a little cold, but I'm really not okay with talking to this person about his mental state (especially because we are not close friends, and I used to be mentally ill years ago and do not want to continue conversations on the topic, as I'm in a better state now). \n\nThank you for your help!Δ", "timestamp": 1588791524 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "fpovvn7", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PreacherJudge ([257∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PreacherJudge)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1588791552 } ]	[ "fpotga9", "fpovf90", "fpqiqbs" ]	[ "fpot4dh", "fpovtka", "fpovvn7" ]
CMV: I don't care what Elon Musk believes, as long as technological advancements continue Okie doke, so this is my first CMV, so I'm just spitballing how this works rn. In any other case, I'm utterly indifferent to Elon Musk's political beliefs. I only care about any scientific/technological advancements he spearheads. This includes Neuralink, Space X, etc. I think any scientific advancements he makes should far outweigh any political stance he has. The only thing off the top of my head that's controversial is Elon purchasing Twitter. He wasted a shitload of money on a social media website that doesn't have any bearing on how humanity advances.	Ok? Technological advancements like the single-car, short... tunnel? What view do you want changed? You want us to convince you to care what he thinks? I don't care what he thinks; he's an odious piece of shit. --- No, the opposite, really. I don't care what he believes. He can be a libertarian or far-left. But u/VarencaMetStekeltjes hit on all the main points. He's created or heavily invested in companies that progress society as a whole. --- >No, the opposite, really. I don't care what he believes. He can be a libertarian or far-left. But > >u/VarencaMetStekeltjes > > hit on all the main points. He's created or heavily invested in companies that progress society as a whole. I don't get what view you want changed. --- In simple terms, what can you do to make me interested in Elon Musk's beliefs? --- I think in terms of his main role, a business investor, he’s pretty inconsistent. Like I get that pointing to his cringe inducing interviews is low hanging fruit, but this guy holds a lot of power in the industry. He seems like a coked out CEO who is looking for attention. That’s not who you want in charge of anything life saving. He’s shown with Ukraine that he’s willing to revoke access to this technology based on a whim and a massive disregard for the big picture. Him being so decisive and pretty sporadic is not good when he seemingly can revoke access to life saving technology if he doesn’t like someone. He’s also highly corruptible by being paid by wannabe dictators to restrict access/hide information from oppressed groups and the rest of the world. I could not care less about his cockamamie politics, but he can be bought, and he has the temperament of that one kid that would win every argument with “well it’s my house” then rip a controller out of your hands.	Political beliefs aren’t separate from scientific and technological progress — policy absolutely effects who goes into science, what science they are able to do, and how that science is commercialized. --- And what's the problem with Neuralink, space travel, electric cars, and AI? --- Should be easy to figure those problems out. Elon Musk has himself admitted that he wants an "anti-woke AI". So, essentially a robot to further and support his beliefs. --- >Elon Musk has himself admitted that he wants an "anti-woke AI". So, essentially a robot to further and support his beliefs. I think what he means is an AI that won't be lobotomized for political purposes, which is how things currently are. For example refusing to make jokes about some identity groups but more than happy to do so for others. --- Yeah but it could mean a lot of other things too, the problem with Elon and a lot of people who use “woke” as a target board is that their goals aren’t clear but who they ally with is.	1ahg8bw	CMV: I don't care what Elon Musk believes, as long as technological advancements continue	Okie doke, so this is my first CMV, so I'm just spitballing how this works rn. In any other case, I'm utterly indifferent to Elon Musk's political beliefs. I only care about any scientific/technological advancements he spearheads. This includes Neuralink, Space X, etc. I think any scientific advancements he makes should far outweigh any political stance he has. The only thing off the top of my head that's controversial is Elon purchasing Twitter. He wasted a shitload of money on a social media website that doesn't have any bearing on how humanity advances.	CheJunSev	5	5	[ { "author": "Bobbob34", "id": "konu31z", "score": 127, "text": "Ok?\n\nTechnological advancements like the single-car, short... tunnel?\n\nWhat view do you want changed? You want us to convince you to care what he thinks? I don't care what he thinks; he's an odious piece of shit.", "timestamp": 1706915919 }, { "author": "CheJunSev", "id": "konvu6l", "score": -21, "text": "No, the opposite, really. I don't care what he believes. He can be a libertarian or far-left. But u/VarencaMetStekeltjes hit on all the main points. He's created or heavily invested in companies that progress society as a whole.", "timestamp": 1706916613 }, { "author": "Bobbob34", "id": "konwlza", "score": 38, "text": ">No, the opposite, really. I don't care what he believes. He can be a libertarian or far-left. But \n> \n>u/VarencaMetStekeltjes \n> \n> hit on all the main points. He's created or heavily invested in companies that progress society as a whole.\n\nI don't get what view you want changed.", "timestamp": 1706916924 }, { "author": "CheJunSev", "id": "konx2dz", "score": -13, "text": "In simple terms, what can you do to make me interested in Elon Musk's beliefs?", "timestamp": 1706917104 }, { "author": "Mint_JewLips", "id": "koo14yl", "score": 38, "text": "I think in terms of his main role, a business investor, he’s pretty inconsistent.\n\nLike I get that pointing to his cringe inducing interviews is low hanging fruit, but this guy holds a lot of power in the industry. He seems like a coked out CEO who is looking for attention. That’s not who you want in charge of anything life saving.\n\nHe’s shown with Ukraine that he’s willing to revoke access to this technology based on a whim and a massive disregard for the big picture.\n\nHim being so decisive and pretty sporadic is not good when he seemingly can revoke access to life saving technology if he doesn’t like someone.\n\nHe’s also highly corruptible by being paid by wannabe dictators to restrict access/hide information from oppressed groups and the rest of the world.\n\nI could not care less about his cockamamie politics, but he can be bought, and he has the temperament of that one kid that would win every argument with “well it’s my house” then rip a controller out of your hands.", "timestamp": 1706918725 } ]	[ { "author": "Weekly-Personality14", "id": "konvzwc", "score": 51, "text": "Political beliefs aren’t separate from scientific and technological progress — policy absolutely effects who goes into science, what science they are able to do, and how that science is commercialized. ", "timestamp": 1706916677 }, { "author": "CheJunSev", "id": "konwc01", "score": -11, "text": "And what's the problem with Neuralink, space travel, electric cars, and AI?", "timestamp": 1706916813 }, { "author": "10ebbor10", "id": "kony4ar", "score": 35, "text": "Should be easy to figure those problems out. \n\nElon Musk has himself admitted that he wants an \"anti-woke AI\". So, essentially a robot to further and support his beliefs.", "timestamp": 1706917525 }, { "author": "HelpfulJello5361", "id": "koo1639", "score": -21, "text": ">Elon Musk has himself admitted that he wants an \"anti-woke AI\". So, essentially a robot to further and support his beliefs.\n\nI think what he means is an AI that won't be lobotomized for political purposes, which is how things currently are. For example refusing to make jokes about some identity groups but more than happy to do so for others.", "timestamp": 1706918737 }, { "author": "BobTehCat", "id": "koo1xa0", "score": 13, "text": "Yeah but it could mean a lot of other things too, the problem with Elon and a lot of people who use “woke” as a target board is that their goals aren’t clear but who they ally with is.", "timestamp": 1706919028 } ]	[ "konu31z", "konvu6l", "konwlza", "konx2dz", "koo14yl" ]	[ "konvzwc", "konwc01", "kony4ar", "koo1639", "koo1xa0" ]
CMV: There is no reason to pursue a career I am a seventeen-year-old male and I don't think there is any reason to get a job or pursue a career. This is for three reasons. The first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills. Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women. Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am. _____ > 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 first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills. Living on welfare is tough. It means spending a lot of time carefully budgeting. Even if you're content with a pretty simple life, being poor is limiting in many ways. It means it's hard to allow yourself any luxuries. Your day-to-day life might be pretty cheap, but what about when it's time to buy birthday presents for people you love, and you've got $3 to spare? What about when your friends invite you out to a movie and you can't afford a ticket? Furthermore, living on the bare minimum it takes to survive means you can't plan for emergencies. What happens when your sink breaks and you don't have money for a plumber? What happens when you get sick and can't afford a visit to the doctor? What happens when your wallet gets stolen and that was all your grocery money for this week? >Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women. You seem to be under the impression that a career can't be enjoyable. Certainly some jobs are just jobs and they pay the bills, but if you find something you love to do, work can be rewarding and even fun. Also, where are you going to meet this girlfriend if you don't have coworkers and you don't have any money for group hobbies? I understand that you want to be liked for who you are and not what you have. That's very reasonable. But that doesn't mean you should have nothing. In fact, the decision to actively reject work and live off welfare says a lot about who you are. >Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am. Do you really believe that people who live off welfare are better off than people who have jobs? The whole reason they receive government benefits is that they can't survive without them. Yes, it's frustrating to see a large chunk of your paycheck sent to the government. But most of it is going to things like maintaining roads and providing you with running water. And the money that is going to welfare recipients is going to them because they are worse off than you are, for all of the reasons I outlined above. --- > You seem to be under the impression that a career can't be enjoyable. Certainly, some jobs are just jobs and they pay the bills, but if you find something you love to do, work can be rewarding and even fun. Also, where are you going to meet this girlfriend if you don't have coworkers and you don't have any money for group hobbies? I understand that you want to be liked for who you are and not what you have. That's very reasonable. But that doesn't mean you should have nothing. In fact, the decision to actively reject work and live off welfare says a lot about who you are. I was planning on finding a girlfriend in my next year of high school or in university but just not trying to do things that are often called "long term thinking" because they demand I sacrifice things I want for things I don't want. If I were to get my number one priority goal complete I might decide to pursue another goal which could be something career related !delta but for now, I need to do what is the most important to me and will sacrifice anything to achieve my goal --- What is your goal? --- Have a relationship while I am still young. --- Hey man, young is til at least your early 30s. Why not do 2,3,4,etc goals at once? No need to take it one at a time, you gotta multi-task. What's your background? --- My mother is a doctor and my father is an economist. They both wasted their youths and I don't want to repeat their mistake. --- And you think the way to not waste your youth is to literally abandon all other pursuits in order to pursue a short-term relationship? Because I can tell you one thing: my youth was a hell of a lot more exciting than this pathetic "plan" you've laid out here.	You are a lazy person who doesn't want to do anything to make yourself into a more productive person. The far majority of woman don't find that attractive. Most women I know find that unattractive as they would be the one supporting you. And if they do date you, they will leave you at the first chance they can get. And people on welfare don't tend to have internet or video games. And if you're not looking for work, welfare benefits do run out. And if you have zero education then you are going to be very limited. I guessing that you still have a massive amount of things given to you. Life is going to be a lot more different when you don't have those things. --- I see it as being a tradeoff between relationships now and later. Personally I would much rather have one now than later. It is not because I am impatient but rather because I see there as being a qualitative difference between them now in highschool and university vs later in life. If I could work very hard through a career to have a high school or university relationship at the end I would do it so I am not lazy, I just have my priorities straight. --- I don't think you know how sucky it is to be poor. I really don't think you understand how much life wucks when you can afford internet or video games. You sound like you have never had to create a budget or been responsible for much of anything along the lines of rent, food, internet and all the other fun stuff. Being poor is no fun. Eating rice and a few steamed veggies for a weeks on end sucks. --- I personally see it as a loan. I am getting the good parts of life (or a probability of getting it) now in exchange for paying off my debt with the rest of my life, maybe I will try to get a job later in life but I do not see why I should waste my youth on work even if I get a payoff when I am older. --- You don't ever get your time back. If you spend a lot of time doing shit all it never comes back. You can't just turn on a switch and be Mr. productive. You would have no work experience. And man being poor isn't the good parts of your life. I have worked hard enough that if I want to get a hamburger tonight I can. You will simply have to do without. If I wanted to buy a new computer today, I could. You will have to do without. I can take my wife on a real date and we can do real things. You will have to go without. I now you think that you will have this great time ahead of you, but man being poor sucks. --- I think that you fundamentally have lost out since you didn't put enough effort into relationships when you were young. Sure you can do all sorts of stuff now but the human brain and physiology change with age, people get less emotional (and male testosterone reduces) so experiences in youth mean a lot more than experiences later in life so I don't think that it would be possible to make up for lost experiences in your youth with experiences in adulthood. --- If there is something I want to do...I can do it. Since I have a job that gives me money. You can't. You will have things you want to do and then not be able to do them. You will be on the outside looking in.	5ukljk	CMV: There is no reason to pursue a career	I am a seventeen-year-old male and I don't think there is any reason to get a job or pursue a career. This is for three reasons. The first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills. Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women. Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am. _____ > 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!*	Blood_tree	7	7	[ { "author": "palacesofparagraphs", "id": "ddus1pq", "score": 2, "text": ">The first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills.\n\nLiving on welfare is tough. It means spending a lot of time carefully budgeting. Even if you're content with a pretty simple life, being poor is limiting in many ways. It means it's hard to allow yourself any luxuries. Your day-to-day life might be pretty cheap, but what about when it's time to buy birthday presents for people you love, and you've got $3 to spare? What about when your friends invite you out to a movie and you can't afford a ticket? Furthermore, living on the bare minimum it takes to survive means you can't plan for emergencies. What happens when your sink breaks and you don't have money for a plumber? What happens when you get sick and can't afford a visit to the doctor? What happens when your wallet gets stolen and that was all your grocery money for this week?\n\n>Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women.\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that a career can't be enjoyable. Certainly some jobs are just jobs and they pay the bills, but if you find something you love to do, work can be rewarding and even fun. Also, where are you going to meet this girlfriend if you don't have coworkers and you don't have any money for group hobbies? I understand that you want to be liked for who you are and not what you have. That's very reasonable. But that doesn't mean you should have nothing. In fact, the decision to actively reject work and live off welfare says a lot about who you are.\n\n>Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am.\n\nDo you really believe that people who live off welfare are better off than people who have jobs? The whole reason they receive government benefits is that they can't survive without them. Yes, it's frustrating to see a large chunk of your paycheck sent to the government. But most of it is going to things like maintaining roads and providing you with running water. And the money that is going to welfare recipients is going to them because they are worse off than you are, for all of the reasons I outlined above.", "timestamp": 1487314467 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddusuic", "score": 0, "text": "> You seem to be under the impression that a career can't be enjoyable. Certainly, some jobs are just jobs and they pay the bills, but if you find something you love to do, work can be rewarding and even fun. Also, where are you going to meet this girlfriend if you don't have coworkers and you don't have any money for group hobbies? I understand that you want to be liked for who you are and not what you have. That's very reasonable. But that doesn't mean you should have nothing. In fact, the decision to actively reject work and live off welfare says a lot about who you are.\n\nI was planning on finding a girlfriend in my next year of high school or in university but just not trying to do things that are often called \"long term thinking\" because they demand I sacrifice things I want for things I don't want. If I were to get my number one priority goal complete I might decide to pursue another goal which could be something career related !delta but for now, I need to do what is the most important to me and will sacrifice anything to achieve my goal\n", "timestamp": 1487316435 }, { "author": "Randomnamegun", "id": "ddutq8v", "score": 1, "text": "What is your goal?", "timestamp": 1487318782 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddutuci", "score": 2, "text": "Have a relationship while I am still young.", "timestamp": 1487319104 }, { "author": "mrmilitia86", "id": "dduz1ly", "score": 5, "text": "Hey man, young is til at least your early 30s. Why not do 2,3,4,etc goals at once? No need to take it one at a time, you gotta multi-task. \n \nWhat's your background?", "timestamp": 1487334575 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddvk5t5", "score": 2, "text": "My mother is a doctor and my father is an economist. They both wasted their youths and I don't want to repeat their mistake.", "timestamp": 1487362317 }, { "author": "locriology", "id": "ddw69zk", "score": 3, "text": "And you think the way to not waste your youth is to literally abandon all other pursuits in order to pursue a short-term relationship? Because I can tell you one thing: my youth was a hell of a lot more exciting than this pathetic \"plan\" you've laid out here.", "timestamp": 1487394348 } ]	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddurydq", "score": 2, "text": "You are a lazy person who doesn't want to do anything to make yourself into a more productive person. \n\nThe far majority of woman don't find that attractive. Most women I know find that unattractive as they would be the one supporting you. \n\nAnd if they do date you, they will leave you at the first chance they can get. \n\nAnd people on welfare don't tend to have internet or video games. \n\nAnd if you're not looking for work, welfare benefits do run out. And if you have zero education then you are going to be very limited. \n\nI guessing that you still have a massive amount of things given to you. \n\nLife is going to be a lot more different when you don't have those things. ", "timestamp": 1487314254 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddusozg", "score": 1, "text": "I see it as being a tradeoff between relationships now and later. Personally I would much rather have one now than later. It is not because I am impatient but rather because I see there as being a qualitative difference between them now in highschool and university vs later in life. If I could work very hard through a career to have a high school or university relationship at the end I would do it so I am not lazy, I just have my priorities straight.", "timestamp": 1487316043 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddusqxm", "score": 4, "text": "I don't think you know how sucky it is to be poor. \n\nI really don't think you understand how much life wucks when you can afford internet or video games. \n\nYou sound like you have never had to create a budget or been responsible for much of anything along the lines of rent, food, internet and all the other fun stuff. \n\nBeing poor is no fun. \n\nEating rice and a few steamed veggies for a weeks on end sucks. ", "timestamp": 1487316181 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddut407", "score": 1, "text": "I personally see it as a loan. I am getting the good parts of life (or a probability of getting it) now in exchange for paying off my debt with the rest of my life, maybe I will try to get a job later in life but I do not see why I should waste my youth on work even if I get a payoff when I am older.", "timestamp": 1487317116 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddut71l", "score": 6, "text": "You don't ever get your time back. \n\nIf you spend a lot of time doing shit all it never comes back. \n\nYou can't just turn on a switch and be Mr. productive. You would have no work experience. \n\nAnd man being poor isn't the good parts of your life. \n\nI have worked hard enough that if I want to get a hamburger tonight I can. You will simply have to do without. \n\nIf I wanted to buy a new computer today, I could. You will have to do without. \n\nI can take my wife on a real date and we can do real things. You will have to go without. \n\nI now you think that you will have this great time ahead of you, but man being poor sucks. ", "timestamp": 1487317341 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddutjht", "score": 0, "text": "I think that you fundamentally have lost out since you didn't put enough effort into relationships when you were young. Sure you can do all sorts of stuff now but the human brain and physiology change with age, people get less emotional (and male testosterone reduces) so experiences in youth mean a lot more than experiences later in life so I don't think that it would be possible to make up for lost experiences in your youth with experiences in adulthood.", "timestamp": 1487318278 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddutnel", "score": 4, "text": "If there is something I want to do...I can do it. Since I have a job that gives me money. You can't. \n\nYou will have things you want to do and then not be able to do them. \n\nYou will be on the outside looking in. ", "timestamp": 1487318568 } ]	[ "ddus1pq", "ddusuic", "ddutq8v", "ddutuci", "dduz1ly", "ddvk5t5", "ddw69zk" ]	[ "ddurydq", "ddusozg", "ddusqxm", "ddut407", "ddut71l", "ddutjht", "ddutnel" ]
CMV: There is no reason to pursue a career I am a seventeen-year-old male and I don't think there is any reason to get a job or pursue a career. This is for three reasons. The first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills. Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women. Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am. _____ > 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 are a lazy person who doesn't want to do anything to make yourself into a more productive person. The far majority of woman don't find that attractive. Most women I know find that unattractive as they would be the one supporting you. And if they do date you, they will leave you at the first chance they can get. And people on welfare don't tend to have internet or video games. And if you're not looking for work, welfare benefits do run out. And if you have zero education then you are going to be very limited. I guessing that you still have a massive amount of things given to you. Life is going to be a lot more different when you don't have those things. --- I see it as being a tradeoff between relationships now and later. Personally I would much rather have one now than later. It is not because I am impatient but rather because I see there as being a qualitative difference between them now in highschool and university vs later in life. If I could work very hard through a career to have a high school or university relationship at the end I would do it so I am not lazy, I just have my priorities straight. --- I don't think you know how sucky it is to be poor. I really don't think you understand how much life wucks when you can afford internet or video games. You sound like you have never had to create a budget or been responsible for much of anything along the lines of rent, food, internet and all the other fun stuff. Being poor is no fun. Eating rice and a few steamed veggies for a weeks on end sucks. --- I personally see it as a loan. I am getting the good parts of life (or a probability of getting it) now in exchange for paying off my debt with the rest of my life, maybe I will try to get a job later in life but I do not see why I should waste my youth on work even if I get a payoff when I am older. --- You don't ever get your time back. If you spend a lot of time doing shit all it never comes back. You can't just turn on a switch and be Mr. productive. You would have no work experience. And man being poor isn't the good parts of your life. I have worked hard enough that if I want to get a hamburger tonight I can. You will simply have to do without. If I wanted to buy a new computer today, I could. You will have to do without. I can take my wife on a real date and we can do real things. You will have to go without. I now you think that you will have this great time ahead of you, but man being poor sucks. --- I think that you fundamentally have lost out since you didn't put enough effort into relationships when you were young. Sure you can do all sorts of stuff now but the human brain and physiology change with age, people get less emotional (and male testosterone reduces) so experiences in youth mean a lot more than experiences later in life so I don't think that it would be possible to make up for lost experiences in your youth with experiences in adulthood. --- What is this "losing out" that you keep referring to? I had an awesome time in HS, went to college, had an even better time there... constantly partying, etc. (Im gay, so i was in the closet and missed out on the sex/relationship stuff till i was 21ish but my friends had tons of fun with girls). Now i have a good job and have just as much fun, plus a relationship, tons of sex, etc. What exactly am i trading off? Do you really think it would have been worth it for me to go to a few more parties, fail out of school, and now be working for minimum wage? --- Since you didn't have the chance great sex/relationships in high school you won't feel as bad about the mediocre sex/relationships. You don't realize what you missed out on and you would be happier if you had sex at 16. --- > you would be happier if you had sex at 16 I can say with almost absolute certainty that my current happiness would not be greater right now if I had sex at 16. Implying something as unimportant as a one night stand in HS would affect how happy I am now is asinine. I'm also pretty confused... I think you might be the only person I know who thinks the sex is better in HS... sure there may be more of it, but the quality is pretty much agreed upon to be much better in your 20s. My friends fooled around with tons of girls and had tons of sex, theyre all in similar situations as I am now. We have good jobs and still have tons of fun. Where is the trade off you keep referring to? --- If you had experienced it younger then you would be more confident in your current relationships. There is less sex in high school but due to it being more in relationships as opposed to one night stands, once people's frontal lobes develop they will become less emotional and thus have less capacity for intimacy. The tradeoff only occurs for people like me unlucky enough to have the tradeoff. Some people are just naturally lucky and have everything in their life come together without effort or tradeoff. --- > If you had experienced it younger then you would be more confident in your current relationships -How do you know that loosing one's virginity at a younger age leads to confidence in later relationships? You yourself are 17 and do not yet know what the consequences of sex will be on your confidence. Also, at what age does the benefit of having sex younger stop? > less emotional and thus have less capacity for intimacy -Your understanding of intimacy is fundamentally flawed. Sure, intimacy requires emotional capacities, but if those capacities are immature and inexperienced how can they produce excellent relationships? It is like claiming that Fast and Furious invokes the emotion more profoundly than Apocalypse Now. I mean, sure, the former makes you feel something invigorating and immediate, but is it superior to the latter? Obviously taste in film is subjective, but I am interested to see how you will respond to the analogy.	When you're living in poverty you won't be able to afford really anything besides living. You will have a hard time affording housing, much less decent internet nor a good computer to play games. If you get into debt, which is likely as a poor person, you can be stuck with garnished wages, and even possession of personal property -- pretty hard to play games when your computer is taken. Plus, the stipulation of welfare is that you are required to work on getting off welfare. Still, lets say you're a little lucky. You manage to keep your health for a little while, which is hard and a constant struggle because you won't be able to afford a good diet, good hygiene, and good habits in general. Sitting for long periods of the day (playing video games) has an extremely detrimental effect on your heart health. Plus you won't be able to purchase a new computer with no income, and you won't be able to expand your game library if you have no income. So you're stuck one accident away from having nothing due to a bill you can't pay, an aging computer/console because you can't afford anything else, and a game library that only expands if you find beg/steal/get lucky. Now you talk about finding a girlfriend. It might not be impossible, but if you're being all "they have to accept me for who I am" -- you don't seem to consider the real possibility that no one will step up to claim a jobless gamer as a prize. After all, women can find gamers that have a lot more going for them in our current society; if you don't offer anything a more well-adjusted gamer doesn't, it's not likely you'll find a romantic partner. Basically, nothing you've projected will come to pass. It is extremely likely that living in poverty with no upward aspirations that you will become homeless. And then that's it. Game over. No computer, no video games, no real entertainment. Just a struggle to survive. Then you'll have to deal with a decent chance of being a substance abuser, having even worse health, constant exposure to elements, higher incidence of violence, and an early grave. And for the record, the government takes very little in taxes from those that make very little. And you will never, ever make less just because you jumped up to another tax bracket. That's not how the system works. --- > Now you talk about finding a girlfriend. It might not be impossible, but if you're being all "they have to accept me for who I am" -- you don't seem to consider the real possibility that no one will step up to claim a jobless gamer as a prize. After all, women can find gamers that have a lot more going for them in our current society; if you don't offer anything a more well-adjusted gamer doesn't, it's not likely you'll find a romantic partner. > What I intend on doing is devoting my life to creating the appearance of a well-adjusted individual so that I could enter into a relationship. I see this differently than getting money to enter a relationship since the woman would think she was loving me for who I was which is the thing I really care about. --- Well... 1) You ignored the realities of the entire rest of my post. Like, ignoring those things don't conveniently make them not true or any less relevant. 2) Appearances are thin -- more so if you're poor. Living on the edge of poverty means you won't be able to afford decent hygiene items, you won't be able to afford any nice clothes, nice shoes, a reliable car (or even a car at all), etc. None of those things individually mean all that much most of the time, but they combine to generate your appearance. Plus, the illusion gets dispelled pretty quickly when you can't afford to do really anything external. Can't go out anywhere that isn't free or near free, can't travel, can't try new foods/restaurants, etc. Lets imagine an A/B test, where A is you, the potentially jobless gamer, and B is a gamer with a decent job. Both of you are average looking (neither more "handsome" than the other) and both of you offer similar personalities. You have to find bargain clothes, take the bus or other cheap transit, and you can't afford anything that isn't extremely cheap -- even if you go "dutch." B is able to afford a better wardrobe, personal means of transportation, and can afford some modest outings. There's honestly no reason for someone to choose you, in that situation. --- The way I come out better than B is because while B is putting effort into starting a career (and thus a poor student) I will be dating women and pretending to be a student, eventually they will leave me for B but I got them in their primes so I came out better although he gets more pleasure towards the end of his life. --- > B is putting effort into starting a career (and thus a poor student) What? How on earth does that follow? If anything, the opposite is true. --- He will not have the time to date and I will have the time to date since I am doing nothing else with my life --- ... that doesn't have anything to do with my point. You claimed that someone putting effort into starting a career is a poor student. Why do you think this? Education is an important factor in starting a career. --- Yes but I am as of yet unconvinced that starting a career is worth the early sacrifices. --- You're still not addressing my point. --- Why would the opposite be true? --- I asked first. I'll answer that after you've addressed my point.	5ukljk	CMV: There is no reason to pursue a career	I am a seventeen-year-old male and I don't think there is any reason to get a job or pursue a career. This is for three reasons. The first is that it won't give me anything I desire. I am perfectly fine living on almost nothing. I did a calculation of my future costs and found that they are well within the range of what I will be getting for welfare so I see no reason to try and get a job to pay bills. Secondly opportunity cost. For the time I spend getting a job and working I could be doing things I want to do. I could be trying to get a girlfriend or using the internet or playing video games and get a better value for my time. And before someone says that women are attracted to money I am not interested in them if they are, I want to be liked for who I am rather than for money, and I am not interested in older women. Thirdly I will have the government take away what I earn and give it to the more fortunate. If I were to work a large portion of my income would go to people who have much better lives than I do. WalMart will get a large chunk of my income and so will people who are in relationships or otherwise I in better social situations than I am. _____ > 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!*	Blood_tree	11	11	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddurydq", "score": 2, "text": "You are a lazy person who doesn't want to do anything to make yourself into a more productive person. \n\nThe far majority of woman don't find that attractive. Most women I know find that unattractive as they would be the one supporting you. \n\nAnd if they do date you, they will leave you at the first chance they can get. \n\nAnd people on welfare don't tend to have internet or video games. \n\nAnd if you're not looking for work, welfare benefits do run out. And if you have zero education then you are going to be very limited. \n\nI guessing that you still have a massive amount of things given to you. \n\nLife is going to be a lot more different when you don't have those things. ", "timestamp": 1487314254 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddusozg", "score": 1, "text": "I see it as being a tradeoff between relationships now and later. Personally I would much rather have one now than later. It is not because I am impatient but rather because I see there as being a qualitative difference between them now in highschool and university vs later in life. If I could work very hard through a career to have a high school or university relationship at the end I would do it so I am not lazy, I just have my priorities straight.", "timestamp": 1487316043 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddusqxm", "score": 4, "text": "I don't think you know how sucky it is to be poor. \n\nI really don't think you understand how much life wucks when you can afford internet or video games. \n\nYou sound like you have never had to create a budget or been responsible for much of anything along the lines of rent, food, internet and all the other fun stuff. \n\nBeing poor is no fun. \n\nEating rice and a few steamed veggies for a weeks on end sucks. ", "timestamp": 1487316181 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddut407", "score": 1, "text": "I personally see it as a loan. I am getting the good parts of life (or a probability of getting it) now in exchange for paying off my debt with the rest of my life, maybe I will try to get a job later in life but I do not see why I should waste my youth on work even if I get a payoff when I am older.", "timestamp": 1487317116 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "ddut71l", "score": 6, "text": "You don't ever get your time back. \n\nIf you spend a lot of time doing shit all it never comes back. \n\nYou can't just turn on a switch and be Mr. productive. You would have no work experience. \n\nAnd man being poor isn't the good parts of your life. \n\nI have worked hard enough that if I want to get a hamburger tonight I can. You will simply have to do without. \n\nIf I wanted to buy a new computer today, I could. You will have to do without. \n\nI can take my wife on a real date and we can do real things. You will have to go without. \n\nI now you think that you will have this great time ahead of you, but man being poor sucks. ", "timestamp": 1487317341 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddutjht", "score": 0, "text": "I think that you fundamentally have lost out since you didn't put enough effort into relationships when you were young. Sure you can do all sorts of stuff now but the human brain and physiology change with age, people get less emotional (and male testosterone reduces) so experiences in youth mean a lot more than experiences later in life so I don't think that it would be possible to make up for lost experiences in your youth with experiences in adulthood.", "timestamp": 1487318278 }, { "author": "Removalsc", "id": "dduu96m", "score": 3, "text": "What is this \"losing out\" that you keep referring to? I had an awesome time in HS, went to college, had an even better time there... constantly partying, etc. (Im gay, so i was in the closet and missed out on the sex/relationship stuff till i was 21ish but my friends had tons of fun with girls). Now i have a good job and have just as much fun, plus a relationship, tons of sex, etc. What exactly am i trading off? Do you really think it would have been worth it for me to go to a few more parties, fail out of school, and now be working for minimum wage?", "timestamp": 1487320256 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "dduvtab", "score": 1, "text": "Since you didn't have the chance great sex/relationships in high school you won't feel as bad about the mediocre sex/relationships. You don't realize what you missed out on and you would be happier if you had sex at 16.", "timestamp": 1487325009 }, { "author": "Removalsc", "id": "dduw42f", "score": 8, "text": "> you would be happier if you had sex at 16\n\nI can say with almost absolute certainty that my current happiness would not be greater right now if I had sex at 16. Implying something as unimportant as a one night stand in HS would affect how happy I am now is asinine. \n \n \nI'm also pretty confused... I think you might be the only person I know who thinks the sex is better in HS... sure there may be more of it, but the quality is pretty much agreed upon to be much better in your 20s.\n\nMy friends fooled around with tons of girls and had tons of sex, theyre all in similar situations as I am now. We have good jobs and still have tons of fun. Where is the trade off you keep referring to?", "timestamp": 1487325998 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "dduwakv", "score": 1, "text": "If you had experienced it younger then you would be more confident in your current relationships. \n\nThere is less sex in high school but due to it being more in relationships as opposed to one night stands, once people's frontal lobes develop they will become less emotional and thus have less capacity for intimacy.\n\nThe tradeoff only occurs for people like me unlucky enough to have the tradeoff. Some people are just naturally lucky and have everything in their life come together without effort or tradeoff.", "timestamp": 1487326584 }, { "author": "catskills1234", "id": "de1u5yu", "score": 2, "text": "> If you had experienced it younger then you would be more confident in your current relationships\n\n-How do you know that loosing one's virginity at a younger age leads to confidence in later relationships? You yourself are 17 and do not yet know what the consequences of sex will be on your confidence. Also, at what age does the benefit of having sex younger stop? \n\n> less emotional and thus have less capacity for intimacy\n\n-Your understanding of intimacy is fundamentally flawed. Sure, intimacy requires emotional capacities, but if those capacities are immature and inexperienced how can they produce excellent relationships? It is like claiming that Fast and Furious invokes the emotion more profoundly than Apocalypse Now. I mean, sure, the former makes you feel something invigorating and immediate, but is it superior to the latter? Obviously taste in film is subjective, but I am interested to see how you will respond to the analogy. ", "timestamp": 1487732845 } ]	[ { "author": "hooj", "id": "ddurv1c", "score": 6, "text": "When you're living in poverty you won't be able to afford really anything besides living. You will have a hard time affording housing, much less decent internet nor a good computer to play games. If you get into debt, which is likely as a poor person, you can be stuck with garnished wages, and even possession of personal property -- pretty hard to play games when your computer is taken. Plus, the stipulation of welfare is that you are required to work on getting off welfare. \n \nStill, lets say you're a little lucky. You manage to keep your health for a little while, which is hard and a constant struggle because you won't be able to afford a good diet, good hygiene, and good habits in general. Sitting for long periods of the day (playing video games) has an extremely detrimental effect on your heart health. Plus you won't be able to purchase a new computer with no income, and you won't be able to expand your game library if you have no income. \n\nSo you're stuck one accident away from having nothing due to a bill you can't pay, an aging computer/console because you can't afford anything else, and a game library that only expands if you find beg/steal/get lucky. \n\nNow you talk about finding a girlfriend. It might not be impossible, but if you're being all \"they have to accept me for who I am\" -- you don't seem to consider the real possibility that no one will step up to claim a jobless gamer as a prize. After all, women can find gamers that have a lot more going for them in our current society; if you don't offer anything a more well-adjusted gamer doesn't, it's not likely you'll find a romantic partner. \n\nBasically, nothing you've projected will come to pass. It is extremely likely that living in poverty with no upward aspirations that you will become homeless. And then that's it. Game over. No computer, no video games, no real entertainment. Just a struggle to survive. Then you'll have to deal with a decent chance of being a substance abuser, having even worse health, constant exposure to elements, higher incidence of violence, and an early grave. \n\nAnd for the record, the government takes very little in taxes from those that make very little. And you will never, ever make less just because you jumped up to another tax bracket. That's not how the system works.", "timestamp": 1487314043 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddus8jw", "score": -1, "text": "> Now you talk about finding a girlfriend. It might not be impossible, but if you're being all \"they have to accept me for who I am\" -- you don't seem to consider the real possibility that no one will step up to claim a jobless gamer as a prize. After all, women can find gamers that have a lot more going for them in our current society; if you don't offer anything a more well-adjusted gamer doesn't, it's not likely you'll find a romantic partner.\n> \n\nWhat I intend on doing is devoting my life to creating the appearance of a well-adjusted individual so that I could enter into a relationship. I see this differently than getting money to enter a relationship since the woman would think she was loving me for who I was which is the thing I really care about.", "timestamp": 1487314918 }, { "author": "hooj", "id": "ddusnim", "score": 6, "text": "Well... \n\n1) You ignored the realities of the entire rest of my post. Like, ignoring those things don't conveniently make them not true or any less relevant.\n\n2) Appearances are thin -- more so if you're poor. Living on the edge of poverty means you won't be able to afford decent hygiene items, you won't be able to afford any nice clothes, nice shoes, a reliable car (or even a car at all), etc. None of those things individually mean all that much most of the time, but they combine to generate your appearance. Plus, the illusion gets dispelled pretty quickly when you can't afford to do really anything external. Can't go out anywhere that isn't free or near free, can't travel, can't try new foods/restaurants, etc. \n\nLets imagine an A/B test, where A is you, the potentially jobless gamer, and B is a gamer with a decent job. Both of you are average looking (neither more \"handsome\" than the other) and both of you offer similar personalities. \n\nYou have to find bargain clothes, take the bus or other cheap transit, and you can't afford anything that isn't extremely cheap -- even if you go \"dutch.\"\n\nB is able to afford a better wardrobe, personal means of transportation, and can afford some modest outings. \n\nThere's honestly no reason for someone to choose you, in that situation. ", "timestamp": 1487315944 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddut790", "score": -1, "text": "The way I come out better than B is because while B is putting effort into starting a career (and thus a poor student) I will be dating women and pretending to be a student, eventually they will leave me for B but I got them in their primes so I came out better although he gets more pleasure towards the end of his life.", "timestamp": 1487317357 }, { "author": "redesckey", "id": "ddvax5n", "score": 3, "text": "> B is putting effort into starting a career (and thus a poor student)\n\nWhat? How on earth does that follow? If anything, the opposite is true.", "timestamp": 1487351538 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddvjlns", "score": 1, "text": "He will not have the time to date and I will have the time to date since I am doing nothing else with my life", "timestamp": 1487361649 }, { "author": "redesckey", "id": "ddvkpk2", "score": 3, "text": "... that doesn't have anything to do with my point. You claimed that someone putting effort into starting a career is a poor student. Why do you think this? Education is an important factor in starting a career.", "timestamp": 1487362952 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddvku3z", "score": 1, "text": "Yes but I am as of yet unconvinced that starting a career is worth the early sacrifices.", "timestamp": 1487363099 }, { "author": "redesckey", "id": "ddvl0yg", "score": 2, "text": "You're still not addressing my point.", "timestamp": 1487363320 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "ddvl88s", "score": 1, "text": "Why would the opposite be true?", "timestamp": 1487363558 }, { "author": "redesckey", "id": "ddvlbeg", "score": 1, "text": "I asked first. I'll answer that after you've addressed my point.", "timestamp": 1487363663 } ]	[ "ddurydq", "ddusozg", "ddusqxm", "ddut407", "ddut71l", "ddutjht", "dduu96m", "dduvtab", "dduw42f", "dduwakv", "de1u5yu" ]	[ "ddurv1c", "ddus8jw", "ddusnim", "ddut790", "ddvax5n", "ddvjlns", "ddvkpk2", "ddvku3z", "ddvl0yg", "ddvl88s", "ddvlbeg" ]
CMV:blm doesnt actually care about black lives as the black lives matter "protests" continue you constantly see that its mostly white people fighting for things a majority of black people dont even agree with or things that dont help them a few examples include defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods the fact that the "protests" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages and finnally blm seems to be making a bigger deal out of arguable nothing i know multiple people who have said they treat black people not necisarily less but different now because of the things that have been going on all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community and i am open to changing my view with evidence to the contrary edit because people have accused me of not wanting to change my mind if someone showed me some things they did that actually helped that would prove me wrong	> the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages Can you expand what you mean by this? Are you saying BLM favors the dismantling the nuclear family? Can I have a source for that? --- its on the www.blacklivesmatter.com towards the bottom of what we beleive blm the orginasation says on there website the favor dismantling the nuclear family which is the two parent household in favor of a sorta commune where everyone raises everyone --- It's more expanding, not making smaller. --- then why dont they say expanding instead of dismantling? --- They don't say dismantling the nuclear family. Here is the text: >We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. It's pretty clear they are saying that nuclear families shouldn't be required, not that they need to be dismantled.	You make some pretty big claims that aren't supported. --- which ones id be happy to get your sources --- So ... your Forbes source doesn't support your claim that >the "protests" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year And includes deaths like >Javar Harrell, 21, Michigan: Harrell was shot May 29 as protests erupted in Detroit; his family has said that he was not protesting and it’s not clear whether his death is connected to the protests. > >Barry Perkins, 29, Missouri: The St. Louis resident was reportedly run over and killed by a FedEx truck while attending a protest on May 30. > >Chris Beaty, 38, Indiana: Just a few feet from his apartment, the former Indiana University football player and local business owner was killed on May 30 amid unrest in Indianapolis. --- the first one the guy died at the protest but they dont know enough soo who did kill him? i will give you the second one and again "amid unreast" sooo who else was there causing unrest other then the protesters? --- amid unrest ... Was his apartment building the site of the protest?	its3xc	CMV:blm doesnt actually care about black lives	as the black lives matter "protests" continue you constantly see that its mostly white people fighting for things a majority of black people dont even agree with or things that dont help them a few examples include defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods the fact that the "protests" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages and finnally blm seems to be making a bigger deal out of arguable nothing i know multiple people who have said they treat black people not necisarily less but different now because of the things that have been going on all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community and i am open to changing my view with evidence to the contrary edit because people have accused me of not wanting to change my mind if someone showed me some things they did that actually helped that would prove me wrong	Elikorm	5	5	[ { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5gkc8l", "score": 1, "text": "> the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages\n\nCan you expand what you mean by this? Are you saying BLM favors the dismantling the nuclear family? Can I have a source for that?", "timestamp": 1600254118 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gl4by", "score": 1, "text": "its on the www.blacklivesmatter.com towards the bottom of what we beleive\n\nblm the orginasation says on there website the favor dismantling the nuclear family which is the two parent household in favor of a sorta commune where everyone raises everyone", "timestamp": 1600254882 }, { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5glbmq", "score": 3, "text": "It's more expanding, not making smaller.", "timestamp": 1600255072 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5glf2p", "score": 1, "text": "then why dont they say expanding instead of dismantling?", "timestamp": 1600255164 }, { "author": "PatientCriticism0", "id": "g5gulaw", "score": 2, "text": "They don't say dismantling the nuclear family. \n\nHere is the text:\n\n>We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.\n\nIt's pretty clear they are saying that nuclear families shouldn't be required, not that they need to be dismantled.", "timestamp": 1600262056 } ]	[ { "author": "Trimestrial", "id": "g5gf64c", "score": 7, "text": "You make some pretty big claims that aren't supported.", "timestamp": 1600248406 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gf8cq", "score": 3, "text": "which ones id be happy to get your sources", "timestamp": 1600248475 }, { "author": "Trimestrial", "id": "g5gg2nw", "score": 3, "text": "So ... your Forbes source doesn't support your claim that \n\n>the \"protests\" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year\n\nAnd includes deaths like \n\n>Javar Harrell, 21, Michigan: Harrell was shot May 29 as protests erupted in Detroit; his family has said that he was not protesting and it’s not clear whether his death is connected to the protests. \n> \n>Barry Perkins, 29, Missouri: The St. Louis resident was reportedly run over and killed by a FedEx truck while attending a protest on May 30. \n> \n>Chris Beaty, 38, Indiana: Just a few feet from his apartment, the former Indiana University football player and local business owner was killed on May 30 amid unrest in Indianapolis. ", "timestamp": 1600249459 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gga4o", "score": 4, "text": "the first one the guy died at the protest but they dont know enough soo who did kill him?\n\ni will give you the second one\n\nand again \"amid unreast\" sooo who else was there causing unrest other then the protesters?", "timestamp": 1600249697 }, { "author": "Trimestrial", "id": "g5ggfjb", "score": 4, "text": "amid unrest ... Was his apartment building the site of the protest?", "timestamp": 1600249870 } ]	[ "g5gkc8l", "g5gl4by", "g5glbmq", "g5glf2p", "g5gulaw" ]	[ "g5gf64c", "g5gf8cq", "g5gg2nw", "g5gga4o", "g5ggfjb" ]
CMV:blm doesnt actually care about black lives as the black lives matter "protests" continue you constantly see that its mostly white people fighting for things a majority of black people dont even agree with or things that dont help them a few examples include defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods the fact that the "protests" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages and finnally blm seems to be making a bigger deal out of arguable nothing i know multiple people who have said they treat black people not necisarily less but different now because of the things that have been going on all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community and i am open to changing my view with evidence to the contrary edit because people have accused me of not wanting to change my mind if someone showed me some things they did that actually helped that would prove me wrong	> all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community BLM isn't an organization, it's a movement. It doesn't have a centralized structure of any kind or a managing body. It doesn't have a charter or a unified platform. Saying that BLM does or doesn't do or stand for something is always going to be inaccurate because anyone can say they're part of BLM and bring whatever ideas or beliefs they want to the table. It's not like we can check for a membership card or something to decide if they're really part of BLM or not. At its core, BLM does care about black lives. But, like any large movement that spreads between millions of different people across an large area, that core meaning gets twisted and misrepresented. I don't believe that BLM should be judged as a whole based on the actions of some people who claim to stand with them. --- https://blacklivesmatter.com/ they are most definetly an orginasation and my critique is on that orgniasation found right there who takes donations --- I'm aware that they have a website and take donations, but that doesn't change anything I said. I can create a website and start taking donations in the next few minutes. Would that mean I then have an organization? The point I was trying to make is that there is no way to offically designate someone as a member of the real BLM movement. If I go outside right now and start burning down houses while chanting "BLM!", does that mean it's accurate to say "BLM burned down houses today"? No, it does not, because I'm not part of the true BLM movement simply because I say I am. Since you found your way to the BLM website, how about reading a few things on it? Specifically, the [part that talks about what the MOVEMENT believes.](https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Those are the core beliefs that I referenced in my last post. That is what BLM is. --- i have read what they beleive thats where the nuclear family part comes from furthermor the cofounder of the movement said rioting was reperations so who can we blame then? --- [deleted] --- We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” towards the bottom of there what we beleive section --- [deleted] --- there discouraging it and as i said multiple people who study crime and likelyhood of commiting a crime tie a large percentage of it back to families with no father --- > as i said multiple people who study crime and likelyhood of commiting a crime tie a large percentage of it back to families with no father They are very explicitly trying to solve this. They want a system that helps care for children who have fatherless homes. They aren't encouraging fatherlessness. They are doing the thing that you want.	>defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods These seemingly contradictory statements actually underly far more complex feelings, if you look at them in detail. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21292046/black-people-abolish-defund-dismantle-police-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-black-lives-matter-protest >the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages This canard again. Aside from the obvious note that the website is just a website, not a universally approved doctrine, it doesn't actually say what you claim it says. >We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. This is not advocating for single parent households. It is in fact opposite for exactly the opposite. BLM wants to support extended families, that being 2 parents + children + extended family + community. Here's 2 articles that explain this idea. It's hardly new, and BLM did not invent it. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/nuclear-family-multigenerational-cohousing-depaulo/606511/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/ --- collectively care for one another to the degree that mothers parents and children are comfortable sounds like everyone protects everyone and we dont need parents to be parents that for the community as a whole? also if its not the website that can be the source for there beleifs who is this is my main question cause multiple people have told me this but then i dont understand who i can go to to learn what they stand for? --- That's the point - it's not an organization, it is a movement, it's like saying "civil rights organization". MLK had his ideas, so did Farrakhan, but they both were interested in civil rights. That seems to be your main misunderstanding. --- soo this is a no true scotsman paradox and you cant condemm it because anything you condemm is only some of them? --- You can condemn actions, absolutely. But BLM is not something you can "join", pay dues, get a membership card, be expelled from. It's a philosophy, not an organization. People involved in that philosophy have made websites, but that doesn't mean they control the members. --- there is an orginasation tho? you can join it? even then throw out the arguments about specific beleifs there are other ways they have harmed the black community --- No, there isn't. There is a philosophy. You can make a website supporting "blue lives matter", that doesn't mean you control it or that it is an organization. It's like #metoo, no one controls that, it is a general movement that was started by people, but no one determines who is allowed to participate or what they believe. --- there is a website that excepts donations and sets up satelite orginasations you can be a part of --- That doesn't negate the fact it is just a website.	its3xc	CMV:blm doesnt actually care about black lives	as the black lives matter "protests" continue you constantly see that its mostly white people fighting for things a majority of black people dont even agree with or things that dont help them a few examples include defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods the fact that the "protests" have killed more unarmed black people then the police have this year the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages and finnally blm seems to be making a bigger deal out of arguable nothing i know multiple people who have said they treat black people not necisarily less but different now because of the things that have been going on all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community and i am open to changing my view with evidence to the contrary edit because people have accused me of not wanting to change my mind if someone showed me some things they did that actually helped that would prove me wrong	Elikorm	9	9	[ { "author": "everyonewantsalog", "id": "g5gfew1", "score": 7, "text": "> all in all i personally think the blm movement is a terrorist orginasation that has done more harm then good to the black community\n\nBLM isn't an organization, it's a movement. It doesn't have a centralized structure of any kind or a managing body. It doesn't have a charter or a unified platform. Saying that BLM does or doesn't do or stand for something is always going to be inaccurate because anyone can say they're part of BLM and bring whatever ideas or beliefs they want to the table. It's not like we can check for a membership card or something to decide if they're really part of BLM or not. \n\nAt its core, BLM does care about black lives. But, like any large movement that spreads between millions of different people across an large area, that core meaning gets twisted and misrepresented. I don't believe that BLM should be judged as a whole based on the actions of some people who claim to stand with them.", "timestamp": 1600248690 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gfike", "score": 3, "text": "https://blacklivesmatter.com/\n\nthey are most definetly an orginasation and my critique is on that orgniasation found right there who takes donations", "timestamp": 1600248811 }, { "author": "everyonewantsalog", "id": "g5gg2dc", "score": 2, "text": "I'm aware that they have a website and take donations, but that doesn't change anything I said. I can create a website and start taking donations in the next few minutes. Would that mean I then have an organization?\n\nThe point I was trying to make is that there is no way to offically designate someone as a member of the real BLM movement. If I go outside right now and start burning down houses while chanting \"BLM!\", does that mean it's accurate to say \"BLM burned down houses today\"? No, it does not, because I'm not part of the true BLM movement simply because I say I am.\n\nSince you found your way to the BLM website, how about reading a few things on it? Specifically, the [part that talks about what the MOVEMENT believes.](https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Those are the core beliefs that I referenced in my last post. That is what BLM is.", "timestamp": 1600249449 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gg7wq", "score": 0, "text": "i have read what they beleive thats where the nuclear family part comes from\n\nfurthermor the cofounder of the movement said rioting was reperations so who can we blame then?", "timestamp": 1600249626 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g5gl7bc", "score": 2, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1600254960 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5glbt0", "score": 0, "text": "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages”\n\ntowards the bottom of there what we beleive section", "timestamp": 1600255077 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g5gloye", "score": 9, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1600255420 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gm0t5", "score": 1, "text": "there discouraging it and as i said multiple people who study crime and likelyhood of commiting a crime tie a large percentage of it back to families with no father", "timestamp": 1600255725 }, { "author": "UncleMeat11", "id": "g5gvtvn", "score": 7, "text": "> as i said multiple people who study crime and likelyhood of commiting a crime tie a large percentage of it back to families with no father\n\nThey are very explicitly trying to solve this. They want a system that helps care for children who have fatherless homes. They aren't encouraging fatherlessness. They are doing the thing that you want.", "timestamp": 1600262821 } ]	[ { "author": "10ebbor10", "id": "g5ggk63", "score": 9, "text": ">defunding the police - yet 80% of black people want the same or more policing in there neighborhoods\n\nThese seemingly contradictory statements actually underly far more complex feelings, if you look at them in detail.\n\nhttps://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21292046/black-people-abolish-defund-dismantle-police-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-black-lives-matter-protest\n\n>the dismantling of the nuclear family is also mentioned on the blm website but multiple studies point thr high rate of crime among the black community to the single parent housholds the blm encourages\n\nThis canard again. Aside from the obvious note that the website is just a website, not a universally approved doctrine, it doesn't actually say what you claim it says.\n\n>We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.\n\nThis is not advocating for single parent households. It is in fact opposite for exactly the opposite. BLM wants to support extended families, that being 2 parents + children + extended family + community.\n\nHere's 2 articles that explain this idea. It's hardly new, and BLM did not invent it.\n\nhttps://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/nuclear-family-multigenerational-cohousing-depaulo/606511/\n\nhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/", "timestamp": 1600250014 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5ggvre", "score": 3, "text": "collectively care for one another to the degree that mothers parents and children are comfortable sounds like everyone protects everyone and we dont need parents to be parents that for the community as a whole?\n\nalso if its not the website that can be the source for there beleifs who is this is my main question cause multiple people have told me this but then i dont understand who i can go to to learn what they stand for?", "timestamp": 1600250383 }, { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5gh72j", "score": 9, "text": "That's the point - it's not an organization, it is a movement, it's like saying \"civil rights organization\". MLK had his ideas, so did Farrakhan, but they both were interested in civil rights. That seems to be your main misunderstanding.", "timestamp": 1600250733 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5ghari", "score": 4, "text": "soo this is a no true scotsman paradox and you cant condemm it because anything you condemm is only some of them?", "timestamp": 1600250847 }, { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5ghmhy", "score": 7, "text": "You can condemn actions, absolutely. But BLM is not something you can \"join\", pay dues, get a membership card, be expelled from.\n\nIt's a philosophy, not an organization. People involved in that philosophy have made websites, but that doesn't mean they control the members.", "timestamp": 1600251211 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5ghr7l", "score": 6, "text": "there is an orginasation tho? you can join it?\neven then throw out the arguments about specific beleifs there are other ways they have harmed the black community", "timestamp": 1600251359 }, { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5ghxeh", "score": 6, "text": "No, there isn't. There is a philosophy. You can make a website supporting \"blue lives matter\", that doesn't mean you control it or that it is an organization. It's like #metoo, no one controls that, it is a general movement that was started by people, but no one determines who is allowed to participate or what they believe.", "timestamp": 1600251547 }, { "author": "Elikorm", "id": "g5gi2y1", "score": 2, "text": "there is a website that excepts donations and sets up satelite orginasations you can be a part of", "timestamp": 1600251717 }, { "author": "sapphireminds", "id": "g5gi6zk", "score": 7, "text": "That doesn't negate the fact it is just a website.", "timestamp": 1600251842 } ]	[ "g5gfew1", "g5gfike", "g5gg2dc", "g5gg7wq", "g5gl7bc", "g5glbt0", "g5gloye", "g5gm0t5", "g5gvtvn" ]	[ "g5ggk63", "g5ggvre", "g5gh72j", "g5ghari", "g5ghmhy", "g5ghr7l", "g5ghxeh", "g5gi2y1", "g5gi6zk" ]
CMV: Shouldn't we stop saying that gender is a social construct? Let me preface this by saying that I have multiple trans/queer* friends and I totally respect however they choose to identify. I was even what people would call a social justice warrior for a very long time. I still think I am, but am not so quick to take such strong views anymore because I realize more and more that the stiffer we get with our beliefs, on either side of the spectrum, we open ourselves to paradoxes and contradictions. I was just flipping through my AP Psych prep book today and got to 3 theories of gender-role development: biopsychological (genetics produce gender roles), psychodynamic (Freud-y, gender development arises out of parental competition and eventual realization of the futility of that fight), and social-cognitive (the effects of society on the development of gender). My question is something like this: if we mean to devalue the contemporaneous relative cultural value of gender by reducing it to nothing more than a "social construct", then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with? Is this more than an illusory reclaim of power over the social construct that has caused so many people so much distress? I don't know that I have any real solution to the problem I present. I am not even sure that it is a real problem, there may be some simple way of looking at it that hasn't occurred to me and relieves the tension between the two ideas. If it is still unclear, I just want to know how we can attempt to reconcile these two points: (1) Gender is arbitrary and (2) I deserve to be seen as the gender I identify with. How can we claim to identify ourselves within something that has seemed to suffocate us? I apologize if this seems tone-deaf or something. I honestly do not mean it that way, and sincerely respect the wishes of everyone to express themselves in the way they feel is appropriate for them. i take more issue with the seeming attempt to tear down the... construct of gender. Thanks for taking the time to consider this stuff, I am very interested in what people have to say. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> if we mean to devalue the contemporaneous relative cultural value of gender by reducing it to nothing more than a "social construct", then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with? Saying gender is a social construct is an objective fact, based on the contemporary definition of gender. There is no inherent political meaning to that statement. It's like saying that Pulp Fiction came out in 1994. > then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with? That's like asking "Why do people like Pulp Fiction enough to wear Pulp Fiction T-shirts and hang framed Pulp Fiction posters?" Emphasizing gender is really important to some people, and not very important to others. It's based on people's subjective opinions. --- I understand what you're saying but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Perhaps tangentially related (or within the same paradox I'm trying to communicate) I don't understand, "Pink isn't necessarily feminine, but I am going to wear pink to convey my femininity." I guess they're not mutually exclusive? >Saying gender is a social construct is an objective fact, based on the contemporary definition of gender. There is no inherent political meaning to that statement. In the context that I usually see this point being made, it is almost always to be intended as a political statement, even if it is not inherently so. --- >"Pink isn't necessarily feminine, but I am going to wear pink to convey my femininity." These statements can coexist. Pink can be feminine to the person who likes it. "Is not necessarily" is not "necessarily is not".	Gender being a social construct does not mean it is arbitrary. Money, government, jobs, language, and culture are all social constructs, but would you call them arbitrary? The reason these concepts as well as gender exist is because they are social functions of human behavior. --- Sorry if this was unclear. I mean to say that when I see people say that gender is a social construct, it is usually meant as a way to ?devalue gender roles? It almost always comes off as pejorative. This is the issue that I take. So then maybe the problem is not that we identify gender as a social construct, but that we do so pejoratively? ∆ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Love_Shaq_Baby ([29∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Love_Shaq_Baby)). ^[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": "Love_Shaq_Baby" } DB3PARAMSEND)	63rjzg	CMV: Shouldn't we stop saying that gender is a social construct?	Let me preface this by saying that I have multiple trans/queer* friends and I totally respect however they choose to identify. I was even what people would call a social justice warrior for a very long time. I still think I am, but am not so quick to take such strong views anymore because I realize more and more that the stiffer we get with our beliefs, on either side of the spectrum, we open ourselves to paradoxes and contradictions. I was just flipping through my AP Psych prep book today and got to 3 theories of gender-role development: biopsychological (genetics produce gender roles), psychodynamic (Freud-y, gender development arises out of parental competition and eventual realization of the futility of that fight), and social-cognitive (the effects of society on the development of gender). My question is something like this: if we mean to devalue the contemporaneous relative cultural value of gender by reducing it to nothing more than a "social construct", then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with? Is this more than an illusory reclaim of power over the social construct that has caused so many people so much distress? I don't know that I have any real solution to the problem I present. I am not even sure that it is a real problem, there may be some simple way of looking at it that hasn't occurred to me and relieves the tension between the two ideas. If it is still unclear, I just want to know how we can attempt to reconcile these two points: (1) Gender is arbitrary and (2) I deserve to be seen as the gender I identify with. How can we claim to identify ourselves within something that has seemed to suffocate us? I apologize if this seems tone-deaf or something. I honestly do not mean it that way, and sincerely respect the wishes of everyone to express themselves in the way they feel is appropriate for them. i take more issue with the seeming attempt to tear down the... construct of gender. Thanks for taking the time to consider this stuff, I am very interested in what people have to say. _____ > 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!*	pouryoricks	3	3	[ { "author": "McKoijion", "id": "dfwfz2j", "score": 19, "text": "> if we mean to devalue the contemporaneous relative cultural value of gender by reducing it to nothing more than a \"social construct\", then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with?\n\nSaying gender is a social construct is an objective fact, based on the contemporary definition of gender. There is no inherent political meaning to that statement. It's like saying that Pulp Fiction came out in 1994. \n\n> then why do we place so much emphasis on expressing the gender we identify with?\n\nThat's like asking \"Why do people like Pulp Fiction enough to wear Pulp Fiction T-shirts and hang framed Pulp Fiction posters?\" Emphasizing gender is really important to some people, and not very important to others. It's based on people's subjective opinions.", "timestamp": 1491465704 }, { "author": "pouryoricks", "id": "dfwg5q0", "score": 4, "text": "I understand what you're saying but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Perhaps tangentially related (or within the same paradox I'm trying to communicate) I don't understand, \"Pink isn't necessarily feminine, but I am going to wear pink to convey my femininity.\"\n\nI guess they're not mutually exclusive?\n\n>Saying gender is a social construct is an objective fact, based on the contemporary definition of gender. There is no inherent political meaning to that statement.\n\nIn the context that I usually see this point being made, it is almost always to be intended as a political statement, even if it is not inherently so.", "timestamp": 1491466253 }, { "author": "aggsalad", "id": "dfx56a6", "score": 3, "text": ">\"Pink isn't necessarily feminine, but I am going to wear pink to convey my femininity.\"\n\nThese statements can coexist. Pink can be feminine to the person who likes it. \"Is not necessarily\" is not \"necessarily is not\".", "timestamp": 1491503477 } ]	[ { "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby", "id": "dfwg09l", "score": 13, "text": "Gender being a social construct does not mean it is arbitrary. Money, government, jobs, language, and culture are all social constructs, but would you call them arbitrary? The reason these concepts as well as gender exist is because they are social functions of human behavior.", "timestamp": 1491465799 }, { "author": "pouryoricks", "id": "dfwg85t", "score": 0, "text": "Sorry if this was unclear. I mean to say that when I see people say that gender is a social construct, it is usually meant as a way to ?devalue gender roles? It almost always comes off as pejorative. This is the issue that I take. So then maybe the problem is not that we identify gender as a social construct, but that we do so pejoratively? ∆", "timestamp": 1491466461 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dfwgbwx", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Love_Shaq_Baby ([29∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Love_Shaq_Baby)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"Love_Shaq_Baby\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1491466778 } ]	[ "dfwfz2j", "dfwg5q0", "dfx56a6" ]	[ "dfwg09l", "dfwg85t", "dfwgbwx" ]
CMV: All of the current Cryptocurrencies will fail As long as people can "invest" in crypto and make huge gains, they'll have more incentive not to spend it on actual goods. The technology needed to use it is way too complicated for the average person. If you lose your password, you lose all your money. Having something like a bank or anyone other than yourself as a fail-safe is needed. Being completely anonymous is not actually a good thing, as we've already seen with Monera being used as a market for criminals. In the case of Ethereum, you can send your money into the wrong kind of account and the money will be lost forever, where you and the recipient don't get the money. All of the cryptocurrencies that use proof of work cause a huge strain on the electric grid I feel like I could go on and on, and at the same time - I don't need to. These reasons alone will stop widespread adoption as an actual currency, and because of this, the only thing crypto will ever amount to is a bubble, where the only people who win are those betting against it. Worse than that, it can be a black hole where the money can never be recovered. Unless someone introduces a new kind of crypto that solves these problems, the future for people who invest in crypto is dark.	What does success look like? Current cryptocurrency isn't useful for day to day use, but neither are gold bullion or baseball cards. Bitcoin is already a much better investment than beanie babies ever were. --- Success is that it's used as a currency and isn't extremely volatile. Gold is useful even if it's not currently being used. --- Gold started being useful at the same time as currencies stopped being backed by it ('70s). For 99.9% of gold's history as currency, it has been useless.	> The technology needed to use it is way too complicated for the average person. There is zero fundamental reason for using cryptocurrency to be any more complicated than using a debit card. > If you lose your password, you lose all your money If you lose dollars, they are gone. You can go to a bank and have the bank keep track of them so that you don't lose them, but you can do that with cryptocurrencies as well. You can have a trusted organization keep track of cryptocurrency for you so that you don't lose them if you forget your password. > Being completely anonymous is not actually a good thing Dollars are anonymous, if I hand you a stack of $20 bills there is not record unless we create a record. > All of the cryptocurrencies that use proof of work cause a huge strain on the electric grid This is one is different from dollars, there is a cost to creating Bitcoin that is higher than creating dollars. We can look at other stores of value like gold, which are expensive to produce. If these problems were a dealbreaker then dollars and gold would have both failed. --- How could it be as easy to use as a debit card? Is anyone working on this problem? --- A debit card charges your account. The retailer has a device that scans your card talks to a trusted organization and the trusted organization transfers something of value to the retailer. There is not part of that process that would have to work any differently for cryptocurrency. I'm sure that multiple organizations are working on this problem, though I don't know specifics. I don't pay much attention to cryptocurrency infrastructure. What do you imagine would prevent something like debit cards from working with cryptocurrency?	l82rwh	CMV: All of the current Cryptocurrencies will fail	As long as people can "invest" in crypto and make huge gains, they'll have more incentive not to spend it on actual goods. The technology needed to use it is way too complicated for the average person. If you lose your password, you lose all your money. Having something like a bank or anyone other than yourself as a fail-safe is needed. Being completely anonymous is not actually a good thing, as we've already seen with Monera being used as a market for criminals. In the case of Ethereum, you can send your money into the wrong kind of account and the money will be lost forever, where you and the recipient don't get the money. All of the cryptocurrencies that use proof of work cause a huge strain on the electric grid I feel like I could go on and on, and at the same time - I don't need to. These reasons alone will stop widespread adoption as an actual currency, and because of this, the only thing crypto will ever amount to is a bubble, where the only people who win are those betting against it. Worse than that, it can be a black hole where the money can never be recovered. Unless someone introduces a new kind of crypto that solves these problems, the future for people who invest in crypto is dark.	cheeseHorder	3	3	[ { "author": "BelmontIncident", "id": "glao4xf", "score": 4, "text": "What does success look like? Current cryptocurrency isn't useful for day to day use, but neither are gold bullion or baseball cards. Bitcoin is already a much better investment than beanie babies ever were.", "timestamp": 1611956986 }, { "author": "cheeseHorder", "id": "glapzvf", "score": 0, "text": "Success is that it's used as a currency and isn't extremely volatile. Gold is useful even if it's not currently being used.", "timestamp": 1611957763 }, { "author": "engineerL", "id": "glaxqwk", "score": 4, "text": "Gold started being useful at the same time as currencies stopped being backed by it ('70s). For 99.9% of gold's history as currency, it has been useless.", "timestamp": 1611961176 } ]	[ { "author": "seanflyon", "id": "glapxuy", "score": 2, "text": "> The technology needed to use it is way too complicated for the average person.\n\nThere is zero fundamental reason for using cryptocurrency to be any more complicated than using a debit card.\n\n> If you lose your password, you lose all your money\n\nIf you lose dollars, they are gone. You can go to a bank and have the bank keep track of them so that you don't lose them, but you can do that with cryptocurrencies as well. You can have a trusted organization keep track of cryptocurrency for you so that you don't lose them if you forget your password.\n\n> Being completely anonymous is not actually a good thing\n\nDollars are anonymous, if I hand you a stack of $20 bills there is not record unless we create a record.\n\n> All of the cryptocurrencies that use proof of work cause a huge strain on the electric grid\n\nThis is one is different from dollars, there is a cost to creating Bitcoin that is higher than creating dollars. We can look at other stores of value like gold, which are expensive to produce.\n\nIf these problems were a dealbreaker then dollars and gold would have both failed.", "timestamp": 1611957739 }, { "author": "cheeseHorder", "id": "glar1fj", "score": 1, "text": "How could it be as easy to use as a debit card? Is anyone working on this problem?", "timestamp": 1611958210 }, { "author": "seanflyon", "id": "glas3yz", "score": 2, "text": "A debit card charges your account. The retailer has a device that scans your card talks to a trusted organization and the trusted organization transfers something of value to the retailer. There is not part of that process that would have to work any differently for cryptocurrency.\n\nI'm sure that multiple organizations are working on this problem, though I don't know specifics. I don't pay much attention to cryptocurrency infrastructure.\n\nWhat do you imagine would prevent something like debit cards from working with cryptocurrency?", "timestamp": 1611958678 } ]	[ "glao4xf", "glapzvf", "glaxqwk" ]	[ "glapxuy", "glar1fj", "glas3yz" ]
CMV: Entitled consumers are significantly at fault for high house prices. My wife and I live in a 500 sq ft. house on a 1/2 lot. It was affordable with around median household income. If we have more than 1 kid, we could get a camper or build a small ADU. Maybe even go nuts and move to a 2 bedroom place. We also looked hard at new construction on a lot. It was also pretty affordable if done small and modestly. My wife and I have a superior living situation over the vast majority of people on the planet. Sounds great, unless you ask Americans. So, what do prospective buyers want (all from PEW research)? 2k square feet 78% want 3+ bedrooms 83% want 2+ bathrooms 56% want 2 or 3 car garage 85% want open concept for kitchen and dining/ living room. 21% want larger homes post COVID. The majority of all racial groups prefer suburbs, and that % majority is growing. Patio, front porch, and deck are deemed “essential” by 30%. I understand this is a complex subject. But part of the problem is that Americans simply want expensive, impractical things. Demand drives supply and now that supply is out of reach. Our collective entitlement over generations has heavily contributed to the affordability crisis we see today. Statistics show that Americans increasingly want bigger houses and more amenities in the face of economic hardship. They also show that we pay an increasingly high % of income for shelter. Something has to give. Why not the nature of consumer demand?	Your argument presents several flaws. 1.)To Start, you are misattributing entitlement with certain basic needs. The population is increasing, which has a more direct impact on the price of homes than the size of homes. It's fine if you want to have 1 kid, but the replacement rate is still 2.2 which means that 500 square feet is unsuitable. Especially with teenagers who frankly deserve some privacy instead of being crammed in a sardine can. 2.)For the vast majority of the population, they don't have the means for even an entry level home. For a lot of people your 500 square foot home is out of reach. This is compared to 50 years ago when you could be a factory worker and afford a mortgage. Also to get to even median incomes most people have to burden themselves with student loan debt. 3.)Zoning laws also play a roll, and the commercialization of private housing by the hotel sector is creating artificial scarcities. 4.)Foreign investment in real estate goes with 3 but it's worth mentioning that Chinese firms are purchasing a ton of residential land on North American soil. 5.)That "Post Covid" space you're referring to is specifically because people don't want to return to the office and need a work space. That basically demands an additional office space. 6.)Energy initiatives by greener states are also driving up pricing. If you have to pay a premium for a solar conversion that could add 3-5% to your home. 7.)From the bottom up housing development has become more expensive due to labor shortages as a result of people leaving the trades for office work. This means that labor and materials come at a premium. 8.)Most home buyers are making compromises when they do decide to purchase. --- 1. New construction is the way to alleviate this pressure. But, most new construction is a terribly inefficient use of space. Most new construction is big and also well out of reach of the average homebuyer. 2. Fair, but the answer is to build a whole lot more small houses. The answer to prices isn’t to keep building pricier things, it’s to build a lot more cheap things. This is exactly the problem that sparked my argument in the first place. The entry bar already is too high, but consumer preferences only keep growing. I wouldn’t own a home at all if I didn’t find a real small one. Those are rare and we need more so people can enter the market. 3. For sure. 4. Same. 5. No it doesn’t “basically demand” an office space, if you mean a whole new room. Nice? Of course. If I have a home office, anyone can. 6. Even more reason to start small and affordable as a baseline. 7. See 6. 8. Good. I have. I see my peers and younger siblings completely priced out of home ownership. They’d compromise plenty if it meant they could buy a house. But, small houses are too hard to find thanks to our average American preference. I’m not hating on anyone with a decently sized house with amenities. Just saying they all don’t have to be that way. --- You two really nailed it. The housing market is critically overregulated. Developers are largely unable to increase supply, even in middle class incomes. We don't even need to focus on apartments. We can add huge amounts of supply with just middle housing like duplexes and townhouses.	Think about this… 3500 sq feet in 25 miles outside of Dallas can cost you. $3500 square feet in Manhattan Beach will cost you $7.3 million. It’s not the size of the house people want. Where people want to live and the local governments who take deals under the table to approve certain kinds of projects (gentrification or fewer/no multi family properties [condos/apartments]). --- I hear that. But, in any given location, these consumer demands still exist. We can take 40 acres and build 40, 3000k sq. Ft. ranchettes. Or like 300 tiny homes/ lots. We need the latter, but consumer demand means the former is much more likely to be built. --- It's a free market. Noone is stopping anyone from doing that. There is a reason Noone is pushing for that - its not profitable.	17urani	CMV: Entitled consumers are significantly at fault for high house prices.	My wife and I live in a 500 sq ft. house on a 1/2 lot. It was affordable with around median household income. If we have more than 1 kid, we could get a camper or build a small ADU. Maybe even go nuts and move to a 2 bedroom place. We also looked hard at new construction on a lot. It was also pretty affordable if done small and modestly. My wife and I have a superior living situation over the vast majority of people on the planet. Sounds great, unless you ask Americans. So, what do prospective buyers want (all from PEW research)? 2k square feet 78% want 3+ bedrooms 83% want 2+ bathrooms 56% want 2 or 3 car garage 85% want open concept for kitchen and dining/ living room. 21% want larger homes post COVID. The majority of all racial groups prefer suburbs, and that % majority is growing. Patio, front porch, and deck are deemed “essential” by 30%. I understand this is a complex subject. But part of the problem is that Americans simply want expensive, impractical things. Demand drives supply and now that supply is out of reach. Our collective entitlement over generations has heavily contributed to the affordability crisis we see today. Statistics show that Americans increasingly want bigger houses and more amenities in the face of economic hardship. They also show that we pay an increasingly high % of income for shelter. Something has to give. Why not the nature of consumer demand?	No_Jackfruit7481	3	3	[ { "author": "erutan_of_selur", "id": "k95rd2x", "score": 24, "text": "Your argument presents several flaws.\n\n1.)To Start, you are misattributing entitlement with certain basic needs. The population is increasing, which has a more direct impact on the price of homes than the size of homes. It's fine if you want to have 1 kid, but the replacement rate is still 2.2 which means that 500 square feet is unsuitable. Especially with teenagers who frankly deserve some privacy instead of being crammed in a sardine can.\n\n2.)For the vast majority of the population, they don't have the means for even an entry level home. For a lot of people your 500 square foot home is out of reach. This is compared to 50 years ago when you could be a factory worker and afford a mortgage. Also to get to even median incomes most people have to burden themselves with student loan debt.\n\n3.)Zoning laws also play a roll, and the commercialization of private housing by the hotel sector is creating artificial scarcities. \n\n4.)Foreign investment in real estate goes with 3 but it's worth mentioning that Chinese firms are purchasing a ton of residential land on North American soil.\n\n5.)That \"Post Covid\" space you're referring to is specifically because people don't want to return to the office and need a work space. That basically demands an additional office space.\n\n6.)Energy initiatives by greener states are also driving up pricing. If you have to pay a premium for a solar conversion that could add 3-5% to your home.\n\n7.)From the bottom up housing development has become more expensive due to labor shortages as a result of people leaving the trades for office work. This means that labor and materials come at a premium.\n\n8.)Most home buyers are making compromises when they do decide to purchase.", "timestamp": 1699929475 }, { "author": "No_Jackfruit7481", "id": "k95tkob", "score": -2, "text": "1. New construction is the way to alleviate this pressure. But, most new construction is a terribly inefficient use of space. Most new construction is big and also well out of reach of the average homebuyer. \n\n2. Fair, but the answer is to build a whole lot more small houses. The answer to prices isn’t to keep building pricier things, it’s to build a lot more cheap things. This is exactly the problem that sparked my argument in the first place. The entry bar already is too high, but consumer preferences only keep growing. I wouldn’t own a home at all if I didn’t find a real small one. Those are rare and we need more so people can enter the market. \n\n3. For sure. \n\n4. Same. \n\n5. No it doesn’t “basically demand” an office space, if you mean a whole new room. Nice? Of course. If I have a home office, anyone can. \n\n6. Even more reason to start small and affordable as a baseline. \n\n7. See 6. \n\n8. Good. I have. I see my peers and younger siblings completely priced out of home ownership. They’d compromise plenty if it meant they could buy a house. But, small houses are too hard to find thanks to our average American preference. I’m not hating on anyone with a decently sized house with amenities. Just saying they all don’t have to be that way.", "timestamp": 1699930395 }, { "author": "clearlybraindead", "id": "k95uwsu", "score": 2, "text": "You two really nailed it. The housing market is critically overregulated. Developers are largely unable to increase supply, even in middle class incomes. We don't even need to focus on apartments. We can add huge amounts of supply with just middle housing like duplexes and townhouses.", "timestamp": 1699930961 } ]	[ { "author": "Eli-Had-A-Book-", "id": "k95ltr8", "score": 15, "text": "Think about this…\n3500 sq feet in 25 miles outside of Dallas can cost you.\n$3500 square feet in Manhattan Beach will cost you $7.3 million. \n\nIt’s not the size of the house people want. Where people want to live and the local governments who take deals under the table to approve certain kinds of projects (gentrification or fewer/no multi family properties [condos/apartments]).", "timestamp": 1699927192 }, { "author": "No_Jackfruit7481", "id": "k95mqaw", "score": 1, "text": "I hear that. But, in any given location, these consumer demands still exist. We can take 40 acres and build 40, 3000k sq. Ft. ranchettes. Or like 300 tiny homes/ lots. We need the latter, but consumer demand means the former is much more likely to be built.", "timestamp": 1699927566 }, { "author": "BigPepeNumberOne", "id": "k95n94a", "score": 2, "text": "It's a free market. Noone is stopping anyone from doing that. There is a reason Noone is pushing for that - its not profitable.", "timestamp": 1699927777 } ]	[ "k95rd2x", "k95tkob", "k95uwsu" ]	[ "k95ltr8", "k95mqaw", "k95n94a" ]
CMV: Genders are not unequal in the U.S., as much as they are "different" This is something that came up in a long conversation with my fiancé and I recently, who is a very strong feminist. Her view is that genders are unequal in the U.S., and that men have more rights than women in the U.S. From her perspective, the current gender equality/feminist movement is trying to bring women in equality with men. Said in another way, you could essentially rank gender rights as 1. Men, 2. Women, and the goal should be to provide more rights to women to bring them equal to men. My view on the matter is that men and women are essentially equal, but that we have very different rights, and gender equality should focus more on changing underlying views and prejudices that shape how we provide different rights to men and women. Take for instance employment. A lot of feminists point out that women have a more difficult time advancing in the workforce, which I think is undeniably true. However, I don't view men as having greater rights in the workforce. The fact that women are still not fully accepted in the work force leads to views that they shouldn't be able to advance, aggressiveness from women in the work place is viewed as "bitchy" or acting out of place, and they deal with harassment because they are viewed as potential sexual objects more than an asset to the company. These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, but the problem is not how we view women in the workforce, but how we view both men and women. The flip side is that because women are not viewed as being responsible for the workforce, men by default must be. This creates significant gender inequality for men that is different from the gender inequality women face. Men are viewed often by their occupation, and it is completely OK to objectify men based on their careers and income, both in dating and life generally. We often place value on men in relation to their career as a result. While we accept women leaving the workforce for several years to raise children, the concept of a man giving up his career to do so is frowned above in the U.S. In divorce, courts are more likely to naturally treat the father as a source of income and mothers as a source of parenting. In writing this post, I found a study titled "She Left, He Left: How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Men's and Women's Decisions to Leave Marriages," from UChicago where the researchers concluded that men's nonemployment is still culturally unacceptable and more likely threaten marriages than a women not entering the workforce. On parental leave, maternity leave still drives the focus of discussion, which while I acknowledge makes sense before and slightly after birth, it becomes harder to differentiate where time is being taken off solely to raise the children. I just use the workplace as an example because it's so often cited for gender inequality, with women having lesser rights as men. I think men AND women are both worse off because of this. I heard a recent mother speak who took the minimum time off to raise her children, because she didn't want her male colleagues to view her as a mother. I also talked to a male colleague who feared backlash for taking extra paternity leave at my job (which is routinely taken by mothers). My point is that gender equality is not best reached by looking at women as second class citizens. Historically, and currently in other cultures this was probably more true, and it's hard to argue that women not having the right to vote was anything less than true inequality with men having more rights. However, I think that gender inequality is not fixed by pushing for equal treatment of women. It's pushed by challenging the very gender norms that underly these imbalances, and understanding and also combatting the imbalances that men fight. You can't fight the results of gender discrimination without addressing the norms that cause the. And as long as men are viewed as the gender more responsible for work and income and have their value tied to their career, women as a result will NOT be viewed in the same light, and the attitude towards women in the workforce will not change. _	I get what you're saying, but your assertions regarding improvements that can be made to the social equality of men and women (while both valid) are a false equivalency. Sticking with your employment comparison, as a man who was only able to take a week off work after the birth of his daughter, I am acutely aware of the social inequality and stigmas of the maternity/paternity leave situation. That being said, I can't think of much else in which I don't get equal or better treatment than women in a professional environment. The issues you brought up (assertive women being looked down upon, sexual harassment in the workplace, having a harder time advancing professionally, etc.) contribute to the most easily measurable form of inequality we have: money. If you're a man, statistically speaking you will make more money than a woman, even when controlling for career type, level of education, years of experience, and professional certifications. It's unfortunate to be socially defined/valued by your job if that's not how you want yourself viewed, but that problem is simply not on the same level as basic economic and professional equality between the sexes. --- I think this depends on your perspective a bit. Being able to make more money than women is a "preferable" outcome only if you are more interested in career than child raising. But I think your point kind of argues exactly what I think is the problem. You want to stack these up and say freedom of earning power is a greater problem than defining men in relation to their career. My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. I think the views we have of each gender of derivative of how we view the other gender, so when you don't address the underlying view that men are socially responsible for working, you can't address the perceptions of women that cause them to be make less than men. --- > My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but the below is based on how I'm interpreting it. I think roughly speaking, we pretty much agree on the facts here, but my problem with your argument is based on the above quote. You're saying we can't address the problems that women face without also addressing the problems that men face. Its what-about-ism. As in, yes police brutality is a problem but what about black-on-black crime. You'll regularly see this in feminism discussions with "Yes, women in the developed world might face some difficulties in the workplace, but women in the third world have it way worse.". In your case, I read "Yes, women face problems in the workplace, but what about the way that we view men in the workplace?" I'm not disputing that both are a problem, and likely have common roots. I'm not even going to argue that one is worse than the other. There's always some bigger problem out there, but choosing to focus on one problem doesn't mean that you deny the existence of the other problems. If you want to argue that the way that men are viewed in the workplace is problematic and in circumstances harmful to men, make that argument. Just don't make it at the expense of women. (By the way, I know that there are certainly feminists that are guilty of this as well, and I know that at times I have done this as well as its a very natural response when you're passionate about something). --- I don't think I'm making a "what about X" argument at all, so I mean this in non-antagonistic way, but I do think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not even taking a stance on which one is more important to solve for. Your point that they likely have common routes is really the crux of my argument, in that the advantages and disadvantages of men and women in the workplace (or in many different areas) are all from a common route problem of gender norms. Gender norms define the rights, privileges and disadvantages that each gender faces, and you can't remove or redefine one groups norms without addressing both. --- "the advantages and disadvantages of men and women in the workplace (or in many different areas) are all from a common route problem of gender norms. Gender norms define the rights, privileges and disadvantages that each gender faces, and you can't remove or redefine one groups norms without addressing both." You're absolutely right. But I think some of the commenters on this thread are bringing up the point that certain problems are a bit more pressing than others, and thus warrant specific focus. The root cause of sexism in the workplace affects both men and women, but the results are arguably more painful for women. Women fought hard to be able to enter the workplace because autonomy was the true prize; for better or worse, money equals personal autonomy. It can help you leave abusive relationships, determines the course of your life, give you a more equal standing with anyone you choose to partner with, and essentially allows you to be a full human being with complete rights. When the different challenges men and women face comes down to (for men) "having their value societally equated to their paycheck" versus "denying the same amount of money (or: autonomy and power) for the same job", I would argue that it's correct to focus first on fixing the female issue, then moving to the mens. I think you're absolutely right that neither are ok, but I am dubious that focusing on fixing "gender roles" as a whole will have as direct and swift an effect as "focus on fixing gender norms and in particular the wage gap". Focus and strategy is never a bad thing, and for me, the immediacy of trying to fix the wage gap is really vitally important (being a woman who.. You know, has to eat and stuff). I say all this respectfully. I do think you're coming at this from a great angle, and I can see how and why you would think the way you do.	The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? [Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3syhda/a_list_of_feminist_resources_tackling_mens_issues/). Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics. I would argue there are more things negative leaning towards women than men that have to do with our current social structure, but I don't think it is a pissing match of whether or not we are "equal". If it's equally shit on balance for both men and women, isn't there still a lot of things that need to be changed? I think we agree on that front, and I think you actually agree with the larger feminist movement, and academic feminism, even if you don't agree with a particular woman you talked to. --- > The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights. Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics. "feminism" is not some monolithic movement that answers to a supreme leader is the problem with this logic. The situation is: 1. Some people who call themselves feminists have been unwavering zealots of pure gender equality 2. Some people who call themselves feminists have essentially only been out to improve the position of women were women were disadvantaged and did not care much about positions were women had it better 3. Some people (small number of radicals) who call themselves feminists are essentially misandrist and would have male slavery if they could "feminism" isn't some defined monolithic objective universally agreed upon thing; essentially you are a feminist when you call yourself one; it's what you associate yourself with and some people like say Erin Pizzey who've been champions of equality across the board have distanced themselves from the label again. There are people who ae unwavering champions of gender equality and some of those people indeed call themselves feminists and some of those find that the label has become too stigmatized to use and call themselves something else. --- >"feminism" isn't some defined monolithic objective universally agreed upon thing; essentially you are a feminist when you call yourself one I would actually disagree with this. There are certainly many people who are misandrists who call themselves feminists, but feminism is an academic set of theories and viewpoints which is fairly rigid, at least as rigid as something like socialist theory is. Is it a bit of a No True Scotsman argument? Perhaps, but there is certainly room to make that point. --- This is basically the no-true-Scotsman fallacy though. --- A bit, and I acknowledged that, but where is the line drawn when it comes to a movement/cause? That guy who shot the Republican congressmen was a Bernie supporter, but is what he stands for what it means to have supported Bernie? I don't think so. There's some truth to labeling it a No True Scotsman argument, but there's also some gray area there	6ksyh6	CMV: Genders are not unequal in the U.S., as much as they are "different"	This is something that came up in a long conversation with my fiancé and I recently, who is a very strong feminist. Her view is that genders are unequal in the U.S., and that men have more rights than women in the U.S. From her perspective, the current gender equality/feminist movement is trying to bring women in equality with men. Said in another way, you could essentially rank gender rights as 1. Men, 2. Women, and the goal should be to provide more rights to women to bring them equal to men. My view on the matter is that men and women are essentially equal, but that we have very different rights, and gender equality should focus more on changing underlying views and prejudices that shape how we provide different rights to men and women. Take for instance employment. A lot of feminists point out that women have a more difficult time advancing in the workforce, which I think is undeniably true. However, I don't view men as having greater rights in the workforce. The fact that women are still not fully accepted in the work force leads to views that they shouldn't be able to advance, aggressiveness from women in the work place is viewed as "bitchy" or acting out of place, and they deal with harassment because they are viewed as potential sexual objects more than an asset to the company. These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, but the problem is not how we view women in the workforce, but how we view both men and women. The flip side is that because women are not viewed as being responsible for the workforce, men by default must be. This creates significant gender inequality for men that is different from the gender inequality women face. Men are viewed often by their occupation, and it is completely OK to objectify men based on their careers and income, both in dating and life generally. We often place value on men in relation to their career as a result. While we accept women leaving the workforce for several years to raise children, the concept of a man giving up his career to do so is frowned above in the U.S. In divorce, courts are more likely to naturally treat the father as a source of income and mothers as a source of parenting. In writing this post, I found a study titled "She Left, He Left: How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Men's and Women's Decisions to Leave Marriages," from UChicago where the researchers concluded that men's nonemployment is still culturally unacceptable and more likely threaten marriages than a women not entering the workforce. On parental leave, maternity leave still drives the focus of discussion, which while I acknowledge makes sense before and slightly after birth, it becomes harder to differentiate where time is being taken off solely to raise the children. I just use the workplace as an example because it's so often cited for gender inequality, with women having lesser rights as men. I think men AND women are both worse off because of this. I heard a recent mother speak who took the minimum time off to raise her children, because she didn't want her male colleagues to view her as a mother. I also talked to a male colleague who feared backlash for taking extra paternity leave at my job (which is routinely taken by mothers). My point is that gender equality is not best reached by looking at women as second class citizens. Historically, and currently in other cultures this was probably more true, and it's hard to argue that women not having the right to vote was anything less than true inequality with men having more rights. However, I think that gender inequality is not fixed by pushing for equal treatment of women. It's pushed by challenging the very gender norms that underly these imbalances, and understanding and also combatting the imbalances that men fight. You can't fight the results of gender discrimination without addressing the norms that cause the. And as long as men are viewed as the gender more responsible for work and income and have their value tied to their career, women as a result will NOT be viewed in the same light, and the attitude towards women in the workforce will not change. _	Rizo24	5	5	[ { "author": "TigranMetz", "id": "djolh4v", "score": 72, "text": "I get what you're saying, but your assertions regarding improvements that can be made to the social equality of men and women (while both valid) are a false equivalency. \n\nSticking with your employment comparison, as a man who was only able to take a week off work after the birth of his daughter, I am acutely aware of the social inequality and stigmas of the maternity/paternity leave situation.\n\nThat being said, I can't think of much else in which I don't get equal or better treatment than women in a professional environment. The issues you brought up (assertive women being looked down upon, sexual harassment in the workplace, having a harder time advancing professionally, etc.) contribute to the most easily measurable form of inequality we have: money. If you're a man, statistically speaking you will make more money than a woman, even when controlling for career type, level of education, years of experience, and professional certifications. \n\nIt's unfortunate to be socially defined/valued by your job if that's not how you want yourself viewed, but that problem is simply not on the same level as basic economic and professional equality between the sexes.", "timestamp": 1499002239 }, { "author": "Rizo24", "id": "djomqv9", "score": 12, "text": "I think this depends on your perspective a bit. Being able to make more money than women is a \"preferable\" outcome only if you are more interested in career than child raising. \n\nBut I think your point kind of argues exactly what I think is the problem. You want to stack these up and say freedom of earning power is a greater problem than defining men in relation to their career. My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. I think the views we have of each gender of derivative of how we view the other gender, so when you don't address the underlying view that men are socially responsible for working, you can't address the perceptions of women that cause them to be make less than men.", "timestamp": 1499004643 }, { "author": "LeopoldTheLlama", "id": "djoska3", "score": 31, "text": "> My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. \n\nPlease correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but the below is based on how I'm interpreting it. I think roughly speaking, we pretty much agree on the facts here, but my problem with your argument is based on the above quote. \n\nYou're saying we can't address the problems that women face without also addressing the problems that men face. Its what-about-ism. As in, yes police brutality is a problem but what about black-on-black crime. You'll regularly see this in feminism discussions with \"Yes, women in the developed world might face some difficulties in the workplace, but women in the third world have it way worse.\". In your case, I read \"Yes, women face problems in the workplace, but what about the way that we view men in the workplace?\"\n\nI'm not disputing that both are a problem, and likely have common roots. I'm not even going to argue that one is worse than the other. There's always some bigger problem out there, but choosing to focus on one problem doesn't mean that you deny the existence of the other problems. \n\nIf you want to argue that the way that men are viewed in the workplace is problematic and in circumstances harmful to men, make that argument. Just don't make it at the expense of women. \n\n(By the way, I know that there are certainly feminists that are guilty of this as well, and I know that at times I have done this as well as its a very natural response when you're passionate about something).", "timestamp": 1499013519 }, { "author": "Rizo24", "id": "djosw82", "score": 8, "text": "I don't think I'm making a \"what about X\" argument at all, so I mean this in non-antagonistic way, but I do think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not even taking a stance on which one is more important to solve for.\n\nYour point that they likely have common routes is really the crux of my argument, in that the advantages and disadvantages of men and women in the workplace (or in many different areas) are all from a common route problem of gender norms. Gender norms define the rights, privileges and disadvantages that each gender faces, and you can't remove or redefine one groups norms without addressing both.", "timestamp": 1499013979 }, { "author": "anon15744", "id": "djotyst", "score": 39, "text": "\"the advantages and disadvantages of men and women in the workplace (or in many different areas) are all from a common route problem of gender norms. Gender norms define the rights, privileges and disadvantages that each gender faces, and you can't remove or redefine one groups norms without addressing both.\"\n\nYou're absolutely right. But I think some of the commenters on this thread are bringing up the point that certain problems are a bit more pressing than others, and thus warrant specific focus. The root cause of sexism in the workplace affects both men and women, but the results are arguably more painful for women. \n\nWomen fought hard to be able to enter the workplace because autonomy was the true prize; for better or worse, money equals personal autonomy. It can help you leave abusive relationships, determines the course of your life, give you a more equal standing with anyone you choose to partner with, and essentially allows you to be a full human being with complete rights. When the different challenges men and women face comes down to (for men) \"having their value societally equated to their paycheck\" versus \"denying the same amount of money (or: autonomy and power) for the same job\", I would argue that it's correct to focus first on fixing the female issue, then moving to the mens. \n\nI think you're absolutely right that neither are ok, but I am dubious that focusing on fixing \"gender roles\" as a whole will have as direct and swift an effect as \"focus on fixing gender norms and in particular the wage gap\". Focus and strategy is never a bad thing, and for me, the immediacy of trying to fix the wage gap is really vitally important (being a woman who.. You know, has to eat and stuff). \n\nI say all this respectfully. I do think you're coming at this from a great angle, and I can see how and why you would think the way you do. ", "timestamp": 1499015497 } ]	[ { "author": "TheManWhoWasNotShort", "id": "djomi9n", "score": 280, "text": "The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? [Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3syhda/a_list_of_feminist_resources_tackling_mens_issues/). Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics. \n\nI would argue there are more things negative leaning towards women than men that have to do with our current social structure, but I don't think it is a pissing match of whether or not we are \"equal\". If it's equally shit on balance for both men and women, isn't there still a lot of things that need to be changed? I think we agree on that front, and I think you actually agree with the larger feminist movement, and academic feminism, even if you don't agree with a particular woman you talked to.", "timestamp": 1499004212 }, { "author": "DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig", "id": "djootkj", "score": 20, "text": "> The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights. Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics.\n\n\"feminism\" is not some monolithic movement that answers to a supreme leader is the problem with this logic.\n\nThe situation is:\n\n1. Some people who call themselves feminists have been unwavering zealots of pure gender equality\n2. Some people who call themselves feminists have essentially only been out to improve the position of women were women were disadvantaged and did not care much about positions were women had it better\n3. Some people (small number of radicals) who call themselves feminists are essentially misandrist and would have male slavery if they could\n\n\"feminism\" isn't some defined monolithic objective universally agreed upon thing; essentially you are a feminist when you call yourself one; it's what you associate yourself with and some people like say Erin Pizzey who've been champions of equality across the board have distanced themselves from the label again.\n\nThere are people who ae unwavering champions of gender equality and some of those people indeed call themselves feminists and some of those find that the label has become too stigmatized to use and call themselves something else.", "timestamp": 1499008071 }, { "author": "TheManWhoWasNotShort", "id": "djopfrl", "score": 16, "text": ">\"feminism\" isn't some defined monolithic objective universally agreed upon thing; essentially you are a feminist when you call yourself one\n\nI would actually disagree with this. There are certainly many people who are misandrists who call themselves feminists, but feminism is an academic set of theories and viewpoints which is fairly rigid, at least as rigid as something like socialist theory is. Is it a bit of a No True Scotsman argument? Perhaps, but there is certainly room to make that point. ", "timestamp": 1499008996 }, { "author": "DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig", "id": "djopskh", "score": 13, "text": "This is basically the no-true-Scotsman fallacy though.", "timestamp": 1499009527 }, { "author": "TheManWhoWasNotShort", "id": "djor4p3", "score": 12, "text": "A bit, and I acknowledged that, but where is the line drawn when it comes to a movement/cause? That guy who shot the Republican congressmen was a Bernie supporter, but is what he stands for what it means to have supported Bernie? I don't think so. There's some truth to labeling it a No True Scotsman argument, but there's also some gray area there", "timestamp": 1499011464 } ]	[ "djolh4v", "djomqv9", "djoska3", "djosw82", "djotyst" ]	[ "djomi9n", "djootkj", "djopfrl", "djopskh", "djor4p3" ]
CMV: Genders are not unequal in the U.S., as much as they are "different" This is something that came up in a long conversation with my fiancé and I recently, who is a very strong feminist. Her view is that genders are unequal in the U.S., and that men have more rights than women in the U.S. From her perspective, the current gender equality/feminist movement is trying to bring women in equality with men. Said in another way, you could essentially rank gender rights as 1. Men, 2. Women, and the goal should be to provide more rights to women to bring them equal to men. My view on the matter is that men and women are essentially equal, but that we have very different rights, and gender equality should focus more on changing underlying views and prejudices that shape how we provide different rights to men and women. Take for instance employment. A lot of feminists point out that women have a more difficult time advancing in the workforce, which I think is undeniably true. However, I don't view men as having greater rights in the workforce. The fact that women are still not fully accepted in the work force leads to views that they shouldn't be able to advance, aggressiveness from women in the work place is viewed as "bitchy" or acting out of place, and they deal with harassment because they are viewed as potential sexual objects more than an asset to the company. These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, but the problem is not how we view women in the workforce, but how we view both men and women. The flip side is that because women are not viewed as being responsible for the workforce, men by default must be. This creates significant gender inequality for men that is different from the gender inequality women face. Men are viewed often by their occupation, and it is completely OK to objectify men based on their careers and income, both in dating and life generally. We often place value on men in relation to their career as a result. While we accept women leaving the workforce for several years to raise children, the concept of a man giving up his career to do so is frowned above in the U.S. In divorce, courts are more likely to naturally treat the father as a source of income and mothers as a source of parenting. In writing this post, I found a study titled "She Left, He Left: How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Men's and Women's Decisions to Leave Marriages," from UChicago where the researchers concluded that men's nonemployment is still culturally unacceptable and more likely threaten marriages than a women not entering the workforce. On parental leave, maternity leave still drives the focus of discussion, which while I acknowledge makes sense before and slightly after birth, it becomes harder to differentiate where time is being taken off solely to raise the children. I just use the workplace as an example because it's so often cited for gender inequality, with women having lesser rights as men. I think men AND women are both worse off because of this. I heard a recent mother speak who took the minimum time off to raise her children, because she didn't want her male colleagues to view her as a mother. I also talked to a male colleague who feared backlash for taking extra paternity leave at my job (which is routinely taken by mothers). My point is that gender equality is not best reached by looking at women as second class citizens. Historically, and currently in other cultures this was probably more true, and it's hard to argue that women not having the right to vote was anything less than true inequality with men having more rights. However, I think that gender inequality is not fixed by pushing for equal treatment of women. It's pushed by challenging the very gender norms that underly these imbalances, and understanding and also combatting the imbalances that men fight. You can't fight the results of gender discrimination without addressing the norms that cause the. And as long as men are viewed as the gender more responsible for work and income and have their value tied to their career, women as a result will NOT be viewed in the same light, and the attitude towards women in the workforce will not change. _	I get what you're saying, but your assertions regarding improvements that can be made to the social equality of men and women (while both valid) are a false equivalency. Sticking with your employment comparison, as a man who was only able to take a week off work after the birth of his daughter, I am acutely aware of the social inequality and stigmas of the maternity/paternity leave situation. That being said, I can't think of much else in which I don't get equal or better treatment than women in a professional environment. The issues you brought up (assertive women being looked down upon, sexual harassment in the workplace, having a harder time advancing professionally, etc.) contribute to the most easily measurable form of inequality we have: money. If you're a man, statistically speaking you will make more money than a woman, even when controlling for career type, level of education, years of experience, and professional certifications. It's unfortunate to be socially defined/valued by your job if that's not how you want yourself viewed, but that problem is simply not on the same level as basic economic and professional equality between the sexes. --- I think this depends on your perspective a bit. Being able to make more money than women is a "preferable" outcome only if you are more interested in career than child raising. But I think your point kind of argues exactly what I think is the problem. You want to stack these up and say freedom of earning power is a greater problem than defining men in relation to their career. My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. I think the views we have of each gender of derivative of how we view the other gender, so when you don't address the underlying view that men are socially responsible for working, you can't address the perceptions of women that cause them to be make less than men. --- > My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but the below is based on how I'm interpreting it. I think roughly speaking, we pretty much agree on the facts here, but my problem with your argument is based on the above quote. You're saying we can't address the problems that women face without also addressing the problems that men face. Its what-about-ism. As in, yes police brutality is a problem but what about black-on-black crime. You'll regularly see this in feminism discussions with "Yes, women in the developed world might face some difficulties in the workplace, but women in the third world have it way worse.". In your case, I read "Yes, women face problems in the workplace, but what about the way that we view men in the workplace?" I'm not disputing that both are a problem, and likely have common roots. I'm not even going to argue that one is worse than the other. There's always some bigger problem out there, but choosing to focus on one problem doesn't mean that you deny the existence of the other problems. If you want to argue that the way that men are viewed in the workplace is problematic and in circumstances harmful to men, make that argument. Just don't make it at the expense of women. (By the way, I know that there are certainly feminists that are guilty of this as well, and I know that at times I have done this as well as its a very natural response when you're passionate about something).	The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? [Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3syhda/a_list_of_feminist_resources_tackling_mens_issues/). Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics. I would argue there are more things negative leaning towards women than men that have to do with our current social structure, but I don't think it is a pissing match of whether or not we are "equal". If it's equally shit on balance for both men and women, isn't there still a lot of things that need to be changed? I think we agree on that front, and I think you actually agree with the larger feminist movement, and academic feminism, even if you don't agree with a particular woman you talked to. --- [deleted] --- I'm not sure how you got that as your definition of toxic masculinity, but toxic masculinity is the current set of gendered norms for men which socially prohibit men from being themselves. It's not saying that if you really are stoic, like football and beer, that there's something wrong with you, just that men shouldn't have to fit in those definitions	6ksyh6	CMV: Genders are not unequal in the U.S., as much as they are "different"	This is something that came up in a long conversation with my fiancé and I recently, who is a very strong feminist. Her view is that genders are unequal in the U.S., and that men have more rights than women in the U.S. From her perspective, the current gender equality/feminist movement is trying to bring women in equality with men. Said in another way, you could essentially rank gender rights as 1. Men, 2. Women, and the goal should be to provide more rights to women to bring them equal to men. My view on the matter is that men and women are essentially equal, but that we have very different rights, and gender equality should focus more on changing underlying views and prejudices that shape how we provide different rights to men and women. Take for instance employment. A lot of feminists point out that women have a more difficult time advancing in the workforce, which I think is undeniably true. However, I don't view men as having greater rights in the workforce. The fact that women are still not fully accepted in the work force leads to views that they shouldn't be able to advance, aggressiveness from women in the work place is viewed as "bitchy" or acting out of place, and they deal with harassment because they are viewed as potential sexual objects more than an asset to the company. These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, but the problem is not how we view women in the workforce, but how we view both men and women. The flip side is that because women are not viewed as being responsible for the workforce, men by default must be. This creates significant gender inequality for men that is different from the gender inequality women face. Men are viewed often by their occupation, and it is completely OK to objectify men based on their careers and income, both in dating and life generally. We often place value on men in relation to their career as a result. While we accept women leaving the workforce for several years to raise children, the concept of a man giving up his career to do so is frowned above in the U.S. In divorce, courts are more likely to naturally treat the father as a source of income and mothers as a source of parenting. In writing this post, I found a study titled "She Left, He Left: How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Men's and Women's Decisions to Leave Marriages," from UChicago where the researchers concluded that men's nonemployment is still culturally unacceptable and more likely threaten marriages than a women not entering the workforce. On parental leave, maternity leave still drives the focus of discussion, which while I acknowledge makes sense before and slightly after birth, it becomes harder to differentiate where time is being taken off solely to raise the children. I just use the workplace as an example because it's so often cited for gender inequality, with women having lesser rights as men. I think men AND women are both worse off because of this. I heard a recent mother speak who took the minimum time off to raise her children, because she didn't want her male colleagues to view her as a mother. I also talked to a male colleague who feared backlash for taking extra paternity leave at my job (which is routinely taken by mothers). My point is that gender equality is not best reached by looking at women as second class citizens. Historically, and currently in other cultures this was probably more true, and it's hard to argue that women not having the right to vote was anything less than true inequality with men having more rights. However, I think that gender inequality is not fixed by pushing for equal treatment of women. It's pushed by challenging the very gender norms that underly these imbalances, and understanding and also combatting the imbalances that men fight. You can't fight the results of gender discrimination without addressing the norms that cause the. And as long as men are viewed as the gender more responsible for work and income and have their value tied to their career, women as a result will NOT be viewed in the same light, and the attitude towards women in the workforce will not change. _	Rizo24	3	3	[ { "author": "TigranMetz", "id": "djolh4v", "score": 72, "text": "I get what you're saying, but your assertions regarding improvements that can be made to the social equality of men and women (while both valid) are a false equivalency. \n\nSticking with your employment comparison, as a man who was only able to take a week off work after the birth of his daughter, I am acutely aware of the social inequality and stigmas of the maternity/paternity leave situation.\n\nThat being said, I can't think of much else in which I don't get equal or better treatment than women in a professional environment. The issues you brought up (assertive women being looked down upon, sexual harassment in the workplace, having a harder time advancing professionally, etc.) contribute to the most easily measurable form of inequality we have: money. If you're a man, statistically speaking you will make more money than a woman, even when controlling for career type, level of education, years of experience, and professional certifications. \n\nIt's unfortunate to be socially defined/valued by your job if that's not how you want yourself viewed, but that problem is simply not on the same level as basic economic and professional equality between the sexes.", "timestamp": 1499002239 }, { "author": "Rizo24", "id": "djomqv9", "score": 12, "text": "I think this depends on your perspective a bit. Being able to make more money than women is a \"preferable\" outcome only if you are more interested in career than child raising. \n\nBut I think your point kind of argues exactly what I think is the problem. You want to stack these up and say freedom of earning power is a greater problem than defining men in relation to their career. My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. I think the views we have of each gender of derivative of how we view the other gender, so when you don't address the underlying view that men are socially responsible for working, you can't address the perceptions of women that cause them to be make less than men.", "timestamp": 1499004643 }, { "author": "LeopoldTheLlama", "id": "djoska3", "score": 31, "text": "> My point is whether or not that's true, you can't address the earning power of women if you don't address the view of men we have in the workplace. \n\nPlease correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but the below is based on how I'm interpreting it. I think roughly speaking, we pretty much agree on the facts here, but my problem with your argument is based on the above quote. \n\nYou're saying we can't address the problems that women face without also addressing the problems that men face. Its what-about-ism. As in, yes police brutality is a problem but what about black-on-black crime. You'll regularly see this in feminism discussions with \"Yes, women in the developed world might face some difficulties in the workplace, but women in the third world have it way worse.\". In your case, I read \"Yes, women face problems in the workplace, but what about the way that we view men in the workplace?\"\n\nI'm not disputing that both are a problem, and likely have common roots. I'm not even going to argue that one is worse than the other. There's always some bigger problem out there, but choosing to focus on one problem doesn't mean that you deny the existence of the other problems. \n\nIf you want to argue that the way that men are viewed in the workplace is problematic and in circumstances harmful to men, make that argument. Just don't make it at the expense of women. \n\n(By the way, I know that there are certainly feminists that are guilty of this as well, and I know that at times I have done this as well as its a very natural response when you're passionate about something).", "timestamp": 1499013519 } ]	[ { "author": "TheManWhoWasNotShort", "id": "djomi9n", "score": 280, "text": "The goal of feminism is to end gender inequality in society for both men and women. Don't believe me? [Here is a massive compilation of feminist resources about fighting for Men's Rights] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3syhda/a_list_of_feminist_resources_tackling_mens_issues/). Feminists have made several gains in Men's Rights, too, like forcing the federal government to allow single fathers to deduct children as dependents on their taxes, and the inclusion of men in FBI's definition of rape and rape statistics. \n\nI would argue there are more things negative leaning towards women than men that have to do with our current social structure, but I don't think it is a pissing match of whether or not we are \"equal\". If it's equally shit on balance for both men and women, isn't there still a lot of things that need to be changed? I think we agree on that front, and I think you actually agree with the larger feminist movement, and academic feminism, even if you don't agree with a particular woman you talked to.", "timestamp": 1499004212 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "djonap8", "score": -6, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1499005589 }, { "author": "TheManWhoWasNotShort", "id": "djoo94s", "score": 53, "text": "I'm not sure how you got that as your definition of toxic masculinity, but toxic masculinity is the current set of gendered norms for men which socially prohibit men from being themselves. It's not saying that if you really are stoic, like football and beer, that there's something wrong with you, just that men shouldn't have to fit in those definitions", "timestamp": 1499007152 } ]	[ "djolh4v", "djomqv9", "djoska3" ]	[ "djomi9n", "djonap8", "djoo94s" ]
CMV: The left should oppose anonymous voting seeing that it gives rise to conservatism If you go to places like 4chan or Gab they're mostly filled with malicious users who advocate radical conservative viewpoints, and places like Twitter and Reddit where there is at least some sense of identity, people seems to be more responsible on what they say resulting in what I would say as ranging from moderately conservative to radically liberal posts. I think that if people are to be judged publicly they would uphold more liberal viewpoints, and I think that the pushback against the radical right is stronger than the pushback against radical left. I think that the cancel culture and virtue signalling is an evidence of this: that establishments and organizations doesn't want to associate themselves with those who advocate views that are radically (although in some cases moderately) right when employing social justice mandates. I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because some people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously. Tl;dr - anonymity gives rise to conservatism, so I don't see why the left doesn't want to combat that. edit: I realize how anonymous voting is something that transcends left vs. right and I changed people to some people because there will always be people who will proudly wear a MAGA hat.	How do you know that causality goes that way, that it's the anonymity that makes people conservative and not conservatives being attracted to spaces where they can't be identified? >I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously. Do you not think a system that managed to turn his lower share of the popular vote than Hilary into a win would also be a factor? Finally what's your alternative, a system where everyone's votes are publicly avalible? That system seems massively abusable. --- >How do you know that causality goes that way, that it's the anonymity that makes people conservative and not conservatives being attracted to spaces where they can't be identified? That's exactly why the left should purge anonymity, because it gives rise to conservatism. I would say that in establishments that embraces social justice values, people who want to keep their jobs but disagree on things like quota and patriarchy they keep their mouth shut because once they criticize it they can lose their job. If that's fine then there shouldn't be anything wrong with everyone knowing which party you voted since your vote affects others. --- You are forcing the issue. You assume that if you force the issue, the side you prefer will come out victorious. But you don't consider at all the possibility that you would trigger a backlash going the other way. While there are some companies that are liberal to the core, there are many more that are not. They pay lip service to this stuff, because the left will make a big deal about it if they don't, and the right generally stays quiet about it as long as they keep it at he lip service level. But you can very much have a silent majority that isn't really in favor of that stuff... Imagine if all the big corporations could fire workers for voting the wrong way? Of course, it wouldn't be for having the wrong view on racial justice, it would be for voting against the company interests! I would say that you are winning the culture cold war. You shouldn't want to turn it into a hot war, where you stand a real chance of loosing.	When you say anonymous voting, what exactly do you mean? Because you don't vote anonymously. All of your information is known when you go voting, how you voted is not known though. But this doesn't mean that you're voting anonymously. --- I mean it exactly as in whoever you voted for can be attributed to you not just to your district or obtainable only after filing legal papers. --- So you want it to be possible for people to be prosecuted for how they cast their vote?	itsb7n	CMV: The left should oppose anonymous voting seeing that it gives rise to conservatism	If you go to places like 4chan or Gab they're mostly filled with malicious users who advocate radical conservative viewpoints, and places like Twitter and Reddit where there is at least some sense of identity, people seems to be more responsible on what they say resulting in what I would say as ranging from moderately conservative to radically liberal posts. I think that if people are to be judged publicly they would uphold more liberal viewpoints, and I think that the pushback against the radical right is stronger than the pushback against radical left. I think that the cancel culture and virtue signalling is an evidence of this: that establishments and organizations doesn't want to associate themselves with those who advocate views that are radically (although in some cases moderately) right when employing social justice mandates. I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because some people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously. Tl;dr - anonymity gives rise to conservatism, so I don't see why the left doesn't want to combat that. edit: I realize how anonymous voting is something that transcends left vs. right and I changed people to some people because there will always be people who will proudly wear a MAGA hat.	pritejieken	3	3	[ { "author": "Vesurel", "id": "g5gfsp6", "score": 9, "text": "How do you know that causality goes that way, that it's the anonymity that makes people conservative and not conservatives being attracted to spaces where they can't be identified?\n\n>I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously.\n\nDo you not think a system that managed to turn his lower share of the popular vote than Hilary into a win would also be a factor?\n\nFinally what's your alternative, a system where everyone's votes are publicly avalible? That system seems massively abusable.", "timestamp": 1600249139 }, { "author": "pritejieken", "id": "g5ggs4n", "score": -5, "text": ">How do you know that causality goes that way, that it's the anonymity that makes people conservative and not conservatives being attracted to spaces where they can't be identified?\n\nThat's exactly why the left should purge anonymity, because it gives rise to conservatism. I would say that in establishments that embraces social justice values, people who want to keep their jobs but disagree on things like quota and patriarchy they keep their mouth shut because once they criticize it they can lose their job. If that's fine then there shouldn't be anything wrong with everyone knowing which party you voted since your vote affects others.", "timestamp": 1600250266 }, { "author": "monty845", "id": "g5hslak", "score": 2, "text": "You are forcing the issue. You assume that if you force the issue, the side you prefer will come out victorious. But you don't consider at all the possibility that you would trigger a backlash going the other way.\n\nWhile there are some companies that are liberal to the core, there are many more that are not. They pay lip service to this stuff, because the left will make a big deal about it if they don't, and the right generally stays quiet about it as long as they keep it at he lip service level. But you can very much have a silent majority that isn't really in favor of that stuff...\n\nImagine if all the big corporations could fire workers for voting the wrong way? Of course, it wouldn't be for having the wrong view on racial justice, it would be for voting against the company interests!\n\nI would say that you are winning the culture cold war. You shouldn't want to turn it into a hot war, where you stand a real chance of loosing.", "timestamp": 1600279388 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g5gfmi0", "score": 5, "text": "When you say anonymous voting, what exactly do you mean? Because you don't vote anonymously. All of your information is known when you go voting, how you voted is not known though. But this doesn't mean that you're voting anonymously.", "timestamp": 1600248940 }, { "author": "pritejieken", "id": "g5gfq87", "score": -1, "text": "I mean it exactly as in whoever you voted for can be attributed to you not just to your district or obtainable only after filing legal papers.", "timestamp": 1600249061 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g5gftdj", "score": 7, "text": "So you want it to be possible for people to be prosecuted for how they cast their vote?", "timestamp": 1600249161 } ]	[ "g5gfsp6", "g5ggs4n", "g5hslak" ]	[ "g5gfmi0", "g5gfq87", "g5gftdj" ]
CMV: The left should oppose anonymous voting seeing that it gives rise to conservatism If you go to places like 4chan or Gab they're mostly filled with malicious users who advocate radical conservative viewpoints, and places like Twitter and Reddit where there is at least some sense of identity, people seems to be more responsible on what they say resulting in what I would say as ranging from moderately conservative to radically liberal posts. I think that if people are to be judged publicly they would uphold more liberal viewpoints, and I think that the pushback against the radical right is stronger than the pushback against radical left. I think that the cancel culture and virtue signalling is an evidence of this: that establishments and organizations doesn't want to associate themselves with those who advocate views that are radically (although in some cases moderately) right when employing social justice mandates. I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because some people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously. Tl;dr - anonymity gives rise to conservatism, so I don't see why the left doesn't want to combat that. edit: I realize how anonymous voting is something that transcends left vs. right and I changed people to some people because there will always be people who will proudly wear a MAGA hat.	But at that point, why have voting at all? The whole point is to give people the feeling that their wishes matter, to legitimize the governments power that way. If you want to replace that with peer pressure, you take away that feeling, that legitimization, then you could just give up the vote entirely. --- !delta There is a peer pressure involved in voting. There are debates regarding how anonymous decisions might not be so unanimous, after all, and it isn't really far fetched to assume that if you make votes public you also make votes unanimous and people who regrets and thinks that they should have voted the other way gets resentful and that's not good in a democracy. --- It's not just peer pressure - this system would open the voting process up to all kinds of unwanted influences. If you can verify who someone voted for, you can reward them for voting for you/in accordance with your views, and you can punish them for voting against your interest, economically or even physically. Even if you made that illegal, the reward is high enough that it would probably still happen on a massive scale.	So what are we talking about here? A database of everyones vote? We already have anonymous voting and liberals are still around in solid numbers? --- But anonymity is a conservative edge; does the left wants to fight a close fight or to win? --- It also gives me anonymity. I live in a super conservative town, work for a super conservative boss and company owner. Its hard enough laying low. I don't need my party taking away everyones private vote, mine included. > does the left wants to fight a close fight or to win? By that logic, fuck it, lets combine California and Texas, Democrats will win CaliTexas and carry the Electoral College. Lets combine New York and Ohio while were at it. If your argument is "win at any cost" lets just ban republicans from the ballots	itsb7n	CMV: The left should oppose anonymous voting seeing that it gives rise to conservatism	If you go to places like 4chan or Gab they're mostly filled with malicious users who advocate radical conservative viewpoints, and places like Twitter and Reddit where there is at least some sense of identity, people seems to be more responsible on what they say resulting in what I would say as ranging from moderately conservative to radically liberal posts. I think that if people are to be judged publicly they would uphold more liberal viewpoints, and I think that the pushback against the radical right is stronger than the pushback against radical left. I think that the cancel culture and virtue signalling is an evidence of this: that establishments and organizations doesn't want to associate themselves with those who advocate views that are radically (although in some cases moderately) right when employing social justice mandates. I think that the only reason as to why Trump won is because some people who voted for him (and would vote for him) only do so because they can do it anonymously. Tl;dr - anonymity gives rise to conservatism, so I don't see why the left doesn't want to combat that. edit: I realize how anonymous voting is something that transcends left vs. right and I changed people to some people because there will always be people who will proudly wear a MAGA hat.	pritejieken	3	3	[ { "author": "ElysiX", "id": "g5gg4og", "score": 9, "text": "But at that point, why have voting at all? The whole point is to give people the feeling that their wishes matter, to legitimize the governments power that way. If you want to replace that with peer pressure, you take away that feeling, that legitimization, then you could just give up the vote entirely.", "timestamp": 1600249524 }, { "author": "pritejieken", "id": "g5ggy7y", "score": -1, "text": "!delta\n\nThere is a peer pressure involved in voting. There are debates regarding how anonymous decisions might not be so unanimous, after all, and it isn't really far fetched to assume that if you make votes public you also make votes unanimous and people who regrets and thinks that they should have voted the other way gets resentful and that's not good in a democracy.", "timestamp": 1600250463 }, { "author": "neurealis", "id": "g5izqfa", "score": 2, "text": "It's not just peer pressure - this system would open the voting process up to all kinds of unwanted influences. If you can verify who someone voted for, you can reward them for voting for you/in accordance with your views, and you can punish them for voting against your interest, economically or even physically. Even if you made that illegal, the reward is high enough that it would probably still happen on a massive scale.", "timestamp": 1600299283 } ]	[ { "author": "SC803", "id": "g5gg4pw", "score": 3, "text": "So what are we talking about here? A database of everyones vote?\n\nWe already have anonymous voting and liberals are still around in solid numbers?", "timestamp": 1600249525 }, { "author": "pritejieken", "id": "g5gh3p0", "score": 0, "text": "But anonymity is a conservative edge; does the left wants to fight a close fight or to win?", "timestamp": 1600250630 }, { "author": "SC803", "id": "g5ghm9i", "score": 3, "text": "It also gives me anonymity. I live in a super conservative town, work for a super conservative boss and company owner. Its hard enough laying low. I don't need my party taking away everyones private vote, mine included.\n\n> does the left wants to fight a close fight or to win?\n\nBy that logic, fuck it, lets combine California and Texas, Democrats will win CaliTexas and carry the Electoral College. Lets combine New York and Ohio while were at it. If your argument is \"win at any cost\" lets just ban republicans from the ballots", "timestamp": 1600251204 } ]	[ "g5gg4og", "g5ggy7y", "g5izqfa" ]	[ "g5gg4pw", "g5gh3p0", "g5ghm9i" ]
CMV: Pepe is not a racist symbol. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a fundamental misunderstanding of how memes work. Memes are nebulous by nature and cannot be labeled and defined in conventional ways. A meme is like a cloud in the sky. You cannot insist that a cloud looks exactly like "x" when a different person may perceive something different depending on what angle they are viewing the cloud and the fact that the cloud will change form as it moves through the sky. ARGUEMENT THAT WILL NOT CONVINCE ME: "The swastika wasn't racist until the nazis used it and now it is" This is a false equivalence. Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist. I'm not saying that Pepe can't be racist but that the symbol in itself is not inherently racist. It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	That argument SHOULD convince you, honestly. A meme, like any other form of communication or media, conveys a particular message. The words you choose to use when you speak are only effective if the person who is hearing them interprets them to mean the same thing that you intended. The same is true of a visual symbol such as Pepe, or a swastika, or the Confederate flag, or anything else. No, Pepe is not "inherently" racist. Pepe is a collection of pixels arranged in a certain way. It's not a thing with thoughts, so no, it's not racist. However, if you choose to use it, KNOWING that most people associate it with racism, then how is that really any different? Your intent no longer matters when 10 out of 10 people immediately associate it with racism. So, does using Pepe make you racist? No, I suppose not. At best, it makes you completely ignorant, though. --- My entire point is that it does NOT convey a particular message. It conveys a practically infinite number of messages. A meme is NOT the same as any other form of media. It can be reshaped into anything by anyone who comes into contact with it. Who are these 10 out of 10 people who associate it with racism? Are you really so convinced that every sees it the same way? I've been seeing Pepe since about 2008 and it hasn't been discussed publicly in this way until very recently. It's ironic that you view someone who uses Pepe as "ignorant" despite the fact that all the people acting all indignant about its use don't use chan style message boards, don't understand the culture surrounding them, and probably haven't been aware of its existence until recently. --- I agree that Pepe isn't inherently a racist symbol. Should you stop using Pepe in 4chan, even though you have been using him appropriately for years, just because some group has associated him with something else recently? Of course not, moreso if there are a ton of people that stil don't associate him with racism in those places (4chan, etc). However, if you use him outside of that context people will take it as a symbol of racism, because they don't know better, and you can't blame them for that. So, if you use it when discussing politics, ethics, or just talking with people outside of regular meme circles, then you will probably be taken for a racist, and it's mostly your fault. At the same time, you can continue using Pepe in 4chan, since people there will usually get what you mean. For example, should eastern religions stop using the Svastika, which they have used for centuries, because Hitler associated it with racism? Of course not! But if an eastern religious (or whatever, I don't really know about eastern religions) person goes around waving a Svastika flag in the west he will be treated for a racist, and it's entirely his fault, since he should learn to know his place and not do that in the west. It's like u/scottevil110 implied, its meaning is dependant on the people it's directed at. The same goes for the meme. EDIT: Grammar	>Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist So if a more organized group used Pepe as a mascot, would that make a difference? Also I don't see what "historical event" matters, 30 years from now the alt-right will be a historical movement, too. Also what is your source that 99.99% of Pepe use isn't racist? > It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper This is a weak analogy. A closer analogy to "paper" would be if someone claimed the entire internet is a hate group because hateful ideas can be written on it, or that all memes are hateful, etc. Pepe is one single specific symbol, not an entire medium. And you have a point, yes, all symbols are inherently neutral. You concede Pepe can be used in racist ways. Would you agree that if people did use Pepe in racist ways a majority of the time, it would be reasonable for people to associate him with racist groups? I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. But I am sure of this -- the racists are much louder about using him. Normal memefolks use Pepe and move on to the next meme. Racists have made a concerted effort to "claim" Pepe. Since they are the loudest voice in the Pepe debate, it makes sense that many people will associate him with that voice. --- Yes, if /pol/ elected a leader, designed uniforms, organized a military and secret police, and started murdering millions of people under a Pepe banner then that would make a difference and I'd agree with you. >what is your source that 99.9% of Pepe use isn't racist? Common sense? I'm not sure if you're aware of just how many examples of Pepe exist or how commonly it's used. >I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. Now you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand. --- Since when did a meme or symbol require and elected group, with uniforms, to instil meaning in a symbol? That's a bold and hard to defend claim.	6arv0t	CMV: Pepe is not a racist symbol. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a fundamental misunderstanding of how memes work.	Memes are nebulous by nature and cannot be labeled and defined in conventional ways. A meme is like a cloud in the sky. You cannot insist that a cloud looks exactly like "x" when a different person may perceive something different depending on what angle they are viewing the cloud and the fact that the cloud will change form as it moves through the sky. ARGUEMENT THAT WILL NOT CONVINCE ME: "The swastika wasn't racist until the nazis used it and now it is" This is a false equivalence. Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist. I'm not saying that Pepe can't be racist but that the symbol in itself is not inherently racist. It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper _____ > 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!*	SlarSlar	3	3	[ { "author": "scottevil110", "id": "dhgwhg3", "score": 9, "text": "That argument SHOULD convince you, honestly. A meme, like any other form of communication or media, conveys a particular message. The words you choose to use when you speak are only effective if the person who is hearing them interprets them to mean the same thing that you intended. The same is true of a visual symbol such as Pepe, or a swastika, or the Confederate flag, or anything else. \n\nNo, Pepe is not \"inherently\" racist. Pepe is a collection of pixels arranged in a certain way. It's not a thing with thoughts, so no, it's not racist. However, if you choose to use it, KNOWING that most people associate it with racism, then how is that really any different? Your intent no longer matters when 10 out of 10 people immediately associate it with racism. \n\nSo, does using Pepe make you racist? No, I suppose not. At best, it makes you completely ignorant, though.", "timestamp": 1494602919 }, { "author": "SlarSlar", "id": "dhgx85x", "score": 14, "text": "My entire point is that it does NOT convey a particular message. It conveys a practically infinite number of messages. A meme is NOT the same as any other form of media. It can be reshaped into anything by anyone who comes into contact with it. Who are these 10 out of 10 people who associate it with racism? Are you really so convinced that every sees it the same way? I've been seeing Pepe since about 2008 and it hasn't been discussed publicly in this way until very recently. It's ironic that you view someone who uses Pepe as \"ignorant\" despite the fact that all the people acting all indignant about its use don't use chan style message boards, don't understand the culture surrounding them, and probably haven't been aware of its existence until recently.", "timestamp": 1494603748 }, { "author": "Tomas92", "id": "dhh28tv", "score": 6, "text": "I agree that Pepe isn't inherently a racist symbol. Should you stop using Pepe in 4chan, even though you have been using him appropriately for years, just because some group has associated him with something else recently? Of course not, moreso if there are a ton of people that stil don't associate him with racism in those places (4chan, etc). However, if you use him outside of that context people will take it as a symbol of racism, because they don't know better, and you can't blame them for that. So, if you use it when discussing politics, ethics, or just talking with people outside of regular meme circles, then you will probably be taken for a racist, and it's mostly your fault. At the same time, you can continue using Pepe in 4chan, since people there will usually get what you mean. \nFor example, should eastern religions stop using the Svastika, which they have used for centuries, because Hitler associated it with racism? Of course not! But if an eastern religious (or whatever, I don't really know about eastern religions) person goes around waving a Svastika flag in the west he will be treated for a racist, and it's entirely his fault, since he should learn to know his place and not do that in the west. It's like u/scottevil110 implied, its meaning is dependant on the people it's directed at. The same goes for the meme. \n \nEDIT: Grammar", "timestamp": 1494609345 } ]	[ { "author": "BAWguy", "id": "dhgwou6", "score": 66, "text": ">Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist\n\nSo if a more organized group used Pepe as a mascot, would that make a difference? Also I don't see what \"historical event\" matters, 30 years from now the alt-right will be a historical movement, too. Also what is your source that 99.99% of Pepe use isn't racist?\n\n> It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper\n\nThis is a weak analogy. A closer analogy to \"paper\" would be if someone claimed the entire internet is a hate group because hateful ideas can be written on it, or that all memes are hateful, etc. Pepe is one single specific symbol, not an entire medium. \n\nAnd you have a point, yes, all symbols are inherently neutral. You concede Pepe can be used in racist ways. Would you agree that if people did use Pepe in racist ways a majority of the time, it would be reasonable for people to associate him with racist groups? \n\nI'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. But I am sure of this -- the racists are much louder about using him. Normal memefolks use Pepe and move on to the next meme. Racists have made a concerted effort to \"claim\" Pepe. Since they are the loudest voice in the Pepe debate, it makes sense that many people will associate him with that voice.\n", "timestamp": 1494603151 }, { "author": "SlarSlar", "id": "dhgxv63", "score": -3, "text": "Yes, if /pol/ elected a leader, designed uniforms, organized a military and secret police, and started murdering millions of people under a Pepe banner then that would make a difference and I'd agree with you.\n\n>what is your source that 99.9% of Pepe use isn't racist? \n\nCommon sense? I'm not sure if you're aware of just how many examples of Pepe exist or how commonly it's used. \n\n>I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit.\n\nNow you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand.", "timestamp": 1494604468 }, { "author": "Dont____Panic", "id": "dhgyij4", "score": 14, "text": "Since when did a meme or symbol require and elected group, with uniforms, to instil meaning in a symbol? That's a bold and hard to defend claim. \n\n", "timestamp": 1494605196 } ]	[ "dhgwhg3", "dhgx85x", "dhh28tv" ]	[ "dhgwou6", "dhgxv63", "dhgyij4" ]
CMV: Pepe is not a racist symbol. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a fundamental misunderstanding of how memes work. Memes are nebulous by nature and cannot be labeled and defined in conventional ways. A meme is like a cloud in the sky. You cannot insist that a cloud looks exactly like "x" when a different person may perceive something different depending on what angle they are viewing the cloud and the fact that the cloud will change form as it moves through the sky. ARGUEMENT THAT WILL NOT CONVINCE ME: "The swastika wasn't racist until the nazis used it and now it is" This is a false equivalence. Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist. I'm not saying that Pepe can't be racist but that the symbol in itself is not inherently racist. It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper _____ > 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!*	>Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist So if a more organized group used Pepe as a mascot, would that make a difference? Also I don't see what "historical event" matters, 30 years from now the alt-right will be a historical movement, too. Also what is your source that 99.99% of Pepe use isn't racist? > It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper This is a weak analogy. A closer analogy to "paper" would be if someone claimed the entire internet is a hate group because hateful ideas can be written on it, or that all memes are hateful, etc. Pepe is one single specific symbol, not an entire medium. And you have a point, yes, all symbols are inherently neutral. You concede Pepe can be used in racist ways. Would you agree that if people did use Pepe in racist ways a majority of the time, it would be reasonable for people to associate him with racist groups? I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. But I am sure of this -- the racists are much louder about using him. Normal memefolks use Pepe and move on to the next meme. Racists have made a concerted effort to "claim" Pepe. Since they are the loudest voice in the Pepe debate, it makes sense that many people will associate him with that voice. --- Yes, if /pol/ elected a leader, designed uniforms, organized a military and secret police, and started murdering millions of people under a Pepe banner then that would make a difference and I'd agree with you. >what is your source that 99.9% of Pepe use isn't racist? Common sense? I'm not sure if you're aware of just how many examples of Pepe exist or how commonly it's used. >I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. Now you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand. --- (not the person you responded to here, btw!) > Now you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand. I'm curious if we're able to get some hard numbers on this, since otherwise it will be all just a tug of war over whose filter bubble we accept as representative. But either way it's not like this isn't just settled when we see that 51 percent of Pepe memes used aren't racist. There is a joke about an effect that feels relevant here: "See that bridge? I build that myself. In fact, I have build many bridges, been doing it for 30 years now. So, do you think they'd start calling me 'Tom, the bridge builder'? Nooo! But you fuck just one goat..."	That argument SHOULD convince you, honestly. A meme, like any other form of communication or media, conveys a particular message. The words you choose to use when you speak are only effective if the person who is hearing them interprets them to mean the same thing that you intended. The same is true of a visual symbol such as Pepe, or a swastika, or the Confederate flag, or anything else. No, Pepe is not "inherently" racist. Pepe is a collection of pixels arranged in a certain way. It's not a thing with thoughts, so no, it's not racist. However, if you choose to use it, KNOWING that most people associate it with racism, then how is that really any different? Your intent no longer matters when 10 out of 10 people immediately associate it with racism. So, does using Pepe make you racist? No, I suppose not. At best, it makes you completely ignorant, though. --- Have you seen that people are claiming that putting your thumb and pointer finger together in an O.K. shape is "white power" symbolism? Or that making a peace sign is a signal for "only two genders"? Would you say that if you make either of those signs you are "at best, ignorant"? Why should anyone change their behavior if a fringe group of people are doing something weird, or if a fringe group of oversensitive people are making a claim that some activity has some other meaning. --- I'm not the person making that comment; but no. As long as those signs are not widely accepted to mean that, one making those signs doesn't have mean that. Symbolism exists because of our perception of it. If the O.K. shape would be acknowledged by the vast majority to mean "white power", it would be a whole different story. The same can't be said for the Pepe Meme, IMO. That meme has a racist/alt-right connotations to most of its users, but also with the "spectators". Because most believe that Pepe has those undertones, the meme will be a symbol for that. In short; symbols don't exist in a vacuum. They are what they are because of people interpretation of them.	6arv0t	CMV: Pepe is not a racist symbol. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a fundamental misunderstanding of how memes work.	Memes are nebulous by nature and cannot be labeled and defined in conventional ways. A meme is like a cloud in the sky. You cannot insist that a cloud looks exactly like "x" when a different person may perceive something different depending on what angle they are viewing the cloud and the fact that the cloud will change form as it moves through the sky. ARGUEMENT THAT WILL NOT CONVINCE ME: "The swastika wasn't racist until the nazis used it and now it is" This is a false equivalence. Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist. I'm not saying that Pepe can't be racist but that the symbol in itself is not inherently racist. It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper _____ > 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!*	SlarSlar	3	3	[ { "author": "BAWguy", "id": "dhgwou6", "score": 66, "text": ">Once again, you're attempting to compare an actual organized group of people, an actual historical event, to some nebulous, formless concept floating through the ether used in thousands of different contexts, in thousands of different iterations, 99.9% of which aren't racist\n\nSo if a more organized group used Pepe as a mascot, would that make a difference? Also I don't see what \"historical event\" matters, 30 years from now the alt-right will be a historical movement, too. Also what is your source that 99.99% of Pepe use isn't racist?\n\n> It's like saying that paper is communist because communist words and ideas can be written down on paper\n\nThis is a weak analogy. A closer analogy to \"paper\" would be if someone claimed the entire internet is a hate group because hateful ideas can be written on it, or that all memes are hateful, etc. Pepe is one single specific symbol, not an entire medium. \n\nAnd you have a point, yes, all symbols are inherently neutral. You concede Pepe can be used in racist ways. Would you agree that if people did use Pepe in racist ways a majority of the time, it would be reasonable for people to associate him with racist groups? \n\nI'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit. But I am sure of this -- the racists are much louder about using him. Normal memefolks use Pepe and move on to the next meme. Racists have made a concerted effort to \"claim\" Pepe. Since they are the loudest voice in the Pepe debate, it makes sense that many people will associate him with that voice.\n", "timestamp": 1494603151 }, { "author": "SlarSlar", "id": "dhgxv63", "score": -3, "text": "Yes, if /pol/ elected a leader, designed uniforms, organized a military and secret police, and started murdering millions of people under a Pepe banner then that would make a difference and I'd agree with you.\n\n>what is your source that 99.9% of Pepe use isn't racist? \n\nCommon sense? I'm not sure if you're aware of just how many examples of Pepe exist or how commonly it's used. \n\n>I'm not sure if Pepe is used more often for racist shit than for normal shit.\n\nNow you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand.", "timestamp": 1494604468 }, { "author": "czerilla", "id": "dhh1tfh", "score": 61, "text": "(not the person you responded to here, btw!)\n\n> Now you're just displaying your lack of knowledge on this topic. If you spent any amount of time on a chan message board, you'd know how common this meme is. I'm not sure why people insist on having such a strong opinion on something they clearly don't understand.\n\nI'm curious if we're able to get some hard numbers on this, since otherwise it will be all just a tug of war over whose filter bubble we accept as representative.\n\nBut either way it's not like this isn't just settled when we see that 51 percent of Pepe memes used aren't racist.\n\nThere is a joke about an effect that feels relevant here: \n\"See that bridge? I build that myself. In fact, I have build many bridges, been doing it for 30 years now. \nSo, do you think they'd start calling me 'Tom, the bridge builder'? Nooo! But you fuck just one goat...\"", "timestamp": 1494608877 } ]	[ { "author": "scottevil110", "id": "dhgwhg3", "score": 9, "text": "That argument SHOULD convince you, honestly. A meme, like any other form of communication or media, conveys a particular message. The words you choose to use when you speak are only effective if the person who is hearing them interprets them to mean the same thing that you intended. The same is true of a visual symbol such as Pepe, or a swastika, or the Confederate flag, or anything else. \n\nNo, Pepe is not \"inherently\" racist. Pepe is a collection of pixels arranged in a certain way. It's not a thing with thoughts, so no, it's not racist. However, if you choose to use it, KNOWING that most people associate it with racism, then how is that really any different? Your intent no longer matters when 10 out of 10 people immediately associate it with racism. \n\nSo, does using Pepe make you racist? No, I suppose not. At best, it makes you completely ignorant, though.", "timestamp": 1494602919 }, { "author": "UGotSchlonged", "id": "dhgx0tu", "score": 4, "text": "Have you seen that people are claiming that putting your thumb and pointer finger together in an O.K. shape is \"white power\" symbolism? Or that making a peace sign is a signal for \"only two genders\"?\n\nWould you say that if you make either of those signs you are \"at best, ignorant\"?\n\nWhy should anyone change their behavior if a fringe group of people are doing something weird, or if a fringe group of oversensitive people are making a claim that some activity has some other meaning.", "timestamp": 1494603522 }, { "author": "Lill-Gagga", "id": "dhgxh8j", "score": 3, "text": "I'm not the person making that comment; but no. \n\nAs long as those signs are not widely accepted to mean that, one making those signs doesn't have mean that. Symbolism exists because of our perception of it. If the O.K. shape would be acknowledged by the vast majority to mean \"white power\", it would be a whole different story. \n\nThe same can't be said for the Pepe Meme, IMO. That meme has a racist/alt-right connotations to most of its users, but also with the \"spectators\". Because most believe that Pepe has those undertones, the meme will be a symbol for that. \n\nIn short; symbols don't exist in a vacuum. They are what they are because of people interpretation of them.\n\n", "timestamp": 1494604035 } ]	[ "dhgwou6", "dhgxv63", "dhh1tfh" ]	[ "dhgwhg3", "dhgx0tu", "dhgxh8j" ]
CMV: I see no problem with children going no contact with me, and that should be the norm I read people today talking about no contact with their parents as if it was a bad thing and I didn't get it..My kid is 8 now, and why would she want to hang out after she is an adult? Who wants that? She will make her own relationships with people she chooses to associate with. Having to spend a lifetime associating with some one because of genetics and proximity makes no sense. My role as parent is teacher, caregiver,healer etc. I can't even remember the names of any of my teachers. Why be sentimental? And on our side, I'm ready to get my life and freedom back. The reality is raising a child is a massive commitment. It really is a fully time job. And like my paying job, I would like to retire. After retirement, I can't imagine wanting to think about the work I had to do. I can't imagine kids being any different.	What? So once your daughter is adult you’re just never gonna speak to her again? 😭 --- I don't see why. We don't really share anything in common --- This take is genuinely hurting my brain, maybe the 18 years of living together? Maybe being there for their formation of self? If you genuinely don’t have anything common with your kid you’re not parenting at all, you’re a step removed from a landlord --- Living together and sharing experiences is just a product of proximity. It isnt a basis for friendship --- How do you propose any relationship develops? --- Shared interests --- A lot of people are talking about friendship here and I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at it. Parents and children have relationships not based on shared hobbies and interests, but based on shared life experiences, spending a significant part of each other's lives together. Sharing moments of love, joy, sadness, happiness, tragedy, fun. This creates a bond and a desire to stay connected, regardless of what hobbies or personal interests are present. You care about how they're doing, what's going on in their lives. Does any of this resonate with you, in a general sense? Like are any of these things you experience yourself, with anyone?	There's a difference between 'my child doesn't want to hang out with her parents after being an adult' and 'my child refuses to talk to me at all'. No contact means you aren't friends on facebook, you don't call to talk once a month, you don't go to their house for Christmas or send cards. If your child intentionally refuses to talk to you, it really sounds like you parented them in a way that made them hate you, which probably means you screwed up as a teacher, caregiver, and healer. --- Most people I have met in my life I have no desire to talk to or go to their house for Christmas. That sounds awful --- Most people don't want to talk to their parents at all? That sounds very outside the norm. --- Why would you want to? --- Because lots of people are friends with their parents, or at least friendly, and it's normal to talk to friends and friendly acquaintances? --- Why? --- Because most people enjoy socializing and enjoy having friends?	17uqy8u	CMV: I see no problem with children going no contact with me, and that should be the norm	I read people today talking about no contact with their parents as if it was a bad thing and I didn't get it..My kid is 8 now, and why would she want to hang out after she is an adult? Who wants that? She will make her own relationships with people she chooses to associate with. Having to spend a lifetime associating with some one because of genetics and proximity makes no sense. My role as parent is teacher, caregiver,healer etc. I can't even remember the names of any of my teachers. Why be sentimental? And on our side, I'm ready to get my life and freedom back. The reality is raising a child is a massive commitment. It really is a fully time job. And like my paying job, I would like to retire. After retirement, I can't imagine wanting to think about the work I had to do. I can't imagine kids being any different.	MysticInept	7	7	[ { "author": "Ok-Helicopter-5686", "id": "k95jh7u", "score": 14, "text": "What? So once your daughter is adult you’re just never gonna speak to her again? 😭", "timestamp": 1699926222 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95jm2j", "score": -6, "text": "I don't see why. We don't really share anything in common", "timestamp": 1699926277 }, { "author": "bombardonist", "id": "k95mcn0", "score": 20, "text": "This take is genuinely hurting my brain, maybe the 18 years of living together? Maybe being there for their formation of self? If you genuinely don’t have anything common with your kid you’re not parenting at all, you’re a step removed from a landlord", "timestamp": 1699927409 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95miyi", "score": -2, "text": "Living together and sharing experiences is just a product of proximity. It isnt a basis for friendship", "timestamp": 1699927483 }, { "author": "bombardonist", "id": "k95n0bn", "score": 12, "text": "How do you propose any relationship develops?", "timestamp": 1699927678 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95ogo6", "score": -3, "text": "Shared interests", "timestamp": 1699928266 }, { "author": "ComplexityArtifice", "id": "k95qddu", "score": 14, "text": "A lot of people are talking about friendship here and I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at it. Parents and children have relationships not based on shared hobbies and interests, but based on shared life experiences, spending a significant part of each other's lives together. Sharing moments of love, joy, sadness, happiness, tragedy, fun. This creates a bond and a desire to stay connected, regardless of what hobbies or personal interests are present.\n\nYou care about how they're doing, what's going on in their lives.\n\nDoes any of this resonate with you, in a general sense?\n\nLike are any of these things you experience yourself, with anyone?", "timestamp": 1699929056 } ]	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "k95ix9e", "score": 66, "text": "There's a difference between 'my child doesn't want to hang out with her parents after being an adult' and 'my child refuses to talk to me at all'.\n\nNo contact means you aren't friends on facebook, you don't call to talk once a month, you don't go to their house for Christmas or send cards. If your child intentionally refuses to talk to you, it really sounds like you parented them in a way that made them hate you, which probably means you screwed up as a teacher, caregiver, and healer.", "timestamp": 1699925994 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95j2ul", "score": -24, "text": "Most people I have met in my life I have no desire to talk to or go to their house for Christmas. That sounds awful", "timestamp": 1699926058 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "k95j7p6", "score": 48, "text": "Most people don't want to talk to their parents at all? That sounds very outside the norm.", "timestamp": 1699926112 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95jcdg", "score": -7, "text": "Why would you want to?", "timestamp": 1699926166 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "k95jm0y", "score": 27, "text": "Because lots of people are friends with their parents, or at least friendly, and it's normal to talk to friends and friendly acquaintances?", "timestamp": 1699926276 }, { "author": "MysticInept", "id": "k95jo1f", "score": -4, "text": "Why?", "timestamp": 1699926300 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "k95jri4", "score": 23, "text": "Because most people enjoy socializing and enjoy having friends?", "timestamp": 1699926340 } ]	[ "k95jh7u", "k95jm2j", "k95mcn0", "k95miyi", "k95n0bn", "k95ogo6", "k95qddu" ]	[ "k95ix9e", "k95j2ul", "k95j7p6", "k95jcdg", "k95jm0y", "k95jo1f", "k95jri4" ]
CMV That in wartime, in very specific circumstances, bombing a civilian population is justifiable. Ugh, I honestly dont even like having this opinion to be honest. Which is why I made sure to make it clear that it is in very specific circumstances. I believe that bombings (and bombings only) while morally reprehensible can be justified in a war. I base my example on the theory of collective responsibility. So the idea is that the entire globe has some form of Democratic ideas or government. Yes, I am aware that it is likely a farce in some countries, but the semblance of it is there. But I'll even narrow the idea even further. Let's take an existing Liberal Democracy. Canada for example. Let's say that Canada begins having a very poor economy. During this time fascist or authoritarian ideas begin spreading out to the populace. This idea spreads to provinces and the newly elected authoriatarian government begins doing away with civil liberties. It begins building up its military. It begins striking at other nations and invading them forcing the rest of the westernized world to have to go to war with Canada. Under a just war theory only military targets are JUST targets. You can bomb a munitions factory with civilians, but cannot bomb their home in an air raid. I would take it a step further and say the entire populace is responsible for their government. For these reasons. 1. More than likely this regime popped up during turmoil and brought about nationalistic propaganda. The populace accepted the propaganda during a time when people should know better. 2. It was a Democracy at first. Which means the people chose this form of government. In a Representive Democracy those in government reflect the will of the people. The will of the people is the invade, do away with civil liberties, and enact atrocities. The people chose this as they chose to accept the propaganda. 3. While I imagine the state government would be spreading propaganda during wars and atrocities it is, again, incumbent on the people to reject this form of government. Their successes and failures in this theorized war is all based on their belief they are better than any other nation in existance, and in some cases, better than some groups of people. 4. Finally, it is the responsibility of those who are on the fence, oppose the government, or oppose the governments war to make any means possible to prevent this government from enacting said dissolving of civil liberties, war, atrocities, etc Meaning, full stop those who actively live in the nation must make every means to stop their government from doing this. The rest of the world did not ask Canada to invade (let's say Ireland) or to destabalize the global peace. To make matters worse the people chose this. This would mean that there is a shared responsibility in that population for their governments actions. Unlike existing Democracies the people still have a choice to change their government if they do wrong. They can still vote. In a fascist regime that choice is gone. My final point is, however horrible it is, if the other liberal democracies decided to carpet bomb Ottawa it would be justified. It shows the populace and the government that their actions have consequences. That they chose this and not the rest of the liberalized world. In a sense, they engage in total unrestricted warfare on the population. So, yeah, ugh. Change my view	So is the bombing of Ottawa citizens an attempt to win the war? --- Not only to win the war, but to demoralize the population from continuing the war. --- The problem is this doesn't work - at all. Germany tried it on Britain; it didn't work. Britain and the US tried it on Germany, it didn't work. Populations don't get demoralized by bombing campaigns. This surprised a lot of leaders in the WWII era who were sure populations would panic and surrender; it didn't happen. No nation surrendered because their population panicked due to conventional bombing.	Why is it okay to bomb anyone ever? What conflict is worth murdering thousands of people to settle? --- One in which it would be unavoidable and there needs to be an end to a war. Unfortunately under the "he started it" idea. --- What do you mean it "would be unavoidable and there needs to be an end to a war." ?	b8clky	CMV That in wartime, in very specific circumstances, bombing a civilian population is justifiable.	Ugh, I honestly dont even like having this opinion to be honest. Which is why I made sure to make it clear that it is in very specific circumstances. I believe that bombings (and bombings only) while morally reprehensible can be justified in a war. I base my example on the theory of collective responsibility. So the idea is that the entire globe has some form of Democratic ideas or government. Yes, I am aware that it is likely a farce in some countries, but the semblance of it is there. But I'll even narrow the idea even further. Let's take an existing Liberal Democracy. Canada for example. Let's say that Canada begins having a very poor economy. During this time fascist or authoritarian ideas begin spreading out to the populace. This idea spreads to provinces and the newly elected authoriatarian government begins doing away with civil liberties. It begins building up its military. It begins striking at other nations and invading them forcing the rest of the westernized world to have to go to war with Canada. Under a just war theory only military targets are JUST targets. You can bomb a munitions factory with civilians, but cannot bomb their home in an air raid. I would take it a step further and say the entire populace is responsible for their government. For these reasons. 1. More than likely this regime popped up during turmoil and brought about nationalistic propaganda. The populace accepted the propaganda during a time when people should know better. 2. It was a Democracy at first. Which means the people chose this form of government. In a Representive Democracy those in government reflect the will of the people. The will of the people is the invade, do away with civil liberties, and enact atrocities. The people chose this as they chose to accept the propaganda. 3. While I imagine the state government would be spreading propaganda during wars and atrocities it is, again, incumbent on the people to reject this form of government. Their successes and failures in this theorized war is all based on their belief they are better than any other nation in existance, and in some cases, better than some groups of people. 4. Finally, it is the responsibility of those who are on the fence, oppose the government, or oppose the governments war to make any means possible to prevent this government from enacting said dissolving of civil liberties, war, atrocities, etc Meaning, full stop those who actively live in the nation must make every means to stop their government from doing this. The rest of the world did not ask Canada to invade (let's say Ireland) or to destabalize the global peace. To make matters worse the people chose this. This would mean that there is a shared responsibility in that population for their governments actions. Unlike existing Democracies the people still have a choice to change their government if they do wrong. They can still vote. In a fascist regime that choice is gone. My final point is, however horrible it is, if the other liberal democracies decided to carpet bomb Ottawa it would be justified. It shows the populace and the government that their actions have consequences. That they chose this and not the rest of the liberalized world. In a sense, they engage in total unrestricted warfare on the population. So, yeah, ugh. Change my view	numbers17	3	3	[ { "author": "QueggingtheBestion", "id": "ejx3bh7", "score": 2, "text": "So is the bombing of Ottawa citizens an attempt to win the war? ", "timestamp": 1554169611 }, { "author": "numbers17", "id": "ejx3trd", "score": 3, "text": "Not only to win the war, but to demoralize the population from continuing the war. ", "timestamp": 1554170008 }, { "author": "ViewedFromTheOutside", "id": "ejx7j6t", "score": 6, "text": "The problem is this doesn't work - at all. Germany tried it on Britain; it didn't work. Britain and the US tried it on Germany, it didn't work. Populations don't get demoralized by bombing campaigns. This surprised a lot of leaders in the WWII era who were sure populations would panic and surrender; it didn't happen. No nation surrendered because their population panicked due to conventional bombing. ", "timestamp": 1554172922 } ]	[ { "author": "Littlepush", "id": "ejx2rrb", "score": 0, "text": "Why is it okay to bomb anyone ever? What conflict is worth murdering thousands of people to settle?", "timestamp": 1554169188 }, { "author": "numbers17", "id": "ejx2x6x", "score": 2, "text": "One in which it would be unavoidable and there needs to be an end to a war. \n\nUnfortunately under the \"he started it\" idea.", "timestamp": 1554169305 }, { "author": "Littlepush", "id": "ejx36t0", "score": 1, "text": "What do you mean it \"would be unavoidable and there needs to be an end to a war.\" ? ", "timestamp": 1554169510 } ]	[ "ejx3bh7", "ejx3trd", "ejx7j6t" ]	[ "ejx2rrb", "ejx2x6x", "ejx36t0" ]
CMV: Trying to prevent small languages from dying is pointless. I don't have a lot to talk about it, but I could resume to "why do you have to speak a tiny language that only a few people in your country's countryside speak if you can speak a more important language?". The main flaw is that the languages need to be spoken on a daily basis to be alive. Now, I'll explain with more details: - Irish: Ireland has two languages: English (the freaking universal language) and Irish (spoken by a few thousand or tens of thousand people on the west coast). Irish is taught in Irish schools, but the kids will see it as a boring subject and Irish will only be spoken by old people in the west coast. You can say "Belarus is switching to Belarusian", but Russian is slowing becoming less relevant, Russia is slowly losing its power. - Icelandic: "But Iceland is its own country". But Iceland has a smaller population than Wyoming. (most) Electronic devices don't support Icelandic and the kids are slowly switching to English. Iceland may get (or is already getting) a brain drain (it's always for the same four countries, and all of them speak English...). The independence didn't save the Icelandic language for too long. - You can use it for any small language: why speak Quechua if you can speak Spanish? Why speak Breton if you can speak French? Why speak Adyghe if you can speak Russian? Even languages spoken by fictional people, like Klingon and Na'vi, are being more useful. For the same reason, I'm starting to think that creating an auxiliary language (like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, Novial and Interlingua) is pointless. Everyone will just speak the language(s) of the most powerful nation(s). P.S.: I'm aware that preserving languages is important because of the unique point of view or something. But it's pointless. Also, I wrote "e" instead of "and". P.S.2: I like language diversity, but it's pointless to save those that are endangered. P.S.3: view changes. But I still think that creating auxlangs is pointless. _____ > 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 can’t quite understand your view. I think it’s one of these two things, please clarify: 1) Do you think that linguistic diversity is unimportant? There’s no need for more languages? 2) Do you think that preserving languages is futile? There is no practical way to preserve dying languages? --- > 2) Do you think that preserving languages is futile? There is no practical way to preserve dying languages? This one. I think it wouldn't be good if most languages became extinct. The world is going towards speaking fewer and fewer languages (unless different nationalities of the same language, like American English and Australian English, became separate languages). --- In the longest term, you're right, it is almost certainly futile. Not only will all small languages eventually die, but almost certainly all large languages will die or change so radically that they bear little resemblance to current use. I mean modern English has only been around for something like 600 years. And even languages that have some continuity for thousands of years have changed massively. Let me make a comparison. All humans will die. You may die tomorrow, you may live to 120, but you will die. And all languages will die too. Whether that's a Native American language dying next year when the last speaker passes away, or 5,000 years from now when Mandarin becomes so transformed that it can't be considered the same language it is now. Nothing is forever. Everything has some expiration date. Yet, we work to extend human life even though it is only an extension, never a permanent preservation. We have hospitals, we have medical research, we tell our kids to look both ways before crossing the street. We can say the same thing for languages, for species, for any of the innumerable things that won't always BE, it's worth having them longer. On a long enough timescale even our planet, our sun will stop existing. All of our efforts on this earth are to appreciate what we have and help good and interesting things persist a little longer.	What makes you the gatekeeper of what does/doesn't have a point? Plenty of people think the arts are pointless, while others think that art is a noble pursuit. The reality is that a lot of language is heavily linked to culture, and people trying to preserve their culture seems like a pretty okay thing to me. There are dozens of native languages in Australia, and the Aboriginal people trying to keep hold of their traditions certainly isn't the worst way a person could spend their time. It being important to them makes it valid enough to me, because I have no idea what the meaning of life is, and you don't either. --- >What makes you the gatekeeper of what does/doesn't have a point? Anyone with the ability to form a subjective opinion is a potential gatekeeper. The OP here has just as much say in language as anyone else. --- You're not really a very useful gatekeeper if anyone else's subjective opinion bypasses your gate. The OP saying that a language is pointless is exactly like someone saying that art is pointless, or that life is pointless, or that any number of things are pointless. Changing the OP's mind is pointless. If we start making arguments around what does and doesn't have a point, we start getting into very philosophical question very quickly. The best case I can think of is that if something is important to someone else, who is OP to tell them that they're wrong?	6ar02b	CMV: Trying to prevent small languages from dying is pointless.	I don't have a lot to talk about it, but I could resume to "why do you have to speak a tiny language that only a few people in your country's countryside speak if you can speak a more important language?". The main flaw is that the languages need to be spoken on a daily basis to be alive. Now, I'll explain with more details: - Irish: Ireland has two languages: English (the freaking universal language) and Irish (spoken by a few thousand or tens of thousand people on the west coast). Irish is taught in Irish schools, but the kids will see it as a boring subject and Irish will only be spoken by old people in the west coast. You can say "Belarus is switching to Belarusian", but Russian is slowing becoming less relevant, Russia is slowly losing its power. - Icelandic: "But Iceland is its own country". But Iceland has a smaller population than Wyoming. (most) Electronic devices don't support Icelandic and the kids are slowly switching to English. Iceland may get (or is already getting) a brain drain (it's always for the same four countries, and all of them speak English...). The independence didn't save the Icelandic language for too long. - You can use it for any small language: why speak Quechua if you can speak Spanish? Why speak Breton if you can speak French? Why speak Adyghe if you can speak Russian? Even languages spoken by fictional people, like Klingon and Na'vi, are being more useful. For the same reason, I'm starting to think that creating an auxiliary language (like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, Novial and Interlingua) is pointless. Everyone will just speak the language(s) of the most powerful nation(s). P.S.: I'm aware that preserving languages is important because of the unique point of view or something. But it's pointless. Also, I wrote "e" instead of "and". P.S.2: I like language diversity, but it's pointless to save those that are endangered. P.S.3: view changes. But I still think that creating auxlangs is pointless. _____ > 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!*	garaile64	3	3	[ { "author": "Huntingmoa", "id": "dhgojs5", "score": 2, "text": "I can’t quite understand your view. I think it’s one of these two things, please clarify:\n\n1)\tDo you think that linguistic diversity is unimportant? \n\nThere’s no need for more languages?\n\n2)\tDo you think that preserving languages is futile?\nThere is no practical way to preserve dying languages?\n", "timestamp": 1494592778 }, { "author": "garaile64", "id": "dhgooky", "score": 2, "text": "> 2) Do you think that preserving languages is futile? There is no practical way to preserve dying languages?\n\nThis one. I think it wouldn't be good if most languages became extinct. The world is going towards speaking fewer and fewer languages (unless different nationalities of the same language, like American English and Australian English, became separate languages).", "timestamp": 1494592992 }, { "author": "onelasttimeoh", "id": "dhgps0q", "score": 2, "text": "In the longest term, you're right, it is almost certainly futile. Not only will all small languages eventually die, but almost certainly all large languages will die or change so radically that they bear little resemblance to current use.\n\nI mean modern English has only been around for something like 600 years. And even languages that have some continuity for thousands of years have changed massively.\n\nLet me make a comparison.\n\nAll humans will die. You may die tomorrow, you may live to 120, but you will die. And all languages will die too. Whether that's a Native American language dying next year when the last speaker passes away, or 5,000 years from now when Mandarin becomes so transformed that it can't be considered the same language it is now.\n\nNothing is forever. Everything has some expiration date.\n\nYet, we work to extend human life even though it is only an extension, never a permanent preservation. We have hospitals, we have medical research, we tell our kids to look both ways before crossing the street.\n\nWe can say the same thing for languages, for species, for any of the innumerable things that won't always BE, it's worth having them longer.\n\nOn a long enough timescale even our planet, our sun will stop existing. All of our efforts on this earth are to appreciate what we have and help good and interesting things persist a little longer.", "timestamp": 1494594664 } ]	[ { "author": "extreme_frog", "id": "dhgpviu", "score": 3, "text": "What makes you the gatekeeper of what does/doesn't have a point? Plenty of people think the arts are pointless, while others think that art is a noble pursuit.\n\nThe reality is that a lot of language is heavily linked to culture, and people trying to preserve their culture seems like a pretty okay thing to me. There are dozens of native languages in Australia, and the Aboriginal people trying to keep hold of their traditions certainly isn't the worst way a person could spend their time. It being important to them makes it valid enough to me, because I have no idea what the meaning of life is, and you don't either. ", "timestamp": 1494594802 }, { "author": "Painal_Sex", "id": "dhgrd7q", "score": 2, "text": ">What makes you the gatekeeper of what does/doesn't have a point?\n\nAnyone with the ability to form a subjective opinion is a potential gatekeeper. The OP here has just as much say in language as anyone else. ", "timestamp": 1494596840 }, { "author": "extreme_frog", "id": "dhgrr8d", "score": 1, "text": "You're not really a very useful gatekeeper if anyone else's subjective opinion bypasses your gate. The OP saying that a language is pointless is exactly like someone saying that art is pointless, or that life is pointless, or that any number of things are pointless. Changing the OP's mind is pointless.\n\nIf we start making arguments around what does and doesn't have a point, we start getting into very philosophical question very quickly. The best case I can think of is that if something is important to someone else, who is OP to tell them that they're wrong?", "timestamp": 1494597338 } ]	[ "dhgojs5", "dhgooky", "dhgps0q" ]	[ "dhgpviu", "dhgrd7q", "dhgrr8d" ]
CMV: Human Consciousness Should Be Eradicated Semi-earnest opinion mostly posted for thought experimentation. * - Due to the mechanical makeup of the human mind human beings will, regardless of any feasible circumstance, suffer far more pain than it will find pleasure. Births ——— 1) It is immoral to create beings that will primarily suffer. 2) Any newly created human will be a being that will primarily suffer. 3) Human reproduction should be ceased. Existing Lives ———————- 1) It is illogical to continue an experience that is primarily suffering without payoff. 2) Life as an experience that is primarily suffering, and absent death-denying magical metaphysics, is without payoff. 3) Living beings should cease the experience of life. Combo ———- 1) New humans should not be created. 2) Living humans should cease living. Ergo: Human consciousness should be eradicated.	You premise that humans are primarily suffering is flawed. If you constantly suffer, please seek professional help. --- Nuh uh. My premise is observably self-evident. --- I personally feel that my life is pretty good and that I experience more pleasure than pain. Sounds like your whole thesis just fell apart! --- Personal feeling at an instant is not a good measure of cumulative effects over time. If I compiled a reel of every pain you ever have and ever will experience and a reel of every joy and pleasure you ever have and ever will experience and gave you the option of experiencing both in a condensed instant or neither would you choose to go with both? If so I would term you a masochist. --- > If I compiled a reel of every pain you ever have and ever will experience and a reel of every joy and pleasure you ever have and ever will experience and gave you the option of experiencing both in a condensed instant or neither would you choose to go with both? If so I would term you a masochist. And? That you do not agree with a choice a person makes for their own life does not mean they are "wrong"; it's likely to just mean that (a) they have different values than you have, or (b) you don't understand their motivations. In particular, I would point out that each arm of your argument rests on an unsupported assumption: * 1) It is immoral to create beings that will primarily suffer. * 1) It is illogical to continue an experience that is primarily suffering without payoff. These are effectively the same assumption; namely, that the rightness of a choice must be evaluated solely based on its position on the net joy/suffering axis. You're effectively begging the question by assuming that net suffering is a net moral bad. That is false for a number of moral systems (e.g., some religious ones), and as a result you're implicitly assuming a particular moral framework outside of which your argument falls apart. If someone alternatively believes that the highest cause of humanity is understanding some great mystery (e.g., "the nature of the universe" or "the mind of God"), then an individual may rationally and morally choose to experience net suffering in order to make progress in that understanding. Having been through graduate school, that sounds very much like a choice many people I knew would have made, and it's a huge assumption on your part to assert you know better than them what they should choose. I would argue having children is another example of how this assumption does not describe the choices people make. Studies show that having children greatly increases personal suffering in a wide variety of ways (disrupted sleep, much less free time, less disposable income, higher anxiety, etc.). Many prospective parents know full well the toll having children will take on their lives, have children anyway, and feel that they have made the right choice. It's possible that all these people are wrong about their major life choices and that you have seen something they have all overlooked, but is it not more likely that your extremely simplified argument is too simplistic to apply to the reality of their lives?	Please explain how the mechanical makeup of the human mind makes human beings will suffer far more pain than pleasure. Also, if you believe this, why aren't you dead? --- Our survival is contingent on actions that bolster said survival against a world that is arrayed toward bringing us to the condition of death. Not dying involves perpetual dissatisfaction with our present environments which themselves are constantly depleted of their life giving conditions. We need to constantly be in motion and (to be curt with explanations of nature for times sake) evolution drummed up suffering to make that happen. Suffering is built to make us survive. Surviving beings us more suffering. --- > a world that is arrayed toward bringing us to the condition of death. What do you mean by this? But living requires achieving goals that are beneficial to your life, including regarding the pursuit of your self-interest as moral, and avoiding stuff that’s harmful to your life. If you do that well, you won’t suffer. --- - The universe is generally unkind to human homeostasis and a constant uphill battle must be fought to maintain it. Suffering is the engine through which survival is achieved and there is no survival sans its invocation. --- >The universe is generally unkind to human homeostasis and a constant uphill battle must be fought to maintain it. The universe doesn’t care one way or the other. It just is what it is. It’s mistaken to regard it as unkind. It’s only “unkind” from the mistaken view that the universe should be kind, like there should be some “god” watching over us. Life requires pursuing what’s necessary to live. And the universe is such that man can do it and man is capable of living. The universe is “good” if anything, since man can successfully live in it. >Suffering is the engine through which survival is achieved No, as explained above. And there are many examples of people flourishing.	17uiqjn	CMV: Human Consciousness Should Be Eradicated	Semi-earnest opinion mostly posted for thought experimentation. * - Due to the mechanical makeup of the human mind human beings will, regardless of any feasible circumstance, suffer far more pain than it will find pleasure. Births ——— 1) It is immoral to create beings that will primarily suffer. 2) Any newly created human will be a being that will primarily suffer. 3) Human reproduction should be ceased. Existing Lives ———————- 1) It is illogical to continue an experience that is primarily suffering without payoff. 2) Life as an experience that is primarily suffering, and absent death-denying magical metaphysics, is without payoff. 3) Living beings should cease the experience of life. Combo ———- 1) New humans should not be created. 2) Living humans should cease living. Ergo: Human consciousness should be eradicated.	Azathothism	5	5	[ { "author": "Automatic-Sport-6253", "id": "k93xs7h", "score": 34, "text": "You premise that humans are primarily suffering is flawed. If you constantly suffer, please seek professional help.", "timestamp": 1699904269 }, { "author": "Azathothism", "id": "k93yglw", "score": -24, "text": "Nuh uh. My premise is observably self-evident.", "timestamp": 1699904509 }, { "author": "lawmedy", "id": "k93zg7u", "score": 26, "text": "I personally feel that my life is pretty good and that I experience more pleasure than pain. Sounds like your whole thesis just fell apart!", "timestamp": 1699904858 }, { "author": "Azathothism", "id": "k940ewb", "score": -11, "text": "Personal feeling at an instant is not a good measure of cumulative effects over time. If I compiled a reel of every pain you ever have and ever will experience and a reel of every joy and pleasure you ever have and ever will experience and gave you the option of experiencing both in a condensed instant or neither would you choose to go with both? If so I would term you a masochist.", "timestamp": 1699905191 }, { "author": "grundar", "id": "k94qb2r", "score": 7, "text": "> If I compiled a reel of every pain you ever have and ever will experience and a reel of every joy and pleasure you ever have and ever will experience and gave you the option of experiencing both in a condensed instant or neither would you choose to go with both? If so I would term you a masochist.\n\nAnd?\n\nThat you do not agree with a choice a person makes for their own life does not mean they are \"wrong\"; it's likely to just mean that (a) they have different values than you have, or (b) you don't understand their motivations.\n\nIn particular, I would point out that each arm of your argument rests on an unsupported assumption: \n\n * 1) It is immoral to create beings that will primarily suffer. \n * 1) It is illogical to continue an experience that is primarily suffering without payoff.\n\nThese are effectively the same assumption; namely, that the rightness of a choice must be evaluated solely based on its position on the net joy/suffering axis. You're effectively begging the question by assuming that net suffering is a net moral bad. That is false for a number of moral systems (e.g., some religious ones), and as a result you're implicitly assuming a particular moral framework outside of which your argument falls apart.\n\nIf someone alternatively believes that the highest cause of humanity is understanding some great mystery (e.g., \"the nature of the universe\" or \"the mind of God\"), then an individual may rationally and morally choose to experience net suffering in order to make progress in that understanding. Having been through graduate school, that sounds very much like a choice many people I knew would have made, and it's a huge assumption on your part to assert you know better than them what they should choose.\n\nI would argue having children is another example of how this assumption does not describe the choices people make. Studies show that having children greatly increases personal suffering in a wide variety of ways (disrupted sleep, much less free time, less disposable income, higher anxiety, etc.). Many prospective parents know full well the toll having children will take on their lives, have children anyway, and feel that they have made the right choice.\n\nIt's possible that all these people are wrong about their major life choices and that you have seen something they have all overlooked, but is it not more likely that your extremely simplified argument is too simplistic to apply to the reality of their lives?", "timestamp": 1699914434 } ]	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "k93yano", "score": 71, "text": "Please explain how the mechanical makeup of the human mind makes human beings will suffer far more pain than pleasure.\n\nAlso, if you believe this, why aren't you dead?", "timestamp": 1699904450 }, { "author": "Azathothism", "id": "k93zbew", "score": -22, "text": "Our survival is contingent on actions that bolster said survival against a world that is arrayed toward bringing us to the condition of death. Not dying involves perpetual dissatisfaction with our present environments which themselves are constantly depleted of their life giving conditions. We need to constantly be in motion and (to be curt with explanations of nature for times sake) evolution drummed up suffering to make that happen. Suffering is built to make us survive. Surviving beings us more suffering.", "timestamp": 1699904810 }, { "author": "Love-Is-Selfish", "id": "k944ljy", "score": 17, "text": "> a world that is arrayed toward bringing us to the condition of death. \n\nWhat do you mean by this?\n\nBut living requires achieving goals that are beneficial to your life, including regarding the pursuit of your self-interest as moral, and avoiding stuff that’s harmful to your life. If you do that well, you won’t suffer.", "timestamp": 1699906683 }, { "author": "Azathothism", "id": "k945rmo", "score": -9, "text": "- The universe is generally unkind to human homeostasis and a constant uphill battle must be fought to maintain it. Suffering is the engine through which survival is achieved and there is no survival sans its invocation.", "timestamp": 1699907095 }, { "author": "Love-Is-Selfish", "id": "k947nf3", "score": 16, "text": ">The universe is generally unkind to human homeostasis and a constant uphill battle must be fought to maintain it. \n\nThe universe doesn’t care one way or the other. It just is what it is. It’s mistaken to regard it as unkind. It’s only “unkind” from the mistaken view that the universe should be kind, like there should be some “god” watching over us. Life requires pursuing what’s necessary to live. And the universe is such that man can do it and man is capable of living. The universe is “good” if anything, since man can successfully live in it. \n\n>Suffering is the engine through which survival is achieved\n\nNo, as explained above. And there are many examples of people flourishing.", "timestamp": 1699907761 } ]	[ "k93xs7h", "k93yglw", "k93zg7u", "k940ewb", "k94qb2r" ]	[ "k93yano", "k93zbew", "k944ljy", "k945rmo", "k947nf3" ]
CMV: In certain forms of motorsport, the competition isn't to see who has the best driver, but to see who has the most money, best car, best pit crew and the best tuners. These motorsports aren't very technical. Drag racing and land speed racing is go in a straight line as fast as you can. It's when motorsports start to have corners in them that the required skill to compete becomes higher. At least in drifting, autocross, rally and endurance racing, there's a big skill component that plays into the sport because of all the corners involved. Heck, even NASCAR takes a lot of skill to perform well in. In drag racing, unless your car breaks or your driver is a COMPLETE idiot, a tube chassis drag car with a billet engine block will beat an average joe with an iron block Mustang motor 95% of the time. Horsepower costs money, and a lot of it once you get into the quadruple digits. Race gas can be 10 dollars a gallon or more, and you burn a lot of fuel going fast. Top Fuel drag cars need to rebuild their engines after every run and a bad rebuild can make or break the next race the car is in.	Drag racing isn't as simple as you make it out to be. If you knew much about drag racing you'd know there are classes to keep competitors on an even playing field. If you bring out your stock mustang, you can drag race against another stock mustang. Or you can invest to make your mustang faster, and race against faster cars. Your top fuel dragsters are top of the heap, they generate so much power it is an engineering feat to get them down the track on one pass, and serious training is required to pilot those machines. Drivers don't get paid to drive easy cars. They get paid to drive cars that are hard to handle. If the cars are easy to drive, they are slow, and they lose. You would be wrong to say that Mercedes passes more cars in F1. There are two reasons for this, first is they start at the front. Not many to pass. Second because they know they will start from the front, they design the cars to be optimal out in the front. This actually hinders them when they aren't in the front. You can see Lewis Hamilton cut through the field in a Mercedes, because he is one of the best out there. His teammate, although a great driver often gets stuck behind slower cars when stuck in the pack. All professional drivers have awesome car control, but not all professional drivers are of equal skill. Some are just better. Racing is truly a team sport when you get into the professional ranks. Every aspect of the race is optimized, so having the best talent to do that increases your chances at success. Everyone who excels at what they do demand more compensation for their advanced skills. So it's just plain logic that spending more money should get you more results. But you have to balance that spend. That's what makes a great racing team. --- !delta Yeah, top fuel drag cars may drive down a straight track but they aren't easy to drive, I just remembered an on board video of a run and there is a surprising amount of steering input --- Remember that Richard Hammond, a guy who is an incredible driver crashed that rocket powered thing which accelerates slower than dragsters. Holding those cars in a straight line is insanely hard. Shifting is a whole different thing too.	I think you'll find the team with the best everything also has the best drivers, but that's because it's a team sport. Everyone has a role to play, the driver is just the most visible member because he is the final link in a long chain. --- !delta I could definitely see that with Formula One, maybe can see it with Monster Jam and NASCAR. If you can afford the best pit crew, crew chief, and tuners, why not the best driver? It still kind of proves my point that the best thing to have for a motorsports team is an almost unlimited source of money. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/boyraceruk ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/boyraceruk)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	l7vkd3	CMV: In certain forms of motorsport, the competition isn't to see who has the best driver, but to see who has the most money, best car, best pit crew and the best tuners.	These motorsports aren't very technical. Drag racing and land speed racing is go in a straight line as fast as you can. It's when motorsports start to have corners in them that the required skill to compete becomes higher. At least in drifting, autocross, rally and endurance racing, there's a big skill component that plays into the sport because of all the corners involved. Heck, even NASCAR takes a lot of skill to perform well in. In drag racing, unless your car breaks or your driver is a COMPLETE idiot, a tube chassis drag car with a billet engine block will beat an average joe with an iron block Mustang motor 95% of the time. Horsepower costs money, and a lot of it once you get into the quadruple digits. Race gas can be 10 dollars a gallon or more, and you burn a lot of fuel going fast. Top Fuel drag cars need to rebuild their engines after every run and a bad rebuild can make or break the next race the car is in.	overhardeggs	3	3	[ { "author": "responsible4self", "id": "gl9a54c", "score": 603, "text": "Drag racing isn't as simple as you make it out to be. If you knew much about drag racing you'd know there are classes to keep competitors on an even playing field. If you bring out your stock mustang, you can drag race against another stock mustang. Or you can invest to make your mustang faster, and race against faster cars. \n\nYour top fuel dragsters are top of the heap, they generate so much power it is an engineering feat to get them down the track on one pass, and serious training is required to pilot those machines. Drivers don't get paid to drive easy cars. They get paid to drive cars that are hard to handle. If the cars are easy to drive, they are slow, and they lose. \n\nYou would be wrong to say that Mercedes passes more cars in F1. There are two reasons for this, first is they start at the front. Not many to pass. Second because they know they will start from the front, they design the cars to be optimal out in the front. This actually hinders them when they aren't in the front. You can see Lewis Hamilton cut through the field in a Mercedes, because he is one of the best out there. His teammate, although a great driver often gets stuck behind slower cars when stuck in the pack. All professional drivers have awesome car control, but not all professional drivers are of equal skill. Some are just better. \n\nRacing is truly a team sport when you get into the professional ranks. Every aspect of the race is optimized, so having the best talent to do that increases your chances at success. Everyone who excels at what they do demand more compensation for their advanced skills. So it's just plain logic that spending more money should get you more results. But you have to balance that spend. That's what makes a great racing team.", "timestamp": 1611939345 }, { "author": "overhardeggs", "id": "gl9apw8", "score": 152, "text": "!delta Yeah, top fuel drag cars may drive down a straight track but they aren't easy to drive, I just remembered an on board video of a run and there is a surprising amount of steering input", "timestamp": 1611939546 }, { "author": "ThunderClap448", "id": "gla6je0", "score": 78, "text": "Remember that Richard Hammond, a guy who is an incredible driver crashed that rocket powered thing which accelerates slower than dragsters. Holding those cars in a straight line is insanely hard. Shifting is a whole different thing too.", "timestamp": 1611950718 } ]	[ { "author": "boyraceruk", "id": "gl94vnu", "score": 490, "text": "I think you'll find the team with the best everything also has the best drivers, but that's because it's a team sport. Everyone has a role to play, the driver is just the most visible member because he is the final link in a long chain.", "timestamp": 1611937440 }, { "author": "overhardeggs", "id": "gl968bo", "score": 129, "text": "!delta I could definitely see that with Formula One, maybe can see it with Monster Jam and NASCAR. If you can afford the best pit crew, crew chief, and tuners, why not the best driver?\n\nIt still kind of proves my point that the best thing to have for a motorsports team is an almost unlimited source of money.", "timestamp": 1611937934 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "gl96ae5", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/boyraceruk ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/boyraceruk)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1611937955 } ]	[ "gl9a54c", "gl9apw8", "gla6je0" ]	[ "gl94vnu", "gl968bo", "gl96ae5" ]
CMV: I cannot understand in modern times how America is supposed to be a "Christian nation". Hi there. I remember some times in the past certain people would argue that the reason why America and the rest of the West are so successful is due to a combination of "Enlightenment ideas and principles" and "Biblical or judeo-christian ideals". In terms of the Enlightenment, it makes sense that the reason of people like John Locke and Will Penn were responsible for creating concepts useful for government, and philosophy. However, the Christian nation idea is still a bit of a question since America was founded as a secular nation under the Constitution. I think the Declar. of Independence or the preamble of the Constit. mentions "rights being given to people by a Creator, but beyond that mentions little of the divine. Creator and maybe God is mentioned, but nowhere is Jesus is mentioned, nor the Holy Spirit in America's founding documents. At best, America can be described as a God abiding nation with a secular vibe, but Christian is a bit hard for me to understand.	The people who say that the US is a Christian nation don't mean that it's a Christian theocracy, per se. What they mean is that the US was founded by Christians for Christians and with "Christian ideals." Christianity is also the religion with the most amount of followers in the country. So what they mean is that because the US was founded by Christians and Christians are the largest denomination in the country, it should be governed as such. Hence the "US is a Christian nation!" rhetoric. They are essentially arguing for a WASP ethnostate theocracy. --- > The people who say that the US is a Christian nation don't mean that it's a Christian theocracy, per se. What they mean is that the US was founded by Christians for Christians and with "Christian ideals." Christianity is also the religion with the most amount of followers in the country. So what they mean is that because the US was founded by Christians and Christians are the largest denomination in the country, it should be governed as such. Hence the "US is a Christian nation!" rhetoric. They are essentially arguing for a WASP ethnostate theocracy. Hmmm... Interesting... --- Another way of looking at this is like, imagine that 95% of Americans enjoyed woodworking, you know, carving birds and dogs and other sculptures from wood. We would be a nation of woodworkers. Even if nothing was said about woodworking in the constitution. I'm an atheist, as a belief system, I think Christianity is silly. But, in a democracy, there's going to be some bleed-over if you have an overwhelming majority in favor of something. Right now, we're the least Christian we've ever been, because there are more agnostics, and atheists and Muslims than there were a hundred years ago. It's like saying, "America is a nation of doglovers." Does it say anything about dogs in the constitution? No. But we still have a bunch of laws protecting dogs, because we like them. --- > . > > I'm an atheist, as a belief system, I think Christianity is silly. But, in a democracy, there's going to be some bleed-over if you have an overwhelming majority in favor of something. > > Right now, we're the least Christian we've ever been, because there are more agnostics, and atheists and Muslims than there were a hundred years ago. > > It's like saying, "America is a nation of doglovers." Does it say anything about dogs in the constitution? No. But we still have a bunch of laws protecting dogs, because we like them. Okay, then. So what makes it a Christian nation in a sense is the voters who are majority Christian? --- The US isn't de jure a Christian nation. There are no laws saying that the country is and must be Christian (in fact, the first Amendment would contradict that). But it is de facto. As others have said, the majority of religious people in the country are Christian, and many of our laws and principles are heavily influenced by a heritage of Christianity. Some people claim that the US is a Christian nation. They believe that because Christianity is the most widespread religion in the US, laws and policies in line with Christian beliefs should be passed and enforced. But no matter what rhetoric they use, the US isn't and likely won't ever be a "true" Christian nation.	>"Biblical or judeo-christian ideals" A bit of an aside but I have never heard a definition of this term except for "that thing muslims dont have and therefore they are bad". --- And occasionally when someone says something like "the ten commandments" they just completely ignore how like half the ten commandments aren't and weren't law, and the ones that are/were law are obvious stuff that is illegal everywhere (e.g. murder and stealing are bad). --- They also ignore how much of current legal systems is derived from Roman law, which was developed by a bunch of Christian burning heathens. --- Pretty sure the basis of Roman law came around way before Christianity was a thing. Also left out the part where Rome became a Christian nation leading to most of Europe becoming Christian leading to their colonies being predominantly Christian. --- Roman law predates Christianity. Romans were also Christian burning heathens. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Also I am not sure why I left out the part of Rome becoming a Christian nation because a) its irrelevant and were I to state every irrelevant thing I could think of we would be here for a while and b) [it is not even true because Rome especially the later empire never was any kind of nation](https://acoup.blog/2021/06/25/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-ii-citizens-and-allies/)	qcykfz	CMV: I cannot understand in modern times how America is supposed to be a "Christian nation".	Hi there. I remember some times in the past certain people would argue that the reason why America and the rest of the West are so successful is due to a combination of "Enlightenment ideas and principles" and "Biblical or judeo-christian ideals". In terms of the Enlightenment, it makes sense that the reason of people like John Locke and Will Penn were responsible for creating concepts useful for government, and philosophy. However, the Christian nation idea is still a bit of a question since America was founded as a secular nation under the Constitution. I think the Declar. of Independence or the preamble of the Constit. mentions "rights being given to people by a Creator, but beyond that mentions little of the divine. Creator and maybe God is mentioned, but nowhere is Jesus is mentioned, nor the Holy Spirit in America's founding documents. At best, America can be described as a God abiding nation with a secular vibe, but Christian is a bit hard for me to understand.	[deleted]	5	5	[ { "author": "TAK3AW4Y", "id": "hhiwqcr", "score": 16, "text": "The people who say that the US is a Christian nation don't mean that it's a Christian theocracy, per se. What they mean is that the US was founded by Christians for Christians and with \"Christian ideals.\" Christianity is also the religion with the most amount of followers in the country. So what they mean is that because the US was founded by Christians and Christians are the largest denomination in the country, it should be governed as such. Hence the \"US is a Christian nation!\" rhetoric. They are essentially arguing for a WASP ethnostate theocracy.", "timestamp": 1634842660 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hhj09is", "score": -1, "text": "> The people who say that the US is a Christian nation don't mean that it's a Christian theocracy, per se. What they mean is that the US was founded by Christians for Christians and with \"Christian ideals.\" Christianity is also the religion with the most amount of followers in the country. So what they mean is that because the US was founded by Christians and Christians are the largest denomination in the country, it should be governed as such. Hence the \"US is a Christian nation!\" rhetoric. They are essentially arguing for a WASP ethnostate theocracy.\n\nHmmm... Interesting...", "timestamp": 1634844115 }, { "author": "laconicflow", "id": "hhj38xd", "score": 6, "text": "Another way of looking at this is like, imagine that 95% of Americans enjoyed woodworking, you know, carving birds and dogs and other sculptures from wood. We would be a nation of woodworkers. Even if nothing was said about woodworking in the constitution. \n\nI'm an atheist, as a belief system, I think Christianity is silly. But, in a democracy, there's going to be some bleed-over if you have an overwhelming majority in favor of something. \n\nRight now, we're the least Christian we've ever been, because there are more agnostics, and atheists and Muslims than there were a hundred years ago. \n\nIt's like saying, \"America is a nation of doglovers.\" Does it say anything about dogs in the constitution? No. But we still have a bunch of laws protecting dogs, because we like them.", "timestamp": 1634845330 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hhjggyt", "score": 3, "text": "> .\n> \n> I'm an atheist, as a belief system, I think Christianity is silly. But, in a democracy, there's going to be some bleed-over if you have an overwhelming majority in favor of something.\n> \n> Right now, we're the least Christian we've ever been, because there are more agnostics, and atheists and Muslims than there were a hundred years ago.\n> \n> It's like saying, \"America is a nation of doglovers.\" Does it say anything about dogs in the constitution? No. But we still have a bunch of laws protecting dogs, because we like them.\n\nOkay, then. So what makes it a Christian nation in a sense is the voters who are majority Christian?", "timestamp": 1634850658 }, { "author": "GalaxyConqueror", "id": "hhji9tq", "score": 6, "text": "The US isn't de jure a Christian nation. There are no laws saying that the country is and must be Christian (in fact, the first Amendment would contradict that). But it is de facto. As others have said, the majority of religious people in the country are Christian, and many of our laws and principles are heavily influenced by a heritage of Christianity.\n\nSome people claim that the US is a Christian nation. They believe that because Christianity is the most widespread religion in the US, laws and policies in line with Christian beliefs should be passed and enforced. But no matter what rhetoric they use, the US isn't and likely won't ever be a \"true\" Christian nation.", "timestamp": 1634851430 } ]	[ { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "hhj20gs", "score": 6, "text": ">\"Biblical or judeo-christian ideals\"\n\nA bit of an aside but I have never heard a definition of this term except for \"that thing muslims dont have and therefore they are bad\".", "timestamp": 1634844827 }, { "author": "LLJKCicero", "id": "hhj6ze4", "score": 4, "text": "And occasionally when someone says something like \"the ten commandments\" they just completely ignore how like half the ten commandments aren't and weren't law, and the ones that are/were law are obvious stuff that is illegal everywhere (e.g. murder and stealing are bad).", "timestamp": 1634846822 }, { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "hhj81vc", "score": 3, "text": "They also ignore how much of current legal systems is derived from Roman law, which was developed by a bunch of Christian burning heathens.", "timestamp": 1634847246 }, { "author": "XYZ-Wing", "id": "hhj9e8b", "score": 2, "text": "Pretty sure the basis of Roman law came around way before Christianity was a thing. Also left out the part where Rome became a Christian nation leading to most of Europe becoming Christian leading to their colonies being predominantly Christian.", "timestamp": 1634847772 }, { "author": "barthiebarth", "id": "hhjavsl", "score": 3, "text": "Roman law predates Christianity. Romans were also Christian burning heathens. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.\n\nAlso I am not sure why I left out the part of Rome becoming a Christian nation because a) its irrelevant and were I to state every irrelevant thing I could think of we would be here for a while and b) [it is not even true because Rome especially the later empire never was any kind of nation](https://acoup.blog/2021/06/25/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-ii-citizens-and-allies/)", "timestamp": 1634848365 } ]	[ "hhiwqcr", "hhj09is", "hhj38xd", "hhjggyt", "hhji9tq" ]	[ "hhj20gs", "hhj6ze4", "hhj81vc", "hhj9e8b", "hhjavsl" ]
CMV: Cyberbullying Would Not Be Considered a Problem If Our Society Had The Right Attitude Towards It. I believe the way our society is treating cyberbullying is exaggerated. So, first I want to define my concepts: - Bullying: Bullying is when an individual purposefully does harm to another individual’s character physically. The main characteristic of Bullying is that you’re stuck with it. You can’t ignore it, you can’t walk away. You have no escape route. - Online Harassment: This is persistent violation of private space and security by someone online, consistently and with the purpose of harm. You can’t escape from this either. - Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route. So, this is my case: Cyberbullying should not be taught in the same way Bullying is in schools. Why? Because that puts the idea that they are equal in the student’s mind. That’s not the case at all. We have created a society that values words more than they should. It treats someone saying you’re ugly over the internet the same way as someone physically harming you at school. Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. People often claim that cyber bullying has the same effects as bullying. Low self-esteem, depression, etc.. But why is that? I think it’s because we no longer believe the old saying “sticks and stones might brake your bones, but words can’t break your bones“. Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly. Instead, they should be told to block the user, turn off the computer or ignore it. The name is misleading, as it has “Bullying” in it. We should get that out of our heads too. In short: We should stop believing that cyberbullying is a threat to the youth of today, because we’ve made it one. Change my view!	It is not true that there is a distinction between cyberbullying and bullying. There is an escape route for bullying too - walk away from that person or ignore them. --- No because bullying is physical. You tell me how you’re supposed to walk away when a group of teens 10 years older than you comes to you and harasses you until you cry. If you walk away you’ll get thrown a rock, you’ll fall down and they’ll hit you again. --- Bullying is not necessarily physical, nor performed by a group of people who are older. In both cases, bullying and cyberbullying, one person uses their apparent superiority to knowingly cause emotional, psychological or physical harm to another person. In neither of the two cases is walking away a feasible solution. In the case you raised, walking away leads to the same, if not more, harm than not walking away. In the case of cyberbullying, walking away isn't an option either, that is the real danger of cyberbullying. What makes cyberbullying dangerous is that it can, and will follow the bullied. A determined bully will find ways to circumvent any blocks the bullied might raise. In many cases, cyberbullying doesn't occur one on one, instead, public spaces in the web are used by the bully to attack the bullied. Bullying is bullying, whether it is throwing a stone on the street, passing harmful notes in class, whispering attacks in the hallways or posting attacks on the web.	>Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly. What makes you think this is true? Can you link us to an example of someone teaching children this? --- My school... And even if it weren’t true, it is a problem that students feel bad because someone tells them they’re ugly. The school system does not teach to deal with that. --- You're saying your school has literally taught you that you _have to feel bad_ if someone messages you that you're ugly? This is awful. Please understand that this in no way represents how children are generally taught, or how it is recommended that bullying be handled. You should seriously consider complaining to the school board about this matter—this is well outside the norms of how children should be taught and in my opinion is actively harmful.	7l3lzw	CMV: Cyberbullying Would Not Be Considered a Problem If Our Society Had The Right Attitude Towards It.	I believe the way our society is treating cyberbullying is exaggerated. So, first I want to define my concepts: - Bullying: Bullying is when an individual purposefully does harm to another individual’s character physically. The main characteristic of Bullying is that you’re stuck with it. You can’t ignore it, you can’t walk away. You have no escape route. - Online Harassment: This is persistent violation of private space and security by someone online, consistently and with the purpose of harm. You can’t escape from this either. - Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route. So, this is my case: Cyberbullying should not be taught in the same way Bullying is in schools. Why? Because that puts the idea that they are equal in the student’s mind. That’s not the case at all. We have created a society that values words more than they should. It treats someone saying you’re ugly over the internet the same way as someone physically harming you at school. Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. People often claim that cyber bullying has the same effects as bullying. Low self-esteem, depression, etc.. But why is that? I think it’s because we no longer believe the old saying “sticks and stones might brake your bones, but words can’t break your bones“. Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly. Instead, they should be told to block the user, turn off the computer or ignore it. The name is misleading, as it has “Bullying” in it. We should get that out of our heads too. In short: We should stop believing that cyberbullying is a threat to the youth of today, because we’ve made it one. Change my view!	Thinking_King	3	3	[ { "author": "_Pyrrho", "id": "drj8i75", "score": 2, "text": "It is not true that there is a distinction between cyberbullying and bullying. There is an escape route for bullying too - walk away from that person or ignore them.", "timestamp": 1513797681 }, { "author": "Thinking_King", "id": "drj8o6l", "score": -1, "text": "No because bullying is physical. You tell me how you’re supposed to walk away when a group of teens 10 years older than you comes to you and harasses you until you cry. If you walk away you’ll get thrown a rock, you’ll fall down and they’ll hit you again.", "timestamp": 1513797844 }, { "author": "sebasvel", "id": "drj9ruz", "score": 3, "text": "Bullying is not necessarily physical, nor performed by a group of people who are older. In both cases, bullying and cyberbullying, one person uses their apparent superiority to knowingly cause emotional, psychological or physical harm to another person. \n\nIn neither of the two cases is walking away a feasible solution. In the case you raised, walking away leads to the same, if not more, harm than not walking away. In the case of cyberbullying, walking away isn't an option either, that is the real danger of cyberbullying.\n\nWhat makes cyberbullying dangerous is that it can, and will follow the bullied. A determined bully will find ways to circumvent any blocks the bullied might raise. In many cases, cyberbullying doesn't occur one on one, instead, public spaces in the web are used by the bully to attack the bullied.\n\nBullying is bullying, whether it is throwing a stone on the street, passing harmful notes in class, whispering attacks in the hallways or posting attacks on the web.", "timestamp": 1513798936 } ]	[ { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "drj8e3z", "score": 5, "text": ">Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly.\n\nWhat makes you think this is true? Can you link us to an example of someone teaching children this?", "timestamp": 1513797568 }, { "author": "Thinking_King", "id": "drj8g4c", "score": 0, "text": "My school... \nAnd even if it weren’t true, it is a problem that students feel bad because someone tells them they’re ugly. The school system does not teach to deal with that.", "timestamp": 1513797624 }, { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "drj8p4c", "score": 7, "text": "You're saying your school has literally taught you that you _have to feel bad_ if someone messages you that you're ugly? This is awful. Please understand that this in no way represents how children are generally taught, or how it is recommended that bullying be handled. You should seriously consider complaining to the school board about this matter—this is well outside the norms of how children should be taught and in my opinion is actively harmful.", "timestamp": 1513797870 } ]	[ "drj8i75", "drj8o6l", "drj9ruz" ]	[ "drj8e3z", "drj8g4c", "drj8p4c" ]
CMV: Cyberbullying Would Not Be Considered a Problem If Our Society Had The Right Attitude Towards It. I believe the way our society is treating cyberbullying is exaggerated. So, first I want to define my concepts: - Bullying: Bullying is when an individual purposefully does harm to another individual’s character physically. The main characteristic of Bullying is that you’re stuck with it. You can’t ignore it, you can’t walk away. You have no escape route. - Online Harassment: This is persistent violation of private space and security by someone online, consistently and with the purpose of harm. You can’t escape from this either. - Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route. So, this is my case: Cyberbullying should not be taught in the same way Bullying is in schools. Why? Because that puts the idea that they are equal in the student’s mind. That’s not the case at all. We have created a society that values words more than they should. It treats someone saying you’re ugly over the internet the same way as someone physically harming you at school. Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. People often claim that cyber bullying has the same effects as bullying. Low self-esteem, depression, etc.. But why is that? I think it’s because we no longer believe the old saying “sticks and stones might brake your bones, but words can’t break your bones“. Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly. Instead, they should be told to block the user, turn off the computer or ignore it. The name is misleading, as it has “Bullying” in it. We should get that out of our heads too. In short: We should stop believing that cyberbullying is a threat to the youth of today, because we’ve made it one. Change my view!	> Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route. >Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. So the issue is that not many platforms have tools that let you ignore something on a widescale fashion (such as blocking people on twitter), and a death threat is a death threat regardless of how it’s related to the person. You can’t walk away from google bombing (Just ask Rick Santorum) You can’t walk away from revenge porn. --- >death threat is a death threat regardless of how it’s related to the person. >You can’t walk away from google bombing (Just ask Rick Santorum) >You can’t walk away from revenge porn. All of those examples fall under the definition of online harassment. And yes, ALL tools I’ve used in the internet have more than enough methods for you to ignore. In fact, I’m pretty sure all devices have an “off” button. --- You're trying to get everyone to buy into your own unique definitions of cyberbullying and online harassment. That distinction isn't really actually accepted by most people. Either way, it's wrong to just verbally abuse someone on the internet too. Even if they can just turn off the screen and do something else, you don't get to dictate to people how they should react. You can't just tell people to ignore it. That's not how this works.	It is not true that there is a distinction between cyberbullying and bullying. There is an escape route for bullying too - walk away from that person or ignore them. --- No because bullying is physical. You tell me how you’re supposed to walk away when a group of teens 10 years older than you comes to you and harasses you until you cry. If you walk away you’ll get thrown a rock, you’ll fall down and they’ll hit you again. --- You defined bullying as either physical or verbal harm. So, there's no difference between cyberbullying and verbal real-life bullying.	7l3lzw	CMV: Cyberbullying Would Not Be Considered a Problem If Our Society Had The Right Attitude Towards It.	I believe the way our society is treating cyberbullying is exaggerated. So, first I want to define my concepts: - Bullying: Bullying is when an individual purposefully does harm to another individual’s character physically. The main characteristic of Bullying is that you’re stuck with it. You can’t ignore it, you can’t walk away. You have no escape route. - Online Harassment: This is persistent violation of private space and security by someone online, consistently and with the purpose of harm. You can’t escape from this either. - Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route. So, this is my case: Cyberbullying should not be taught in the same way Bullying is in schools. Why? Because that puts the idea that they are equal in the student’s mind. That’s not the case at all. We have created a society that values words more than they should. It treats someone saying you’re ugly over the internet the same way as someone physically harming you at school. Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. People often claim that cyber bullying has the same effects as bullying. Low self-esteem, depression, etc.. But why is that? I think it’s because we no longer believe the old saying “sticks and stones might brake your bones, but words can’t break your bones“. Students are taught they have to feel bad if someone messages them that they’re ugly. Instead, they should be told to block the user, turn off the computer or ignore it. The name is misleading, as it has “Bullying” in it. We should get that out of our heads too. In short: We should stop believing that cyberbullying is a threat to the youth of today, because we’ve made it one. Change my view!	Thinking_King	3	3	[ { "author": "Huntingmoa", "id": "drj8u87", "score": 1, "text": "> Cyberbullying: This is when an individual uses the cyberspace to verbally harm someone’s character in an intentional manner. You can ignore it, you can walk away. You do have an escape route.\n\n>Cyberbullying is so easy to stop— ignore it. It’s so simple, yet our society believes we must treat it like another form of bullying. \n\nSo the issue is that not many platforms have tools that let you ignore something on a widescale fashion (such as blocking people on twitter), and a death threat is a death threat regardless of how it’s related to the person.\n\nYou can’t walk away from google bombing (Just ask Rick Santorum)\n\nYou can’t walk away from revenge porn. \n", "timestamp": 1513798012 }, { "author": "Thinking_King", "id": "drj97dw", "score": 1, "text": ">death threat is a death threat regardless of how it’s related to the person.\n\n>You can’t walk away from google bombing (Just ask Rick Santorum)\n\n>You can’t walk away from revenge porn. \n\nAll of those examples fall under the definition of online harassment.\n\nAnd yes, ALL tools I’ve used in the internet have more than enough methods for you to ignore. In fact, I’m pretty sure all devices have an “off” button.", "timestamp": 1513798371 }, { "author": "ChangeMyViewer", "id": "drj9uo6", "score": 3, "text": "You're trying to get everyone to buy into your own unique definitions of cyberbullying and online harassment. That distinction isn't really actually accepted by most people.\n\nEither way, it's wrong to just verbally abuse someone on the internet too. Even if they can just turn off the screen and do something else, you don't get to dictate to people how they should react. You can't just tell people to ignore it. That's not how this works.", "timestamp": 1513799013 } ]	[ { "author": "_Pyrrho", "id": "drj8i75", "score": 2, "text": "It is not true that there is a distinction between cyberbullying and bullying. There is an escape route for bullying too - walk away from that person or ignore them.", "timestamp": 1513797681 }, { "author": "Thinking_King", "id": "drj8o6l", "score": -1, "text": "No because bullying is physical. You tell me how you’re supposed to walk away when a group of teens 10 years older than you comes to you and harasses you until you cry. If you walk away you’ll get thrown a rock, you’ll fall down and they’ll hit you again.", "timestamp": 1513797844 }, { "author": "_Pyrrho", "id": "drj945m", "score": 1, "text": "You defined bullying as either physical or verbal harm. So, there's no difference between cyberbullying and verbal real-life bullying. ", "timestamp": 1513798283 } ]	[ "drj8u87", "drj97dw", "drj9uo6" ]	[ "drj8i75", "drj8o6l", "drj945m" ]
CMV: The law code should be no more complex than what can be taught to children. The reason for this comes down to this simple explanation: You can't play the game if you don't know the rules. If you try, the rules become "do whatever you want, and don't talk to authorities". By the time you are an adult, you are expected to play the game. I don't believe it's any coincidence that the countries with the most laws have the [highest per-capita prison population](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm). In the US, we [literally don't even know how many](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184) laws we have. For this reason, a study and book by Harvey Silverglate estimates the average American citizen unknowingly commits about [3 felonies per day](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). There are many downsides to a system this complex. * It makes everyone into yet-uncaught criminals. I think most people try to be good people, but it's not enough to keep you out of prison. In order to stay out of prison, you also have to lie (or at least not talk) about what you do, and you must also perform your actions in concealment. * It breeds corruption in the population. Why try to follow rules when they are absurdly complex and you don't understand them? Why not break a rule you know about when you've already broken 10 that you don't know about? * It breeds corruption in law enforcement. If a law enforcement officer wants to put a person in jail, all they have to do is follow them around and wait for them to break a law which the law enforcement officer knows about and the yet-uncaught criminal does not. In theory this allows them to use their power for good (like catching Al Capone on tax evasion). But there are plenty of instances of otherwise innocent people being locked up on technicality. * It makes law enforcement's job harder. The first thing a lawyer will tell you is don't talk to police. The reason for this is you could accidentally incriminate yourself, even in a failure of articulation. Police require cooperation from the public in order to enforce laws. But an individual puts themselves in great danger by cooperating. * Laws must be selectively enforced. There is no way to enforce them all without even knowing what they are. This creates an entirely separate set of rules all on it's own. i.e. "I can get away with this because the police don't care about it, I can't get away with that because law enforcement happens to be 'cracking down' on that right now." There are many ways we can reduce complexity in the system, and things which I think most people agree on. For one, we can say "If there is no victim, there is no crime." Also, "a perpetrator of a crime cannot be the victim of the same crime", so a crime against yourself is not a crime. We can also say that all laws have an expiration date. So if you want the law to remain after 7 years (just for example), then it has to be renewed. This gets rid of many old and unneeded laws. Or we could also just scrap the whole law code and start over "ten commandments" style. These are not the limitations or even necessarily the methods themselves which we could use to reduce the number of laws. These just serve as examples. So, CMV, how is it possible for a person to be a law abiding citizen in such a system? Or how is it not possible to simplify the law code? Or how do the benefits of such a complex system outweigh it's consequences on society? Or how are the consequences I've outlined wrong? EDIT: My view has changed in one way - Many (but not all) of the profession-specific regulations do not need to be known by people who do not work in that field. There is no great need for an 18 year old to know all the intricacies of medical malpractice, but they should know that they aren't allowed to practice medicine yet and that doctors have rules. I still think many of these regulations can be done away with, but I can certainly see why new adults don't need to know the specifics of them. For this reason I'm going to go through the comments and award deltas to everyone who made a compelling argument about profession-specific regulations (it's a lot of people). _____ > 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!*	Maybe justice is more complicated than what children are capable of understanding. If philosophers and jurists have spent centuries debating a system of laws that is fair and more or less workable, then it is likely that such a system is quite complex. I am in favor of simplifying laws but I think there is probably a limit to how much we could simplify without those laws becoming unfair or unworkable. --- Children don't need to be taught the reasons for the law. We can leave that to lawyers and scholars. But they do need to at least know what the laws are, since they are expected to abide by them. --- But even fairly basic legal principles like [Comparative Responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_responsibility) have quite complicated details that would be difficult for a child to understand, like assigning fault among parties by percentage. --- Children generally learn fairly early on that both parties can be at fault in a situation. Two kids get in a squabble and both get in trouble? Sure. Happens all the time. And the kids have no trouble at all saying things like "yeah, but he was MORE wrong". --- Yes, that is a good example. But I think OP is in part objecting to the fact that although it makes intuitive sense to assign blame unevenly to different parties, the actual laws for damages awarded to a plaintiff who is partially at fault will be something more like the following: > 1) Allow the plaintiff to recover the amount of total damages to him, reduced by the percentage of fault he is assigned. 2) Allow the plaintiff to recover only if he was an equal or lower percentage at fault than each defendant. Or 3) Allow the plaintiff to recover only if he was less at fault than each of the defendants. The fact that laws get more complicated as they are refined seems to be a fact of legal life. I don't think this kind of complexity could ever be reduced to a simple set of 'ten-commandment style rules' as OP hopes. --- All of those are relatively child-friendly as well, though. > 1) We're not going to punish your brother for the bits that are your own fault. Or 2) If it was mostly your own fault, don't come crying to us because you got hurt. Or 3) Unless it was mostly your brother's fault, don't come crying to us because you got hurt. The reasoning behind these (and the reasons for choosing one over another) may be more complicated, but the options themselves are pretty straightforward. I'm also not sure it's entirely appropriate to include aspects of civil procedure when we're talking about simplifying the law: civpro is less about the law people should be following on a day-to-day basis, and more about the actual mechanics of making the courts work.	Could you give an example of a law that is more complex than it needs to be? --- I could, but the main issue is not any particular law. It's the inherent complexity of the overall system due to the number of laws. I am not complaining about any one law in particular. --- I believe the reason that /u/jaysank is asking is that we need to know roughly what the type of law you're referring to is. How complex is too complex? --- Too complex to be understood by an 18 year old adult is too complex, because an 18 year old adult is expected to live within the boundaries set by the law. --- Yes, but what law is too complex to be understood by an 18 year old adult? --- Only the very complex 1000 page laws, like the ACA, are too complex for an 18 year old adult. Let's say for argument that an 18 year old is capable of understanding any law. No one law is too complex. The law code itself is still too complex. It needs to all fit within one textbook. It can be a big textbook, but it can't be 500,000 pages.	7l1jsr	CMV: The law code should be no more complex than what can be taught to children.	The reason for this comes down to this simple explanation: You can't play the game if you don't know the rules. If you try, the rules become "do whatever you want, and don't talk to authorities". By the time you are an adult, you are expected to play the game. I don't believe it's any coincidence that the countries with the most laws have the [highest per-capita prison population](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm). In the US, we [literally don't even know how many](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184) laws we have. For this reason, a study and book by Harvey Silverglate estimates the average American citizen unknowingly commits about [3 felonies per day](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). There are many downsides to a system this complex. * It makes everyone into yet-uncaught criminals. I think most people try to be good people, but it's not enough to keep you out of prison. In order to stay out of prison, you also have to lie (or at least not talk) about what you do, and you must also perform your actions in concealment. * It breeds corruption in the population. Why try to follow rules when they are absurdly complex and you don't understand them? Why not break a rule you know about when you've already broken 10 that you don't know about? * It breeds corruption in law enforcement. If a law enforcement officer wants to put a person in jail, all they have to do is follow them around and wait for them to break a law which the law enforcement officer knows about and the yet-uncaught criminal does not. In theory this allows them to use their power for good (like catching Al Capone on tax evasion). But there are plenty of instances of otherwise innocent people being locked up on technicality. * It makes law enforcement's job harder. The first thing a lawyer will tell you is don't talk to police. The reason for this is you could accidentally incriminate yourself, even in a failure of articulation. Police require cooperation from the public in order to enforce laws. But an individual puts themselves in great danger by cooperating. * Laws must be selectively enforced. There is no way to enforce them all without even knowing what they are. This creates an entirely separate set of rules all on it's own. i.e. "I can get away with this because the police don't care about it, I can't get away with that because law enforcement happens to be 'cracking down' on that right now." There are many ways we can reduce complexity in the system, and things which I think most people agree on. For one, we can say "If there is no victim, there is no crime." Also, "a perpetrator of a crime cannot be the victim of the same crime", so a crime against yourself is not a crime. We can also say that all laws have an expiration date. So if you want the law to remain after 7 years (just for example), then it has to be renewed. This gets rid of many old and unneeded laws. Or we could also just scrap the whole law code and start over "ten commandments" style. These are not the limitations or even necessarily the methods themselves which we could use to reduce the number of laws. These just serve as examples. So, CMV, how is it possible for a person to be a law abiding citizen in such a system? Or how is it not possible to simplify the law code? Or how do the benefits of such a complex system outweigh it's consequences on society? Or how are the consequences I've outlined wrong? EDIT: My view has changed in one way - Many (but not all) of the profession-specific regulations do not need to be known by people who do not work in that field. There is no great need for an 18 year old to know all the intricacies of medical malpractice, but they should know that they aren't allowed to practice medicine yet and that doctors have rules. I still think many of these regulations can be done away with, but I can certainly see why new adults don't need to know the specifics of them. For this reason I'm going to go through the comments and award deltas to everyone who made a compelling argument about profession-specific regulations (it's a lot of people). _____ > 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!*	das_american	6	6	[ { "author": "vires_vivae", "id": "driqvdm", "score": 57, "text": "Maybe justice is more complicated than what children are capable of understanding. \n\nIf philosophers and jurists have spent centuries debating a system of laws that is fair and more or less workable, then it is likely that such a system is quite complex. I am in favor of simplifying laws but I think there is probably a limit to how much we could simplify without those laws becoming unfair or unworkable.", "timestamp": 1513779308 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "drir7d2", "score": 1, "text": "Children don't need to be taught the reasons for the law. We can leave that to lawyers and scholars. But they do need to at least know what the laws are, since they are expected to abide by them.", "timestamp": 1513779743 }, { "author": "vires_vivae", "id": "drirr7v", "score": 23, "text": "But even fairly basic legal principles like [Comparative Responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_responsibility) have quite complicated details that would be difficult for a child to understand, like assigning fault among parties by percentage. ", "timestamp": 1513780428 }, { "author": "TheAzureMage", "id": "drivdki", "score": 2, "text": "Children generally learn fairly early on that both parties can be at fault in a situation. Two kids get in a squabble and both get in trouble? Sure. Happens all the time. And the kids have no trouble at all saying things like \"yeah, but he was MORE wrong\".", "timestamp": 1513784576 }, { "author": "vires_vivae", "id": "driwn0x", "score": 7, "text": "Yes, that is a good example. But I think OP is in part objecting to the fact that although it makes intuitive sense to assign blame unevenly to different parties, the actual laws for damages awarded to a plaintiff who is partially at fault will be something more like the following:\n\n> 1) Allow the plaintiff to recover the amount of total damages to him, reduced by the percentage of fault he is assigned.\n2) Allow the plaintiff to recover only if he was an equal or lower percentage at fault than each defendant. Or 3) Allow the plaintiff to recover only if he was less at fault than each of the defendants. \n\nThe fact that laws get more complicated as they are refined seems to be a fact of legal life. I don't think this kind of complexity could ever be reduced to a simple set of 'ten-commandment style rules' as OP hopes.", "timestamp": 1513785915 }, { "author": "carasci", "id": "driymm2", "score": 1, "text": "All of those are relatively child-friendly as well, though.\n\n> 1) We're not going to punish your brother for the bits that are your own fault. Or 2) If it was mostly your own fault, don't come crying to us because you got hurt. Or 3) Unless it was mostly your brother's fault, don't come crying to us because you got hurt.\n\nThe reasoning behind these (and the reasons for choosing one over another) may be more complicated, but the options themselves are pretty straightforward. I'm also not sure it's entirely appropriate to include aspects of civil procedure when we're talking about simplifying the law: civpro is less about the law people should be following on a day-to-day basis, and more about the actual mechanics of making the courts work.", "timestamp": 1513787965 } ]	[ { "author": "Jaysank", "id": "driqmio", "score": 11, "text": "Could you give an example of a law that is more complex than it needs to be?", "timestamp": 1513778979 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "driqr1j", "score": -4, "text": "I could, but the main issue is not any particular law. It's the inherent complexity of the overall system due to the number of laws. I am not complaining about any one law in particular.", "timestamp": 1513779148 }, { "author": "ghostlonefight", "id": "driqy7y", "score": 14, "text": "I believe the reason that /u/jaysank is asking is that we need to know roughly what the type of law you're referring to is. How complex is too complex?", "timestamp": 1513779412 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "drir34y", "score": 2, "text": "Too complex to be understood by an 18 year old adult is too complex, because an 18 year old adult is expected to live within the boundaries set by the law.", "timestamp": 1513779592 }, { "author": "ConceptualTrap", "id": "drirncd", "score": 11, "text": "Yes, but what law is too complex to be understood by an 18 year old adult?", "timestamp": 1513780300 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "dris8mm", "score": 1, "text": "Only the very complex 1000 page laws, like the ACA, are too complex for an 18 year old adult. Let's say for argument that an 18 year old is capable of understanding any law. No one law is too complex.\n\nThe law code itself is still too complex. It needs to all fit within one textbook. It can be a big textbook, but it can't be 500,000 pages.", "timestamp": 1513781018 } ]	[ "driqvdm", "drir7d2", "drirr7v", "drivdki", "driwn0x", "driymm2" ]	[ "driqmio", "driqr1j", "driqy7y", "drir34y", "drirncd", "dris8mm" ]
CMV: The law code should be no more complex than what can be taught to children. The reason for this comes down to this simple explanation: You can't play the game if you don't know the rules. If you try, the rules become "do whatever you want, and don't talk to authorities". By the time you are an adult, you are expected to play the game. I don't believe it's any coincidence that the countries with the most laws have the [highest per-capita prison population](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm). In the US, we [literally don't even know how many](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184) laws we have. For this reason, a study and book by Harvey Silverglate estimates the average American citizen unknowingly commits about [3 felonies per day](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). There are many downsides to a system this complex. * It makes everyone into yet-uncaught criminals. I think most people try to be good people, but it's not enough to keep you out of prison. In order to stay out of prison, you also have to lie (or at least not talk) about what you do, and you must also perform your actions in concealment. * It breeds corruption in the population. Why try to follow rules when they are absurdly complex and you don't understand them? Why not break a rule you know about when you've already broken 10 that you don't know about? * It breeds corruption in law enforcement. If a law enforcement officer wants to put a person in jail, all they have to do is follow them around and wait for them to break a law which the law enforcement officer knows about and the yet-uncaught criminal does not. In theory this allows them to use their power for good (like catching Al Capone on tax evasion). But there are plenty of instances of otherwise innocent people being locked up on technicality. * It makes law enforcement's job harder. The first thing a lawyer will tell you is don't talk to police. The reason for this is you could accidentally incriminate yourself, even in a failure of articulation. Police require cooperation from the public in order to enforce laws. But an individual puts themselves in great danger by cooperating. * Laws must be selectively enforced. There is no way to enforce them all without even knowing what they are. This creates an entirely separate set of rules all on it's own. i.e. "I can get away with this because the police don't care about it, I can't get away with that because law enforcement happens to be 'cracking down' on that right now." There are many ways we can reduce complexity in the system, and things which I think most people agree on. For one, we can say "If there is no victim, there is no crime." Also, "a perpetrator of a crime cannot be the victim of the same crime", so a crime against yourself is not a crime. We can also say that all laws have an expiration date. So if you want the law to remain after 7 years (just for example), then it has to be renewed. This gets rid of many old and unneeded laws. Or we could also just scrap the whole law code and start over "ten commandments" style. These are not the limitations or even necessarily the methods themselves which we could use to reduce the number of laws. These just serve as examples. So, CMV, how is it possible for a person to be a law abiding citizen in such a system? Or how is it not possible to simplify the law code? Or how do the benefits of such a complex system outweigh it's consequences on society? Or how are the consequences I've outlined wrong? EDIT: My view has changed in one way - Many (but not all) of the profession-specific regulations do not need to be known by people who do not work in that field. There is no great need for an 18 year old to know all the intricacies of medical malpractice, but they should know that they aren't allowed to practice medicine yet and that doctors have rules. I still think many of these regulations can be done away with, but I can certainly see why new adults don't need to know the specifics of them. For this reason I'm going to go through the comments and award deltas to everyone who made a compelling argument about profession-specific regulations (it's a lot of people). _____ > 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!*	Most laws that apply to everyday life are simple: you can't steal anything, you must use roads in accordance with signs, you're not allowed to own a mostly clear list of objects and substances that you can easily get, etc. I agree that this isn't currently perfect, but I think such law already tries to be simple. More complex topics require more complex law. Try to formulate a legal code for handling financial fraud that you can teach to children - you arguably can't even teach them the economic concepts and principles you have to use to define such laws. --- >Most laws that apply to everyday life are simple I think that's incorrect. As stated above, the average person unknowingly commits 3 felonies per day. There are laws which apply to everyday life which people unknowingly break. The laws you've outlined are a far stretch from being "most laws that apply to everyday life". As for finance, the law that applies to personal finance must be simple enough for a child to understand, since they will be handling their personal finance. Finance is actually a big one where I think the law is abused, and easily so since it's so hard for the average person to understand. --- > As for finance, the law that applies to personal finance must be simple enough for a child to understand, since they will be handling their personal finance. He isn't talking about basic finance here - he is talking about the higher concepts of finance that govern larger systems. I can't explain to a child the concept of a credit default swap for mortgage backed securities, so how could I possibly explain the laws and regulations that are required around disclosure of relevant information and risk assessments? You can make the argument that some laws should be simplified and I'd tend to agree, but the reality is that there are very complex systems that make our world work and any complex system is going to have weird edge cases and nuances that require specific, complex laws to govern.	Could you give an example of a law that is more complex than it needs to be? --- I could, but the main issue is not any particular law. It's the inherent complexity of the overall system due to the number of laws. I am not complaining about any one law in particular. --- I believe the reason that /u/jaysank is asking is that we need to know roughly what the type of law you're referring to is. How complex is too complex?	7l1jsr	CMV: The law code should be no more complex than what can be taught to children.	The reason for this comes down to this simple explanation: You can't play the game if you don't know the rules. If you try, the rules become "do whatever you want, and don't talk to authorities". By the time you are an adult, you are expected to play the game. I don't believe it's any coincidence that the countries with the most laws have the [highest per-capita prison population](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm). In the US, we [literally don't even know how many](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184) laws we have. For this reason, a study and book by Harvey Silverglate estimates the average American citizen unknowingly commits about [3 felonies per day](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229). There are many downsides to a system this complex. * It makes everyone into yet-uncaught criminals. I think most people try to be good people, but it's not enough to keep you out of prison. In order to stay out of prison, you also have to lie (or at least not talk) about what you do, and you must also perform your actions in concealment. * It breeds corruption in the population. Why try to follow rules when they are absurdly complex and you don't understand them? Why not break a rule you know about when you've already broken 10 that you don't know about? * It breeds corruption in law enforcement. If a law enforcement officer wants to put a person in jail, all they have to do is follow them around and wait for them to break a law which the law enforcement officer knows about and the yet-uncaught criminal does not. In theory this allows them to use their power for good (like catching Al Capone on tax evasion). But there are plenty of instances of otherwise innocent people being locked up on technicality. * It makes law enforcement's job harder. The first thing a lawyer will tell you is don't talk to police. The reason for this is you could accidentally incriminate yourself, even in a failure of articulation. Police require cooperation from the public in order to enforce laws. But an individual puts themselves in great danger by cooperating. * Laws must be selectively enforced. There is no way to enforce them all without even knowing what they are. This creates an entirely separate set of rules all on it's own. i.e. "I can get away with this because the police don't care about it, I can't get away with that because law enforcement happens to be 'cracking down' on that right now." There are many ways we can reduce complexity in the system, and things which I think most people agree on. For one, we can say "If there is no victim, there is no crime." Also, "a perpetrator of a crime cannot be the victim of the same crime", so a crime against yourself is not a crime. We can also say that all laws have an expiration date. So if you want the law to remain after 7 years (just for example), then it has to be renewed. This gets rid of many old and unneeded laws. Or we could also just scrap the whole law code and start over "ten commandments" style. These are not the limitations or even necessarily the methods themselves which we could use to reduce the number of laws. These just serve as examples. So, CMV, how is it possible for a person to be a law abiding citizen in such a system? Or how is it not possible to simplify the law code? Or how do the benefits of such a complex system outweigh it's consequences on society? Or how are the consequences I've outlined wrong? EDIT: My view has changed in one way - Many (but not all) of the profession-specific regulations do not need to be known by people who do not work in that field. There is no great need for an 18 year old to know all the intricacies of medical malpractice, but they should know that they aren't allowed to practice medicine yet and that doctors have rules. I still think many of these regulations can be done away with, but I can certainly see why new adults don't need to know the specifics of them. For this reason I'm going to go through the comments and award deltas to everyone who made a compelling argument about profession-specific regulations (it's a lot of people). _____ > 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!*	das_american	3	3	[ { "author": "47ca05e6209a317a8fb3", "id": "driqxk6", "score": 307, "text": "Most laws that apply to everyday life are simple: you can't steal anything, you must use roads in accordance with signs, you're not allowed to own a mostly clear list of objects and substances that you can easily get, etc. I agree that this isn't currently perfect, but I think such law already tries to be simple.\n\nMore complex topics require more complex law. Try to formulate a legal code for handling financial fraud that you can teach to children - you arguably can't even teach them the economic concepts and principles you have to use to define such laws.", "timestamp": 1513779388 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "dririeq", "score": 0, "text": ">Most laws that apply to everyday life are simple\n\nI think that's incorrect. As stated above, the average person unknowingly commits 3 felonies per day. There are laws which apply to everyday life which people unknowingly break. The laws you've outlined are a far stretch from being \"most laws that apply to everyday life\".\n\nAs for finance, the law that applies to personal finance must be simple enough for a child to understand, since they will be handling their personal finance. Finance is actually a big one where I think the law is abused, and easily so since it's so hard for the average person to understand.", "timestamp": 1513780130 }, { "author": "Ansuz07", "id": "drirxx7", "score": 52, "text": "> As for finance, the law that applies to personal finance must be simple enough for a child to understand, since they will be handling their personal finance.\n\nHe isn't talking about basic finance here - he is talking about the higher concepts of finance that govern larger systems. I can't explain to a child the concept of a credit default swap for mortgage backed securities, so how could I possibly explain the laws and regulations that are required around disclosure of relevant information and risk assessments?\n\nYou can make the argument that some laws should be simplified and I'd tend to agree, but the reality is that there are very complex systems that make our world work and any complex system is going to have weird edge cases and nuances that require specific, complex laws to govern.", "timestamp": 1513780658 } ]	[ { "author": "Jaysank", "id": "driqmio", "score": 11, "text": "Could you give an example of a law that is more complex than it needs to be?", "timestamp": 1513778979 }, { "author": "das_american", "id": "driqr1j", "score": -4, "text": "I could, but the main issue is not any particular law. It's the inherent complexity of the overall system due to the number of laws. I am not complaining about any one law in particular.", "timestamp": 1513779148 }, { "author": "ghostlonefight", "id": "driqy7y", "score": 14, "text": "I believe the reason that /u/jaysank is asking is that we need to know roughly what the type of law you're referring to is. How complex is too complex?", "timestamp": 1513779412 } ]	[ "driqxk6", "dririeq", "drirxx7" ]	[ "driqmio", "driqr1j", "driqy7y" ]
CMV: The transatlantic slave trade was used by African nations to successfully colonize the world. Lacking the maritime technology to populate the world directly, African populations used another tactic, perhaps far more clever. They captured and sold close genetic relatives to those with superior seafaring technology, thus cementing populations in myriad lands around the world. While it seems as if European traders were exploiting African populations, those populations were perhaps engaged in a long game — a true 4D chess, whose wit far transcended that of the European “conquerors”. To this day, Africa is still almost exclusively racially homogenous, and their birth rates are generally greater than the rest of the world. Africa will likely dominate the 22nd century, both through shear numbers and by having already established substantial sociocultural and economic footholds in Europe and the Americas. I could change my mind if it could be shown that African populations did not spread around the world — or that their influence, outside of Africa, is in substantial decline. I could also change my mind if it could be shown that the plight of the average African outside of Africa is worse than the average plight of those left on their home continent. FWIW I am black.	Africans had already colonized the world before they were enslaved. White Europeans are from Africa too --- [deleted] --- >Africans enslaved one another before we colonized the world. The point of this statement is totally meaningless. You're applying a monolithic racial construct that simply wasn't meaningful to the numerous African societies in question. Different African societies enslaved members of other African societies. The idea of a singular African race is a modern European construction.	>Africa will likely dominate the 22nd century, both through shear numbers and by having already established substantial social and economic footholds in Europe and the Americas. What benefit do those "footholds" give African nations? Black Americans aren't sending money or education "back" to Africa. And the cultures of Black Americans and Africans are extremely different, so it's not like they're ambassadors of what it means to be African. --- [deleted] --- What is that edge? How do African nations benefit from having more people of African descent outside of Africa?	b8bv2d	CMV: The transatlantic slave trade was used by African nations to successfully colonize the world.	Lacking the maritime technology to populate the world directly, African populations used another tactic, perhaps far more clever. They captured and sold close genetic relatives to those with superior seafaring technology, thus cementing populations in myriad lands around the world. While it seems as if European traders were exploiting African populations, those populations were perhaps engaged in a long game — a true 4D chess, whose wit far transcended that of the European “conquerors”. To this day, Africa is still almost exclusively racially homogenous, and their birth rates are generally greater than the rest of the world. Africa will likely dominate the 22nd century, both through shear numbers and by having already established substantial sociocultural and economic footholds in Europe and the Americas. I could change my mind if it could be shown that African populations did not spread around the world — or that their influence, outside of Africa, is in substantial decline. I could also change my mind if it could be shown that the plight of the average African outside of Africa is worse than the average plight of those left on their home continent. FWIW I am black.	sweetkelshawn	3	3	[ { "author": "capitancheap", "id": "ejx0mzl", "score": 4, "text": "Africans had already colonized the world before they were enslaved. White Europeans are from Africa too", "timestamp": 1554167517 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "ejx8qbx", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1554173952 }, { "author": "turtleeatingalderman", "id": "ejyhzti", "score": 2, "text": ">Africans enslaved one another before we colonized the world.\n\nThe point of this statement is totally meaningless. You're applying a monolithic racial construct that simply wasn't meaningful to the numerous African societies in question. Different African societies enslaved members of other African societies. The idea of a singular African race is a modern European construction.", "timestamp": 1554223517 } ]	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "ejwxl0z", "score": 7, "text": ">Africa will likely dominate the 22nd century, both through shear numbers and by having already established substantial social and economic footholds in Europe and the Americas.\n\nWhat benefit do those \"footholds\" give African nations? Black Americans aren't sending money or education \"back\" to Africa. And the cultures of Black Americans and Africans are extremely different, so it's not like they're ambassadors of what it means to be African.", "timestamp": 1554165132 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "ejwy2em", "score": -5, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1554165509 }, { "author": "radialomens", "id": "ejwy8kb", "score": 8, "text": "What is that edge? How do African nations benefit from having more people of African descent outside of Africa? ", "timestamp": 1554165638 } ]	[ "ejx0mzl", "ejx8qbx", "ejyhzti" ]	[ "ejwxl0z", "ejwy2em", "ejwy8kb" ]
CMV: The left needs to tone down the vitriol against JK Rowling because there are bigger threats to LGBTs. JK Rowling has been under fire for things like saying "women who menstruate" to exclude transwomen and opposing transwomen from using female bathrooms. As a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I would say that this is transphobic, but there are bigger threats to LGBTs. On top of that, JK Rowling gives away much of her fortune to charitable causes and generally has left-wing leanings (e.g. opposing Brexit and supporting anti-poverty programs). JK Rowling, to my knowledge, hasn't supported violence against LGBTs, she merely didn't use inclusive language or want transwomen to use womens' bathrooms. Going after Rowling is just an example of the left eating itself. As a left-winger, I am dismayed at this, because instead of uniting against bigger threats, we instead put each other under a microscope and bring each other down. Even though the right wing generally aren't fans of JK Rowling, they are using the left-wing vitriol against her to make the left look bad and make political correctness look bad. Because the left came down so hard against JK Rowling, it makes us look like an oppressive lynch mob in the eyes of the unaligned and the right-wingers. More importantly, in many countries, including the USA and Australia, the left isn't even in power. No matter how much we focus on JK Rowling's transphobic incidents, it doesn't change the fact that the ruling parties in the USA and Australia have tried to stifle progress on LGBT rights far more than JK Rowling has. I believe that the left needs to focus on swaying voters, instead of spewing vitriol at each other and nitpicking over small incidents that distract from bigger threats.	Well for starters, we can do two things. More dear to my heart is the fact that what she says isn't just academic. It hurts people. I have a nonbinary teenage foster kid who grew up reading Harry potter, and he gets legitimately depressed every time Rowling opens her bigot mouth in order to slander transgender individuals. She is an ultra rich person with a huge platform, and I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women. --- I understand that you and your foster child are deeply offended by what she said. But saying "I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women" makes us look oppressive and closed-minded. As leftists, we need to win the debate over trans rights, not silence it. --- you're making a different argument now. I bet everyone would agree that saying "this is why she's wrong" is better than "shut the fuck up." your initial argument was that we shouldn't focus on her transphobia at all, not that those arguing against her were doing so ineffectively.	Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time? --- >Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time? Definitely, but can we at least not be so vitriolic? We are unfortunately playing into the right-wingers' hands by making ourselves look like oppressive "snowflakes". --- the right calls the left snowflakes no matter what. adjusting our behavior will not cause them to do that any less. it's not snowflakery to stand for something, like trans rights. it's actually kinda hard to disown a beloved author bc of how important this issue is.	itoqz1	CMV: The left needs to tone down the vitriol against JK Rowling because there are bigger threats to LGBTs.	JK Rowling has been under fire for things like saying "women who menstruate" to exclude transwomen and opposing transwomen from using female bathrooms. As a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I would say that this is transphobic, but there are bigger threats to LGBTs. On top of that, JK Rowling gives away much of her fortune to charitable causes and generally has left-wing leanings (e.g. opposing Brexit and supporting anti-poverty programs). JK Rowling, to my knowledge, hasn't supported violence against LGBTs, she merely didn't use inclusive language or want transwomen to use womens' bathrooms. Going after Rowling is just an example of the left eating itself. As a left-winger, I am dismayed at this, because instead of uniting against bigger threats, we instead put each other under a microscope and bring each other down. Even though the right wing generally aren't fans of JK Rowling, they are using the left-wing vitriol against her to make the left look bad and make political correctness look bad. Because the left came down so hard against JK Rowling, it makes us look like an oppressive lynch mob in the eyes of the unaligned and the right-wingers. More importantly, in many countries, including the USA and Australia, the left isn't even in power. No matter how much we focus on JK Rowling's transphobic incidents, it doesn't change the fact that the ruling parties in the USA and Australia have tried to stifle progress on LGBT rights far more than JK Rowling has. I believe that the left needs to focus on swaying voters, instead of spewing vitriol at each other and nitpicking over small incidents that distract from bigger threats.	Real_Carl_Ramirez	3	3	[ { "author": "edwardlleandre", "id": "g5fx88p", "score": 13, "text": "Well for starters, we can do two things.\n\nMore dear to my heart is the fact that what she says isn't just academic. It hurts people. I have a nonbinary teenage foster kid who grew up reading Harry potter, and he gets legitimately depressed every time Rowling opens her bigot mouth in order to slander transgender individuals.\n\nShe is an ultra rich person with a huge platform, and I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women.", "timestamp": 1600231218 }, { "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez", "id": "g5fybsy", "score": -3, "text": "I understand that you and your foster child are deeply offended by what she said. But saying \"I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women\" makes us look oppressive and closed-minded. As leftists, we need to win the debate over trans rights, not silence it.", "timestamp": 1600232009 }, { "author": "cherrycokeicee", "id": "g5fzfk5", "score": 7, "text": "you're making a different argument now. I bet everyone would agree that saying \"this is why she's wrong\" is better than \"shut the fuck up.\" your initial argument was that we shouldn't focus on her transphobia at all, not that those arguing against her were doing so ineffectively.", "timestamp": 1600232838 } ]	[ { "author": "Rawinza555", "id": "g5fw66n", "score": 19, "text": "Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time?", "timestamp": 1600230481 }, { "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez", "id": "g5fwdlt", "score": 0, "text": ">Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time?\n\nDefinitely, but can we at least not be so vitriolic? We are unfortunately playing into the right-wingers' hands by making ourselves look like oppressive \"snowflakes\".", "timestamp": 1600230624 }, { "author": "cherrycokeicee", "id": "g5fwstn", "score": 21, "text": "the right calls the left snowflakes no matter what. adjusting our behavior will not cause them to do that any less. it's not snowflakery to stand for something, like trans rights. it's actually kinda hard to disown a beloved author bc of how important this issue is.", "timestamp": 1600230916 } ]	[ "g5fx88p", "g5fybsy", "g5fzfk5" ]	[ "g5fw66n", "g5fwdlt", "g5fwstn" ]
CMV: if the LAPD intentionally killed Christopher Dorner, I don’t mind because he had it coming. As much as crazy online people like to lionize him as a folk hero, there is nothing heroic about this guy. Sure not all cops are bad and he used to be a good cop, but while he had genuine grievances, his approach to them was psychotic. I mean, who the hell murders an innocent couple about to get married simply because of who the girl’s father is? Monica Quan would have been 41 by now if it wasn’t for this psycho, and she would be married to Keith and have continued her basketball career. I don’t know if her dad was a good cop or not, but she was innocent. I would be more sympathetic if all of his victims were cops, but since he attacked an innocent basketball coach, then fuck him. I personally am in the camp that Dorner was not murdered and he truly killed himself. But if I’m wrong, then my reaction would basically be “He had it coming to him”. Murderers like him don’t deserve to die quietly and need their last moments to be ones of suffering. Not to mention, if you were a soldier or a cop being in an armed standoff with a crazy dude with hostages, I think you would use every method available to you, especially if whoever you were trying to arrest proved himself capable of murder. For this reason, while I have very little doubt he genuinely killed himself by setting that house on fire, if he was killed during the standoff, I think what the LAPD did to him was justified. I’m not saying the idiot cops who stopped the wrong cars are in the right, but I’m not gonna mourn a crazy murderer. You can change my view by showing me why you think burning people to death even if they killed innocent people is wrong. Edit: if you stumbled upon my post and have no idea what I’m talking about, here is both the Wikipedia article of this case and a good LA Times article about Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence: Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-feb-24-la-me-0225-quan-memorial-20130224-story.html	This mentality led to them shooting up a truck that just had innocent women in kt --- I agree that those cops were idiots and should be fired, but I won’t mourn Dorner anyway because I still remember he killed an innocent woman and her boyfriend. --- What's the acceptable ratio of innocent people killed versus guilty people killed?	“Stopped the wrong cars” is a significant understatement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt#Police_shooting_of_unrelated_civilians I think you’re glossing over the part of this case that illustrates why it’s a bad idea for intentional killing to be an acceptable part of a manhunt. --- Like I said I don’t condone it. But that doesn’t mean the murders of Monica Quan and Kris Lawrence never happened. --- The line you’re drawing is that sloppy killing attempts are bad but targeted ones are good? That seems like a slippery slope when you can only really know which is which after the damage is done.	1mwzuct	CMV: if the LAPD intentionally killed Christopher Dorner, I don’t mind because he had it coming.	As much as crazy online people like to lionize him as a folk hero, there is nothing heroic about this guy. Sure not all cops are bad and he used to be a good cop, but while he had genuine grievances, his approach to them was psychotic. I mean, who the hell murders an innocent couple about to get married simply because of who the girl’s father is? Monica Quan would have been 41 by now if it wasn’t for this psycho, and she would be married to Keith and have continued her basketball career. I don’t know if her dad was a good cop or not, but she was innocent. I would be more sympathetic if all of his victims were cops, but since he attacked an innocent basketball coach, then fuck him. I personally am in the camp that Dorner was not murdered and he truly killed himself. But if I’m wrong, then my reaction would basically be “He had it coming to him”. Murderers like him don’t deserve to die quietly and need their last moments to be ones of suffering. Not to mention, if you were a soldier or a cop being in an armed standoff with a crazy dude with hostages, I think you would use every method available to you, especially if whoever you were trying to arrest proved himself capable of murder. For this reason, while I have very little doubt he genuinely killed himself by setting that house on fire, if he was killed during the standoff, I think what the LAPD did to him was justified. I’m not saying the idiot cops who stopped the wrong cars are in the right, but I’m not gonna mourn a crazy murderer. You can change my view by showing me why you think burning people to death even if they killed innocent people is wrong. Edit: if you stumbled upon my post and have no idea what I’m talking about, here is both the Wikipedia article of this case and a good LA Times article about Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence: Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-feb-24-la-me-0225-quan-memorial-20130224-story.html	Hero-Firefighter-24	3	3	[ { "author": "Darkmortal3", "id": "na1kdvv", "score": 4, "text": "This mentality led to them shooting up a truck that just had innocent women in kt", "timestamp": 1755853477 }, { "author": "Hero-Firefighter-24", "id": "na1mblc", "score": 0, "text": "I agree that those cops were idiots and should be fired, but I won’t mourn Dorner anyway because I still remember he killed an innocent woman and her boyfriend.", "timestamp": 1755854601 }, { "author": "Birb-Brain-Syn", "id": "na1nyia", "score": 4, "text": "What's the acceptable ratio of innocent people killed versus guilty people killed?", "timestamp": 1755855540 } ]	[ { "author": "iblameari", "id": "na1d6t8", "score": 5, "text": "“Stopped the wrong cars” is a significant understatement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt#Police_shooting_of_unrelated_civilians\n\nI think you’re glossing over the part of this case that illustrates why it’s a bad idea for intentional killing to be an acceptable part of a manhunt.", "timestamp": 1755849222 }, { "author": "Hero-Firefighter-24", "id": "na1dqhd", "score": -1, "text": "Like I said I don’t condone it. But that doesn’t mean the murders of Monica Quan and Kris Lawrence never happened.", "timestamp": 1755849547 }, { "author": "iblameari", "id": "na1dydt", "score": 4, "text": "The line you’re drawing is that sloppy killing attempts are bad but targeted ones are good? That seems like a slippery slope when you can only really know which is which after the damage is done.", "timestamp": 1755849678 } ]	[ "na1kdvv", "na1mblc", "na1nyia" ]	[ "na1d6t8", "na1dqhd", "na1dydt" ]
CMV: Most, If Not All, Major Proposed Gun Control Measures in the United States Will Have No Discernible Impact on Crime, and Will Most Likely Do More Harm Than Good In 2018, there were[ nearly 40,000](http://time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/) gun deaths in the United States each year. Given this, it is not surprising that[ over 50% of those under 18 and about 1/3 people from the age of 18-24 cite gun violence as their most worrying fear](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/22/poll-columbine-generation-gun-violence-defining-fear/441446002/). This has led to many proposals of gun control legislation that I believe to be ineffective or a net harm to gun owners. Now, I think it is important to add that I don't believe that people on either side of the isle on the gun control issue in the United States hold their position in bad faith, and I would be open to changing my perspective given appropriate evidence and statistical data. As for my position on gun control, I believe that every major piece of legislation (see each point below) is ineffective (or a net harm to the country), and such proposals should not be on the forefront of politics in the United States given the minor significance (that is not to say I don't sympathize with people who have lost loved ones to any form of violence; I just believe that violent crime is not a major issue in the United States as compared to other countries) of gun violence in the country. # Gun Deaths Are Not a Good Metric for Measuring Gun Violence in the US In 2016,[ 38,658 people died from firearm related injuries](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf) ^(see) ^(Firearm Mortality) ^(on p.12). Looking at the number of deaths from selected causes in the United States in 2016, there were a total of[ 44,695 deaths by suicide and 19,362 homicides](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf) ^(see) ^(table 6) ^(on p.35). Of the deaths by suicide, 22,938 were committed by discharge of a firearm. That means that 59.3% of the total gun deaths are from suicides, and 51.0% of suicides were committed using firearms. Of the deaths by homicide, 14,415 of them were a result of the discharge of a firearm - meaning 74.4% of all homicides were committed using firearms. Each of the points will be discussed in further detail below. The reason that I am including this to preface the rest of my post is because it is important to remember that the approximately 40,000 deaths by firearms in the United States is not reflective of gun violence, but rather an indication that the United States has a significant mental health problem (though, I will discuss why I believe gun control is not effective in combating suicide). From here on out, I will use the number 15,720 deaths to quantify gun violence (which includes homicides, unintentional deaths, legal intervention, and undetermined intent) - even though this doesn't described violence, and this is a larger number than what many other sources use. I just want to use it to make a more balanced argument. # Gun Violence Is Not a Good Metric for Comparing Violence Across Countries, and Guns Are Likely Not Responsible for the US's High Homicide Rate A discussion about gun violence domestically in the United States requires the use of gun violence statistics. However, when people try to argue about the US in comparison to other countries, many cite the US's relatively high gun violence rate (as compared to other developed countries) as a means to justify their gun control measures. However, given that there are an estimated[ 120.5 firearms per 100 residents in the United States](http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/highlights/2018/highlight-bp-firearms-holdings.html) ^(see) ^(table 2) ^(on p.4 in) ^(Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers), it is unsurprising that much of the crime (in this case, homicide) is committed using firearms as compared to other countries. It is more accurate to compare all forms of homicide when discussing the US compared to other countries (as this accounts for mortality \[knives are not as deadly as guns\]). Here is the US homicide rate compared to all other countries: [Homicide Rate Across the World $US is in red, light blue is average$](https://i.redd.it/k17rieh84qp21.jpg) Here is the US compared to developed countries: [Homicide Rate Across Developed Countries $Us is in red$](https://i.redd.it/t7cbgqkg4qp21.png) Seeing these charts alone, even when only comparing homicide rates across developed countries, one may be inclined to believe that guns are responsible for these rates, however I contend that this is untrue. Following is my reasoning for believing that guns are not responsible for high homicide rates. Below is all the developed countries vs. their homicide rate. However, I believe the downward trend (where more guns = less homicide) is slightly misleading for a couple reasons. Firstly, the trend is relatively small, and is likely due to random chance (due to a small sample size - the developed countries). Secondly, countries that have higher homicide rates are likely to institute more gun control to combat the murders, and this may skew the countries with more homicides to have fewer gun ownership. This all leads me to believe that there is no causation between high gun ownership and high homicide rates. I personally believe this is a result of countries' predisposition to high crime and other non-gun related policies (gun laws, culture, geography etc.) that lead them to have higher homicide rates. (Something to note about this is that it is outdated, and the US actually falls farther to the right of the graph \[gun ownership is actually around 120 guns per 100 residents\]) [Firearm Ownership in Developed Countries vs Homicide Rate](https://i.redd.it/42v62ten4qp21.png) With all this being said, the US does have a higher homicide rate as compared to other countries worldwide, however the significance of it is often exaggerated using gun deaths, and that is misleading. Furthermore, there is little to no correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership in developed countries, and it is unlikely (given the data of other countries) that the US's high gun ownership causes its high homicide rate. Moreover,[ 15%-25%](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm) of gun homicides in the US are linked with gang & drug activity - so not being involved with such activities further reduces the (already very low \[see Preventable Causes of Death image under the Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens section\]) probability that one would be a victim of gun violence. In reality, guns are most likely not to blame for the US’s raised homicide rate - this is why I believe that gun control will have little to no effect on crime (mainly homicide). It is more likely that the American countries have a generally higher crime rate than their European counterparts, and gun ownership rates in American countries do not have any meaningful correlation with the homicides. # Firearms in the United States Are More Often Used for Self-Defense Than for Crime [48 percent](https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/) of gun owners in 2013 cited protection (self-defense) as their primary reason for owning a firearm. The right to self defense has been a huge part of US society and culture since the founding of the country. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz published a study about the use of firearms in self-defense (in the US) in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology concluded that there were[ "about 2.2 to 2.5 million \[defensive gun uses\] of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns"](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6853&context=jclc) in 1995. The reason that this number is significantly higher than the reported number of defensive uses, is because, in most cases, the firearm is not discharged. Instead, many times, a homeowner simply showing a gun to a potential criminal is enough to prevent a crime from occurring (I recommend you read this study, it explains the potential errors in calculations very well). This number is particularly difficult to measure due to this, and this study is outdated (and, since the crime rate in 1995 was higher, there were likely more self-defense incidents). There are other studies that look into self-defense uses, but this study is the most prevalent and most often cited (if someone could link the CDC study, I would appreciate that - I cannot find the original). Given that there are 15,720 deaths (my calculated, relatively liberal statistic), and there are likely over 500,000 (this was the lower bound of the \[politicized\] CDC report about self-defense using guns; 22.7% of the lower bound of the Kleck & Gertz study) uses of guns in self-defense. This means that there are likely at least 31.8 times as many self-defense uses of guns as there are violent, criminal uses of guns. In my opinion, the good here significantly outweighs the bad. # Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens All of the prior points lead up to my final point: that all major proposed (and many existing) gun control measures are ineffective, illogical, or harmful. Something that I believe is highly important to consider when legislating is the magnitude of the problem. In reality, gun deaths make a very small portion of preventable deaths, and ultimately this means that legislating for gun violence will likely have minimal effect on the country as a whole. The reason I am mentioning that it has such a small scale is because I think that drastic measures should not be taken for such a small incident (especially if those proposals won't be effective and will hurt people who need to defend themselves). Anyway, here is the breakdown of preventable deaths in the United States (annually): [Preventable Causes of Death in the United States](https://i.redd.it/lk87hne24qp21.png) As you can see, firearm deaths are a very low percentage of the preventable causes of death in the United States. Going off of numbers, we as a country should be more focused on reducing tobacco usage, countering obesity, preventing alcohol deaths, improving medicine, and improving driving safety in order to save more lives. Anyway, here are some major gun law proposals, and why I believe they are ineffective: Gun Free Zones: Anywhere from[ 13% to 96.2%](https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/) of Mass Shootings take place in gun-free zones (depending on the definition of "gun-free zone" and "mass shooting"). In my opinion, this doesn't matter, but some people find it important (I am including it for transparency). In reality, a would-be mass shooter is not going to be dissuaded from committing an atrocity because they would face the charge of a possession of a gun within a gun-free zone - that's ridiculous. Gun-free zones only prevent people who abide the law from carrying a gun in those areas. Given the number of defensive uses of firearms in the country, it is likely that these gun-free zones prevent at least some instances of self defense - and do little to deter criminals from committing crime. Some people say that mass shooters target gun-free zones - and, in my opinion, it is insignificant given all the other variables in the situation. But the idea that gun-free zones do anything to prevent crime is (in my opinion) ridiculous, and such laws strictly target people who already follow the law. If someone can cite a valid study that shows that law-abiding, trained citizens who conceal carry a weapon are more likely to commit a crime (not get involved in civil lawsuits - almost all cases of self defense result in the victim being sued; I mean murder, unjustified killings, etc.) than protect people, then I would willing to change my view. As for the anecdotal (and logical) argument for why a mass shooter would target gun-free zones, it is pretty simple. A person who plans to commit an atrocity isn't going to shoot up a police department or a shooting range because the criminal knows that someone will shoot back. The criminal is more likely to shoot up an unarmed group of people (and, most likely, a lot of unarmed people will be in gun-free zones). I don't find this argument particularly effective, but it is at least an argument. "Assault Weapons" Ban: I don't want to debate semantics, but for the purpose of this discussion I will use the definition of "assault weapon" from the Clinton-era[ Assault Weapons Ban of 1994](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban). Also, I will use this 1994 ban as the subject of my criticism of all Assault Weapons bans. My main criticism is that this ban is based entirely on cosmetics, and not the function of the gun. A "barrel shroud" (which is better described as a hand-guard), a vertical grip, a forward assist (which has nothing to do with firing fast - basically, it forces the bolt-carrier group forward when there is something such as dirt blocking it from doing so), and pistol grips all do nothing to change the function of the rifle, and are entirely cosmetic. The gun fires the same (semi-automatic, meaning one bullet is fired per action of the trigger) with or without all of these features. The fact that these "look" dangerous is why I believe they are subject to ban, not because they actually permit the gun to do anything different. This is why I consider this very bad policy. In order to change my view on this, I would like to see evidence as to why these different aspects should be banned. Also, I think it is important to mention that all rifles (in 2016) were used in[ 374 rifles were used in homicides (as opposed to 7105 with handguns)](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls) (though it is important to note that 3077 firearm types were unspecified) were used in homicides. Going after all rifles to reduce gun violence (of which so called "assault weapons" make up an even smaller portion of these homicides) is illogical. Instead, if one were to base their policy on what most crimes are committed using, they would focus on handguns. Either way, I don't believe either should be targeted given the small magnitude (though I am not dismissing the loss of life) of the scale of the problem. Waiting Periods for Purchasing: My main issue with this legislation is that could prevent people who need a firearm from getting it when they need it. I don't think it would affect most gun owners, but I am concerned that someone who is being targeted (potentially someone in fear of being followed by a stalker or someone who has received threats) would be prevented from getting a self-defense weapon in time to defend themselves. I cannot find a statistic regarding how many times this could happen (because it would be difficult if not impossible to measure), and I would be interested to see how a waiting period impacts crime. I would like to see an analysis on the impact on crime vs. the impact on people's ability to get a self-defense weapon on time in order for me to change my view. "*Universal*" Background Checks: This sounds good on paper. I believe that all firearm sales from an FFL should have a background check (which is currently the status quo). That being said, requiring it for individual transfers/gifts would be impossible to regulate. How could the government know when a grandfather gives his childhood rifle to his grandson - nobody would report this transaction to the government, and a crime would be committed (which, in reality, would be a victimless crime). I would be willing to change my mind if someone could propose how to regulate non-FFL transfers without incriminating people who have no intent of committing a crime. Gun Registry/High Capacity Magazines: I believe that this is a dangerous, ineffective proposal. I don't want to rant about gun confiscation, but I cannot help but think of that when any form of a gun registry is proposed. I cannot think of any reason that a governing body would need to know who has guns unless they plan on confiscating them at some point. If you advocate for a confiscation - I urge you to look at Nazi Germany, the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cuba, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, South Sedan, and Venezuela. Gun confiscations are a recipe for government overreach. That all being said, it would impossible to get a comprehensive gun registry in the United States. I don't have a source for the percentage, but I can tell you that a massive portion (if not all) of the gun owners (that I know) will not register any of their guns with the government. All that this type of law will do is incriminate a lot of gun owners. Not to mention that criminals (who already can't legally own their guns) obviously won't register them. There will be millions of unregistered weapons, and criminals would still be able to get their hand on them regardless of whether or not there is a gun registry. The reason that I included the proposed ban on high capacity magazines under this section is because there are literally 10's of millions (if not more) that exist in the US - and the government does not know who owns them. I can't find a specific source of how many there are, however there are approximately [5 to 10 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle) AR-15 style rifles that exist in the United States. If we assume that for each gun, an owner has 2 "high capacity" (10+ rounds per magazine) magazines (which is likely higher because many people who own these types of guns stockpile these magazines because they fear that they will be banned), there are somewhere around 10-20 million AR-15 high capacity magazines in circulation. This is only the number of AR-15 style magazines, and does not include other semi-automatic rifle high capacity magazines or pistol magazines with more than 10 rounds (a large portion of modern handguns have magazines of this size). This all means that there are well over 10-20 million high capacity magazines in circulation, most of which will not be turned over in the case of a confiscation (not to mention, the government will not be able to do anything about it because the owners of these magazines are unregistered/unknown - they can only punish people who they catch). This means, that if a mass shooter wanted one (even if they were banned and a confiscation attempt was made), it would be easy for them to get (comparable to drugs in the US - they are banned, but their prevalence makes them easy to get). In order for me to change my mind on this, there would have to be significant evidence that this would improve the safety of the country, and a demonstration of how this is possible would be important in my consideration. Overall, I am ignoring the implications of these laws as they relate to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (mainly because I think that is an uninteresting debate - always the same), however I am instead basing my beliefs on statistical evidence and logical steps (based on statistically justifiable premises). I believe that all of these would have minimal impact on preventing gun violence, and have a net harm on law-abiding gun owners. If someone can justify their position with more accurate/precise statistics or demonstrate why these proposals would have any major impact on gun violence in the United States (and wouldn't have a net harm on people who require guns for self-defense), I am very willing to reconsider my views.	I think the biggest weak points of your argument are your objections to hold periods and background checks. For the hold period, it is just really counterintuitive that we should be more concerned about not being able to defend ourselves during a relatively small window of time (the hold period) than we are concerned about how the entire system prevents nutjobs from getting their hands on guns. We should be willing to accept that very small risk if it means making a huge systemic improvement. When it comes to implementing the background checks and eliminating unregulated individual transfers, again, there is a huge disparity between your concern and what's actually at stake. If Timmy and his grandpa need to fill out some paperwork before Timmy officially owns grandpa's rifle, we should be willing to accept that very minor inconvenience for the greater good. Also, I don't see why it is hard to imagine implementing these regulations. We already do it with vehicles; you can't legally own a vehicle without it being registered and identified, and you can't sell or give away a vehicle without updating the registration. There's no reason why we can't do the same thing with guns. Unless you just don't think the hassle is worth it – and this is what it really comes down to. Do you really care enough about gun violence that you are willing to budge even a little bit on your own personal sense of protection, or your personal hobby, whichever it is? If the answer is "no", we're better off if you just say "no, it isn't worth it", rather than pretending like the problem is with the solutions being proposed. You can't have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and if gun violence isn't really any problem from your perspective, we should at least be clear on that much. --- You make some good points that I feel I should clarify my position on. I don't think the biggest problem with background checks/waiting periods is their risk, but rather I think the main problem with both of those is their effectiveness. I think that "universal" background checks are mostly a hassle for people who abide the law, but I think the major problem of them is that they will be impossible to enforce. If it were to be passed, chances are that most people would deal with it and would not really be affected. The problem is that most guns that are used in crimes (anywhere from 60 \[I cannot locate the source\] to [80%](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.e5cf4744a673) \[also see [The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/firearms/report/fact-sheet-gun-violence)\]) are already illegally possessed - meaning that criminals already have \[illegal\] access to guns. I struggle to see how people, who are already have access to these guns, will actually submit their transactions to the government for background checks. Instead, I think that it will mostly just be a hassle for people trying to buy a gun. If there is evidence that this will somehow reduce the number of guns already accessible to criminals, I would be in favor of passing this legislation. As for waiting periods, I don't see how this would prevent criminals from getting guns. As I mentioned before, there is already a supply (of unknown size) of black-market guns in the US, and I don't think that instituting this would be effective in reducing the number available. I would definitely be willing to change my opinion if there is evidence that this would reduce violent crime, and a specific time-frame for a proposal would be given. As it stands now, I don't tend to believe that a waiting period would have a significant impact on gun violence, but if there is supporting evidence, I am happy to change my view. The reason that I mentioned the scale of gun violence vs. self-defense is because I think it is an important consideration when making laws that could potentially harm more people than they save. --- >The reason that I mentioned the scale of gun violence vs. self-defense is because I think it is an important consideration when making laws that could potentially harm more people than they save. If this is the case why you you feel the need to more or less throw out and ignore all suicides by guns? Sure you can make the argument that they want to die so they will find a way anyways, but at least with a registry and waiting period you will drastically reduce the spur of the moment decisions if someone actually has to prepare of the action.	That’s a wall of text. OP, what would it take to change your view? --- Sorry for the long post haha. I am specifically looking for differing views on any of the gun control legislation proposals listed towards the bottom. --- Despite disagreeing with you, you've given me a lot of new sources to consider. Thank you for such a thoughtful CMV.	b8adck	CMV: Most, If Not All, Major Proposed Gun Control Measures in the United States Will Have No Discernible Impact on Crime, and Will Most Likely Do More Harm Than Good	In 2018, there were[ nearly 40,000](http://time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/) gun deaths in the United States each year. Given this, it is not surprising that[ over 50% of those under 18 and about 1/3 people from the age of 18-24 cite gun violence as their most worrying fear](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/22/poll-columbine-generation-gun-violence-defining-fear/441446002/). This has led to many proposals of gun control legislation that I believe to be ineffective or a net harm to gun owners. Now, I think it is important to add that I don't believe that people on either side of the isle on the gun control issue in the United States hold their position in bad faith, and I would be open to changing my perspective given appropriate evidence and statistical data. As for my position on gun control, I believe that every major piece of legislation (see each point below) is ineffective (or a net harm to the country), and such proposals should not be on the forefront of politics in the United States given the minor significance (that is not to say I don't sympathize with people who have lost loved ones to any form of violence; I just believe that violent crime is not a major issue in the United States as compared to other countries) of gun violence in the country. # Gun Deaths Are Not a Good Metric for Measuring Gun Violence in the US In 2016,[ 38,658 people died from firearm related injuries](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf) ^(see) ^(Firearm Mortality) ^(on p.12). Looking at the number of deaths from selected causes in the United States in 2016, there were a total of[ 44,695 deaths by suicide and 19,362 homicides](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf) ^(see) ^(table 6) ^(on p.35). Of the deaths by suicide, 22,938 were committed by discharge of a firearm. That means that 59.3% of the total gun deaths are from suicides, and 51.0% of suicides were committed using firearms. Of the deaths by homicide, 14,415 of them were a result of the discharge of a firearm - meaning 74.4% of all homicides were committed using firearms. Each of the points will be discussed in further detail below. The reason that I am including this to preface the rest of my post is because it is important to remember that the approximately 40,000 deaths by firearms in the United States is not reflective of gun violence, but rather an indication that the United States has a significant mental health problem (though, I will discuss why I believe gun control is not effective in combating suicide). From here on out, I will use the number 15,720 deaths to quantify gun violence (which includes homicides, unintentional deaths, legal intervention, and undetermined intent) - even though this doesn't described violence, and this is a larger number than what many other sources use. I just want to use it to make a more balanced argument. # Gun Violence Is Not a Good Metric for Comparing Violence Across Countries, and Guns Are Likely Not Responsible for the US's High Homicide Rate A discussion about gun violence domestically in the United States requires the use of gun violence statistics. However, when people try to argue about the US in comparison to other countries, many cite the US's relatively high gun violence rate (as compared to other developed countries) as a means to justify their gun control measures. However, given that there are an estimated[ 120.5 firearms per 100 residents in the United States](http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/highlights/2018/highlight-bp-firearms-holdings.html) ^(see) ^(table 2) ^(on p.4 in) ^(Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers), it is unsurprising that much of the crime (in this case, homicide) is committed using firearms as compared to other countries. It is more accurate to compare all forms of homicide when discussing the US compared to other countries (as this accounts for mortality \[knives are not as deadly as guns\]). Here is the US homicide rate compared to all other countries: [Homicide Rate Across the World $US is in red, light blue is average$](https://i.redd.it/k17rieh84qp21.jpg) Here is the US compared to developed countries: [Homicide Rate Across Developed Countries $Us is in red$](https://i.redd.it/t7cbgqkg4qp21.png) Seeing these charts alone, even when only comparing homicide rates across developed countries, one may be inclined to believe that guns are responsible for these rates, however I contend that this is untrue. Following is my reasoning for believing that guns are not responsible for high homicide rates. Below is all the developed countries vs. their homicide rate. However, I believe the downward trend (where more guns = less homicide) is slightly misleading for a couple reasons. Firstly, the trend is relatively small, and is likely due to random chance (due to a small sample size - the developed countries). Secondly, countries that have higher homicide rates are likely to institute more gun control to combat the murders, and this may skew the countries with more homicides to have fewer gun ownership. This all leads me to believe that there is no causation between high gun ownership and high homicide rates. I personally believe this is a result of countries' predisposition to high crime and other non-gun related policies (gun laws, culture, geography etc.) that lead them to have higher homicide rates. (Something to note about this is that it is outdated, and the US actually falls farther to the right of the graph \[gun ownership is actually around 120 guns per 100 residents\]) [Firearm Ownership in Developed Countries vs Homicide Rate](https://i.redd.it/42v62ten4qp21.png) With all this being said, the US does have a higher homicide rate as compared to other countries worldwide, however the significance of it is often exaggerated using gun deaths, and that is misleading. Furthermore, there is little to no correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership in developed countries, and it is unlikely (given the data of other countries) that the US's high gun ownership causes its high homicide rate. Moreover,[ 15%-25%](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm) of gun homicides in the US are linked with gang & drug activity - so not being involved with such activities further reduces the (already very low \[see Preventable Causes of Death image under the Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens section\]) probability that one would be a victim of gun violence. In reality, guns are most likely not to blame for the US’s raised homicide rate - this is why I believe that gun control will have little to no effect on crime (mainly homicide). It is more likely that the American countries have a generally higher crime rate than their European counterparts, and gun ownership rates in American countries do not have any meaningful correlation with the homicides. # Firearms in the United States Are More Often Used for Self-Defense Than for Crime [48 percent](https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/) of gun owners in 2013 cited protection (self-defense) as their primary reason for owning a firearm. The right to self defense has been a huge part of US society and culture since the founding of the country. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz published a study about the use of firearms in self-defense (in the US) in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology concluded that there were[ "about 2.2 to 2.5 million \[defensive gun uses\] of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns"](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6853&context=jclc) in 1995. The reason that this number is significantly higher than the reported number of defensive uses, is because, in most cases, the firearm is not discharged. Instead, many times, a homeowner simply showing a gun to a potential criminal is enough to prevent a crime from occurring (I recommend you read this study, it explains the potential errors in calculations very well). This number is particularly difficult to measure due to this, and this study is outdated (and, since the crime rate in 1995 was higher, there were likely more self-defense incidents). There are other studies that look into self-defense uses, but this study is the most prevalent and most often cited (if someone could link the CDC study, I would appreciate that - I cannot find the original). Given that there are 15,720 deaths (my calculated, relatively liberal statistic), and there are likely over 500,000 (this was the lower bound of the \[politicized\] CDC report about self-defense using guns; 22.7% of the lower bound of the Kleck & Gertz study) uses of guns in self-defense. This means that there are likely at least 31.8 times as many self-defense uses of guns as there are violent, criminal uses of guns. In my opinion, the good here significantly outweighs the bad. # Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens All of the prior points lead up to my final point: that all major proposed (and many existing) gun control measures are ineffective, illogical, or harmful. Something that I believe is highly important to consider when legislating is the magnitude of the problem. In reality, gun deaths make a very small portion of preventable deaths, and ultimately this means that legislating for gun violence will likely have minimal effect on the country as a whole. The reason I am mentioning that it has such a small scale is because I think that drastic measures should not be taken for such a small incident (especially if those proposals won't be effective and will hurt people who need to defend themselves). Anyway, here is the breakdown of preventable deaths in the United States (annually): [Preventable Causes of Death in the United States](https://i.redd.it/lk87hne24qp21.png) As you can see, firearm deaths are a very low percentage of the preventable causes of death in the United States. Going off of numbers, we as a country should be more focused on reducing tobacco usage, countering obesity, preventing alcohol deaths, improving medicine, and improving driving safety in order to save more lives. Anyway, here are some major gun law proposals, and why I believe they are ineffective: Gun Free Zones: Anywhere from[ 13% to 96.2%](https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/) of Mass Shootings take place in gun-free zones (depending on the definition of "gun-free zone" and "mass shooting"). In my opinion, this doesn't matter, but some people find it important (I am including it for transparency). In reality, a would-be mass shooter is not going to be dissuaded from committing an atrocity because they would face the charge of a possession of a gun within a gun-free zone - that's ridiculous. Gun-free zones only prevent people who abide the law from carrying a gun in those areas. Given the number of defensive uses of firearms in the country, it is likely that these gun-free zones prevent at least some instances of self defense - and do little to deter criminals from committing crime. Some people say that mass shooters target gun-free zones - and, in my opinion, it is insignificant given all the other variables in the situation. But the idea that gun-free zones do anything to prevent crime is (in my opinion) ridiculous, and such laws strictly target people who already follow the law. If someone can cite a valid study that shows that law-abiding, trained citizens who conceal carry a weapon are more likely to commit a crime (not get involved in civil lawsuits - almost all cases of self defense result in the victim being sued; I mean murder, unjustified killings, etc.) than protect people, then I would willing to change my view. As for the anecdotal (and logical) argument for why a mass shooter would target gun-free zones, it is pretty simple. A person who plans to commit an atrocity isn't going to shoot up a police department or a shooting range because the criminal knows that someone will shoot back. The criminal is more likely to shoot up an unarmed group of people (and, most likely, a lot of unarmed people will be in gun-free zones). I don't find this argument particularly effective, but it is at least an argument. "Assault Weapons" Ban: I don't want to debate semantics, but for the purpose of this discussion I will use the definition of "assault weapon" from the Clinton-era[ Assault Weapons Ban of 1994](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban). Also, I will use this 1994 ban as the subject of my criticism of all Assault Weapons bans. My main criticism is that this ban is based entirely on cosmetics, and not the function of the gun. A "barrel shroud" (which is better described as a hand-guard), a vertical grip, a forward assist (which has nothing to do with firing fast - basically, it forces the bolt-carrier group forward when there is something such as dirt blocking it from doing so), and pistol grips all do nothing to change the function of the rifle, and are entirely cosmetic. The gun fires the same (semi-automatic, meaning one bullet is fired per action of the trigger) with or without all of these features. The fact that these "look" dangerous is why I believe they are subject to ban, not because they actually permit the gun to do anything different. This is why I consider this very bad policy. In order to change my view on this, I would like to see evidence as to why these different aspects should be banned. Also, I think it is important to mention that all rifles (in 2016) were used in[ 374 rifles were used in homicides (as opposed to 7105 with handguns)](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls) (though it is important to note that 3077 firearm types were unspecified) were used in homicides. Going after all rifles to reduce gun violence (of which so called "assault weapons" make up an even smaller portion of these homicides) is illogical. Instead, if one were to base their policy on what most crimes are committed using, they would focus on handguns. Either way, I don't believe either should be targeted given the small magnitude (though I am not dismissing the loss of life) of the scale of the problem. Waiting Periods for Purchasing: My main issue with this legislation is that could prevent people who need a firearm from getting it when they need it. I don't think it would affect most gun owners, but I am concerned that someone who is being targeted (potentially someone in fear of being followed by a stalker or someone who has received threats) would be prevented from getting a self-defense weapon in time to defend themselves. I cannot find a statistic regarding how many times this could happen (because it would be difficult if not impossible to measure), and I would be interested to see how a waiting period impacts crime. I would like to see an analysis on the impact on crime vs. the impact on people's ability to get a self-defense weapon on time in order for me to change my view. "*Universal*" Background Checks: This sounds good on paper. I believe that all firearm sales from an FFL should have a background check (which is currently the status quo). That being said, requiring it for individual transfers/gifts would be impossible to regulate. How could the government know when a grandfather gives his childhood rifle to his grandson - nobody would report this transaction to the government, and a crime would be committed (which, in reality, would be a victimless crime). I would be willing to change my mind if someone could propose how to regulate non-FFL transfers without incriminating people who have no intent of committing a crime. Gun Registry/High Capacity Magazines: I believe that this is a dangerous, ineffective proposal. I don't want to rant about gun confiscation, but I cannot help but think of that when any form of a gun registry is proposed. I cannot think of any reason that a governing body would need to know who has guns unless they plan on confiscating them at some point. If you advocate for a confiscation - I urge you to look at Nazi Germany, the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cuba, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, South Sedan, and Venezuela. Gun confiscations are a recipe for government overreach. That all being said, it would impossible to get a comprehensive gun registry in the United States. I don't have a source for the percentage, but I can tell you that a massive portion (if not all) of the gun owners (that I know) will not register any of their guns with the government. All that this type of law will do is incriminate a lot of gun owners. Not to mention that criminals (who already can't legally own their guns) obviously won't register them. There will be millions of unregistered weapons, and criminals would still be able to get their hand on them regardless of whether or not there is a gun registry. The reason that I included the proposed ban on high capacity magazines under this section is because there are literally 10's of millions (if not more) that exist in the US - and the government does not know who owns them. I can't find a specific source of how many there are, however there are approximately [5 to 10 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle) AR-15 style rifles that exist in the United States. If we assume that for each gun, an owner has 2 "high capacity" (10+ rounds per magazine) magazines (which is likely higher because many people who own these types of guns stockpile these magazines because they fear that they will be banned), there are somewhere around 10-20 million AR-15 high capacity magazines in circulation. This is only the number of AR-15 style magazines, and does not include other semi-automatic rifle high capacity magazines or pistol magazines with more than 10 rounds (a large portion of modern handguns have magazines of this size). This all means that there are well over 10-20 million high capacity magazines in circulation, most of which will not be turned over in the case of a confiscation (not to mention, the government will not be able to do anything about it because the owners of these magazines are unregistered/unknown - they can only punish people who they catch). This means, that if a mass shooter wanted one (even if they were banned and a confiscation attempt was made), it would be easy for them to get (comparable to drugs in the US - they are banned, but their prevalence makes them easy to get). In order for me to change my mind on this, there would have to be significant evidence that this would improve the safety of the country, and a demonstration of how this is possible would be important in my consideration. Overall, I am ignoring the implications of these laws as they relate to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (mainly because I think that is an uninteresting debate - always the same), however I am instead basing my beliefs on statistical evidence and logical steps (based on statistically justifiable premises). I believe that all of these would have minimal impact on preventing gun violence, and have a net harm on law-abiding gun owners. If someone can justify their position with more accurate/precise statistics or demonstrate why these proposals would have any major impact on gun violence in the United States (and wouldn't have a net harm on people who require guns for self-defense), I am very willing to reconsider my views.	tempacct13245768	3	3	[ { "author": "DrinkyDrank", "id": "ejwq7mc", "score": 47, "text": "\n\nI think the biggest weak points of your argument are your objections to hold periods and background checks. For the hold period, it is just really counterintuitive that we should be more concerned about not being able to defend ourselves during a relatively small window of time (the hold period) than we are concerned about how the entire system prevents nutjobs from getting their hands on guns. We should be willing to accept that very small risk if it means making a huge systemic improvement.\n\nWhen it comes to implementing the background checks and eliminating unregulated individual transfers, again, there is a huge disparity between your concern and what's actually at stake. If Timmy and his grandpa need to fill out some paperwork before Timmy officially owns grandpa's rifle, we should be willing to accept that very minor inconvenience for the greater good. Also, I don't see why it is hard to imagine implementing these regulations. We already do it with vehicles; you can't legally own a vehicle without it being registered and identified, and you can't sell or give away a vehicle without updating the registration. There's no reason why we can't do the same thing with guns.\n\nUnless you just don't think the hassle is worth it – and this is what it really comes down to. Do you really care enough about gun violence that you are willing to budge even a little bit on your own personal sense of protection, or your personal hobby, whichever it is? If the answer is \"no\", we're better off if you just say \"no, it isn't worth it\", rather than pretending like the problem is with the solutions being proposed. You can't have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and if gun violence isn't really any problem from your perspective, we should at least be clear on that much. \n\n \n\n\n", "timestamp": 1554159423 }, { "author": "tempacct13245768", "id": "ejwsmss", "score": 14, "text": "You make some good points that I feel I should clarify my position on. I don't think the biggest problem with background checks/waiting periods is their risk, but rather I think the main problem with both of those is their effectiveness.\n\nI think that \"universal\" background checks are mostly a hassle for people who abide the law, but I think the major problem of them is that they will be impossible to enforce. If it were to be passed, chances are that most people would deal with it and would not really be affected. The problem is that most guns that are used in crimes (anywhere from 60 \\[I cannot locate the source\\] to [80%](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.e5cf4744a673) \\[also see [The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/firearms/report/fact-sheet-gun-violence)\\]) are already illegally possessed - meaning that criminals already have \\[illegal\\] access to guns. I struggle to see how people, who are already have access to these guns, will actually submit their transactions to the government for background checks. Instead, I think that it will mostly just be a hassle for people trying to buy a gun. If there is evidence that this will somehow reduce the number of guns already accessible to criminals, I would be in favor of passing this legislation.\n\nAs for waiting periods, I don't see how this would prevent criminals from getting guns. As I mentioned before, there is already a supply (of unknown size) of black-market guns in the US, and I don't think that instituting this would be effective in reducing the number available. I would definitely be willing to change my opinion if there is evidence that this would reduce violent crime, and a specific time-frame for a proposal would be given. As it stands now, I don't tend to believe that a waiting period would have a significant impact on gun violence, but if there is supporting evidence, I am happy to change my view.\n\nThe reason that I mentioned the scale of gun violence vs. self-defense is because I think it is an important consideration when making laws that could potentially harm more people than they save.", "timestamp": 1554161310 }, { "author": "Tino_", "id": "ejwtc66", "score": 24, "text": ">The reason that I mentioned the scale of gun violence vs. self-defense is because I think it is an important consideration when making laws that could potentially harm more people than they save.\n\nIf this is the case why you you feel the need to more or less throw out and ignore all suicides by guns? Sure you can make the argument that they want to die so they will find a way anyways, but at least with a registry and waiting period you will drastically reduce the spur of the moment decisions if someone actually has to prepare of the action.", "timestamp": 1554161859 } ]	[ { "author": "justasque", "id": "ejwp5y5", "score": -2, "text": "That’s a wall of text. OP, what would it take to change your view?", "timestamp": 1554158622 }, { "author": "tempacct13245768", "id": "ejwp9it", "score": 9, "text": "Sorry for the long post haha. I am specifically looking for differing views on any of the gun control legislation proposals listed towards the bottom.", "timestamp": 1554158698 }, { "author": "ratherperson", "id": "ejwpm0y", "score": 14, "text": "Despite disagreeing with you, you've given me a lot of new sources to consider. Thank you for such a thoughtful CMV. ", "timestamp": 1554158962 } ]	[ "ejwq7mc", "ejwsmss", "ejwtc66" ]	[ "ejwp5y5", "ejwp9it", "ejwpm0y" ]
CMV: Coal is a dying industry that cannot return to its "glory days" due to the expansion of the renewable energy market. So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals (renewable vs coal), both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years... there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but "one plant" still cant bring the coal industry back. CMV! Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power/the coal industry. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years... there is no way to justify such a bad investment. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Coal power plants are generally assumed to have a lifespan of 30 years, and the average age for a coal plant in the US right now is [45 years](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html#.WOUeJdJViT4). Comparing that to [various renewable energy](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_footprint.html) plants, that doesn't seem significantly worse, if anything it's probably got a longer life expectancy. I don't see how you're getting that a coal plant would be unable to produce power in 5 years. --- Not to put words in OPs mouth but I took that line to mean in 5 years a coal power plant will be the equivalent of using a first generation iPhone when we have the iPhone 7 Does it work, yes, but it's out of date, lagging behind its rivals and isn't nearly as efficient. IMO 5 years might be a bit soon, the US coal market is shifting towards exporting instead of using it domestically and like you said many communities won't have the funds to make the jump to renewables until the current plants reach the end of their lifespan --- The solar plant built today would also be totally inefficient compared to the solar plants built 5 years from now if technology is improving that fast though. And the obsolete coal plant would have been much cheaper to build than the obsolete solar plant. Not to mention that as efficiency of solar improves, coal will become cheaper. If we expect rapid improvements in solar technology, that would tend to be a factor that would counterintuitively push us towards coal investment in the short run rather than solar technology.	The question of returning to glory days and where you should invest are not likely related. The question of coal is whether it is currently _undervalued_ relative to where it might go. This doesn't mean a future return to glory days, but a lift up from the shitter its been in that saw nothing but continued decline. More importantly, the threat to coal of the timeframes that matter here is natural gas. It burns clean and we absolutely need growth in energy production in excess of what we'll get from renewals. The thing to look at is whether natural gas is sustainable in its march, or whether alleviation of coal regulation gives it more staying power than previously thought. --- Well, one ultimatum to consider here is that, inherently, no fossil fuel source is sustainable. We do not have the technology to produce fossil fuels at the rate that we use them. Eventually, they will be obsolete, no matter what. The question is, will they cease to be economically viable, or will they simply cease to be available first? --- That question is irrelevant on the timescale of building and then obsolescing the next round of power generation investment.	63mnmp	CMV: Coal is a dying industry that cannot return to its "glory days" due to the expansion of the renewable energy market.	So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals (renewable vs coal), both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years... there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but "one plant" still cant bring the coal industry back. CMV! Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power/the coal industry. _____ > 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!*	humdinger44	3	3	[ { "author": "neofederalist", "id": "dfvauyu", "score": 3, "text": "> but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years... there is no way to justify such a bad investment.\n\nCan you clarify what you mean by this? Coal power plants are generally assumed to have a lifespan of 30 years, and the average age for a coal plant in the US right now is [45 years](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html#.WOUeJdJViT4). Comparing that to [various renewable energy](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_footprint.html) plants, that doesn't seem significantly worse, if anything it's probably got a longer life expectancy. I don't see how you're getting that a coal plant would be unable to produce power in 5 years.", "timestamp": 1491410751 }, { "author": "SC803", "id": "dfvbj12", "score": 4, "text": "Not to put words in OPs mouth but I took that line to mean in 5 years a coal power plant will be the equivalent of using a first generation iPhone when we have the iPhone 7\n\nDoes it work, yes, but it's out of date, lagging behind its rivals and isn't nearly as efficient.\n\nIMO 5 years might be a bit soon, the US coal market is shifting towards exporting instead of using it domestically and like you said many communities won't have the funds to make the jump to renewables until the current plants reach the end of their lifespan", "timestamp": 1491411435 }, { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "dfvc5dm", "score": 5, "text": "The solar plant built today would also be totally inefficient compared to the solar plants built 5 years from now if technology is improving that fast though. And the obsolete coal plant would have been much cheaper to build than the obsolete solar plant. Not to mention that as efficiency of solar improves, coal will become cheaper. If we expect rapid improvements in solar technology, that would tend to be a factor that would counterintuitively push us towards coal investment in the short run rather than solar technology.", "timestamp": 1491412076 } ]	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dfvaq90", "score": 8, "text": "The question of returning to glory days and where you should invest are not likely related. The question of coal is whether it is currently _undervalued_ relative to where it might go. This doesn't mean a future return to glory days, but a lift up from the shitter its been in that saw nothing but continued decline.\n\nMore importantly, the threat to coal of the timeframes that matter here is natural gas. It burns clean and we absolutely need growth in energy production in excess of what we'll get from renewals. The thing to look at is whether natural gas is sustainable in its march, or whether alleviation of coal regulation gives it more staying power than previously thought.", "timestamp": 1491410616 }, { "author": "Cookster997", "id": "dfvaz2i", "score": 2, "text": "Well, one ultimatum to consider here is that, inherently, no fossil fuel source is sustainable. We do not have the technology to produce fossil fuels at the rate that we use them. Eventually, they will be obsolete, no matter what. The question is, will they cease to be economically viable, or will they simply cease to be available first?", "timestamp": 1491410867 }, { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dfvb6cx", "score": 3, "text": "That question is irrelevant on the timescale of building and then obsolescing the next round of power generation investment.", "timestamp": 1491411074 } ]	[ "dfvauyu", "dfvbj12", "dfvc5dm" ]	[ "dfvaq90", "dfvaz2i", "dfvb6cx" ]
CMV: Proprietary Software Is Morally Unjust Now I know that this is a topic that many in this subreddit are unaware of so let me take the time to clarify what I am referring to. Software is a collection of commands used to execute a task on a computer (tablet, phone, laptop). Software is often compiled or interpreted from source code. As with works such as artwork, and documents, computer software can be licensed in a matter that provides its users freedoms (freedom to study, freedom to modify, freedom to share, etc.) or not. There are those (such as Richard Stallman) who not only refuse to run proprietary software (including proprietary JavaScript code), but also speak out against the use of proprietary software. Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users and allows software developers to subjugate end users. With free software, any attempts to subjugate or infringe on the liberties of users are infeasible since the source code is available for public review. Recently, I learned that when assessing a moral claim, it is wise to consider other sides of the argument. I haven't really heard from anyone who spoke out in defense of proprietary software. I would like it if you all can try to change my view and defend the argument that "Proprietary software is morally just". Here are some links so that you can better research this topic. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - GNU Project http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/definition/free-software - SearchEnterpriseLinux	> Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users You haven't explained your own view. On what grounds are you claiming it is morally unjust? If I write and sell a video game, what civil liberties of my users have been subjugated? --- It is morally unjust when individuals are unaware of the implications of proprietary software. Most people are unaware of the difference between proprietary and free and open source software. --- Can you explain that statement, I have no idea what that means? What specifically is the moral injustice or civil liberties being violated? --- When a person makes a decision that they are not fully informed of, and if it results in their rights being taken away, then it is harmful. --- The vast majority of decisions you make every day are not fully informed. What you eat, the various aspects of the clothes you buy and wear, the car you use... we compromise when making most of our decisions because not all of them matter much. For the vast majority of people, proprietary software vs free software is a virtual non-issue (pun intended).	The GNU philosophy of what is morally wrong centers around freedoms. For example, the freedom to change a program. And it supposes that proprietary software takes away those freedoms and so a freedom that is denied is morally wrong. While I mostly agree with this and mostly use free software myself, there is a pretty big hole in calling it "morally" wrong rather than a choice. Because it assumes that those freedoms are important to every person. If someone took away Richard Stallman's "freedom" to use proprietary software, would he be injured? He wouldn't actually care. He would never use it in the first place so it isn't a true removal of a freedom. --- Nice. What is your point may I ask? --- That if someone doesn't care about a "freedom" then it's not morally wrong to "take it away" from them. Take away my freedom to drink soda. I could care less. Zero impact on me. --- Well what about a person's right to privacy? --- If they care about it, then for sure it would be wrong to take it away. Lots of people don't care.	6anptg	CMV: Proprietary Software Is Morally Unjust	Now I know that this is a topic that many in this subreddit are unaware of so let me take the time to clarify what I am referring to. Software is a collection of commands used to execute a task on a computer (tablet, phone, laptop). Software is often compiled or interpreted from source code. As with works such as artwork, and documents, computer software can be licensed in a matter that provides its users freedoms (freedom to study, freedom to modify, freedom to share, etc.) or not. There are those (such as Richard Stallman) who not only refuse to run proprietary software (including proprietary JavaScript code), but also speak out against the use of proprietary software. Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users and allows software developers to subjugate end users. With free software, any attempts to subjugate or infringe on the liberties of users are infeasible since the source code is available for public review. Recently, I learned that when assessing a moral claim, it is wise to consider other sides of the argument. I haven't really heard from anyone who spoke out in defense of proprietary software. I would like it if you all can try to change my view and defend the argument that "Proprietary software is morally just". Here are some links so that you can better research this topic. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - GNU Project http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/definition/free-software - SearchEnterpriseLinux	Questyman	5	5	[ { "author": "cacheflow", "id": "dhg0244", "score": 1, "text": "> Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users\n\nYou haven't explained your own view. On what grounds are you claiming it is morally unjust?\n\nIf I write and sell a video game, what civil liberties of my users have been subjugated?", "timestamp": 1494545779 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhg080s", "score": 1, "text": "It is morally unjust when individuals are unaware of the implications of proprietary software.\n\nMost people are unaware of the difference between proprietary and free and open source software.", "timestamp": 1494546008 }, { "author": "cacheflow", "id": "dhg0co3", "score": 1, "text": "Can you explain that statement, I have no idea what that means?\n\nWhat specifically is the moral injustice or civil liberties being violated?\n\n", "timestamp": 1494546184 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhg0ffh", "score": 1, "text": "When a person makes a decision that they are not fully informed of, and if it results in their rights being taken away, then it is harmful.", "timestamp": 1494546291 }, { "author": "snkifador", "id": "dhgfp9b", "score": 1, "text": "The vast majority of decisions you make every day are not fully informed. What you eat, the various aspects of the clothes you buy and wear, the car you use... we compromise when making most of our decisions because not all of them matter much.\n\nFor the vast majority of people, proprietary software vs free software is a virtual non-issue (pun intended).", "timestamp": 1494570424 } ]	[ { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dhfzqh2", "score": 6, "text": "The GNU philosophy of what is morally wrong centers around freedoms. For example, the freedom to change a program. And it supposes that proprietary software takes away those freedoms and so a freedom that is denied is morally wrong. While I mostly agree with this and mostly use free software myself, there is a pretty big hole in calling it \"morally\" wrong rather than a choice. Because it assumes that those freedoms are important to every person. If someone took away Richard Stallman's \"freedom\" to use proprietary software, would he be injured? He wouldn't actually care. He would never use it in the first place so it isn't a true removal of a freedom.", "timestamp": 1494545345 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhfzs38", "score": 1, "text": "Nice. What is your point may I ask?", "timestamp": 1494545406 }, { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dhfzu77", "score": 2, "text": "That if someone doesn't care about a \"freedom\" then it's not morally wrong to \"take it away\" from them. Take away my freedom to drink soda. I could care less. Zero impact on me.", "timestamp": 1494545484 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhfzwp7", "score": 1, "text": "Well what about a person's right to privacy?", "timestamp": 1494545575 }, { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dhfzzll", "score": 1, "text": "If they care about it, then for sure it would be wrong to take it away. Lots of people don't care.", "timestamp": 1494545685 } ]	[ "dhg0244", "dhg080s", "dhg0co3", "dhg0ffh", "dhgfp9b" ]	[ "dhfzqh2", "dhfzs38", "dhfzu77", "dhfzwp7", "dhfzzll" ]
CMV: Proprietary Software Is Morally Unjust Now I know that this is a topic that many in this subreddit are unaware of so let me take the time to clarify what I am referring to. Software is a collection of commands used to execute a task on a computer (tablet, phone, laptop). Software is often compiled or interpreted from source code. As with works such as artwork, and documents, computer software can be licensed in a matter that provides its users freedoms (freedom to study, freedom to modify, freedom to share, etc.) or not. There are those (such as Richard Stallman) who not only refuse to run proprietary software (including proprietary JavaScript code), but also speak out against the use of proprietary software. Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users and allows software developers to subjugate end users. With free software, any attempts to subjugate or infringe on the liberties of users are infeasible since the source code is available for public review. Recently, I learned that when assessing a moral claim, it is wise to consider other sides of the argument. I haven't really heard from anyone who spoke out in defense of proprietary software. I would like it if you all can try to change my view and defend the argument that "Proprietary software is morally just". Here are some links so that you can better research this topic. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - GNU Project http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/definition/free-software - SearchEnterpriseLinux	Human beings should be allowed to enter into contracts with one another. Consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with one another, business people should be allowed to enter into business partnerships together, etc. If a developer creates proprietary software, and the user agrees to the terms and conditions that come with it, then that is a private agreement between the user and the developer. It is morally just for two parties to make this type of agreement. You really have to stretch the argument to say that it hurts anyone else, similar to the way that evangelical Christians claim that homosexuality hurts Christian families. If some developers want to create software that comes with different terms and conditions (so called free software) and users prefer to use that, then that is their right. Do what makes you happy, but don't impose your values onto the private agreements of others. --- Honestly, I am not completely against proprietary software, however it seems that you are accusing free software activists of imposing their views onto others. Any reasons why? --- If you think that proprietary software is immoral, it follows that you think no one should create it, no? Do you enforce that with laws? If not, what's the point? Consider fast food. What if I believe that charging money for fast food is unjust? Does that mean Burger King shouldn't be allowed to sell Whoppers?	The GNU philosophy of what is morally wrong centers around freedoms. For example, the freedom to change a program. And it supposes that proprietary software takes away those freedoms and so a freedom that is denied is morally wrong. While I mostly agree with this and mostly use free software myself, there is a pretty big hole in calling it "morally" wrong rather than a choice. Because it assumes that those freedoms are important to every person. If someone took away Richard Stallman's "freedom" to use proprietary software, would he be injured? He wouldn't actually care. He would never use it in the first place so it isn't a true removal of a freedom. --- Nice. What is your point may I ask? --- That if someone doesn't care about a "freedom" then it's not morally wrong to "take it away" from them. Take away my freedom to drink soda. I could care less. Zero impact on me.	6anptg	CMV: Proprietary Software Is Morally Unjust	Now I know that this is a topic that many in this subreddit are unaware of so let me take the time to clarify what I am referring to. Software is a collection of commands used to execute a task on a computer (tablet, phone, laptop). Software is often compiled or interpreted from source code. As with works such as artwork, and documents, computer software can be licensed in a matter that provides its users freedoms (freedom to study, freedom to modify, freedom to share, etc.) or not. There are those (such as Richard Stallman) who not only refuse to run proprietary software (including proprietary JavaScript code), but also speak out against the use of proprietary software. Those who are against proprietary software argue that the use or proprietary software infringes on the civil liberties of software users and allows software developers to subjugate end users. With free software, any attempts to subjugate or infringe on the liberties of users are infeasible since the source code is available for public review. Recently, I learned that when assessing a moral claim, it is wise to consider other sides of the argument. I haven't really heard from anyone who spoke out in defense of proprietary software. I would like it if you all can try to change my view and defend the argument that "Proprietary software is morally just". Here are some links so that you can better research this topic. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - GNU Project http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/definition/free-software - SearchEnterpriseLinux	Questyman	3	3	[ { "author": "McKoijion", "id": "dhfzhyr", "score": 1, "text": "Human beings should be allowed to enter into contracts with one another. Consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with one another, business people should be allowed to enter into business partnerships together, etc. If a developer creates proprietary software, and the user agrees to the terms and conditions that come with it, then that is a private agreement between the user and the developer. It is morally just for two parties to make this type of agreement. You really have to stretch the argument to say that it hurts anyone else, similar to the way that evangelical Christians claim that homosexuality hurts Christian families. If some developers want to create software that comes with different terms and conditions (so called free software) and users prefer to use that, then that is their right. Do what makes you happy, but don't impose your values onto the private agreements of others.", "timestamp": 1494545023 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhfzo19", "score": 1, "text": "Honestly, I am not completely against proprietary software, however it seems that you are accusing free software activists of imposing their views onto others. Any reasons why?", "timestamp": 1494545253 }, { "author": "qwaai", "id": "dhg08lz", "score": 1, "text": "If you think that proprietary software is immoral, it follows that you think no one should create it, no? Do you enforce that with laws? If not, what's the point? \n\nConsider fast food. What if I believe that charging money for fast food is unjust? Does that mean Burger King shouldn't be allowed to sell Whoppers?", "timestamp": 1494546030 } ]	[ { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dhfzqh2", "score": 6, "text": "The GNU philosophy of what is morally wrong centers around freedoms. For example, the freedom to change a program. And it supposes that proprietary software takes away those freedoms and so a freedom that is denied is morally wrong. While I mostly agree with this and mostly use free software myself, there is a pretty big hole in calling it \"morally\" wrong rather than a choice. Because it assumes that those freedoms are important to every person. If someone took away Richard Stallman's \"freedom\" to use proprietary software, would he be injured? He wouldn't actually care. He would never use it in the first place so it isn't a true removal of a freedom.", "timestamp": 1494545345 }, { "author": "Questyman", "id": "dhfzs38", "score": 1, "text": "Nice. What is your point may I ask?", "timestamp": 1494545406 }, { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dhfzu77", "score": 2, "text": "That if someone doesn't care about a \"freedom\" then it's not morally wrong to \"take it away\" from them. Take away my freedom to drink soda. I could care less. Zero impact on me.", "timestamp": 1494545484 } ]	[ "dhfzhyr", "dhfzo19", "dhg08lz" ]	[ "dhfzqh2", "dhfzs38", "dhfzu77" ]
CMV Diversity in movies shouldn't be a reason why the movie is good. <<<Spoilers for Force Awakens and kind of Moana>>> This stems from recent calls for diversity in movies. I love diversity, everyone should be represented no matter what race/religion or sexuality, but when critics recommend films based on diversity. Or tumblr encourages people to go to movies because it is diverse, is wrong and encourages studios to make bad movies. A example of this is Moana, it was the first POC Disney "princess" in a long time, with Hawaiian culture and religion. This is good. Many people called it a good film. But many people said the movie was good because of the diversity, which isn't the case frankly. Any movie can be about culture or race but it needs to be done right. That's what should matter. Not just because POC are in the movie. Another example is Rey from Star Wars. When I heard Rey was the main character, I thought it was sick that the focus was on a female Jedi. In The force Awakens, I had troubles liking her character. She was a Mary Sue, picked up a blaster and was an ace shot. Picked up lightsaber and could beat a sith apprentice who was trained by a supreme leader snoke and Luke Skywalker. This is diversity done poorly. Despite race gender religion or sexuality characters still should need character development. Hell she even got force mind tricks down on her first try. TL;DR: diversity is good when done right, and should not automatically be a perk of a movie. Edit: Added Star Wars Spoiler Warning.	Let me touch back on this topic because I believe now I completely disagree with myself. I don't know if it was because i wrote this at like 1 am or if i genuinely changed my mind. You can't get open to a topic like racism without diversity. Otherwise it would be hypocritical and not taken seriously. Diversity opens a lot of doors on what to do, which is good diversity. Using it as plot or setting should be praised. But having a token gay/POC character shouldn't deserve praise. --- Can I have some Delta then, OP? It's pretty uncommon in the CMV threads I read for the OP to be like "think I got it wrong guys", props to you, OP!	I agree with your point out that Moana was not the first ethnic minoroty princess in a long time. Tiana in Princess and the Frog came out 8 years ago. --- Your forgetting about either frozen, tangled or brave. But yea I forgot about princess in the frog. Thanks for reminding me	6klqbv	CMV Diversity in movies shouldn't be a reason why the movie is good.	<<<Spoilers for Force Awakens and kind of Moana>>> This stems from recent calls for diversity in movies. I love diversity, everyone should be represented no matter what race/religion or sexuality, but when critics recommend films based on diversity. Or tumblr encourages people to go to movies because it is diverse, is wrong and encourages studios to make bad movies. A example of this is Moana, it was the first POC Disney "princess" in a long time, with Hawaiian culture and religion. This is good. Many people called it a good film. But many people said the movie was good because of the diversity, which isn't the case frankly. Any movie can be about culture or race but it needs to be done right. That's what should matter. Not just because POC are in the movie. Another example is Rey from Star Wars. When I heard Rey was the main character, I thought it was sick that the focus was on a female Jedi. In The force Awakens, I had troubles liking her character. She was a Mary Sue, picked up a blaster and was an ace shot. Picked up lightsaber and could beat a sith apprentice who was trained by a supreme leader snoke and Luke Skywalker. This is diversity done poorly. Despite race gender religion or sexuality characters still should need character development. Hell she even got force mind tricks down on her first try. TL;DR: diversity is good when done right, and should not automatically be a perk of a movie. Edit: Added Star Wars Spoiler Warning.	EverlastingInferno	2	2	[ { "author": "EverlastingInferno", "id": "djnu4dz", "score": 46, "text": "Let me touch back on this topic because I believe now I completely disagree with myself. I don't know if it was because i wrote this at like 1 am or if i genuinely changed my mind. You can't get open to a topic like racism without diversity. Otherwise it would be hypocritical and not taken seriously. Diversity opens a lot of doors on what to do, which is good diversity. Using it as plot or setting should be praised. But having a token gay/POC character shouldn't deserve praise. ", "timestamp": 1498946464 }, { "author": "StringerBell9", "id": "djodg0b", "score": 5, "text": "Can I have some Delta then, OP? \n\nIt's pretty uncommon in the CMV threads I read for the OP to be like \"think I got it wrong guys\", props to you, OP! ", "timestamp": 1498979805 } ]	[ { "author": "Snipe812", "id": "djn0w0h", "score": 1, "text": "I agree with your point out that Moana was not the first ethnic minoroty princess in a long time. Tiana in Princess and the Frog came out 8 years ago.", "timestamp": 1498894118 }, { "author": "EverlastingInferno", "id": "djn17m9", "score": -4, "text": "Your forgetting about either frozen, tangled or brave. But yea I forgot about princess in the frog. Thanks for reminding me", "timestamp": 1498894993 } ]	[ "djnu4dz", "djodg0b" ]	[ "djn0w0h", "djn17m9" ]
CMV: The US selling of arms to other countries is wrong The US selling of arms to other countries is wrong and bad in general for the following reasons: -It promotes war; The US actually donates weapons to some places. By being the #1 supplier of weapons, the US effectively is the number one endorser of war. -It destabilizes regions: The US funneling weapons to syria is one of the reasons that it is in such a shithole. Moreover, it inevitably ends up in the wrong hands; ISIS ended up with tons of US weapons. Most notably they use the M16 in many of their promotional videos. -It benefits the wrong people: the people benefitted aren't everyday americans. It's the people that own the weapons companies. They use that money to buy influence in politics for the US to endorse conflict around the world. Note: I'm not saying that it should be banned necessarily, I'm saying that it's incorrect; both morally and in terms of human advancement and quality of life around the world _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> -It promotes war; The US actually donates weapons to some places. By being the #1 supplier of weapons, the US effectively is the number one endorser of war. Why is this inherently wrong? > -It destabilizes regions: The US funneling weapons to syria is one of the reasons that it is in such a shithole. Moreover, it inevitably ends up in the wrong hands; ISIS ended up with tons of US weapons. Most notably they use the M16 in many of their promotional videos. Most of those are left over or captured from other wars in the region > -It benefits the wrong people: the people benefitted aren't everyday americans. It's the people that own the weapons companies. They use that money to buy influence in politics for the US to endorse conflict around the world. Small arms manufacturing isnt that profitable of an industry, believe it or not. --- >Why is this inherently wrong? because war benefits no one. Especially at the point in humanity where we're at right now. Western liberal democracies should focus their money into things such as science and social development. Other countries should focus their resources into Economic development. >Most of those are left over or captured from other wars in the region you didn't answer the core of my point, which is that it completely destabilized the region. And no, most end up with ISIS because of defectors from the Free syrian army that the US gives tons of weapons to. >Small arms manufacturing isnt that profitable of an industry, believe it or not. Source? --- >because war benefits no one. Especially at the point in humanity where we're at right now. Western liberal democracies should focus their money into things such as science and social development. Other countries should focus their resources into Economic development. Easily disproven. War in Iraq benefited a number of institutions and individual people, whose personal wealth directly increased as a result of the war via transfers of wealth from the tax payer to their pocketbooks. War against the Nazi Germany was incredibly beneficial to all the jews liberated from concentration camps. War in Israel was beneficial to the israelies who didn't have their country destroyed by foreign invaders. War in the British Colonies was beneficial as it gave the colonials a say in their own government.	Doesn't it give us a sand-box to test our equipment in real-life settings? Is this not worth it to us? --- I'm talking about this in a larger perspective. Not from the US exclusively. From a global perspective. So no, it's not worth it. War doesn't help anyone but those who sell the weapons --- Is it not a better thing for the world at large to have a singular (or possibly two) super power(s)? You have controlled war and it doesn't get it of hand. In order to keep that world order, you need to keep you military active and top notch. In order to do that, you need wars in some less important areas. Also, you can talk about the world at large, but every actor acts in his own self-interest. Why wouldn't they? It's not just the people in America who sell the weapons who benefit from the hegemony, it's all Americans.	63gev4	CMV: The US selling of arms to other countries is wrong	The US selling of arms to other countries is wrong and bad in general for the following reasons: -It promotes war; The US actually donates weapons to some places. By being the #1 supplier of weapons, the US effectively is the number one endorser of war. -It destabilizes regions: The US funneling weapons to syria is one of the reasons that it is in such a shithole. Moreover, it inevitably ends up in the wrong hands; ISIS ended up with tons of US weapons. Most notably they use the M16 in many of their promotional videos. -It benefits the wrong people: the people benefitted aren't everyday americans. It's the people that own the weapons companies. They use that money to buy influence in politics for the US to endorse conflict around the world. Note: I'm not saying that it should be banned necessarily, I'm saying that it's incorrect; both morally and in terms of human advancement and quality of life around the world _____ > 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!*	mrfe333	3	3	[ { "author": "2020000", "id": "dftvbew", "score": 3, "text": "> -It promotes war; The US actually donates weapons to some places. By being the #1 supplier of weapons, the US effectively is the number one endorser of war.\n\nWhy is this inherently wrong?\n\n> -It destabilizes regions: The US funneling weapons to syria is one of the reasons that it is in such a shithole. Moreover, it inevitably ends up in the wrong hands; ISIS ended up with tons of US weapons. Most notably they use the M16 in many of their promotional videos.\n\nMost of those are left over or captured from other wars in the region\n\n> -It benefits the wrong people: the people benefitted aren't everyday americans. It's the people that own the weapons companies. They use that money to buy influence in politics for the US to endorse conflict around the world. \n\nSmall arms manufacturing isnt that profitable of an industry, believe it or not.", "timestamp": 1491334440 }, { "author": "mrfe333", "id": "dfu35b1", "score": 1, "text": ">Why is this inherently wrong?\n\nbecause war benefits no one. Especially at the point in humanity where we're at right now. Western liberal democracies should focus their money into things such as science and social development. Other countries should focus their resources into Economic development. \n\n>Most of those are left over or captured from other wars in the region\n\nyou didn't answer the core of my point, which is that it completely destabilized the region. And no, most end up with ISIS because of defectors from the Free syrian army that the US gives tons of weapons to.\n\n>Small arms manufacturing isnt that profitable of an industry, believe it or not.\n\nSource? \n", "timestamp": 1491342867 }, { "author": "CommissarPenguin", "id": "dfu9bhg", "score": 1, "text": ">because war benefits no one. Especially at the point in humanity where we're at right now. Western liberal democracies should focus their money into things such as science and social development. Other countries should focus their resources into Economic development. \n\nEasily disproven. War in Iraq benefited a number of institutions and individual people, whose personal wealth directly increased as a result of the war via transfers of wealth from the tax payer to their pocketbooks.\n\nWar against the Nazi Germany was incredibly beneficial to all the jews liberated from concentration camps.\n\nWar in Israel was beneficial to the israelies who didn't have their country destroyed by foreign invaders.\n\nWar in the British Colonies was beneficial as it gave the colonials a say in their own government.", "timestamp": 1491350543 } ]	[ { "author": "One_Winged_Rook", "id": "dftzb5y", "score": 2, "text": "Doesn't it give us a sand-box to test our equipment in real-life settings?\n\nIs this not worth it to us?", "timestamp": 1491338614 }, { "author": "mrfe333", "id": "dfu0nwr", "score": 0, "text": "I'm talking about this in a larger perspective. Not from the US exclusively. From a global perspective. \n\nSo no, it's not worth it. War doesn't help anyone but those who sell the weapons ", "timestamp": 1491340033 }, { "author": "One_Winged_Rook", "id": "dfu0zgy", "score": 3, "text": "Is it not a better thing for the world at large to have a singular (or possibly two) super power(s)?\n\nYou have controlled war and it doesn't get it of hand.\n\nIn order to keep that world order, you need to keep you military active and top notch.\n\nIn order to do that, you need wars in some less important areas.\n\nAlso, you can talk about the world at large, but every actor acts in his own self-interest. Why wouldn't they? \n\nIt's not just the people in America who sell the weapons who benefit from the hegemony, it's all Americans.", "timestamp": 1491340392 } ]	[ "dftvbew", "dfu35b1", "dfu9bhg" ]	[ "dftzb5y", "dfu0nwr", "dfu0zgy" ]
CMV: Children should never be sentenced as adults or in adult courts My view is simple; adults and children are fundamentally different and therefore it makes no sense to have a child be treated in the same way as an adult. By sentencing a child in adult court, the differences between adults and children and being ignored which creates an unfair trial. It also means that the courts themselves will have a lower understanding of under 18s which can confuse and create unfair sentencing. The differences between adults and children are very clear, They are more influenced by their environment, more influenced by hormones and just less rational overall, all things that negatively influence their decision making process and make them responsible, to a lesser degree, than an adult accused of a crime. Although maturity is a continuum and sentencing a person 1 day off being 18 and differently to someone one day after 18, an age limit is needed and this one is probably the most appropriate one.	There is an immediate problem with this, one that you acknowledge. How do you decide when you stop being a child and become an adult? Are there 16 year olds that are mature enough to act like an adult? Probably. Are there 20 year olds that still act like children, lacking the mental capabilities of an adult? Possibly. Who is going to decide where to draw the line? You cannot argue this point without finding a way to draw the line. --- 18 is the age at which legally you're an adult and are considered mature enough to make all adult decisions (vote, drink, join army) therefore it seems right that we should be using this age consistently. --- What evidence do you have to back up that 18 is the right age other than the fact that, in some countries, that is just the way it is? --- In general at that age whilst you haven't fully developed, your brain is most of the way there. --- 25 is when brain growth is considered finished. E- source https://www.reference.com/science/age-brain-stop-developing-fcc9a17b5c52f5ef	[deleted] --- Probably the age at which you say “I’m having a hard time dealing with the guilt,” going as far to speak out to , 'tell the truth about what Satanism can do.” By sentencing the child as an adult they gave him the death penalty, something which has now been declared unconstitutional for children. --- [deleted] --- It's not about 'growing out of a phase' it's about having the potential to do so. Children grow and change much more than adults, it only makes sense that they should be treated as if they have that potential. --- [deleted]	63m7ia	CMV: Children should never be sentenced as adults or in adult courts	My view is simple; adults and children are fundamentally different and therefore it makes no sense to have a child be treated in the same way as an adult. By sentencing a child in adult court, the differences between adults and children and being ignored which creates an unfair trial. It also means that the courts themselves will have a lower understanding of under 18s which can confuse and create unfair sentencing. The differences between adults and children are very clear, They are more influenced by their environment, more influenced by hormones and just less rational overall, all things that negatively influence their decision making process and make them responsible, to a lesser degree, than an adult accused of a crime. Although maturity is a continuum and sentencing a person 1 day off being 18 and differently to someone one day after 18, an age limit is needed and this one is probably the most appropriate one.	TragicHeron	5	5	[ { "author": "Cookster997", "id": "dfv6grv", "score": 4, "text": "There is an immediate problem with this, one that you acknowledge. \n\nHow do you decide when you stop being a child and become an adult? Are there 16 year olds that are mature enough to act like an adult? Probably. Are there 20 year olds that still act like children, lacking the mental capabilities of an adult? Possibly. \n\nWho is going to decide where to draw the line? You cannot argue this point without finding a way to draw the line. ", "timestamp": 1491406218 }, { "author": "TragicHeron", "id": "dfv75eu", "score": 0, "text": "18 is the age at which legally you're an adult and are considered mature enough to make all adult decisions (vote, drink, join army) therefore it seems right that we should be using this age consistently.", "timestamp": 1491406936 }, { "author": "Cookster997", "id": "dfv78pu", "score": 2, "text": "What evidence do you have to back up that 18 is the right age other than the fact that, in some countries, that is just the way it is?", "timestamp": 1491407031 }, { "author": "TragicHeron", "id": "dfv8i49", "score": 1, "text": "In general at that age whilst you haven't fully developed, your brain is most of the way there. ", "timestamp": 1491408343 }, { "author": "Pete_the_rawdog", "id": "dfv8nam", "score": 3, "text": "25 is when brain growth is considered finished.\n\nE- source https://www.reference.com/science/age-brain-stop-developing-fcc9a17b5c52f5ef", "timestamp": 1491408491 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dfv6jug", "score": 7, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1491406308 }, { "author": "TragicHeron", "id": "dfv6vdg", "score": 1, "text": "Probably the age at which you say “I’m having a hard time dealing with the guilt,” going as far to speak out to , 'tell the truth about what Satanism can do.”\nBy sentencing the child as an adult they gave him the death penalty, something which has now been declared unconstitutional for children.", "timestamp": 1491406647 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dfv782a", "score": 3, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1491407012 }, { "author": "TragicHeron", "id": "dfv7sl6", "score": 0, "text": "It's not about 'growing out of a phase' it's about having the potential to do so. Children grow and change much more than adults, it only makes sense that they should be treated as if they have that potential. ", "timestamp": 1491407605 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dfv83wc", "score": 4, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1491407927 } ]	[ "dfv6grv", "dfv75eu", "dfv78pu", "dfv8i49", "dfv8nam" ]	[ "dfv6jug", "dfv6vdg", "dfv782a", "dfv7sl6", "dfv83wc" ]
CMV: I do not believe the current BLM demonstrations are "peaceful protests" and I think they should be ended. Right off the bat: Police brutality is a major problem in America. Maybe the most important problem we are facing today. BLM has lost any moral high ground they had at this point. The nightly demonstrations invariably turn violent, with destruction and looting and fire. They are making the police look reasonable and their movement look like insane anarchists. People are now saying that BLM stands for Burning Looting and Mayhem, and they aren't wrong. These current demonstrations are so often described as "mostly peaceful" by sympathetic people, which is very clearly a euphemism for "partly violent". Peaceful protests don't set things on fire. Peaceful protests don't throw rocks or bottles at police, Peaceful protests don't bully and harrass bystanders or press. Peaceful protests demonstrate the righteousness of their cause by the contrast between the peaceful protester and his violent oppressor. Resorting to violence at all cuts the legs out from under the protest. Rosa Parks didn't threaten to punch the bus driver and call him names, she behaved like a reasonable person in the face of unreasonable rules, and her protest gained massive support from people who previously would have upheld the racist rules. The opposite is happening now. These demonstrators are hurting their cause. Unless their real goal is just chaos, they should stop these night time demonstrations. If your goal is to bring injustice to light, you don't meet under cover of darkness. Edit: To clarify since I'm getting a lot of the same misunderstanding. I'm not saying the authorities should end the demonstrations (though that is likely going to happen), I'm saying the organizers should end the demonstrations. People should stop doing them, because they are ineffective and counterproductive. They serve only as cover for violence and looting at this point, which pushes the public away from supporting the cause. Edit 2: for everyone downvoting all my comments, I don't think you understand what this subreddit is for. It, like protests are supposed to change people's minds. The downvotes just make it seem like you can't support your position and you wish to silence dissent instead. Not a good look, much like the demonstrations themselves... Edit 3 holy strawmen batman, I didn't expect such a response. A few more clarifications: 1. I'm not saying all protests should end, just the nightly ones. I see them as an invitation to bad actors. 2. I base my view on that of Ghandi and King, [as first outlined by Thoreau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience), not from some fox news talking head, so let's skip past those arguments please. Edit 4 I would like to carry this in a more concrete direction. [Here](https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh22gcm23Ze5P9u3v1) is a NSFW video of a man defending his business being knocked out by the so-called protesters in Kenosha. Burning, Looting, Mayhem. While he's bleeding more BLM protesters actually try to justify their comrades' violence. This is sickening. This is what is going of in the name of BLM, and the none of them even condemn it. [This is Black Lives Matter](https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhX3Np814ElhrIdQM1) cheering at the assault (or murder?) of a Police Officer, also in Kenosha.	You're falling for propaganda IMO. A study released by [The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)](https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/) To quote the study directly: > "In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020)." And to show you that you're not the only one, from the same study: > Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020). IMO you're essentially falling victim to media hype and misinformation, the violence of these protests are overblown and simply used by those with ulterior motives to try and discredit the root cause of the movement, which is just and fair, IMO. --- None of that matters, the public perception of a demonstration is what shapes future policy. and you can't tell me [this](https://i.imgur.com/euCg8Zw.jpeg) isn't propaganda. --- You literally said this: >The nightly demonstrations invariably turn violent Which is just completely false. 93% of the time, they do not.	Quell riots with state violence, fine. But suppressing protest clearly violates the first amendment right? --- If all they were doing is protesting, sure. That isn't the case. If it were, there wouldn't be fires in every major city. --- Sounds like an easy way for special interests to utilize agent provocateurs to shut down protests they dont agree with....oh wait....	itffli	CMV: I do not believe the current BLM demonstrations are "peaceful protests" and I think they should be ended.	Right off the bat: Police brutality is a major problem in America. Maybe the most important problem we are facing today. BLM has lost any moral high ground they had at this point. The nightly demonstrations invariably turn violent, with destruction and looting and fire. They are making the police look reasonable and their movement look like insane anarchists. People are now saying that BLM stands for Burning Looting and Mayhem, and they aren't wrong. These current demonstrations are so often described as "mostly peaceful" by sympathetic people, which is very clearly a euphemism for "partly violent". Peaceful protests don't set things on fire. Peaceful protests don't throw rocks or bottles at police, Peaceful protests don't bully and harrass bystanders or press. Peaceful protests demonstrate the righteousness of their cause by the contrast between the peaceful protester and his violent oppressor. Resorting to violence at all cuts the legs out from under the protest. Rosa Parks didn't threaten to punch the bus driver and call him names, she behaved like a reasonable person in the face of unreasonable rules, and her protest gained massive support from people who previously would have upheld the racist rules. The opposite is happening now. These demonstrators are hurting their cause. Unless their real goal is just chaos, they should stop these night time demonstrations. If your goal is to bring injustice to light, you don't meet under cover of darkness. Edit: To clarify since I'm getting a lot of the same misunderstanding. I'm not saying the authorities should end the demonstrations (though that is likely going to happen), I'm saying the organizers should end the demonstrations. People should stop doing them, because they are ineffective and counterproductive. They serve only as cover for violence and looting at this point, which pushes the public away from supporting the cause. Edit 2: for everyone downvoting all my comments, I don't think you understand what this subreddit is for. It, like protests are supposed to change people's minds. The downvotes just make it seem like you can't support your position and you wish to silence dissent instead. Not a good look, much like the demonstrations themselves... Edit 3 holy strawmen batman, I didn't expect such a response. A few more clarifications: 1. I'm not saying all protests should end, just the nightly ones. I see them as an invitation to bad actors. 2. I base my view on that of Ghandi and King, [as first outlined by Thoreau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience), not from some fox news talking head, so let's skip past those arguments please. Edit 4 I would like to carry this in a more concrete direction. [Here](https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh22gcm23Ze5P9u3v1) is a NSFW video of a man defending his business being knocked out by the so-called protesters in Kenosha. Burning, Looting, Mayhem. While he's bleeding more BLM protesters actually try to justify their comrades' violence. This is sickening. This is what is going of in the name of BLM, and the none of them even condemn it. [This is Black Lives Matter](https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhX3Np814ElhrIdQM1) cheering at the assault (or murder?) of a Police Officer, also in Kenosha.	eggo	3	3	[ { "author": "Konfliction", "id": "g5e5n8b", "score": 14, "text": "You're falling for propaganda IMO. \n\nA study released by [The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)](https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/) \n\nTo quote the study directly: \n\n> \"In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020).\" \n\nAnd to show you that you're not the only one, from the same study: \n\n> Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).\n\nIMO you're essentially falling victim to media hype and misinformation, the violence of these protests are overblown and simply used by those with ulterior motives to try and discredit the root cause of the movement, which is just and fair, IMO.", "timestamp": 1600198829 }, { "author": "eggo", "id": "g5e8e8v", "score": -5, "text": "None of that matters, the public perception of a demonstration is what shapes future policy. \n\nand you can't tell me [this](https://i.imgur.com/euCg8Zw.jpeg) isn't propaganda.", "timestamp": 1600199896 }, { "author": "hacksoncode", "id": "g5eci2p", "score": 4, "text": "You literally said this: \n\n>The nightly demonstrations invariably turn violent\n\nWhich is just completely false. 93% of the time, they do not.", "timestamp": 1600201490 } ]	[ { "author": "LucidMetal", "id": "g5e1vv2", "score": 1, "text": "Quell riots with state violence, fine. But suppressing protest clearly violates the first amendment right?", "timestamp": 1600197345 }, { "author": "eggo", "id": "g5e3kf6", "score": -2, "text": "If all they were doing is protesting, sure. That isn't the case. If it were, there wouldn't be fires in every major city.", "timestamp": 1600198011 }, { "author": "EnviroTron", "id": "g5e5037", "score": 5, "text": "Sounds like an easy way for special interests to utilize agent provocateurs to shut down protests they dont agree with....oh wait....", "timestamp": 1600198573 } ]	[ "g5e5n8b", "g5e8e8v", "g5eci2p" ]	[ "g5e1vv2", "g5e3kf6", "g5e5037" ]
CMV: LeBron James is the greatest basketball player of all time I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is (though if you can CMV in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome). So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball-reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus/minus stats in NBA history. His BPM (box plus/minus, which can be read about at http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm.html) is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example--in the 92-93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57-25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93-94 Bulls go 55-27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09-10 Cavaliers went 61-21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19-63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense-wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades (1 DPOY, 9x all-NBA first team defense), I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s-90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been (for more on this, try this article https://www.google.com/amp/hoopshype.com/2016/03/11/why-nba-players-are-better-than-ever/amp/). LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against (for the data, use this link to the r/NBA page https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6g9ugl/jordans_and_lebrons_finals_opponents_elo_rankings/ and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-we-calculate-nba-elo-ratings/). LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game--he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant; the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis--performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on--then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is (or, at the end of his career, will be) the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non-quantifiable "wow" factor--his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit, CMV!	I personally think MJ is the GOAT, but he is only a hair above the most glaring omission from your post, at least in terms of stats; [Wilt Chamberlain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain). Wilt averaged 30 ppg to LeBron's 27. And in comparison to LeBron's 7 rpg, Wilt averaged just under 23 over his 15-season career. He was also an NBA all star every year that he played in the NBA, except for '59 (his first) and '70. More importantly, though (and related to your dismissal of Wilt's rival, Bill Russel) is that he played in an era before the 3-point shot was introduced to NBA basketball, which makes his performance in the [100-point game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain%27s_100-point_game) all the more spectacular. And if you're dismissing championship success in order to invalidate Russel and MJ's dominance over LeBron, then the fact that Wilt only won 2 is no longer a detriment to his career, at least in this conversation. More importantly, though, MJ is the undisputed GOAT because he (and Kareem) transcended the game. MJ and Kareem are important because they did more than just play ball; they've actually had an immense presence off the court. LeBron hasn't done that; hence, LeBron isn't on the same level. --- Wilt is definitely in the conversation too, thanks for mentioning that. Just for clarity purposes, the names I mentioned in the post were random ones I pulled off the top of my head--if we're talking in terms of stats, no one even gets close to Wilt. I suppose my logic in thinking that Wilt isn't the GOAT is along the same lines of thinking I'm considering with LeBron. The talent level of the league is much higher now than it was in Wilt's era. While Wilt is an all-time great, it's hard to say how well he'd do in today's league. That shouldn't diminish his incredibly phenomenal legacy though--he's a top 5 player all time, at least for me. And that's actually a really interesting point you make about the off-court impact playing into MJ's status as GOAT. I definitely don't know enough about Jordan and Kareem's off-court impacts. Could you maybe give some examples of what you're referring to? Specific things that those players have done off-court that you think helps their case? --- I'll tag along here because I personally believe Wilt IS the GOAT. The talent level wasn't as great, but the league was smaller which meant that he played hall of famers far more often. And part of the talent disparity is the sports science movement where basketball players weren't lifting weights and watching their diets. This hurt his competition but it also hurt him. Put Wilt into a modern training program and you have a completely different looking guy. Even still, you are talking about a 7'2 center who averaged 50 points in a season and 25 rebounds. He played in one of the fastest eras and played every available minute in a season including OT and playoffs(not fouling out even once) while setting records for field goal percentage and getting no credit for blocks. He led the league in assists one year as a center. If you start removing the weight of championships (which I subscribe to) Wilt gets catapulted to the top.	I'd focus on MJ, of course. Agreed there. The trump card (this expression has been RUINED) is number of championships. Every statistic is secondary to winning, and winning championships is the most important of those. They've had the same number of seasons, but Jordan has a lot more championships. Basketball is about winning and losing and if your talents don't include maximizing this then they are less valuable talents than any personal/individual statistic. To that point, Jordan created other great players, Lebron has not to the same degree. Scottie Pippen is a protege and all players were elevated dramatically by Jordan @ the bulls. I don't think you can make this claim about Lebron (although I'll admit the league has changed and team loyalty and free agency make this hard). I disagree that the league is more talented. It might have more _individuals_ who are talented, Jordan had to contend with the later days of the bird/johnson era, the Pistons era. The fact that he thrived at the personal and team level in era of team performance is dramatically more important than thriving as an individual in era of individuals. The warriors perhaps represent a return to the power of team performance, and the power of an individual to drive a team. But..that will all become a bit of a digression! --- All very valid points for sure. I appreciate your point about the league being more about the individual now than the team, with team basketball being more of an emphasis in MJ's era, that's very true. I agree that that could be reasoning to put MJ above LeBron. However, if we decide that championships are the most important factor, why isn't Bill Russell the greatest of all time? I'd concede him being the GOAT if our measuring stick for GOAT status is who gets wins and rings. Why do we put Michael above him in that area when he didn't get nearly as many victories as Bill Russell did? --- I think it's the most important, but I don't think it defeats all other considerations seen in whole. My point is that they are pretty much a tie in many ways, but that _winning_ serves as the trump card, the tie breaker if you will.	6kondb	CMV: LeBron James is the greatest basketball player of all time	I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is (though if you can CMV in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome). So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball-reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus/minus stats in NBA history. His BPM (box plus/minus, which can be read about at http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm.html) is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example--in the 92-93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57-25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93-94 Bulls go 55-27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09-10 Cavaliers went 61-21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19-63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense-wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades (1 DPOY, 9x all-NBA first team defense), I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s-90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been (for more on this, try this article https://www.google.com/amp/hoopshype.com/2016/03/11/why-nba-players-are-better-than-ever/amp/). LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against (for the data, use this link to the r/NBA page https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6g9ugl/jordans_and_lebrons_finals_opponents_elo_rankings/ and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-we-calculate-nba-elo-ratings/). LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game--he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant; the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis--performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on--then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is (or, at the end of his career, will be) the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non-quantifiable "wow" factor--his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit, CMV!	foonspork	3	3	[ { "author": "CatRelatedUsername", "id": "djnrf9m", "score": 1, "text": "I personally think MJ is the GOAT, but he is only a hair above the most glaring omission from your post, at least in terms of stats; [Wilt Chamberlain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain).\n\nWilt averaged 30 ppg to LeBron's 27. And in comparison to LeBron's 7 rpg, Wilt averaged just under 23 over his 15-season career. He was also an NBA all star every year that he played in the NBA, except for '59 (his first) and '70. More importantly, though (and related to your dismissal of Wilt's rival, Bill Russel) is that he played in an era before the 3-point shot was introduced to NBA basketball, which makes his performance in the [100-point game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain%27s_100-point_game) all the more spectacular. And if you're dismissing championship success in order to invalidate Russel and MJ's dominance over LeBron, then the fact that Wilt only won 2 is no longer a detriment to his career, at least in this conversation.\n\nMore importantly, though, MJ is the undisputed GOAT because he (and Kareem) transcended the game. MJ and Kareem are important because they did more than just play ball; they've actually had an immense presence off the court. LeBron hasn't done that; hence, LeBron isn't on the same level.", "timestamp": 1498942681 }, { "author": "foonspork", "id": "djntwew", "score": 0, "text": "Wilt is definitely in the conversation too, thanks for mentioning that. Just for clarity purposes, the names I mentioned in the post were random ones I pulled off the top of my head--if we're talking in terms of stats, no one even gets close to Wilt.\n\nI suppose my logic in thinking that Wilt isn't the GOAT is along the same lines of thinking I'm considering with LeBron. The talent level of the league is much higher now than it was in Wilt's era. While Wilt is an all-time great, it's hard to say how well he'd do in today's league. That shouldn't diminish his incredibly phenomenal legacy though--he's a top 5 player all time, at least for me.\n\nAnd that's actually a really interesting point you make about the off-court impact playing into MJ's status as GOAT. I definitely don't know enough about Jordan and Kareem's off-court impacts. Could you maybe give some examples of what you're referring to? Specific things that those players have done off-court that you think helps their case?", "timestamp": 1498946151 }, { "author": "Jayrodtremonki", "id": "djo5dsp", "score": 2, "text": "I'll tag along here because I personally believe Wilt IS the GOAT. \n\nThe talent level wasn't as great, but the league was smaller which meant that he played hall of famers far more often. And part of the talent disparity is the sports science movement where basketball players weren't lifting weights and watching their diets. This hurt his competition but it also hurt him. Put Wilt into a modern training program and you have a completely different looking guy.\n\nEven still, you are talking about a 7'2 center who averaged 50 points in a season and 25 rebounds. He played in one of the fastest eras and played every available minute in a season including OT and playoffs(not fouling out even once) while setting records for field goal percentage and getting no credit for blocks. He led the league in assists one year as a center.\n\nIf you start removing the weight of championships (which I subscribe to) Wilt gets catapulted to the top.", "timestamp": 1498963882 } ]	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "djno9cf", "score": 2, "text": "I'd focus on MJ, of course. Agreed there.\n\nThe trump card (this expression has been RUINED) is number of championships. Every statistic is secondary to winning, and winning championships is the most important of those. They've had the same number of seasons, but Jordan has a lot more championships. Basketball is about winning and losing and if your talents don't include maximizing this then they are less valuable talents than any personal/individual statistic.\n\nTo that point, Jordan created other great players, Lebron has not to the same degree. Scottie Pippen is a protege and all players were elevated dramatically by Jordan @ the bulls. I don't think you can make this claim about Lebron (although I'll admit the league has changed and team loyalty and free agency make this hard).\n\nI disagree that the league is more talented. It might have more _individuals_ who are talented, Jordan had to contend with the later days of the bird/johnson era, the Pistons era. The fact that he thrived at the personal and team level in era of team performance is dramatically more important than thriving as an individual in era of individuals. The warriors perhaps represent a return to the power of team performance, and the power of an individual to drive a team. But..that will all become a bit of a digression!", "timestamp": 1498938220 }, { "author": "foonspork", "id": "djnomtc", "score": 1, "text": "All very valid points for sure. I appreciate your point about the league being more about the individual now than the team, with team basketball being more of an emphasis in MJ's era, that's very true. I agree that that could be reasoning to put MJ above LeBron. However, if we decide that championships are the most important factor, why isn't Bill Russell the greatest of all time? I'd concede him being the GOAT if our measuring stick for GOAT status is who gets wins and rings. Why do we put Michael above him in that area when he didn't get nearly as many victories as Bill Russell did?", "timestamp": 1498938749 }, { "author": "bguy74", "id": "djnos7v", "score": 2, "text": "I think it's the most important, but I don't think it defeats all other considerations seen in whole. My point is that they are pretty much a tie in many ways, but that _winning_ serves as the trump card, the tie breaker if you will.\n\n", "timestamp": 1498938956 } ]	[ "djnrf9m", "djntwew", "djo5dsp" ]	[ "djno9cf", "djnomtc", "djnos7v" ]
CMV: I believe that legal equality (i.e. no legal distinction between groups) is the only form of equality worth pursuing. There have been many attempts and "successes" in advancing so-called equality. However, I believe that many of these are anti-equality: quotas, special protections, affirmative action, etc. What most of these attempt to do us right historical wrongs - what they end up doing is punishing the children for the sins of their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents/etc. I would argue that justice being blind is all that matters, that peoples' biases will change over time as society is molded by the law, and that all that matters is enforcing the law - not preferential treatment of minorities or "protected classes". _____ > 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!*	Just to clarify your view... Let's take, for example, a hypothetical small southern American town about a decade or two after legally giving black people the right to vote and the end of 'separate but equal' segregation. But the people in power in this town (Mayor, sheriff, lawyers...) are all still racist, so despite there being no legal distinction between black and white citizens, these people constantly abuse their power to negatively affect black people and refuse to enforce the laws that promise legal equality between them. Would it not be worth pursuing change in these people in power? --- >Would it not be worth pursuing change in these people in power? It would be worth pursuing charges against them for violating the law. However, when it comes to changing views: that will come with time. --- But it doesn't. The civil rights act did not just come from time. Changes come from action not inaction. --- And once everyone is legally equal (as they are now), that is as far as the law should go. To do otherwise would be to legally discriminate against people based on their race/gender/etc. People have the right to hold whatever views they wish, it is only actions which the law should be concerned with. --- > as far as the law should go. To do otherwise would be to legally discriminate against people based on their race/gender/etc. So you'd be ok with a constitutional amendment for equal pay based on gender for example? Or codifying Title 9 into a constitutional amendment?	Per your idea we are equal now. But we certainly are not. --- We are equal in the eyes of the law - the only form equality the law should be involved with. --- Um there is a bit more to equality then just laws. I mean you say that black people should just wait till shit just gets better but they have been waiting since 1964 and still black names get less call backs then white names. How much longer should they have to wait --- Which sucks for black people. However, why should the solution be to pass laws to specifically discriminate against white people who have done no wrong? --- Should white people continue to get advantages based on things they did not work for? Because that's the current system. Are you cool with white people getting advantages they never earned.	63kgx9	CMV: I believe that legal equality (i.e. no legal distinction between groups) is the only form of equality worth pursuing.	There have been many attempts and "successes" in advancing so-called equality. However, I believe that many of these are anti-equality: quotas, special protections, affirmative action, etc. What most of these attempt to do us right historical wrongs - what they end up doing is punishing the children for the sins of their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents/etc. I would argue that justice being blind is all that matters, that peoples' biases will change over time as society is molded by the law, and that all that matters is enforcing the law - not preferential treatment of minorities or "protected classes". _____ > 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!*	_Hopped_	5	5	[ { "author": "starlitepony", "id": "dfuu2yh", "score": 18, "text": "Just to clarify your view... Let's take, for example, a hypothetical small southern American town about a decade or two after legally giving black people the right to vote and the end of 'separate but equal' segregation. But the people in power in this town (Mayor, sheriff, lawyers...) are all still racist, so despite there being no legal distinction between black and white citizens, these people constantly abuse their power to negatively affect black people and refuse to enforce the laws that promise legal equality between them. Would it not be worth pursuing change in these people in power?", "timestamp": 1491386572 }, { "author": "_Hopped_", "id": "dfuu91r", "score": 9, "text": ">Would it not be worth pursuing change in these people in power?\n\nIt would be worth pursuing charges against them for violating the law. However, when it comes to changing views: that will come with time.", "timestamp": 1491387068 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dfuuiqb", "score": 12, "text": "But it doesn't. The civil rights act did not just come from time. \n\nChanges come from action not inaction. ", "timestamp": 1491387840 }, { "author": "_Hopped_", "id": "dfuuljh", "score": 1, "text": "And once everyone is legally equal (as they are now), that is as far as the law should go. To do otherwise would be to legally discriminate against people based on their race/gender/etc.\n\nPeople have the right to hold whatever views they wish, it is only actions which the law should be concerned with.", "timestamp": 1491388059 }, { "author": "Huntingmoa", "id": "dfv33ax", "score": 4, "text": "> as far as the law should go. To do otherwise would be to legally discriminate against people based on their race/gender/etc.\n\nSo you'd be ok with a constitutional amendment for equal pay based on gender for example? Or codifying Title 9 into a constitutional amendment?", "timestamp": 1491402502 } ]	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dfutjur", "score": 6, "text": "Per your idea we are equal now.\n\nBut we certainly are not. ", "timestamp": 1491385002 }, { "author": "_Hopped_", "id": "dfutm9g", "score": 5, "text": "We are equal in the eyes of the law - the only form equality the law should be involved with.", "timestamp": 1491385190 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dfuuh8s", "score": 11, "text": "Um there is a bit more to equality then just laws. I mean you say that black people should just wait till shit just gets better but they have been waiting since 1964 and still black names get less call backs then white names. \n\nHow much longer should they have to wait ", "timestamp": 1491387728 }, { "author": "_Hopped_", "id": "dfuusfg", "score": 5, "text": "Which sucks for black people. However, why should the solution be to pass laws to specifically discriminate against white people who have done no wrong?", "timestamp": 1491388589 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dfuux6l", "score": 8, "text": "Should white people continue to get advantages based on things they did not work for? \n\nBecause that's the current system.\n\nAre you cool with white people getting advantages they never earned. ", "timestamp": 1491388958 } ]	[ "dfuu2yh", "dfuu91r", "dfuuiqb", "dfuuljh", "dfv33ax" ]	[ "dfutjur", "dfutm9g", "dfuuh8s", "dfuusfg", "dfuux6l" ]
CMV: I find myself believing that most people are too weak or stupid to govern themselves without strong, wise leadership—and I really want to stop thinking this way Lately I've noticed that I keep falling into a pattern of thought that really conflicts with my other values, especially around democracy, autonomy, and mutual respect. The belief—or maybe more accurately, the memeplex—is something like this: > "People are generally too weak, irrational, or ignorant to make good choices for themselves or society. Therefore, we need strong or wise leaders to protect them from themselves." I don’t like this belief. I don’t want to hold it. I recognize that it's authoritarian, paternalistic, and anti-democratic. Despite that, I keep slipping back into it, often in response to frustration with current events or popular discourse. I want to be talked out of it. I want better arguments, better evidence, or better perspectives that can help me dissolve this worldview. I’m not here to defend it—I’m here because I want to stop believing it. So: CMV.	Unfortunately there's none of those that are also good and moral people. The fact is that the vast majority of people ARE too stupid, lazy, and complacent to govern themselves. But of all the people who desire to rule, less than 1 in a billion is actually suited to the task without becoming an authoritarian monster. --- The unfortunately true eternal contradiction. We need good people to lead — but those who successfully seek out leadership are usually not good people.	I don't know how to dissuade you from this illusion without knowing what factors are convincing you, but look at every time in history people put an authoritrian in power, is it more efficient, or less? Consider the shit ass central planning of the USSR; Gorbachev visited America he was in disbelief at US grocery stores' abundance, and forced his entourage to visit more to prove to himself that these weren't propaganda - central planning simply could not mitigate all the factors to provide the logistical efficiency necessary for that kind of diffuse supply chain. The leader who governs the least, governs the best - people should not be told what to do/ how to be, they should live in a system that creates the least friction for the best choices, strong man leadership often creates a LOT of unnecessary friction. --- every time a actually benevolent and competent ruler gets into power it has almost always been a good good thing across history everybody with a brain knows that a benevolent dictator is the best system on paper the only issue is that if you fail in picking a good dictator even 1 time the whole system goes to shit	1lhu3qg	CMV: I find myself believing that most people are too weak or stupid to govern themselves without strong, wise leadership—and I really want to stop thinking this way	Lately I've noticed that I keep falling into a pattern of thought that really conflicts with my other values, especially around democracy, autonomy, and mutual respect. The belief—or maybe more accurately, the memeplex—is something like this: > "People are generally too weak, irrational, or ignorant to make good choices for themselves or society. Therefore, we need strong or wise leaders to protect them from themselves." I don’t like this belief. I don’t want to hold it. I recognize that it's authoritarian, paternalistic, and anti-democratic. Despite that, I keep slipping back into it, often in response to frustration with current events or popular discourse. I want to be talked out of it. I want better arguments, better evidence, or better perspectives that can help me dissolve this worldview. I’m not here to defend it—I’m here because I want to stop believing it. So: CMV.	lesbianspider69	2	2	[ { "author": "FellsApprentice", "id": "mz72lo4", "score": 2, "text": "Unfortunately there's none of those that are also good and moral people. \n\nThe fact is that the vast majority of people ARE too stupid, lazy, and complacent to govern themselves. \n\nBut of all the people who desire to rule, less than 1 in a billion is actually suited to the task without becoming an authoritarian monster.", "timestamp": 1750617586 }, { "author": "Squidmaster129", "id": "mz7aljn", "score": 1, "text": "The unfortunately true eternal contradiction. We need good people to lead — but those who successfully seek out leadership are usually not good people.", "timestamp": 1750620053 } ]	[ { "author": "tmmzc85", "id": "mz6x8g6", "score": 3, "text": "I don't know how to dissuade you from this illusion without knowing what factors are convincing you, but look at every time in history people put an authoritrian in power, is it more efficient, or less?\n\n\nConsider the shit ass central planning of the USSR; Gorbachev visited America he was in disbelief at US grocery stores' abundance, and forced his entourage to visit more to prove to himself that these weren't propaganda - central planning simply could not mitigate all the factors to provide the logistical efficiency necessary for that kind of diffuse supply chain.\n\n\nThe leader who governs the least, governs the best - people should not be told what to do/ how to be, they should live in a system that creates the least friction for the best choices, strong man leadership often creates a LOT of unnecessary friction.", "timestamp": 1750615936 }, { "author": "Ninjathelittleshit", "id": "mz6yglz", "score": -1, "text": "every time a actually benevolent and competent ruler gets into power it has almost always been a good good thing across history everybody with a brain knows that a benevolent dictator is the best system on paper the only issue is that if you fail in picking a good dictator even 1 time the whole system goes to shit", "timestamp": 1750616311 } ]	[ "mz72lo4", "mz7aljn" ]	[ "mz6x8g6", "mz6yglz" ]
CMV: Abortion is always tragic, and should be rare (but still safe and legal) My view of abortion is that it should be safe and legal but as rare as possible, as it is always tragic to lose a baby. I have had multiple conversations with friends and family over the years, and seen dozens of posts online, about women (and men) mourning miscarriages. Losing a pregnancy you wanted \feels\ tragic, and both mother and father often feel a sense of grief after a miscarriage that they struggle to process. To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though. In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \want\ to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible. I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so. The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food so that they don't feel a need to steal, but in the moment when they break into my home and threaten me or my family their right to life does not entitle them to steal from me. I am justified in defending myself and my property with force, up to and including killing them if there is no other option. It is always tragic to take a life, but my right to be secure in my body and in my property takes priority in this situation. Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Marked NSFW for sensitive content.	What view are you looking to have changed here? Why? What might change your mind? Do you want to not consider it tragic? Or do you want to change your mind about making it safe and legal? I don't think most people would care if you think it's tragic. If you want it to be safe and legal, you're on the right side. --- I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a "good" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue. I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays --- How do you feel about hormonal birth control (“the pill”)?	>it is always tragic to lose a baby. Having an abortion is not "losing a baby" though. >isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? No? Most I know who have had abortions (that are willing to speak of it, I probably know a LOT more who are not for various reasons) describe it as being a tremendous relief. Why would you mourn something that you 100% did not want to have in the first place? --- Why is having an abortion not losing a baby? What is the difference between an abortion (medically induced miscarriage) that people feel no grief over, and an accidental miscarriage, that does often lead to grief? That's the part I'm trying to understand; what in your view is the difference between the two? --- >what in your view is the difference between the two? The desire to have a baby. Some people want babies, and grieve when they lose their pregnancies against their will before the child is born. And, some people do not want babies, and will feel relief when they voluntarily end their pregnancies. I don't get why this is so hard to grok.	qcuqos	CMV: Abortion is always tragic, and should be rare (but still safe and legal)	My view of abortion is that it should be safe and legal but as rare as possible, as it is always tragic to lose a baby. I have had multiple conversations with friends and family over the years, and seen dozens of posts online, about women (and men) mourning miscarriages. Losing a pregnancy you wanted \feels\ tragic, and both mother and father often feel a sense of grief after a miscarriage that they struggle to process. To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though. In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \want\ to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible. I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so. The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food so that they don't feel a need to steal, but in the moment when they break into my home and threaten me or my family their right to life does not entitle them to steal from me. I am justified in defending myself and my property with force, up to and including killing them if there is no other option. It is always tragic to take a life, but my right to be secure in my body and in my property takes priority in this situation. Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Marked NSFW for sensitive content.	PugnansFidicen	3	3	[ { "author": "FinneousPJ", "id": "hhi4nrh", "score": 125, "text": "What view are you looking to have changed here? Why? What might change your mind? Do you want to not consider it tragic? Or do you want to change your mind about making it safe and legal?\n\n\n\nI don't think most people would care if you think it's tragic. If you want it to be safe and legal, you're on the right side.", "timestamp": 1634831402 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhi6dtp", "score": 27, "text": "I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a \"good\" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue.\n\nI'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays", "timestamp": 1634832111 }, { "author": "speedyjohn", "id": "hhi6m1y", "score": 9, "text": "How do you feel about hormonal birth control (“the pill”)?", "timestamp": 1634832208 } ]	[ { "author": "destro23", "id": "hhi4uaa", "score": 101, "text": ">it is always tragic to lose a baby.\n\nHaving an abortion is not \"losing a baby\" though. \n\n>isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well?\n\nNo? Most I know who have had abortions (that are willing to speak of it, I probably know a LOT more who are not for various reasons) describe it as being a tremendous relief. Why would you mourn something that you 100% did not want to have in the first place?", "timestamp": 1634831476 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhi6sj7", "score": -13, "text": "Why is having an abortion not losing a baby? What is the difference between an abortion (medically induced miscarriage) that people feel no grief over, and an accidental miscarriage, that does often lead to grief?\n\nThat's the part I'm trying to understand; what in your view is the difference between the two?", "timestamp": 1634832282 }, { "author": "destro23", "id": "hhi78xq", "score": 76, "text": ">what in your view is the difference between the two?\n\nThe desire to have a baby.\n\nSome people want babies, and grieve when they lose their pregnancies against their will before the child is born. And, some people do not want babies, and will feel relief when they voluntarily end their pregnancies. I don't get why this is so hard to grok.", "timestamp": 1634832468 } ]	[ "hhi4nrh", "hhi6dtp", "hhi6m1y" ]	[ "hhi4uaa", "hhi6sj7", "hhi78xq" ]
CMV: Abortion is always tragic, and should be rare (but still safe and legal) My view of abortion is that it should be safe and legal but as rare as possible, as it is always tragic to lose a baby. I have had multiple conversations with friends and family over the years, and seen dozens of posts online, about women (and men) mourning miscarriages. Losing a pregnancy you wanted \feels\ tragic, and both mother and father often feel a sense of grief after a miscarriage that they struggle to process. To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though. In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \want\ to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible. I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so. The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food so that they don't feel a need to steal, but in the moment when they break into my home and threaten me or my family their right to life does not entitle them to steal from me. I am justified in defending myself and my property with force, up to and including killing them if there is no other option. It is always tragic to take a life, but my right to be secure in my body and in my property takes priority in this situation. Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Marked NSFW for sensitive content.	What view are you looking to have changed here? Why? What might change your mind? Do you want to not consider it tragic? Or do you want to change your mind about making it safe and legal? I don't think most people would care if you think it's tragic. If you want it to be safe and legal, you're on the right side. --- I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a "good" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue. I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays --- How do you feel about hormonal birth control (“the pill”)? --- Very supportive. The pill is great and in most cases I think it is morally preferable to use hormonal contraceptives (or condoms, or any other preventive method) to avoid needing to get an abortion in the first place. --- I agree that birth control is great. How do you feel about IUDs? --- Also good. Basically anything that prevents abortion from being needed is a good thing. From a moral perspective, the earlier we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, the better. --- Both IUDs and some birth control pills prevent implantation of an embryo. They do not prevent fertilization. Why would that be good but abortion regrettable? The answer is because there has been a PR campaign to frame abortion as “killing babies.” But, at the end of the day, a cluster of cells is not a baby. All of it is preventing unwanted pregnancies. Which, as you say, is a good thing. --- !delta Ah okay I see your point. The end goal is reducing unwanted pregnancies, and morally there is not as much difference as I might have thought between preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo and aborting an implanted fetus that has begun to develop. At this point, the other argument that starts to enter my mind is ethicist Peter Singer's view that if contraception and abortion are ethical, infanticide is as well for some period of time after birth (since a newborn, even outside the womb, is not yet fully conscious or capable of independent existence). See: [https://archive.md/rpqaf](https://archive.md/rpqaf) This is getting off-topic from my original post, but I'm curious - how do you feel about that view? FWIW Singer's view seems pretty ethically consistent to me, but I still have a negative gut reaction to it. --- Just so you know, the above poster is incorrect, hormonal birth control does not just prevent implantation of the fetus. The main way it works is by preventing ovulation which keeps things from being fertilizes in the fist place. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/3977-birth-control-the-pill#:~:text=Hormones%20in%20birth%20control%20pills,is%20less%20likely%20to%20attach.	>If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? They grieve because things didn't turn out as they wanted. They grieve because they don't get to have a child when they expected to have one. This grief has nothing to do with the fetus being a human being (it isn't), and the way we can tell that is the case is by observing that the same sort of grief is also felt by infertile people who want to have a child and learn they will be unable to. We can also observe the same grief in people with pseudocyesis, where there is no fetus at all. It really isn't about the fetus: it's about wanting to have a child and not getting to have one when you expected to. Abortion isn't analogous at all, since in this case the woman doesn't want to have a child. So there's no tragedy (except possibly the tragedy of being unexpectedly out hundreds of dollars to pay for the abortion). --- >. This grief has nothing to do with the fetus being a human being (it isn't) Please explain what you think it is and by what magical transformation it undergoes to become human --- > Please explain what you think it is It's a part of a human being: a part of a person. >by what magical transformation it undergoes to become human Well, it's always human, in the same way that my liver is a human liver or my spleen is a human spleen: it's a human fetus. It's just not a human being (in the same way that my liver isn't a human being). --- Does your liver have a different DNA than you? Could you remove your liver and it grow into another human if the conditions to keep it alive were met? --- If you don't already know the answers to these questions, then you should strengthen your background in biology before trying to have a discussion on this topic. This isn't the right venue to inform yourself about human anatomy. --- Right so we both know the answer is no. So now please explain how that thing in you that has a different DNA sequence is equivalent to an organ that shares its DNA with you --- The cow I ate earlier now has its DNA in my body. Does that make it a human being? --- It was a cow until it was slaughtered and eaten by you. Not the same thing once you aren't consuming a dead baby. --- But what makes DNA the determining factor? The other commenter I replied to is insisting that that's important and relevant. Why? Edit: thought so.	qcuqos	CMV: Abortion is always tragic, and should be rare (but still safe and legal)	My view of abortion is that it should be safe and legal but as rare as possible, as it is always tragic to lose a baby. I have had multiple conversations with friends and family over the years, and seen dozens of posts online, about women (and men) mourning miscarriages. Losing a pregnancy you wanted \feels\ tragic, and both mother and father often feel a sense of grief after a miscarriage that they struggle to process. To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though. In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \want\ to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible. I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so. The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food so that they don't feel a need to steal, but in the moment when they break into my home and threaten me or my family their right to life does not entitle them to steal from me. I am justified in defending myself and my property with force, up to and including killing them if there is no other option. It is always tragic to take a life, but my right to be secure in my body and in my property takes priority in this situation. Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Marked NSFW for sensitive content.	PugnansFidicen	9	9	[ { "author": "FinneousPJ", "id": "hhi4nrh", "score": 125, "text": "What view are you looking to have changed here? Why? What might change your mind? Do you want to not consider it tragic? Or do you want to change your mind about making it safe and legal?\n\n\n\nI don't think most people would care if you think it's tragic. If you want it to be safe and legal, you're on the right side.", "timestamp": 1634831402 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhi6dtp", "score": 27, "text": "I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a \"good\" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue.\n\nI'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays", "timestamp": 1634832111 }, { "author": "speedyjohn", "id": "hhi6m1y", "score": 9, "text": "How do you feel about hormonal birth control (“the pill”)?", "timestamp": 1634832208 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhibegl", "score": 3, "text": "Very supportive. The pill is great and in most cases I think it is morally preferable to use hormonal contraceptives (or condoms, or any other preventive method) to avoid needing to get an abortion in the first place.", "timestamp": 1634834116 }, { "author": "speedyjohn", "id": "hhic9yu", "score": 8, "text": "I agree that birth control is great. How do you feel about IUDs?", "timestamp": 1634834462 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhicrht", "score": 4, "text": "Also good. Basically anything that prevents abortion from being needed is a good thing. From a moral perspective, the earlier we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, the better.", "timestamp": 1634834649 }, { "author": "speedyjohn", "id": "hhid9w6", "score": 58, "text": "Both IUDs and some birth control pills prevent implantation of an embryo. They do not prevent fertilization. Why would that be good but abortion regrettable?\n\nThe answer is because there has been a PR campaign to frame abortion as “killing babies.” But, at the end of the day, a cluster of cells is not a baby. All of it is preventing unwanted pregnancies. Which, as you say, is a good thing.", "timestamp": 1634834849 }, { "author": "PugnansFidicen", "id": "hhieeil", "score": 8, "text": "!delta\n\nAh okay I see your point. The end goal is reducing unwanted pregnancies, and morally there is not as much difference as I might have thought between preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo and aborting an implanted fetus that has begun to develop.\n\nAt this point, the other argument that starts to enter my mind is ethicist Peter Singer's view that if contraception and abortion are ethical, infanticide is as well for some period of time after birth (since a newborn, even outside the womb, is not yet fully conscious or capable of independent existence). See: [https://archive.md/rpqaf](https://archive.md/rpqaf)\n\nThis is getting off-topic from my original post, but I'm curious - how do you feel about that view? FWIW Singer's view seems pretty ethically consistent to me, but I still have a negative gut reaction to it.", "timestamp": 1634835287 }, { "author": "blastzone24", "id": "hhij14f", "score": 21, "text": "Just so you know, the above poster is incorrect, hormonal birth control does not just prevent implantation of the fetus. The main way it works is by preventing ovulation which keeps things from being fertilizes in the fist place.\n\nhttps://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/3977-birth-control-the-pill#:~:text=Hormones%20in%20birth%20control%20pills,is%20less%20likely%20to%20attach.", "timestamp": 1634837112 } ]	[ { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "hhi6uow", "score": 28, "text": ">If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage?\n\nThey grieve because things didn't turn out as they wanted. They grieve because they don't get to have a child when they expected to have one. This grief has nothing to do with the fetus being a human being (it isn't), and the way we can tell that is the case is by observing that the same sort of grief is also felt by infertile people who want to have a child and learn they will be unable to. We can also observe the same grief in people with pseudocyesis, where there is no fetus at all. It really isn't about the fetus: it's about wanting to have a child and not getting to have one when you expected to.\n\nAbortion isn't analogous at all, since in this case the woman doesn't want to have a child. So there's no tragedy (except possibly the tragedy of being unexpectedly out hundreds of dollars to pay for the abortion).", "timestamp": 1634832307 }, { "author": "Mtitan1", "id": "hhio2pv", "score": -3, "text": ">. This grief has nothing to do with the fetus being a human being (it isn't)\n\nPlease explain what you think it is and by what magical transformation it undergoes to become human", "timestamp": 1634839153 }, { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "hhiofwx", "score": 3, "text": "> Please explain what you think it is\n\nIt's a part of a human being: a part of a person.\n\n>by what magical transformation it undergoes to become human\n\nWell, it's always human, in the same way that my liver is a human liver or my spleen is a human spleen: it's a human fetus. It's just not a human being (in the same way that my liver isn't a human being).", "timestamp": 1634839304 }, { "author": "Mtitan1", "id": "hhip6u1", "score": -2, "text": "Does your liver have a different DNA than you? Could you remove your liver and it grow into another human if the conditions to keep it alive were met?", "timestamp": 1634839612 }, { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "hhipjk3", "score": 0, "text": "If you don't already know the answers to these questions, then you should strengthen your background in biology before trying to have a discussion on this topic. This isn't the right venue to inform yourself about human anatomy.", "timestamp": 1634839756 }, { "author": "Mtitan1", "id": "hhiq2o4", "score": -2, "text": "Right so we both know the answer is no. So now please explain how that thing in you that has a different DNA sequence is equivalent to an organ that shares its DNA with you", "timestamp": 1634839975 }, { "author": "Bubugacz", "id": "hhiv4gl", "score": 0, "text": "The cow I ate earlier now has its DNA in my body. Does that make it a human being?", "timestamp": 1634842008 }, { "author": "EerieBean", "id": "hhjdpu0", "score": 0, "text": "It was a cow until it was slaughtered and eaten by you. Not the same thing once you aren't consuming a dead baby.", "timestamp": 1634849499 }, { "author": "Bubugacz", "id": "hhji1lq", "score": 1, "text": "But what makes DNA the determining factor? The other commenter I replied to is insisting that that's important and relevant. \n\nWhy?\n\nEdit: thought so.", "timestamp": 1634851332 } ]	[ "hhi4nrh", "hhi6dtp", "hhi6m1y", "hhibegl", "hhic9yu", "hhicrht", "hhid9w6", "hhieeil", "hhij14f" ]	[ "hhi6uow", "hhio2pv", "hhiofwx", "hhip6u1", "hhipjk3", "hhiq2o4", "hhiv4gl", "hhjdpu0", "hhji1lq" ]
CMV: Flying any form of Confederate Battle Flag or remembering the CSA in any positive light is an incredibly seditious and unpatriotic gesture. It is glorifying the single greatest existential threat to the -United- States of America and its ideals. I find the concept of flying any confederate battle flag or CSA national flag to be not only in poor taste, but a seditious action and one of the most unpatriotic displays possible. Far worse than burning the American flag, it is glorifying the bloodiest and most existential threat the USA has ever faced, a force that could actually destroy the Union. People who fly such a flag are, inadvertently or intentionally, damaging the dignity of the USA and the men who died to prevent the destruction of the ideals of the Union. In effect, its one of the most unpatriotic actions possible short of direct treason or conspiracy. It is a glorification of sedition. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Well here's the issue; we (the U.S) had slavery before the rise of the Confederacy and even after winning the Civil War (which did not begin about slavery but only ended as such) there were years of Jim Crow. If the whole defeating of the Confederacy was STRICTLY about ending slavery then it was accomplished But if the ending of the Civil War was about equality- specifically racial equality- then it fell flat on its face. --- This doesn't address my point that it's a flag of Americas enemy in its most ruinous war. For a power that fought and -as you said - subversively fought against American ideals of equality after the war in the form of Jim Crow laws. --- Are you suggesting the CSA be considered an enemy of the USA? If I were born in NC, should I perceive the USA as an occupying power? The Confederate states were not some foreign entity, nor were their values inconsistent with American norms. Until it was abolished, Slavery was an American institution. Equality for all races wasn't an American ideal until after the civil war, nor was it fully implemented by federal law until nearly a hundred years later. Before the war most Americans' loyalty and allegiance were to their state, not the country as a whole. If anything, the Union was diverging from traditional American ideals by changing the constitution and forcing states to fully relinquish their sovereignty. --- > Slavery was an American institution. Its more nuanced than this. It was an American institution at the behest of the South. Please see the deleted passage of the [Declaration of Independence](http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery) --- The ideals of America include the ideals held by its states. Slavery was tolerated by the federal government at the nation's founding and it was a core economic pillar for a large part of America. If the passage represented an American ideal, then it would have been included in the final document. --- The perfidious southern states are the blame for that, really sad. Good thing it was abolished after their defeat. Way too long in coming imo. --- How are they perfidious? Like I said, secession wasn't illegal at the time. People did not see themselves as "Americans". Their allegiance was to their state, and the state governments acted in what they judged their citizens' best interests. The Confederate states rebelled against what they saw as oppression, in line with the intents of the American revolution. --- > People did not see themselves as "Americans". Ended up costing them big time. --- Again this is not a counter argument. What would it take to change your view? --- I guess I just don't understand how its possible that people reconcile patriotism in America, with flying the battle flag. If someone explained to me how this is reconciled I might understand. Everyone is stumbling over themselves trying to justify or somehow pain the South as the defender of American ideals. If its not clear, I don't exactly hold the CSA or the states that thought the CSA was a good idea in the highest regard given I haven't seen an iota of anything but apologism for their actions. Especially in this post. --- ~~"If its not clear, I don't exactly hold the CSA or the states that thought the CSA was a good idea in the highest regard given I haven't seen an iota of anything but apologism for their actions"~~ This is exactly why people like myself fly the flag you find so offensive. There is a section of the populous that thinks of the South as "less than" and inferior to the rest of the country. This is an opinion mostly forged through the ramifications of Reconstruction on the South where the North treated the Southern states like a conquered enemy. Lincoln wanted to reunite the Union but Johnson's policies sought to punish. Biased comments about the South being backward, about incest and ignorance are thrown around without any regard to the hostile intent they express. To assume all Southerners are ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping Trump Voters is literally just as egregious as stereotyping all black people as criminals, all Italians as mobsters and all Mexicans as illegal aliens on welfare: it's not just untrue, it's mean and hateful to say. Yet it remains politically correct in regards to the South whereas it's recognized as racist or classist towards my other examples. Imagine growing up in an area and loving your home only to have the majority of your exposure to national media as them spewing vitriol about your home and deeming you less a person because of where you were born and raised. The same sense of pride and heritage can be seen in Boston and Chicago's Irish communities. It can be seen in Chinatowns where a previous culture is celebrated and kept alive. Even the way the original post talks about the Confederacy, as if all Southern states are forever tainted by being members of it, and by labeling them treasonous even though Lincoln himself proclaimed the true test of a State's sovereignty was allowing them to secede. The confederacy weren't treasonous. They didn't seek to fight the Union or overthrow it. They wanted to leave and form their own country. Yet all those of us descended from them are still referred to as the offspring of a tainted coup. I can't explain Southern pride and heritage to you any more than I can explain Black pride to a white person because you haven't lived in the shadow of being labeled inferior due to your geography your whole life. Sure there are those who've used the battle flag or the stars and bars (or even the Bonnie Blue and Gadsden Flag) as symbols who have racist intent, but the INTENT behind it is the evil part, not the symbol itself. When I see someone wearing a basketball jersey I look at the whole situation before I decide if they're advertising their gang affiliation or merely a fan of the team their jersey represents. For me the "rebel flag" is a symbol Of Southern pride. It's saying I am from the South and I'm proud to admit it. It's saying those who call me an inbred hillbilly because I'm from Alabama can go fuck themselves. It's me saying if I had to pick compatriots to go into battle against an invading army with me I'd pick people from Texas through Georgia before I ever considered someone from California or Vermont. It's me saying I might think you're an asshole but I'll still hold the door for you and call you sir. It's a symbol of the South, and it's a symbol of me not giving a fuck what you think about it.	I don't think it is glorifying the Confederate States of America, endorsing slavery, etc. I think nearly anyone flying it in 2017 is either doing so to show southern pride or simply being defiant to those who say they can't. --- Intentionality shouldn't matter in my opinion. Someone can say they wave a Nazi flag because they like bhuddist symbols but that doesn't make it less disrespectful especially given no one is ignorant of what either means. --- That's a broken analogy because the Nazi flag hasn't been used in any other context, while the battle flag of northern VA has been used in the south for the last 160 years. --- That's a naive view. The swastika is still used by the Finnish Air Force for example. It's not without other examples of its usage. That doesn't justify its use. --- Swastika is not the Nazi flag and it's hardly culturally common compared to the battle flag. --- Sigh, the battle flag is not the CSA flag. Looks that's not really an argument against what I'm hitting on. I'm saying intentionality is irrelevant because no one is ignorant of what it means. The know it was used by the most ruinous enemy the union has ever faced. --- > the battle flag is not the CSA flag. What's the flag of the CSA? Can you show me people regularly displaying [the flag of the CSA](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/255px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png)? >Looks that's not really an argument against what I'm hitting on. Because you're ignoring 1. The representation 2. The fact that it's been 160 years since then and there has long since been time for the flag to gain more than one meaning.... --- Depends on the year you're talking about but generally it's the stars and bars: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/810px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png --- I know, now show me people flying it. --- My point is that people don't care what form the flag is in the ideal is the same. They are celebrating a heritage of sedition which is one of the worst offenses against the soul of a nation. --- > They are celebrating a heritage of sedition which is one of the worst offenses against the soul of a nation. So do you think that when people fly the Texas flag they're doing the same thing? Since Texas has, on numerous occasions, considered secession?	6am4bb	CMV: Flying any form of Confederate Battle Flag or remembering the CSA in any positive light is an incredibly seditious and unpatriotic gesture. It is glorifying the single greatest existential threat to the -United- States of America and its ideals.	I find the concept of flying any confederate battle flag or CSA national flag to be not only in poor taste, but a seditious action and one of the most unpatriotic displays possible. Far worse than burning the American flag, it is glorifying the bloodiest and most existential threat the USA has ever faced, a force that could actually destroy the Union. People who fly such a flag are, inadvertently or intentionally, damaging the dignity of the USA and the men who died to prevent the destruction of the ideals of the Union. In effect, its one of the most unpatriotic actions possible short of direct treason or conspiracy. It is a glorification of sedition. _____ > 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!*	pickledoop	11	11	[ { "author": "KushKingRaza", "id": "dhfl93z", "score": 10, "text": "Well here's the issue; we (the U.S) had slavery before the rise of the Confederacy and even after winning the Civil War (which did not begin about slavery but only ended as such) there were years of Jim Crow. If the whole defeating of the Confederacy was STRICTLY about ending slavery then it was accomplished But if the ending of the Civil War was about equality- specifically racial equality- then it fell flat on its face. \n\n", "timestamp": 1494528851 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfnctn", "score": 6, "text": "This doesn't address my point that it's a flag of Americas enemy in its most ruinous war. For a power that fought and -as you said - subversively fought against American ideals of equality after the war in the form of Jim Crow laws.", "timestamp": 1494531057 }, { "author": "Best_Pants", "id": "dhfsgwg", "score": 13, "text": "Are you suggesting the CSA be considered an enemy of the USA? If I were born in NC, should I perceive the USA as an occupying power? The Confederate states were not some foreign entity, nor were their values inconsistent with American norms. Until it was abolished, Slavery was an American institution. Equality for all races wasn't an American ideal until after the civil war, nor was it fully implemented by federal law until nearly a hundred years later. Before the war most Americans' loyalty and allegiance were to their state, not the country as a whole. If anything, the Union was diverging from traditional American ideals by changing the constitution and forcing states to fully relinquish their sovereignty.", "timestamp": 1494536432 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfspdj", "score": 2, "text": "> Slavery was an American institution. \n\nIts more nuanced than this. It was an American institution at the behest of the South. Please see the deleted passage of the [Declaration of Independence](http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery)", "timestamp": 1494536677 }, { "author": "Best_Pants", "id": "dhftq2w", "score": 6, "text": "The ideals of America include the ideals held by its states. Slavery was tolerated by the federal government at the nation's founding and it was a core economic pillar for a large part of America. If the passage represented an American ideal, then it would have been included in the final document.", "timestamp": 1494537826 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhftt68", "score": 1, "text": "The perfidious southern states are the blame for that, really sad. Good thing it was abolished after their defeat. Way too long in coming imo.", "timestamp": 1494537927 }, { "author": "Best_Pants", "id": "dhfuh85", "score": 8, "text": "How are they perfidious? Like I said, secession wasn't illegal at the time. People did not see themselves as \"Americans\". Their allegiance was to their state, and the state governments acted in what they judged their citizens' best interests. The Confederate states rebelled against what they saw as oppression, in line with the intents of the American revolution.", "timestamp": 1494538712 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfv4lt", "score": -1, "text": "> People did not see themselves as \"Americans\".\n\nEnded up costing them big time.", "timestamp": 1494539480 }, { "author": "RED473TL", "id": "dhfvb7y", "score": 6, "text": "Again this is not a counter argument. What would it take to change your view?", "timestamp": 1494539695 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfvp53", "score": 7, "text": "I guess I just don't understand how its possible that people reconcile patriotism in America, with flying the battle flag. If someone explained to me how this is reconciled I might understand.\n\nEveryone is stumbling over themselves trying to justify or somehow pain the South as the defender of American ideals.\n\nIf its not clear, I don't exactly hold the CSA or the states that thought the CSA was a good idea in the highest regard given I haven't seen an iota of anything but apologism for their actions. Especially in this post.", "timestamp": 1494540154 }, { "author": "Dupree878", "id": "dhga5z9", "score": 15, "text": "~~\"If its not clear, I don't exactly hold the CSA or the states that thought the CSA was a good idea in the highest regard given I haven't seen an iota of anything but apologism for their actions\"~~\n\nThis is exactly why people like myself fly the flag you find so offensive. There is a section of the populous that thinks of the South as \"less than\" and inferior to the rest of the country. This is an opinion mostly forged through the ramifications of Reconstruction on the South where the North treated the Southern states like a conquered enemy. Lincoln wanted to reunite the Union but Johnson's policies sought to punish. \nBiased comments about the South being backward, about incest and ignorance are thrown around without any regard to the hostile intent they express. To assume all Southerners are ignorant, inbred, bible-thumping Trump Voters is literally just as egregious as stereotyping all black people as criminals, all Italians as mobsters and all Mexicans as illegal aliens on welfare: it's not just untrue, it's mean and hateful to say. Yet it remains politically correct in regards to the South whereas it's recognized as racist or classist towards my other examples. \nImagine growing up in an area and loving your home only to have the majority of your exposure to national media as them spewing vitriol about your home and deeming you less a person because of where you were born and raised. The same sense of pride and heritage can be seen in Boston and Chicago's Irish communities. It can be seen in Chinatowns where a previous culture is celebrated and kept alive. \nEven the way the original post talks about the Confederacy, as if all Southern states are forever tainted by being members of it, and by labeling them treasonous even though Lincoln himself proclaimed the true test of a State's sovereignty was allowing them to secede. The confederacy weren't treasonous. They didn't seek to fight the Union or overthrow it. They wanted to leave and form their own country. Yet all those of us descended from them are still referred to as the offspring of a tainted coup. \nI can't explain Southern pride and heritage to you any more than I can explain Black pride to a white person because you haven't lived in the shadow of being labeled inferior due to your geography your whole life. Sure there are those who've used the battle flag or the stars and bars (or even the Bonnie Blue and Gadsden Flag) as symbols who have racist intent, but the INTENT behind it is the evil part, not the symbol itself. When I see someone wearing a basketball jersey I look at the whole situation before I decide if they're advertising their gang affiliation or merely a fan of the team their jersey represents. \nFor me the \"rebel flag\" is a symbol\nOf Southern pride. It's saying I am from the South and I'm proud to admit it. It's saying those who call me an inbred hillbilly because I'm from Alabama can go fuck themselves. It's me saying if I had to pick compatriots to go into battle against an invading army with me I'd pick people from Texas through Georgia before I ever considered someone from California or Vermont. It's me saying I might think you're an asshole but I'll still hold the door for you and call you sir. \nIt's a symbol of the South, and it's a symbol of me not giving a fuck what you think about it. ", "timestamp": 1494559725 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dhflq0n", "score": 75, "text": "I don't think it is glorifying the Confederate States of America, endorsing slavery, etc. \n\nI think nearly anyone flying it in 2017 is either doing so to show southern pride or simply being defiant to those who say they can't. ", "timestamp": 1494529342 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfm4qc", "score": 63, "text": "Intentionality shouldn't matter in my opinion. Someone can say they wave a Nazi flag because they like bhuddist symbols but that doesn't make it less disrespectful especially given no one is ignorant of what either means.", "timestamp": 1494529776 }, { "author": "ClearlyBanned22", "id": "dhfn1ld", "score": 9, "text": "That's a broken analogy because the Nazi flag hasn't been used in any other context, while the battle flag of northern VA has been used in the south for the last 160 years.", "timestamp": 1494530737 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfn3y7", "score": 10, "text": "That's a naive view. The swastika is still used by the Finnish Air Force for example. It's not without other examples of its usage. That doesn't justify its use.", "timestamp": 1494530805 }, { "author": "ClearlyBanned22", "id": "dhfn56u", "score": 14, "text": "Swastika is not the Nazi flag and it's hardly culturally common compared to the battle flag.", "timestamp": 1494530839 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfn817", "score": 11, "text": "Sigh, the battle flag is not the CSA flag. Looks that's not really an argument against what I'm hitting on. I'm saying intentionality is irrelevant because no one is ignorant of what it means. The know it was used by the most ruinous enemy the union has ever faced.", "timestamp": 1494530919 }, { "author": "ClearlyBanned22", "id": "dhfneau", "score": 9, "text": "> the battle flag is not the CSA flag.\n\nWhat's the flag of the CSA? Can you show me people regularly displaying [the flag of the CSA](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/255px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png)?\n\n>Looks that's not really an argument against what I'm hitting on.\n\nBecause you're ignoring\n\n1. The representation\n\n2. The fact that it's been 160 years since then and there has long since been time for the flag to gain more than one meaning....", "timestamp": 1494531101 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfngwd", "score": 7, "text": "Depends on the year you're talking about but generally it's the stars and bars:\n\nhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/810px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png\n\n", "timestamp": 1494531176 }, { "author": "ClearlyBanned22", "id": "dhfnmn7", "score": 9, "text": "I know, now show me people flying it.", "timestamp": 1494531347 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfo02a", "score": 6, "text": "My point is that people don't care what form the flag is in the ideal is the same. They are celebrating a heritage of sedition which is one of the worst offenses against the soul of a nation.", "timestamp": 1494531734 }, { "author": "ClearlyBanned22", "id": "dhfo3gz", "score": 3, "text": "> They are celebrating a heritage of sedition which is one of the worst offenses against the soul of a nation.\n\nSo do you think that when people fly the Texas flag they're doing the same thing? Since Texas has, on numerous occasions, considered secession?", "timestamp": 1494531834 } ]	[ "dhfl93z", "dhfnctn", "dhfsgwg", "dhfspdj", "dhftq2w", "dhftt68", "dhfuh85", "dhfv4lt", "dhfvb7y", "dhfvp53", "dhga5z9" ]	[ "dhflq0n", "dhfm4qc", "dhfn1ld", "dhfn3y7", "dhfn56u", "dhfn817", "dhfneau", "dhfngwd", "dhfnmn7", "dhfo02a", "dhfo3gz" ]
CMV: Flying any form of Confederate Battle Flag or remembering the CSA in any positive light is an incredibly seditious and unpatriotic gesture. It is glorifying the single greatest existential threat to the -United- States of America and its ideals. I find the concept of flying any confederate battle flag or CSA national flag to be not only in poor taste, but a seditious action and one of the most unpatriotic displays possible. Far worse than burning the American flag, it is glorifying the bloodiest and most existential threat the USA has ever faced, a force that could actually destroy the Union. People who fly such a flag are, inadvertently or intentionally, damaging the dignity of the USA and the men who died to prevent the destruction of the ideals of the Union. In effect, its one of the most unpatriotic actions possible short of direct treason or conspiracy. It is a glorification of sedition. _____ > 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!*	A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the "sons of the new south." Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic? From a completely abstract viewpoint, do you believe that all good and evil in the world is absolute? If you do not, you must understand that there is something to be learned from why a movement occurred. There is a reason to study and understand the viewpoints of both sides and understand on a deeper level what drove people to do certain things. Were they completely insane and murderous? Or were they just trying to feed their family? Or maybe a mix of both? The Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed. The federal government wasn't what it is today. It was smaller and had much less power. You had a federal government that was trying to dictate what seemed to many to be issues granted to states in the 10th amendment. The south favored a structure more closely linked to the original articles of confederation than a strong autonomous federal government. Did this make them morally or economically right? No. Does it mean you should label everything Confederate seditious and unpatriotic? No. --- > A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the "sons of the new south." Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic? Oh hell yes. That's disgusting. I would never vote for a Clinton. > The Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed Sure this is true. But the war was ultimately about slavery. And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition. --- > And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition. Which wasn't illegal until 1869 via Texas v White. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White	Well here's the issue; we (the U.S) had slavery before the rise of the Confederacy and even after winning the Civil War (which did not begin about slavery but only ended as such) there were years of Jim Crow. If the whole defeating of the Confederacy was STRICTLY about ending slavery then it was accomplished But if the ending of the Civil War was about equality- specifically racial equality- then it fell flat on its face. --- That doesn't change the fact that the primary symbolic issue that distinguished the Confederacy from the Union was the continued right to own slaves. It sucks if you think that the Confederate flag represents something else, like a regional culture or a shared history or something, but that's what happens when you tie your symbol to morally abhorrent practices. So I say feel free to fly that flag all you want, and I will be free to associate the flag and you by association with racism and slavery. --- Ummm...... I never stated I support the flying of said flag nor do I actually support it. When I originally commented, I thought I was arguing against it's flying in addition to being against the long history of slavery it represented.	6am4bb	CMV: Flying any form of Confederate Battle Flag or remembering the CSA in any positive light is an incredibly seditious and unpatriotic gesture. It is glorifying the single greatest existential threat to the -United- States of America and its ideals.	I find the concept of flying any confederate battle flag or CSA national flag to be not only in poor taste, but a seditious action and one of the most unpatriotic displays possible. Far worse than burning the American flag, it is glorifying the bloodiest and most existential threat the USA has ever faced, a force that could actually destroy the Union. People who fly such a flag are, inadvertently or intentionally, damaging the dignity of the USA and the men who died to prevent the destruction of the ideals of the Union. In effect, its one of the most unpatriotic actions possible short of direct treason or conspiracy. It is a glorification of sedition. _____ > 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!*	pickledoop	3	3	[ { "author": "Boeing_777X", "id": "dhfrsmt", "score": 1, "text": "A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the \"sons of the new south.\" Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic?\n\nFrom a completely abstract viewpoint, do you believe that all good and evil in the world is absolute? If you do not, you must understand that there is something to be learned from why a movement occurred. There is a reason to study and understand the viewpoints of both sides and understand on a deeper level what drove people to do certain things. Were they completely insane and murderous? Or were they just trying to feed their family? Or maybe a mix of both?\n\nThe Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed. The federal government wasn't what it is today. It was smaller and had much less power. You had a federal government that was trying to dictate what seemed to many to be issues granted to states in the 10th amendment. The south favored a structure more closely linked to the original articles of confederation than a strong autonomous federal government. Did this make them morally or economically right? No. Does it mean you should label everything Confederate seditious and unpatriotic? No.", "timestamp": 1494535742 }, { "author": "pickledoop", "id": "dhfrxpp", "score": 1, "text": "> A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the \"sons of the new south.\" Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic?\n\nOh hell yes. That's disgusting. I would never vote for a Clinton.\n\n> The Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed\n\nSure this is true. But the war was ultimately about slavery. And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition.", "timestamp": 1494535888 }, { "author": "RED473TL", "id": "dhfse1p", "score": 1, "text": "> And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition.\n\nWhich wasn't illegal until 1869 via Texas v White. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White\n", "timestamp": 1494536353 } ]	[ { "author": "KushKingRaza", "id": "dhfl93z", "score": 10, "text": "Well here's the issue; we (the U.S) had slavery before the rise of the Confederacy and even after winning the Civil War (which did not begin about slavery but only ended as such) there were years of Jim Crow. If the whole defeating of the Confederacy was STRICTLY about ending slavery then it was accomplished But if the ending of the Civil War was about equality- specifically racial equality- then it fell flat on its face. \n\n", "timestamp": 1494528851 }, { "author": "DrinkyDrank", "id": "dhfltmf", "score": 6, "text": "That doesn't change the fact that the primary symbolic issue that distinguished the Confederacy from the Union was the continued right to own slaves. It sucks if you think that the Confederate flag represents something else, like a regional culture or a shared history or something, but that's what happens when you tie your symbol to morally abhorrent practices. So I say feel free to fly that flag all you want, and I will be free to associate the flag and you by association with racism and slavery. ", "timestamp": 1494529448 }, { "author": "KushKingRaza", "id": "dhfmrug", "score": 0, "text": "Ummm...... I never stated I support the flying of said flag nor do I actually support it. When I originally commented, I thought I was arguing against it's flying in addition to being against the long history of slavery it represented. ", "timestamp": 1494530454 } ]	[ "dhfrsmt", "dhfrxpp", "dhfse1p" ]	[ "dhfl93z", "dhfltmf", "dhfmrug" ]
CMV: Biden supporters are beginning on a trajectory to become as fanatical as Trump supporters. I will be voting for Biden in November, but until a few months ago I had planned to vote for Trump. It took until his photo op at St. John's Church for me to be fully convinced that he is building a cult of personality (I'm a Christian and I couldn't stand to see my faith twisted that way). However, I've started to see a lot more stuff from Biden supporters that is beginning to mirror the early stages of Trump's 2016 campaign. There's a lot of talk about "we really wanted Bernie, but we'll fight tooth and nail to elect Biden because he's better than Trump." To me this sounds an awful lot like "He's not Ben Carson or Marco Rubio, but All Aboard the Trump Train to beat Hillary!" There are more and more people basically saying that it doesn't even matter what Biden does at this point, it won't change their vote, which is exactly the same mentality of a lot of Trump's fan club. You can buy Biden flags, Biden masks, Biden hats (hmmm) and even Biden onesies for your baby. I realize he isn't as grossly narcissistic or tactless as Trump, but it seems like the Democratic Party is kissing up to Biden just as much as the Republicans are to the guy he calls an egomaniac (which he is).	[deleted] --- You are correct that he doesn't (currently) have that mindset, but sometimes politicians develop that as they get more and more power, i.e. the presidency. Maduro was a bus driver, Pol Pot was a teacher, Mao was a peasant. The more supporters they have power over, the more the mindset will feed itself. Or maybe it won't, the only example I can think of is Sankara but that may not be a great one. I'm by no means a historian. --- Biden was in the Senate for decades and was the Vice President for 8 years. It seems extremely strange to think that he'd magically create a cult of personality after achieving the presidency or devolve into that mindset, especially to the degree that Trump has.	[deleted] --- Actually yes it was. I wasn't quite old enough to vote in '16, but I understood politics a lot better than in 2012. --- Not the guy you replied to, but speaking in support of his statements. I have observed this phenomena also, it happens in the lead up to every presidential election. Both sides spend all those campaign funds on propaganda, plain and simple.	isquel	CMV: Biden supporters are beginning on a trajectory to become as fanatical as Trump supporters.	I will be voting for Biden in November, but until a few months ago I had planned to vote for Trump. It took until his photo op at St. John's Church for me to be fully convinced that he is building a cult of personality (I'm a Christian and I couldn't stand to see my faith twisted that way). However, I've started to see a lot more stuff from Biden supporters that is beginning to mirror the early stages of Trump's 2016 campaign. There's a lot of talk about "we really wanted Bernie, but we'll fight tooth and nail to elect Biden because he's better than Trump." To me this sounds an awful lot like "He's not Ben Carson or Marco Rubio, but All Aboard the Trump Train to beat Hillary!" There are more and more people basically saying that it doesn't even matter what Biden does at this point, it won't change their vote, which is exactly the same mentality of a lot of Trump's fan club. You can buy Biden flags, Biden masks, Biden hats (hmmm) and even Biden onesies for your baby. I realize he isn't as grossly narcissistic or tactless as Trump, but it seems like the Democratic Party is kissing up to Biden just as much as the Republicans are to the guy he calls an egomaniac (which he is).	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g59j962", "score": 15, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1600108634 }, { "author": "Levictual0", "id": "g59mgp6", "score": -1, "text": "You are correct that he doesn't (currently) have that mindset, but sometimes politicians develop that as they get more and more power, i.e. the presidency. Maduro was a bus driver, Pol Pot was a teacher, Mao was a peasant. The more supporters they have power over, the more the mindset will feed itself. Or maybe it won't, the only example I can think of is Sankara but that may not be a great one. I'm by no means a historian.", "timestamp": 1600109742 }, { "author": "Milskidasith", "id": "g59pvn4", "score": 10, "text": "Biden was in the Senate for decades and was the Vice President for 8 years. It seems extremely strange to think that he'd magically create a cult of personality after achieving the presidency or devolve into that mindset, especially to the degree that Trump has.", "timestamp": 1600110848 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "g59j4a5", "score": 20, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1600108587 }, { "author": "Levictual0", "id": "g59jzq4", "score": -1, "text": "Actually yes it was. I wasn't quite old enough to vote in '16, but I understood politics a lot better than in 2012.", "timestamp": 1600108890 }, { "author": "drschwartz", "id": "g59mefy", "score": 5, "text": "Not the guy you replied to, but speaking in support of his statements.\n\nI have observed this phenomena also, it happens in the lead up to every presidential election. Both sides spend all those campaign funds on propaganda, plain and simple.", "timestamp": 1600109721 } ]	[ "g59j962", "g59mgp6", "g59pvn4" ]	[ "g59j4a5", "g59jzq4", "g59mefy" ]
CMV: Peaceful protests against the government, like the current ones against Trump, are ineffective, alienating, and a complete waste of time Let’s be honest. These protests aren’t doing what people hope they’re doing. Take the recent waves of protests against Donald Trump. People are out in the streets over his election, mass deportations , or now the attacks on Iran. They gather with signs, chant slogans, maybe march through downtown. But none of it actually moves the needle. Trump’s supporters aren’t changing their minds. The people in power aren’t stepping down or reversing policies. If anything, these protests make the opposition dig in harder. And for everyone else, the average person who just wants to get to work, pick up their kid, or drive home, they’re just annoyed. Blocking highways? That’s not brave. It’s selfish. Most people stuck in traffic don’t suddenly have an epiphany about criminal justice reform. They just start resenting the protesters. And when the news inevitably shows the chaos that breaks out at night, like property damage, fights, or looting, that’s what sticks in people’s minds. Not the cause. Not the message. Just the disruption and the violence. Even if the daytime protests are peaceful, all it takes is one group acting out later to taint the whole thing. The media runs with that. The headlines aren’t about the message. They’re about flames, arrests, and broken windows. And the average person watching at home doesn’t feel inspired. They feel irritated, or even more sympathetic to the people being protested against. This strategy feels less like a movement and more like a mass venting session. No real pressure. No policy wins. No changed minds. Just noise that fades. If people actually want to change things, it’s going to take real organization, coordinated strikes, targeted voting, and long-term economic disruption. That’s what makes governments pay attention. And if even that fails, then maybe the hard truth is that real change has always come through revolution, not hashtags and pretty signs.	A single protest doesn’t lead to a movement, but movements are built on countless acts of civil resistance: protests, riots, elections, collective action, going door to door, literature, rallies. You can’t measure the weight of a single protest. It’s simply not possible. An important clarifying question: do you think the Civil Rights Movement was generally effective, and employed useful tactics to create societal and legislative change? --- I do think that was an example where ultimately it worked but was due to the violence from protestors and complete ineptitude from the government (Publicly being violent back). Peaceful protests didn’t stop Trump from getting elected in 2016. They didn’t stop the Muslim ban, the child separation policy, the gutting of environmental protections, or the stacking of the Supreme Court. And they’re not going to stop him now. As long as things stay the way they are, nothing is changing. --- What violence from the Civil Rights protesters do you believe ultimately made the Civil Rights movement successful? The left did protest Trump during his first term and got notable election victories in the 2018 midterms and 2020 (including Trump not being re-elected). The left was able to rally its supporters and protests may have been a major factor in doing so. In 2022 there were protests from the left regarding the overturning of Roe v Wade. The left would go on to rally enough of its base to outperform all predictions in the 2022 midterms and maintain the Senate. In 2024 there weren’t notable protests from the left regarding Trump or the right. In fact, the most notable protests from the left were protesting the Biden administration. Funnily enough, when the left protests itself it didn’t rally enough of itself to win the election. While protests don’t single handedly constitute change, they seem to have an effect of public perception and building electoral morale which will eventually lead to changes. --- What actual change did the Roe v Wade protests cause? Yes the democrats outperformed in 2022 but here we are. --- “What actual change did the Roe v Wade protests cause?” Why ask the question if you literally answer it the next sentence. Democrats outperforming in 2022 is a change. Change with respect to how congress will be controlled is pretty significant. We are here now not because the left was rallying to the same degree against the right. The left spent more time mass protesting Biden than the right in 2024. You can’t justify something not being successful because we stopped having success after we stopped doing that thing. --- I just disagree that any change actually happened. If you replace someone that has an R next to their name with a D but nothing changes than it’s not change --- This is kind of a "no true scottsman." You say protests didn't cause any change, someone points out that they changed something, then you say "no, I mean no real change." At which point you just move the goal post for what counts as "real" change out past whatever evidence people can find...	Peaceful protests do help, but not ones that inconvenience citizens just trying to get by. Blocking highways, preventing people from getting to work on time does cause resentment. There are other ways to protest without inconveniencing the every day worker. --- A lot of the most famous and prominent forms of civil disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement inconvenienced people — direct action and civil disobedience largely has to be inconvenient. --- These are events that took place like 70 years ago. Times have changed. I no longer think it is advantageous to “peaceful protesters” to inconvenience the guy/girl living paycheck to paycheck simply trying to provide for his or her family. You’re going to create more resentment than sympathy these days. Like I said, it’s possible to protest without inconveniencing the every day worker. --- What has changed between now and then that makes those tactics no longer effective? Do you think fewer Black people in the Jim Crow south were living paycheck to paycheck than today? --- The world has changed. 70 years is a long time. The attitudes and priorities of American citizens have changed. If you were to fight a war in 2025, you wouldn’t employ a strategy that won you a war in the 1960’s. The world has changed. --- Are you going to tell me what’s materially different now? Like, I don’t care about general truisms; what specifically makes those forms of civil disobedience and collective action ineffective now if they weren’t then? I don’t care for generalist takes. I want specifics. If you’re certain it doesn’t work now, why? And what is different? Surely you can articulate a specific and concrete reason that isn’t just “time is linear and has moved forward.” --- The attitude of Americans citizens has changed. With wages incrementally increasing while housing and food prices soar, Americans have become more focused on themselves and their families and less on the plight of others. The majority of these people protesting and blocking highways don’t have the same responsibilities. If you have time to block a highway, you likely don’t have to provide for your family the same way others do. I also think perceived importance is a factor. I think separating American citizens based on skin color is far more offensive to Americans than cracking down on illegal immigration.	1lhtp75	CMV: Peaceful protests against the government, like the current ones against Trump, are ineffective, alienating, and a complete waste of time	Let’s be honest. These protests aren’t doing what people hope they’re doing. Take the recent waves of protests against Donald Trump. People are out in the streets over his election, mass deportations , or now the attacks on Iran. They gather with signs, chant slogans, maybe march through downtown. But none of it actually moves the needle. Trump’s supporters aren’t changing their minds. The people in power aren’t stepping down or reversing policies. If anything, these protests make the opposition dig in harder. And for everyone else, the average person who just wants to get to work, pick up their kid, or drive home, they’re just annoyed. Blocking highways? That’s not brave. It’s selfish. Most people stuck in traffic don’t suddenly have an epiphany about criminal justice reform. They just start resenting the protesters. And when the news inevitably shows the chaos that breaks out at night, like property damage, fights, or looting, that’s what sticks in people’s minds. Not the cause. Not the message. Just the disruption and the violence. Even if the daytime protests are peaceful, all it takes is one group acting out later to taint the whole thing. The media runs with that. The headlines aren’t about the message. They’re about flames, arrests, and broken windows. And the average person watching at home doesn’t feel inspired. They feel irritated, or even more sympathetic to the people being protested against. This strategy feels less like a movement and more like a mass venting session. No real pressure. No policy wins. No changed minds. Just noise that fades. If people actually want to change things, it’s going to take real organization, coordinated strikes, targeted voting, and long-term economic disruption. That’s what makes governments pay attention. And if even that fails, then maybe the hard truth is that real change has always come through revolution, not hashtags and pretty signs.	tastefulmalesideboob	7	7	[ { "author": "sophisticaden_", "id": "mz6rcst", "score": 14, "text": "A single protest doesn’t lead to a movement, but movements are built on countless acts of civil resistance: protests, riots, elections, collective action, going door to door, literature, rallies. You can’t measure the weight of a single protest. It’s simply not possible. \n\nAn important clarifying question: do you think the Civil Rights Movement was generally effective, and employed useful tactics to create societal and legislative change?", "timestamp": 1750614204 }, { "author": "tastefulmalesideboob", "id": "mz6s41a", "score": 1, "text": "I do think that was an example where ultimately it worked but was due to the violence from protestors and complete ineptitude from the government (Publicly being violent back).\n\nPeaceful protests didn’t stop Trump from getting elected in 2016. They didn’t stop the Muslim ban, the child separation policy, the gutting of environmental protections, or the stacking of the Supreme Court. And they’re not going to stop him now.\n\nAs long as things stay the way they are, nothing is changing.", "timestamp": 1750614424 }, { "author": "RealJohnBobJoe", "id": "mz6vq9c", "score": 2, "text": "What violence from the Civil Rights protesters do you believe ultimately made the Civil Rights movement successful?\n\nThe left did protest Trump during his first term and got notable election victories in the 2018 midterms and 2020 (including Trump not being re-elected). The left was able to rally its supporters and protests may have been a major factor in doing so.\n\nIn 2022 there were protests from the left regarding the overturning of Roe v Wade. The left would go on to rally enough of its base to outperform all predictions in the 2022 midterms and maintain the Senate.\n\nIn 2024 there weren’t notable protests from the left regarding Trump or the right. In fact, the most notable protests from the left were protesting the Biden administration. Funnily enough, when the left protests itself it didn’t rally enough of itself to win the election.\n\nWhile protests don’t single handedly constitute change, they seem to have an effect of public perception and building electoral morale which will eventually lead to changes.", "timestamp": 1750615482 }, { "author": "tastefulmalesideboob", "id": "mz714oa", "score": 2, "text": "What actual change did the Roe v Wade protests cause? Yes the democrats outperformed in 2022 but here we are.", "timestamp": 1750617131 }, { "author": "RealJohnBobJoe", "id": "mz73oh7", "score": 3, "text": "“What actual change did the Roe v Wade protests cause?”\n\nWhy ask the question if you literally answer it the next sentence. Democrats outperforming in 2022 is a change. Change with respect to how congress will be controlled is pretty significant.\n\nWe are here now not because the left was rallying to the same degree against the right. The left spent more time mass protesting Biden than the right in 2024. You can’t justify something not being successful because we stopped having success after we stopped doing that thing.", "timestamp": 1750617916 }, { "author": "tastefulmalesideboob", "id": "mz75nua", "score": -1, "text": "I just disagree that any change actually happened. If you replace someone that has an R next to their name with a D but nothing changes than it’s not change", "timestamp": 1750618527 }, { "author": "Roadshell", "id": "mz77zl5", "score": 2, "text": "This is kind of a \"no true scottsman.\" You say protests didn't cause any change, someone points out that they changed something, then you say \"no, I mean no real change.\" At which point you just move the goal post for what counts as \"real\" change out past whatever evidence people can find...", "timestamp": 1750619246 } ]	[ { "author": "AluminiumLlama", "id": "mz6s0yd", "score": 0, "text": "Peaceful protests do help, but not ones that inconvenience citizens just trying to get by.\n\nBlocking highways, preventing people from getting to work on time does cause resentment. There are other ways to protest without inconveniencing the every day worker.", "timestamp": 1750614399 }, { "author": "sophisticaden_", "id": "mz6u26a", "score": 0, "text": "A lot of the most famous and prominent forms of civil disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement inconvenienced people — direct action and civil disobedience largely has to be inconvenient.", "timestamp": 1750614988 }, { "author": "AluminiumLlama", "id": "mz6utt5", "score": 2, "text": "These are events that took place like 70 years ago. Times have changed. I no longer think it is advantageous to “peaceful protesters” to inconvenience the guy/girl living paycheck to paycheck simply trying to provide for his or her family.\n \nYou’re going to create more resentment than sympathy these days. Like I said, it’s possible to protest without inconveniencing the every day worker.", "timestamp": 1750615213 }, { "author": "sophisticaden_", "id": "mz6vd5m", "score": 0, "text": "What has changed between now and then that makes those tactics no longer effective? Do you think fewer Black people in the Jim Crow south were living paycheck to paycheck than today?", "timestamp": 1750615373 }, { "author": "AluminiumLlama", "id": "mz70poh", "score": 1, "text": "The world has changed. 70 years is a long time. The attitudes and priorities of American citizens have changed. \n\nIf you were to fight a war in 2025, you wouldn’t employ a strategy that won you a war in the 1960’s. The world has changed.", "timestamp": 1750617001 }, { "author": "sophisticaden_", "id": "mz71cne", "score": 1, "text": "Are you going to tell me what’s materially different now? Like, I don’t care about general truisms; what specifically makes those forms of civil disobedience and collective action ineffective now if they weren’t then?\n\nI don’t care for generalist takes. I want specifics. If you’re certain it doesn’t work now, why? And what is different? Surely you can articulate a specific and concrete reason that isn’t just “time is linear and has moved forward.”", "timestamp": 1750617199 }, { "author": "AluminiumLlama", "id": "mz73ivz", "score": 2, "text": "The attitude of Americans citizens has changed. With wages incrementally increasing while housing and food prices soar, Americans have become more focused on themselves and their families and less on the plight of others. \n\nThe majority of these people protesting and blocking highways don’t have the same responsibilities. If you have time to block a highway, you likely don’t have to provide for your family the same way others do. \n\nI also think perceived importance is a factor. I think separating American citizens based on skin color is far more offensive to Americans than cracking down on illegal immigration.", "timestamp": 1750617869 } ]	[ "mz6rcst", "mz6s41a", "mz6vq9c", "mz714oa", "mz73oh7", "mz75nua", "mz77zl5" ]	[ "mz6s0yd", "mz6u26a", "mz6utt5", "mz6vd5m", "mz70poh", "mz71cne", "mz73ivz" ]
CMV: Athletic/stretch leggings are NOT pants for purposes of business / work /semi formal attire. I'm of the view that athletic leggings ARE NOT PANTS that are acceptable business /office /semi formal / work casual attire. When I say leggings, I mean pants that are made out of stretchy material that lacks a zipper and usually has an elastic waistband. Kind of like yoga LEGGINGS. I'm a fashion samplemaker for a living, and I make patterns for pants often. I am deeply versed on the technical differences in many pant styles. When I say acceptable... for purposes of argument, let's agree to something of a generally accepted business office dress code in offices in the US that avoids clothes that are too revealing (like crop tops). While they do cover the legs and crotch, and while they can enhance the bottom portion of a look, I don't see them as proper pants for a business / work casual /semi formal kind of situation. It's not about modesty or a lack thereof for me, when I say this. It's more about the distration of visible panty lines, cameltoe, moose knuckle, weird butts. There are really nice leggings, of course. Heavier knit textiles on near-pant leggings can look like workpants... until you get close and nope... leggings. Wear leggings all you want in casual settings. Wear them all day putz in between work, chores, simple errands. I'm not anti-legging, in all cases. I am anti- office/business situation leggings. I am anti-legging for more formal, structured work situations. Maybe it's the athletic quality that gives too much of a casual feel to the bottom portion of an outfit. There are other forms of pants for business situations. There are slim fit, tapered fit pants, stretchy jeans and pants with lycra. There are nylon blend tight pants. Rompers. Bermudas. Pedal Pushers. Slacks. Cigarette pants. Palazzo pajamas. Even a nice linen jogger paired with the right top seems more business appropriate to me than leggings. Change my view. I'm not a prude. I live in a hot climate. I get the need for comfort. But I just can never get on board with stretch leggings-as -acceptable-office work-attire.	I pose these three counterexamples. [Leggings with a blazer](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/16/b2/eb/16b2ebbeba12825db2ccb180e975b5d2--work-fashion-fashion-fall.jpg). [Leggings with a tunic](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5d/69/de/5d69de1403136adf305dc5365bdc5e7a--suede-leggings-legging-outfits.jpg) [Leggings with a sweater](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/f3/73/fff373fc5aa87605cda677d61edd4015.jpg) Notice that it's not really about the leggings, but what you pair them with. Boots, heels, nice flats. Sweaters, blazers, tunics. Jewelry, etc. --- It also, from your examples, I find my subjective objection to leggings... depends on the length of what's going on up top. All of your examples feature longer tops, which would have obscured the main obvious differentiating features of pants anyway -- the fly, the pockets, waistband. So in those examples it's moot whether one is in pants or leggings -- you wouldn't be able to tell at first glance. All of those looks are good office-y looks, btw. Great examples. --- > All of your examples feature longer tops, which would have obscured the main obvious differentiating features of pants anyway -- the fly, the pockets, waistband. But how you wear it does not negate the fact that it is leggings. Just because I tie my jacket around my waist does not negate the fact that it is a jacket.	To clarify: What about when they are worn under a dress, similar to tights? In that situation, they aren't acting as pants. Do you think that's acceptable because they aren't acting as pants? Or do you find leggings unacceptable for that purpose as well? --- Good point. Let me clarify. I mean when they're worn as a pant replacement. Leggings under a tunic or a dress, for example. That's fine by me. Leggings as a pant replacement with a polo shirt = questionable. --- If you're wearing leggings, are shorter skirts/dresses acceptable than would be if you weren't wearing leggings?	6kohjf	CMV: Athletic/stretch leggings are NOT pants for purposes of business / work /semi formal attire.	I'm of the view that athletic leggings ARE NOT PANTS that are acceptable business /office /semi formal / work casual attire. When I say leggings, I mean pants that are made out of stretchy material that lacks a zipper and usually has an elastic waistband. Kind of like yoga LEGGINGS. I'm a fashion samplemaker for a living, and I make patterns for pants often. I am deeply versed on the technical differences in many pant styles. When I say acceptable... for purposes of argument, let's agree to something of a generally accepted business office dress code in offices in the US that avoids clothes that are too revealing (like crop tops). While they do cover the legs and crotch, and while they can enhance the bottom portion of a look, I don't see them as proper pants for a business / work casual /semi formal kind of situation. It's not about modesty or a lack thereof for me, when I say this. It's more about the distration of visible panty lines, cameltoe, moose knuckle, weird butts. There are really nice leggings, of course. Heavier knit textiles on near-pant leggings can look like workpants... until you get close and nope... leggings. Wear leggings all you want in casual settings. Wear them all day putz in between work, chores, simple errands. I'm not anti-legging, in all cases. I am anti- office/business situation leggings. I am anti-legging for more formal, structured work situations. Maybe it's the athletic quality that gives too much of a casual feel to the bottom portion of an outfit. There are other forms of pants for business situations. There are slim fit, tapered fit pants, stretchy jeans and pants with lycra. There are nylon blend tight pants. Rompers. Bermudas. Pedal Pushers. Slacks. Cigarette pants. Palazzo pajamas. Even a nice linen jogger paired with the right top seems more business appropriate to me than leggings. Change my view. I'm not a prude. I live in a hot climate. I get the need for comfort. But I just can never get on board with stretch leggings-as -acceptable-office work-attire.	Shortacts	3	3	[ { "author": "Pr0veIt", "id": "djnkt9g", "score": 6, "text": "I pose these three counterexamples. \n\n[Leggings with a blazer](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/16/b2/eb/16b2ebbeba12825db2ccb180e975b5d2--work-fashion-fashion-fall.jpg).\n\n[Leggings with a tunic](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5d/69/de/5d69de1403136adf305dc5365bdc5e7a--suede-leggings-legging-outfits.jpg)\n\n[Leggings with a sweater](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/f3/73/fff373fc5aa87605cda677d61edd4015.jpg)\n\nNotice that it's not really about the leggings, but what you pair them with. Boots, heels, nice flats. Sweaters, blazers, tunics. Jewelry, etc. ", "timestamp": 1498933371 }, { "author": "Shortacts", "id": "djnn1j8", "score": 3, "text": "It also, from your examples, I find my subjective objection to leggings... depends on the length of what's going on up top.\n\nAll of your examples feature longer tops, which would have obscured the main obvious differentiating features of pants anyway -- the fly, the pockets, waistband. So in those examples it's moot whether one is in pants or leggings -- you wouldn't be able to tell at first glance.\n\nAll of those looks are good office-y looks, btw. Great examples.", "timestamp": 1498936493 }, { "author": "caw81", "id": "djnotvc", "score": 4, "text": "> All of your examples feature longer tops, which would have obscured the main obvious differentiating features of pants anyway -- the fly, the pockets, waistband. \n\nBut how you wear it does not negate the fact that it is leggings. Just because I tie my jacket around my waist does not negate the fact that it is a jacket.", "timestamp": 1498939022 } ]	[ { "author": "PM_PICS_OF_MANATEES", "id": "djnkmgk", "score": 2, "text": "To clarify: What about when they are worn under a dress, similar to tights? In that situation, they aren't acting as pants. Do you think that's acceptable because they aren't acting as pants? Or do you find leggings unacceptable for that purpose as well? ", "timestamp": 1498933113 }, { "author": "Shortacts", "id": "djnmfjm", "score": 3, "text": "Good point.\n\nLet me clarify. I mean when they're worn as a pant replacement.\n\nLeggings under a tunic or a dress, for example. That's fine by me.\n\nLeggings as a pant replacement with a polo shirt = questionable.", "timestamp": 1498935640 }, { "author": "Salanmander", "id": "djnn2ti", "score": 2, "text": "If you're wearing leggings, are shorter skirts/dresses acceptable than would be if you weren't wearing leggings?", "timestamp": 1498936542 } ]	[ "djnkt9g", "djnn1j8", "djnotvc" ]	[ "djnkmgk", "djnmfjm", "djnn2ti" ]
CMV: Fat Acceptance/ Body Positivity although it sounds great in theory is in fact a negative movement in the long run. Now, let me get this out of the way. In theory the values FA, espouses such as respecting fat People and being yourself sounds great. But there are many problems I have with this movement. This is coming from a teenager on the "heavier" side. So don't take this as belittling. I'm on the same boat. 1. Health Problems: Where I live (America), we have [high rates of obesity](http://stateofobesity.org/rates/). Which is linked with a cornucopia of health risks including High Blood Pressure, strokes, heart attacks, blood clots and many other health issues. This movement tells women that they are okay just the way they are. While it may be true for some. Others are in need of a lifestyle change in order to prevent health issues in the future. 2. Accepting Defeat: Instead of helping women/men reach goals for themselves, encouraging them to work on themselves and improve. They instead tell them they are beautiful just the way they are. It's a movement that seems to encourage self defeat. "Why even try?" They say. "It's just a societal/cultural standard anyways". 3. Objective reasons: Humans evolved to find mates that are "healthy". While at one point heavier people were honor because they unlike most people had access to resources others didn't. Now in age where you can get or eat anything you want, people are now attracted to skinny people. Our brains associate health with slimness. You can not simply override evolution. TL:DR, it's a self defeating movement, that encourages an unhealthy way of life that prevents people from finding true fulfillment. CMV: FA is a negative movement in the long run.	Body positivity isn't about denying that there are health risks involved with obesity, it's about the fact that fat people are treated negatively. Fat people know that they are fat. Being constantly reminded of this fact is not going to combat this. In fact, it can lead to further self-destructive behaviours due to emotional eating. If someone treats you like a garbage person because you're overweight, that's not going to motivate you to lose weight. Feeling negative about yourself does not create positive change. In fact, if anything, body positivity and feeling better about yourself is more motivational than feeling bad. Fat negativity is not about people being concerned for your health - I've experienced this personally, where people have made fun of me for going to the gym, as a fat person. That's not being concerned for my health, that's just punishing me for being a fat person who exists and is ACTIVELY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Body positivity motivates, body negativity stifles. --- I agree. It's not that I am against treating people with respect. I just find that it's a movement that seems to attract people who don't want to change IMO. Although yes, we need to stop treating people like crap. But not everyone who pulls you out of crap is your friend. Sometimes you need to push on and keep on going regardless of what people say. --- I think the point of the movement is that it's their choice, though. And it being their choice empowers them to make that choice, whereas people shaming them just makes them get fatter. --- If that was all they are saying then I would have no problems. But things like [this ](https://www.google.com/amp/www.refinery29.com/amp/2017/06/158264/all-woman-project-real-women-confidence-campaign) tell another story. --- I don't see anything wrong with what they're saying? To me it just seems to be people saying that they used to feel miserable but that the fat positivity movement has made them feel happier and healthier. --- This is a quote from that link: "less diet, less changing your body". This is the mentality I have a problem with. It's the people who follow this type of [advice.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_UYXNIuAEmI) That I have a problem with. --- Diets don't work, though. Encouraging people to be more active, by say, going out to the beach however... --- I never said they did. It's a case of again, eating and exercising moderately. --- I don't think you understand the purpose of the movement. The purpose is to take pressure OFF dieting and weight loss. To say that it's okay not to have to be thinking about it all the time. The result of the movement is actually that it makes people healthier, mentally and physically, because people feel like they can actually feel good about themselves and go out more rather than being shut-in. And if you're really concerned about health? Then we need to start enforcing Government guidelines on the amount of sugar and exercise people get in a day, because fat people aren't the only ones with bad diets. We also need to stop people from driving, which is the highest cause of accidental death. Also, we need to ban smoking and alcohol. But it's not about health, it's about shaming fat people. --- Obesity health related issues cost 200 billion a year. To put is simply to take care of our obese population for 5 years, it costs 1 Trillion Dollars. Money that can go to other things like school or other things. And your examples are completely safe in moderation. Just like food. I agree with them on some things. I just think we have different answers to the problem. --- So what do you think will help? Because clearly fat shaming doesn't help. Body positivity does help, but you feel that it's damaging, even though it gets results and makes people live healthier lives. What do you think is the solution? --- We start a nation wide program that rewards people for losing weight. Because rates of obesity is only going up. It's not slowing down. --- That's an interesting proposal. What happens if you lose weight and put it on again (like diets)? And what's stopping people from gaining weight just to lose it, for the rewards? --- The thing is, you have to keep it off for two weeks or more. 1$ a pound. --- Cool, so what happens if you put it on again after 2 weeks? And again, what stops people from gaining weight just so they can lose it? Also, $1 per pound isn't a lot of incentive tbh... --- Well it would be targeting the poor. It's more like a rough idea TBF. --- That's not really answering any of my questions, though... Wouldn't this just incentivise a cycle of weight loss and weight gain? --- Yes. Look, there are probably experts who have way better ideas and knowledge about health and exercise than I do. It's more about spitballing and idea. It's better than a fat tax. That was my first idea. Then I realized how 1984 it sounded. --- Do you also want to do something similar to smokers, people who choose to drink, people who do extreme sports, etc? Because those are also all groups whose lifestyles are directly linked to a heavier burden on the healthcare system. If you don't want to penalize/incentivise people to quit smoking, drinking, and dangerous sports, then really all you're saying is that you want to penalize fat people because you don't like seeing fatness.	Here's a number of things to consider: 1. We tend to lump overweight and obesity in one category, but people who are overweight by BMI are as healthy as those in the normal category yet get discriminated against. 2. BMI is a meaningless number for many reasons and so "obese" (or fat) as a category doesn't really mean anything... 3. A lot of people suffer from eating disorders as a result of body shaming. 30 million is an estimate, but way more since this is usually underreported. This causes life long physical/mental complications. 4. Accumulation of fats in bodies is not just a result of eating/exercise. Science now points to epigenetics (linked to toxins, starvation), stress, artificial light, gut bacteria etc as other variables. Body size is not just a matter of trying hard or willpower. For all those reasons, we need body positivity advocates. --- 1. Yes, but by that logic, people who use drugs should continue you too. I mean sure if they continue they might become addicts. But they aren't now. So keep injecting that needle. 2. Citation needed. 3. You don't even need to be an athlete. Just eat and exercise moderately. 4. Well, humans have been doing exercise and moderate eating for thousands of years and we've been doing pretty good. It's only when we got access to fast food when the problem started s --- 1. That's only bc you assume that people who are overweight and/or obese do not exercise at all and/or only eat "junk" food. That is not necessarily true. Body size doesn't necessarily correlate to health (see point 3). This book is very well researched piece on the subject http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266254. You can't use drug addiction to compare that - a drug addict is actually actively using. 2. Yes, sure in some cases that can keep weight in check. However, psychology is more complicated and the opposite of fat positivity is not "exercise every now and then". Just look at any movie/show/magazine and think about the messages it gives to people. 30 million eating disorders is a pretty sad side effect. 3. See above. I can outline the points from the book if you like. 4. We don't actually have any data about human size historically so you can't argue we did well, we don't know. By the same argument, we've only put endocrine disruptors into our environment for the past 70 years or so. Similar with artificial light. Sure we only had fast food since the 50s or so, but that is true of most modern products. --- 1a. The Link didn't work. 1b. Well, it is true, many US people live more sedentary life styles. 2a. BMI is a way for the average joe to determine their situation. 2b. Are people really that stupid these days. Most people I think can tell fiction from reality. I'm not insecure because I'm not buff like Arnold. I realize that he is a man who was dedicated to fitness, and even used roids to get there. Only people who had low self esteem or those who have no grasp on reality would believe that everyone can become a super model. 4. Fast Food is a big part of the obesity epidemic. --- 1. I'm sorry it works for me. Another here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pp061. again, well researched book supported my many scholarly articles across disciplines. 2. Again, not necessarily true. BMI is an artificial measure. In 1997, the "normal" value of BMI was moved from 27 to 25 making millions of Americans overweight overnight. That's how random the number is. 2b. This is not about stupidity. I would strongly suggest you read a little bit about the subconscious effect of these messages. I understand my situation well, yet when targeted by thousands of messages about what an acceptable body is every day, I am affected by it. That doesn't even account for people who are actually bullied for their size. Fast food is a big part of obesity epidemic - you need data supporting that. --- 1. Sorry. Doesn't work. I'm using a phone. 2. I can concede on this point. 2b. Yes, there are minor effects. Like making me want to eat at a McDonalds. But I think most people understand that these people are exceptions. They are people dedicated to their goal. I don't think people are that easily manipulated. 3. [Source](http://www.news-medical.net/health/Obesity-and-Fast-Food.aspx) --- Can I ask for clarification? I thought we were talking about eating disorders but now we're onto fast food. I'm not sure I follow your 2. Argument. Regardless, most of the marketing discipline revolves around making you consume (or not consume). Again, I'm not sure where you get your "most people" numbers. A lot of psychological studies for instance demonstrate the effect of priming on behavior - it has nothing to do with your intelligence level. Who you spend time with, where, what kinds of ads are around you all have an effect. --- You asked for data supporting my claim about fast food. I gave it to you. I can concede on that front. It could just be a me thing, but Ads never effected me as a kid or now. --- You didn't really give me data though. You gave me a poorly sourced summary article. Where's the data/explanation of how it was obtained? I am looking for data showing increased calorie intake (due to fast food or otherwise, this should not matter right?) Over the past 50 or so years and correlation to obesity. I checked all the sources and don't see much. --- Are you trying to tell me fast food isn't a cause in this issue? [Obesity Rates have sky rocketed in the last 50 years. ](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity) --- All you are showing me is that obesity "skyrocketed". Again, I need to see data showing an accurate consumption of fast food/measurement of calories vs. weight gain of population. You have so far ignored my points about other possible culprits including endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, hunger (via epigenetics), artificial life, stress and so on. All of these appeared in the last 50-70 years and could have affected our generations weight. You conceded that BMI doesn't mean anything, can't argue than that increase in BMI means anything. --- No scientist wouldn't say that obesity and fast food [aren't connected.](http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/fast-food-cause-obesity.html) --- I'm a scientist. I would say we don't have enough evidence to make this claim. I'd love to continue reading this argument - but you have to agree to read the study this very basic article is referencing so we can discuss it with specifics, not just generic statements. --- One reason that fast food causes so much unhealthy lifestyles are for one thing it's affordability. It's much cheaper than buying healthier alternatives. They are also much more convenient than other more healthy sources of food. Another is that portion sizes are getting bigger and bigger. They are smothered in salt, sugar and fats. Lacking minerals and vitamins. The only people who can get this type of food is the rich which is why poor people have poorer health. And it is why more fat people happen to be low income. Edit: Was part of the problem what they defined as "fast food?". --- Affordability/fast food can but doesn't have to be true. Again, I'd ask for evidence of fast food being more affordable (depends on what you count/where/how). But that again does not link fast food to unhealthy lifestyle. Portion sizes are getting bigger and bigger not just in fast food. Have you gone to a non fast food restaurant recently? That is not necessarily true also. People who are more affluent still consume for instance alcohol/creamy cheese. In fact, rich and poor people don't eat that differently... https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households None of this is accounting for a difference in location with respect to other factors causing obesity. Nor do they account for stress/inflammation linked to obesity associated with living in poverty. --- My Citation [relating to the claim that fastfood targets the low income](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/12/the-disturbing-ways-that-fast-food-chains-disproportionately-target-black-kids/). [More proof](https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/e6ec01ec19d) I always thought that rich people tended to eat at home more while poor income earners almost always get fast food. [Proof fast food is cheaper](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketplace.org/amp/2016/03/04/business/why-fast-food-cheap-really-cheap) Stress causes obesity? I never heard that. Sorry If I seem like a hard head moron. Im also curious. What field of science are you in? I'm quite young and naive. Thought I had the world figured out. Guess I'm wrong, 😂. --- Overall, my recommendation is to read the actual articles rather than sending short sensationalizing summaries. If you agree that fast food is targeting poor people, than you have to concede that advertising is actually effective. (And I agree with fast food targeting poor neighborhoods btw). Fast food cheaper - depends on the study. What do you include, how do you count etc., These comparisons are actually hard to do scientifically. Think for yourself - how would you actually do such comparison? I have MS/PhD in both social/physical sciences. And no, you're not a hard head moron. You just grew up in a neoliberalist-capitalist paradigm that's shaping your understanding of the world. It shapes mine too. Everything is more complicated than it seems and these paradigms are hard to break when we don't know anything else.	6kpjqb	CMV: Fat Acceptance/ Body Positivity although it sounds great in theory is in fact a negative movement in the long run.	Now, let me get this out of the way. In theory the values FA, espouses such as respecting fat People and being yourself sounds great. But there are many problems I have with this movement. This is coming from a teenager on the "heavier" side. So don't take this as belittling. I'm on the same boat. 1. Health Problems: Where I live (America), we have [high rates of obesity](http://stateofobesity.org/rates/). Which is linked with a cornucopia of health risks including High Blood Pressure, strokes, heart attacks, blood clots and many other health issues. This movement tells women that they are okay just the way they are. While it may be true for some. Others are in need of a lifestyle change in order to prevent health issues in the future. 2. Accepting Defeat: Instead of helping women/men reach goals for themselves, encouraging them to work on themselves and improve. They instead tell them they are beautiful just the way they are. It's a movement that seems to encourage self defeat. "Why even try?" They say. "It's just a societal/cultural standard anyways". 3. Objective reasons: Humans evolved to find mates that are "healthy". While at one point heavier people were honor because they unlike most people had access to resources others didn't. Now in age where you can get or eat anything you want, people are now attracted to skinny people. Our brains associate health with slimness. You can not simply override evolution. TL:DR, it's a self defeating movement, that encourages an unhealthy way of life that prevents people from finding true fulfillment. CMV: FA is a negative movement in the long run.	mcgrathc09	19	17	[ { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djntacm", "score": 104, "text": "Body positivity isn't about denying that there are health risks involved with obesity, it's about the fact that fat people are treated negatively. Fat people know that they are fat. Being constantly reminded of this fact is not going to combat this. In fact, it can lead to further self-destructive behaviours due to emotional eating.\n\nIf someone treats you like a garbage person because you're overweight, that's not going to motivate you to lose weight. Feeling negative about yourself does not create positive change. In fact, if anything, body positivity and feeling better about yourself is more motivational than feeling bad.\n\nFat negativity is not about people being concerned for your health - I've experienced this personally, where people have made fun of me for going to the gym, as a fat person. That's not being concerned for my health, that's just punishing me for being a fat person who exists and is ACTIVELY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.\n\nBody positivity motivates, body negativity stifles.", "timestamp": 1498945286 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djntmuu", "score": 12, "text": "I agree. It's not that I am against treating people with respect. I just find that it's a movement that seems to attract people who don't want to change IMO. Although yes, we need to stop treating people like crap. But not everyone who pulls you out of crap is your friend. Sometimes you need to push on and keep on going regardless of what people say.", "timestamp": 1498945776 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djntyzz", "score": 29, "text": "I think the point of the movement is that it's their choice, though. And it being their choice empowers them to make that choice, whereas people shaming them just makes them get fatter.", "timestamp": 1498946249 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnu62z", "score": -2, "text": "If that was all they are saying then I would have no problems. But things like [this ](https://www.google.com/amp/www.refinery29.com/amp/2017/06/158264/all-woman-project-real-women-confidence-campaign) tell another story. ", "timestamp": 1498946533 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnu9kt", "score": 20, "text": "I don't see anything wrong with what they're saying? To me it just seems to be people saying that they used to feel miserable but that the fat positivity movement has made them feel happier and healthier.", "timestamp": 1498946677 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnud44", "score": 6, "text": "This is a quote from that link:\n\n\"less diet, less changing your body\".\n\nThis is the mentality I have a problem with.\n\nIt's the people who follow this type of [advice.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_UYXNIuAEmI) That I have a problem with. ", "timestamp": 1498946821 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnug73", "score": 9, "text": "Diets don't work, though. Encouraging people to be more active, by say, going out to the beach however...", "timestamp": 1498946948 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnuptk", "score": 5, "text": "I never said they did. It's a case of again, eating and exercising moderately. \n", "timestamp": 1498947341 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnux7e", "score": 29, "text": "I don't think you understand the purpose of the movement. The purpose is to take pressure OFF dieting and weight loss. To say that it's okay not to have to be thinking about it all the time. The result of the movement is actually that it makes people healthier, mentally and physically, because people feel like they can actually feel good about themselves and go out more rather than being shut-in.\n\nAnd if you're really concerned about health? Then we need to start enforcing Government guidelines on the amount of sugar and exercise people get in a day, because fat people aren't the only ones with bad diets.\n\nWe also need to stop people from driving, which is the highest cause of accidental death. Also, we need to ban smoking and alcohol.\n\nBut it's not about health, it's about shaming fat people.", "timestamp": 1498947642 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnv3ed", "score": 2, "text": "Obesity health related issues cost 200 billion a year. To put is simply to take care of our obese population for 5 years, it costs 1 Trillion Dollars. Money that can go to other things like school or other things. \n\nAnd your examples are completely safe in moderation. Just like food. \n\nI agree with them on some things. I just think we have different answers to the problem.", "timestamp": 1498947902 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnvfgu", "score": 6, "text": "So what do you think will help? Because clearly fat shaming doesn't help. Body positivity does help, but you feel that it's damaging, even though it gets results and makes people live healthier lives. What do you think is the solution?", "timestamp": 1498948398 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnw381", "score": 0, "text": "We start a nation wide program that rewards people for losing weight. Because rates of obesity is only going up. It's not slowing down. ", "timestamp": 1498949381 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnwgi2", "score": 5, "text": "That's an interesting proposal. What happens if you lose weight and put it on again (like diets)?\n\nAnd what's stopping people from gaining weight just to lose it, for the rewards?", "timestamp": 1498949932 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnwigq", "score": 0, "text": "The thing is, you have to keep it off for two weeks or more. 1$ a pound. ", "timestamp": 1498950012 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnwk4x", "score": 3, "text": "Cool, so what happens if you put it on again after 2 weeks? And again, what stops people from gaining weight just so they can lose it?\n\nAlso, $1 per pound isn't a lot of incentive tbh...", "timestamp": 1498950082 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnwu6u", "score": 1, "text": "Well it would be targeting the poor. \n\nIt's more like a rough idea TBF. ", "timestamp": 1498950502 }, { "author": "inkwat", "id": "djnwyjo", "score": 6, "text": "That's not really answering any of my questions, though...\n\nWouldn't this just incentivise a cycle of weight loss and weight gain?", "timestamp": 1498950687 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnx46b", "score": 1, "text": "Yes. Look, there are probably experts who have way better ideas and knowledge about health and exercise than I do. It's more about spitballing and idea. \n\nIt's better than a fat tax. That was my first idea. Then I realized how 1984 it sounded. ", "timestamp": 1498950927 }, { "author": "M_de_Monty", "id": "djo3xg2", "score": 7, "text": "Do you also want to do something similar to smokers, people who choose to drink, people who do extreme sports, etc? Because those are also all groups whose lifestyles are directly linked to a heavier burden on the healthcare system. If you don't want to penalize/incentivise people to quit smoking, drinking, and dangerous sports, then really all you're saying is that you want to penalize fat people because you don't like seeing fatness.", "timestamp": 1498961587 } ]	[ { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djnufxz", "score": 7, "text": "Here's a number of things to consider: \n\n1. We tend to lump overweight and obesity in one category, but people who are overweight by BMI are as healthy as those in the normal category yet get discriminated against. \n\n2. BMI is a meaningless number for many reasons and so \"obese\" (or fat) as a category doesn't really mean anything...\n\n3. A lot of people suffer from eating disorders as a result of body shaming. 30 million is an estimate, but way more since this is usually underreported. This causes life long physical/mental complications. \n\n4. Accumulation of fats in bodies is not just a result of eating/exercise. Science now points to epigenetics (linked to toxins, starvation), stress, artificial light, gut bacteria etc as other variables. Body size is not just a matter of trying hard or willpower. \n\nFor all those reasons, we need body positivity advocates. ", "timestamp": 1498946938 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnuo40", "score": 3, "text": "1. Yes, but by that logic, people who use drugs should continue you too. I mean sure if they continue they might become addicts. But they aren't now. So keep injecting that needle. \n\n2. Citation needed. \n\n3. You don't even need to be an athlete. Just eat and exercise moderately. \n\n4. Well, humans have been doing exercise and moderate eating for thousands of years and we've been doing pretty good. It's only when we got access to fast food when the problem started s ", "timestamp": 1498947270 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djnwcbr", "score": 7, "text": "1. That's only bc you assume that people who are overweight and/or obese do not exercise at all and/or only eat \"junk\" food. That is not necessarily true. Body size doesn't necessarily correlate to health (see point 3). This book is very well researched piece on the subject http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266254. You can't use drug addiction to compare that - a drug addict is actually actively using. \n\n2. Yes, sure in some cases that can keep weight in check. However, psychology is more complicated and the opposite of fat positivity is not \"exercise every now and then\". Just look at any movie/show/magazine and think about the messages it gives to people. 30 million eating disorders is a pretty sad side effect. \n\n3. See above. I can outline the points from the book if you like. \n\n4. We don't actually have any data about human size historically so you can't argue we did well, we don't know. By the same argument, we've only put endocrine disruptors into our environment for the past 70 years or so. Similar with artificial light. Sure we only had fast food since the 50s or so, but that is true of most modern products. ", "timestamp": 1498949759 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnws4o", "score": 1, "text": "1a. The Link didn't work. \n\n1b. Well, it is true, many US people live more sedentary life styles. \n\n2a. BMI is a way for the average joe to determine their situation. \n\n2b. Are people really that stupid these days. Most people I think can tell fiction from reality. I'm not insecure because I'm not buff like Arnold. I realize that he is a man who was dedicated to fitness, and even used roids to get there. Only people who had low self esteem or those who have no grasp on reality would believe that everyone can become a super model. \n\n4. Fast Food is a big part of the obesity epidemic. ", "timestamp": 1498950417 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djnxh9w", "score": 2, "text": "1. I'm sorry it works for me. Another here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pp061. again, well researched book supported my many scholarly articles across disciplines. \n\n2. Again, not necessarily true. BMI is an artificial measure. In 1997, the \"normal\" value of BMI was moved from 27 to 25 making millions of Americans overweight overnight. That's how random the number is. \n\n2b. This is not about stupidity. I would strongly suggest you read a little bit about the subconscious effect of these messages. I understand my situation well, yet when targeted by thousands of messages about what an acceptable body is every day, I am affected by it. That doesn't even account for people who are actually bullied for their size. \n\nFast food is a big part of obesity epidemic - you need data supporting that.", "timestamp": 1498951477 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnxohr", "score": 1, "text": "1. Sorry. Doesn't work. I'm using a phone. \n\n2. I can concede on this point. \n\n2b. Yes, there are minor effects. Like making me want to eat at a McDonalds. But I think most people understand that these people are exceptions. They are people dedicated to their goal. I don't think people are that easily manipulated. \n\n3. [Source](http://www.news-medical.net/health/Obesity-and-Fast-Food.aspx) ", "timestamp": 1498951776 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djny0zc", "score": 3, "text": "Can I ask for clarification? \n\nI thought we were talking about eating disorders but now we're onto fast food. I'm not sure I follow your 2. Argument. \n\nRegardless, most of the marketing discipline revolves around making you consume (or not consume). Again, I'm not sure where you get your \"most people\" numbers. A lot of psychological studies for instance demonstrate the effect of priming on behavior - it has nothing to do with your intelligence level. Who you spend time with, where, what kinds of ads are around you all have an effect.", "timestamp": 1498952302 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnybpl", "score": 0, "text": "You asked for data supporting my claim about fast food. I gave it to you. \n\nI can concede on that front. It could just be a me thing, but Ads never effected me as a kid or now. ", "timestamp": 1498952750 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djnzaay", "score": 2, "text": "You didn't really give me data though. You gave me a poorly sourced summary article. Where's the data/explanation of how it was obtained? I am looking for data showing increased calorie intake (due to fast food or otherwise, this should not matter right?) Over the past 50 or so years and correlation to obesity. I checked all the sources and don't see much.", "timestamp": 1498954224 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnzdjv", "score": 1, "text": "Are you trying to tell me fast food isn't a cause in this issue? \n\n[Obesity Rates have sky rocketed in the last 50 years. ](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity) ", "timestamp": 1498954363 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djnzvzj", "score": 2, "text": "All you are showing me is that obesity \"skyrocketed\". Again, I need to see data showing an accurate consumption of fast food/measurement of calories vs. weight gain of population. \n\nYou have so far ignored my points about other possible culprits including endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, hunger (via epigenetics), artificial life, stress and so on. All of these appeared in the last 50-70 years and could have affected our generations weight. \n\nYou conceded that BMI doesn't mean anything, can't argue than that increase in BMI means anything. ", "timestamp": 1498955173 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djnzyx4", "score": 1, "text": "No scientist wouldn't say that obesity and fast food [aren't connected.](http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/fast-food-cause-obesity.html) ", "timestamp": 1498955302 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djo0j04", "score": 2, "text": "I'm a scientist. I would say we don't have enough evidence to make this claim. \n\nI'd love to continue reading this argument - but you have to agree to read the study this very basic article is referencing so we can discuss it with specifics, not just generic statements. ", "timestamp": 1498956174 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djo16x6", "score": 1, "text": "One reason that fast food causes so much unhealthy lifestyles are for one thing it's affordability. It's much cheaper than buying healthier alternatives. They are also much more convenient than other more healthy sources of food. \n\nAnother is that portion sizes are getting bigger and bigger. They are smothered in salt, sugar and fats. Lacking minerals and vitamins. \n\nThe only people who can get this type of food is the rich which is why poor people have poorer health. And it is why more fat people happen to be low income. \n\n\nEdit: Was part of the problem what they defined as \"fast food?\".", "timestamp": 1498957195 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djo1hb8", "score": 1, "text": "Affordability/fast food can but doesn't have to be true. Again, I'd ask for evidence of fast food being more affordable (depends on what you count/where/how). But that again does not link fast food to unhealthy lifestyle. \n\nPortion sizes are getting bigger and bigger not just in fast food. Have you gone to a non fast food restaurant recently? \n\nThat is not necessarily true also. People who are more affluent still consume for instance alcohol/creamy cheese. In fact, rich and poor people don't eat that differently... https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households\n\nNone of this is accounting for a difference in location with respect to other factors causing obesity. Nor do they account for stress/inflammation linked to obesity associated with living in poverty. ", "timestamp": 1498957653 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", "id": "djo1x1i", "score": 1, "text": "My Citation [relating to the claim that fastfood targets the low income](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/12/the-disturbing-ways-that-fast-food-chains-disproportionately-target-black-kids/).\n\n[More proof](https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/e6ec01ec19d) \n\nI always thought that rich people tended to eat at home more while poor income earners almost always get fast food. \n\n[Proof fast food is cheaper](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketplace.org/amp/2016/03/04/business/why-fast-food-cheap-really-cheap) \n\n\n\n\nStress causes obesity? I never heard that. \n\n\nSorry If I seem like a hard head moron. Im also curious. What field of science are you in? I'm quite young and naive. Thought I had the world figured out. Guess I'm wrong, 😂.\n\n", "timestamp": 1498958351 }, { "author": "CatNamedMoriarty", "id": "djo2ei0", "score": 1, "text": "Overall, my recommendation is to read the actual articles rather than sending short sensationalizing summaries. \n\nIf you agree that fast food is targeting poor people, than you have to concede that advertising is actually effective. (And I agree with fast food targeting poor neighborhoods btw). \n\nFast food cheaper - depends on the study. What do you include, how do you count etc., These comparisons are actually hard to do scientifically. Think for yourself - how would you actually do such comparison? \n\nI have MS/PhD in both social/physical sciences. And no, you're not a hard head moron. You just grew up in a neoliberalist-capitalist paradigm that's shaping your understanding of the world. It shapes mine too. Everything is more complicated than it seems and these paradigms are hard to break when we don't know anything else. ", "timestamp": 1498959144 } ]	[ "djntacm", "djntmuu", "djntyzz", "djnu62z", "djnu9kt", "djnud44", "djnug73", "djnuptk", "djnux7e", "djnv3ed", "djnvfgu", "djnw381", "djnwgi2", "djnwigq", "djnwk4x", "djnwu6u", "djnwyjo", "djnx46b", "djo3xg2" ]	[ "djnufxz", "djnuo40", "djnwcbr", "djnws4o", "djnxh9w", "djnxohr", "djny0zc", "djnybpl", "djnzaay", "djnzdjv", "djnzvzj", "djnzyx4", "djo0j04", "djo16x6", "djo1hb8", "djo1x1i", "djo2ei0" ]
CMV: we should have a permanent colony either completely underwater or in the middle of Antarctica before colonizing the moon this way we would have experience with the loisitcal difficulties of having a colony in a hard to reach place that is very hard for normal humans to live in and hard to reach. yes i know the international space station exists but that isnt self sustaining yet, and as such is more of a space pit stop at this point. having a colony/city fully underwater and able to sustain itself would give us experience with working in low oxygen environments, and be a good place to train astronauts due to the pressure down there. having a self sustaning colony in the middle of antarctica would give us practice with having a colony in harsh cold, along with there being no living organisms naturally there above the size of bacteria. we could also practice terraforming down there. _____ > 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!*	Idk about Antarctica, but we actually got to the moon decades before we got to “the bottom of the ocean”. This suggests that lunar expiration may be easier than oceanic colonization. Also all the challenges seem backwards, so I don’t know how much colonizing the ocean floor will help with the moon. On the moon you only need to maintain one atmosphere of pressure and have plenty of sunlight to grow crops and use solar panels. Under the ocean you have hundred of times that pressure to deal with. The biggest hurdle with colonizing space is getting the stuff there, this would not really be an issue with the ocean. You could just build the habitat or whatever on land and sink it. --- and you could premake the lunar colony dome or similar structure and send it via rocket to the moon. you would have to maintain the same level of pressure no matter which you do first, so either one would help the other. its also a lot less expensive to build a test run colony underwater on earth than have your lunar colony fail because no one tested anything out in the field. --- > premake the lunar colony dome Too big to launch, extremely difficult to assemble in orbit, too big to soft-land. A dome of any appreciable size would have a difficult centre of gravity to manage and be very large, so softlanding it would be hard. Much MUCH much much easier to make bricks out of local regolith on Mars or the Moon, or find lava tubes and seal them in somehow. Mars is actually an EASIER target to reach than the Moon in some ways, because you have a nice soft cushion (atmosphere) to slow you down for a landing. Once you're in LEO you need 4200m/s to get to Mars transfer orbit, and you can aerobrake a lot of the remaining 5300m/sec you'd need to actually land. The Moon, on the other hand, needs 5700m/sec to transfer, make orbit, and land, in vacuum the entire way.	If we colonize the moon through robots rather than people, would the antarctic portion still be necessary? --- arguably, yes. we could use the antarctic colony as a test run for the robots --- what's to test for, if they are robots with simple requirements?	8r55oq	CMV: we should have a permanent colony either completely underwater or in the middle of Antarctica before colonizing the moon	this way we would have experience with the loisitcal difficulties of having a colony in a hard to reach place that is very hard for normal humans to live in and hard to reach. yes i know the international space station exists but that isnt self sustaining yet, and as such is more of a space pit stop at this point. having a colony/city fully underwater and able to sustain itself would give us experience with working in low oxygen environments, and be a good place to train astronauts due to the pressure down there. having a self sustaning colony in the middle of antarctica would give us practice with having a colony in harsh cold, along with there being no living organisms naturally there above the size of bacteria. we could also practice terraforming down there. _____ > 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!*	magna-terra	3	3	[ { "author": "HeWhoShitsWithPhone", "id": "e0oiu4a", "score": 1, "text": "Idk about Antarctica, but we actually got to the moon decades before we got to “the bottom of the ocean”. This suggests that lunar expiration may be easier than oceanic colonization. Also all the challenges seem backwards, so I don’t know how much colonizing the ocean floor will help with the moon. On the moon you only need to maintain one atmosphere of pressure and have plenty of sunlight to grow crops and use solar panels. Under the ocean you have hundred of times that pressure to deal with. \nThe biggest hurdle with colonizing space is getting the stuff there, this would not really be an issue with the ocean. You could just build the habitat or whatever on land and sink it. ", "timestamp": 1529009332 }, { "author": "magna-terra", "id": "e0ojm4q", "score": 1, "text": "and you could premake the lunar colony dome or similar structure and send it via rocket to the moon.\n\nyou would have to maintain the same level of pressure no matter which you do first, so either one would help the other. its also a lot less expensive to build a test run colony underwater on earth than have your lunar colony fail because no one tested anything out in the field. ", "timestamp": 1529010017 }, { "author": "arrbos", "id": "e0om9kq", "score": 2, "text": "> premake the lunar colony dome \n\nToo big to launch, extremely difficult to assemble in orbit, too big to soft-land. A dome of any appreciable size would have a difficult centre of gravity to manage and be very large, so softlanding it would be hard. Much MUCH much much easier to make bricks out of local regolith on Mars or the Moon, or find lava tubes and seal them in somehow.\n\nMars is actually an EASIER target to reach than the Moon in some ways, because you have a nice soft cushion (atmosphere) to slow you down for a landing. Once you're in LEO you need 4200m/s to get to Mars transfer orbit, and you can aerobrake a lot of the remaining 5300m/sec you'd need to actually land.\n\nThe Moon, on the other hand, needs 5700m/sec to transfer, make orbit, and land, in vacuum the entire way.", "timestamp": 1529012431 } ]	[ { "author": "coryrenton", "id": "e0oicgz", "score": 1, "text": "If we colonize the moon through robots rather than people, would the antarctic portion still be necessary?", "timestamp": 1529008907 }, { "author": "magna-terra", "id": "e0oiflm", "score": 1, "text": "arguably, yes. we could use the antarctic colony as a test run for the robots", "timestamp": 1529008982 }, { "author": "coryrenton", "id": "e0oiuk9", "score": 1, "text": "what's to test for, if they are robots with simple requirements?", "timestamp": 1529009342 } ]	[ "e0oiu4a", "e0ojm4q", "e0om9kq" ]	[ "e0oicgz", "e0oiflm", "e0oiuk9" ]
CMV: Anything below 24K gold is not "real" gold I want you to change my mind on this. It could potentially save me a lot of money. This post is in the context of jewelry....   In my mind, any gold below 24K (100% purity) is not real gold. It is diluted and watered down, and it almost feels "phony" or cheap to me. It is lying about what it is - it keeps its gold color but conceals the fact that it is contaminated with additives. It is like a counterfeit rolex or a fake gucci. It is like someone injecting synthol to make it look like they have more muscle. It is like someone wearing contacts to make it look like they have blue eyes. It is not the real thing, just pretending to be it. Gold below 24K seems like its not real gold...if you are going to dilute it anyway, why not just have a yellow piece of plastic? It seems like the same thing   Things that will not change my mind: * Gold doesn't even matter just get a tungsten ring instead its cheaper * Stop being materialistic, it shouldn't matter if its gold or not * 24K gold bends too easily, I cant wear a 24K gold ring while im working on machines and engines   Please change my view	>In my mind, any gold below 24K (100% purity) is not real gold. It is diluted and watered down, and it almost feels "phony" or cheap to me. Why? You're spending more money when no one looking at it could tell, right? I mean, sure, I could perform a purity test on it to prove it's real gold, but I'm not going to do that to verify your watch or earrings are genuine. You know who does care though? The gold and jewelry industry. Why? $$$ They've convinced you that this metal, thats indistinguishable from a cheaper alloy, is totally worth an inflated price tag. Not as bad as the diamond industry mind you, but still. What are you truly getting for you money? --- Gold is objectively valuable and is recognized as such almost everywhere, and it retains its value over time. To me it is even more precious than art - while art has a subjective value, gold has an objective and quantifiable value than can be physically measured --- It's not objectively valuable, it's just had high subjective value for a long time because of its rarity. Two points worth considering: * The rise of cryptocurrency could undermine gold's position as a store of wealth, since gold is hard to transport and information is not. This could massively decrease the price. * There's a lot of fake bullion bars in bank vaults around the world, filled with tungsten. We're one scandal away from a price crash * New mining techniques in future might cause an abundance of gold, killing its value. It is however an excellent conductor, so it'll never be valueless. But there was a time when aluminium was more expensive than gold, so you can't take its future value for granted. It's still a reasonably safe store of value for now though.	its all real gold. if you melt down any karrot of gold and separate it you will have a pile of real gold. it may have other stuff with it, but there is still real gold there, and that’s enough for most people --- Is it a real picasso if he only painted the corner --- yes, because as long as it’s advertised as “corner Picasso” your still getting art by Picasso, even if its only the corner	qcjj90	CMV: Anything below 24K gold is not "real" gold	I want you to change my mind on this. It could potentially save me a lot of money. This post is in the context of jewelry....   In my mind, any gold below 24K (100% purity) is not real gold. It is diluted and watered down, and it almost feels "phony" or cheap to me. It is lying about what it is - it keeps its gold color but conceals the fact that it is contaminated with additives. It is like a counterfeit rolex or a fake gucci. It is like someone injecting synthol to make it look like they have more muscle. It is like someone wearing contacts to make it look like they have blue eyes. It is not the real thing, just pretending to be it. Gold below 24K seems like its not real gold...if you are going to dilute it anyway, why not just have a yellow piece of plastic? It seems like the same thing   Things that will not change my mind: * Gold doesn't even matter just get a tungsten ring instead its cheaper * Stop being materialistic, it shouldn't matter if its gold or not * 24K gold bends too easily, I cant wear a 24K gold ring while im working on machines and engines   Please change my view	7888790787887788	3	3	[ { "author": "Feathring", "id": "hhgf6eu", "score": 3, "text": ">In my mind, any gold below 24K (100% purity) is not real gold. It is diluted and watered down, and it almost feels \"phony\" or cheap to me.\n\nWhy? You're spending more money when no one looking at it could tell, right? I mean, sure, I could perform a purity test on it to prove it's real gold, but I'm not going to do that to verify your watch or earrings are genuine. You know who does care though? The gold and jewelry industry.\n\nWhy? $$$ They've convinced you that this metal, thats indistinguishable from a cheaper alloy, is totally worth an inflated price tag. Not as bad as the diamond industry mind you, but still. What are you truly getting for you money?", "timestamp": 1634791476 }, { "author": "7888790787887788", "id": "hhgfh7b", "score": -1, "text": "Gold is objectively valuable and is recognized as such almost everywhere, and it retains its value over time. To me it is even more precious than art - while art has a subjective value, gold has an objective and quantifiable value than can be physically measured", "timestamp": 1634791671 }, { "author": "david-song", "id": "hhggjh0", "score": 10, "text": "It's not objectively valuable, it's just had high subjective value for a long time because of its rarity. Two points worth considering:\n\n* The rise of cryptocurrency could undermine gold's position as a store of wealth, since gold is hard to transport and information is not. This could massively decrease the price.\n* There's a lot of fake bullion bars in bank vaults around the world, filled with tungsten. We're one scandal away from a price crash\n* New mining techniques in future might cause an abundance of gold, killing its value.\n\nIt is however an excellent conductor, so it'll never be valueless. But there was a time when aluminium was more expensive than gold, so you can't take its future value for granted. It's still a reasonably safe store of value for now though.", "timestamp": 1634792377 } ]	[ { "author": "only_50potatoes", "id": "hhgfsxk", "score": 2, "text": "its all real gold. if you melt down any karrot of gold and separate it you will have a pile of real gold. it may have other stuff with it, but there is still real gold there, and that’s enough for most people", "timestamp": 1634791882 }, { "author": "7888790787887788", "id": "hhgfx8f", "score": -1, "text": "Is it a real picasso if he only painted the corner", "timestamp": 1634791961 }, { "author": "only_50potatoes", "id": "hhgg2io", "score": 7, "text": "yes, because as long as it’s advertised as “corner Picasso” your still getting art by Picasso, even if its only the corner", "timestamp": 1634792061 } ]	[ "hhgf6eu", "hhgfh7b", "hhggjh0" ]	[ "hhgfsxk", "hhgfx8f", "hhgg2io" ]
CMV: even if you're allowed to kill someone, legally speaking, you shouldn't use it as a first resort I've seen countless videos of people neutralizing intruders, etc. - we've all seen those videos - and, I've always wondered how necessary it is, and at the same time, whether or not neutralizing an intruder or aggressor is necessary, even if it's legally allowed. In my opinion, it's not necessary to end someone's life just because they punched you, or shoved you, or something, and, would like to know what different people from different countries think about this. Sure, you have a right to stand your ground, and you may have the right to end someone's life at will, but, should it be your first resort? Personally, I don't think so, but, am open to change.	I mean morally it would be preferable to somehow use less force if that is possible. But almost everywhere the only times you'd be allowed to use lethal force is exactly because it is necessary to avoid risk of death for yourself or others. If someone breaks in and points a gun at me but seems nervous, well I might guess there is a good chance they don't actually intend to shoot me. I COULD gamble with my life in order to save theirs but I don't think there is a moral imperative to do that. If however their gun was a fake and I knew it for sure, well I might get away with shooting and claiming not to have noticed, but not getting caught doesn't make my action legal. FYI 99% of the time, there really is no way to know if some hypothetical intruder wishes to steal your money or torture your family once you are subdued. The only sensible thing is to fight like crazy and use all necessary force on the assumption of the worst if you've got any real chance of success. --- >If someone breaks in and points a gun at me but seems nervous, well I might guess there is a good chance they don't actually intend to shoot me. > >I COULD gamble with my life in order to save theirs but I don't think there is a moral imperative to do that. If someone breaks into your house and points a gun at you it obviously makes sense to shoot them because they're pointing a gun at you. Not sure if I need to give you a delta for this, but, if I do, let me know. If someone has a knife to your throat and you have a gun, yeah, shoot them. If someone pushes you on your lawn, don't immediately shoot them, IMO. --- >If someone pushes you on your lawn, don't immediately shoot them, IMO. Are they continuing to follow up on the push? Are they bigger than you? Do they seem incredibly angry?	Suppose you're a woman living alone and a strange man breaks your window and enters your bedroom. At what point, would you be justified in using a gun. --- >Suppose you're a woman living alone and a man breaks your window and enters your bedroom. At what point, would you be justified in using a gun. If someone breaks into your house and enters your bedroom, they're probably there to rob you or hurt you, and in that case, sure, you could shoot them, but, only after asking them to leave, IMO. I don't think it'd be necessary to kill them immediately. --- You have to ask them to leave first after they illegally entered your home?	17twggj	CMV: even if you're allowed to kill someone, legally speaking, you shouldn't use it as a first resort	I've seen countless videos of people neutralizing intruders, etc. - we've all seen those videos - and, I've always wondered how necessary it is, and at the same time, whether or not neutralizing an intruder or aggressor is necessary, even if it's legally allowed. In my opinion, it's not necessary to end someone's life just because they punched you, or shoved you, or something, and, would like to know what different people from different countries think about this. Sure, you have a right to stand your ground, and you may have the right to end someone's life at will, but, should it be your first resort? Personally, I don't think so, but, am open to change.	Fun-Importance-1605	3	3	[ { "author": "llijilliil", "id": "k8zwab6", "score": 22, "text": "I mean morally it would be preferable to somehow use less force if that is possible.\n\nBut almost everywhere the only times you'd be allowed to use lethal force is exactly because it is necessary to avoid risk of death for yourself or others.\n\nIf someone breaks in and points a gun at me but seems nervous, well I might guess there is a good chance they don't actually intend to shoot me. I COULD gamble with my life in order to save theirs but I don't think there is a moral imperative to do that.\n\nIf however their gun was a fake and I knew it for sure, well I might get away with shooting and claiming not to have noticed, but not getting caught doesn't make my action legal.\n\nFYI\n\n99% of the time, there really is no way to know if some hypothetical intruder wishes to steal your money or torture your family once you are subdued. The only sensible thing is to fight like crazy and use all necessary force on the assumption of the worst if you've got any real chance of success.", "timestamp": 1699832237 }, { "author": "Fun-Importance-1605", "id": "k8zwli2", "score": -4, "text": ">If someone breaks in and points a gun at me but seems nervous, well I might guess there is a good chance they don't actually intend to shoot me. \n> \n>I COULD gamble with my life in order to save theirs but I don't think there is a moral imperative to do that.\n\nIf someone breaks into your house and points a gun at you it obviously makes sense to shoot them because they're pointing a gun at you.\n\nNot sure if I need to give you a delta for this, but, if I do, let me know.\n\nIf someone has a knife to your throat and you have a gun, yeah, shoot them.\n\nIf someone pushes you on your lawn, don't immediately shoot them, IMO.", "timestamp": 1699832367 }, { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "k8zyubu", "score": 7, "text": ">If someone pushes you on your lawn, don't immediately shoot them, IMO. \n\nAre they continuing to follow up on the push? Are they bigger than you? Do they seem incredibly angry?", "timestamp": 1699833292 } ]	[ { "author": "Miserable_Amoeba7217", "id": "k8zrvld", "score": 5, "text": "Suppose you're a woman living alone and a strange man breaks your window and enters your bedroom. At what point, would you be justified in using a gun.", "timestamp": 1699830451 }, { "author": "Fun-Importance-1605", "id": "k8zs1p8", "score": -2, "text": ">Suppose you're a woman living alone and a man breaks your window and enters your bedroom. At what point, would you be justified in using a gun.\n\nIf someone breaks into your house and enters your bedroom, they're probably there to rob you or hurt you, and in that case, sure, you could shoot them, but, only after asking them to leave, IMO.\n\nI don't think it'd be necessary to kill them immediately.", "timestamp": 1699830519 }, { "author": "Miserable_Amoeba7217", "id": "k8zs8gt", "score": 6, "text": "You have to ask them to leave first after they illegally entered your home?", "timestamp": 1699830596 } ]	[ "k8zwab6", "k8zwli2", "k8zyubu" ]	[ "k8zrvld", "k8zs1p8", "k8zs8gt" ]
CMV: “Reddit Narrator” YouTubers must post links. There are a lot of YouTubers that make monetized videos based off of Reddit posts (either through YouTube or by sponsors). A good portion of which do not post links to the actual Reddit post that they got the story from (read stole if they don’t post the link). Some even ensure that there is no way to identify the poster at all. (They crop/censor the video to remove any mention of OP’s Reddit account name.) This should be illegal, just like taking a quote from any other published works is illegal. As anyone who went to high school would know, in school, you would fail if you didn’t cite your sources. In real life, you get penalized for stealing other people’s work and claiming it as your own as well. While there is a difference between a scientific paper and a Reddit post, in regards to ownership? There is none. The person who created it, owns it. All others must ask permission to use. Yet some YouTubers get away with it all the time. They get away with it so often I have a step-by-step instructions on how to do it. 1. Find interesting Reddit content. 2. Screenshot post. 3. Remove anything linking it to OP. 4. Narrate (or for the extra lazy, use auto narrator). 5. Post to YouTube. 6. PROFIT!!!! (To CMV mods: I do want my view changed, however I do work at 17:45 (currently 15:05 as I’m CST). I work in a clean room and have no access to my personal phone while in the clean room. I will reply to any comments I have time to during my breaks but I would appreciate a understanding if I don’t reply for a bit. I get off work at 06:00 CST.) Edit: As there’s been some confusion, the YouTuber still needs the creators permission to post it. They ALSO need to have credit to the creator. That way the creator is easy to look up and verify permission was given. (As I already know at least 90% of videos I’m talking about are without the creators permission).	If you as a poster can prove that content is yours you can send a DMCA notice to YouTube and have your copyrighted content removed from the video. It's just going to be a bit difficult to probe that compared to say Disney proving that a movie is theirs. YouTube doesn't benefit from making this content easy to take down so they aren't going to be incentivized to make it easy as possible and since most people don't profit of of a random meme they make they aren't incentivized to out a stop to it. Basically what you are saying is already sort of true, it just doesn't really benefit anyone to go out of their way to enforce it. --- > If you as a poster can prove that content is yours you can send a DMCA notice to YouTube and have your copyrighted content removed from the video. I guessed that. That’s why the YouTubers are removing any identifying information. They don’t want the OP to know about it. This proves my point. (My point being making it illegal 100% of the time to not provide sources. Thus stopping those who don’t provide sources because their victims don’t know they are victims.) --- It's already 100% illegal to use copyrighted content. You're still arguing for a standard that already exists. There are a few issues I see though. 1) You haven't really proven these posts even qualify for copyright protections. Not every written sentence is copyrighted. There has to be a minimum amount of creativity involved as decided by a court. So do these posts even qualify for copyright in the first place? 2) In the US copyright is enforced by the copyright holder. This would seem to make it a responsibility of YouTube to enforce? YouTube doesn't own the copyright. If the copyright holder doesn't want to take any actions that's their right.	I don’t think this needs a legal solution. Post the videos to a subreddit, have people search for the comments and crowdsource tagging the authors, and give them info to easily request a takedown. No law change required. You could probably automate some of this if you were so inclined. --- That puts the burden on other people. The burden of proving a YouTube video isn’t stealing other peoples work should go to the person making money from the video. --- No, because that’s a conflict of interest, it’s like having the police investigate themselves. Of course they will claim it’s not stolen, and someone still has to verify their claims. It’s better to have an outside party hold them accountable. Once a large enough group mobilizes to get them taken down before they are profitable, it will go away	syybmp	CMV: “Reddit Narrator” YouTubers must post links.	There are a lot of YouTubers that make monetized videos based off of Reddit posts (either through YouTube or by sponsors). A good portion of which do not post links to the actual Reddit post that they got the story from (read stole if they don’t post the link). Some even ensure that there is no way to identify the poster at all. (They crop/censor the video to remove any mention of OP’s Reddit account name.) This should be illegal, just like taking a quote from any other published works is illegal. As anyone who went to high school would know, in school, you would fail if you didn’t cite your sources. In real life, you get penalized for stealing other people’s work and claiming it as your own as well. While there is a difference between a scientific paper and a Reddit post, in regards to ownership? There is none. The person who created it, owns it. All others must ask permission to use. Yet some YouTubers get away with it all the time. They get away with it so often I have a step-by-step instructions on how to do it. 1. Find interesting Reddit content. 2. Screenshot post. 3. Remove anything linking it to OP. 4. Narrate (or for the extra lazy, use auto narrator). 5. Post to YouTube. 6. PROFIT!!!! (To CMV mods: I do want my view changed, however I do work at 17:45 (currently 15:05 as I’m CST). I work in a clean room and have no access to my personal phone while in the clean room. I will reply to any comments I have time to during my breaks but I would appreciate a understanding if I don’t reply for a bit. I get off work at 06:00 CST.) Edit: As there’s been some confusion, the YouTuber still needs the creators permission to post it. They ALSO need to have credit to the creator. That way the creator is easy to look up and verify permission was given. (As I already know at least 90% of videos I’m talking about are without the creators permission).	ShadowX199	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hy0j9nu", "score": 5, "text": "If you as a poster can prove that content is yours you can send a DMCA notice to YouTube and have your copyrighted content removed from the video. It's just going to be a bit difficult to probe that compared to say Disney proving that a movie is theirs. \n\nYouTube doesn't benefit from making this content easy to take down so they aren't going to be incentivized to make it easy as possible and since most people don't profit of of a random meme they make they aren't incentivized to out a stop to it. \n\nBasically what you are saying is already sort of true, it just doesn't really benefit anyone to go out of their way to enforce it.", "timestamp": 1645564282 }, { "author": "ShadowX199", "id": "hy0jmfy", "score": 1, "text": ">\tIf you as a poster can prove that content is yours you can send a DMCA notice to YouTube and have your copyrighted content removed from the video.\n\nI guessed that. That’s why the YouTubers are removing any identifying information. They don’t want the OP to know about it.\n\nThis proves my point. (My point being making it illegal 100% of the time to not provide sources. Thus stopping those who don’t provide sources because their victims don’t know they are victims.)", "timestamp": 1645564414 }, { "author": "Feathring", "id": "hy31y0v", "score": 1, "text": "It's already 100% illegal to use copyrighted content. You're still arguing for a standard that already exists. There are a few issues I see though.\n\n1) You haven't really proven these posts even qualify for copyright protections. Not every written sentence is copyrighted. There has to be a minimum amount of creativity involved as decided by a court. So do these posts even qualify for copyright in the first place?\n\n2) In the US copyright is enforced by the copyright holder. This would seem to make it a responsibility of YouTube to enforce? YouTube doesn't own the copyright. If the copyright holder doesn't want to take any actions that's their right.", "timestamp": 1645611890 } ]	[ { "author": "GoblinRaiders", "id": "hy1ql95", "score": 2, "text": "I don’t think this needs a legal solution.\n\nPost the videos to a subreddit, have people search for the comments and crowdsource tagging the authors, and give them info to easily request a takedown.\n\nNo law change required.\n\nYou could probably automate some of this if you were so inclined.", "timestamp": 1645582516 }, { "author": "ShadowX199", "id": "hy1r847", "score": 2, "text": "That puts the burden on other people. The burden of proving a YouTube video isn’t stealing other peoples work should go to the person making money from the video.", "timestamp": 1645582803 }, { "author": "GoblinRaiders", "id": "hy20tkr", "score": 1, "text": "No, because that’s a conflict of interest, it’s like having the police investigate themselves. Of course they will claim it’s not stolen, and someone still has to verify their claims.\n\nIt’s better to have an outside party hold them accountable.\n\nOnce a large enough group mobilizes to get them taken down before they are profitable, it will go away", "timestamp": 1645587207 } ]	[ "hy0j9nu", "hy0jmfy", "hy31y0v" ]	[ "hy1ql95", "hy1r847", "hy20tkr" ]
CMV: webgirls selling nudes and offering web fantasy services are sex workers and they should not keep it a secret from their romantic partners I am not using the word sex worker in a pejorative sense. I mean it literally, any girl who chooses to be onlyfans or other web based platform for the purposes of satisfying someone’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is a sex worker. It’s not easy to make a living these days and I don’t hold anything against what people do as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another. It does become disingenuous when these girls turn around and tell people they just met that they are a model or an influencer without divulging their real profession, or say the most lucrative aspects of their profession. It becomes worst when a potential relationship develops between the girl and someone else. If she continues to lie or omit key details about her vocational choice, especially one where there is a such stigma attached, would be entering into the relationship under false pretences. Furthermore there is an ethical concern, sex work is not compatible with monogamous relationships. If an exception were to be made it must be done under the express consent of both parties. How should a guy act when he finds out that his girlfriend a masturbating in cosplay for other men to jerk off too?! That’s just wrong.	You ain’t totally wrong but I’d put it in a very grey area. It could be kept secret for good reasons and bad reasons. Definitely not comparable to cheating (not saying you did), no physical or emotional connection at all. --- I don’t understand how providing services that would satisfy other men’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should be tolerated in a monogamous relationship. If there was a thorough discussion before getting into a relationship, and both sides state their reasons and boundaries, then I can see how it may be ok. But the fact that it was kept a secret, whether it be good or bad, is really no different to cheating. Think of it from a man’s perspective, your partner have been dishonest, she performs sexual acts in front of the webcam for money, how can there ever be trust in such a relationship? It’s hardly unreasonable for the guy to assume the worst that she is also providing physical service to men if the price is right. --- >providing services that would satisfy other men’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should be tolerated in a monogamous relationship. What if she were selling photos of her feet? What if she sold her used underwear? What if she worked at Hooters? What if she was a cheerleader? What if she worked at a bikini barista stand? What if she was an underwear model? What if she was an actress who filmed a solo sex scene for a movie? There are lots of ways people can satisfy other people's sexual fantasies for monetary exchange. That alone doesn't violate monogamy. --- Well I think my last paragraph basically describe what she does. Full on naked, cosplay, sex toys involved. That’s clearly a line. A girl who works at Hooters is just a waitress. Selling photos of her feet would make her a foot model. A cheerleader???? A Victoria Secret model??? People may develop sexual fantasises about them, but their job is not to provide sexual services, people can creep about anything nurses and teachers are fantasied about too. How is that even comparable to someone selling nudes or full on masturbation photos of herself? --- You claimed that providing services that satisfy other men's sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should not be tolerated in a monogamous relationship. My point is that there are many jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies, so of course that's untrue. --- Men can fantasise about anything, yet if the job itself is not for the exclusive purpose of providing sexual services it’s not the same. Onlyfans have curated content functions, where the fan can request the performer to recreate their sexual fantasies in front of the camera. This could involve being fully nude and performing sex acts in front of the camera. Are you really saying a cheerleader is doing things of the same gravity? Sure if that’s what your think it’s your prerogative. Doesn’t change how the rest of the world view the situation. --- > many jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies So your CMV isn't really >jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies but >preforming sexual acts for other men online?	There's two different part in your view: * People selling their nudes on Internet should tell their romantic partner * Sex work in not compatible with monogamous partner Concerning the first I guess it's mostly reasonable though I would still argue that it's not a top priority information that need to be said at the first date as I don't expect to know every secret of a partner immediately. Concerning the second point, is this a personal opinion or is this like a universal statement meaning anyone in a relationship with a nude model is crazy? My point is that I can understand if you are a bit prudish and uncomfortable with nudity and it's a dealbreaker for you but personally I wouldn't mind. So are you ok with this or do you think there's something wrong with me? --- Sex work is not normally compatible with monogamy. If both parties have discussed the issue thoroughly understanding each other’s boundaries and reasons, then it can be ok. A monogamous relationship means sexual exclusivity, without communication, how am I suppose to know that you are not engaged in other type of sex work? Honestly leads to trust, dishonesty erodes trust. Without trust no relationship is possible. I can probably deal with it if we talked about it, I mentioned my bisexuality early on, there are things that should be divulged, pass certain point there is no return. --- You don't really answer my question: is this just a dealbreaker for you or do you feel it should be a deal breaker for everyone? Then sex work is a big term. Do you make nuances between different level? for example here's a list of what model can do: * Being a cam girl sexting in video in live * Posting solo masturbating content * Posting explicit nude pictures * Posting non-explicit nude pictures * Posting lingerie pictures * Posting mild Instagram sexy pictures Where do you put the limit between "compatible with monogamy" or not? --- Anything from posting explicit nude pictures crosses the line for me. I don’t seek to speak for everyone, without disclosure, it’s a deal breaker for me. And objectively speaking I think a partner who does not disclose this part of their lives when they enter into a committed monogamous relationship is in the wrong. --- Don't you think there can be nude model that can have a way more healthy and classy approach to their pictures than Instagram model taking picture of their cleavage and butt every 2 seconds? Like the first can really consider it's only a job while the other will start to act flirty and slutty all the time? I would prefer the first personally. Then why you want to change your mind and what kind of argument could do it? I mean if you concede it's only a personal preference and shouldn't be a dealbreaker for everyone then it's a bit like saying that you prefer blue to red isn't it? --- Well if you can convince me that it is morally ok for someone in this line of work to withhold such information from her romantic partner. Or give me a reason that makes this act justifiable then I will change my mind. I did not concede it was personal preference, i said it’s objective wrong for such a person to enter a relationship with divulging this info --- You said you were only talking for yourself and therefore I understood meant it was just personal dealbreaker and not a moral issue. But ok, it was just a misunderstanding. Then you didn't answer my question: do you really think that posing nude in an artistic and healthy way is worse than posing all slutty in clothes? I mean some nudes pictures are way more classy than Instagram butts and cleavage don't you think?	l73jqj	CMV: webgirls selling nudes and offering web fantasy services are sex workers and they should not keep it a secret from their romantic partners	I am not using the word sex worker in a pejorative sense. I mean it literally, any girl who chooses to be onlyfans or other web based platform for the purposes of satisfying someone’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is a sex worker. It’s not easy to make a living these days and I don’t hold anything against what people do as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another. It does become disingenuous when these girls turn around and tell people they just met that they are a model or an influencer without divulging their real profession, or say the most lucrative aspects of their profession. It becomes worst when a potential relationship develops between the girl and someone else. If she continues to lie or omit key details about her vocational choice, especially one where there is a such stigma attached, would be entering into the relationship under false pretences. Furthermore there is an ethical concern, sex work is not compatible with monogamous relationships. If an exception were to be made it must be done under the express consent of both parties. How should a guy act when he finds out that his girlfriend a masturbating in cosplay for other men to jerk off too?! That’s just wrong.	CrustaceansAmongstUs	7	7	[ { "author": "real-kda420", "id": "gl4flk3", "score": 4, "text": "You ain’t totally wrong but I’d put it in a very grey area. It could be kept secret for good reasons and bad reasons.\nDefinitely not comparable to cheating (not saying you did), no physical or emotional connection at all.", "timestamp": 1611856144 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4h5i3", "score": 4, "text": "I don’t understand how providing services that would satisfy other men’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should be tolerated in a monogamous relationship. If there was a thorough discussion before getting into a relationship, and both sides state their reasons and boundaries, then I can see how it may be ok. But the fact that it was kept a secret, whether it be good or bad, is really no different to cheating. Think of it from a man’s perspective, your partner have been dishonest, she performs sexual acts in front of the webcam for money, how can there ever be trust in such a relationship? It’s hardly unreasonable for the guy to assume the worst that she is also providing physical service to men if the price is right.", "timestamp": 1611856720 }, { "author": "muyamable", "id": "gl4jnq3", "score": 12, "text": ">providing services that would satisfy other men’s sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should be tolerated in a monogamous relationship.\n\nWhat if she were selling photos of her feet? What if she sold her used underwear? What if she worked at Hooters? What if she was a cheerleader? What if she worked at a bikini barista stand? What if she was an underwear model? What if she was an actress who filmed a solo sex scene for a movie?\n\nThere are lots of ways people can satisfy other people's sexual fantasies for monetary exchange. That alone doesn't violate monogamy.", "timestamp": 1611857971 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4lcs8", "score": 6, "text": "Well I think my last paragraph basically describe what she does. Full on naked, cosplay, sex toys involved. That’s clearly a line. A girl who works at Hooters is just a waitress. Selling photos of her feet would make her a foot model. A cheerleader???? A Victoria Secret model??? People may develop sexual fantasises about them, but their job is not to provide sexual services, people can creep about anything nurses and teachers are fantasied about too. How is that even comparable to someone selling nudes or full on masturbation photos of herself?", "timestamp": 1611858969 }, { "author": "muyamable", "id": "gl4nbk4", "score": 2, "text": "You claimed that providing services that satisfy other men's sexual fantasy for monetary exchange is something that should not be tolerated in a monogamous relationship.\n\nMy point is that there are many jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies, so of course that's untrue.", "timestamp": 1611859755 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4obgc", "score": 4, "text": "Men can fantasise about anything, yet if the job itself is not for the exclusive purpose of providing sexual services it’s not the same. Onlyfans have curated content functions, where the fan can request the performer to recreate their sexual fantasies in front of the camera. This could involve being fully nude and performing sex acts in front of the camera. \n\nAre you really saying a cheerleader is doing things of the same gravity? Sure if that’s what your think it’s your prerogative. Doesn’t change how the rest of the world view the situation.", "timestamp": 1611860119 }, { "author": "janearcade", "id": "gl68pyb", "score": 5, "text": "> many jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies\n\nSo your CMV isn't really\n\n>jobs that satisfy men's sexual fantasies\n\nbut \n\n>preforming sexual acts for other men online?", "timestamp": 1611882092 } ]	[ { "author": "Galious", "id": "gl4m0og", "score": 7, "text": "There's two different part in your view: \n\n* People selling their nudes on Internet should tell their romantic partner\n* Sex work in not compatible with monogamous partner\n\nConcerning the first I guess it's mostly reasonable though I would still argue that it's not a top priority information that need to be said at the first date as I don't expect to know every secret of a partner immediately.\n\nConcerning the second point, is this a personal opinion or is this like a universal statement meaning anyone in a relationship with a nude model is crazy? My point is that I can understand if you are a bit prudish and uncomfortable with nudity and it's a dealbreaker for you but personally I wouldn't mind. So are you ok with this or do you think there's something wrong with me?", "timestamp": 1611859238 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4n0l0", "score": 1, "text": "Sex work is not normally compatible with monogamy. If both parties have discussed the issue thoroughly understanding each other’s boundaries and reasons, then it can be ok. A monogamous relationship means sexual exclusivity, without communication, how am I suppose to know that you are not engaged in other type of sex work? Honestly leads to trust, dishonesty erodes trust. Without trust no relationship is possible. I can probably deal with it if we talked about it, I mentioned my bisexuality early on, there are things that should be divulged, pass certain point there is no return.", "timestamp": 1611859636 }, { "author": "Galious", "id": "gl4o5yn", "score": 9, "text": "You don't really answer my question: is this just a dealbreaker for you or do you feel it should be a deal breaker for everyone?\n\nThen sex work is a big term. Do you make nuances between different level? for example here's a list of what model can do:\n\n* Being a cam girl sexting in video in live\n* Posting solo masturbating content\n* Posting explicit nude pictures\n* Posting non-explicit nude pictures\n* Posting lingerie pictures\n* Posting mild Instagram sexy pictures\n\nWhere do you put the limit between \"compatible with monogamy\" or not?", "timestamp": 1611860064 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4p02c", "score": 3, "text": "Anything from posting explicit nude pictures crosses the line for me. \n\nI don’t seek to speak for everyone, without disclosure, it’s a deal breaker for me. And objectively speaking I think a partner who does not disclose this part of their lives when they enter into a committed monogamous relationship is in the wrong.", "timestamp": 1611860363 }, { "author": "Galious", "id": "gl4qx03", "score": 3, "text": "Don't you think there can be nude model that can have a way more healthy and classy approach to their pictures than Instagram model taking picture of their cleavage and butt every 2 seconds? Like the first can really consider it's only a job while the other will start to act flirty and slutty all the time? I would prefer the first personally.\n\nThen why you want to change your mind and what kind of argument could do it? I mean if you concede it's only a personal preference and shouldn't be a dealbreaker for everyone then it's a bit like saying that you prefer blue to red isn't it?", "timestamp": 1611861077 }, { "author": "CrustaceansAmongstUs", "id": "gl4ruwy", "score": 1, "text": "Well if you can convince me that it is morally ok for someone in this line of work to withhold such information from her romantic partner. Or give me a reason that makes this act justifiable then I will change my mind. I did not concede it was personal preference, i said it’s objective wrong for such a person to enter a relationship with divulging this info", "timestamp": 1611861427 }, { "author": "Galious", "id": "gl4tyhn", "score": 1, "text": "You said you were only talking for yourself and therefore I understood meant it was just personal dealbreaker and not a moral issue. But ok, it was just a misunderstanding.\n\nThen you didn't answer my question: do you really think that posing nude in an artistic and healthy way is worse than posing all slutty in clothes? I mean some nudes pictures are way more classy than Instagram butts and cleavage don't you think?", "timestamp": 1611862207 } ]	[ "gl4flk3", "gl4h5i3", "gl4jnq3", "gl4lcs8", "gl4nbk4", "gl4obgc", "gl68pyb" ]	[ "gl4m0og", "gl4n0l0", "gl4o5yn", "gl4p02c", "gl4qx03", "gl4ruwy", "gl4tyhn" ]
CMV: The r/WSB Gamestop trading 'meme' is just pump and dump market manipulation and probably illegal. I was looking at wikipedia earlier: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market\_manipulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation) Given the uproar over this and comments from US political figures in support of the WSB traders I'm just wondering how this sort of trading isn't illegal? It seems like the people engaged in this sort of trading for cryptocurrencies on reddit decided to try the same tactic on the stock market which is much more regulated and somehow didn't realise it was illegal to inflate the price of a stock and attract other investors through false/coodordinated promotion? Am I missing something? Is there something different about what their doing that makes it legal? Do I not understand the trading rules?	[deleted] --- There is accurate information. It is on a public forum. However, I still think this is market manipulation. The value of a stock should mostly be determined by its fundamentals. Yahoo finance as of right now is reporting $GME to be overvalued, and I think it is fair to say that based on the stock's fundamentals, it is severely overvalued right now. People on the sub say "they like the stock." But I seriously have a hard time believing they value its fundamentals as much as they value buying the stock right now, even with the new board member. Look at the sub, it is blatantly clear that people are buying just to stick it to the hedge funds which bet against it. And once these hedge funds have burned to the ground, the hype will be over. People will start selling and the stock will rapidly decrease in value to accurately reflect the state of GameStop and its true value. Retards are going to lose money. Do you think they care though? According to the article OP linked, > The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security". Yes, this is artificial. It is intentionally, artificially inflating the price of the stock with the intent of making the hedge funds lose their bets. Need more convincing? How about that most of the subreddit is currently violating its own content guidelines: > # No Market Manipulation > > Think it's not a pump and dump? Alright. Don’t post for the purpose of instigating or coordinating a group buying effort to move the market for a security. > > For example, posting to encourage others to buy call options so that market makers will be forced to delta hedge their short positions. Similarly, any post that contains false or misleading information and is made for the purpose of manipulating the market for a security is prohibited. Any activity of this sort is against the securities laws and will not be tolerated on this forum. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/wiki/contentguide Look, I'm all for stealing from the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor. But I just don't see how this doesn't scream "market manipulation" according to their own example of it. It doesn't matter if it's happening in a public forum or behind closed doors among the top 1% of the top 1%. It doesn't even matter that the information being spread is accurate. What matters is the clear motivation behind this squeeze, which is to manipulate the market in a way that targets the hedge funds who bet against GameStop.	A very important point about WSB and the Gamestop stock is that the stock was shorted by a larger amount than was available in the total supply. And not only that, if you discount some of the stocks held by groups that can't or won't unload large amounts of shares, then you realize that for every 1 share in circulation, there were 3 shorts on it. This means that each share would at some point need to be bought and sold thrice by people with short positions. What WSB realized was that this effectively meant that getting a relatively small amount of shares on their hands and simply not selling them would lead to the shorted hedge funds _needing_ to agree to buy the shares at WSB's price, because they simply couldn't afford not to buy them. --- Δ Another great reply. I wasn't aware of the full background of why they'd made the decision. I'd thought, from what I'd seen on reddit/the news, that everyone on WSB had just decided to buy a bunch of Gamestop stock to drive the price up. Very interesting to learn that there was a well founded reason behind everyone buying in. Adds to /u/possiblyaqueen's point that the purchasing decisions where based on publicly available accurate information.	l7b23m	CMV: The r/WSB Gamestop trading 'meme' is just pump and dump market manipulation and probably illegal.	I was looking at wikipedia earlier: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market\_manipulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation) Given the uproar over this and comments from US political figures in support of the WSB traders I'm just wondering how this sort of trading isn't illegal? It seems like the people engaged in this sort of trading for cryptocurrencies on reddit decided to try the same tactic on the stock market which is much more regulated and somehow didn't realise it was illegal to inflate the price of a stock and attract other investors through false/coodordinated promotion? Am I missing something? Is there something different about what their doing that makes it legal? Do I not understand the trading rules?	Okkio	2	2	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gl5rb0x", "score": 18, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1611874515 }, { "author": "mariachiband49", "id": "gl7rw4b", "score": 2, "text": "There is accurate information. It is on a public forum. However, I still think this is market manipulation.\n\nThe value of a stock should mostly be determined by its fundamentals. Yahoo finance as of right now is reporting $GME to be overvalued, and I think it is fair to say that based on the stock's fundamentals, it is severely overvalued right now.\n\nPeople on the sub say \"they like the stock.\" But I seriously have a hard time believing they value its fundamentals as much as they value buying the stock right now, even with the new board member. Look at the sub, it is blatantly clear that people are buying just to stick it to the hedge funds which bet against it. And once these hedge funds have burned to the ground, the hype will be over. People will start selling and the stock will rapidly decrease in value to accurately reflect the state of GameStop and its true value. Retards are going to lose money. Do you think they care though?\n\nAccording to the article OP linked,\n\n> The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as \"transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security\".\n\nYes, this is artificial. It is intentionally, artificially inflating the price of the stock with the intent of making the hedge funds lose their bets.\n\nNeed more convincing? How about that most of the subreddit is currently violating its own content guidelines:\n\n> # No Market Manipulation\n> \n> Think it's not a pump and dump? Alright. Don’t post for the purpose of instigating or coordinating a group buying effort to move the market for a security.\n> \n> For example, posting to encourage others to buy call options so that market makers will be forced to delta hedge their short positions. Similarly, any post that contains false or misleading information and is made for the purpose of manipulating the market for a security is prohibited. Any activity of this sort is against the securities laws and will not be tolerated on this forum.\n\nSource: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/wiki/contentguide\n\nLook, I'm all for stealing from the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor. But I just don't see how this doesn't scream \"market manipulation\" according to their own example of it. It doesn't matter if it's happening in a public forum or behind closed doors among the top 1% of the top 1%. It doesn't even matter that the information being spread is accurate. What matters is the clear motivation behind this squeeze, which is to manipulate the market in a way that targets the hedge funds who bet against GameStop.", "timestamp": 1611911784 } ]	[ { "author": "Ocadioan", "id": "gl5r1ru", "score": 2, "text": "A very important point about WSB and the Gamestop stock is that the stock was shorted by a larger amount than was available in the total supply. And not only that, if you discount some of the stocks held by groups that can't or won't unload large amounts of shares, then you realize that for every 1 share in circulation, there were 3 shorts on it.\n\nThis means that each share would at some point need to be bought and sold thrice by people with short positions. What WSB realized was that this effectively meant that getting a relatively small amount of shares on their hands and simply not selling them would lead to the shorted hedge funds _needing_ to agree to buy the shares at WSB's price, because they simply couldn't afford not to buy them.", "timestamp": 1611874406 }, { "author": "Okkio", "id": "gl5yu8v", "score": 1, "text": "Δ\n\nAnother great reply. I wasn't aware of the full background of why they'd made the decision. I'd thought, from what I'd seen on reddit/the news, that everyone on WSB had just decided to buy a bunch of Gamestop stock to drive the price up.\n\nVery interesting to learn that there was a well founded reason behind everyone buying in. Adds to /u/possiblyaqueen's point that the purchasing decisions where based on publicly available accurate information.", "timestamp": 1611877743 } ]	[ "gl5rb0x", "gl7rw4b" ]	[ "gl5r1ru", "gl5yu8v" ]
CMV: There is absolutely no reason for me to keep my Wii U and I should just sell it. Complete minimalist here. In Christmas of 2013, I got a Wii U (only because my sister got a Wii in January 2008, and I only wanted to "upgrade"), despite it being very low on my wish list, and throughout its commercial lifespan, I only had no more than 6 games in my Wii U library, and I felt very regretful to own it only because it was a commercial failure. I really wanted to know if I should sell it for those reasons. Most of the great games on the Wii U were ones I didn't want to get only because I wasn't interested..... That is until I got advice to try out GameFly because even though a game does not look interesting on the cover, once I play it, I may not believe how much fun I would have. Now, since December 2016, my collection has grown to a relatively big extent. But now literally EVERY Wii U exclusive (Even the Virtual Console!) is going to get or has gotten ported over to the Switch, or even the 3DS to a lesser extent (as in the case with Super Smash Bros and Super Mario Maker), or in the case of third-party developers, PC (as in the case with Sonic Lost World), and there will soon be NO reason for me to own a Wii U anymore. I desperately need a Top 10 list of reasons to keep my Wii U, other than the points made below: "The Wii U has so many exclusives that are still not available on any other console!" No, it most definitely motherfucking WILL get ported over to the Switch because the console was a failure (which was the biggest reason why I wanted to sell it in the first place). "Super Mario 3D World!" That will be coming to the Switch, even if they decide to do so within 5 years! "The Wii U is backwards-compatible with Wii everything!" Well, when I sell my Wii U, I will trade it in with a used regular Wii with Gamecube backwards compatibility and connect it to my TV with a Component-to-HDMI adapter. "The Wii U can be hacked to make it do more than it was intended to do!" I actually feel that it's morally and ethically wrong to just tamper with a console's insides just to give it more potential! Please Change My View, I desperately need a reason to keep my Wii U other than the above reasons. If I do end up having to sell it, I would end up doing so while CRYING. _____ > 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!*	Wii u upconverts to HDMI. It technically has better output than your HDMI dongle. Virtual console, which probably not get ported to the switch in It's complete state. Nintendoland won't get ported. No more Wii fit u. Smash is still several years away. As are most of the ports you mentioned. Do you think Nintendo will canabalize the sales of Odyessey by releasing a 3d Mario one year later? No way. Most of all, you shouldn't sell it because you don't want to. This should be the most compelling factor. You have a connection with the system and that nostalgia is more valuable than the few bucks game stop will give you. You'll be lucky to see $100 trade in. --- "Most of all, you shouldn't sell it because you don't want to. This should be the most compelling factor. You have a connection with the system and that nostalgia is more valuable than the few bucks game stop will give you. You'll be lucky to see $100 trade in." Just the other night, my Mom told me that I really need to know my rights and stick to them, including to like what I like and to dislike what I dislike. How do I get out of this mental thinking?! Even though I shouldn't sell it at all because of that last reason you stated, every time I see something that is against Wii U (including a new Wii U to Switch port), I fall right into that depression hole of considering to sell the console all over again. In fact, every time I see something that triggers me, I get super depressed over whether to give up on the topic at hand! Hopefully, I don't fall into the "Should I sell my Wii U" hole ever again thanks to this last reason you stated... !delta --- It might be that you don't have as much respect for emotional justifications/knowledge as you do for logical ones. I know this was a thing for me, and I'm glad that I realized that it's important to listen to your emotions about stuff even if it doesn't at first or in the end seem super "rational".	The Wii U plays games. You have a Wii U. You don't have a Switch. You can play games on Wii U without having to buy a Switch. That's why you would keep the Wii U. --- Hate to tell you this, but I just got myself a Switch just to keep up with the current games like Super Mario Odyssey and any future titles, and especially the main selling point of the console in the first place. --- Playing only the most current games doesn't sound very minimalist to me.	7kwpox	CMV: There is absolutely no reason for me to keep my Wii U and I should just sell it.	Complete minimalist here. In Christmas of 2013, I got a Wii U (only because my sister got a Wii in January 2008, and I only wanted to "upgrade"), despite it being very low on my wish list, and throughout its commercial lifespan, I only had no more than 6 games in my Wii U library, and I felt very regretful to own it only because it was a commercial failure. I really wanted to know if I should sell it for those reasons. Most of the great games on the Wii U were ones I didn't want to get only because I wasn't interested..... That is until I got advice to try out GameFly because even though a game does not look interesting on the cover, once I play it, I may not believe how much fun I would have. Now, since December 2016, my collection has grown to a relatively big extent. But now literally EVERY Wii U exclusive (Even the Virtual Console!) is going to get or has gotten ported over to the Switch, or even the 3DS to a lesser extent (as in the case with Super Smash Bros and Super Mario Maker), or in the case of third-party developers, PC (as in the case with Sonic Lost World), and there will soon be NO reason for me to own a Wii U anymore. I desperately need a Top 10 list of reasons to keep my Wii U, other than the points made below: "The Wii U has so many exclusives that are still not available on any other console!" No, it most definitely motherfucking WILL get ported over to the Switch because the console was a failure (which was the biggest reason why I wanted to sell it in the first place). "Super Mario 3D World!" That will be coming to the Switch, even if they decide to do so within 5 years! "The Wii U is backwards-compatible with Wii everything!" Well, when I sell my Wii U, I will trade it in with a used regular Wii with Gamecube backwards compatibility and connect it to my TV with a Component-to-HDMI adapter. "The Wii U can be hacked to make it do more than it was intended to do!" I actually feel that it's morally and ethically wrong to just tamper with a console's insides just to give it more potential! Please Change My View, I desperately need a reason to keep my Wii U other than the above reasons. If I do end up having to sell it, I would end up doing so while CRYING. _____ > 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!*	rfreymuth	3	3	[ { "author": "Jabbam", "id": "drhsh7n", "score": 20, "text": "Wii u upconverts to HDMI. It technically has better output than your HDMI dongle. \n\nVirtual console, which probably not get ported to the switch in It's complete state.\n\nNintendoland won't get ported.\n\nNo more Wii fit u.\n\nSmash is still several years away. As are most of the ports you mentioned. Do you think Nintendo will canabalize the sales of Odyessey by releasing a 3d Mario one year later? No way.\n\nMost of all, you shouldn't sell it because you don't want to. This should be the most compelling factor. You have a connection with the system and that nostalgia is more valuable than the few bucks game stop will give you. You'll be lucky to see $100 trade in.", "timestamp": 1513723471 }, { "author": "rfreymuth", "id": "drhtiwx", "score": 8, "text": "\"Most of all, you shouldn't sell it because you don't want to. This should be the most compelling factor. You have a connection with the system and that nostalgia is more valuable than the few bucks game stop will give you. You'll be lucky to see $100 trade in.\"\n\nJust the other night, my Mom told me that I really need to know my rights and stick to them, including to like what I like and to dislike what I dislike.\n\nHow do I get out of this mental thinking?! Even though I shouldn't sell it at all because of that last reason you stated, every time I see something that is against Wii U (including a new Wii U to Switch port), I fall right into that depression hole of considering to sell the console all over again.\n\nIn fact, every time I see something that triggers me, I get super depressed over whether to give up on the topic at hand!\n\nHopefully, I don't fall into the \"Should I sell my Wii U\" hole ever again thanks to this last reason you stated... !delta", "timestamp": 1513724658 }, { "author": "Bobsorules", "id": "drhwuct", "score": 7, "text": "It might be that you don't have as much respect for emotional justifications/knowledge as you do for logical ones. I know this was a thing for me, and I'm glad that I realized that it's important to listen to your emotions about stuff even if it doesn't at first or in the end seem super \"rational\".", "timestamp": 1513728632 } ]	[ { "author": "DrinkyDrank", "id": "drhrqvn", "score": 4, "text": "The Wii U plays games. You have a Wii U. You don't have a Switch. You can play games on Wii U without having to buy a Switch. That's why you would keep the Wii U.", "timestamp": 1513722665 }, { "author": "rfreymuth", "id": "drht4l6", "score": 2, "text": "Hate to tell you this, but I just got myself a Switch just to keep up with the current games like Super Mario Odyssey and any future titles, and especially the main selling point of the console in the first place.", "timestamp": 1513724198 }, { "author": "DrinkyDrank", "id": "drhu9ya", "score": 4, "text": "Playing only the most current games doesn't sound very minimalist to me.", "timestamp": 1513725540 } ]	[ "drhsh7n", "drhtiwx", "drhwuct" ]	[ "drhrqvn", "drht4l6", "drhu9ya" ]
CMV: American cinema is justified in casting mostly white people in movies I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80% of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists (looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson). Maybe if a fictional character changes race (this goes both ways between white and whatever other race) its perfectly okay. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	It isn't just about how many minorities are cast in the movies, but the kind of role they have. If you say that 80% of the population is white, then you'd have 20% of protagonists on average as minorities. But instead it feels more like almost 90% main characters are white, while most of the minority characters are playing side roles. In other words, there is a clear gap between actual demographics and film demographics. http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race --- This is really the answer. Hollywood has a generally strong aversion to casting minorities in lead roles in situations where the role could be played by anybody. They will even cast white people to play minority characters. Even when it is completely ridiculous (See: The Last Airbender, Gods of Egypt, etc.) The only major exceptions I can think of are recent films in Disney owned properties. A couple of white characters in the MCU are played by black actors, with the only acknowledgement of their race at all being one conversation from Nick Fury. There's also Finn in Star Wars. And there was a minor shitstorm over those. There has been some growth. But it still seems to be the prevailing wisdom in Hollywood that white male audiences require white male leads to make them want to see the film. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary.	In general an actor's appearance should fit role's narrative assumptions. Fictional roles just leave more place for miscasting. So please no white Airbender or black English queen. However, racial questions are tough. As an Asian, I notice annoying trend of Blacks being pushed up (like Heimdall or Nick Fury in Marvel's or blacks in Battlefield 1) and Asians being pushed aside (emasculated, stereotypic roles or just white/black washed). --- I think Asian Americans have a definite and worthwhile gripe with casting choices made by movies and television, but I think it's unfair to dismiss the effort black people have made for better and more fair representation in the media. You should applaud them being "pushed up" and demand that Asians receive similar treatment, not describe it as annoying. Besides, you mention Heimdall but not [Hogun](http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Hogun)? Edit: And something I really appreciate about the new Prey game is how the main character is Asian. Finally, I'm not running around as a gruff 30-something white dude in an FPS.	6aj1f6	CMV: American cinema is justified in casting mostly white people in movies	I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80% of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists (looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson). Maybe if a fictional character changes race (this goes both ways between white and whatever other race) its perfectly okay. _____ > 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!*	Evaniscus	2	2	[ { "author": "Gideon_Nomad", "id": "dhf2sly", "score": 21, "text": "It isn't just about how many minorities are cast in the movies, but the kind of role they have. If you say that 80% of the population is white, then you'd have 20% of protagonists on average as minorities. But instead it feels more like almost 90% main characters are white, while most of the minority characters are playing side roles. In other words, there is a clear gap between actual demographics and film demographics.\n\nhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race\n", "timestamp": 1494508018 }, { "author": "ShouldersofGiants100", "id": "dhf3rj7", "score": 14, "text": "This is really the answer. Hollywood has a generally strong aversion to casting minorities in lead roles in situations where the role could be played by anybody. They will even cast white people to play minority characters. Even when it is completely ridiculous (See: The Last Airbender, Gods of Egypt, etc.) \n\nThe only major exceptions I can think of are recent films in Disney owned properties. A couple of white characters in the MCU are played by black actors, with the only acknowledgement of their race at all being one conversation from Nick Fury. There's also Finn in Star Wars. And there was a minor shitstorm over those. There has been some growth. But it still seems to be the prevailing wisdom in Hollywood that white male audiences require white male leads to make them want to see the film. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary. ", "timestamp": 1494509400 } ]	[ { "author": "barebooh", "id": "dhf0h7e", "score": 2, "text": "In general an actor's appearance should fit role's narrative assumptions. Fictional roles just leave more place for miscasting. So please no white Airbender or black English queen.\nHowever, racial questions are tough. As an Asian, I notice annoying trend of Blacks being pushed up (like Heimdall or Nick Fury in Marvel's or blacks in Battlefield 1) and Asians being pushed aside (emasculated, stereotypic roles or just white/black washed).", "timestamp": 1494504135 }, { "author": "BenIncognito", "id": "dhf0smm", "score": 5, "text": "I think Asian Americans have a definite and worthwhile gripe with casting choices made by movies and television, but I think it's unfair to dismiss the effort black people have made for better and more fair representation in the media.\n\nYou should applaud them being \"pushed up\" and demand that Asians receive similar treatment, not describe it as annoying.\n\nBesides, you mention Heimdall but not [Hogun](http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Hogun)?\n\nEdit: And something I really appreciate about the new Prey game is how the main character is Asian. Finally, I'm not running around as a gruff 30-something white dude in an FPS.", "timestamp": 1494504730 } ]	[ "dhf2sly", "dhf3rj7" ]	[ "dhf0h7e", "dhf0smm" ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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