post_id
stringlengths 7
7
| post_link
stringlengths 48
84
| op_author
stringlengths 4
20
| delta_recipients
sequencelengths 0
8
| delta_post_link
stringlengths 56
92
| delta_index
int64 313
2.91M
| post_title
stringlengths 15
300
| post_body
stringlengths 9
35.9k
| positive_comment
stringlengths 3
7.98k
| positive_comment_author
stringlengths 3
20
| positive_comment_time
int64 1.7B
1.74B
| title
stringlengths 15
300
| text
stringlengths 9
35.9k
| explanation
stringlengths 3
7.98k
| author
stringlengths 4
20
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18vlqbr | /r/changemyview/comments/18vleb7/cmv_there_is_no_better_holiday_than_new_year_and/ | cyrusposting | [
"YnotUS-YnotNOW"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vleb7/cmv_there_is_no_better_holiday_than_new_year_and/kfrxsnv/ | 313 | CMV: There is no better holiday than new year, and there never will be. | Almost everyone experiences new year. There is no exclusivity and you can say "happy new year" to anyone you meet without making them feel left out or alienated. Even if they celebrate new year at a different time than you, they are welcome to experience yours as well without any (well, very minimal) religious baggage.
New year is not the anniversary of something that happened in a book, its not about a historical event. Its a completely arbitrary moment. The thing that gives New Year meaning is not your belief in anything or your belonging to anything. But in fact, this gives it more meaning than any other holiday. Its meaning comes from the simple fact that we all experience it together, however insignificant of a moment it is.
I come from a Christian culture, so my runner-up will naturally be Christmas. But Christmas alienates me more and more as I get older. The pressure to give gifts, the strange social implications, the politicization of "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays", the Santa decorations and fake snow and big flashing signs for sales and things that I need to spend money on.
And the Christmas music. In 2000 years of Jesus none of us have managed to think of a good song about it. The best we ever came up with was Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You".
New Years has the best holiday song ever written, possibly the greatest song ever written. Auld Lang Syne is such a great song you cannot find a good recording of it on youtube. Auld Lang Syne exists in your heart, and to hear it performed properly you need to get drunk with a large group of strangers. You will be moved to tears for reasons you don't understand, because you are experiencing the pain, loss, optimism, regret, and joy of all of the events of the past year experienced by everyone you sing with.
"Happy New Year" acknowledges that we, as strangers, know nothing about eachother. I don't know what your year was like, you don't know what mine was like. But we both experienced a year, and we are both about to experience another. I hope yours is happy.
People look back, look forward, or don't think about the day at all. But we all do those things at the same time. Happy new year.
CMV by convincing me another holiday is better, and I promise to start celebrating it. | New Year's is the deadliest day of the year for drunk driving. Your chances of dying in a drunk driving accident in the United States [more than doubles](https://www.ladendorf.com/blog/2022/03/holidays-with-the-highest-dui-rates-in-the-united-states/) on New Years with your chance of dying increasing by 129%.
Can it really be the best holiday if it's the deadliest holiday? Can it really be the best holiday with blood running red all over the highways of America? | YnotUS-YnotNOW | 1,704,070,961 | CMV: There is no better holiday than new year, and there never will be. | Almost everyone experiences new year. There is no exclusivity and you can say "happy new year" to anyone you meet without making them feel left out or alienated. Even if they celebrate new year at a different time than you, they are welcome to experience yours as well without any (well, very minimal) religious baggage.
New year is not the anniversary of something that happened in a book, its not about a historical event. Its a completely arbitrary moment. The thing that gives New Year meaning is not your belief in anything or your belonging to anything. But in fact, this gives it more meaning than any other holiday. Its meaning comes from the simple fact that we all experience it together, however insignificant of a moment it is.
I come from a Christian culture, so my runner-up will naturally be Christmas. But Christmas alienates me more and more as I get older. The pressure to give gifts, the strange social implications, the politicization of "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays", the Santa decorations and fake snow and big flashing signs for sales and things that I need to spend money on.
And the Christmas music. In 2000 years of Jesus none of us have managed to think of a good song about it. The best we ever came up with was Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You".
New Years has the best holiday song ever written, possibly the greatest song ever written. Auld Lang Syne is such a great song you cannot find a good recording of it on youtube. Auld Lang Syne exists in your heart, and to hear it performed properly you need to get drunk with a large group of strangers. You will be moved to tears for reasons you don't understand, because you are experiencing the pain, loss, optimism, regret, and joy of all of the events of the past year experienced by everyone you sing with.
"Happy New Year" acknowledges that we, as strangers, know nothing about eachother. I don't know what your year was like, you don't know what mine was like. But we both experienced a year, and we are both about to experience another. I hope yours is happy.
People look back, look forward, or don't think about the day at all. But we all do those things at the same time. Happy new year.
CMV by convincing me another holiday is better, and I promise to start celebrating it. | New Year's is the deadliest day of the year for drunk driving. Your chances of dying in a drunk driving accident in the United States [more than doubles](https://www.ladendorf.com/blog/2022/03/holidays-with-the-highest-dui-rates-in-the-united-states/) on New Years with your chance of dying increasing by 129%.
Can it really be the best holiday if it's the deadliest holiday? Can it really be the best holiday with blood running red all over the highways of America? | cyrusposting |
18vlwvq | /r/changemyview/comments/18vkmq7/cmv_capitalism_though_flawed_is_practically_the/ | BlackDahliaMuckduck | [
"Rare_Year_2818"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vkmq7/cmv_capitalism_though_flawed_is_practically_the/kfrzohq/ | 399 | CMV: Capitalism, though flawed, is practically the best method of resource allocation. | Though capitalism is imperfect, I'm hard pressed to understand a workable system that is better. The only practical alternatives of which I'm aware are controlled economies (government price setting) or communal ones (prohibition on private property). I suppose the abolition/destruction of resources is theoretically perfect, as there would be nothing to allocate, though obviously impractical.
Price setting is complex. In order to set an accurate price, both supply and demand must be known. This means understanding both the means of production (and input materials, labor, etc.) as well as the needs and available resources of each potential buyer. A theoritally correct price would take all of these factors into consideration and the historical track record for governments setting prices is poor, leading me to conclude that it's an unworkable solution.
Prohibiting private property and forcing property into public ownership (communal) is problematic because it only works if everybody agrees to it. This is a better alternative to capitalism which doesn't work at scale, making it impractical. A small commune where everyone is on the same page may find value in this method, but a large nation will inevitably have dissenters, rendering the system oppressive through its lack of individualism. Even communes have individual boundaries, such as my nieghbor is not free to burn down my residence while I'm living in it. (Though I suppose I could just as easily move into the arsonist's residence at no cost.)
Capitalism's flaws include the anti-trust paradox, the subjectivity of certain resources, the inheritance problem, scamming, and greed cycles.
Anti-trust: As popularized by Robert Bork, the more regulated a monopolized industry is, the more paradoxically monopolistic it becomes. He argues that this is because regulation presents an increased barrier to entry, thus reducing competition by filtering out potential competitors who do not have the resources to clear the barrier to entry and enter the industry, making it even less competitive.
Subjective Resources: Some resources cannot be quantified, and therefore price setting is not an applicable method of allocating the resource. Human life, for example, is quantified by the life insurance industry by projecting a person's future income. Reducing a person's value to a dollar figure provides an incomplete picture of their worth because they have many sourcecs of intangible value, such as their relationships, their ideas, their experiences, etc. Governments may combat this issue with welfare programs, but those programs generally also assign dollar values based on an individual's situation, such as people with disabilities receiving a certain amount of money, families with lots of children receiving a certain amount in tax breaks, etc.
Inheritance: Capitalism provides the wealthy with greater influence over resource allocation. Wealth is indirectly correlated to price sensitivity; i.e. the more money you have, the more you're willing to spend it without feeling the pain. This still works theoretically because the people who earn the most money have provided a valuable resource to society in order to obtain it and therefore should be able to effectively decide how future resources are to be allocated. However, in reality, large sums of wealth often get passed down upon death and inherited by a person who did not provide value to society, and therefore does not understand how to allocate resources effectively. For example, kids who inherit large sums of money tend to blow it quickly, just like lottery winners, who have demonstrably worse lives after winning the lottery and are ineffective in the allocation of their lottery winnings. Note: Some may also argue that the government has no moral right to tell individuals how their private recources ought to be allocated.
Scamming: Capitalism provides an incentive for dishonesty, namely obtaining money without providing value in return. If the government is unable to crack down an scammers, then the only recourse is for consumers to band together to combat scammers (which may be impossible or difficult depending on the situation).
Cycles of Greed: Capitalist markets have gone through historical cycles of prosperity (euphoria/greed) and austerity (fear). Instead of markets remaining at a steady equilibrium with gradual changes, they tend to overshoot in both directions, exacerbating both the positive and negative effects on either end of the spectrum. In the case of euphoria, people live high on the hog, giving in to greed and excess, thus acting wastefully. In the case of austerity, people in fear go without, causing unnecessary harm and devaluing consumers who ought to have been able to access certain resources, yet are no longer able to. In both cases, the allocation of resources is inefficient.
Ultimately, prices are prohibitive; they require a cost to be paid in order to obtain a resource, ensuring that resources are allocated to the people who need them the most, i.e. are willing and able to pay for them (in the capitalist context). If prices are not prohibitive, then resources will be misallocated because waste will no longer be seen as painful, there is no cost to be paid. Capitalism harnesses individual selfishness (getting the best deal for one's self and avoiding steep costs) in order to promote the greater good (allocating resources across a society in the least wasteful way possible via pricing).
The invisible hand is our best option. There is no practical economic system which is better at allocating resources than capitalism because no system fixes the flaws of capitalism without introducing more egregious flaws of its own. | MARKETS are often the best method of resource allocation. But markets aren't an exclusive feature of capitalism. There's also market socialism and georgism.
The advantage of capitalism is it's easier for new firms to get off the ground. Getting funding for a corporation is much easier than getting funding for a worker owned co-op. Once these firms are established though, co-ops actually fare better under economic stress than capitalist firms.
It should also be noted that markets sometimes fail, such as in the case of the tragedy of the commons (eg pollution), natural monopolies (eg electric power company) or inelastic supply/demand (eg unimproved land, healthcare). In these cases, resources will be allocated incredibly poorly. | Rare_Year_2818 | 1,704,071,794 | CMV: Capitalism, though flawed, is practically the best method of resource allocation. | Though capitalism is imperfect, I'm hard pressed to understand a workable system that is better. The only practical alternatives of which I'm aware are controlled economies (government price setting) or communal ones (prohibition on private property). I suppose the abolition/destruction of resources is theoretically perfect, as there would be nothing to allocate, though obviously impractical.
Price setting is complex. In order to set an accurate price, both supply and demand must be known. This means understanding both the means of production (and input materials, labor, etc.) as well as the needs and available resources of each potential buyer. A theoritally correct price would take all of these factors into consideration and the historical track record for governments setting prices is poor, leading me to conclude that it's an unworkable solution.
Prohibiting private property and forcing property into public ownership (communal) is problematic because it only works if everybody agrees to it. This is a better alternative to capitalism which doesn't work at scale, making it impractical. A small commune where everyone is on the same page may find value in this method, but a large nation will inevitably have dissenters, rendering the system oppressive through its lack of individualism. Even communes have individual boundaries, such as my nieghbor is not free to burn down my residence while I'm living in it. (Though I suppose I could just as easily move into the arsonist's residence at no cost.)
Capitalism's flaws include the anti-trust paradox, the subjectivity of certain resources, the inheritance problem, scamming, and greed cycles.
Anti-trust: As popularized by Robert Bork, the more regulated a monopolized industry is, the more paradoxically monopolistic it becomes. He argues that this is because regulation presents an increased barrier to entry, thus reducing competition by filtering out potential competitors who do not have the resources to clear the barrier to entry and enter the industry, making it even less competitive.
Subjective Resources: Some resources cannot be quantified, and therefore price setting is not an applicable method of allocating the resource. Human life, for example, is quantified by the life insurance industry by projecting a person's future income. Reducing a person's value to a dollar figure provides an incomplete picture of their worth because they have many sourcecs of intangible value, such as their relationships, their ideas, their experiences, etc. Governments may combat this issue with welfare programs, but those programs generally also assign dollar values based on an individual's situation, such as people with disabilities receiving a certain amount of money, families with lots of children receiving a certain amount in tax breaks, etc.
Inheritance: Capitalism provides the wealthy with greater influence over resource allocation. Wealth is indirectly correlated to price sensitivity; i.e. the more money you have, the more you're willing to spend it without feeling the pain. This still works theoretically because the people who earn the most money have provided a valuable resource to society in order to obtain it and therefore should be able to effectively decide how future resources are to be allocated. However, in reality, large sums of wealth often get passed down upon death and inherited by a person who did not provide value to society, and therefore does not understand how to allocate resources effectively. For example, kids who inherit large sums of money tend to blow it quickly, just like lottery winners, who have demonstrably worse lives after winning the lottery and are ineffective in the allocation of their lottery winnings. Note: Some may also argue that the government has no moral right to tell individuals how their private recources ought to be allocated.
Scamming: Capitalism provides an incentive for dishonesty, namely obtaining money without providing value in return. If the government is unable to crack down an scammers, then the only recourse is for consumers to band together to combat scammers (which may be impossible or difficult depending on the situation).
Cycles of Greed: Capitalist markets have gone through historical cycles of prosperity (euphoria/greed) and austerity (fear). Instead of markets remaining at a steady equilibrium with gradual changes, they tend to overshoot in both directions, exacerbating both the positive and negative effects on either end of the spectrum. In the case of euphoria, people live high on the hog, giving in to greed and excess, thus acting wastefully. In the case of austerity, people in fear go without, causing unnecessary harm and devaluing consumers who ought to have been able to access certain resources, yet are no longer able to. In both cases, the allocation of resources is inefficient.
Ultimately, prices are prohibitive; they require a cost to be paid in order to obtain a resource, ensuring that resources are allocated to the people who need them the most, i.e. are willing and able to pay for them (in the capitalist context). If prices are not prohibitive, then resources will be misallocated because waste will no longer be seen as painful, there is no cost to be paid. Capitalism harnesses individual selfishness (getting the best deal for one's self and avoiding steep costs) in order to promote the greater good (allocating resources across a society in the least wasteful way possible via pricing).
The invisible hand is our best option. There is no practical economic system which is better at allocating resources than capitalism because no system fixes the flaws of capitalism without introducing more egregious flaws of its own. | MARKETS are often the best method of resource allocation. But markets aren't an exclusive feature of capitalism. There's also market socialism and georgism.
The advantage of capitalism is it's easier for new firms to get off the ground. Getting funding for a corporation is much easier than getting funding for a worker owned co-op. Once these firms are established though, co-ops actually fare better under economic stress than capitalist firms.
It should also be noted that markets sometimes fail, such as in the case of the tragedy of the commons (eg pollution), natural monopolies (eg electric power company) or inelastic supply/demand (eg unimproved land, healthcare). In these cases, resources will be allocated incredibly poorly. | BlackDahliaMuckduck |
18voekd | /r/changemyview/comments/18vkjp3/cmv_black_coded_characters_are_at_best_stupid_and/ | Applesauceoutoflove | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vkjp3/cmv_black_coded_characters_are_at_best_stupid_and/kft393s/ | 2,052 | CMV: "Black coded characters" are at best stupid and at worst racist | So today I watched a video about Steven Universe while eating and the creator of said video said that "Steven Universe is racist because it treats Garnet in a certain way and Garnet is black coded" and I just wondered what the term actually means. I saw it get thrown around with Darwin from The Amazing World Of Gumball but never really looked into it.
I saw a few different interpretations, but I just go into two
One is that the character is voiced by a black person. This is stupid. So can a character be white coded? If a black person voices a white human character, is that character also black coded? What does that even mean, Garnet is a purple rock alien lmao
The second one and far more racist one is that.. its just a vibe? Like the way they act? It was extremely vague but in Garnets case I read something along the lines of "She has a no-shit character" and "a third eye to see through the bullshit" like yeah. She is presented as a level-headed, stoic, intelligent, competent leader. How are these traits "black", I can name you several white characters with these traits. And as I just mentioned Drawin from Gumball is black coded by a lot of people and he is literally the excat opposit of all of these traits. Its almost like there are no skin color specific traits, crazy how that works and I also mainly see this term thrown around in childrens media.
The term is pretty saying "Well that character is clearly black because they act different, they are different from white characters, all or most black people have this specific trait, thats what makes them different" which is racist.
The term is at best a annoying buzzword with nothing to it and at worst problematic and racist itself. | > Edit. Here's an example. Phil Lamarr voices Samurai Jack. Phil is black but the character is not black coded, he's clearly overtly Japanese. Phil also voices the Star Wars character Kit Fisto, who could perhaps be considered Black coded. Fisto is an alien that has head tentacles that resemble braids or locks, he's voiced with a Caribbean accent and his species is aquatic and shares similarity to mythological and cultural Caribbean and West African elements.
>
>
At best he's “Caribbean coded” then, not “black coded”.
> There are distinctive Black cultural elements, and that is what is usually being conveyed when people talk about this, not some biological racial essentialism.
If you would think the Caribbean is a “black culture” and that such a thing even exists perhaps. Have you ever been in the Caribbean? It's a very racially mixed and diverse place. | VarencaMetStekeltjes | 1,704,093,717 | CMV: "Black coded characters" are at best stupid and at worst racist | So today I watched a video about Steven Universe while eating and the creator of said video said that "Steven Universe is racist because it treats Garnet in a certain way and Garnet is black coded" and I just wondered what the term actually means. I saw it get thrown around with Darwin from The Amazing World Of Gumball but never really looked into it.
I saw a few different interpretations, but I just go into two
One is that the character is voiced by a black person. This is stupid. So can a character be white coded? If a black person voices a white human character, is that character also black coded? What does that even mean, Garnet is a purple rock alien lmao
The second one and far more racist one is that.. its just a vibe? Like the way they act? It was extremely vague but in Garnets case I read something along the lines of "She has a no-shit character" and "a third eye to see through the bullshit" like yeah. She is presented as a level-headed, stoic, intelligent, competent leader. How are these traits "black", I can name you several white characters with these traits. And as I just mentioned Drawin from Gumball is black coded by a lot of people and he is literally the excat opposit of all of these traits. Its almost like there are no skin color specific traits, crazy how that works and I also mainly see this term thrown around in childrens media.
The term is pretty saying "Well that character is clearly black because they act different, they are different from white characters, all or most black people have this specific trait, thats what makes them different" which is racist.
The term is at best a annoying buzzword with nothing to it and at worst problematic and racist itself. | > Edit. Here's an example. Phil Lamarr voices Samurai Jack. Phil is black but the character is not black coded, he's clearly overtly Japanese. Phil also voices the Star Wars character Kit Fisto, who could perhaps be considered Black coded. Fisto is an alien that has head tentacles that resemble braids or locks, he's voiced with a Caribbean accent and his species is aquatic and shares similarity to mythological and cultural Caribbean and West African elements.
>
>
At best he's “Caribbean coded” then, not “black coded”.
> There are distinctive Black cultural elements, and that is what is usually being conveyed when people talk about this, not some biological racial essentialism.
If you would think the Caribbean is a “black culture” and that such a thing even exists perhaps. Have you ever been in the Caribbean? It's a very racially mixed and diverse place. | Applesauceoutoflove |
18vqmrz | /r/changemyview/comments/18vngr5/cmv_its_better_to_be_a_man_than_a_woman/ | Ok-Clerk-166 | [
"ZeusThunder369"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vngr5/cmv_its_better_to_be_a_man_than_a_woman/kfsp865/ | 1,512 | Cmv: it’s better to be a man than a woman |
Few (but not all) reasons include:
- no periods
- no pregnancy
- dads get wayyyyyy more slack than mom in society
- higher pay for the same job
- physically stronger (and faster) on average
- more respected in society
- everything is designed for male bodies (ppe and airbags) so they are less likely to get injured
Atp i feel like there are Litterally no benefits to being a female or all the “benifits” are useless/ have drawbacks
My entire life I’ve felt as though i got the “short end of the stick” or whatever cuz ik that whatever i do, a man can probably do better (especially in terms of sports/ working out).
Any advantages that women have over men are useless as mentioned. This could be that they see colour better or that they have better hearing. Ofc you need those things but imo, strength is more important than that. And overall i think that mens bodies are superior to womans bodies | Your view then is more personal. "For me personally, men have it better...."
IE - If my most important goal in life was to be a stay at home parent, or to be alive for a long time, I'd have a much easier time being a woman. | ZeusThunder369 | 1,704,084,461 | Cmv: it’s better to be a man than a woman |
Few (but not all) reasons include:
- no periods
- no pregnancy
- dads get wayyyyyy more slack than mom in society
- higher pay for the same job
- physically stronger (and faster) on average
- more respected in society
- everything is designed for male bodies (ppe and airbags) so they are less likely to get injured
Atp i feel like there are Litterally no benefits to being a female or all the “benifits” are useless/ have drawbacks
My entire life I’ve felt as though i got the “short end of the stick” or whatever cuz ik that whatever i do, a man can probably do better (especially in terms of sports/ working out).
Any advantages that women have over men are useless as mentioned. This could be that they see colour better or that they have better hearing. Ofc you need those things but imo, strength is more important than that. And overall i think that mens bodies are superior to womans bodies | Your view then is more personal. "For me personally, men have it better...."
IE - If my most important goal in life was to be a stay at home parent, or to be alive for a long time, I'd have a much easier time being a woman. | Ok-Clerk-166 |
18vsvhy | /r/changemyview/comments/18vqm2w/cmv_technology_hasnt_reduced_attention_spans_it/ | Dangerous-Bid-6791 | [
"FaceInJuice"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vqm2w/cmv_technology_hasnt_reduced_attention_spans_it/kft4hr4/ | 2,093 | CMV: Technology hasn't reduced attention spans, it has reduced tolerance for uninteresting presentation | It's a common trope to claim that technology and social media has eroded attention spans, especially in younger generations. We've supposedly become inattentive goldfish unable to focus on anything, incapable of engaging with substantial content, instead succumbing to instant gratification and immediate fulfilment.
Many point to the rise of TikTok & other short videos as a symptom of this disease. This "evidence" is cherrypicking. I'm sick how uncritically accepted this trope has become.
It ignores the numerous flourishing examples of popular long-form content, some of which can reach movie lengths or even exceed it. It ignores the exploding growth in audiobook sales. It ignores the popularity of lengthy podcasts. They may not be reddit's favourite people, but podcasters like Joe Rogan & Lex Fridman command audiences of millions of listeners for podcasts often exceeding 2 hours. It ignores many long-form videos that populate Youtube; multi-hour video essays, reviews, documentaries, and tutorials. There's a beginner Python tutorial on Youtube with 40M views lasting 4 hours. Is that indicative of a culture of instant gratification, of viewers unable to focus on content requiring an attention span over 60 seconds? It ignores livestreams that can command a significant audience for hours, amounting to billions of hours in total watch time. You could almost propose those viewers have attention spans that are too long. The audience of all this long-form content, like TikTok & its competitors, skews young. Sometimes overwhelmingly so.
So what accounts for the common complaints that people can't focus on anymore?
What I think technology has actually done is reduce tolerance for poorly made, unengaging, uninteresting, uninspired, and/or boring content since its more vulnerable to being supplanted than ever before. Prior to the digital era, individuals had fewer options for entertainment and information. This 'patience' was not necessarily a longer attention span, but a lack of alternatives. Attention has always wandered when things are boring or subpar. Today, there is both an awareness of better alternatives and ease to access them on-demand. Note that 'better' doesn't refer to just being entertaining, though that *can* & *should* contribute to quality. If effectively presented, substantive in-depth information on interesting topics can also successfully engage people, as my earlier examples demonstrate.
I think many who complain about lower attention spans are misdiagnosing the problem. The problem is not with the audience's attention span, but with their own tedious unengaging communication. They communicate without regard for whether it has the quality that deserves to capture & retain the audience's attention. They should look at themselves rather than shifting the blame to the audience. If you're one of these people, I'm sorry, but your communication & presentation skills probably suck.
To summarise: while many say technology reduced attention spans, I think it just decreased tolerance for subpar content. Rather than blaming 'decreased attention spans', the focus should instead be on improving communication to retain audience attention. | I'm hesitant to comment here, as my point is anecdotal and I suspect you will dismiss it. That being said, I am curious if you have any thoughts.
Two years ago, I got my first smart phone.
Since that time, I have not finished reading a book.
To be clear, I used to be an avid reader. I worked in a bookstore for six years.
But since then, I have tried to read new books, and I have tried to revisit old favorites. I have picked up my favorite books of all time, and I have struggled to retain focus.
From my perspective, it feels like an extremely clear cause and effect. The way I use my phone has conditioned me for multi-tasking and checking various sources and feeds. It has conditioned me to respond to messages quickly.
And when I try to read a book, those new habits become distractions that make it more difficult for me to focus.
The sensible explanation, in my perspective, is that short-form content has a much quicker payoff and a much quicker satisfaction. So when I start investing time in something that takes longer to pay off, my brain isn't engaging, because it has gotten in the habit of expecting quick fixes from multiple directions.
I get that you do not accept my explanation.
However, your explanation seems to be that my favorite books of all time are simply not of good quality, and are in fact less worthwhile than short form videos of a guy pranking strangers, or whatever silly dopamine-burst nonsense my YouTube algorithm decides to throw at me.
From my perspective, that explanation is completely and utterly ridiculous. We're talking about books I have read multiple times in the past and always loved. They are not of poorer quality than cat videos.
So, I think that if you want to challenge the existing line of thinking (at least to me), you need a significantly better alternative than the one you are proposing here. | FaceInJuice | 1,704,094,670 | CMV: Technology hasn't reduced attention spans, it has reduced tolerance for uninteresting presentation | It's a common trope to claim that technology and social media has eroded attention spans, especially in younger generations. We've supposedly become inattentive goldfish unable to focus on anything, incapable of engaging with substantial content, instead succumbing to instant gratification and immediate fulfilment.
Many point to the rise of TikTok & other short videos as a symptom of this disease. This "evidence" is cherrypicking. I'm sick how uncritically accepted this trope has become.
It ignores the numerous flourishing examples of popular long-form content, some of which can reach movie lengths or even exceed it. It ignores the exploding growth in audiobook sales. It ignores the popularity of lengthy podcasts. They may not be reddit's favourite people, but podcasters like Joe Rogan & Lex Fridman command audiences of millions of listeners for podcasts often exceeding 2 hours. It ignores many long-form videos that populate Youtube; multi-hour video essays, reviews, documentaries, and tutorials. There's a beginner Python tutorial on Youtube with 40M views lasting 4 hours. Is that indicative of a culture of instant gratification, of viewers unable to focus on content requiring an attention span over 60 seconds? It ignores livestreams that can command a significant audience for hours, amounting to billions of hours in total watch time. You could almost propose those viewers have attention spans that are too long. The audience of all this long-form content, like TikTok & its competitors, skews young. Sometimes overwhelmingly so.
So what accounts for the common complaints that people can't focus on anymore?
What I think technology has actually done is reduce tolerance for poorly made, unengaging, uninteresting, uninspired, and/or boring content since its more vulnerable to being supplanted than ever before. Prior to the digital era, individuals had fewer options for entertainment and information. This 'patience' was not necessarily a longer attention span, but a lack of alternatives. Attention has always wandered when things are boring or subpar. Today, there is both an awareness of better alternatives and ease to access them on-demand. Note that 'better' doesn't refer to just being entertaining, though that *can* & *should* contribute to quality. If effectively presented, substantive in-depth information on interesting topics can also successfully engage people, as my earlier examples demonstrate.
I think many who complain about lower attention spans are misdiagnosing the problem. The problem is not with the audience's attention span, but with their own tedious unengaging communication. They communicate without regard for whether it has the quality that deserves to capture & retain the audience's attention. They should look at themselves rather than shifting the blame to the audience. If you're one of these people, I'm sorry, but your communication & presentation skills probably suck.
To summarise: while many say technology reduced attention spans, I think it just decreased tolerance for subpar content. Rather than blaming 'decreased attention spans', the focus should instead be on improving communication to retain audience attention. | I'm hesitant to comment here, as my point is anecdotal and I suspect you will dismiss it. That being said, I am curious if you have any thoughts.
Two years ago, I got my first smart phone.
Since that time, I have not finished reading a book.
To be clear, I used to be an avid reader. I worked in a bookstore for six years.
But since then, I have tried to read new books, and I have tried to revisit old favorites. I have picked up my favorite books of all time, and I have struggled to retain focus.
From my perspective, it feels like an extremely clear cause and effect. The way I use my phone has conditioned me for multi-tasking and checking various sources and feeds. It has conditioned me to respond to messages quickly.
And when I try to read a book, those new habits become distractions that make it more difficult for me to focus.
The sensible explanation, in my perspective, is that short-form content has a much quicker payoff and a much quicker satisfaction. So when I start investing time in something that takes longer to pay off, my brain isn't engaging, because it has gotten in the habit of expecting quick fixes from multiple directions.
I get that you do not accept my explanation.
However, your explanation seems to be that my favorite books of all time are simply not of good quality, and are in fact less worthwhile than short form videos of a guy pranking strangers, or whatever silly dopamine-burst nonsense my YouTube algorithm decides to throw at me.
From my perspective, that explanation is completely and utterly ridiculous. We're talking about books I have read multiple times in the past and always loved. They are not of poorer quality than cat videos.
So, I think that if you want to challenge the existing line of thinking (at least to me), you need a significantly better alternative than the one you are proposing here. | Dangerous-Bid-6791 |
18vwjyf | /r/changemyview/comments/18vvcxj/cmv_a_key_step_towards_peace_in_israelpalestine/ | GoSouthCourt | [
"natasharevolution"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vvcxj/cmv_a_key_step_towards_peace_in_israelpalestine/kftshwi/ | 2,759 | CMV: A key step towards peace in Israel/Palestine is for both sides to recognise each other's collective trauma. | As I talk to people and read about Israel/Palestine, I came to realise that what makes Israeli identity and Palestinian identity unique is how core their respective "collective trauma" is to their identities. For Israel, it's the millennial-long European antisemitism that culminated into the Holocaust (and, minorly, the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world but I'll address that later), and for Palestine, it's the ethnic cleansing campaign Nakba that took place 75 years ago. I began to realise that the chasm in understanding between both camps, Israeli Jews and Palestinians, is in large part due to the lack of recognition of such trauma, which is why both sides feel like the other side is doing all they can to invalidate one's identity.
1. Holocaust denialism. While Zionism wasn't founded because of the Holocaust, it had certainly accelerated the support and expansion of Israel on the international stage. Israel's foundation is partially built on the collective trauma of the Holocaust, but you would see many instances of Holocaust denialism from Palestinians, like when[ Mahmoud Abbas](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/11/intellectuals-condemn-mahmoud-abbass-attempt-to-justify-antisemitism), leader of the Palestinian Authority, said “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Hamas has also refused to allow Gazan children to learn about the Holocaust, calling it a fabrication of the Zionists. I would also like to quickly highlight that Palestinians are _not_ responsible for the Holocaust, but in order for both groups to live in peace, _recognition_ must come first.
2. Nakba denialism. On the flip side, Israel has also attempted to wipe their hands off the Nakba. Since 1948, until around the late 1980s when files began to be declassified, Israel has denied any involvement in the Nakba. But even today it's still happening. The term "Nakba" is [banned](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/israel-remove-nakba-from-textbooks) in Arab children's textbook. They also passed the "[Nakba Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law)", which restricts fundings to organisations looking to commemorate or recognise Nakba. [Haareetz](https://archive.is/1QVVm) too has a piece on systemic denial from the Israeli government of the Nakba. Even today, many Zionists would claim that Nakba was merely a result of the Arab-Israel war, or Arab nations were actually responsible for telling Palestinian Arabs to flee, when the evidence suggests otherwise. In contrast to Holocaust denialism, Israel _is_ responsible for Nakba, therefore for both groups to live in peace, Israel must take responsibility, recognise that what they are doing _now_ is further inflicting trauma, and reparations must take place.
3. Jewish exodus from the Muslim world. It's not uncommon for some people to compare Nakba to the Jewish exodus and call it "Jewish Nakba". While the pain of MENA Jewish communities must be recognised by the Muslim world, I don't think it's helpful to use the word "Nakba" when it already means so much to the Palestinians. It'll be like calling the Romani Genocide "Romani Shoah", it's just wrong. I will also say that the exodus was not all forceful, many Jews left for better economic opportunities or adherence to Aliyah. So while this event is important to recognise, I think the first two are much more important and hold significantly more gravity than this one.
All in all, I think that for peace to be achieved, either one secular federal state or two independent states, the recognition of "collective trauma" must come first. This means Israel needs to properly recognise the Nakba and pay reparations for it, and Palestinians need to recognise that Zionism as a colonial project was not an ideology founded on the want to exploit and bully but on the traumatic history of Jews in Europe. | While I think you're not far from the mark, I would suggest your third point isn't quite accurate. The Jews of Israel are hugely impacted by being ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, and that (plus the 1948 war) has made a big difference in their relationship with their neighbours. I think you're underplaying that trauma.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the phrase "Romani Shoah". It's not the term we would usually use, but I absolutely think there's a lot in common there with what happened to the Jews, and I don't think you'd find that much resistance against it as a term.
Lastly, I think you've missed out how much today's Israelis and Palestinians have traumatised one another. It's not only about inheritance of trauma. It's about terrorism and military abuse and how both "sides" get tighter and tighter with each incident. | natasharevolution | 1,704,113,397 | CMV: A key step towards peace in Israel/Palestine is for both sides to recognise each other's collective trauma. | As I talk to people and read about Israel/Palestine, I came to realise that what makes Israeli identity and Palestinian identity unique is how core their respective "collective trauma" is to their identities. For Israel, it's the millennial-long European antisemitism that culminated into the Holocaust (and, minorly, the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world but I'll address that later), and for Palestine, it's the ethnic cleansing campaign Nakba that took place 75 years ago. I began to realise that the chasm in understanding between both camps, Israeli Jews and Palestinians, is in large part due to the lack of recognition of such trauma, which is why both sides feel like the other side is doing all they can to invalidate one's identity.
1. Holocaust denialism. While Zionism wasn't founded because of the Holocaust, it had certainly accelerated the support and expansion of Israel on the international stage. Israel's foundation is partially built on the collective trauma of the Holocaust, but you would see many instances of Holocaust denialism from Palestinians, like when[ Mahmoud Abbas](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/11/intellectuals-condemn-mahmoud-abbass-attempt-to-justify-antisemitism), leader of the Palestinian Authority, said “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Hamas has also refused to allow Gazan children to learn about the Holocaust, calling it a fabrication of the Zionists. I would also like to quickly highlight that Palestinians are _not_ responsible for the Holocaust, but in order for both groups to live in peace, _recognition_ must come first.
2. Nakba denialism. On the flip side, Israel has also attempted to wipe their hands off the Nakba. Since 1948, until around the late 1980s when files began to be declassified, Israel has denied any involvement in the Nakba. But even today it's still happening. The term "Nakba" is [banned](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/israel-remove-nakba-from-textbooks) in Arab children's textbook. They also passed the "[Nakba Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law)", which restricts fundings to organisations looking to commemorate or recognise Nakba. [Haareetz](https://archive.is/1QVVm) too has a piece on systemic denial from the Israeli government of the Nakba. Even today, many Zionists would claim that Nakba was merely a result of the Arab-Israel war, or Arab nations were actually responsible for telling Palestinian Arabs to flee, when the evidence suggests otherwise. In contrast to Holocaust denialism, Israel _is_ responsible for Nakba, therefore for both groups to live in peace, Israel must take responsibility, recognise that what they are doing _now_ is further inflicting trauma, and reparations must take place.
3. Jewish exodus from the Muslim world. It's not uncommon for some people to compare Nakba to the Jewish exodus and call it "Jewish Nakba". While the pain of MENA Jewish communities must be recognised by the Muslim world, I don't think it's helpful to use the word "Nakba" when it already means so much to the Palestinians. It'll be like calling the Romani Genocide "Romani Shoah", it's just wrong. I will also say that the exodus was not all forceful, many Jews left for better economic opportunities or adherence to Aliyah. So while this event is important to recognise, I think the first two are much more important and hold significantly more gravity than this one.
All in all, I think that for peace to be achieved, either one secular federal state or two independent states, the recognition of "collective trauma" must come first. This means Israel needs to properly recognise the Nakba and pay reparations for it, and Palestinians need to recognise that Zionism as a colonial project was not an ideology founded on the want to exploit and bully but on the traumatic history of Jews in Europe. | While I think you're not far from the mark, I would suggest your third point isn't quite accurate. The Jews of Israel are hugely impacted by being ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, and that (plus the 1948 war) has made a big difference in their relationship with their neighbours. I think you're underplaying that trauma.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the phrase "Romani Shoah". It's not the term we would usually use, but I absolutely think there's a lot in common there with what happened to the Jews, and I don't think you'd find that much resistance against it as a term.
Lastly, I think you've missed out how much today's Israelis and Palestinians have traumatised one another. It's not only about inheritance of trauma. It's about terrorism and military abuse and how both "sides" get tighter and tighter with each incident. | GoSouthCourt |
18vzbi8 | /r/changemyview/comments/18vyx5s/cmv_we_should_accept_that_a_lot_of_guys_will_have/ | BiryaniEater10 | [
"DeltaBlues82"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18vyx5s/cmv_we_should_accept_that_a_lot_of_guys_will_have/kfuc6dg/ | 3,377 | CMV: We should accept that a lot of guys will have a much harder time and/or impossible time dating based on their height. | There’s a lot of gaslighting of men between the heights of 5’2-5’6 that if they perpetually can’t find a date, that it’s their fault. While it could be, there’s no reason why we should assume this. If anything, it’s incel-ish to assume that any short guy can just “overcome” their height and find a partner. Some people will just likely never find partners in life. That’s the reality. We know that women very often refuse to date men shorter than them, which is their right, but that’s also the reason short men can’t find dates, not because of their “personality.”
I also agree that short men should do the things that we tell everyone to do, such as going out, being social, and just generally being a fun person to be around. But it’s not like they’ll get dates because of it; rather it’s for their own self enrichment and because being a fun person is a good thing whether you can find that person or not.
The one “tip” I think is acceptable is that if you’re at the taller end of the height range in the OP, then it’s reasonable to maybe ask someone to consider moving to an area with shorter women within their country. Outside of that, let’s try to stop gaslighting short men into thinking their dating problems are their fault and accept that it is simply a result of standing eye to eye with the likes of Bruno Mars, Kevin Hart, and in more extreme cases Danny DeVito. | What purpose does that serve? Other than places like Reddit, who is out there regularly debating the fact that shorter men have less dating options?
Are normal, rational people out and about regularly confronting short single men and telling them it’s their fault they are less “attractive” than taller men?
Rational people already accept this. Do we really need to pander to the irrational people who are trying make this a debate? | DeltaBlues82 | 1,704,123,782 | CMV: We should accept that a lot of guys will have a much harder time and/or impossible time dating based on their height. | There’s a lot of gaslighting of men between the heights of 5’2-5’6 that if they perpetually can’t find a date, that it’s their fault. While it could be, there’s no reason why we should assume this. If anything, it’s incel-ish to assume that any short guy can just “overcome” their height and find a partner. Some people will just likely never find partners in life. That’s the reality. We know that women very often refuse to date men shorter than them, which is their right, but that’s also the reason short men can’t find dates, not because of their “personality.”
I also agree that short men should do the things that we tell everyone to do, such as going out, being social, and just generally being a fun person to be around. But it’s not like they’ll get dates because of it; rather it’s for their own self enrichment and because being a fun person is a good thing whether you can find that person or not.
The one “tip” I think is acceptable is that if you’re at the taller end of the height range in the OP, then it’s reasonable to maybe ask someone to consider moving to an area with shorter women within their country. Outside of that, let’s try to stop gaslighting short men into thinking their dating problems are their fault and accept that it is simply a result of standing eye to eye with the likes of Bruno Mars, Kevin Hart, and in more extreme cases Danny DeVito. | What purpose does that serve? Other than places like Reddit, who is out there regularly debating the fact that shorter men have less dating options?
Are normal, rational people out and about regularly confronting short single men and telling them it’s their fault they are less “attractive” than taller men?
Rational people already accept this. Do we really need to pander to the irrational people who are trying make this a debate? | BiryaniEater10 |
18w57r1 | /r/changemyview/comments/18w2bgo/cmv_you_cannot_fairly_compare_this_generation_of/ | SpeedyFalcon874 | [
"Tempestor_Prime"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18w2bgo/cmv_you_cannot_fairly_compare_this_generation_of/kfv6we3/ | 5,172 | CMV: You cannot fairly compare this generation of men to previous generations. | I see all the time that people say men are declining or that this generation of men couldn't hold a candle to the manly men of the previous generations, but the more I think about it the more I realize that comparing this generation of men (40 and below) to previous generations isn't a fair comparison because the circumstances in our society are so different than they used to be.
They say the epitome of manhood is being able to take care of another human being, whether that be a child, your GF/wife or both. This means you need to provide a stable home and environment for people who are smaller and weaker than you to feel safe and secure. Well, modern men are generally failing at that, they don't own homes nearly as much as previous generations, they have less disposable income and they are less likely to keep the same job for decades (job stability). But this isn't entirely men's faults. The housing market is terrible right now compared to back then. The average US median home income in 1970 was $9,870 a year, the average US home costed $17,000 (inflation adjusted $112,941. Nowadays the average US house costs $3336,900. More than 3 times as much. No wonder less people own homes.
Women on the other hand are seen as progressing and being better than their previous generations, but this has a lot more to do with having more opportunities than their elder female counterparts did than them just being better humans, women couldn't even have their own bank account until the 1960s in the US. Before they were just under impossible circumstances to build a life of their own. I see all the time people say, women are getting better and men are declining without acknowledging the changing landscape of society or what these men and women are being compared to.
Men are not "weaker" than previous generations of men, they are just dealing with much different circumstances, it is harder to afford a home the traditional way that we were taught in school, women are now equal to men in the workforce because they have been given opportunities that simply didn't exist for them in the past. This has made men appear weaker. They can't be that alpha provider that they used to be because in a lot of cases you need 2 incomes to afford a house. This means the woman has to work and earn her own money, in some cases this could end up being more money than the man makes and this leads to another plethora of problems. If the woman outearns the man than she is now the authority figure of the household. This is problematic because she will lose respect for that man. Women lose attraction and respect for men that listen to them too much, they don't want an obedient man, but what can a man truly do in that situation if he earns less. Women think you look like a joke if you're doing what they say. Why this is? I'm not entirely sure but it's biology and nature.
These are just some of the reasons of why I believe it looks like modern men appear weak or that they appear to be lesser than, than their older counterparts. The situations are too different to fairly compare, we also need to redefine what we consider to be true masculinity. Being a man is NOT ONLY about being a provider and protector for your woman and your child, but it is also about leading them by example and in a positive direction. Many men back then were providers but they were also physically abusive, that is not a good man either. It is not enough to be the head of household, we must also lead by example for our women and children.
Statistics retrieved from: [https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1971/demo/p60-80.html](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1971/demo/p60-80.html)
[https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/articles/this-is-how-home-prices-have-changed-in-the-last-50-years/](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/articles/this-is-how-home-prices-have-changed-in-the-last-50-years/)
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/homeownership-statistics/#:\~:text=35%25%20of%20the%20American%20population,does%20not%20own%20their%20own%20homes. | Sure I can. They were all varied individuals with different upbringings and life goals. I look at my two grandfather's. One was in the army for most of his life. He was emotionally abusive for most of his life until his late years. My other grandfather was a college professor. He was soft spoken and cared greatly about a healthy family relationship. I can compare myself to both of these men and be judged by our shared experiences and outcomes.
I (country boy from MO) probably have as much in common with those men as I do with a man my age raised in urban California. Compare us and judge us by our actions and form your own opinion to help guide your life or help the men around you. | Tempestor_Prime | 1,704,135,391 | CMV: You cannot fairly compare this generation of men to previous generations. | I see all the time that people say men are declining or that this generation of men couldn't hold a candle to the manly men of the previous generations, but the more I think about it the more I realize that comparing this generation of men (40 and below) to previous generations isn't a fair comparison because the circumstances in our society are so different than they used to be.
They say the epitome of manhood is being able to take care of another human being, whether that be a child, your GF/wife or both. This means you need to provide a stable home and environment for people who are smaller and weaker than you to feel safe and secure. Well, modern men are generally failing at that, they don't own homes nearly as much as previous generations, they have less disposable income and they are less likely to keep the same job for decades (job stability). But this isn't entirely men's faults. The housing market is terrible right now compared to back then. The average US median home income in 1970 was $9,870 a year, the average US home costed $17,000 (inflation adjusted $112,941. Nowadays the average US house costs $3336,900. More than 3 times as much. No wonder less people own homes.
Women on the other hand are seen as progressing and being better than their previous generations, but this has a lot more to do with having more opportunities than their elder female counterparts did than them just being better humans, women couldn't even have their own bank account until the 1960s in the US. Before they were just under impossible circumstances to build a life of their own. I see all the time people say, women are getting better and men are declining without acknowledging the changing landscape of society or what these men and women are being compared to.
Men are not "weaker" than previous generations of men, they are just dealing with much different circumstances, it is harder to afford a home the traditional way that we were taught in school, women are now equal to men in the workforce because they have been given opportunities that simply didn't exist for them in the past. This has made men appear weaker. They can't be that alpha provider that they used to be because in a lot of cases you need 2 incomes to afford a house. This means the woman has to work and earn her own money, in some cases this could end up being more money than the man makes and this leads to another plethora of problems. If the woman outearns the man than she is now the authority figure of the household. This is problematic because she will lose respect for that man. Women lose attraction and respect for men that listen to them too much, they don't want an obedient man, but what can a man truly do in that situation if he earns less. Women think you look like a joke if you're doing what they say. Why this is? I'm not entirely sure but it's biology and nature.
These are just some of the reasons of why I believe it looks like modern men appear weak or that they appear to be lesser than, than their older counterparts. The situations are too different to fairly compare, we also need to redefine what we consider to be true masculinity. Being a man is NOT ONLY about being a provider and protector for your woman and your child, but it is also about leading them by example and in a positive direction. Many men back then were providers but they were also physically abusive, that is not a good man either. It is not enough to be the head of household, we must also lead by example for our women and children.
Statistics retrieved from: [https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1971/demo/p60-80.html](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1971/demo/p60-80.html)
[https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/articles/this-is-how-home-prices-have-changed-in-the-last-50-years/](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/articles/this-is-how-home-prices-have-changed-in-the-last-50-years/)
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/homeownership-statistics/#:\~:text=35%25%20of%20the%20American%20population,does%20not%20own%20their%20own%20homes. | Sure I can. They were all varied individuals with different upbringings and life goals. I look at my two grandfather's. One was in the army for most of his life. He was emotionally abusive for most of his life until his late years. My other grandfather was a college professor. He was soft spoken and cared greatly about a healthy family relationship. I can compare myself to both of these men and be judged by our shared experiences and outcomes.
I (country boy from MO) probably have as much in common with those men as I do with a man my age raised in urban California. Compare us and judge us by our actions and form your own opinion to help guide your life or help the men around you. | SpeedyFalcon874 |
18w5ygx | /r/changemyview/comments/18w43mn/cmv_the_category_of_expert_as_such_should_be/ | quantum_dan | [
"McKibbins"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18w43mn/cmv_the_category_of_expert_as_such_should_be/kfvit85/ | 5,824 | CMV: the category of "expert", as such, should be replaced with professional/experience descriptions ("climate researcher", "physicist") | To avoid any ambiguity, I am absolutely not arguing that present-day experts are illegitimate and I am not denying the value of expertise. Expertise is valuable and people accurately referred to as experts typically possess relevant expertise. This is about terminology.
Also note that I am not suggesting a fixed level of specificity; in different contexts, different levels will be appropriate ("researcher", "earth scientist", "hydrologist", "surface-water hydrologist", "river restoration researcher" - describing the same person in different contexts). "Researcher" is different from "expert", despite its breadth, because it still refers to a profession. "Expert" is something one is, rather than something one does.
The designation "expert" isn't inherently attached to a field and is often used on its own ("trust the experts", often said to argue against doing so). By that characteristic, it tends to signal blanket authority - so one sees experts in one field being taken to have credibility in another, because they're experts, right? Conversely, it often leads to mistrust (warranted or otherwise) of experts in one field translating to other fields, when a person simply concludes that expertise is untrustworthy. These effects are enhanced by "expert" being a quality of a person, rather than something they do, so it connotes fixed authority rather than relevant experience. A Forest Service research hydrologist becomes "someone who knows stuff about fish habitat" rather than "someone who is actively investigating fish habitat".
There's the disadvantage of using a lumped category which refers to authority rather than practice. From the other end, I don't see any advantage "expert" has over just referring specifically to someone's area of practice, whereas it might be very useful to indicate precisely where someone is coming from and why they know stuff. A flood researcher, snow hydrologist, and climate researcher all have relevant expertise on climate change impacts in the American West, but they have very different expertise and it's useful to know which is which. Decent reporting will specify anyway, but what use does lumping them all together as "experts" have instead of just distinguishing to begin with?
Potential lines of argument I am aware of:
* Demonstrate that profession-specific descriptors would not be practical. (This does not include arguing out that the examples I provided would need to be restated - e.g., "people might not know what a hydrologist is" - unless the argument is that many fields of expertise are not describable in publicly-accessible terms.)
* Demonstrate that the lumped "expert" category has positive value I overlooked, to a sufficient degree to justify the widespread use of the term.
* Demonstrate that the disadvantages I mentioned aren't specific to the "expert" lumping, in a way that undermines the argument here. | You are taking two elements of a title and nitpicking them separately which doesn't make sense.
"Hydrologist" and "Expert hydrologist" have different connotations. A hydrologist who just started yesterday is still a hydrologist but relying on them as much as one who has been in the field 20 years is not rational. The term "expert" is used to denote this. | McKibbins | 1,704,139,650 | CMV: the category of "expert", as such, should be replaced with professional/experience descriptions ("climate researcher", "physicist") | To avoid any ambiguity, I am absolutely not arguing that present-day experts are illegitimate and I am not denying the value of expertise. Expertise is valuable and people accurately referred to as experts typically possess relevant expertise. This is about terminology.
Also note that I am not suggesting a fixed level of specificity; in different contexts, different levels will be appropriate ("researcher", "earth scientist", "hydrologist", "surface-water hydrologist", "river restoration researcher" - describing the same person in different contexts). "Researcher" is different from "expert", despite its breadth, because it still refers to a profession. "Expert" is something one is, rather than something one does.
The designation "expert" isn't inherently attached to a field and is often used on its own ("trust the experts", often said to argue against doing so). By that characteristic, it tends to signal blanket authority - so one sees experts in one field being taken to have credibility in another, because they're experts, right? Conversely, it often leads to mistrust (warranted or otherwise) of experts in one field translating to other fields, when a person simply concludes that expertise is untrustworthy. These effects are enhanced by "expert" being a quality of a person, rather than something they do, so it connotes fixed authority rather than relevant experience. A Forest Service research hydrologist becomes "someone who knows stuff about fish habitat" rather than "someone who is actively investigating fish habitat".
There's the disadvantage of using a lumped category which refers to authority rather than practice. From the other end, I don't see any advantage "expert" has over just referring specifically to someone's area of practice, whereas it might be very useful to indicate precisely where someone is coming from and why they know stuff. A flood researcher, snow hydrologist, and climate researcher all have relevant expertise on climate change impacts in the American West, but they have very different expertise and it's useful to know which is which. Decent reporting will specify anyway, but what use does lumping them all together as "experts" have instead of just distinguishing to begin with?
Potential lines of argument I am aware of:
* Demonstrate that profession-specific descriptors would not be practical. (This does not include arguing out that the examples I provided would need to be restated - e.g., "people might not know what a hydrologist is" - unless the argument is that many fields of expertise are not describable in publicly-accessible terms.)
* Demonstrate that the lumped "expert" category has positive value I overlooked, to a sufficient degree to justify the widespread use of the term.
* Demonstrate that the disadvantages I mentioned aren't specific to the "expert" lumping, in a way that undermines the argument here. | You are taking two elements of a title and nitpicking them separately which doesn't make sense.
"Hydrologist" and "Expert hydrologist" have different connotations. A hydrologist who just started yesterday is still a hydrologist but relying on them as much as one who has been in the field 20 years is not rational. The term "expert" is used to denote this. | quantum_dan |
18w6caj | /r/changemyview/comments/18w31t5/cmv_we_the_united_states_missed_a_huge/ | Objectivevoter80 | [
"Bobbob34"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18w31t5/cmv_we_the_united_states_missed_a_huge/kfv4r4s/ | 5,040 | CMV: We (the United States) missed a huge opportunity in 2017-2020 by not having a certified psychiatrist visit Trump in the Oval Office and calmly explain and show to him that he was a narcissist. | Imagine if we had had one - or a few - of the best psychiatrists in the nation visit Trump in the Oval Office in his first term and calmly show him - perhaps with videos of his behavior, and a list of the symptoms of clinical narcissism on the DSM chart - that he was a textbook narcissist (with a calm, non-attacking tone), and how his attitudes were affecting himself and the nation.
Like every narcissist, it would be a thunderclap of extreme humiliation and abasement. After Trump was done shrieking in horror and self-reflection (Scrooge in *Christmas Carol* style) and bellowing repeatedly to the nation how wrong he was (perhaps White House aides needing to restrain him as he flailed and thrashed about in self-shame), he would then have adopted much more compassionate policies in governance. Covid would have been handled much better. There would be genuine bipartisanship with the Democrats. He would double taxes on himself and all other wealthy Americans. Trump would donate everything he had to charity, legalize immigration of all kinds, and he would never utter an untruth again. | >Imagine if we had had one - or a few - of the best psychiatrists in the nation visit Trump in the Oval Office in his first term and calmly show him - perhaps with videos of his behavior, and a list of the symptoms of clinical narcissism on the DSM chart - that he was a textbook narcissist (with a calm, non-attacking tone), and how his attitudes were affecting himself and the nation.
Like every narcissist, it would be a thunderclap of extreme humiliation and abasement.
That is not how ANYTHING works.
It's not how psychology works, or diagnoses, god knows.''Here, look at my coding book, see, you have that because of this list!'
It's not how treating anyone works. 'You have X. HAH! See? Now quit it.'
It's not how people work. 'Oh, I have X? That book has a checklist so I do?! OMG I'm so embarrassed.'
>After Trump was done shrieking in horror and self-reflection (Scrooge in Christmas Carol style) and bellowing repeatedly to the nation how wrong he was, he would then have adopted much more compassionate policies in governance. Covid would have been handled much better. There would be genuine bipartisanship with the Democrats. He would double taxes on himself and all other wealthy Americans. Trump would donate everything he had to charity, conduct himself with dignity and gravitas, and he would never utter an untruth again.
Is this just a joke? No. | Bobbob34 | 1,704,134,623 | CMV: We (the United States) missed a huge opportunity in 2017-2020 by not having a certified psychiatrist visit Trump in the Oval Office and calmly explain and show to him that he was a narcissist. | Imagine if we had had one - or a few - of the best psychiatrists in the nation visit Trump in the Oval Office in his first term and calmly show him - perhaps with videos of his behavior, and a list of the symptoms of clinical narcissism on the DSM chart - that he was a textbook narcissist (with a calm, non-attacking tone), and how his attitudes were affecting himself and the nation.
Like every narcissist, it would be a thunderclap of extreme humiliation and abasement. After Trump was done shrieking in horror and self-reflection (Scrooge in *Christmas Carol* style) and bellowing repeatedly to the nation how wrong he was (perhaps White House aides needing to restrain him as he flailed and thrashed about in self-shame), he would then have adopted much more compassionate policies in governance. Covid would have been handled much better. There would be genuine bipartisanship with the Democrats. He would double taxes on himself and all other wealthy Americans. Trump would donate everything he had to charity, legalize immigration of all kinds, and he would never utter an untruth again. | >Imagine if we had had one - or a few - of the best psychiatrists in the nation visit Trump in the Oval Office in his first term and calmly show him - perhaps with videos of his behavior, and a list of the symptoms of clinical narcissism on the DSM chart - that he was a textbook narcissist (with a calm, non-attacking tone), and how his attitudes were affecting himself and the nation.
Like every narcissist, it would be a thunderclap of extreme humiliation and abasement.
That is not how ANYTHING works.
It's not how psychology works, or diagnoses, god knows.''Here, look at my coding book, see, you have that because of this list!'
It's not how treating anyone works. 'You have X. HAH! See? Now quit it.'
It's not how people work. 'Oh, I have X? That book has a checklist so I do?! OMG I'm so embarrassed.'
>After Trump was done shrieking in horror and self-reflection (Scrooge in Christmas Carol style) and bellowing repeatedly to the nation how wrong he was, he would then have adopted much more compassionate policies in governance. Covid would have been handled much better. There would be genuine bipartisanship with the Democrats. He would double taxes on himself and all other wealthy Americans. Trump would donate everything he had to charity, conduct himself with dignity and gravitas, and he would never utter an untruth again.
Is this just a joke? No. | Objectivevoter80 |
18weoya | /r/changemyview/comments/18wd3va/cmv_being_an_american_conservative_is_immoral/ | Far_Administration25 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wd3va/cmv_being_an_american_conservative_is_immoral/kfxanpk/ | 8,849 | Cmv: Being an American conservative is immoral |
The American conservative cares about stopping immigration, cutting taxes for the rich, silencing doctors/teachers/child psychologists, and supporting wars.
Conservatives have no positive policies, the ones they implement are only designed to hurt specific groups they don't like. They'll sell out public services to corporations. They'll put bounties on women's heads for getting abortions. They'll lie under oath about their plans. They'll send you to die in a desert for a lie. They'll decry pedophiles but have tons of them in their ranks. They'll overturn elections or threaten revolt if they think they're losing.
Most conservatives either are intentionally hateful and cruel or are tricked into supporting conservatives based on fear or peer pressure. Supporting them is wrong, and the modern conservative is immoral. | >I remember in that study in Soviet Union when they domesticated foxes. They did change their behavior drastically.
Perhaps humans are a lot less aggressive than they used to be. Perhaps even that's what the criminal class is. Just what remains of those people.
Actually, That's kind of a SPOT ON assumption. Are early self domestication is WHY we were a lot less aggressive and able to be more cooperative and breed out other Homonid species.
[https://www.science.org/content/article/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests](https://www.science.org/content/article/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests)
[https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-21](https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-21)
That's one a little more Indepth, And In full disclosure here's a bit of argumentation for individual VS species wide
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00134/full
>BTW I still believe humans are intensely wired to focus a gigantic portion of their attention on reproduction. That it's expected for those who can't pair up to feel angst because of it. From a purely genetic perspective.
I would say it's "Common" but saying that its intrinsic to EVERYONE who doesn't reproduce is hyperbolic especially now when WE really don't feel the natural pressure of reproduction just the biological. (( There's a lot of psychology that is focused on how High Comfort society actually emphasises less reproduction)) | JonseyMcFly | 1,704,163,676 | Cmv: Being an American conservative is immoral |
The American conservative cares about stopping immigration, cutting taxes for the rich, silencing doctors/teachers/child psychologists, and supporting wars.
Conservatives have no positive policies, the ones they implement are only designed to hurt specific groups they don't like. They'll sell out public services to corporations. They'll put bounties on women's heads for getting abortions. They'll lie under oath about their plans. They'll send you to die in a desert for a lie. They'll decry pedophiles but have tons of them in their ranks. They'll overturn elections or threaten revolt if they think they're losing.
Most conservatives either are intentionally hateful and cruel or are tricked into supporting conservatives based on fear or peer pressure. Supporting them is wrong, and the modern conservative is immoral. | >I remember in that study in Soviet Union when they domesticated foxes. They did change their behavior drastically.
Perhaps humans are a lot less aggressive than they used to be. Perhaps even that's what the criminal class is. Just what remains of those people.
Actually, That's kind of a SPOT ON assumption. Are early self domestication is WHY we were a lot less aggressive and able to be more cooperative and breed out other Homonid species.
[https://www.science.org/content/article/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests](https://www.science.org/content/article/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests)
[https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-21](https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-21)
That's one a little more Indepth, And In full disclosure here's a bit of argumentation for individual VS species wide
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00134/full
>BTW I still believe humans are intensely wired to focus a gigantic portion of their attention on reproduction. That it's expected for those who can't pair up to feel angst because of it. From a purely genetic perspective.
I would say it's "Common" but saying that its intrinsic to EVERYONE who doesn't reproduce is hyperbolic especially now when WE really don't feel the natural pressure of reproduction just the biological. (( There's a lot of psychology that is focused on how High Comfort society actually emphasises less reproduction)) | Far_Administration25 |
18wfe55 | /r/changemyview/comments/18waax8/cmv_a_meeting_previously_scheduled_at_12pm_is/ | BurtMacklin____FBI | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18waax8/cmv_a_meeting_previously_scheduled_at_12pm_is/kfx4k1z/ | 8,573 | CMV: A meeting previously scheduled at 12PM is "moved forward" 2 hours. The meeting is now at 2PM. | So hear me out here. I've asked a few people, some say 10AM, some say 2PM, and I think it depends on your perception of how time moves (or instead how you move through it).
People who perceive themselves as stationary while time moves past you will say that the meeting is at 10AM.
People who perceive time as stationary as you move through it will say the meeting is at 2PM.
Discuss, argue, theorize. I'm all for getting to the bottom of this (if there is one).
I'm team 2PM here, and I think most people will disagree with me. But I'll try and explain why I think this.
Imagine you are a train on a train track (travelling at a fixed speed), and the meeting is a train station. In order to get to the station sooner, you would have to move the station **back**, against the direction of travel. And if you kept moving the station **forwards**, you'd never reach it.
Additionally, if you had a time machine and wanted to visit the year 2050, you would need to go **forwards** in time to a later date.
I'm really curious to know if there's a definite link between whether you say 10AM or 2PM, and which of the two ways you perceive time.
However as always I'm open to having my mind changed, and I know that in most settings like at work, moving a meeting forward means to make it earlier. But, I think there's room to argue its ambiguous. | You're not moving the meeting "back in time", you're moving it "back in the schedule" - ie toward the end of the schedule.
It all depends if you view schedules as a timeline or a queue. Most people see them as a queue, so "back" means to move to the end of the queue. | GodelianKnot | 1,704,161,215 | CMV: A meeting previously scheduled at 12PM is "moved forward" 2 hours. The meeting is now at 2PM. | So hear me out here. I've asked a few people, some say 10AM, some say 2PM, and I think it depends on your perception of how time moves (or instead how you move through it).
People who perceive themselves as stationary while time moves past you will say that the meeting is at 10AM.
People who perceive time as stationary as you move through it will say the meeting is at 2PM.
Discuss, argue, theorize. I'm all for getting to the bottom of this (if there is one).
I'm team 2PM here, and I think most people will disagree with me. But I'll try and explain why I think this.
Imagine you are a train on a train track (travelling at a fixed speed), and the meeting is a train station. In order to get to the station sooner, you would have to move the station **back**, against the direction of travel. And if you kept moving the station **forwards**, you'd never reach it.
Additionally, if you had a time machine and wanted to visit the year 2050, you would need to go **forwards** in time to a later date.
I'm really curious to know if there's a definite link between whether you say 10AM or 2PM, and which of the two ways you perceive time.
However as always I'm open to having my mind changed, and I know that in most settings like at work, moving a meeting forward means to make it earlier. But, I think there's room to argue its ambiguous. | You're not moving the meeting "back in time", you're moving it "back in the schedule" - ie toward the end of the schedule.
It all depends if you view schedules as a timeline or a queue. Most people see them as a queue, so "back" means to move to the end of the queue. | BurtMacklin____FBI |
18wfe5v | /r/changemyview/comments/18waax8/cmv_a_meeting_previously_scheduled_at_12pm_is/ | BurtMacklin____FBI | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18waax8/cmv_a_meeting_previously_scheduled_at_12pm_is/kfx4k1z/ | 8,573 | CMV: A meeting previously scheduled at 12PM is "moved forward" 2 hours. The meeting is now at 2PM. | So hear me out here. I've asked a few people, some say 10AM, some say 2PM, and I think it depends on your perception of how time moves (or instead how you move through it).
People who perceive themselves as stationary while time moves past you will say that the meeting is at 10AM.
People who perceive time as stationary as you move through it will say the meeting is at 2PM.
Discuss, argue, theorize. I'm all for getting to the bottom of this (if there is one).
I'm team 2PM here, and I think most people will disagree with me. But I'll try and explain why I think this.
Imagine you are a train on a train track (travelling at a fixed speed), and the meeting is a train station. In order to get to the station sooner, you would have to move the station **back**, against the direction of travel. And if you kept moving the station **forwards**, you'd never reach it.
Additionally, if you had a time machine and wanted to visit the year 2050, you would need to go **forwards** in time to a later date.
I'm really curious to know if there's a definite link between whether you say 10AM or 2PM, and which of the two ways you perceive time.
However as always I'm open to having my mind changed, and I know that in most settings like at work, moving a meeting forward means to make it earlier. But, I think there's room to argue its ambiguous. | You're not moving the meeting "back in time", you're moving it "back in the schedule" - ie toward the end of the schedule.
It all depends if you view schedules as a timeline or a queue. Most people see them as a queue, so "back" means to move to the end of the queue. | GodelianKnot | 1,704,161,215 | CMV: A meeting previously scheduled at 12PM is "moved forward" 2 hours. The meeting is now at 2PM. | So hear me out here. I've asked a few people, some say 10AM, some say 2PM, and I think it depends on your perception of how time moves (or instead how you move through it).
People who perceive themselves as stationary while time moves past you will say that the meeting is at 10AM.
People who perceive time as stationary as you move through it will say the meeting is at 2PM.
Discuss, argue, theorize. I'm all for getting to the bottom of this (if there is one).
I'm team 2PM here, and I think most people will disagree with me. But I'll try and explain why I think this.
Imagine you are a train on a train track (travelling at a fixed speed), and the meeting is a train station. In order to get to the station sooner, you would have to move the station **back**, against the direction of travel. And if you kept moving the station **forwards**, you'd never reach it.
Additionally, if you had a time machine and wanted to visit the year 2050, you would need to go **forwards** in time to a later date.
I'm really curious to know if there's a definite link between whether you say 10AM or 2PM, and which of the two ways you perceive time.
However as always I'm open to having my mind changed, and I know that in most settings like at work, moving a meeting forward means to make it earlier. But, I think there's room to argue its ambiguous. | You're not moving the meeting "back in time", you're moving it "back in the schedule" - ie toward the end of the schedule.
It all depends if you view schedules as a timeline or a queue. Most people see them as a queue, so "back" means to move to the end of the queue. | BurtMacklin____FBI |
18wg3k3 | /r/changemyview/comments/18wdsi2/cmv_ai_art_is_not_inherently_unethical/ | Kell08 | [
"themcos"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wdsi2/cmv_ai_art_is_not_inherently_unethical/kfxa54c/ | 8,831 | CMV: AI Art is not inherently unethical. | I've seen a lot of backlash against AI-generated images/other art on social media, and while I can understand the criticisms I've seen, I don't agree with them. Working under the assumption that artificial image generation is ethically acceptable unless it can be reasoned that it isn't, here are some grievances about AI art I've seen and why I don't agree:
* **AI image generators are stealing other people's work/copyrighted images.** This is a valid criticism of an image generator that takes a base image from the internet and modifies it, which is indeed how some of them work. That is akin to a human tracing art, or editing existing images. However, my understanding is that the higher quality image generators are simply trained on publicly available images, and generate their own pictures from scratch using what they've learned. This isn't stealing, in my view. It's akin to a human artist looking at other pictures for reference, then creating their own.
* **AI art is taking away opportunities for commissions from human artists.** With how good artificial image generators have gotten, and with how good they will likely become in the future, it's clear that they are an appealing tool for anyone who wants to create a picture of anything with little cost or effort. Naturally, this could conceivably reduce the demand for artists creating pictures for graphics, thumbnails, viewing enjoyment, and so on. However, as unfortunate as that might be for affected artists, it doesn't mean that the engineers behind AI image generators or the people who use them are doing anything wrong. Sometimes technological advancement just reduces the demand for doing things the old fashioned way. You're allowed to introduce a new product that competes with an existing industry. For example, [Taxi drivers have objected to the rise of ride-sharing services like Uber](https://www.thethings.com/stephen-colberts-guest-travis-kalanick-was-rattled-after-hecklers-angrily-interrupted-his-interview/) for how it's affected their industry in the past, but that doesn't mean ride-sharing apps are unethical.
* **People can falsely claim to have created artwork when they are actually just showing what they generated with AI.** The issue here is that the hypothetical individual is lying, not that they are using an AI image generator. Yes, artificially generated images have become very well refined and can't always be distinguished from something that is human-made, but that isn't an inherently bad thing. Obviously falsely claiming to have made something you didn't is plagiarism, but we aren't going to start calling WikiPedia unethical because someone could copy-paste it and claim it's their own work.
* **AI can be used to create likenesses of real people in inappropriate situations or for otherwise deceptive purposes without their consent.** This is an issue with a potential use for the technology, not the technology itself. I don't consider AI-generated visuals/audio to be unethical as a whole simply because they could potentially be abused. The internet can be (and is) abused for some truly heinous things, but that doesn't mean the internet itself is a bad thing.
Overall, I see how controversial this developing technology has become, but I think the main criticisms don't really hold up to scrutiny. I would be interested in reading what people who oppose AI art have to say about this, since I don't think I've personally ever really seen an in-depth discussion of the points I'm making here. I'm sure it's happened, but I would like to see for myself. | I definitely agree with some of your counterarguments there, but what I'd ask you is do you think it's possible for a technology advance to be a net negative to society, such that it would be a better world on average of that technology had not been invented? I'm not personally totally convinced that AI would fall into this category, and there are other obvious cases that have arguments both ways (nuclear power, various addictive drugs, etc...) And even if you support these technologies in broad strokes (nuclear power overall probably good overall), but maybe there are at least hypothetical advances that would be obviously bad (easy to build small scale nuclear weapons) - similarly, modern medicine is good, but there are probably any least some specific opioid advances that may have done more harm than good.
But I guess my point is if you can even allow for the possibility of a harmful technology, which I think you should, AI art at least can be thought of as a candidate for this category. I hope it doesn't end up this way, but I could at least imagine AI art becoming dominant in a way that makes things really aesthetically stagnant - AI art is much cheaper but a little bit worse, such that everybody settles into an aesthetic equilibrium that is highly cost effective but visually kind of meh.
I'm personally optimistic that AI art can break through such a barrier, but it's admittedly speculative at this point. We don't know, and I don't think it's crazy to imagine an AI powered world that is on average worse than what we have.
And at that point, the argument becomes a disagreement over what we predict will happen! Maybe you want the word "inherently" to bail you out of this, and I could kind of see that, but if you end up arguing something like "AI art isn't *inherently* bad, but just happened to result in making the world a worse place", I don't know if this is a super interesting line of through.
And if we allow for the possibility of AI art making the world a worse place, I think you can then make a plausible case that any support for AI art is moving us in the wrong direction.
That said, I think a counterargument here is that AI art, like many other technologies, might be for all intents and purposes inevitable, in which case I think that has implications that diminish the value of pointlessly trying to stop it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tl;dr I dunno, ultimately I personally come down looking pretty favorably on AI art, but I think it's at least plausible that someone could predict that AI art is both bad for the world on average and potentially preventable - these are currently open questions and *if* you believe these, AI art would be immoral. | themcos | 1,704,163,469 | CMV: AI Art is not inherently unethical. | I've seen a lot of backlash against AI-generated images/other art on social media, and while I can understand the criticisms I've seen, I don't agree with them. Working under the assumption that artificial image generation is ethically acceptable unless it can be reasoned that it isn't, here are some grievances about AI art I've seen and why I don't agree:
* **AI image generators are stealing other people's work/copyrighted images.** This is a valid criticism of an image generator that takes a base image from the internet and modifies it, which is indeed how some of them work. That is akin to a human tracing art, or editing existing images. However, my understanding is that the higher quality image generators are simply trained on publicly available images, and generate their own pictures from scratch using what they've learned. This isn't stealing, in my view. It's akin to a human artist looking at other pictures for reference, then creating their own.
* **AI art is taking away opportunities for commissions from human artists.** With how good artificial image generators have gotten, and with how good they will likely become in the future, it's clear that they are an appealing tool for anyone who wants to create a picture of anything with little cost or effort. Naturally, this could conceivably reduce the demand for artists creating pictures for graphics, thumbnails, viewing enjoyment, and so on. However, as unfortunate as that might be for affected artists, it doesn't mean that the engineers behind AI image generators or the people who use them are doing anything wrong. Sometimes technological advancement just reduces the demand for doing things the old fashioned way. You're allowed to introduce a new product that competes with an existing industry. For example, [Taxi drivers have objected to the rise of ride-sharing services like Uber](https://www.thethings.com/stephen-colberts-guest-travis-kalanick-was-rattled-after-hecklers-angrily-interrupted-his-interview/) for how it's affected their industry in the past, but that doesn't mean ride-sharing apps are unethical.
* **People can falsely claim to have created artwork when they are actually just showing what they generated with AI.** The issue here is that the hypothetical individual is lying, not that they are using an AI image generator. Yes, artificially generated images have become very well refined and can't always be distinguished from something that is human-made, but that isn't an inherently bad thing. Obviously falsely claiming to have made something you didn't is plagiarism, but we aren't going to start calling WikiPedia unethical because someone could copy-paste it and claim it's their own work.
* **AI can be used to create likenesses of real people in inappropriate situations or for otherwise deceptive purposes without their consent.** This is an issue with a potential use for the technology, not the technology itself. I don't consider AI-generated visuals/audio to be unethical as a whole simply because they could potentially be abused. The internet can be (and is) abused for some truly heinous things, but that doesn't mean the internet itself is a bad thing.
Overall, I see how controversial this developing technology has become, but I think the main criticisms don't really hold up to scrutiny. I would be interested in reading what people who oppose AI art have to say about this, since I don't think I've personally ever really seen an in-depth discussion of the points I'm making here. I'm sure it's happened, but I would like to see for myself. | I definitely agree with some of your counterarguments there, but what I'd ask you is do you think it's possible for a technology advance to be a net negative to society, such that it would be a better world on average of that technology had not been invented? I'm not personally totally convinced that AI would fall into this category, and there are other obvious cases that have arguments both ways (nuclear power, various addictive drugs, etc...) And even if you support these technologies in broad strokes (nuclear power overall probably good overall), but maybe there are at least hypothetical advances that would be obviously bad (easy to build small scale nuclear weapons) - similarly, modern medicine is good, but there are probably any least some specific opioid advances that may have done more harm than good.
But I guess my point is if you can even allow for the possibility of a harmful technology, which I think you should, AI art at least can be thought of as a candidate for this category. I hope it doesn't end up this way, but I could at least imagine AI art becoming dominant in a way that makes things really aesthetically stagnant - AI art is much cheaper but a little bit worse, such that everybody settles into an aesthetic equilibrium that is highly cost effective but visually kind of meh.
I'm personally optimistic that AI art can break through such a barrier, but it's admittedly speculative at this point. We don't know, and I don't think it's crazy to imagine an AI powered world that is on average worse than what we have.
And at that point, the argument becomes a disagreement over what we predict will happen! Maybe you want the word "inherently" to bail you out of this, and I could kind of see that, but if you end up arguing something like "AI art isn't *inherently* bad, but just happened to result in making the world a worse place", I don't know if this is a super interesting line of through.
And if we allow for the possibility of AI art making the world a worse place, I think you can then make a plausible case that any support for AI art is moving us in the wrong direction.
That said, I think a counterargument here is that AI art, like many other technologies, might be for all intents and purposes inevitable, in which case I think that has implications that diminish the value of pointlessly trying to stop it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tl;dr I dunno, ultimately I personally come down looking pretty favorably on AI art, but I think it's at least plausible that someone could predict that AI art is both bad for the world on average and potentially preventable - these are currently open questions and *if* you believe these, AI art would be immoral. | Kell08 |
18wlbl7 | /r/changemyview/comments/18wj1ek/cmv_i_believe_we_should_return_to_the_gold/ | Inside-Homework6544 | [
"Nrdman"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wj1ek/cmv_i_believe_we_should_return_to_the_gold/kfyas6v/ | 9,855 | CMV: I believe we should return to the gold standard | I believe that "we" (which for this context I suggest will mean a hypothetic first world nation in today's world, that I humbly suggest we call Ruritanian) should return to the gold standard. This will have many beneficial effects. Instead of inflation, you would have steady but healthy deflation, as seen during the gilded age in America when prices fell about 1.5% per year (wiki gilded age) but wages were increasing rapidly and there was tremendous economic growth. This deflation would incentive savings, which is really how economies grow in the first place. Imagine if your money was worth more every year instead of less. If prices kept falling instead of going up.
Inflationary monetary policy facilitated by fiat money transfers wealth from creditors to debtors. This might sound alright to someone struggling under student loans, but historically it is actually rich people who borrow the most money (think Donald Trump), since they have assets to back it up. Banks don't really lend to poor people. And it is the middle class and the working class who save money a lot of the time, so inflation is really a scam to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. A gold standard would prevent that, since it is a lot easier to print 2 billion dollars worth of paper money or to create 2 billion dollars worth of money in a bank account then it is to acquire 2 billion dollars worth of gold.
Fiat (paper) money also enables militarism and war. During WWI all of the belligerent nations went off the gold standard, because they wanted to print money to pay for their armies. Fiat money is an indispensible aspect of militarism and war. If the people were forced to pay the cost of going to war directly, through taxation, there would be much more opposition to imperialism and militarism, but because of inflationary monetary policy the cost of the war is hidden in everyday higher prices. This is a serious threat to world peace.
Finally, fiat money, central banks, and fractional reserve banking are responsible for the boom bust business cycle. What happens is, credit expansion (credit created out of thin air, instead of lending out actual savings) mimics a higher degree of consumer savings, either in the form of lower interest rates or a greater supply of available credit. This leads to the "cluster of errors" when entrepreneurs over invest in capital goods industries (because they think that consumer time preference has lengthened). Ultimately these investments are found to uneconomic and must be liquidated. The boom and bust. By adopting gold, we can end the boom and bust business cycle, and have steady prosperity.
​
​ | So if you agree we don’t technically need a gold standard, have I technically altered your view? | Nrdman | 1,704,182,768 | CMV: I believe we should return to the gold standard | I believe that "we" (which for this context I suggest will mean a hypothetic first world nation in today's world, that I humbly suggest we call Ruritanian) should return to the gold standard. This will have many beneficial effects. Instead of inflation, you would have steady but healthy deflation, as seen during the gilded age in America when prices fell about 1.5% per year (wiki gilded age) but wages were increasing rapidly and there was tremendous economic growth. This deflation would incentive savings, which is really how economies grow in the first place. Imagine if your money was worth more every year instead of less. If prices kept falling instead of going up.
Inflationary monetary policy facilitated by fiat money transfers wealth from creditors to debtors. This might sound alright to someone struggling under student loans, but historically it is actually rich people who borrow the most money (think Donald Trump), since they have assets to back it up. Banks don't really lend to poor people. And it is the middle class and the working class who save money a lot of the time, so inflation is really a scam to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. A gold standard would prevent that, since it is a lot easier to print 2 billion dollars worth of paper money or to create 2 billion dollars worth of money in a bank account then it is to acquire 2 billion dollars worth of gold.
Fiat (paper) money also enables militarism and war. During WWI all of the belligerent nations went off the gold standard, because they wanted to print money to pay for their armies. Fiat money is an indispensible aspect of militarism and war. If the people were forced to pay the cost of going to war directly, through taxation, there would be much more opposition to imperialism and militarism, but because of inflationary monetary policy the cost of the war is hidden in everyday higher prices. This is a serious threat to world peace.
Finally, fiat money, central banks, and fractional reserve banking are responsible for the boom bust business cycle. What happens is, credit expansion (credit created out of thin air, instead of lending out actual savings) mimics a higher degree of consumer savings, either in the form of lower interest rates or a greater supply of available credit. This leads to the "cluster of errors" when entrepreneurs over invest in capital goods industries (because they think that consumer time preference has lengthened). Ultimately these investments are found to uneconomic and must be liquidated. The boom and bust. By adopting gold, we can end the boom and bust business cycle, and have steady prosperity.
​
​ | So if you agree we don’t technically need a gold standard, have I technically altered your view? | Inside-Homework6544 |
18wokft | /r/changemyview/comments/18wo63g/cmv_pasta_is_better_eaten_with_a_fork_not_a_spoon/ | f0remsics | [
"Major_Lennox"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wo63g/cmv_pasta_is_better_eaten_with_a_fork_not_a_spoon/kfyxahj/ | 10,325 | Cmv: Pasta is better eaten with a fork, not a spoon. | Let's start with the obvious one: something like Lasagna obviously should be eaten with a fork and knife. How are you going to use a spoon? Shove it down your gullet?
Next, string-like pasta, such as spaghetti or linguini. I'm not counting ramen for this because a spoon is pretty much necessary to drink the broth. Anyway, sure, you could scoop up a few noodles at a time and keep watching half fall off every time. Or, you use a fork, twirl, and Eat every last delicious noodle.
Finally, pastas such as elbow macaroni or shell, ones that are nice and small like that. You could theoretically scoop them, but the same problem as before comes: they're too slippery. Use a fork, and they stay on, and as a bonus, a couple extra noodles might come with them, stuck between the stabbed noodles.
Am I missing something? | Dishwashing is outside the scope of your argument, I feel. I assumed we were imaging this meal happening in a temporal vacuum - doesn't matter who cooks the pasta, nor who washes the dishes. The singularly important thing is utensil choice. | Major_Lennox | 1,704,199,220 | Cmv: Pasta is better eaten with a fork, not a spoon. | Let's start with the obvious one: something like Lasagna obviously should be eaten with a fork and knife. How are you going to use a spoon? Shove it down your gullet?
Next, string-like pasta, such as spaghetti or linguini. I'm not counting ramen for this because a spoon is pretty much necessary to drink the broth. Anyway, sure, you could scoop up a few noodles at a time and keep watching half fall off every time. Or, you use a fork, twirl, and Eat every last delicious noodle.
Finally, pastas such as elbow macaroni or shell, ones that are nice and small like that. You could theoretically scoop them, but the same problem as before comes: they're too slippery. Use a fork, and they stay on, and as a bonus, a couple extra noodles might come with them, stuck between the stabbed noodles.
Am I missing something? | Dishwashing is outside the scope of your argument, I feel. I assumed we were imaging this meal happening in a temporal vacuum - doesn't matter who cooks the pasta, nor who washes the dishes. The singularly important thing is utensil choice. | f0remsics |
18wql7u | /r/changemyview/comments/18wnsyg/cmv_whatever_israel_is_doing_in_gaza_does_not/ | GoSouthCourt | [
"Buttstuffjolt"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wnsyg/cmv_whatever_israel_is_doing_in_gaza_does_not/kfz3kd5/ | 10,597 | CMV: Whatever Israel is doing in Gaza does not grant them long-term security. | I don't know what Israel's endgame is in Gaza because whatever they are doing now is not going to grant them long term security. Most of Gazans are children and they will only grow to hate Israel even more, they will be even more radicalised and when they become leaders, we will only see Hamas 2.0. Palestinians in the West Bank are going to be even more adverse and disillusioned to peace, which we can see in the rising support for Hamas. They will not forget what Israel is doing and have no reason to believe that Israel will negotiate in good faith at all. Yes, Israel will be safer in the short term with Hamas' capabilities dismantled, but the source of that terrorism will not be eliminated and in fact, be emboldened, threatening Israel's long-term security. | 1. A lot of people believe Palestine and Hamas are one and the same, so this would constitute eradicating all Palestinians
2. There wouldn't be anyone alive in Gaza after the first objective is completed, so this is moot.
3. There wouldn't be any Palestinians alive in the area Israel controls, so this point is also moot.
I guess this would ensure Israeli security for the long term, but it's also literally genocide. | Buttstuffjolt | 1,704,202,625 | CMV: Whatever Israel is doing in Gaza does not grant them long-term security. | I don't know what Israel's endgame is in Gaza because whatever they are doing now is not going to grant them long term security. Most of Gazans are children and they will only grow to hate Israel even more, they will be even more radicalised and when they become leaders, we will only see Hamas 2.0. Palestinians in the West Bank are going to be even more adverse and disillusioned to peace, which we can see in the rising support for Hamas. They will not forget what Israel is doing and have no reason to believe that Israel will negotiate in good faith at all. Yes, Israel will be safer in the short term with Hamas' capabilities dismantled, but the source of that terrorism will not be eliminated and in fact, be emboldened, threatening Israel's long-term security. | 1. A lot of people believe Palestine and Hamas are one and the same, so this would constitute eradicating all Palestinians
2. There wouldn't be anyone alive in Gaza after the first objective is completed, so this is moot.
3. There wouldn't be any Palestinians alive in the area Israel controls, so this point is also moot.
I guess this would ensure Israeli security for the long term, but it's also literally genocide. | GoSouthCourt |
18wxh7w | /r/changemyview/comments/18wt02f/cmv_sweden_proved_covid_was_exaggerated_by_not/ | Nickan04 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wt02f/cmv_sweden_proved_covid_was_exaggerated_by_not/kg0i6w7/ | 13,229 | CMV: Sweden proved covid was exaggerated by not having a lockdown | Title self-explanatory. By looking at purely the covid death numbers you can see no substantial difference between Sweden and any other European country that went full lockdown mode. I took my own country Belgium as a benchmark, we have similar populations, although we're more densely populated. We in Belgium who went full lockdown mode and mask restriction mode had more covid deaths than Sweden who had no mask and lockdown protocol. However, I really look forward to being proven wrong since it just doesn't make sense. | Lmao no it doesn’t. The new definition that you jsit link includes this critical part:
> administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae
It literally still says it induces immunity. It’s just a much more precise and informative definition about what goes into a vaccine.
I see you still aren’t old enough to read it - you just listened to the podcasts. | Zeabos | 1,704,222,080 | CMV: Sweden proved covid was exaggerated by not having a lockdown | Title self-explanatory. By looking at purely the covid death numbers you can see no substantial difference between Sweden and any other European country that went full lockdown mode. I took my own country Belgium as a benchmark, we have similar populations, although we're more densely populated. We in Belgium who went full lockdown mode and mask restriction mode had more covid deaths than Sweden who had no mask and lockdown protocol. However, I really look forward to being proven wrong since it just doesn't make sense. | Lmao no it doesn’t. The new definition that you jsit link includes this critical part:
> administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae
It literally still says it induces immunity. It’s just a much more precise and informative definition about what goes into a vaccine.
I see you still aren’t old enough to read it - you just listened to the podcasts. | Nickan04 |
18wzm0z | /r/changemyview/comments/18wsbnb/cmv_the_politics_of_starship_troopers_can_not_be/ | EVAUNIT117 | [
"Casus125"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wsbnb/cmv_the_politics_of_starship_troopers_can_not_be/kg0p10k/ | 13,484 | CMV: The politics of StarShip Troopers can NOT be concretely stated. | Despite the attempts by many Youtubers and Reddit posts, after reading the book, and watching the movies, I have not seen enough content that would definitively indicate the system of government or economics of the universe.
What I know, citizens, upon completion of a term of service, may "vote", or serve..... You would assume that means either republic or democracy, but there is so much more to be known. Is there a parliament, direct elections, a one party state, who knows?
As far as economics goes, we know that people can live comfortably even when non-citizens (Rico's Parents) but we don't have any idea of actual system, besides speculating. Capitalist, socialist, corpo-nepotism.
It appears to me, more than anything, that SST is a Rorschach test that allows people to imprint their own views on the content. Which I myself have done many many times. Views can range from a noble citizen led republic vs the fascist totalitarian state. | Certain elements can though, at least via the book. It's been sometime since I watched ~~Space Marine Bug Wars~~ Film SST, but, ironically I'm in the middle of re-reading the book, so many of of the political elements are pretty fresh in memory.
The Terran Federation is an interstellar human society (1 of 3 explicitly stated space faring species, the other being the Bugs and the Skinny's).
* Some kind of representative democracy (voting, positions, and elections are mentioned several times)
* Voting Rights and Political Office Eligibility are only granted after a term of public service.
* Capitalistic-ish economy pretty detached from the government.
> Is there a parliament, direct elections, a one party state, who knows?
I think that stuff was immaterial to the story. It routinely smells like some kind of representative democracy, complete with competing political parties.
> As far as economics goes, we know that people can live comfortably even when non-citizens (Rico's Parents) but we don't have any idea of actual system, besides speculating.
True, but there's a lot of indicators that it's pretty 'America-ish'...free markets, private property, etc. Also there's a been a few mentions of contractors ripping off the government (a great American passtime). Rico's family is explicitly rich, and his father is contemptibly dismissive of service. Economic and Societal Success does not seem to hinge on Political participation.
> It appears to me, more than anything, that SST is a Rorschach test that allows people to imprint their own views on the content.
That's a great take on it. I think the biggest takes stem from the "Public Service is Mandatory for Voting and Political Office" bit, myself. I personally think Heinlein was sufficiently meritocratic in his description of Federal Service, myself, to read SST as more Utopian than anything; but you also can't fight Death of the Author.
I disagree that the politics cant' be concretely stated. I feel like there's enough explicit exposition on the Federation that there aught to be more common ground when discussing it.
The problem, I think, comes from the fact that the Film is so much more popular and known than the book, that it really gets forgotten that Verhoven and company were openly contempt of the book, and just kind of did their own crazy thing.
I think any political discussion on the world needs to happen explicitly in either Film or Book universe; because they are so radically different from each other. | Casus125 | 1,704,224,425 | CMV: The politics of StarShip Troopers can NOT be concretely stated. | Despite the attempts by many Youtubers and Reddit posts, after reading the book, and watching the movies, I have not seen enough content that would definitively indicate the system of government or economics of the universe.
What I know, citizens, upon completion of a term of service, may "vote", or serve..... You would assume that means either republic or democracy, but there is so much more to be known. Is there a parliament, direct elections, a one party state, who knows?
As far as economics goes, we know that people can live comfortably even when non-citizens (Rico's Parents) but we don't have any idea of actual system, besides speculating. Capitalist, socialist, corpo-nepotism.
It appears to me, more than anything, that SST is a Rorschach test that allows people to imprint their own views on the content. Which I myself have done many many times. Views can range from a noble citizen led republic vs the fascist totalitarian state. | Certain elements can though, at least via the book. It's been sometime since I watched ~~Space Marine Bug Wars~~ Film SST, but, ironically I'm in the middle of re-reading the book, so many of of the political elements are pretty fresh in memory.
The Terran Federation is an interstellar human society (1 of 3 explicitly stated space faring species, the other being the Bugs and the Skinny's).
* Some kind of representative democracy (voting, positions, and elections are mentioned several times)
* Voting Rights and Political Office Eligibility are only granted after a term of public service.
* Capitalistic-ish economy pretty detached from the government.
> Is there a parliament, direct elections, a one party state, who knows?
I think that stuff was immaterial to the story. It routinely smells like some kind of representative democracy, complete with competing political parties.
> As far as economics goes, we know that people can live comfortably even when non-citizens (Rico's Parents) but we don't have any idea of actual system, besides speculating.
True, but there's a lot of indicators that it's pretty 'America-ish'...free markets, private property, etc. Also there's a been a few mentions of contractors ripping off the government (a great American passtime). Rico's family is explicitly rich, and his father is contemptibly dismissive of service. Economic and Societal Success does not seem to hinge on Political participation.
> It appears to me, more than anything, that SST is a Rorschach test that allows people to imprint their own views on the content.
That's a great take on it. I think the biggest takes stem from the "Public Service is Mandatory for Voting and Political Office" bit, myself. I personally think Heinlein was sufficiently meritocratic in his description of Federal Service, myself, to read SST as more Utopian than anything; but you also can't fight Death of the Author.
I disagree that the politics cant' be concretely stated. I feel like there's enough explicit exposition on the Federation that there aught to be more common ground when discussing it.
The problem, I think, comes from the fact that the Film is so much more popular and known than the book, that it really gets forgotten that Verhoven and company were openly contempt of the book, and just kind of did their own crazy thing.
I think any political discussion on the world needs to happen explicitly in either Film or Book universe; because they are so radically different from each other. | EVAUNIT117 |
18xajbl | /r/changemyview/comments/18w1hrc/cmv_stopping_the_majority_of_illegal_immigration/ | Ok_Detective2695 | [
"jdaddy15911"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18w1hrc/cmv_stopping_the_majority_of_illegal_immigration/kg1rqem/ | 15,010 | CMV: stopping the majority of illegal immigration in the US is frighteningly simple. It’s just… no one (Republican or Democrat) actually wants to stop the flow of cheap, abusable labor | Tens of thousands of people try to enter the US every day.
And we all know where to find these undocumented people:
At farms
In factories
In slaughterhouses
Working for contractors / construction
Custodial work.
If we simply brought the hammer down on all the employers for hiring undocumented people, then the majority of illegal immigration would end.
It would also crater the economy. Which means, of course, that those in power don’t actually want illegal immigration to end.
What am I missing ? | I think it’s more complex than you think. Economies across the globe are competing for population without actually saying it. Many scientists have revised their global population growth predictions so that peak population will now hit in 2050 instead of 2100, and it will peak at 8 billion rather than 10.5 billion. In 2022, the US grew at the lowest rate it has ever grown before, only adding .1% to the population. So peak population may be happening even sooner than predicted. People see only the upside of population growth stopping and/or reversing. But there are a lot of ramifications. 1. In an economy like the US, population equals economic output, roughly. If population contracts, economies will likely contract too. Labor essentially equals economic output. The more laborers you have the more economic output you are capable of. 2. Shrinking populations will cause dramatic shifts in the relationship between firms and workers. There will no longer be a pool of excess workers that firms can use to replace underperforming employees. This means workers will become harder and harder to come by. This doesn’t mean firms will necessarily pay more or share profits. But they could engage in underhanded tactics like compulsory employment (“We’ll hire you, and give you a bonus, but you have to work here X years. If you don’t you’ll have to pay it back.”).
3. While peak population is predicted for 2050, there is a long lag time, as birth rates have already fallen, a large part of the turn to lowering global population will be retirees dying. These retirees no longer produce economically, and will have been removed from the economic engine long before peak population is reached. Many of those retirees that will die by 2050 are retiring now or are already retired. This creates a scenario with an aging population. So while the US has not started shrinking yet, the pool of workers available has been shrinking for years.
4. Social services become more and more costly with an aging population. Costs like Medicare, social security and pensions will become less and less viable as a smaller group of workers have to support a growing group of retirees.
One form of remediation for these problems, at least in the mid-term is through immigration. While the current immigration system is chaotic and unruly, it is keeping America growing and economically solvent while most other western countries have already seen their populations and economies begin to retract. We may not like it. It may not be safe, or orderly, but it is keeping us afloat, barely. But countries like Mexico are also also seeing lower birth rates, which means eventually, that pool of excess labor will also dry up, as LMIC work to climb the economic ladder toward prosperity. Still, the breathing room created by vigorous immigration can give us time to innovate these problems through automation and technology, while also attempting to re-order our economy to remain viable without constant growth. | jdaddy15911 | 1,704,237,986 | CMV: stopping the majority of illegal immigration in the US is frighteningly simple. It’s just… no one (Republican or Democrat) actually wants to stop the flow of cheap, abusable labor | Tens of thousands of people try to enter the US every day.
And we all know where to find these undocumented people:
At farms
In factories
In slaughterhouses
Working for contractors / construction
Custodial work.
If we simply brought the hammer down on all the employers for hiring undocumented people, then the majority of illegal immigration would end.
It would also crater the economy. Which means, of course, that those in power don’t actually want illegal immigration to end.
What am I missing ? | I think it’s more complex than you think. Economies across the globe are competing for population without actually saying it. Many scientists have revised their global population growth predictions so that peak population will now hit in 2050 instead of 2100, and it will peak at 8 billion rather than 10.5 billion. In 2022, the US grew at the lowest rate it has ever grown before, only adding .1% to the population. So peak population may be happening even sooner than predicted. People see only the upside of population growth stopping and/or reversing. But there are a lot of ramifications. 1. In an economy like the US, population equals economic output, roughly. If population contracts, economies will likely contract too. Labor essentially equals economic output. The more laborers you have the more economic output you are capable of. 2. Shrinking populations will cause dramatic shifts in the relationship between firms and workers. There will no longer be a pool of excess workers that firms can use to replace underperforming employees. This means workers will become harder and harder to come by. This doesn’t mean firms will necessarily pay more or share profits. But they could engage in underhanded tactics like compulsory employment (“We’ll hire you, and give you a bonus, but you have to work here X years. If you don’t you’ll have to pay it back.”).
3. While peak population is predicted for 2050, there is a long lag time, as birth rates have already fallen, a large part of the turn to lowering global population will be retirees dying. These retirees no longer produce economically, and will have been removed from the economic engine long before peak population is reached. Many of those retirees that will die by 2050 are retiring now or are already retired. This creates a scenario with an aging population. So while the US has not started shrinking yet, the pool of workers available has been shrinking for years.
4. Social services become more and more costly with an aging population. Costs like Medicare, social security and pensions will become less and less viable as a smaller group of workers have to support a growing group of retirees.
One form of remediation for these problems, at least in the mid-term is through immigration. While the current immigration system is chaotic and unruly, it is keeping America growing and economically solvent while most other western countries have already seen their populations and economies begin to retract. We may not like it. It may not be safe, or orderly, but it is keeping us afloat, barely. But countries like Mexico are also also seeing lower birth rates, which means eventually, that pool of excess labor will also dry up, as LMIC work to climb the economic ladder toward prosperity. Still, the breathing room created by vigorous immigration can give us time to innovate these problems through automation and technology, while also attempting to re-order our economy to remain viable without constant growth. | Ok_Detective2695 |
18xc102 | /r/changemyview/comments/18xapu2/cmv_people_caring_more_about_their_animals_than/ | ReEnterCaptcha69 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xapu2/cmv_people_caring_more_about_their_animals_than/kg3865b/ | 16,716 | Cmv: people caring more about their animals than people itself is the beginning of our end as society. | People walking on the parks pushing strollers with animals wearing clothes is one of the most powerful signals that society is about to change forever in a bad way.
Idk about sociology or biology but species treating better other species than theirselves is a strong signal that we are attempting to our dna and configuration. We care more about pets than people, we pay for pet schools instead of supporting people. Same applies for food, clothes, medicine.
The thing about modern ages is that people preferred animals than people arguing that they don’t like other people. That is nonsense, this society is applauding people who hate society for having bad emotional intelligence and rewarding people doing crazy stuff like helping pets before their own kind.
For me to see a person talking a walk on a stroller with a dog is an enormous sign that we are betraying ourselves because we don’t have hard rules with the kids and everything is permitted. | I think that people being more upset when dogs die in movies is fine. Dogs live much shorter lives than humans, and a lot of people have never experienced the tragedy of a close family member or friend dying. Whereas the death of a childhood pet is in near-universal experience, making it hurt more because it's relatable.
There's also a presumed innocence of animals, while humans are flawed at best and evil at worst. We should all be able to agree that its more tragic when something innocent or "good" dies, as opposed to something corrupt or "bad. This dichotomy is present even when we're comparing the deaths of different humans. (Think the media's reaction to Princess Diana versus Henry Kissinger.)
There's also the fact that a lot of media just isn't good at making you care about characters. Humans are hard to write well, and a poorly written character is hard to shed a tear over. In contrast, it's a lot easier to write about dogs and as a result they feel more real. | ExemplaryEntity | 1,704,259,693 | Cmv: people caring more about their animals than people itself is the beginning of our end as society. | People walking on the parks pushing strollers with animals wearing clothes is one of the most powerful signals that society is about to change forever in a bad way.
Idk about sociology or biology but species treating better other species than theirselves is a strong signal that we are attempting to our dna and configuration. We care more about pets than people, we pay for pet schools instead of supporting people. Same applies for food, clothes, medicine.
The thing about modern ages is that people preferred animals than people arguing that they don’t like other people. That is nonsense, this society is applauding people who hate society for having bad emotional intelligence and rewarding people doing crazy stuff like helping pets before their own kind.
For me to see a person talking a walk on a stroller with a dog is an enormous sign that we are betraying ourselves because we don’t have hard rules with the kids and everything is permitted. | I think that people being more upset when dogs die in movies is fine. Dogs live much shorter lives than humans, and a lot of people have never experienced the tragedy of a close family member or friend dying. Whereas the death of a childhood pet is in near-universal experience, making it hurt more because it's relatable.
There's also a presumed innocence of animals, while humans are flawed at best and evil at worst. We should all be able to agree that its more tragic when something innocent or "good" dies, as opposed to something corrupt or "bad. This dichotomy is present even when we're comparing the deaths of different humans. (Think the media's reaction to Princess Diana versus Henry Kissinger.)
There's also the fact that a lot of media just isn't good at making you care about characters. Humans are hard to write well, and a poorly written character is hard to shed a tear over. In contrast, it's a lot easier to write about dogs and as a result they feel more real. | ReEnterCaptcha69 |
18xho7i | /r/changemyview/comments/18xegjf/cmv_there_are_two_meanings_for_woke/ | thegreatmaster7051 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xegjf/cmv_there_are_two_meanings_for_woke/kg411o5/ | 17,519 | CMV: - There are two meanings for "woke" | There's the definition that originated from black people which is
"alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"
There is this definition from Mentis Wave which is
"an aggressive push for diversity/equity/inclusion usually based on the belief that outcomes which lack these things are indicative of discrimination and or unfair social treatment"
Here's my definition inspired by Mentiswave with some examples
"Woke, I believe, is an aggressive push for identity politics for the sake of identity politics and is often hypocritical.
People getting mad that The Witcher 3 is mostly white people without thinking about the fact it takes place in medieval Poland is woke
People cool with a black Ariel but not a light skin Storm is woke.
Saying Cleopatra is black despite actual history saying otherwise is woke"
When YouTube videos talk about something being "woke", their definition of woke is more in line with my definition than the original definition that comes from black people.
There will definitely be fighting in the comments | It's not misused when it's an even more popular definition of the word - that's just how language develops. It's just an ironic use of the original meaning - like something being 'racially aware' to such an extreme it becomes a little bit racist. | ParagoonTheFoon | 1,704,279,728 | CMV: - There are two meanings for "woke" | There's the definition that originated from black people which is
"alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"
There is this definition from Mentis Wave which is
"an aggressive push for diversity/equity/inclusion usually based on the belief that outcomes which lack these things are indicative of discrimination and or unfair social treatment"
Here's my definition inspired by Mentiswave with some examples
"Woke, I believe, is an aggressive push for identity politics for the sake of identity politics and is often hypocritical.
People getting mad that The Witcher 3 is mostly white people without thinking about the fact it takes place in medieval Poland is woke
People cool with a black Ariel but not a light skin Storm is woke.
Saying Cleopatra is black despite actual history saying otherwise is woke"
When YouTube videos talk about something being "woke", their definition of woke is more in line with my definition than the original definition that comes from black people.
There will definitely be fighting in the comments | It's not misused when it's an even more popular definition of the word - that's just how language develops. It's just an ironic use of the original meaning - like something being 'racially aware' to such an extreme it becomes a little bit racist. | thegreatmaster7051 |
18xjtr7 | /r/changemyview/comments/18xif0o/cmv_israelis_have_the_right_to_selfdetermination/ | GoSouthCourt | [
"destro23"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xif0o/cmv_israelis_have_the_right_to_selfdetermination/kg4i8l9/ | 18,088 | CMV: Israelis have the right to self-determination in Israel, but not Jews | The point is quite simple, really. Anyone born in or born to a parent who was born in modern-day Israel should have the right to self-determination (RTSD) in Israel. This is very similar to how citizenship and RTSD work in most countries. But what's problematic is the assertion that anyone of Jewish descent can also claim citizenship or the RTSD in Israel. This means that anyone whose ancestors have not lived in the region for centuries, well before the founding of modern-day Israel, can also claim citizenship and the RTSD. It also means that anyone can convert to Judaism and claim it. Israel is the only country in the world that allows anything remotely similar to take place. That's not how any of these work and it clearly violates the RTSD of those who have lived there for centuries - Palestinians. | Vatican City | destro23 | 1,704,289,563 | CMV: Israelis have the right to self-determination in Israel, but not Jews | The point is quite simple, really. Anyone born in or born to a parent who was born in modern-day Israel should have the right to self-determination (RTSD) in Israel. This is very similar to how citizenship and RTSD work in most countries. But what's problematic is the assertion that anyone of Jewish descent can also claim citizenship or the RTSD in Israel. This means that anyone whose ancestors have not lived in the region for centuries, well before the founding of modern-day Israel, can also claim citizenship and the RTSD. It also means that anyone can convert to Judaism and claim it. Israel is the only country in the world that allows anything remotely similar to take place. That's not how any of these work and it clearly violates the RTSD of those who have lived there for centuries - Palestinians. | Vatican City | GoSouthCourt |
18xkquh | /r/changemyview/comments/18xiqgs/cmv_of_the_reddit_users_that_frequently_comment/ | NoBrotherNoMother | [
"Affectionate-Sand838"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xiqgs/cmv_of_the_reddit_users_that_frequently_comment/kg4n6x7/ | 18,320 | CMV: of the reddit users that frequently comment, most are actively hostile. | It is said there are millions of reddit users but only 2% actually comment with any kind of freuqency. Why is this? My reasoning is most people only use reddit to lurk and upvote, and prefer not to engage with the negative nancies on this site, so they don't comment. Most of reddit is seen by other websites and people as "degenerate central" some of you might disagree, for having been on this site almost exclusively, that would be expected. However for the rest of the people, of the ~2% of active reddit users, I think they're mostly here to blow off steam and are therefore comfortable being actively hostile to many new people who come up with different or enlightened perspectives. | Not at all.
Most of his post is about something along the lines of this sentence:
>"However for the rest of the people, of the \~2% of active reddit users, I think they're mostly here to blow off steam whilst at work and are therefore comfortable being actively hostile to many new people who come up with different or enlightened perspectives. ......."
My point is that they are just normal people looking to interact with others, they aren't inherently here to get out their anger.
But due to human nature, when you scroll through your front page and see a post that makes you angry then you will react to that more emotionally than other things. Not because there was an intention to shit on people, but because that is what activated them. | Affectionate-Sand838 | 1,704,291,754 | CMV: of the reddit users that frequently comment, most are actively hostile. | It is said there are millions of reddit users but only 2% actually comment with any kind of freuqency. Why is this? My reasoning is most people only use reddit to lurk and upvote, and prefer not to engage with the negative nancies on this site, so they don't comment. Most of reddit is seen by other websites and people as "degenerate central" some of you might disagree, for having been on this site almost exclusively, that would be expected. However for the rest of the people, of the ~2% of active reddit users, I think they're mostly here to blow off steam and are therefore comfortable being actively hostile to many new people who come up with different or enlightened perspectives. | Not at all.
Most of his post is about something along the lines of this sentence:
>"However for the rest of the people, of the \~2% of active reddit users, I think they're mostly here to blow off steam whilst at work and are therefore comfortable being actively hostile to many new people who come up with different or enlightened perspectives. ......."
My point is that they are just normal people looking to interact with others, they aren't inherently here to get out their anger.
But due to human nature, when you scroll through your front page and see a post that makes you angry then you will react to that more emotionally than other things. Not because there was an intention to shit on people, but because that is what activated them. | NoBrotherNoMother |
18xlb96 | /r/changemyview/comments/18wqn2w/cmv_a_country_attackedbombed_by_another_has_an/ | Embarrassed-Comb6776 | [
"YossarianWWII"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18wqn2w/cmv_a_country_attackedbombed_by_another_has_an/kg3736t/ | 16,690 | CMV: A country attacked/bombed by another has an obligation to its own citizens to do what it can to make sure it never happens again by whatever means necessary. | While I don't completely understand the relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian people, it seems that what is happening now could be expected from long ago. Israel prepared for it and the Palestinian people did nothing to denounce Hamas or work to remove them. This short-sightedness has proved to be costly for the Palestinian people from Gaza. There is little that Israel can do to minimize the impact to the Palestinian people without compromising the quick completion of the ultimate goal. It is that quick completion that will be best for everyone and hopefully result in lasting peace in the region. | >the Palestinian people did nothing to denounce Hamas or work to remove them.
Hamas is a militarist regime that has violently put down opposition in the past. What's more, the Israeli government has actively facilitated the delivery of funds to Hamas and has been open about its belief that the existence of Hamas was actually *good* because it prevented a West Bank-Gaza joint government forming.
>There is little that Israel can do to minimize the impact to the Palestinian people without compromising the quick completion of the ultimate goal.
Wrong. The Israeli military has made mass use of unguided munitions and high-yield 2000lb bombs that the US avoided using in urban areas during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They aren't identifying a specific target and dropping a precision strike on it. They're just flattening neighborhoods because there's probably a few Hamas militants hiding in it.
>It is that quick completion that will be best for everyone and hopefully result in lasting peace in the region.
That's absurd. Israel is frying its relationships with its Western and regional partners.
Opposition to Israel has rapidly risen in Western countries. Younger people are disproportionately opposed to Israel's current path and that will have massive implications as the generations turn over and the Boomers and X-ers die. Israel will very rapidly find itself in a situation where it can't rely on Western support.
Israel's Islamic neighbors are also backing away. Israel had normalized relations with a bunch of Arab countries during the Trump admin and was on the verge of normalizing relations with the *Saudis* of all people. Public opinion in those countries has now turned massively against Israel and the weeks following Israels invasion saw mass public protests across the region. What hope Israel had of developing positive relationships with its neighbors that would *actually* have helped stabilize the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
But this is hardly a surprise, because the Israeli right isn't actually interested in peace or in protecting the average Israeli. They wouldn't have been delivering funds to Hamas and openly supporting its existence if they were.
No, the mission is Israeli dominion over the entirety of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. It's about preserving the conditions that justify the increasing subjugation and ejection of Palestinians from their land. *That's* why they wanted to keep the Palestinian political situation in disarray. *That's* why they have been perfectly happy to inflame tensions by flattening Palestinian communities and build Jewish settlements on top of them. The Israeli right doesn't want peace. They don't want safety. They want control. It goes hand-in-hand with their efforts to strip the courts of any ability to check the power of the Knesset.
Make no mistake, Israel is far, far less safe than it was a year ago. | YossarianWWII | 1,704,259,125 | CMV: A country attacked/bombed by another has an obligation to its own citizens to do what it can to make sure it never happens again by whatever means necessary. | While I don't completely understand the relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian people, it seems that what is happening now could be expected from long ago. Israel prepared for it and the Palestinian people did nothing to denounce Hamas or work to remove them. This short-sightedness has proved to be costly for the Palestinian people from Gaza. There is little that Israel can do to minimize the impact to the Palestinian people without compromising the quick completion of the ultimate goal. It is that quick completion that will be best for everyone and hopefully result in lasting peace in the region. | >the Palestinian people did nothing to denounce Hamas or work to remove them.
Hamas is a militarist regime that has violently put down opposition in the past. What's more, the Israeli government has actively facilitated the delivery of funds to Hamas and has been open about its belief that the existence of Hamas was actually *good* because it prevented a West Bank-Gaza joint government forming.
>There is little that Israel can do to minimize the impact to the Palestinian people without compromising the quick completion of the ultimate goal.
Wrong. The Israeli military has made mass use of unguided munitions and high-yield 2000lb bombs that the US avoided using in urban areas during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They aren't identifying a specific target and dropping a precision strike on it. They're just flattening neighborhoods because there's probably a few Hamas militants hiding in it.
>It is that quick completion that will be best for everyone and hopefully result in lasting peace in the region.
That's absurd. Israel is frying its relationships with its Western and regional partners.
Opposition to Israel has rapidly risen in Western countries. Younger people are disproportionately opposed to Israel's current path and that will have massive implications as the generations turn over and the Boomers and X-ers die. Israel will very rapidly find itself in a situation where it can't rely on Western support.
Israel's Islamic neighbors are also backing away. Israel had normalized relations with a bunch of Arab countries during the Trump admin and was on the verge of normalizing relations with the *Saudis* of all people. Public opinion in those countries has now turned massively against Israel and the weeks following Israels invasion saw mass public protests across the region. What hope Israel had of developing positive relationships with its neighbors that would *actually* have helped stabilize the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
But this is hardly a surprise, because the Israeli right isn't actually interested in peace or in protecting the average Israeli. They wouldn't have been delivering funds to Hamas and openly supporting its existence if they were.
No, the mission is Israeli dominion over the entirety of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. It's about preserving the conditions that justify the increasing subjugation and ejection of Palestinians from their land. *That's* why they wanted to keep the Palestinian political situation in disarray. *That's* why they have been perfectly happy to inflame tensions by flattening Palestinian communities and build Jewish settlements on top of them. The Israeli right doesn't want peace. They don't want safety. They want control. It goes hand-in-hand with their efforts to strip the courts of any ability to check the power of the Knesset.
Make no mistake, Israel is far, far less safe than it was a year ago. | Embarrassed-Comb6776 |
18xmepx | /r/changemyview/comments/18x6jud/cmv_the_aita_subreddit_is_horrible_and_makes_your/ | PewPewDoubleRainbow | [
"DeltaBlues82"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18x6jud/cmv_the_aita_subreddit_is_horrible_and_makes_your/kg2ca06/ | 15,863 | Cmv: The AITA subreddit is horrible and makes your situation WORSE | With just a few exceptions, I've only encountered pathetic individuals saying YTA or suspecting you're a liar for the fucking dumbest possible reason and circle jerking each other with pseudopsychology bullshit while completely ignoring the fact OP needs advice and doesn't give a fuck whether they believe the fucking story or not.
I made a post there yesterday after a very messed up family situation and oh my fucking goodness, never again. Only one user provided useful insight and sticked to the topic. One said YTA and didn't even say why. Man I just wanted to know if I was right taking my cat with me or not. | That sub is pure comedy gold. If you read its rules, it’s clearly not meant to be a place where serious, productive, honest advice is given. The main description is:
“this is a community like r/AmlTheAsshole except unlike that subreddit here you can post interpersonal conflicts, anything that's AITA but is not allowed there even posting about Scar from the lion king and trying to convince redditors that he was not the AH.”
If we’re there to argue about the Lion King, we can’t have any expectation that genuine, productive opinions are exchanged. | DeltaBlues82 | 1,704,245,818 | Cmv: The AITA subreddit is horrible and makes your situation WORSE | With just a few exceptions, I've only encountered pathetic individuals saying YTA or suspecting you're a liar for the fucking dumbest possible reason and circle jerking each other with pseudopsychology bullshit while completely ignoring the fact OP needs advice and doesn't give a fuck whether they believe the fucking story or not.
I made a post there yesterday after a very messed up family situation and oh my fucking goodness, never again. Only one user provided useful insight and sticked to the topic. One said YTA and didn't even say why. Man I just wanted to know if I was right taking my cat with me or not. | That sub is pure comedy gold. If you read its rules, it’s clearly not meant to be a place where serious, productive, honest advice is given. The main description is:
“this is a community like r/AmlTheAsshole except unlike that subreddit here you can post interpersonal conflicts, anything that's AITA but is not allowed there even posting about Scar from the lion king and trying to convince redditors that he was not the AH.”
If we’re there to argue about the Lion King, we can’t have any expectation that genuine, productive opinions are exchanged. | PewPewDoubleRainbow |
18xnl0x | /r/changemyview/comments/18xmleu/cmv_compared_to_the_first_quarter_of_the_20th/ | Mind101 | [
"I_am_the_night"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xmleu/cmv_compared_to_the_first_quarter_of_the_20th/kg541xm/ | 18,892 | CMV: Compared to the first quarter of the 20th century, there have been remarkably few inventions & innovations that have shaped everyday life since 2000. | Despite the constant advancement of technology, I feel like the average person has received barely any fundamental benefits in the last 25 years, especially compared to the transformative tech boom that would have made a contemporary 1925 household unrecognizable to someone living in 1900.
Specifically, I am talking about the introduction of new technologies and appliances. In just 25 years, people went from not having any of these to potentially:
* owning a vehicle
* flying commercially
* using refrigeration and frozen food
* having a telephone
* going to the movies
* having air conditioning
* wearing bras and modern zippers
These were all new, never before seen breakthroughs.
I believe our time pales in comparison. To my knowledge, everything that technologically defines modern living - the internet, TV, appliances, mobile phones, lighting, processed food, etc. is only a refinement of something we invented decades prior.
If you discount medical breakthroughs and changes in stuff like the availability, speed, and culture of the internet*, the average household hasn't moved on much since the start of the millennium.
I'd be happy to entertain a different view.
* (I'm including social media as a progression from IRC and forums here, make an argument for it if I shouldn't) | So there's two points I'd like to make with reference to your view.
The first quarter of the 20th century was still easily within the end of the industrial revolution, or at the very least experiencing the benefits of it. While it is almost certainly the case that a person's life pre-and post industrial revolution are vastly more different than somebodys life in 1930 to now would be, that is in a large part because the biggest change (ability to harness new energy sources, particularly fossil fuels, to produce electricity) already happened. While air conditioning is an impressive feat, it is far less technically difficult than building modern computers is. The complexity of technology has drastically increased over time, and that makes radical, system-shattering innovation much less common.
My second point is that you are really glossing over some of the more recent inventions, namely smartphones. Sure, phones and computers both existed prior to the iPhone, but nothing like a smartphone existed before the late 90s-early 2000s (if you count stuff like BlackBerry). The iPhone genuinely changed the game. I think it's hard to argue against the idea that since the late 2000s smartphones have radically altered the way people live in industrialized nations. It has massively altered not only the way people function in the economy, but impacted our psychology in ways we are still figuring out. It has enabled data harvesting and surveillance beyond anything ever seen before in history, and changed forever the way people engage with the internet, media, and information generally.
A child can make a battery from lemons, wires, and a light bulb. You can build a crude combustion engine in a weekend by yourself. Good luck building your own smartphone. | I_am_the_night | 1,704,298,313 | CMV: Compared to the first quarter of the 20th century, there have been remarkably few inventions & innovations that have shaped everyday life since 2000. | Despite the constant advancement of technology, I feel like the average person has received barely any fundamental benefits in the last 25 years, especially compared to the transformative tech boom that would have made a contemporary 1925 household unrecognizable to someone living in 1900.
Specifically, I am talking about the introduction of new technologies and appliances. In just 25 years, people went from not having any of these to potentially:
* owning a vehicle
* flying commercially
* using refrigeration and frozen food
* having a telephone
* going to the movies
* having air conditioning
* wearing bras and modern zippers
These were all new, never before seen breakthroughs.
I believe our time pales in comparison. To my knowledge, everything that technologically defines modern living - the internet, TV, appliances, mobile phones, lighting, processed food, etc. is only a refinement of something we invented decades prior.
If you discount medical breakthroughs and changes in stuff like the availability, speed, and culture of the internet*, the average household hasn't moved on much since the start of the millennium.
I'd be happy to entertain a different view.
* (I'm including social media as a progression from IRC and forums here, make an argument for it if I shouldn't) | So there's two points I'd like to make with reference to your view.
The first quarter of the 20th century was still easily within the end of the industrial revolution, or at the very least experiencing the benefits of it. While it is almost certainly the case that a person's life pre-and post industrial revolution are vastly more different than somebodys life in 1930 to now would be, that is in a large part because the biggest change (ability to harness new energy sources, particularly fossil fuels, to produce electricity) already happened. While air conditioning is an impressive feat, it is far less technically difficult than building modern computers is. The complexity of technology has drastically increased over time, and that makes radical, system-shattering innovation much less common.
My second point is that you are really glossing over some of the more recent inventions, namely smartphones. Sure, phones and computers both existed prior to the iPhone, but nothing like a smartphone existed before the late 90s-early 2000s (if you count stuff like BlackBerry). The iPhone genuinely changed the game. I think it's hard to argue against the idea that since the late 2000s smartphones have radically altered the way people live in industrialized nations. It has massively altered not only the way people function in the economy, but impacted our psychology in ways we are still figuring out. It has enabled data harvesting and surveillance beyond anything ever seen before in history, and changed forever the way people engage with the internet, media, and information generally.
A child can make a battery from lemons, wires, and a light bulb. You can build a crude combustion engine in a weekend by yourself. Good luck building your own smartphone. | Mind101 |
18xnrk7 | /r/changemyview/comments/18xdzg5/cmv_cheating_is_always_bad/ | FLINKS_PUBG | [
"physioworld"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xdzg5/cmv_cheating_is_always_bad/kg41o7o/ | 17,551 | cmv:- Cheating is always bad | I believe cheating can never be justified because it is one of the worst emotional damage one can do to another. Sex is the most intimate form of connection one human can provide other. Even though one has the right to decide what value they give this act for themselves, and when making relationships, they should always match with another person who values sex in the same way atleast at the beginning, and then break up when there are disparities. Cheating would simply be devaluing the other persons intimacy which they decided to give you on the promise of fidelity. If the other person held sex in high regard, it is one of the biggest emotional blows a person can face. I believe it to be worst thing a human can legally do.
Some people would argue that one of the partner does not satisfy them sexually. They have kids and divorce is a worse option for the kids. They have tried discussing about finding sexual lovers outside marriage, but the other partner 'does not care about their sexual demand' or 'too entitiled after not performing'. Life is too short to not have good sex when we are young. I don't agree with this because cheating poses higher risks for the children as it sets a bad example for them and also distance them from the cheating parent, leading to their hindered development. I believe this to be more important than risks posed by simply divorce.
Some also give another very strong argument that it was an arranged marriage, love and lust were not even a consideration in the first place, other things like religion/caste(too common in India)/diplomatic relations etc were considered. The couple was not compatible at all, but they were forced to marry. It was completely the decision and abuse by their families. The other partner does not want an open relationship as they care about the other reasons more than their SO or is simply afraid of losing ''dignity' in case family finds out. Leaving is not possible due to pressure by families. Having an affair would satisfy their sexual needs, and if caught would force divorce so benefitted either way.
Another situation where people justify cheating is when the relationship became toxic, the victim of the abuse(not sexual) is manipulated to fear leaving the relationship and hence cheats to get their sexual needs met.
Both of these are situations that have the same premise that somehow leaving is very difficult. However I would argue that these are situations where leaving is still possible and I would still believe the fact "leaving is better than cheating" remains true despite the cheater being made to believe otherwise. | What if your partner is abusive and threatens your safety if you try to leave them, so you cheat on them to find some solace. Now you might argue that that’s unsafe due to the threats, but is it really so bad to cheat on an abuser? | physioworld | 1,704,280,166 | cmv:- Cheating is always bad | I believe cheating can never be justified because it is one of the worst emotional damage one can do to another. Sex is the most intimate form of connection one human can provide other. Even though one has the right to decide what value they give this act for themselves, and when making relationships, they should always match with another person who values sex in the same way atleast at the beginning, and then break up when there are disparities. Cheating would simply be devaluing the other persons intimacy which they decided to give you on the promise of fidelity. If the other person held sex in high regard, it is one of the biggest emotional blows a person can face. I believe it to be worst thing a human can legally do.
Some people would argue that one of the partner does not satisfy them sexually. They have kids and divorce is a worse option for the kids. They have tried discussing about finding sexual lovers outside marriage, but the other partner 'does not care about their sexual demand' or 'too entitiled after not performing'. Life is too short to not have good sex when we are young. I don't agree with this because cheating poses higher risks for the children as it sets a bad example for them and also distance them from the cheating parent, leading to their hindered development. I believe this to be more important than risks posed by simply divorce.
Some also give another very strong argument that it was an arranged marriage, love and lust were not even a consideration in the first place, other things like religion/caste(too common in India)/diplomatic relations etc were considered. The couple was not compatible at all, but they were forced to marry. It was completely the decision and abuse by their families. The other partner does not want an open relationship as they care about the other reasons more than their SO or is simply afraid of losing ''dignity' in case family finds out. Leaving is not possible due to pressure by families. Having an affair would satisfy their sexual needs, and if caught would force divorce so benefitted either way.
Another situation where people justify cheating is when the relationship became toxic, the victim of the abuse(not sexual) is manipulated to fear leaving the relationship and hence cheats to get their sexual needs met.
Both of these are situations that have the same premise that somehow leaving is very difficult. However I would argue that these are situations where leaving is still possible and I would still believe the fact "leaving is better than cheating" remains true despite the cheater being made to believe otherwise. | What if your partner is abusive and threatens your safety if you try to leave them, so you cheat on them to find some solace. Now you might argue that that’s unsafe due to the threats, but is it really so bad to cheat on an abuser? | FLINKS_PUBG |
18xo60z | /r/changemyview/comments/18xm8no/cmv_all_soldiers_that_participate_in_torture_and/ | FlareTheSlayer | [
"WrathKos"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xm8no/cmv_all_soldiers_that_participate_in_torture_and/kg5caf9/ | 19,229 | CMV: All soldiers that participate in torture and war crimes, even if under orders of their superiors, should be charged and even given worse punishments than what they currently would receive | The police and military attract a certain kind of people, that i think is common knowledge. The ones that do it for the unpunished violence. I feel like, if we punished every soldier that hides behind "Was just following orders" more severly, we would start to finally see a change in the military. Until then, more of these kind of people will be attracted to this job.
For example, Vietnam. The massacre of My Lai was only the one that got the most publicity, as it was only one in a long series of massacres that were even more brutal. It was a common occurance for South Vietnam and US soldiers to kill and rape civilians, and many of their fellow soldiers, even if didn't participate, did nothing to stop them. In fact, men like Hugh Thompson Jr. were the exception, willing to shoot his own comrades to stop the atrocity. If the soldiers that knowingly did nothing to stop the others or the ones that directly participated, received harsher sentences, these kind of people would not see the military as the way to let loose and commit war crimes, and less would enlist to it.
Another example: Guantanamo. Today we can say the situation is a lot better, at least when viewed from outside. But in the earlier days, doctors and US soldiers tortured people from all over the world, with the only charge against them being that of terrorism, but without a trial. If it is ever closed, the military and the government could finally do something right and punish every soldier, from the higher ups to the simple guard, that let torture go on, ordered it or partecipated directly in. The defense of "Just following orders" was not even valid at Nuremberg, so why would it be now? Even if the ones that they did it against were ALL terrorists(something that i think can be true, especially after many were given clearance to be sent back to their countries), they still did inhuman actions against defenseless people, that consisted of sodomy, torture and humiliation.
Even if punished, soldiers recieve laughable punishments, nothing compared to what they have done. And most of the time the ones that are punished are the scapegoats, the ones stupid enough to be caught and be the recipient of all public hate, while the rest continue committing atrocities.
The military, at least for now, is only a collection of inhuman, cruel and monstruos people that participate in atrocities, order atrocities, and silently endorse atrocities.
While i think my view is just, i feel like it might have its flaws. That is why i decided to post it here. Also, while i only used the US military as an example, i was talking about every military worldwide. My intention was not to single out the US military. | Your formulation would have everyone with even a little bit of knowledge at risk of prosecution. So they'd be more likely to join or help cover it up than to be deterred. | WrathKos | 1,704,301,334 | CMV: All soldiers that participate in torture and war crimes, even if under orders of their superiors, should be charged and even given worse punishments than what they currently would receive | The police and military attract a certain kind of people, that i think is common knowledge. The ones that do it for the unpunished violence. I feel like, if we punished every soldier that hides behind "Was just following orders" more severly, we would start to finally see a change in the military. Until then, more of these kind of people will be attracted to this job.
For example, Vietnam. The massacre of My Lai was only the one that got the most publicity, as it was only one in a long series of massacres that were even more brutal. It was a common occurance for South Vietnam and US soldiers to kill and rape civilians, and many of their fellow soldiers, even if didn't participate, did nothing to stop them. In fact, men like Hugh Thompson Jr. were the exception, willing to shoot his own comrades to stop the atrocity. If the soldiers that knowingly did nothing to stop the others or the ones that directly participated, received harsher sentences, these kind of people would not see the military as the way to let loose and commit war crimes, and less would enlist to it.
Another example: Guantanamo. Today we can say the situation is a lot better, at least when viewed from outside. But in the earlier days, doctors and US soldiers tortured people from all over the world, with the only charge against them being that of terrorism, but without a trial. If it is ever closed, the military and the government could finally do something right and punish every soldier, from the higher ups to the simple guard, that let torture go on, ordered it or partecipated directly in. The defense of "Just following orders" was not even valid at Nuremberg, so why would it be now? Even if the ones that they did it against were ALL terrorists(something that i think can be true, especially after many were given clearance to be sent back to their countries), they still did inhuman actions against defenseless people, that consisted of sodomy, torture and humiliation.
Even if punished, soldiers recieve laughable punishments, nothing compared to what they have done. And most of the time the ones that are punished are the scapegoats, the ones stupid enough to be caught and be the recipient of all public hate, while the rest continue committing atrocities.
The military, at least for now, is only a collection of inhuman, cruel and monstruos people that participate in atrocities, order atrocities, and silently endorse atrocities.
While i think my view is just, i feel like it might have its flaws. That is why i decided to post it here. Also, while i only used the US military as an example, i was talking about every military worldwide. My intention was not to single out the US military. | Your formulation would have everyone with even a little bit of knowledge at risk of prosecution. So they'd be more likely to join or help cover it up than to be deterred. | FlareTheSlayer |
18xoo7d | /r/changemyview/comments/18xc4hh/cmv_predator_poacher_youtubers_are_not_the_good/ | FormerBabyPerson | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xc4hh/cmv_predator_poacher_youtubers_are_not_the_good/kg5gd1z/ | 19,398 | CMV: “Predator Poacher” YouTubers are not the good guys | Predator poachers are basically wannabe Chris Hansen groups without any of the knowledge, police involvement or class to be honest.
Now clearly the predators are the bad guys in the situation based on what they’re doing. And while the intention of the vigilante groups may state they’re there to protect children, and that may be a consideration, the purpose is just because it’s trendy content that can get views and money. If these channels were only pulling in 1,000 views a video would they actually pursue this
Very few of these groups even attempt to get police involvement because it’s not conducive to creating content. They would have to put more time into it, would need to follow the law which results in less content, and therefore less money. The outcome would be more people going to jail but that doesn’t make for popular content.
They’re prioritizing entertainment and money over the safety of children (some of these channels actually use children). The second this trend dies they will be on to the next one that gets them views.
That’s why I don’t think we should applaud predator poachers as the good guys. Not sure what the proper term would be but good isn’t it | An awful lot of these people are targeting those with learning difficulties who may genuinely not understand the difference between right and wrong.
There was a case in the UK where they got the wrong person, and that person ended up killing themselves. | On_The_Blindside | 1,704,302,824 | CMV: “Predator Poacher” YouTubers are not the good guys | Predator poachers are basically wannabe Chris Hansen groups without any of the knowledge, police involvement or class to be honest.
Now clearly the predators are the bad guys in the situation based on what they’re doing. And while the intention of the vigilante groups may state they’re there to protect children, and that may be a consideration, the purpose is just because it’s trendy content that can get views and money. If these channels were only pulling in 1,000 views a video would they actually pursue this
Very few of these groups even attempt to get police involvement because it’s not conducive to creating content. They would have to put more time into it, would need to follow the law which results in less content, and therefore less money. The outcome would be more people going to jail but that doesn’t make for popular content.
They’re prioritizing entertainment and money over the safety of children (some of these channels actually use children). The second this trend dies they will be on to the next one that gets them views.
That’s why I don’t think we should applaud predator poachers as the good guys. Not sure what the proper term would be but good isn’t it | An awful lot of these people are targeting those with learning difficulties who may genuinely not understand the difference between right and wrong.
There was a case in the UK where they got the wrong person, and that person ended up killing themselves. | FormerBabyPerson |
18xpfps | /r/changemyview/comments/18xnte5/cmv_the_nword_is_a_bad_word/ | Aggressive-Carob6256 | [
"ParagoonTheFoon"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/18xnte5/cmv_the_nword_is_a_bad_word/kg5jlc7/ | 19,551 | CMV: The N-word is a bad word. | This is the second part of a thread that was originally two separate topics that I combined into one and shouldn't have. This was my original main topic and then I thought 'Well, this is going to be fucking impossible so here's some other shit I think about language' and shoehorned that into the thread as well. It didn't work. Since breaking them up, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18uib7l/cmv_the_rate_at_which_words_evolve_to_be/) thread from a few days ago is the thread that ended up being about language and censorship (TW: language isn't censored) and that's where you'll want to go if you want to talk about those things. This isn't that. This is something much more abstract.
*
That the N-word is a bad word is perhaps the last significant socially instilled belief that I still hold. So far as I can tell at this point in my life, it is something I've always believed. I don't remember when it was directly impressed upon me or if it ever was. It may have been something that I simply picked up through the context of being around others. I have glimpses of memory all throughout my life hearing it in media. On Marilyn Manson's Antichrist Superstar. Listing to the audiobook for To Kill a Mockingbird. On South Park's Wheel of Fortune episode. In Dave Chappelle's specials. Every one of these memories is associated with a palpable sense of discomfort.
What I am looking for here is someone capable of removing that sense of discomfort associated with the word. Someone capable of breaking into extremely deeply rooted, damn near intrinsic social programming and make a change. I'm pretty certain it's not going to be easy. I'm not even certain it's something that's going to be possible, which is part of the reason for the thread. My guess is I'm looking for someone who is extremely skilled at nuanced debate.
As a reminder, while my post must be a sincere representation of my beliefs, yours need not be. You guys are allowed to play devil's advocate in your responses and no one needs to assume that anyone who attempts this views the N-word in any way favorably. | I personally think that social programming extends so much further than you or I could even imagine - I think even the words we use, the fact that it's in english, the fact that you're operating within a certain logical and philosophical framework is completely informed by 'social programming', just of a subtle form. We can't but help take things for granted. The idea of a concepts like 'belief system' or words like 'social' are not a completely unbiased - 1000 years ago there would have been no ability to perfectly translate these concepts into their language. The idea that you gain control over a belief system by getting rid of all assumptions and programming and building from ground zero seems like a form of cartesian skepticism, which we would take for granted now, but 1000 years ago this isn't necessarily the way people would have thought. If I say 'red is for correct' 'green is for incorrect', you're going to immediately see the problem in that, even though there shouldn't be. A caveman would have no idea what the problem is.
In practical terms, just say the n word a lot, and listen to it a lot. | ParagoonTheFoon | 1,704,303,930 | CMV: The N-word is a bad word. | This is the second part of a thread that was originally two separate topics that I combined into one and shouldn't have. This was my original main topic and then I thought 'Well, this is going to be fucking impossible so here's some other shit I think about language' and shoehorned that into the thread as well. It didn't work. Since breaking them up, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18uib7l/cmv_the_rate_at_which_words_evolve_to_be/) thread from a few days ago is the thread that ended up being about language and censorship (TW: language isn't censored) and that's where you'll want to go if you want to talk about those things. This isn't that. This is something much more abstract.
*
That the N-word is a bad word is perhaps the last significant socially instilled belief that I still hold. So far as I can tell at this point in my life, it is something I've always believed. I don't remember when it was directly impressed upon me or if it ever was. It may have been something that I simply picked up through the context of being around others. I have glimpses of memory all throughout my life hearing it in media. On Marilyn Manson's Antichrist Superstar. Listing to the audiobook for To Kill a Mockingbird. On South Park's Wheel of Fortune episode. In Dave Chappelle's specials. Every one of these memories is associated with a palpable sense of discomfort.
What I am looking for here is someone capable of removing that sense of discomfort associated with the word. Someone capable of breaking into extremely deeply rooted, damn near intrinsic social programming and make a change. I'm pretty certain it's not going to be easy. I'm not even certain it's something that's going to be possible, which is part of the reason for the thread. My guess is I'm looking for someone who is extremely skilled at nuanced debate.
As a reminder, while my post must be a sincere representation of my beliefs, yours need not be. You guys are allowed to play devil's advocate in your responses and no one needs to assume that anyone who attempts this views the N-word in any way favorably. | I personally think that social programming extends so much further than you or I could even imagine - I think even the words we use, the fact that it's in english, the fact that you're operating within a certain logical and philosophical framework is completely informed by 'social programming', just of a subtle form. We can't but help take things for granted. The idea of a concepts like 'belief system' or words like 'social' are not a completely unbiased - 1000 years ago there would have been no ability to perfectly translate these concepts into their language. The idea that you gain control over a belief system by getting rid of all assumptions and programming and building from ground zero seems like a form of cartesian skepticism, which we would take for granted now, but 1000 years ago this isn't necessarily the way people would have thought. If I say 'red is for correct' 'green is for incorrect', you're going to immediately see the problem in that, even though there shouldn't be. A caveman would have no idea what the problem is.
In practical terms, just say the n word a lot, and listen to it a lot. | Aggressive-Carob6256 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 2