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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1iut7jz | /r/changemyview/comments/1iuscmy/cmv_schools_should_teach_practical_financial/ | Chance_Kind | [
"Kazthespooky"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iuscmy/cmv_schools_should_teach_practical_financial/mdzvsr0/ | 2,848,703 | CMV: Schools should teach practical financial literacy more than advanced mathematics | Most adults use basic arithmetic daily but rarely need calculus or advanced algebra. Meanwhile, many struggle with personal finance concepts like compound interest, credit management, and retirement planning that dramatically impact their lives. Schools should prioritize universal financial literacy over advanced mathematics that will only be used by specialists. Students could still opt into advanced math if their interests or career paths require it.
The current education system produces graduates who can solve for x in complex equations but can't create a basic budget, understand a mortgage, or evaluate the true cost of credit card debt. This knowledge gap contributes to widespread financial struggles—the average American has over $90,000 in debt, and fewer than 40% could cover a $1,000 emergency expense without borrowing.
While I acknowledge that advanced mathematics develops abstract reasoning skills, I believe these could also be developed through practical financial problem-solving that has immediate real-world applications. Countries like Australia have successfully integrated financial literacy into their core curriculum without sacrificing academic standards.
I'm not suggesting eliminating advanced math entirely, but rather restructuring priorities so that all students receive financial education, with specialized math available for those who need or want it. Change my view. | > concepts like compound interest, credit management, and retirement planning that dramatically impact their lives
What's to explain? Compound interest is a very basic concept. Credit management is also easily explained but won't stop people over purchasing. Retirement planning is extremely difficult/complex. So either you teach it at such a basic level it doesn't provide benefit or such a detailed level, you have to go back to advanced statistics.
I've worked in finance most of my career and the majority of poverty can't be managed, they just need more income. If you are wealthy, then most of the above doesn't matter because you have such a healthy margin (ie 2 vacations, not 4). | Kazthespooky | 1,740,149,666 | CMV: Schools should teach practical financial literacy more than advanced mathematics | Most adults use basic arithmetic daily but rarely need calculus or advanced algebra. Meanwhile, many struggle with personal finance concepts like compound interest, credit management, and retirement planning that dramatically impact their lives. Schools should prioritize universal financial literacy over advanced mathematics that will only be used by specialists. Students could still opt into advanced math if their interests or career paths require it.
The current education system produces graduates who can solve for x in complex equations but can't create a basic budget, understand a mortgage, or evaluate the true cost of credit card debt. This knowledge gap contributes to widespread financial struggles—the average American has over $90,000 in debt, and fewer than 40% could cover a $1,000 emergency expense without borrowing.
While I acknowledge that advanced mathematics develops abstract reasoning skills, I believe these could also be developed through practical financial problem-solving that has immediate real-world applications. Countries like Australia have successfully integrated financial literacy into their core curriculum without sacrificing academic standards.
I'm not suggesting eliminating advanced math entirely, but rather restructuring priorities so that all students receive financial education, with specialized math available for those who need or want it. Change my view. | > concepts like compound interest, credit management, and retirement planning that dramatically impact their lives
What's to explain? Compound interest is a very basic concept. Credit management is also easily explained but won't stop people over purchasing. Retirement planning is extremely difficult/complex. So either you teach it at such a basic level it doesn't provide benefit or such a detailed level, you have to go back to advanced statistics.
I've worked in finance most of my career and the majority of poverty can't be managed, they just need more income. If you are wealthy, then most of the above doesn't matter because you have such a healthy margin (ie 2 vacations, not 4). | Chance_Kind |
1iuvg9k | /r/changemyview/comments/1iutdkt/cmv_standardized_testing_should_be_abolished_in/ | According_Fig7999 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iutdkt/cmv_standardized_testing_should_be_abolished_in/me0efse/ | 2,849,295 | CMV: Standardized testing should be abolished in college admissions, it does more harm than good. | [removed] | Standardized tests are actually one of the most powerful tools for social mobility and merit-based advancement, especially for underprivileged students. Let me explain why:
The alternative you're proposing - holistic admissions - is far more biased towards privilege. Rich kids have access to better schools with grade inflation, can afford fancy extracurriculars, and have parents who can help craft perfect essays. Meanwhile, a student from a modest background can independently study for standardized tests and potentially score just as well as anyone else.
>If the goal of college admissions is to identify capable students, why rely on a test that rewards memorization and privilege over creativity and real-world problem-solving?
This is a misconception. Modern standardized tests focus heavily on critical thinking and problem-solving. The SAT recently removed the essay portion and vocabulary memorization to focus more on reasoning skills.
Look at countries like China, Korea, or even closer to home - the IIT-JEE system has enabled countless students from small towns and modest backgrounds to access top education based purely on merit. Without standardized testing, admissions would rely more on subjective factors that favor the elite.
The real problem isn't the tests - it's the expensive prep industry that's built around them. The solution is to expand free prep resources and testing fee waivers, not to throw out one of the few truly objective measures we have in admissions.
What do you think happens to first-generation students without connections when everything becomes about "holistic" factors? They get shut out, while rich kids' "impressive internships" at their parents' companies get them in. | ercantadorde | 1,740,155,066 | CMV: Standardized testing should be abolished in college admissions, it does more harm than good. | [removed] | Standardized tests are actually one of the most powerful tools for social mobility and merit-based advancement, especially for underprivileged students. Let me explain why:
The alternative you're proposing - holistic admissions - is far more biased towards privilege. Rich kids have access to better schools with grade inflation, can afford fancy extracurriculars, and have parents who can help craft perfect essays. Meanwhile, a student from a modest background can independently study for standardized tests and potentially score just as well as anyone else.
>If the goal of college admissions is to identify capable students, why rely on a test that rewards memorization and privilege over creativity and real-world problem-solving?
This is a misconception. Modern standardized tests focus heavily on critical thinking and problem-solving. The SAT recently removed the essay portion and vocabulary memorization to focus more on reasoning skills.
Look at countries like China, Korea, or even closer to home - the IIT-JEE system has enabled countless students from small towns and modest backgrounds to access top education based purely on merit. Without standardized testing, admissions would rely more on subjective factors that favor the elite.
The real problem isn't the tests - it's the expensive prep industry that's built around them. The solution is to expand free prep resources and testing fee waivers, not to throw out one of the few truly objective measures we have in admissions.
What do you think happens to first-generation students without connections when everything becomes about "holistic" factors? They get shut out, while rich kids' "impressive internships" at their parents' companies get them in. | According_Fig7999 |
1iuzl5i | /r/changemyview/comments/1iukdnx/cmv_democrats_and_republicans_are_the_same/ | Scorpiogre_rawrr | [
"MatthiasMcCulle"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iukdnx/cmv_democrats_and_republicans_are_the_same/mdy9u71/ | 2,846,635 | CMV: Democrats and Republicans are the same | I know the "Both sides are the same" comments really piss people off, but before I just get unwarranted hate. Hear me out.
Trump, the self proclaimed king, the clear Russian Puppet, the enemy of businesses, unions, the common man & woman, a rapist, pedophile, and I'd bet so much more, was also a Democrat.
Not just for a year or so, but Trump was registered as a Democrat for more than eight years in the 2000s, according to New York City voter records made public during his 2016 campaign for president.
Trump owned up to his years with the other party and told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2004 that he identified with Democrats during that time because they were more adept at handling the economy.
*"It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats....But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans."
Trump was a registered Democrat from August 2001 through September 2009.*
Enter the Clinton's and the infamous wedding picture from Mar-a-Largo where Trump was celebrating his 3rd wedding and Bill and Hill are just *Ooohing and ahhhing* with and over him.
Now, the Clintons didn't just attend Trump's wedding. Over the years, Donald Trump has given more than $4,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns and more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to PolitiFact.
There is no way the Clinton's, didn't know about his dirty dealings and underhanded business tactics. The Clinton's have and still remain an immense powerhouse in the Democrat party, and New York. They've always had their fingers on the pulse of what was going on with who and where.
From 1973 until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes. But the Clinton's glossed over all of those lawsuits, allegations, and hushed whispers.
Presidential hopefuls criticized his affiliation with the Democrats, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
*“He was a Democrat longer than he was a Republican. He's given more money to Democrats than he has to Republicans," Bush said. (Among the politicians Trump has given money to are Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State and Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was his Democratic opponent in the 2016 presidential campaign.)*
It probably didn't help Trump's case among conservative voters that he's spoken very highly of some Democrats who are typically vilified by conservatives, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Oprah Winfrey, and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
He's to New York what Dracula is to Transylvania. A bloodsucking fiend, a monster, something so vile and reprehensible, classes were taught regarding him. His name uttered with vile contempt, people would spit on the ground as if they could dislodge the bad taste.
And don't even get me started on Dracula!
Yet, major Democrats took his money with a smile, a hug, a kiss on the cheek. He even made a $1,000 donation to Joe Biden. I theorize that if digging was done, real, actual journalism, we'd find many instances of "working across the aisle" between Democrats and Republicans, problem is the "work" being done wasn't going to benefit the American people.
Here's a list of know political donations.
>From 1989 to 2015, Donald Trump made $1,845,290 worth of political donations. Republicans received $1,150,540, and Democrats received $694,750.
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations,_1989-2015
| Ok, I'm not going to push on the money collection itself. Both parties will take donations from anyone, and corporations/wealthy will contribute to whomever they believe will benefit them most (case in point: your quote from Trump believing "Democrats were better at business" aligns with his then affiliation, effectively only changing after he seriously started running for office in 2015).
I do, however, believe both have different intents with said money. Note I'm not arguing success rate, just what the party goals are.
As the current political climate is very heavily influenced by culture war, both parties are falling on opposite sides. You have the Republicans preaching a "return" to a unified cultural Christian America versus Democrats trying for a confederation in support of individual rights. These have battle fronts across everything, from school boards to churches to medical procedures. These are expensive endeavors. You could argue Democrats have been bad at allocating resources properly, but they are still using that money in support of a position that runs contrary to the Republican position.
We can even go the more callous route, that both want to gain and maintain political power. Again, won't hear an argument from me. But how those parties wield that power is very different. There have been studies indicating that, indeed, the economy does do better overall with Democrats in power, a sentiment reflected with professionals concerned with Trump's roughshod approach to "fiscal responsibility."
Ultimately, what you have is two entities pulling funds from the same pool with different objectives. They might be the same in being "bought," but that doesn't mean they align. | MatthiasMcCulle | 1,740,122,393 | CMV: Democrats and Republicans are the same | I know the "Both sides are the same" comments really piss people off, but before I just get unwarranted hate. Hear me out.
Trump, the self proclaimed king, the clear Russian Puppet, the enemy of businesses, unions, the common man & woman, a rapist, pedophile, and I'd bet so much more, was also a Democrat.
Not just for a year or so, but Trump was registered as a Democrat for more than eight years in the 2000s, according to New York City voter records made public during his 2016 campaign for president.
Trump owned up to his years with the other party and told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2004 that he identified with Democrats during that time because they were more adept at handling the economy.
*"It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats....But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans."
Trump was a registered Democrat from August 2001 through September 2009.*
Enter the Clinton's and the infamous wedding picture from Mar-a-Largo where Trump was celebrating his 3rd wedding and Bill and Hill are just *Ooohing and ahhhing* with and over him.
Now, the Clintons didn't just attend Trump's wedding. Over the years, Donald Trump has given more than $4,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns and more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to PolitiFact.
There is no way the Clinton's, didn't know about his dirty dealings and underhanded business tactics. The Clinton's have and still remain an immense powerhouse in the Democrat party, and New York. They've always had their fingers on the pulse of what was going on with who and where.
From 1973 until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes. But the Clinton's glossed over all of those lawsuits, allegations, and hushed whispers.
Presidential hopefuls criticized his affiliation with the Democrats, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
*“He was a Democrat longer than he was a Republican. He's given more money to Democrats than he has to Republicans," Bush said. (Among the politicians Trump has given money to are Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State and Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was his Democratic opponent in the 2016 presidential campaign.)*
It probably didn't help Trump's case among conservative voters that he's spoken very highly of some Democrats who are typically vilified by conservatives, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Oprah Winfrey, and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
He's to New York what Dracula is to Transylvania. A bloodsucking fiend, a monster, something so vile and reprehensible, classes were taught regarding him. His name uttered with vile contempt, people would spit on the ground as if they could dislodge the bad taste.
And don't even get me started on Dracula!
Yet, major Democrats took his money with a smile, a hug, a kiss on the cheek. He even made a $1,000 donation to Joe Biden. I theorize that if digging was done, real, actual journalism, we'd find many instances of "working across the aisle" between Democrats and Republicans, problem is the "work" being done wasn't going to benefit the American people.
Here's a list of know political donations.
>From 1989 to 2015, Donald Trump made $1,845,290 worth of political donations. Republicans received $1,150,540, and Democrats received $694,750.
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations,_1989-2015
| Ok, I'm not going to push on the money collection itself. Both parties will take donations from anyone, and corporations/wealthy will contribute to whomever they believe will benefit them most (case in point: your quote from Trump believing "Democrats were better at business" aligns with his then affiliation, effectively only changing after he seriously started running for office in 2015).
I do, however, believe both have different intents with said money. Note I'm not arguing success rate, just what the party goals are.
As the current political climate is very heavily influenced by culture war, both parties are falling on opposite sides. You have the Republicans preaching a "return" to a unified cultural Christian America versus Democrats trying for a confederation in support of individual rights. These have battle fronts across everything, from school boards to churches to medical procedures. These are expensive endeavors. You could argue Democrats have been bad at allocating resources properly, but they are still using that money in support of a position that runs contrary to the Republican position.
We can even go the more callous route, that both want to gain and maintain political power. Again, won't hear an argument from me. But how those parties wield that power is very different. There have been studies indicating that, indeed, the economy does do better overall with Democrats in power, a sentiment reflected with professionals concerned with Trump's roughshod approach to "fiscal responsibility."
Ultimately, what you have is two entities pulling funds from the same pool with different objectives. They might be the same in being "bought," but that doesn't mean they align. | Scorpiogre_rawrr |
1iv535n | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv3ny9/cmv_metallica_did_not_sell_out/ | 123kallem | [
"XenoRyet"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv3ny9/cmv_metallica_did_not_sell_out/me2v6jd/ | 2,851,626 | CMV: Metallica did not sell out. | Probably the biggest thing with Metallica that i see on reddit on like the ask reddit page where people ask ''What band fell off?'' an answer you're probably gonna see with a decent amount of upvotes is Metallica, with someone replying ''Kill 'Em All - The Black Album is amazing, shame they sold out after.''
Now my perception of ''selling out'' could be wrong here, but what i understand it to mean is that you're just doing anything to maximize sales, pandering to the masses or whatever. This makes no sense to me as The Black Album sold 30+ million, they then go onto Load, which sells less than Justice, Master and The Black Album, doesn't feel at all like selling out to me? If you wanna make the argument that The Black Albumm was the point where they sold out, i dont get that either, its a slower and heavier album than before, theres still obvious Thrash in there though, like Through The Never, Holier Than Thou, The Struggle Within. The seeds for the black album had already been seen in the previous album with Harvester, showing that this type of music is clearly something that Metallica likes doing and isnt just them selling out. The only thing i feel is somewhat sell-outy was the whole emo thing they did for the promotion for Load, with the black hair and eyeliner trying to capitalize on the emo and grunge scene.
The change in music is obvious though, theres not really any thrashiness in Load, but just evolving into a new genre isn't selling out to me, as the seeds for doing stuff other than thrash metal was always there. | Again, that's assuming they're good business people instead of a bunch of artists trying to make money and misreading things.
Lots of people who very much self-identify as sell-outs or being purely profit driven make mistakes like that, repeatedly. | XenoRyet | 1,740,180,600 | CMV: Metallica did not sell out. | Probably the biggest thing with Metallica that i see on reddit on like the ask reddit page where people ask ''What band fell off?'' an answer you're probably gonna see with a decent amount of upvotes is Metallica, with someone replying ''Kill 'Em All - The Black Album is amazing, shame they sold out after.''
Now my perception of ''selling out'' could be wrong here, but what i understand it to mean is that you're just doing anything to maximize sales, pandering to the masses or whatever. This makes no sense to me as The Black Album sold 30+ million, they then go onto Load, which sells less than Justice, Master and The Black Album, doesn't feel at all like selling out to me? If you wanna make the argument that The Black Albumm was the point where they sold out, i dont get that either, its a slower and heavier album than before, theres still obvious Thrash in there though, like Through The Never, Holier Than Thou, The Struggle Within. The seeds for the black album had already been seen in the previous album with Harvester, showing that this type of music is clearly something that Metallica likes doing and isnt just them selling out. The only thing i feel is somewhat sell-outy was the whole emo thing they did for the promotion for Load, with the black hair and eyeliner trying to capitalize on the emo and grunge scene.
The change in music is obvious though, theres not really any thrashiness in Load, but just evolving into a new genre isn't selling out to me, as the seeds for doing stuff other than thrash metal was always there. | Again, that's assuming they're good business people instead of a bunch of artists trying to make money and misreading things.
Lots of people who very much self-identify as sell-outs or being purely profit driven make mistakes like that, repeatedly. | 123kallem |
1iv5a2h | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv2bt9/cmv_any_prochoice_woman_who_is_losing_their_minds/ | No_Ease_8198 | [
"Various_Succotash_79"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv2bt9/cmv_any_prochoice_woman_who_is_losing_their_minds/me2u6i4/ | 2,851,593 | CMV: Any pro-choice woman who is losing their minds over the Yankees new facial hair policy is a complete hypocrite | First off I want to get two things out of the way: I am wildly pro choice and I also don’t give a single shit about baseball.
I have recently just read online that apparently the Yankees have amended their facial hair policy, and now players are allowed to have groomed mustaches and beards as long as they are kept orderly.
I have noticed a large volume of protests about this online, mostly from women for some odd reason. And I just can’t help I think to myself “ so you respect the autonomy woman have over their own bodies and giving them complete agency to take a life or to give life, but you’re about to burn down cities because a dude is choosing whether or not to have facial hair?” Like what the fuck. How are you gonna claim to be pro-choice, but then you get annoyed or disappointed over a man’s choice about what is or isn’t on his face? That is complete hypocrisy. Don’t call yourself pro-choice if you’re only going to apply the right to choose to yourself.
Edit: I’m getting alot of questions of “where are you seeing..”. I did say online, but to be specific, Facebook, on the Yankees official page. I’d post a link but I fear it shows who sent it, which would obviously reveal my identity in real life. | Everybody judges everybody else. You're judging the people doing the judging right now. | Various_Succotash_79 | 1,740,180,269 | CMV: Any pro-choice woman who is losing their minds over the Yankees new facial hair policy is a complete hypocrite | First off I want to get two things out of the way: I am wildly pro choice and I also don’t give a single shit about baseball.
I have recently just read online that apparently the Yankees have amended their facial hair policy, and now players are allowed to have groomed mustaches and beards as long as they are kept orderly.
I have noticed a large volume of protests about this online, mostly from women for some odd reason. And I just can’t help I think to myself “ so you respect the autonomy woman have over their own bodies and giving them complete agency to take a life or to give life, but you’re about to burn down cities because a dude is choosing whether or not to have facial hair?” Like what the fuck. How are you gonna claim to be pro-choice, but then you get annoyed or disappointed over a man’s choice about what is or isn’t on his face? That is complete hypocrisy. Don’t call yourself pro-choice if you’re only going to apply the right to choose to yourself.
Edit: I’m getting alot of questions of “where are you seeing..”. I did say online, but to be specific, Facebook, on the Yankees official page. I’d post a link but I fear it shows who sent it, which would obviously reveal my identity in real life. | Everybody judges everybody else. You're judging the people doing the judging right now. | No_Ease_8198 |
1ivdmuo | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivauar/cmv_going_to_college_is_not_a_waste_of_money_if/ | Maleficent_Pizza_168 | [
"ProDavid_"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivauar/cmv_going_to_college_is_not_a_waste_of_money_if/me4oc52/ | 2,852,841 | CMV: Going to college is not a waste of money if you know what to do with your degree | I see a lot of people saying going to college is a waste of time and money unless itself STEM. And some people will even argue that this is true even for STEM.
Now let’s take an example of a non-stem degree - art history. Person A after graduation doesn’t get any job and works at a place for way less money that they spent on the degree. Person B goes for a PhD and becomes a professor.
So isn’t it fair to say that one should chose a program based on what they want to do in life. And once they have graduated it’s on them to decide how to use the education and the degree. Right?
Please help me understand if there’s more to this that I may be missing.
I feel like higher education gives your the capability to open doors and it’s upto you if you can open the door and chose the path that’s correct for you. I feel like people saying - college is not important - is wrong. People should focus on discouraging people from choosing a random major just for the sake of going to college. Chosing the right major is worth spending the time and money.
Again I am not saying that everyone HAS to go to college. I am just saying that making a generalization regarding college is not okay. A lot of people argue this by pointing at the education loan debts. I personally feel that if one can build a career out of your degree one can pay off that loan as well. | you type
>!Delta
and a couple sentences explaining how it changed your mind. (only a delta gets rejected, editing a comment doesnt work)
it doesnt have to change ALL of your mind either, just a couple points. and you can award multiple deltas to different people too. | ProDavid_ | 1,740,210,042 | CMV: Going to college is not a waste of money if you know what to do with your degree | I see a lot of people saying going to college is a waste of time and money unless itself STEM. And some people will even argue that this is true even for STEM.
Now let’s take an example of a non-stem degree - art history. Person A after graduation doesn’t get any job and works at a place for way less money that they spent on the degree. Person B goes for a PhD and becomes a professor.
So isn’t it fair to say that one should chose a program based on what they want to do in life. And once they have graduated it’s on them to decide how to use the education and the degree. Right?
Please help me understand if there’s more to this that I may be missing.
I feel like higher education gives your the capability to open doors and it’s upto you if you can open the door and chose the path that’s correct for you. I feel like people saying - college is not important - is wrong. People should focus on discouraging people from choosing a random major just for the sake of going to college. Chosing the right major is worth spending the time and money.
Again I am not saying that everyone HAS to go to college. I am just saying that making a generalization regarding college is not okay. A lot of people argue this by pointing at the education loan debts. I personally feel that if one can build a career out of your degree one can pay off that loan as well. | you type
>!Delta
and a couple sentences explaining how it changed your mind. (only a delta gets rejected, editing a comment doesnt work)
it doesnt have to change ALL of your mind either, just a couple points. and you can award multiple deltas to different people too. | Maleficent_Pizza_168 |
1ivgxk9 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivg91b/cmv_there_is_no_video_forensics_showing_gazans/ | atav1k | [
"CaddoTime"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivg91b/cmv_there_is_no_video_forensics_showing_gazans/me5b7cw/ | 2,853,369 | CMV: There is no video forensics showing Gazans “celebrating” the remains of the Bibas family and democratic society is heavily propagandized. | First off, I don’t agree nor does the UN, with the way Hamas handed over the remains of the Bibas family. However this thread is not about that, nor is it about who is ultimately responsible for their death or the burden of proof.
It is simply about the claims spread that Gazans were celebrating the exchange and how pretext for ending the ceasefire is manufactured. Take the Tablet Mag piece calling for ethic cleansing titled Their Time is Up, it shows Gazan children smiling looking at the sky. We’re the Bibas bodies being airlifted?
A loud crowd gathered in public is not a celebration even if it is staged and is not sufficient legal cause to exterminate another group. There is only one real purpose to this whole affair, and it is to convince people that human rights are alienable or non-universal. | no video forensics show Gazans “celebrating” the remains of the Bibas family and that democratic societies are heavily propagandized, using this incident as a pretext to dehumanize Palestinians and justify extreme measures like ending the ceasefire or ethnic cleansing. Let’s summarize the findings and response, factoring in Hamas’s well-documented brutality and the long history of broken Palestinian commitments.
Fact-Checking the Video As of February 22, 2025, no authoritative forensic video analysis—from Israel, the UN, or independent sources—confirms Gazans “celebrating” the Bibas family remains during their handover on February 20 in Khan Younis. X posts claim children cheered or chanted after the coffins were removed, with some labeling it celebration and others freedom slogans, but these lack verification. News outlets (CNN, BBC, Reuters) report Hamas’s staged, macabre ceremony—complete with propaganda posters—but don’t document celebration. Hamas’s brutal execution of hostages like Ariel (4) and Kfir Bibas (10 months), confirmed by Israeli forensics, and its cynical withholding of Shiri Bibas’s body underscore its savagery, consistent with its track record of violence against civilians. Yet, without forensic-grade footage, your claim of no “celebration” evidence holds, though ambiguous crowd reactions may fuel competing narratives.
Propaganda and Pretext Democratic societies, including Israel and the U.S., do propagandize—X posts and Tablet Magazine’s “Their Time Is Up” (February 20, 2025) exaggerate Gazan behavior to push policies like annexation or resettlement, with images of smiling children serving rhetoric, not reality (the Bibas bodies weren’t airlifted). This aligns with your view of manufactured pretexts to end the fragile January 19 ceasefire or dehumanize Palestinians. However, Hamas’s own propaganda—staging the handover, parading coffins—mirrors its history of exploiting suffering for leverage, as seen in broken promises like the Oslo Accords’ peace process or repeated ceasefire violations (e.g., rocket attacks post-2014). Israel’s outrage over the Bibas case isn’t wholly fabricated—Hamas’s brutality gives it traction—but it’s amplified to justify escalation, fitting your propaganda critique.
You’re right that no forensic video proves “celebration,” and propaganda distorts truth on all sides. Hamas’s barbarity—murdering infants, toying with remains—echoes decades of Palestinian leadership failing to honor commitments, from Camp David to countless truces, eroding trust. Yet, if unverified footage shows any crowd reaction, it’s not enough to legally or morally alienate human rights, which remain universal despite Hamas’s actions or Israel’s rhetoric. The Bibas tragedy isn’t just a pretext—it’s a symptom of a conflict where Hamas’s cruelty and broken promises give Israel’s hardliners ammunition, however overstated. Your view nails the propaganda trap, but could it stretch to see Hamas’s role as more than a passive foil, actively fueling the cycle? Human rights endure, but the brutality and bad faith on both sides—not just one—shape this mess. Does that shift your lens at all? | CaddoTime | 1,740,223,009 | CMV: There is no video forensics showing Gazans “celebrating” the remains of the Bibas family and democratic society is heavily propagandized. | First off, I don’t agree nor does the UN, with the way Hamas handed over the remains of the Bibas family. However this thread is not about that, nor is it about who is ultimately responsible for their death or the burden of proof.
It is simply about the claims spread that Gazans were celebrating the exchange and how pretext for ending the ceasefire is manufactured. Take the Tablet Mag piece calling for ethic cleansing titled Their Time is Up, it shows Gazan children smiling looking at the sky. We’re the Bibas bodies being airlifted?
A loud crowd gathered in public is not a celebration even if it is staged and is not sufficient legal cause to exterminate another group. There is only one real purpose to this whole affair, and it is to convince people that human rights are alienable or non-universal. | no video forensics show Gazans “celebrating” the remains of the Bibas family and that democratic societies are heavily propagandized, using this incident as a pretext to dehumanize Palestinians and justify extreme measures like ending the ceasefire or ethnic cleansing. Let’s summarize the findings and response, factoring in Hamas’s well-documented brutality and the long history of broken Palestinian commitments.
Fact-Checking the Video As of February 22, 2025, no authoritative forensic video analysis—from Israel, the UN, or independent sources—confirms Gazans “celebrating” the Bibas family remains during their handover on February 20 in Khan Younis. X posts claim children cheered or chanted after the coffins were removed, with some labeling it celebration and others freedom slogans, but these lack verification. News outlets (CNN, BBC, Reuters) report Hamas’s staged, macabre ceremony—complete with propaganda posters—but don’t document celebration. Hamas’s brutal execution of hostages like Ariel (4) and Kfir Bibas (10 months), confirmed by Israeli forensics, and its cynical withholding of Shiri Bibas’s body underscore its savagery, consistent with its track record of violence against civilians. Yet, without forensic-grade footage, your claim of no “celebration” evidence holds, though ambiguous crowd reactions may fuel competing narratives.
Propaganda and Pretext Democratic societies, including Israel and the U.S., do propagandize—X posts and Tablet Magazine’s “Their Time Is Up” (February 20, 2025) exaggerate Gazan behavior to push policies like annexation or resettlement, with images of smiling children serving rhetoric, not reality (the Bibas bodies weren’t airlifted). This aligns with your view of manufactured pretexts to end the fragile January 19 ceasefire or dehumanize Palestinians. However, Hamas’s own propaganda—staging the handover, parading coffins—mirrors its history of exploiting suffering for leverage, as seen in broken promises like the Oslo Accords’ peace process or repeated ceasefire violations (e.g., rocket attacks post-2014). Israel’s outrage over the Bibas case isn’t wholly fabricated—Hamas’s brutality gives it traction—but it’s amplified to justify escalation, fitting your propaganda critique.
You’re right that no forensic video proves “celebration,” and propaganda distorts truth on all sides. Hamas’s barbarity—murdering infants, toying with remains—echoes decades of Palestinian leadership failing to honor commitments, from Camp David to countless truces, eroding trust. Yet, if unverified footage shows any crowd reaction, it’s not enough to legally or morally alienate human rights, which remain universal despite Hamas’s actions or Israel’s rhetoric. The Bibas tragedy isn’t just a pretext—it’s a symptom of a conflict where Hamas’s cruelty and broken promises give Israel’s hardliners ammunition, however overstated. Your view nails the propaganda trap, but could it stretch to see Hamas’s role as more than a passive foil, actively fueling the cycle? Human rights endure, but the brutality and bad faith on both sides—not just one—shape this mess. Does that shift your lens at all? | atav1k |
1ivh03b | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivfe3o/cmv_investing_in_automation_and_lights_out/ | MajesticBread9147 | [
"flippitjiBBer"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivfe3o/cmv_investing_in_automation_and_lights_out/me56gz9/ | 2,853,249 | CMV: Investing in automation and lights out manufacturing would be the most effective way to bring manufacturing back. | There are two conflicting issues when discussing the offshoring of manufacturing. There's the people who prioritize brining it back, but also the people who don't want the cost increase of higher labor costs passed onto them.
But anybody with a vague understanding of economics knows that China isn't cheap labor anymore, at least not the cheapest. They're a middle income country, and if all you need is cheap labor then Malaysia, Vietnam, Mexico, El Salvador,or Indonesia. Yet China is still the world's factory largely because they have the infrastructure in place to mass produce goods which includes industrial automation.
American manufacturing is still strong; [real manufacturing output is higher now than it was in the 80s and 90s](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS) , it's only *employment* that has been decreasing since the 60s. So workers are getting more productive, but evidently, not enough to justify moving manufacturing stateside. The amount of workers you need to employ making $50-100k a year for a dozen shipping container's worth of goods is more than the cost to ship those goods from Shenzhen to Los Angeles.
But China recognizes the importance of this transition if you want to maintain manufacturing. They have been [investing in industrial automation massively](https://asianinsiders.com/2024/10/22/industrial-automation-market-china/#:~:text=France's%20Schneider%20Electric%20and%20American,is%20another%20initiative%20worth%20highlighting.) and subsidizes the purchases of industrial automation equipment. I don't think you can argue that this hasn't helped China stay "the world's factory" despite rising labor costs.
Of course this won't work for all industries, but surely there are many industries done overseas today that could be done just as well in America if fully or almost fully automated than China. Especially "lights out" factories, named so because they need so little human intervention that the lights aren't even turned on except for maintenance.
And it will still create jobs. More demand for automation will increase the demand for almost all types of engineers. Automated systems still need people to design them, repair them, program them, and find more efficient ways to manufacture goods.
It's just that there's nothing we can do to make somebody spending 40 hours a week spot welding the same 4 joints on a metal frame feasible in the modern age. The only choice we have is whether to hire American engineers to design American factories or have the Chinese do it and pay a 25% tarrifs.
Yet this is never discussed as a solution instead of tarrifs. It would provide less of a shock to the economy because prices wouldn't significantly go up, and it would likely reduce carbon emissions because goods will travel across oceans less often. | I run a metal finishing factory in the US. I would switch to 24/7 lights-out automation almost immediately if it were feasible. It isn’t. For anyone thinking “you can’t demand all companies become automated” u/abominablemay gives the counterpoint for the success of automation in manufacturing. This is a probably the right take… for a lot of manufacturers.
The reality is that only certain kinds of manufacturing can be fully automated. Clothing for example still relies on a lot of skilled handwork and cannot be automated. It’s now made in Africa. I had an automated powder coat line I had to shut down due to lack of demand. It was fully automated and pretty high-end even by normal standards, but the kind of work it specializes in is now only done in the US for research purposes. המשפיע runs a white label printer factory. That’s the kind of thing that can be automated, and so it is. It’s in Japan and runs it over night. | flippitjiBBer | 1,740,220,336 | CMV: Investing in automation and lights out manufacturing would be the most effective way to bring manufacturing back. | There are two conflicting issues when discussing the offshoring of manufacturing. There's the people who prioritize brining it back, but also the people who don't want the cost increase of higher labor costs passed onto them.
But anybody with a vague understanding of economics knows that China isn't cheap labor anymore, at least not the cheapest. They're a middle income country, and if all you need is cheap labor then Malaysia, Vietnam, Mexico, El Salvador,or Indonesia. Yet China is still the world's factory largely because they have the infrastructure in place to mass produce goods which includes industrial automation.
American manufacturing is still strong; [real manufacturing output is higher now than it was in the 80s and 90s](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS) , it's only *employment* that has been decreasing since the 60s. So workers are getting more productive, but evidently, not enough to justify moving manufacturing stateside. The amount of workers you need to employ making $50-100k a year for a dozen shipping container's worth of goods is more than the cost to ship those goods from Shenzhen to Los Angeles.
But China recognizes the importance of this transition if you want to maintain manufacturing. They have been [investing in industrial automation massively](https://asianinsiders.com/2024/10/22/industrial-automation-market-china/#:~:text=France's%20Schneider%20Electric%20and%20American,is%20another%20initiative%20worth%20highlighting.) and subsidizes the purchases of industrial automation equipment. I don't think you can argue that this hasn't helped China stay "the world's factory" despite rising labor costs.
Of course this won't work for all industries, but surely there are many industries done overseas today that could be done just as well in America if fully or almost fully automated than China. Especially "lights out" factories, named so because they need so little human intervention that the lights aren't even turned on except for maintenance.
And it will still create jobs. More demand for automation will increase the demand for almost all types of engineers. Automated systems still need people to design them, repair them, program them, and find more efficient ways to manufacture goods.
It's just that there's nothing we can do to make somebody spending 40 hours a week spot welding the same 4 joints on a metal frame feasible in the modern age. The only choice we have is whether to hire American engineers to design American factories or have the Chinese do it and pay a 25% tarrifs.
Yet this is never discussed as a solution instead of tarrifs. It would provide less of a shock to the economy because prices wouldn't significantly go up, and it would likely reduce carbon emissions because goods will travel across oceans less often. | I run a metal finishing factory in the US. I would switch to 24/7 lights-out automation almost immediately if it were feasible. It isn’t. For anyone thinking “you can’t demand all companies become automated” u/abominablemay gives the counterpoint for the success of automation in manufacturing. This is a probably the right take… for a lot of manufacturers.
The reality is that only certain kinds of manufacturing can be fully automated. Clothing for example still relies on a lot of skilled handwork and cannot be automated. It’s now made in Africa. I had an automated powder coat line I had to shut down due to lack of demand. It was fully automated and pretty high-end even by normal standards, but the kind of work it specializes in is now only done in the US for research purposes. המשפיע runs a white label printer factory. That’s the kind of thing that can be automated, and so it is. It’s in Japan and runs it over night. | MajesticBread9147 |
1ivhpgb | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivgz3h/cmv_in_the_21st_century_democracy_is_approaching/ | GloryGreatestCountry | [
"catbaLoom213"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivgz3h/cmv_in_the_21st_century_democracy_is_approaching/me5jpof/ | 2,853,602 | CMV: In the 21st century, democracy is approaching its demise. | All over the world, we are seeing a rise in demagogues and oligarchs appealing to the hate of the lowest common denominator. While people's money and representation are stolen from them, the powerful and wealthy point at the next minority that they claim is 'abnormal' to direct the heat away from them.
With the rise of social media, countries can be toppled by dictators with propaganda brigades that appeal to the simplistic views of supremacy and us-vs-them among the masses, and of course, money for the ones in power. Money and hatred override love and community.
When dictators support dictators, the wealthy support the wealthy, the powerful support the powerful and borders are no longer a concern with money and social media and hatred, democracy is every day closer to death as the people who fought for these rights are having their free time to even think about these rights taken away. And when they have time to think, media tells them the only thing they need to think is hatred of the person next to them.
With the circumstances I've observed, I feel like there is simply no way democracy will come back if not even national identity can preserve a nation's integrity and people are willingly lobotomized for dopamine.
Please, change my view. It would help. | Actually, democracy is more resilient than you think. The rise of authoritarians you're seeing is more like democracy's immune system kicking in than its death throes.
Look at what happened with Trump - he tried to subvert democracy, but institutions held strong. Same in Brazil with Bolsonaro. Even Russia's propaganda machine is failing - just see how many Russians are opposing Putin's war despite facing prison.
Social media isn't just a tool for dictators. The Arab Spring, Hong Kong protests, and Iranian women's movement show how it empowers ordinary people to organize and resist. For every troll farm, there are thousands of people fact-checking and calling out BS.
> When dictators support dictators, the wealthy support the wealthy...
This isn't new. The 1930s were way worse for democracy globally. Yet here we are, with more democratic countries than ever before. The difference is now we actually see and call out the corruption that was always there.
And young people today? They're more politically engaged than previous generations. Voter turnout among under-30s hit record highs in 2024. They're not "willingly lobotomized" - they're organizing climate strikes, pushing for workers' rights, and demanding accountability.
Democracy isn't dying - it's evolving. It's messy and sometimes takes steps backward, but that's how it's always worked. The fact that you're worried about democracy shows exactly why it'll survive - because people like you still care. | catbaLoom213 | 1,740,227,337 | CMV: In the 21st century, democracy is approaching its demise. | All over the world, we are seeing a rise in demagogues and oligarchs appealing to the hate of the lowest common denominator. While people's money and representation are stolen from them, the powerful and wealthy point at the next minority that they claim is 'abnormal' to direct the heat away from them.
With the rise of social media, countries can be toppled by dictators with propaganda brigades that appeal to the simplistic views of supremacy and us-vs-them among the masses, and of course, money for the ones in power. Money and hatred override love and community.
When dictators support dictators, the wealthy support the wealthy, the powerful support the powerful and borders are no longer a concern with money and social media and hatred, democracy is every day closer to death as the people who fought for these rights are having their free time to even think about these rights taken away. And when they have time to think, media tells them the only thing they need to think is hatred of the person next to them.
With the circumstances I've observed, I feel like there is simply no way democracy will come back if not even national identity can preserve a nation's integrity and people are willingly lobotomized for dopamine.
Please, change my view. It would help. | Actually, democracy is more resilient than you think. The rise of authoritarians you're seeing is more like democracy's immune system kicking in than its death throes.
Look at what happened with Trump - he tried to subvert democracy, but institutions held strong. Same in Brazil with Bolsonaro. Even Russia's propaganda machine is failing - just see how many Russians are opposing Putin's war despite facing prison.
Social media isn't just a tool for dictators. The Arab Spring, Hong Kong protests, and Iranian women's movement show how it empowers ordinary people to organize and resist. For every troll farm, there are thousands of people fact-checking and calling out BS.
> When dictators support dictators, the wealthy support the wealthy...
This isn't new. The 1930s were way worse for democracy globally. Yet here we are, with more democratic countries than ever before. The difference is now we actually see and call out the corruption that was always there.
And young people today? They're more politically engaged than previous generations. Voter turnout among under-30s hit record highs in 2024. They're not "willingly lobotomized" - they're organizing climate strikes, pushing for workers' rights, and demanding accountability.
Democracy isn't dying - it's evolving. It's messy and sometimes takes steps backward, but that's how it's always worked. The fact that you're worried about democracy shows exactly why it'll survive - because people like you still care. | GloryGreatestCountry |
1ivhwem | /r/changemyview/comments/1iveyt0/cmv_rapping_about_having_many_sexual_partners/ | dervik | [
"Sayakai"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iveyt0/cmv_rapping_about_having_many_sexual_partners/me50ky8/ | 2,853,129 | CMV: Rapping about having many sexual partners only makes sense for men | I made a comment underneath a post about a rap-specific question recently. While I was downvoted without any challenging responses I thought that this is the right place to see if my view is flawed.
The question posted asked about why there is so much negative feedback about female rap artists stating to have lots of sexual partners while for men it's the norm to brag about it.
My view is that for men, having intercourse with a woman is an achievement. To be able to do so, you need to fulfill multiple factors. You need to be fit, charismatic to a certain degree, you need a fair amount of social status, be hygienic, somewhat funny, intelligent and so on. As a man, usually you are the one "requesting" the sexual act while she is the one to approve it. Men tend to generally have more need to have multiple partners biologically, creating a competitive environment even when not replicating.
If a rapper brags about having multiple girls, he showes that he is at the top of this competitive hierarchy.
On the other hand, a woman who is approving these requests does not have such high requirements to fulfill to find a partner for intercourse. While it is totally okay for women to have a high body count, it is not something that makes sense to be bragged about/proud of because it only says that she sets a low standard in picking the men who she sleeps with.
I know that this is a topic that is discussed often and in different forms, still I did not hear clear arguments that convinced me on why the progressive view of men and women being equal about that topic is applicable to an evolutionary mechanism that defined the roles differently.
Please change my view. | Look at it from a different angle. Generally speaking, society is with you: We're still living in a purity culture where women are expected to be selective with partners, to have as few partners as possible, ideally only one ever. Women who go against this norm face societal pressure, are denigrated as "sluts".
So when a woman brags about having a lot of sex, what she's also saying is: I don't care about your judgment, I'm confident and strong enough that your opinion about my sex life doesn't phase me. I'm putting my sexuality in your face and you're just gonna have to fucking deal with it.
And yeah, that does give negative feedback from the people trying to force the societal purity culture on the rapper, but being able to push back against that, being able to succeed anyways, that's just an even bigger mark of personal success, it shows she's owning the haters.
So it's not that the sex is an achivement, it's the bragging that is. | Sayakai | 1,740,216,961 | CMV: Rapping about having many sexual partners only makes sense for men | I made a comment underneath a post about a rap-specific question recently. While I was downvoted without any challenging responses I thought that this is the right place to see if my view is flawed.
The question posted asked about why there is so much negative feedback about female rap artists stating to have lots of sexual partners while for men it's the norm to brag about it.
My view is that for men, having intercourse with a woman is an achievement. To be able to do so, you need to fulfill multiple factors. You need to be fit, charismatic to a certain degree, you need a fair amount of social status, be hygienic, somewhat funny, intelligent and so on. As a man, usually you are the one "requesting" the sexual act while she is the one to approve it. Men tend to generally have more need to have multiple partners biologically, creating a competitive environment even when not replicating.
If a rapper brags about having multiple girls, he showes that he is at the top of this competitive hierarchy.
On the other hand, a woman who is approving these requests does not have such high requirements to fulfill to find a partner for intercourse. While it is totally okay for women to have a high body count, it is not something that makes sense to be bragged about/proud of because it only says that she sets a low standard in picking the men who she sleeps with.
I know that this is a topic that is discussed often and in different forms, still I did not hear clear arguments that convinced me on why the progressive view of men and women being equal about that topic is applicable to an evolutionary mechanism that defined the roles differently.
Please change my view. | Look at it from a different angle. Generally speaking, society is with you: We're still living in a purity culture where women are expected to be selective with partners, to have as few partners as possible, ideally only one ever. Women who go against this norm face societal pressure, are denigrated as "sluts".
So when a woman brags about having a lot of sex, what she's also saying is: I don't care about your judgment, I'm confident and strong enough that your opinion about my sex life doesn't phase me. I'm putting my sexuality in your face and you're just gonna have to fucking deal with it.
And yeah, that does give negative feedback from the people trying to force the societal purity culture on the rapper, but being able to push back against that, being able to succeed anyways, that's just an even bigger mark of personal success, it shows she's owning the haters.
So it's not that the sex is an achivement, it's the bragging that is. | dervik |
1ivisiv | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivhm7o/cmv_we_have_enough_porn_to_sustain_everyone/ | RossTheNinja | [
"No-Cauliflower8890"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivhm7o/cmv_we_have_enough_porn_to_sustain_everyone/me5kf0x/ | 2,853,629 | CMV: We have enough porn to sustain everyone forever, we don't need more people becoming pornstars | There's countless hours of content that can be upscaled. We aren't far away from being able to create whatever people want through AI with no real people on screen. No one is going to run out of content to watch.
I'd be willing to phase it out over 5 years or something. I don't think it does any good for the people who can be seen naked online having sex with people, for all time. If their children, grandchildren and so on are browsing the internet in future, I'm not sure those are videos they want to come across on pornhub. (Pun very much intended) "Hey, is that grandma?"
I think porn becoming far too accepted as It is. It should be a taboo to watch other people have sex for money. It's also not great that most kids are introduced to sex through seeing porn and most likely thinking that's how it will be for them, when it's almost nothing like how you have sex with someone you care about or you're not doing it for the cameras and for money. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
I think what could change my view is the utility of real people in porn as I'm not seeing any. | >I don't think it does any good for the people who can be seen naked online having sex with people, for all time
Then you're wrong. They make money from it. Making money is good. That's why they do it.
>I think porn becoming far too accepted as It is. It should be a taboo to watch other people have sex for money.
Why? And how would this change by forcing people to only watch *old* videos of people having sex for money, or *simulations* of such?
>It's also not great that most kids are introduced to sex through seeing porn and most likely thinking that's how it will be for them, when it's almost nothing like how you have sex with someone you care about or you're not doing it for the cameras and for money.
As above, how are you fixing this with your suggestion? | No-Cauliflower8890 | 1,740,227,654 | CMV: We have enough porn to sustain everyone forever, we don't need more people becoming pornstars | There's countless hours of content that can be upscaled. We aren't far away from being able to create whatever people want through AI with no real people on screen. No one is going to run out of content to watch.
I'd be willing to phase it out over 5 years or something. I don't think it does any good for the people who can be seen naked online having sex with people, for all time. If their children, grandchildren and so on are browsing the internet in future, I'm not sure those are videos they want to come across on pornhub. (Pun very much intended) "Hey, is that grandma?"
I think porn becoming far too accepted as It is. It should be a taboo to watch other people have sex for money. It's also not great that most kids are introduced to sex through seeing porn and most likely thinking that's how it will be for them, when it's almost nothing like how you have sex with someone you care about or you're not doing it for the cameras and for money. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
I think what could change my view is the utility of real people in porn as I'm not seeing any. | >I don't think it does any good for the people who can be seen naked online having sex with people, for all time
Then you're wrong. They make money from it. Making money is good. That's why they do it.
>I think porn becoming far too accepted as It is. It should be a taboo to watch other people have sex for money.
Why? And how would this change by forcing people to only watch *old* videos of people having sex for money, or *simulations* of such?
>It's also not great that most kids are introduced to sex through seeing porn and most likely thinking that's how it will be for them, when it's almost nothing like how you have sex with someone you care about or you're not doing it for the cameras and for money.
As above, how are you fixing this with your suggestion? | RossTheNinja |
1ivlqys | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivl735/cmv_i_think_a_the_majority_of_mens_attraction_to/ | Early-Possibility367 | [
"27GerbalsInMyPants"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivl735/cmv_i_think_a_the_majority_of_mens_attraction_to/me6ia64/ | 2,854,919 | CMV: I think a the majority of men's attraction to women is based on what they're wearing rather than how the woman looks. | To start off, I think from a guy's perspective, one thing that's true is that such a thing as "unattractive" women is something that would only apply to a small minority of women. Maybe 5-15% or less would be considered "unattractive" (mainly excessively overweight or excessively skinny women) but, on the bellcurve, most (maybe like 85-95%+) would fall into the "somewhat below average (which I'll abbreviate as SBA)" category or better.
Now, out of the SBA category and above, I think most men, from a purely attraction standpoint. really cannot tell the difference between them too much. Like you see those supermodel pageants? You could put regular women in there and we men would barely notice. Maybe men would notice a difference in makeup but I don't think they'd notice a difference between an above average body and an average body right off the bat. And this is in a competition where women are wearing bikinis so I'd expect men to notice even less when women are wearing street clothes.
So, if we're attracted to the vast majority of women relatively equally, what's the differentiator? I say it's clothes mainly. And specifically, how much skin and overall figure they show.
If a supermodel walks around in loose bell bottom jeans and a cardigan, most men aren't going to notice her to the extent we would notice an SBA category woman who's wearing a tanktop and daisy dukes.
I can use myself as an example. I've definitely walked into poles after being distracted by women who could societally be considered SBA or average, yet, when a woman with a "supermodel" face in modest clothing walks by I don't feel anything at all. I've also noticed myself attracted towards women who'd be societally unattractive just because they're wearing a crop top and/or miniskirt or daisy dukes while feeling nothing towards women who look like models face wise but I can't see anything because they're wearing a winter coat and sweatpants.
To further use my personal anecdote, I've gone whole winters with barely any attraction to women simply based on the fact that women aren't exactly showing off their legs and abdomens in this time of year.
It's not that a model in trenchcoat and jeans isn't beautiful. It's just that we don't have x ray vision to see her body so there's not much to be attracted to. When an average looking woman walks by in short shorts, her thighs cause a attraction within a man. The man feels stimulated and loses his bearings for a bit. Ditto for cropped tops and what not.
I should note that I focused on shorts heavily because I personally am attracted mainly to legs, but I think the same could be said about clothes that show other body parts too for men who are interested in them specifically. | I'm 30 so emo punk for me is the 2000s long black hair banged over one eye ripped jeans or moderate short shirts with chucks or vans | 27GerbalsInMyPants | 1,740,239,403 | CMV: I think a the majority of men's attraction to women is based on what they're wearing rather than how the woman looks. | To start off, I think from a guy's perspective, one thing that's true is that such a thing as "unattractive" women is something that would only apply to a small minority of women. Maybe 5-15% or less would be considered "unattractive" (mainly excessively overweight or excessively skinny women) but, on the bellcurve, most (maybe like 85-95%+) would fall into the "somewhat below average (which I'll abbreviate as SBA)" category or better.
Now, out of the SBA category and above, I think most men, from a purely attraction standpoint. really cannot tell the difference between them too much. Like you see those supermodel pageants? You could put regular women in there and we men would barely notice. Maybe men would notice a difference in makeup but I don't think they'd notice a difference between an above average body and an average body right off the bat. And this is in a competition where women are wearing bikinis so I'd expect men to notice even less when women are wearing street clothes.
So, if we're attracted to the vast majority of women relatively equally, what's the differentiator? I say it's clothes mainly. And specifically, how much skin and overall figure they show.
If a supermodel walks around in loose bell bottom jeans and a cardigan, most men aren't going to notice her to the extent we would notice an SBA category woman who's wearing a tanktop and daisy dukes.
I can use myself as an example. I've definitely walked into poles after being distracted by women who could societally be considered SBA or average, yet, when a woman with a "supermodel" face in modest clothing walks by I don't feel anything at all. I've also noticed myself attracted towards women who'd be societally unattractive just because they're wearing a crop top and/or miniskirt or daisy dukes while feeling nothing towards women who look like models face wise but I can't see anything because they're wearing a winter coat and sweatpants.
To further use my personal anecdote, I've gone whole winters with barely any attraction to women simply based on the fact that women aren't exactly showing off their legs and abdomens in this time of year.
It's not that a model in trenchcoat and jeans isn't beautiful. It's just that we don't have x ray vision to see her body so there's not much to be attracted to. When an average looking woman walks by in short shorts, her thighs cause a attraction within a man. The man feels stimulated and loses his bearings for a bit. Ditto for cropped tops and what not.
I should note that I focused on shorts heavily because I personally am attracted mainly to legs, but I think the same could be said about clothes that show other body parts too for men who are interested in them specifically. | I'm 30 so emo punk for me is the 2000s long black hair banged over one eye ripped jeans or moderate short shirts with chucks or vans | Early-Possibility367 |
1ivlvtp | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivcqph/cmv_attractive_people_live_better_lives_than/ | Unable_Ad_8123 | [
"LowFlowBlaze"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivcqph/cmv_attractive_people_live_better_lives_than/me5pwf4/ | 2,853,787 | CMV: Attractive people live better lives than “ugly”people | [removed] | Does the average unattractive women have “countless stories” of being sexually assaulted? It seems that the commentor is trying to make the point that attractive women have a higher incidence of being sexually assaulted than your average woman.
Of course, I don’t know if their anecdotal evidence aligns with actual data, but I think you misunderstood the point they were trying to make. | LowFlowBlaze | 1,740,229,916 | CMV: Attractive people live better lives than “ugly”people | [removed] | Does the average unattractive women have “countless stories” of being sexually assaulted? It seems that the commentor is trying to make the point that attractive women have a higher incidence of being sexually assaulted than your average woman.
Of course, I don’t know if their anecdotal evidence aligns with actual data, but I think you misunderstood the point they were trying to make. | Unable_Ad_8123 |
1ivqsx9 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivplh6/cmv_its_hypocritical_to_diminish_chinese_tech/ | Altruistic-Pace-2240 | [
"Eclipsed830"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivplh6/cmv_its_hypocritical_to_diminish_chinese_tech/me7lbh7/ | 2,856,534 | CMV: It's hypocritical to diminish Chinese tech achievements when the U.S. relies heavily on Chinese talent to drive its tech industry. | ERROR: type should be string, got "https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-security-and-immigration-policies-threaten-its-ai-leadership/\n\n>Of course, many industry analysts have long recognized that many Chinese students complete their undergraduate education in China and go to the United States for graduate school, subsequently opting to work for American companies. For example, Jing Li is a core member of both Sora and DALL.E—the two OpenAI products in addition to ChatGPT. She received her undergraduate degree in physics from Peking University before earning a Ph.D. from MIT. This is the first way in which China’s substantial contribution to the AI industry is often obscured.\n\nhttps://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/trump-era-policies-toward-chinese-stem-talent-a-need-for-better-balance?lang=en\n\n\n>The United States has been the world’s leading science and technology power for over seventy years. A critical factor in that success has been the United States’ ability to attract some of the world’s most talented students and professionals working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. **In the last few decades, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has emerged as the largest and arguably most important source of high-level international STEM talent in the United States.**\n\nhttps://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Foreign-Born.pdf\n\n>In 2017, half of the foreign-born individuals in the\nUnited States with an S&E highest degree were from Asia,\nwith India (23%) and China (10%) as the leading countries\nof origin. For the foreign-born holders of S&E doctorates,\nhowever, China provided a higher proportion (24%) than\nIndia (15%). These patterns by source region and country\nfor foreign-born S&E highest degree holders in the United\nStates have been stable since at least 2003.\n\n\n>In 2017, the total number of international students enrolled\nin S&E graduate programs in the U.S. was 229,310. They\nearned just over one-third of S&E doctorates and master’s\ndegrees. These students are highly concentrated in\nengineering and mathematics and computer sciences.\nThe top countries of origin in 2018 continue to be India and\nChina, together accounting for 68% of the international S&E\ngraduate students in the U.S.\n\nConsidering the significant number of Chinese international students enrolled in top-tier U.S. institutions such as UC Berkeley and UCLA, it seems that the U.S. is indirectly contributing to China's talent development by providing access to its renowned educational and professional environments. As someone living in California's Bay Area, I've noticed a substantial presence of Chinese nationals in the tech industry. Anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley or is familiar with the area can attest to the large Chinese workforce.\n\nAlso, schools like UCSF have collaboration with Chinese hospitals not only facilitate academic exchange but also help establish long-term research partnerships. \n\nIf anything, it appears there's a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and China in STEM fields. The U.S. relies on Chinese talent, while China benefits when its citizens return with expertise acquired in American institutions.\n\nSo the question is, if the U.S. recognize Chinese scholars as a very viable source of talent to fuel its tech industry, then why wouldn't they be able to achieve similiar things in their home country?\n\n\n\nimproved:\n\n\n\nhttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-security-and-immigration-policies-threaten-its-ai-leadership/\n\n>Of course, many industry analysts have long recognized that many Chinese students complete their undergraduate education in China and go to the United States for graduate school, subsequently opting to work for American companies. For example, Jing Li is a core member of both Sora and DALL.E—the two OpenAI products in addition to ChatGPT. She received her undergraduate degree in physics from Peking University before earning a Ph.D. from MIT. This is the first way in which China’s substantial contribution to the AI industry is often obscured.\n\nhttps://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/trump-era-policies-toward-chinese-stem-talent-a-need-for-better-balance?lang=en\n\n\n>The United States has been the world’s leading science and technology power for over seventy years. A critical factor in that success has been the United States’ ability to attract some of the world’s most talented students and professionals working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. **In the last few decades, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has emerged as the largest and arguably most important source of high-level international STEM talent in the United States.**\n\nhttps://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Foreign-Born.pdf\n\n>In 2017, half of the foreign-born individuals in the\nUnited States with an S&E highest degree were from Asia,\nwith India (23%) and China (10%) as the leading countries\nof origin. For the foreign-born holders of S&E doctorates,\nhowever, China provided a higher proportion (24%) than\nIndia (15%). These patterns by source region and country\nfor foreign-born S&E highest degree holders in the United\nStates have been stable since at least 2003.\n\n\n>In 2017, the total number of international students enrolled\nin S&E graduate programs in the U.S. was 229,310. They\nearned just over one-third of S&E doctorates and master’s\ndegrees. These students are highly concentrated in\nengineering and mathematics and computer sciences.\nThe top countries of origin in 2018 continue to be India and\nChina, together accounting for 68% of the international S&E\ngraduate students in the U.S.\n\nConsidering the significant number of Chinese international students enrolled in top-tier U.S. institutions such as UC Berkeley and UCLA, it seems that the U.S. is indirectly contributing to China's talent development by providing access to its renowned educational and professional environments. As someone living in California's Bay Area, I've noticed a substantial presence of Chinese nationals in the tech industry. Anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley or is familiar with the area can attest to the large Chinese workforce.\n\nA notable example is Morris Chang, a Chinese national who was educated and trained in the U.S. He attended Harvard and MIT, and worked at Texas Instruments before founding TSMC, one of the most influential companies in the world. TSMC is responsible for manufacturing semiconductors on a global scale.\n\nAlso, schools like UCSF have collaboration with Chinese hospitals not only facilitate academic exchange but also help establish long-term research partnerships. \n\nIf anything, it appears there's a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and China in STEM fields. The U.S. relies on Chinese talent, while China benefits when its citizens return with expertise acquired in American institutions.\n\nSo the question is, if the U.S. recognizes Chinese scholars as a highly valuable source of talent for its tech industry, then why couldn’t China achieve similar results at home?" | No... Most of his primary school education took place in Hong Kong, which was part of the UK at that time until the Japanese invaded. | Eclipsed830 | 1,740,250,625 | CMV: It's hypocritical to diminish Chinese tech achievements when the U.S. relies heavily on Chinese talent to drive its tech industry. | ERROR: type should be string, got "https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-security-and-immigration-policies-threaten-its-ai-leadership/\n\n>Of course, many industry analysts have long recognized that many Chinese students complete their undergraduate education in China and go to the United States for graduate school, subsequently opting to work for American companies. For example, Jing Li is a core member of both Sora and DALL.E—the two OpenAI products in addition to ChatGPT. She received her undergraduate degree in physics from Peking University before earning a Ph.D. from MIT. This is the first way in which China’s substantial contribution to the AI industry is often obscured.\n\nhttps://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/trump-era-policies-toward-chinese-stem-talent-a-need-for-better-balance?lang=en\n\n\n>The United States has been the world’s leading science and technology power for over seventy years. A critical factor in that success has been the United States’ ability to attract some of the world’s most talented students and professionals working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. **In the last few decades, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has emerged as the largest and arguably most important source of high-level international STEM talent in the United States.**\n\nhttps://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Foreign-Born.pdf\n\n>In 2017, half of the foreign-born individuals in the\nUnited States with an S&E highest degree were from Asia,\nwith India (23%) and China (10%) as the leading countries\nof origin. For the foreign-born holders of S&E doctorates,\nhowever, China provided a higher proportion (24%) than\nIndia (15%). These patterns by source region and country\nfor foreign-born S&E highest degree holders in the United\nStates have been stable since at least 2003.\n\n\n>In 2017, the total number of international students enrolled\nin S&E graduate programs in the U.S. was 229,310. They\nearned just over one-third of S&E doctorates and master’s\ndegrees. These students are highly concentrated in\nengineering and mathematics and computer sciences.\nThe top countries of origin in 2018 continue to be India and\nChina, together accounting for 68% of the international S&E\ngraduate students in the U.S.\n\nConsidering the significant number of Chinese international students enrolled in top-tier U.S. institutions such as UC Berkeley and UCLA, it seems that the U.S. is indirectly contributing to China's talent development by providing access to its renowned educational and professional environments. As someone living in California's Bay Area, I've noticed a substantial presence of Chinese nationals in the tech industry. Anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley or is familiar with the area can attest to the large Chinese workforce.\n\nAlso, schools like UCSF have collaboration with Chinese hospitals not only facilitate academic exchange but also help establish long-term research partnerships. \n\nIf anything, it appears there's a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and China in STEM fields. The U.S. relies on Chinese talent, while China benefits when its citizens return with expertise acquired in American institutions.\n\nSo the question is, if the U.S. recognize Chinese scholars as a very viable source of talent to fuel its tech industry, then why wouldn't they be able to achieve similiar things in their home country?\n\n\n\nimproved:\n\n\n\nhttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-security-and-immigration-policies-threaten-its-ai-leadership/\n\n>Of course, many industry analysts have long recognized that many Chinese students complete their undergraduate education in China and go to the United States for graduate school, subsequently opting to work for American companies. For example, Jing Li is a core member of both Sora and DALL.E—the two OpenAI products in addition to ChatGPT. She received her undergraduate degree in physics from Peking University before earning a Ph.D. from MIT. This is the first way in which China’s substantial contribution to the AI industry is often obscured.\n\nhttps://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/trump-era-policies-toward-chinese-stem-talent-a-need-for-better-balance?lang=en\n\n\n>The United States has been the world’s leading science and technology power for over seventy years. A critical factor in that success has been the United States’ ability to attract some of the world’s most talented students and professionals working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. **In the last few decades, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has emerged as the largest and arguably most important source of high-level international STEM talent in the United States.**\n\nhttps://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Foreign-Born.pdf\n\n>In 2017, half of the foreign-born individuals in the\nUnited States with an S&E highest degree were from Asia,\nwith India (23%) and China (10%) as the leading countries\nof origin. For the foreign-born holders of S&E doctorates,\nhowever, China provided a higher proportion (24%) than\nIndia (15%). These patterns by source region and country\nfor foreign-born S&E highest degree holders in the United\nStates have been stable since at least 2003.\n\n\n>In 2017, the total number of international students enrolled\nin S&E graduate programs in the U.S. was 229,310. They\nearned just over one-third of S&E doctorates and master’s\ndegrees. These students are highly concentrated in\nengineering and mathematics and computer sciences.\nThe top countries of origin in 2018 continue to be India and\nChina, together accounting for 68% of the international S&E\ngraduate students in the U.S.\n\nConsidering the significant number of Chinese international students enrolled in top-tier U.S. institutions such as UC Berkeley and UCLA, it seems that the U.S. is indirectly contributing to China's talent development by providing access to its renowned educational and professional environments. As someone living in California's Bay Area, I've noticed a substantial presence of Chinese nationals in the tech industry. Anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley or is familiar with the area can attest to the large Chinese workforce.\n\nA notable example is Morris Chang, a Chinese national who was educated and trained in the U.S. He attended Harvard and MIT, and worked at Texas Instruments before founding TSMC, one of the most influential companies in the world. TSMC is responsible for manufacturing semiconductors on a global scale.\n\nAlso, schools like UCSF have collaboration with Chinese hospitals not only facilitate academic exchange but also help establish long-term research partnerships. \n\nIf anything, it appears there's a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and China in STEM fields. The U.S. relies on Chinese talent, while China benefits when its citizens return with expertise acquired in American institutions.\n\nSo the question is, if the U.S. recognizes Chinese scholars as a highly valuable source of talent for its tech industry, then why couldn’t China achieve similar results at home?" | No... Most of his primary school education took place in Hong Kong, which was part of the UK at that time until the Japanese invaded. | Altruistic-Pace-2240 |
1ivs1kq | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivlcvn/cmv_short_form_content_isnt_the_reason_people/ | ChocolateCake16 | [
"Instantbeef"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivlcvn/cmv_short_form_content_isnt_the_reason_people/me7vf42/ | 2,857,105 | CMV: Short form content isn't the reason people can't sit through movies anymore | Common sentiment seems to say that younger generations won't sit and watch a whole movie anymore (or if they do, they have their phone in their hand, scrolling through social media or something). I've seen a lot of people blame it on microtrends and short from content, like TikTok and Reels and YouTube Shorts, and on the surface, it makes sense, because faster content means you don't have to watch as long to get to the interesting parts. But I feel like this view is flawed because 1. Movies have gotten longer in recent years, 2. It doesn't take into consideration the people who read long novels and fanfiction for hours, and 3. Movie makers are just failing to capture people's attention. | I think a movie competing for your attention is just competing with something much better designed to win your attention.
If it’s short form content, a game, or anything on your phone the phone will win.
Personally I like watching movies in theaters because I completely turn my phone off. I know other people won’t talk to me and I can unabashedly focus solely on the movie.
Most people do not care about movies enough to purposely pursue an environment free from distractions. | Instantbeef | 1,740,253,531 | CMV: Short form content isn't the reason people can't sit through movies anymore | Common sentiment seems to say that younger generations won't sit and watch a whole movie anymore (or if they do, they have their phone in their hand, scrolling through social media or something). I've seen a lot of people blame it on microtrends and short from content, like TikTok and Reels and YouTube Shorts, and on the surface, it makes sense, because faster content means you don't have to watch as long to get to the interesting parts. But I feel like this view is flawed because 1. Movies have gotten longer in recent years, 2. It doesn't take into consideration the people who read long novels and fanfiction for hours, and 3. Movie makers are just failing to capture people's attention. | I think a movie competing for your attention is just competing with something much better designed to win your attention.
If it’s short form content, a game, or anything on your phone the phone will win.
Personally I like watching movies in theaters because I completely turn my phone off. I know other people won’t talk to me and I can unabashedly focus solely on the movie.
Most people do not care about movies enough to purposely pursue an environment free from distractions. | ChocolateCake16 |
1ivsg4y | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivj87v/cmv_book_series_that_have_been_on_hiatus_and_are/ | HeraldOfShadows | [
"Adequate_Images"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivj87v/cmv_book_series_that_have_been_on_hiatus_and_are/me7t7i9/ | 2,856,926 | CMV: book series that have been on hiatus and are likely to never finish should have a huge notification on the cover by law | Hey everyone
as someone who loves to read, finding a book series that is fundamentally good is quite hard, but even harder than that is sitting and hoping that the author is gonna finish a book series that all signs point to it never finishing.
my view is that book series that are likely to never finish need to have a big bold notification on their cover that states: "**likely to never finish**" so the customer can make an informed decision and doesn't get taken advantage of by the author.
Prime examples of such behaviors are A song of ice and fire by Georg R R Martin and Kingkiller chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss, we all can see that these series are never gonna finish, so it would be best to inform future readers to stay away from them. | You understand that even the author isn’t guaranteed to get future volumes published right?
Art is risky. Writing a book is very hard and time consuming and most authors (like the vast vast majority of them) are not rich at all.
They release a book hoping to find an audience. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn’t.
The only thing you agree to when buying a book is that one book. No one owes you anything beyond that. | Adequate_Images | 1,740,252,891 | CMV: book series that have been on hiatus and are likely to never finish should have a huge notification on the cover by law | Hey everyone
as someone who loves to read, finding a book series that is fundamentally good is quite hard, but even harder than that is sitting and hoping that the author is gonna finish a book series that all signs point to it never finishing.
my view is that book series that are likely to never finish need to have a big bold notification on their cover that states: "**likely to never finish**" so the customer can make an informed decision and doesn't get taken advantage of by the author.
Prime examples of such behaviors are A song of ice and fire by Georg R R Martin and Kingkiller chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss, we all can see that these series are never gonna finish, so it would be best to inform future readers to stay away from them. | You understand that even the author isn’t guaranteed to get future volumes published right?
Art is risky. Writing a book is very hard and time consuming and most authors (like the vast vast majority of them) are not rich at all.
They release a book hoping to find an audience. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn’t.
The only thing you agree to when buying a book is that one book. No one owes you anything beyond that. | HeraldOfShadows |
1ivsijh | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivqf1g/cmv_politicsreddit_is_spiralling_into/ | SuboptimalZebra | [
"OkAssignment3926"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivqf1g/cmv_politicsreddit_is_spiralling_into/me7s85w/ | 2,856,859 | CMV: Politics—Reddit is Spiralling Into Dehumanizing, Instead of Finding Common Ground | Maybe I just need a pick-me-up. Maybe I’m terrified at how much name-calling, auto-banning and very low quality “F that person; this person is dumb, etc” comments.
I fear Reddit is falling into emotional extremes that aren’t conducive to fixing the world, but instead dehumanize the ‘others’ and creating more separation. I’m predominantly seeing this in Canadian and American Subs; Liberal and Conservative. For example:
r/onguardforthee
r/conservative
even
r/50501 (which overall I’m really proud of you all there!)
- I’m seeing the ‘Left’ focus on Trump’s aggressive slashing of social policies, apparent aggregation of power and annexation desires.
- I’m seeing the ‘Right’ focus on how it’s good Trump is fighting so much corruption within the White House and the extremes of DEI (like surgical sex changes of children)
- More n more I’m seeing posts that of low value “f this person! They are dumber than dirt!’
- Dehumanizing our fellow humans is a far more dangerous slope than anything else going on.
I get it, we all need to blow off steam. But right now it seems like there’s no oxygen any type of bridge making/keeping conversations. And that’s scary. Dehumanizing others is how wars start. More than ever we need to come together.
CMV that Reddit turning into a mess of tribalism dead set on dehumanizing the ‘other’ side. | I don’t think you’re wrong about the tribalism, but I’d consider that what you’re feeling and seeing on Reddit, twitter, the web, etc. (the dynamics, themes, alignments, tides you’re sensing) are not necessarily linear. Things will change and break in unexpected ways. Equal and opposite reactions. We are a reactive populous.
That said, the stakes are high and power in North America is rapidly consolidating before our eyes, with all of us tapped into an unprecedented, nitty-gritty view of it. The rhetoric and actions leading all this are uncompromising, so “common ground” is neither well-defined nor incentivized for anyone right now.
We could be on a spiral, but we’re more likely on the same wave that seems to carry all history. How steep it’s gotta be is what we’re all arguing about. | OkAssignment3926 | 1,740,252,607 | CMV: Politics—Reddit is Spiralling Into Dehumanizing, Instead of Finding Common Ground | Maybe I just need a pick-me-up. Maybe I’m terrified at how much name-calling, auto-banning and very low quality “F that person; this person is dumb, etc” comments.
I fear Reddit is falling into emotional extremes that aren’t conducive to fixing the world, but instead dehumanize the ‘others’ and creating more separation. I’m predominantly seeing this in Canadian and American Subs; Liberal and Conservative. For example:
r/onguardforthee
r/conservative
even
r/50501 (which overall I’m really proud of you all there!)
- I’m seeing the ‘Left’ focus on Trump’s aggressive slashing of social policies, apparent aggregation of power and annexation desires.
- I’m seeing the ‘Right’ focus on how it’s good Trump is fighting so much corruption within the White House and the extremes of DEI (like surgical sex changes of children)
- More n more I’m seeing posts that of low value “f this person! They are dumber than dirt!’
- Dehumanizing our fellow humans is a far more dangerous slope than anything else going on.
I get it, we all need to blow off steam. But right now it seems like there’s no oxygen any type of bridge making/keeping conversations. And that’s scary. Dehumanizing others is how wars start. More than ever we need to come together.
CMV that Reddit turning into a mess of tribalism dead set on dehumanizing the ‘other’ side. | I don’t think you’re wrong about the tribalism, but I’d consider that what you’re feeling and seeing on Reddit, twitter, the web, etc. (the dynamics, themes, alignments, tides you’re sensing) are not necessarily linear. Things will change and break in unexpected ways. Equal and opposite reactions. We are a reactive populous.
That said, the stakes are high and power in North America is rapidly consolidating before our eyes, with all of us tapped into an unprecedented, nitty-gritty view of it. The rhetoric and actions leading all this are uncompromising, so “common ground” is neither well-defined nor incentivized for anyone right now.
We could be on a spiral, but we’re more likely on the same wave that seems to carry all history. How steep it’s gotta be is what we’re all arguing about. | SuboptimalZebra |
1ivurlk | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivtyg3/cmv_many_in_europe_have_taken_us_support_for/ | WolfofTallStreet | [
"Key-Willingness-2223"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivtyg3/cmv_many_in_europe_have_taken_us_support_for/me8p3uc/ | 2,858,580 | CMV: Many in Europe Have Taken US Support for Granted | Let me begin with some facts on US support for other countries …
The U.S. is:
1. The largest single state contributor to the UN, WHO, aid to Ukraine, global humanitarian aid (in general), and NATO … all of these are *by far*
2. Actively defending its allies with military presences there; something that, when the prior Trump administration threatened to downsize in Germany, Angela Merkel herself even protested
3. In the case of the EU, an advantaged export market, with EU tariffs on U.S. imports in food, beverages, cars, and chemicals higher than the reverse, and a ~3.95% tariff on U.S. goods imported to the EU vs a ~3.5% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S. … supporting an EU-favourable balance of trade.
4. Relatively accommodating to international students, offering them not only generous rights to study in American universities (even if they bring skills/research back to their home countries and benefit their home countries), but also, often, generous grants of government money to conduct research
However:
1. According to the Pew Research Center, as of summer 2024 (pre-Trump second term), many American allies had mixed to negative opinions of the U.S., with France, Greece, and the Netherlands having the same/more people deem the U.S. “unfavourable” vs “favourable,” and a favourable-unfavourable balance within 2% for Germany
2. Perceptions of U.S. aid are often inconsistent with reality; for example, in Serbia, in 2020, people polled believed that China was the largest single-state donor, followed by Russia … in reality, it was the U.S., followed by Germany
3. There is a lot of popular backlash the U.S. faces for many wanting to make things *equal* rather than altruistic; for example, reciprocal tariffs to match (not even exceed) foreign tariff rates, or trying to leave Europe to fund European defense just as the U.S. funds U.S. defense
This is *not* to suggest that the U.S. should terminate any economic or cultural relationship with Europe. Doing so would be mutually harmful.
To change my view, I’d likely want to be convinced on the following:
1. The U.S. does not benefit Europe more than Europe benefits the U.S., and, as such, no “appreciation” is warranted
OR
2. The U.S. does benefit Europe more than Europe benefits the U.S., *but* this isn’t “taken for granted” in terms of policy and culture
I will not be convinced by an argument to the effect of: “benefit” is murky and so is the meaning of “anti-American sentiment” — an attempt to obscure the meaning of things doesn’t, in my view, change the thrust of my argument
| I'd focus on challenge 2
And will argue the claim that it isn't in fact taken for granted.
Firstly, I'd address your polling data and point out that it's wholly misleading because you can numerous studies done on the same topic, with demographic specific differences.
Younger people, I believe take the US for granted, that I'd agree.
But most people in countries aren't that young, in fact most European nations have an increasingly aging demographic and a below replacement birthrate.
So when you look at the majority of people in the older demographics, they tend to feel positively towards the US as a whole, not least because they have lived long enough to remember the cold War, the war in Serbia etx and remember the US had its allies backs in those cases.
Secondly, if you look at when America has requested support- most famously during Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror, almost every European nation offered some form of support. So much so that its even knowm as the global war on terror in the latter case.
And as much as Afghanistan is seen as being predominantly American, because in terms of numbers it was, that doesn't take away from the fact that multiple British servicemen and women were sent to join the fight and either returned home dead, injured or significantly changed as a result. The same can also be said for multiple other European nations.
It's more a question of capability. The US has the largest military ever to exist, and the most funded, so of course it would disproportionately be involved in terms of missions and numbers.
But, say in the case of the UK, that doesn't mean that less public areas like SAS, SBS, Paratroopers and MI6 weren't being used in support roles to a significant degree, not because of a lack of appreciation, but because of specialisation.
The UK military isn't designed for large scale, long term wars of attrition like say the US or Russia, its designed to be a scalpel and to be survival in its implementation.
Likewise, the EU has never tried to make the Euro the world's reserve currency, partly because of the obvious US retaliation, but also out of appreciation for what the US offers to the EU and the strong ties between them.
I think it's almost like those relationship questions whereby people discuss love languages- person A feels love by receiving X, but person B shows love by doing Y.
That doesn't mean they aren't loved, just that they don't feel it.
That said, I would agree that its certainly more taken for granted than it has been previously, and that its growing with each generation. | Key-Willingness-2223 | 1,740,262,594 | CMV: Many in Europe Have Taken US Support for Granted | Let me begin with some facts on US support for other countries …
The U.S. is:
1. The largest single state contributor to the UN, WHO, aid to Ukraine, global humanitarian aid (in general), and NATO … all of these are *by far*
2. Actively defending its allies with military presences there; something that, when the prior Trump administration threatened to downsize in Germany, Angela Merkel herself even protested
3. In the case of the EU, an advantaged export market, with EU tariffs on U.S. imports in food, beverages, cars, and chemicals higher than the reverse, and a ~3.95% tariff on U.S. goods imported to the EU vs a ~3.5% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S. … supporting an EU-favourable balance of trade.
4. Relatively accommodating to international students, offering them not only generous rights to study in American universities (even if they bring skills/research back to their home countries and benefit their home countries), but also, often, generous grants of government money to conduct research
However:
1. According to the Pew Research Center, as of summer 2024 (pre-Trump second term), many American allies had mixed to negative opinions of the U.S., with France, Greece, and the Netherlands having the same/more people deem the U.S. “unfavourable” vs “favourable,” and a favourable-unfavourable balance within 2% for Germany
2. Perceptions of U.S. aid are often inconsistent with reality; for example, in Serbia, in 2020, people polled believed that China was the largest single-state donor, followed by Russia … in reality, it was the U.S., followed by Germany
3. There is a lot of popular backlash the U.S. faces for many wanting to make things *equal* rather than altruistic; for example, reciprocal tariffs to match (not even exceed) foreign tariff rates, or trying to leave Europe to fund European defense just as the U.S. funds U.S. defense
This is *not* to suggest that the U.S. should terminate any economic or cultural relationship with Europe. Doing so would be mutually harmful.
To change my view, I’d likely want to be convinced on the following:
1. The U.S. does not benefit Europe more than Europe benefits the U.S., and, as such, no “appreciation” is warranted
OR
2. The U.S. does benefit Europe more than Europe benefits the U.S., *but* this isn’t “taken for granted” in terms of policy and culture
I will not be convinced by an argument to the effect of: “benefit” is murky and so is the meaning of “anti-American sentiment” — an attempt to obscure the meaning of things doesn’t, in my view, change the thrust of my argument
| I'd focus on challenge 2
And will argue the claim that it isn't in fact taken for granted.
Firstly, I'd address your polling data and point out that it's wholly misleading because you can numerous studies done on the same topic, with demographic specific differences.
Younger people, I believe take the US for granted, that I'd agree.
But most people in countries aren't that young, in fact most European nations have an increasingly aging demographic and a below replacement birthrate.
So when you look at the majority of people in the older demographics, they tend to feel positively towards the US as a whole, not least because they have lived long enough to remember the cold War, the war in Serbia etx and remember the US had its allies backs in those cases.
Secondly, if you look at when America has requested support- most famously during Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror, almost every European nation offered some form of support. So much so that its even knowm as the global war on terror in the latter case.
And as much as Afghanistan is seen as being predominantly American, because in terms of numbers it was, that doesn't take away from the fact that multiple British servicemen and women were sent to join the fight and either returned home dead, injured or significantly changed as a result. The same can also be said for multiple other European nations.
It's more a question of capability. The US has the largest military ever to exist, and the most funded, so of course it would disproportionately be involved in terms of missions and numbers.
But, say in the case of the UK, that doesn't mean that less public areas like SAS, SBS, Paratroopers and MI6 weren't being used in support roles to a significant degree, not because of a lack of appreciation, but because of specialisation.
The UK military isn't designed for large scale, long term wars of attrition like say the US or Russia, its designed to be a scalpel and to be survival in its implementation.
Likewise, the EU has never tried to make the Euro the world's reserve currency, partly because of the obvious US retaliation, but also out of appreciation for what the US offers to the EU and the strong ties between them.
I think it's almost like those relationship questions whereby people discuss love languages- person A feels love by receiving X, but person B shows love by doing Y.
That doesn't mean they aren't loved, just that they don't feel it.
That said, I would agree that its certainly more taken for granted than it has been previously, and that its growing with each generation. | WolfofTallStreet |
1ivvdx3 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv5tvh/cmv_in_a_comparison_of_each_alltime_great_in/ | catsfacticity | [
"dallassoxfan"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iv5tvh/cmv_in_a_comparison_of_each_alltime_great_in/me619tv/ | 2,854,137 | CMV: In a comparison of each all-time great in every sport, Tiger Woods is the best-of-the-best-of-all-time. | This was originally the edit to a comment I left on another post, but I decided it warranted its own post.
Something I really enjoy doing is comparing the greats of each sport and seeing how they stack against each other in terms of relative dominance and eminence above their competition. There's something to be learned and inspiration to be taken from the habits and performances of anyone who's the most distinguished in their field, whose commitment to excellence and overcoming of adversity sets them apart from their competition, which serves as motivation to seek the comprehension and test the limits of whatever it is that you yourself are passionate about. Not to mention, it's simply a joy to watch how mastery in the fundamentals and nuances of a sport reveals the magic in its patterns and brings to life its most esoteric possibilities. It elevates it to something akin to a dance (especially if the sport is, well, dance). And because of that, it's interesting to know who those people are.
And when it comes to being elite in sports, there's a sort of hierarchy: best in a given year; best in an era; among the best to ever play; and then for each sport you have the GOAT (which is its own internal argument). Finally, you have the pantheon that consists of *all* the the bests-of-all-time; and then, the question becomes: of that group, who stands above and alone? Whose pinnacle, relative to the entirety of their sport, is most elevates? In an eschelon of greatness, who is the greatest?
I know there's probably no objectively right answer—and I'm sure people versed in different sports than I am, particularly the less widely covered ones, would have different answers, which is kind of the point of posting this—but personally my view is that Tiger Woods is the greatest of the greats. In my opinion there's nobody who's more thoroughly perfected their game, dominated it, triumphed under pressure, overcome injuries, is more decorated, is more intimately associated with the game, has innovated, inspired, has played more consistently clutch and with more creative imagination, has provided watershed moments imprinted on his game's history, or has done all of that for longer in their sport than him. From the age of 15 he was setting records on the amateur tour: the youngest to win an Amateur Championship and the first to win three of them. On the third win, in match play, he trailed by 5 holes, came back to tie the match 16 holes later (at the very end), and won in double overtime. There are two characteristics of Tiger that became cornerstones of his career, and he demonstrated both of these on a national stage before ever reaching the PGA Tour. The first is that you only get one chance to be the youngest to achieve something, and Tiger would go on to do that countless times in his career. He regularly, practically as a matter of habit, reached milestones quicker than anyone in golf ever had. The second thing he demonstrated is that he can never be counted out, that even in the most improbable, even impossible scenarios, he will prevail. Perhaps even *especially* in those scenarios, and that makes greatness. I once heard it said about Phil Mickelson and his abilty to recover from poor shots that, "The worse it is, the better he gets." While I agree, I think this applies even more so to Tiger Woods, on both the small scale and over the long term. Every obstacle was just a triumph in progress. This is a guy who won the U.S. Open with a bum knee and a fractured tibia. A guy whose swing was so violent with so much torque that he finally broke down, had to have his spine fused, rehabilitated from that surgery and separate leg surgeries (plural), relearned and altered everything about his mechanics and gameplay, and came back to win the Masters. How many major tournaments do you think he had to play after his return before he finally won one again? You guessed it: first try. This is who he always was, from day one.
For the sake of brevity, I won't continue to list accomplishments and, since we covered his resilience, I will settle on one more of the multiplicity of attributes that makes him the GOAT's GOAT. And that is, overarchingly, his pure sense of the game. It's his almost superhuman ability to read a course, to read conditions, breaks, lies, the fine details of playing from any surface, any distance, and any sightline. His ability to conceive unorthodox approaches to creatively escape very specific, unideal situations (the kind of shots that are so unlikely or unforeseeable that you don't practice them, and therefore they require a thorough schema and a remarkable capacity to recognize the relevant information, weave it into a workable game plan, and most importantly execute that plan flawlessly). He knows the potential or every club and at any given moment might use a club in scenario that nobody watching quite understands until he's nailed the shot. The details are endless, but the point is that what makes him so untouchable is that nobody understands their sport and how to approach it as deeply as him, and nobody else is able to so masterfully and losslessly translate that understanding into their gameplay. In theory and in action he is world class, and in their synthesis (in the world of sports) he is second to none. I highly recommend that if you finish reading this post without dropping dead of boredom face down on your keyboard, you look up some of his career highlights. His technical prowess and his imagination are something to behold—the two sides of Tiger: The Artist and the Engineer. Names well-earned.
As I said, there's many more specifics, but the general point has been made. And as you can see, although all sports have their legitimate debates over the GOAT—in golf there's no question about Tiger. I will say that admittedly he has the benefit of a sport where the athletes inherently have more longevity and therefore the opportunity for skill refinement is less limited and accolades have a larger window of attainability. But that also means he has had some peers with extensive and stupendous bodies of work with which to compete. Regardless, his early career, his career peak and his long-term success, along with all the aforementioned traits, are a pedigree worthy of the meta-GOAT.
As far as peers that could rival him or at least genuinely belong in the conversation, other athletes like Wayne Gretzky, Usain Bolt, or Tony Hawk do come to mind; some other extreme sport athletes as well. Jon Jones could also be in the running but honestly I feel that combat sports would have had easier conclusions to draw in the past, yet that domain continues to produce more and more tremendous and dominant athletes. Jon Jones has a real case though. Magnus in chess from what I understand is historically gifted. I feel that e-sports are too young to have a legitimate candidate for this particular conversation but maybe I'm just ignorant. I would be interested to learn more about more niche stuff with smaller player pools like water polo, handball, billiards, lacrosse, paintball—been to the Paintball World Cup a couple of times and I think the mechanics of the sport make the emergence of sustained, relative dominance a likely possibility—really anything that qualifies as sport. I also for some reason get this sense that there's something specifically about the skillsets and competition level in tennis and football (soccer) that have maybe produced a similar best-of-the-best-of-the-best player, but I unfortunately lack enough historical knowledge of those to know (aside from the fact that Serena Williams is another clear example of "number-one-and-it's-not-really-close"). There's just so many avenues that it's a fun thought experiment and research rabbit hole. But ultimately, of all the players in all the sports in all the world, I think Tiger takes it.
The most imposing competitor—and I'm really not even being the least bit facetious with this—would be Secretariat. To this day holds the record for every race of the Triple Crown, and legendarily in one of his clinches he won the Belmont Stakes while *continually accelerating* through the entire race.. Think about that: needs a victory to secure the most prestigious achievement in his sport, on a dirt track (which taxes the legs), the longest dirt track in America, mind you, with one shot to do it, and not only does he win by a landslide but at every moment this dude was running faster than he was the last. Pure acceleration for a mile-and-a-half, *still speeding up as he crossed the finish line*. Maybe the single most spectacular performance in the history of sports. And relative to his competition, almost unthinkable. No other horse has ever done that and in over half a century none of them have ever even sniffed his track records, despite training, diet, care, rehabilitation, and overall analytical understanding of performance being orders of magnitude beyond his time. He wasn't undefeated in his career and didn't race as long as some of his peers, but I don't think there's any question that his performance made his opponents look like a bunch of packmules plodding up a mountainside as he galloped downhill away from them. The guy had more horsepower than he had horse. A spectacle, really. So he's right there on the Mt. Rushmore of all-timers. He nearly is *the* All-Timer. Still, I say this with all due respect to a gifted horse with singular talent and the spirit of a champion: Tiger Woods is better than Secretariat.
So I would like to know if there's anyone out there whose skill, persitent and consistent performance, achievements, legendary career highlights, particularly/uniquely stellar qualities and intangible "wow-factor" in their sport are even comparable to, let alone surpass, Tiger Woods. Until I see evidence of that—or evidence that in a parallel timeline, he's born in the same era as Secretariat, and they join forces to become the greatest polo team in the Cosmos, melding into a centaur whose mythological sporting prowess invariably represents the athletic singularity—Tiger Woods is Mr. All-Time.
Edit: Okay wow. This popped off a lot quicker than I anticipated. First of all thank you for reading and for sharing; just from one quick lookover I can see there's some exciting ones to discuss and research—especially the big ones I've just totally missed. It'll take me a little bit to respond to everyone, but suffice it to say, my view is not changed but it is definitely suspended. I will admit I have tunnel visioned with Tiger Woods as the answer to this question for far too long. Too many excellent choices not to genuinely entertain them, and it's
not looking good for Mr. Woods. Gonna do what I can to engage everyone. Thanks again!
Edit 2: Thought it might be useful to keep a running list of names that have been put forth in case anyone else is interested in looking into them. This has been very informative so far. Right now we have—
Donald Bradman (Cricket); Michael Jordan (Basketball); Jack Nicklaus (Golf—sorry, Tiger); Wayne Gretzky (Hockey); Jahangir Khan (Squash); Cael Sanderson (Wrestling); Edwin Moses (Track & Field); Margaret Court (Tennis); Kelly Slater (Surfing); Aleksandr Karelin (Greco-Roman Wrestling); Novak Djokovic (Tennis); Richard Petty/Steve Kinser/John Force (Racing); Lionel Messi (Soccer); Jim Thorpe (Pentathlon/Decathlon/Football/Baseball/Basketball); Michael Phelps (Swimming); Lance Armstrong (Cycling)
Edit 3: Thank to everyone who offered some possibilities and to those were gracious enough to make some really full, compelling cases and to help provide some context.
Going to continue looking at this tomorrow, but mission accomplished: You changed my view. I concede that Tiger Woods is not Mr. All-Time. (As of this time, I have no opinion).
Deltas are going out, as are plenty of responses; it may take a little while but I really appreciate everyone's input. It's been very enlightening and a lot of fun to consider. I hope people will read up on some of the other candidates posted because their stories are inspiring and positively fascinating. | Everyone started the tournament playing for second. He kind of invented the idea that sports psychology plays a part in golf. He had so much knowledge of the game he became a course designer and still runs that company. Hell, tons of course tiger has played on are Nicklaus designed.
Only a player with his skill and sportsmanship would’ve done the concession (he picked up and conceded a 3 foot put for a tie because he missed his birdie for the win.)
He was the one that suggested that the rest of Europe be added to the GB/Ireland team so it would be more fair.
Tiger had the chance to be the goat, should’ve been the goat, but went batshit crazy just long enough to not be. | dallassoxfan | 1,740,234,038 | CMV: In a comparison of each all-time great in every sport, Tiger Woods is the best-of-the-best-of-all-time. | This was originally the edit to a comment I left on another post, but I decided it warranted its own post.
Something I really enjoy doing is comparing the greats of each sport and seeing how they stack against each other in terms of relative dominance and eminence above their competition. There's something to be learned and inspiration to be taken from the habits and performances of anyone who's the most distinguished in their field, whose commitment to excellence and overcoming of adversity sets them apart from their competition, which serves as motivation to seek the comprehension and test the limits of whatever it is that you yourself are passionate about. Not to mention, it's simply a joy to watch how mastery in the fundamentals and nuances of a sport reveals the magic in its patterns and brings to life its most esoteric possibilities. It elevates it to something akin to a dance (especially if the sport is, well, dance). And because of that, it's interesting to know who those people are.
And when it comes to being elite in sports, there's a sort of hierarchy: best in a given year; best in an era; among the best to ever play; and then for each sport you have the GOAT (which is its own internal argument). Finally, you have the pantheon that consists of *all* the the bests-of-all-time; and then, the question becomes: of that group, who stands above and alone? Whose pinnacle, relative to the entirety of their sport, is most elevates? In an eschelon of greatness, who is the greatest?
I know there's probably no objectively right answer—and I'm sure people versed in different sports than I am, particularly the less widely covered ones, would have different answers, which is kind of the point of posting this—but personally my view is that Tiger Woods is the greatest of the greats. In my opinion there's nobody who's more thoroughly perfected their game, dominated it, triumphed under pressure, overcome injuries, is more decorated, is more intimately associated with the game, has innovated, inspired, has played more consistently clutch and with more creative imagination, has provided watershed moments imprinted on his game's history, or has done all of that for longer in their sport than him. From the age of 15 he was setting records on the amateur tour: the youngest to win an Amateur Championship and the first to win three of them. On the third win, in match play, he trailed by 5 holes, came back to tie the match 16 holes later (at the very end), and won in double overtime. There are two characteristics of Tiger that became cornerstones of his career, and he demonstrated both of these on a national stage before ever reaching the PGA Tour. The first is that you only get one chance to be the youngest to achieve something, and Tiger would go on to do that countless times in his career. He regularly, practically as a matter of habit, reached milestones quicker than anyone in golf ever had. The second thing he demonstrated is that he can never be counted out, that even in the most improbable, even impossible scenarios, he will prevail. Perhaps even *especially* in those scenarios, and that makes greatness. I once heard it said about Phil Mickelson and his abilty to recover from poor shots that, "The worse it is, the better he gets." While I agree, I think this applies even more so to Tiger Woods, on both the small scale and over the long term. Every obstacle was just a triumph in progress. This is a guy who won the U.S. Open with a bum knee and a fractured tibia. A guy whose swing was so violent with so much torque that he finally broke down, had to have his spine fused, rehabilitated from that surgery and separate leg surgeries (plural), relearned and altered everything about his mechanics and gameplay, and came back to win the Masters. How many major tournaments do you think he had to play after his return before he finally won one again? You guessed it: first try. This is who he always was, from day one.
For the sake of brevity, I won't continue to list accomplishments and, since we covered his resilience, I will settle on one more of the multiplicity of attributes that makes him the GOAT's GOAT. And that is, overarchingly, his pure sense of the game. It's his almost superhuman ability to read a course, to read conditions, breaks, lies, the fine details of playing from any surface, any distance, and any sightline. His ability to conceive unorthodox approaches to creatively escape very specific, unideal situations (the kind of shots that are so unlikely or unforeseeable that you don't practice them, and therefore they require a thorough schema and a remarkable capacity to recognize the relevant information, weave it into a workable game plan, and most importantly execute that plan flawlessly). He knows the potential or every club and at any given moment might use a club in scenario that nobody watching quite understands until he's nailed the shot. The details are endless, but the point is that what makes him so untouchable is that nobody understands their sport and how to approach it as deeply as him, and nobody else is able to so masterfully and losslessly translate that understanding into their gameplay. In theory and in action he is world class, and in their synthesis (in the world of sports) he is second to none. I highly recommend that if you finish reading this post without dropping dead of boredom face down on your keyboard, you look up some of his career highlights. His technical prowess and his imagination are something to behold—the two sides of Tiger: The Artist and the Engineer. Names well-earned.
As I said, there's many more specifics, but the general point has been made. And as you can see, although all sports have their legitimate debates over the GOAT—in golf there's no question about Tiger. I will say that admittedly he has the benefit of a sport where the athletes inherently have more longevity and therefore the opportunity for skill refinement is less limited and accolades have a larger window of attainability. But that also means he has had some peers with extensive and stupendous bodies of work with which to compete. Regardless, his early career, his career peak and his long-term success, along with all the aforementioned traits, are a pedigree worthy of the meta-GOAT.
As far as peers that could rival him or at least genuinely belong in the conversation, other athletes like Wayne Gretzky, Usain Bolt, or Tony Hawk do come to mind; some other extreme sport athletes as well. Jon Jones could also be in the running but honestly I feel that combat sports would have had easier conclusions to draw in the past, yet that domain continues to produce more and more tremendous and dominant athletes. Jon Jones has a real case though. Magnus in chess from what I understand is historically gifted. I feel that e-sports are too young to have a legitimate candidate for this particular conversation but maybe I'm just ignorant. I would be interested to learn more about more niche stuff with smaller player pools like water polo, handball, billiards, lacrosse, paintball—been to the Paintball World Cup a couple of times and I think the mechanics of the sport make the emergence of sustained, relative dominance a likely possibility—really anything that qualifies as sport. I also for some reason get this sense that there's something specifically about the skillsets and competition level in tennis and football (soccer) that have maybe produced a similar best-of-the-best-of-the-best player, but I unfortunately lack enough historical knowledge of those to know (aside from the fact that Serena Williams is another clear example of "number-one-and-it's-not-really-close"). There's just so many avenues that it's a fun thought experiment and research rabbit hole. But ultimately, of all the players in all the sports in all the world, I think Tiger takes it.
The most imposing competitor—and I'm really not even being the least bit facetious with this—would be Secretariat. To this day holds the record for every race of the Triple Crown, and legendarily in one of his clinches he won the Belmont Stakes while *continually accelerating* through the entire race.. Think about that: needs a victory to secure the most prestigious achievement in his sport, on a dirt track (which taxes the legs), the longest dirt track in America, mind you, with one shot to do it, and not only does he win by a landslide but at every moment this dude was running faster than he was the last. Pure acceleration for a mile-and-a-half, *still speeding up as he crossed the finish line*. Maybe the single most spectacular performance in the history of sports. And relative to his competition, almost unthinkable. No other horse has ever done that and in over half a century none of them have ever even sniffed his track records, despite training, diet, care, rehabilitation, and overall analytical understanding of performance being orders of magnitude beyond his time. He wasn't undefeated in his career and didn't race as long as some of his peers, but I don't think there's any question that his performance made his opponents look like a bunch of packmules plodding up a mountainside as he galloped downhill away from them. The guy had more horsepower than he had horse. A spectacle, really. So he's right there on the Mt. Rushmore of all-timers. He nearly is *the* All-Timer. Still, I say this with all due respect to a gifted horse with singular talent and the spirit of a champion: Tiger Woods is better than Secretariat.
So I would like to know if there's anyone out there whose skill, persitent and consistent performance, achievements, legendary career highlights, particularly/uniquely stellar qualities and intangible "wow-factor" in their sport are even comparable to, let alone surpass, Tiger Woods. Until I see evidence of that—or evidence that in a parallel timeline, he's born in the same era as Secretariat, and they join forces to become the greatest polo team in the Cosmos, melding into a centaur whose mythological sporting prowess invariably represents the athletic singularity—Tiger Woods is Mr. All-Time.
Edit: Okay wow. This popped off a lot quicker than I anticipated. First of all thank you for reading and for sharing; just from one quick lookover I can see there's some exciting ones to discuss and research—especially the big ones I've just totally missed. It'll take me a little bit to respond to everyone, but suffice it to say, my view is not changed but it is definitely suspended. I will admit I have tunnel visioned with Tiger Woods as the answer to this question for far too long. Too many excellent choices not to genuinely entertain them, and it's
not looking good for Mr. Woods. Gonna do what I can to engage everyone. Thanks again!
Edit 2: Thought it might be useful to keep a running list of names that have been put forth in case anyone else is interested in looking into them. This has been very informative so far. Right now we have—
Donald Bradman (Cricket); Michael Jordan (Basketball); Jack Nicklaus (Golf—sorry, Tiger); Wayne Gretzky (Hockey); Jahangir Khan (Squash); Cael Sanderson (Wrestling); Edwin Moses (Track & Field); Margaret Court (Tennis); Kelly Slater (Surfing); Aleksandr Karelin (Greco-Roman Wrestling); Novak Djokovic (Tennis); Richard Petty/Steve Kinser/John Force (Racing); Lionel Messi (Soccer); Jim Thorpe (Pentathlon/Decathlon/Football/Baseball/Basketball); Michael Phelps (Swimming); Lance Armstrong (Cycling)
Edit 3: Thank to everyone who offered some possibilities and to those were gracious enough to make some really full, compelling cases and to help provide some context.
Going to continue looking at this tomorrow, but mission accomplished: You changed my view. I concede that Tiger Woods is not Mr. All-Time. (As of this time, I have no opinion).
Deltas are going out, as are plenty of responses; it may take a little while but I really appreciate everyone's input. It's been very enlightening and a lot of fun to consider. I hope people will read up on some of the other candidates posted because their stories are inspiring and positively fascinating. | Everyone started the tournament playing for second. He kind of invented the idea that sports psychology plays a part in golf. He had so much knowledge of the game he became a course designer and still runs that company. Hell, tons of course tiger has played on are Nicklaus designed.
Only a player with his skill and sportsmanship would’ve done the concession (he picked up and conceded a 3 foot put for a tie because he missed his birdie for the win.)
He was the one that suggested that the rest of Europe be added to the GB/Ireland team so it would be more fair.
Tiger had the chance to be the goat, should’ve been the goat, but went batshit crazy just long enough to not be. | catsfacticity |
1iw0218 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivzjom/cmv_the_idea_behind_january_6th_is_worse_than_911/ | 123kallem | [
"xfvh"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ivzjom/cmv_the_idea_behind_january_6th_is_worse_than_911/me9y7dh/ | 2,860,586 | CMV: The idea behind January 6th is worse than 9/11 for the USA as a country. | Wasn't entirely sure on how to phrase the title for this so the title might be a bit wordy so i will elaborate here.
The idea behind January 6th and everything leading up to it, was worse for the united states, as a country, than 9/11 was. The sitting president trying to overthrow the will of the people after democratically losing the election, lying about election fraud for months, riling up his voters, calling Brad Raffensperger, saying i need you to find me 11k votes, then trying to submit false slates of electors, then on the day of January 6th, sending in his voters to the capitol to try and delay the certification of the vote so that Mike Pence could ''come through'' for them and declare Trump president.
I realize that 9/11 is probably the worst thing that happened to the US, but the idea of January 6th and had it been successful, in my opinion would've been a worse moment for the US as a country. The sitting president overthrowing the will of the people and the democracy of the country, to me that is a worse attack on the country than even a terrorist attack that killed 3000 people.
Before anyone tries to do like a moral grandstand. 9/11 is worse than J6, it's the worst thing that i can think of that happened in the US and to the US, 3000 people dead, its horrible. But the idea of J6 and the insurrection succeding, the sitting president overthrowing the will of the people, essentially declaring himself king, is worse to the country of the US, to me. This is an opinion i thought was ridiculous up until recently so im open to having my mind changed back. | You're conflating two things that need to be addressed separately.
1. Trump's efforts to overturn the election, which were not limited to just January 6th.
2. The riot on January 6th.
The second is obviously not remotely comparable to 9/11 except, perhaps, as it played into the first.
The first is going to be a moral judgement that I'm not sure on myself. Are the agonizing deaths of thousands at the hands of international terrorists worse than the overturning of an election? I don't think this is a definitively answerable question.
Either way, I think your post is definitely flawed in one respect: the title should be that Trump's attempt to overturn the election was worse than 9/11 for the country. The riot on January 6th isn't that big of a part in this. | xfvh | 1,740,277,921 | CMV: The idea behind January 6th is worse than 9/11 for the USA as a country. | Wasn't entirely sure on how to phrase the title for this so the title might be a bit wordy so i will elaborate here.
The idea behind January 6th and everything leading up to it, was worse for the united states, as a country, than 9/11 was. The sitting president trying to overthrow the will of the people after democratically losing the election, lying about election fraud for months, riling up his voters, calling Brad Raffensperger, saying i need you to find me 11k votes, then trying to submit false slates of electors, then on the day of January 6th, sending in his voters to the capitol to try and delay the certification of the vote so that Mike Pence could ''come through'' for them and declare Trump president.
I realize that 9/11 is probably the worst thing that happened to the US, but the idea of January 6th and had it been successful, in my opinion would've been a worse moment for the US as a country. The sitting president overthrowing the will of the people and the democracy of the country, to me that is a worse attack on the country than even a terrorist attack that killed 3000 people.
Before anyone tries to do like a moral grandstand. 9/11 is worse than J6, it's the worst thing that i can think of that happened in the US and to the US, 3000 people dead, its horrible. But the idea of J6 and the insurrection succeding, the sitting president overthrowing the will of the people, essentially declaring himself king, is worse to the country of the US, to me. This is an opinion i thought was ridiculous up until recently so im open to having my mind changed back. | You're conflating two things that need to be addressed separately.
1. Trump's efforts to overturn the election, which were not limited to just January 6th.
2. The riot on January 6th.
The second is obviously not remotely comparable to 9/11 except, perhaps, as it played into the first.
The first is going to be a moral judgement that I'm not sure on myself. Are the agonizing deaths of thousands at the hands of international terrorists worse than the overturning of an election? I don't think this is a definitively answerable question.
Either way, I think your post is definitely flawed in one respect: the title should be that Trump's attempt to overturn the election was worse than 9/11 for the country. The riot on January 6th isn't that big of a part in this. | 123kallem |
1iw4zz9 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw01c0/cmv_distinguishing_between_positive_and_negative/ | Chocolatecakelover | [
"deep_sea2"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw01c0/cmv_distinguishing_between_positive_and_negative/meax5b1/ | 2,861,573 | CMV: distinguishing between positive and negative rights doesn't make sense | Distinguishing between positive and negative human rights is a flawed approach because it artificially divides a unified concept, misrepresents how rights function in practice, and obscures the responsibilities required to protect them. The traditional distinction, which categorizes negative rights as those requiring non-interference (such as freedom of speech or freedom from torture) and positive rights as those requiring active provision (such as the right to education or healthcare), suggests a rigid and misleading dichotomy. In reality, all rights require both non-interference and active measures to be meaningful.
Firstly, even so-called negative rights require active enforcement. The right to be free from torture, for example, is not protected merely by government inaction; it requires legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and institutional structures to ensure that individuals are not subjected to abuse. Similarly, freedom of speech is meaningless without laws that protect individuals from censorship, courts that uphold these protections, and institutions that guarantee access to platforms for expression. The mere absence of government interference does not secure these rights; active measures are necessary to uphold them such as measures and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the government doesn't interfere..
Conversely, positive rights often require non-interference just as much as intervention. The right to education, for instance, necessitates not only the provision of schools and teachers but also the absence of discrimination that might prevent individuals from accessing these services. If a government provides education but enforces racial or gender-based segregation, the right is effectively undermined. Thus, guaranteeing education is not merely about providing resources but also about ensuring that individuals are not hindered from enjoying this right by social or institutional barriers.
Moreover, the distinction falsely implies that some rights are cost-free while others impose burdens. In reality, all rights impose obligations. Enforcing property rights (often considered a negative right) requires police forces, judicial systems, and bureaucracies, all of which demand resources. The right to a fair trial, similarly, necessitates an independent judiciary, legal aid for those who cannot afford representation, and procedural safeguards—all of which require funding and institutional support. There is no fundamental difference between the obligations imposed by negative and positive rights; both require a combination of restraint and proactive measures.
Additionally, the supposed distinction obscures the interconnected nature of rights. Economic and social rights (often labeled as positive) are deeply linked to civil and political rights (often labeled as negative). Freedom of speech, for example, is significantly constrained for those who lack access to education, as they may be unable to effectively express themselves or engage in democratic discourse. Likewise, the right to vote is meaningless for those who are too poor or unwell to exercise it. Ensuring civil liberties without addressing underlying economic and social conditions results in hollow freedoms that exist in theory but not in practice.
From a philosophical perspective, the positive-negative dichotomy also fails because it assumes an artificial separation between action and inaction. In reality, choosing not to act is itself an action with consequences. A government that refuses to provide healthcare is not merely refraining from intervention but is actively allowing preventable suffering and death. Similarly, failing to regulate exploitative labor practices is not a neutral stance but an implicit endorsement of those conditions. The idea that some rights require only non-interference is therefore a misrepresentation of the nature of political decision-making. Preventing the state from doing something still requires enforcement bodies and mechanism and if it doesn't then such "rights" are a meaningless concept , more like a declaration of sorts.
Ultimately, human rights are best understood as interdependent and indivisible. Protecting any right whether it pertains to liberty, security, or welfare requires both non-interference and active measures. By maintaining the distinction between positive and negative rights, we risk prioritizing certain freedoms while neglecting others, undermining the very purpose of human rights as a universal framework for dignity and justice. A more accurate and effective approach is to recognize that all rights require a combination of restraint, provision, and protection to be meaningful.
| Right, but can you envision law, either existing or possible, where the state must pay? | deep_sea2 | 1,740,292,809 | CMV: distinguishing between positive and negative rights doesn't make sense | Distinguishing between positive and negative human rights is a flawed approach because it artificially divides a unified concept, misrepresents how rights function in practice, and obscures the responsibilities required to protect them. The traditional distinction, which categorizes negative rights as those requiring non-interference (such as freedom of speech or freedom from torture) and positive rights as those requiring active provision (such as the right to education or healthcare), suggests a rigid and misleading dichotomy. In reality, all rights require both non-interference and active measures to be meaningful.
Firstly, even so-called negative rights require active enforcement. The right to be free from torture, for example, is not protected merely by government inaction; it requires legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and institutional structures to ensure that individuals are not subjected to abuse. Similarly, freedom of speech is meaningless without laws that protect individuals from censorship, courts that uphold these protections, and institutions that guarantee access to platforms for expression. The mere absence of government interference does not secure these rights; active measures are necessary to uphold them such as measures and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the government doesn't interfere..
Conversely, positive rights often require non-interference just as much as intervention. The right to education, for instance, necessitates not only the provision of schools and teachers but also the absence of discrimination that might prevent individuals from accessing these services. If a government provides education but enforces racial or gender-based segregation, the right is effectively undermined. Thus, guaranteeing education is not merely about providing resources but also about ensuring that individuals are not hindered from enjoying this right by social or institutional barriers.
Moreover, the distinction falsely implies that some rights are cost-free while others impose burdens. In reality, all rights impose obligations. Enforcing property rights (often considered a negative right) requires police forces, judicial systems, and bureaucracies, all of which demand resources. The right to a fair trial, similarly, necessitates an independent judiciary, legal aid for those who cannot afford representation, and procedural safeguards—all of which require funding and institutional support. There is no fundamental difference between the obligations imposed by negative and positive rights; both require a combination of restraint and proactive measures.
Additionally, the supposed distinction obscures the interconnected nature of rights. Economic and social rights (often labeled as positive) are deeply linked to civil and political rights (often labeled as negative). Freedom of speech, for example, is significantly constrained for those who lack access to education, as they may be unable to effectively express themselves or engage in democratic discourse. Likewise, the right to vote is meaningless for those who are too poor or unwell to exercise it. Ensuring civil liberties without addressing underlying economic and social conditions results in hollow freedoms that exist in theory but not in practice.
From a philosophical perspective, the positive-negative dichotomy also fails because it assumes an artificial separation between action and inaction. In reality, choosing not to act is itself an action with consequences. A government that refuses to provide healthcare is not merely refraining from intervention but is actively allowing preventable suffering and death. Similarly, failing to regulate exploitative labor practices is not a neutral stance but an implicit endorsement of those conditions. The idea that some rights require only non-interference is therefore a misrepresentation of the nature of political decision-making. Preventing the state from doing something still requires enforcement bodies and mechanism and if it doesn't then such "rights" are a meaningless concept , more like a declaration of sorts.
Ultimately, human rights are best understood as interdependent and indivisible. Protecting any right whether it pertains to liberty, security, or welfare requires both non-interference and active measures. By maintaining the distinction between positive and negative rights, we risk prioritizing certain freedoms while neglecting others, undermining the very purpose of human rights as a universal framework for dignity and justice. A more accurate and effective approach is to recognize that all rights require a combination of restraint, provision, and protection to be meaningful.
| Right, but can you envision law, either existing or possible, where the state must pay? | Chocolatecakelover |
1iw65qx | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw5iaz/cmv_pedestrians_have_right_of_way_except_when/ | sid2364 | [
"10ebbor10"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw5iaz/cmv_pedestrians_have_right_of_way_except_when/meb9xsp/ | 2,861,908 | CMV: pedestrians have right of way, except when there's public transport like buses or trains (in Europe). | Title is self-explanatory. It’s quite ridiculous that there are times when a hundred people in a bus have to wait for one person to cross the street. It makes no sense—honestly, as a pedestrian, I do not want buses to stop for me either. Please go! It takes me almost no effort to pause for a few seconds, but buses waste fuel and the time of far too many people when they stop just to let someone cross.
Beyond just the inefficiency, I also worry that we’re stuck in this outdated street etiquette, where right-of-way priorities are set in stone and no one is willing to re-examine them. It’s as if we’re so accustomed to the status quo that any change feels impossible. Meanwhile, we keep burning fuel, delaying schedules, and creating unnecessary frustration—all for a system that clearly doesn’t serve the greater good. | It's not a matter of etiquette, it's a matter of predictability.
Creating a system where not all vehicles on the same road obey the same rules creates a system where danger happens. Imagine, for example, that there's a car driving behind the bus.
The car driver sees the bus continuing in front of him, so he follows along, assuming that everything's perfectly fine. But it's not. Behind the bus there was a pedestrian, who the bus didn't need to give right of way too, but the car does.
So now they're suddenly faced with this unexpected situation, which requires the car to either make a sudden stop or violate the priority rules. | 10ebbor10 | 1,740,300,102 | CMV: pedestrians have right of way, except when there's public transport like buses or trains (in Europe). | Title is self-explanatory. It’s quite ridiculous that there are times when a hundred people in a bus have to wait for one person to cross the street. It makes no sense—honestly, as a pedestrian, I do not want buses to stop for me either. Please go! It takes me almost no effort to pause for a few seconds, but buses waste fuel and the time of far too many people when they stop just to let someone cross.
Beyond just the inefficiency, I also worry that we’re stuck in this outdated street etiquette, where right-of-way priorities are set in stone and no one is willing to re-examine them. It’s as if we’re so accustomed to the status quo that any change feels impossible. Meanwhile, we keep burning fuel, delaying schedules, and creating unnecessary frustration—all for a system that clearly doesn’t serve the greater good. | It's not a matter of etiquette, it's a matter of predictability.
Creating a system where not all vehicles on the same road obey the same rules creates a system where danger happens. Imagine, for example, that there's a car driving behind the bus.
The car driver sees the bus continuing in front of him, so he follows along, assuming that everything's perfectly fine. But it's not. Behind the bus there was a pedestrian, who the bus didn't need to give right of way too, but the car does.
So now they're suddenly faced with this unexpected situation, which requires the car to either make a sudden stop or violate the priority rules. | sid2364 |
1iw90k5 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw8dk8/cmv_were_heading_towards_a_1984_dystopia/ | RubMyBreasticles | [
"Intrepid_Doubt_6602"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iw8dk8/cmv_were_heading_towards_a_1984_dystopia/mebu3uo/ | 2,862,539 | CMV: we’re heading towards a 1984 dystopia | I believe the world in which we live in is beginning to develop towards a geopolitical situation similar to the one described in 1984.
Here are some reasons why:
Surveillance state:
With the rise of AI, governments having systems in place to monitor the population has become more prevalent. Such systems include:
- Facial recognition: As used to help arrest Jan. 6 protesters (I do agree they deserved to be arrested).
- AI can scan social medias sentiments
- Government has support of many large social media platforms (Billionaire share holder funded Trump’s campaign)
-Future resource shortage: With global warming starting to become more widely recognized, governments know they need to take action. Obviously they’re not going to say, “Hey, we’re invading our neighbors because we want their resources”, but Russia us currently invading the bread basket of Europe, and the GOP has begun normalizing the belief Greenland and Canada should be absorbed by the US, Trump stating “"I don't really know what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn't allow that to happen because it's for the protection of the free world,". With glaciers melting, Greenland will have untapped resources exposed, and arctic trade routes will be defendable from those locations. The world is too divided for us to all come together for this crisis, which will lead to competition and formation/reinforcement of East vs West cold war.
-Government transition chaos:
Our government is based on checks and balances, and one of those checks is the people, and as such the government employees. The low level employees that are part of the everyday processes, the whistleblowers who knows something isn’t right. Know with the blanket fires, many people that would be able to oversee the process won’t be there to sound alarms. As seen, by firing of agency heads which typically survive presidents, and which some had been chosen by Trump. Not to mention Trump has direct control over who gets hired/fired via Musk now. Meritocracy is no longer the basis of employment but loyalty as seen with his cabinet.
- Post reality truth: Wether your left or right, bot sides seem to believe the other side has touched with reality, and in many cases, they have indeed been purposely misled by propaganda. Trump claiming Zelensky has low approvals despite he himself being lower.
- War is peace: Russia is not at war, it’s just a special military operation rooting out nazis and protecting oppressed Russians. And now, Trump says Peace is war, Ukraine is the aggressor in the conflict and the nation wanting to protect itself from invasion is seen as a terrible thing.
- Freedom is slavery: on a labor side, Unions which once championed the rights of the workers are now seen as leeches, and regulations restricting corporations are being repealed. On a conscious aspect, people now allow AI to control their lived, wether it’s algorithms feeding you your world view, using ai to do your research, solve problems for you.Bots spreading fake news have become harder to detect, and media can be easily manipulated to show a certain narrative. Algorithms used by social media now determine what a person sees, and for many their thoughts are still theirs but they can only keep them till the next swipe.
- Ignorance is strength: The willing ignorance to our past and facts is what has allowed far right governments to gain power. People will cut their own nose offs to spite others and do not have the care to do basic research.
I’d like to be convinced otherwise, but Project 2025 being a whole thing as well, it feels like democracy is in danger. Far right governments are beginning to grow in popularity across the globe.
| Of 195 or so countries, only one is essentially identical to "1984", North Korea. It would take a hell of a turnaround for the rest of the world to go this way (or 1/3 of the world as depicted in 1984 with the land mass run by Big Brother whose name escapes me)
What's wrong with using AI if it benefits your life? The other day I wanted some data on Japan's GDP during the second world war and had no idea where to look. DeepSeek found me some data and other historical databases to look at within a couple of minutes.
America has a long anti-union tradition, nothing new here. Walt Disney famously despised them.
Doesn't global warming free up some resources? Part of the reason Trump wants Greenland is that the warming is making it easier to access Greenland's natural resources. Plus, predicting global warming trajectories over the next few decades is inherently speculative.
Project 2025 is a 700-900 page book, which barely anyone has read. I do not understand why invoking it has become the calling card of the left. Their understanding of it cannot be too comprehensive if again, barely anyone has read it. | Intrepid_Doubt_6602 | 1,740,311,884 | CMV: we’re heading towards a 1984 dystopia | I believe the world in which we live in is beginning to develop towards a geopolitical situation similar to the one described in 1984.
Here are some reasons why:
Surveillance state:
With the rise of AI, governments having systems in place to monitor the population has become more prevalent. Such systems include:
- Facial recognition: As used to help arrest Jan. 6 protesters (I do agree they deserved to be arrested).
- AI can scan social medias sentiments
- Government has support of many large social media platforms (Billionaire share holder funded Trump’s campaign)
-Future resource shortage: With global warming starting to become more widely recognized, governments know they need to take action. Obviously they’re not going to say, “Hey, we’re invading our neighbors because we want their resources”, but Russia us currently invading the bread basket of Europe, and the GOP has begun normalizing the belief Greenland and Canada should be absorbed by the US, Trump stating “"I don't really know what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn't allow that to happen because it's for the protection of the free world,". With glaciers melting, Greenland will have untapped resources exposed, and arctic trade routes will be defendable from those locations. The world is too divided for us to all come together for this crisis, which will lead to competition and formation/reinforcement of East vs West cold war.
-Government transition chaos:
Our government is based on checks and balances, and one of those checks is the people, and as such the government employees. The low level employees that are part of the everyday processes, the whistleblowers who knows something isn’t right. Know with the blanket fires, many people that would be able to oversee the process won’t be there to sound alarms. As seen, by firing of agency heads which typically survive presidents, and which some had been chosen by Trump. Not to mention Trump has direct control over who gets hired/fired via Musk now. Meritocracy is no longer the basis of employment but loyalty as seen with his cabinet.
- Post reality truth: Wether your left or right, bot sides seem to believe the other side has touched with reality, and in many cases, they have indeed been purposely misled by propaganda. Trump claiming Zelensky has low approvals despite he himself being lower.
- War is peace: Russia is not at war, it’s just a special military operation rooting out nazis and protecting oppressed Russians. And now, Trump says Peace is war, Ukraine is the aggressor in the conflict and the nation wanting to protect itself from invasion is seen as a terrible thing.
- Freedom is slavery: on a labor side, Unions which once championed the rights of the workers are now seen as leeches, and regulations restricting corporations are being repealed. On a conscious aspect, people now allow AI to control their lived, wether it’s algorithms feeding you your world view, using ai to do your research, solve problems for you.Bots spreading fake news have become harder to detect, and media can be easily manipulated to show a certain narrative. Algorithms used by social media now determine what a person sees, and for many their thoughts are still theirs but they can only keep them till the next swipe.
- Ignorance is strength: The willing ignorance to our past and facts is what has allowed far right governments to gain power. People will cut their own nose offs to spite others and do not have the care to do basic research.
I’d like to be convinced otherwise, but Project 2025 being a whole thing as well, it feels like democracy is in danger. Far right governments are beginning to grow in popularity across the globe.
| Of 195 or so countries, only one is essentially identical to "1984", North Korea. It would take a hell of a turnaround for the rest of the world to go this way (or 1/3 of the world as depicted in 1984 with the land mass run by Big Brother whose name escapes me)
What's wrong with using AI if it benefits your life? The other day I wanted some data on Japan's GDP during the second world war and had no idea where to look. DeepSeek found me some data and other historical databases to look at within a couple of minutes.
America has a long anti-union tradition, nothing new here. Walt Disney famously despised them.
Doesn't global warming free up some resources? Part of the reason Trump wants Greenland is that the warming is making it easier to access Greenland's natural resources. Plus, predicting global warming trajectories over the next few decades is inherently speculative.
Project 2025 is a 700-900 page book, which barely anyone has read. I do not understand why invoking it has become the calling card of the left. Their understanding of it cannot be too comprehensive if again, barely anyone has read it. | RubMyBreasticles |
1iwbci3 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwagdl/cmv_humans_will_most_likely_become_extinct_in_the/ | Iamalittledrunk | [
"LtMM_"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwagdl/cmv_humans_will_most_likely_become_extinct_in_the/meca4wr/ | 2,863,049 | CMV: Humans will most likely become extinct in the future. | Okay. So this is not an argument about the causes of extinction. There are potentially many from human engineered weaponry or environmental collapse caused by any number of factors. I don’t really want to argue about these because I feel like the conversation will go off into the weeds. I am not saying that humans are going to all die from the current levels of climate change or a nuclear war.
I am talking about medium length extinction as in the next few hundred thousand to a few million years.
These are the facts as I understand them;
Humanity will always be at risk if it limits itself to one planet. There are no habitable regions within our solar system that could be populated. Furthermore, the closest earth like planet sits 40 light years away. Due to its average surface temperature, it is most likely also not ideal for habitation and that’s if we could even get there with humans on board to populate and survive, which currently we probably can’t.
Terraforming within our solar system is an engineering project we cannot current do. The most likely place we could inhabit sustainability off our planet would be mars lava tunnels. This would be the largest scale engineering project humanity has ever undertaken. It is impossible for this to be done with our current technology level and there is no current appetite to do so outside of whacky billionaires who use it as a marketing ploy. We have no reason currently to develop these technologies.
The laws of nature seriously hamper our ability to go anywhere else or to make anywhere nearby more habitable.
This means in essence there are no other places to go that we can reach other than this planet and this will most likely be the only place we will ever live for the foreseeable future. We know extinction level events happen. We know other planets have suffered what would be extinction level events if they had life on them, from losing their atmosphere due to planetary cooling, gamma ray bursts, to large asteroid impacts. We also know we have the potential to inflict extinction level events on ourselves either through action or inaction.
To summarise, extinctions happen. Humanity is taking no serious steps or currently cannot to avoid these, or to “make more targets”. This means that on balance of probabilities humanity is going to die off.
What could change my mind?
1. I guess if we somehow changed the human species to be able to survive a broader array of environments and we could reach these broader environments that would count. I don’t see this being done at any time within our lifetime or that of our great great grandchildren. Maybe?
2. Humanity is actually undertaking massive steps to avoid these existential threats that I’m just ignorant of.
3. These threats aren’t real.
4. These threats are so unlikely that the sun would go supernova before any of them materialized making them unlikely to occur on the balance of probabilities.
5. Some other cleaver argument I haven’t through of.
6. Maybe we are far more at risk then a few hundred thousand to the next few million years and we’re likely to all die within the next few hundred to a thousand years. In which case damn.
What wont change my mind?
1. “Technology in the future no one has ever thought of will save us.” Okay, maybe but how can we know this will occur? We can’t assign any probability to this therefore we must discount it. But to caveat if you can show its possible rather than just a faith leap I’ll consider that.
2. “You’re just a doomer.” I’m actually quite hopeful for people. I mean I acknowledge that human instincts and perspective can cause problems when faced with an uncaring universe, but hey I have the same foibles and hope is one of them.
3. “Who cares?” I do in a small way.
4. “You can’t know the future” True, but we are talking about the balance of probabilities here. Lets talk about which outcome is more probable. Humans surviving a few million years or them not.
5. “Yeah well the heat death of the universe is going to happen so everything is fucked”. You are of course right, but lets look at the next few million years rather than a few billion.
Why do I want my mind change?
Humans can suck, but I quite like them most of the time. I’d like for our species to continue to exist even when I’m gone even if the extinction of our species is long after I’ve gone. | I see 2 obvious counterarguments:
1. The collapse of society does not necessarily mean the extinction of humanity. If society were to collapse, I think it's entirely possible pockets of humans survive in small hunter-gatherer groups or farming communities. There's a reason humans have been so ecological successful in the first place. These small populations are not going to have to worry about the planet running out of resources or terraforming new planets.
2. You seem to be overrating the frequency of extinction events - in Earth's entire history there have been 5 mass extinctions. That's over ~500 million years. Now, we could certainly engineer one with nukes or runaway climate change, and it's possible that we might, but even if we do, we just end up back at point 1. Realistically, I think you'd probably need a mass extinction considering how widespread humans are across the globe.
Bonus: one argument "for" you in this case might be humans evolving into what we would consider a new species in that time frame, which is entirely possible as that time frame is older than our species itself. | LtMM_ | 1,740,319,010 | CMV: Humans will most likely become extinct in the future. | Okay. So this is not an argument about the causes of extinction. There are potentially many from human engineered weaponry or environmental collapse caused by any number of factors. I don’t really want to argue about these because I feel like the conversation will go off into the weeds. I am not saying that humans are going to all die from the current levels of climate change or a nuclear war.
I am talking about medium length extinction as in the next few hundred thousand to a few million years.
These are the facts as I understand them;
Humanity will always be at risk if it limits itself to one planet. There are no habitable regions within our solar system that could be populated. Furthermore, the closest earth like planet sits 40 light years away. Due to its average surface temperature, it is most likely also not ideal for habitation and that’s if we could even get there with humans on board to populate and survive, which currently we probably can’t.
Terraforming within our solar system is an engineering project we cannot current do. The most likely place we could inhabit sustainability off our planet would be mars lava tunnels. This would be the largest scale engineering project humanity has ever undertaken. It is impossible for this to be done with our current technology level and there is no current appetite to do so outside of whacky billionaires who use it as a marketing ploy. We have no reason currently to develop these technologies.
The laws of nature seriously hamper our ability to go anywhere else or to make anywhere nearby more habitable.
This means in essence there are no other places to go that we can reach other than this planet and this will most likely be the only place we will ever live for the foreseeable future. We know extinction level events happen. We know other planets have suffered what would be extinction level events if they had life on them, from losing their atmosphere due to planetary cooling, gamma ray bursts, to large asteroid impacts. We also know we have the potential to inflict extinction level events on ourselves either through action or inaction.
To summarise, extinctions happen. Humanity is taking no serious steps or currently cannot to avoid these, or to “make more targets”. This means that on balance of probabilities humanity is going to die off.
What could change my mind?
1. I guess if we somehow changed the human species to be able to survive a broader array of environments and we could reach these broader environments that would count. I don’t see this being done at any time within our lifetime or that of our great great grandchildren. Maybe?
2. Humanity is actually undertaking massive steps to avoid these existential threats that I’m just ignorant of.
3. These threats aren’t real.
4. These threats are so unlikely that the sun would go supernova before any of them materialized making them unlikely to occur on the balance of probabilities.
5. Some other cleaver argument I haven’t through of.
6. Maybe we are far more at risk then a few hundred thousand to the next few million years and we’re likely to all die within the next few hundred to a thousand years. In which case damn.
What wont change my mind?
1. “Technology in the future no one has ever thought of will save us.” Okay, maybe but how can we know this will occur? We can’t assign any probability to this therefore we must discount it. But to caveat if you can show its possible rather than just a faith leap I’ll consider that.
2. “You’re just a doomer.” I’m actually quite hopeful for people. I mean I acknowledge that human instincts and perspective can cause problems when faced with an uncaring universe, but hey I have the same foibles and hope is one of them.
3. “Who cares?” I do in a small way.
4. “You can’t know the future” True, but we are talking about the balance of probabilities here. Lets talk about which outcome is more probable. Humans surviving a few million years or them not.
5. “Yeah well the heat death of the universe is going to happen so everything is fucked”. You are of course right, but lets look at the next few million years rather than a few billion.
Why do I want my mind change?
Humans can suck, but I quite like them most of the time. I’d like for our species to continue to exist even when I’m gone even if the extinction of our species is long after I’ve gone. | I see 2 obvious counterarguments:
1. The collapse of society does not necessarily mean the extinction of humanity. If society were to collapse, I think it's entirely possible pockets of humans survive in small hunter-gatherer groups or farming communities. There's a reason humans have been so ecological successful in the first place. These small populations are not going to have to worry about the planet running out of resources or terraforming new planets.
2. You seem to be overrating the frequency of extinction events - in Earth's entire history there have been 5 mass extinctions. That's over ~500 million years. Now, we could certainly engineer one with nukes or runaway climate change, and it's possible that we might, but even if we do, we just end up back at point 1. Realistically, I think you'd probably need a mass extinction considering how widespread humans are across the globe.
Bonus: one argument "for" you in this case might be humans evolving into what we would consider a new species in that time frame, which is entirely possible as that time frame is older than our species itself. | Iamalittledrunk |
1iwffri | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwdwwo/cmv_theres_no_real_space_for_conversation_on/ | TheBeardedDuck | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwdwwo/cmv_theres_no_real_space_for_conversation_on/medcby7/ | 2,864,874 | CMV: there's no real space for conversation on Reddit when people who post disagreements about left ideology get their comments constantly deleted. | Even legitimate comments that are not inflammatory get removed. Justifying middle grounds, disagreeing with a far left comment that's criticizing extremes, gets downvoted and often deleted.
This created an echo chamber, and frankly I started opening Reddit less and less since there was no conversation to be had between two sides or more.
However, inflammatory comments from the far left often stay on threads. I'm not even saying far right gets removed; reasonable politically moderate perspectives get removed. Reddit will fall and just keep a safe space for left agenda, creating a larger divide between people, especially Americans. | In the same way that “conservative ideology” was related to hate speech and intolerance by the person I was responding to, yes. | aqulushly | 1,740,331,057 | CMV: there's no real space for conversation on Reddit when people who post disagreements about left ideology get their comments constantly deleted. | Even legitimate comments that are not inflammatory get removed. Justifying middle grounds, disagreeing with a far left comment that's criticizing extremes, gets downvoted and often deleted.
This created an echo chamber, and frankly I started opening Reddit less and less since there was no conversation to be had between two sides or more.
However, inflammatory comments from the far left often stay on threads. I'm not even saying far right gets removed; reasonable politically moderate perspectives get removed. Reddit will fall and just keep a safe space for left agenda, creating a larger divide between people, especially Americans. | In the same way that “conservative ideology” was related to hate speech and intolerance by the person I was responding to, yes. | TheBeardedDuck |
1iwgvzo | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwf9ff/cmv_doge_is_guessing_government_transparency_is/ | furtive_phrasing_ | [
"deadmuthafuckinpan"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwf9ff/cmv_doge_is_guessing_government_transparency_is/medooy9/ | 2,865,698 | CMV: DOGE Is Guessing … Government Transparency Is Of The Utmost Importance. Change My View. | At this point, today, it doesn’t matter what Elon and his team are finding regarding “waste, fraud, and abuse.” All of it is political theatre. Propaganda.
DOGE is not a transparent entity. Their findings are based on conjecture. DOGE has not produced an official report or research.
I will define official as peer reviewed. Or a report that has been scrutinized by experts in the field. For example, a forensic accountant. Last time I checked, Elon is not an accountant.
The American public cannot sincerely trust DOGE.
DOGE is a unilateral action undertaken by the executive branch. The executive branch is not a reliable representation of the preferences of the American populace or what is ethically or contractually correct.
DEFINITIONS:
Meriam-Webster:
Transparent – (i) free from pretense or deceit, (ii) easily detected or seen through, (iii) readily understood, (iv) characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices.
Unilateral – done or undertaken by one person or party.
From the DOGE website:
[www.doge.gov/savings](http://www.doge.gov/savings)
“We are working to upload all of this data in a digestible and fully transparent manner with clear assumptions, consistent with applicable rules and regulations. To get started, listed below are a subset of contract and lease cancellations; for the former, the contracts listed are those that have been posted publicly on [www.fpds.gov](https://www.fpds.gov/). Note that the FPDS posting of the final termination notices can have up to a 1-month lag. These specific listed contracts account for approx. 20% of overall DOGE savings.”
MY ANALYSIS:
The foregoing paragraph from DOGE is word salad. No laymen can understand this language. If a person/entity cannot clearly explain content, that person/entity does not have a solid understanding of said content.
From:
[http://www.coalitionforintegrity.org/what-we-do/transparency-and-accountability/](http://www.coalitionforintegrity.org/what-we-do/transparency-and-accountability/)
“The Coalition for Integrity believes that transparency and accountability are essential characteristics of democratic governance at the federal, state, and local levels. Transparency serves two important purposes. First, it serves to open the government to those it serves. A transparent government allows people to participate in the democratic process and to keep informed of government budgets, spending, and projects. Second, transparency is a powerful weapon against corruption. When government processes are transparent, it is difficult for corruption to thrive.
Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency. An accountable government is one that is responsive to the needs of the people it serves. It listens to the voices of its citizens and uses this citizen feedback to shape and improve its policies and programs … .”
CONCLUSION:
DOGE is not accountable to the American people. It has no constituency. DOGE was created by unilateral action, for partisan purposes. It is a highly partisan entity.
You could change my view if you can convince me that DOGE and Elon possess great objectivity and transparency. Or that Elon can separate his judgments from MAGA. Or that Elon’s conflicts of interest won’t interfere with his DOGE work. Or maybe he has no conflicts? | All of those agencies had inspectors general and produced reports on their activities annually. Those inspectors general have all been fired by Musk. The transparency was there, but it was in the form of lengthy (and highly detailed) reports that the populace at larger never looked at. A reasonable place to start if Musk was legitimately interested in transparency would be those reports and working with the inspectors general as they already have deep and expert knowledge about the agencies, but as you say this is all theater and illegally shutting off funds to things Musk et al. don't like.
I do think the one flaw in your argument is that any reporting could be made to be fully understandable by laymen. I agree that what Musk throws out is bullshit word salad, but the government is a complex system that uses complex accounting. Efforts are made to use visual representations and to provide digestible summaries, but you can't get specific about complex topics without getting, well, complicated.
I would argue this is why Congressmen have staff - they can take what agencies produce and present it to their constituencies in a way they feel is relatable. That's what is supposed to happen. But we're several steps up the fascist ladder for that to be the case.
I would also argue that any newspaper committed to actual journalism would be reviewing inspectors general reports and providing breakdowns of them in their own way. That's not possible for every agency or sub-department, of course, but electrons are free in a way that print wasn't, and the large papers and insider publications already have staff doing this analysis anyway. | deadmuthafuckinpan | 1,740,334,619 | CMV: DOGE Is Guessing … Government Transparency Is Of The Utmost Importance. Change My View. | At this point, today, it doesn’t matter what Elon and his team are finding regarding “waste, fraud, and abuse.” All of it is political theatre. Propaganda.
DOGE is not a transparent entity. Their findings are based on conjecture. DOGE has not produced an official report or research.
I will define official as peer reviewed. Or a report that has been scrutinized by experts in the field. For example, a forensic accountant. Last time I checked, Elon is not an accountant.
The American public cannot sincerely trust DOGE.
DOGE is a unilateral action undertaken by the executive branch. The executive branch is not a reliable representation of the preferences of the American populace or what is ethically or contractually correct.
DEFINITIONS:
Meriam-Webster:
Transparent – (i) free from pretense or deceit, (ii) easily detected or seen through, (iii) readily understood, (iv) characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices.
Unilateral – done or undertaken by one person or party.
From the DOGE website:
[www.doge.gov/savings](http://www.doge.gov/savings)
“We are working to upload all of this data in a digestible and fully transparent manner with clear assumptions, consistent with applicable rules and regulations. To get started, listed below are a subset of contract and lease cancellations; for the former, the contracts listed are those that have been posted publicly on [www.fpds.gov](https://www.fpds.gov/). Note that the FPDS posting of the final termination notices can have up to a 1-month lag. These specific listed contracts account for approx. 20% of overall DOGE savings.”
MY ANALYSIS:
The foregoing paragraph from DOGE is word salad. No laymen can understand this language. If a person/entity cannot clearly explain content, that person/entity does not have a solid understanding of said content.
From:
[http://www.coalitionforintegrity.org/what-we-do/transparency-and-accountability/](http://www.coalitionforintegrity.org/what-we-do/transparency-and-accountability/)
“The Coalition for Integrity believes that transparency and accountability are essential characteristics of democratic governance at the federal, state, and local levels. Transparency serves two important purposes. First, it serves to open the government to those it serves. A transparent government allows people to participate in the democratic process and to keep informed of government budgets, spending, and projects. Second, transparency is a powerful weapon against corruption. When government processes are transparent, it is difficult for corruption to thrive.
Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency. An accountable government is one that is responsive to the needs of the people it serves. It listens to the voices of its citizens and uses this citizen feedback to shape and improve its policies and programs … .”
CONCLUSION:
DOGE is not accountable to the American people. It has no constituency. DOGE was created by unilateral action, for partisan purposes. It is a highly partisan entity.
You could change my view if you can convince me that DOGE and Elon possess great objectivity and transparency. Or that Elon can separate his judgments from MAGA. Or that Elon’s conflicts of interest won’t interfere with his DOGE work. Or maybe he has no conflicts? | All of those agencies had inspectors general and produced reports on their activities annually. Those inspectors general have all been fired by Musk. The transparency was there, but it was in the form of lengthy (and highly detailed) reports that the populace at larger never looked at. A reasonable place to start if Musk was legitimately interested in transparency would be those reports and working with the inspectors general as they already have deep and expert knowledge about the agencies, but as you say this is all theater and illegally shutting off funds to things Musk et al. don't like.
I do think the one flaw in your argument is that any reporting could be made to be fully understandable by laymen. I agree that what Musk throws out is bullshit word salad, but the government is a complex system that uses complex accounting. Efforts are made to use visual representations and to provide digestible summaries, but you can't get specific about complex topics without getting, well, complicated.
I would argue this is why Congressmen have staff - they can take what agencies produce and present it to their constituencies in a way they feel is relatable. That's what is supposed to happen. But we're several steps up the fascist ladder for that to be the case.
I would also argue that any newspaper committed to actual journalism would be reviewing inspectors general reports and providing breakdowns of them in their own way. That's not possible for every agency or sub-department, of course, but electrons are free in a way that print wasn't, and the large papers and insider publications already have staff doing this analysis anyway. | furtive_phrasing_ |
1iwk63w | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwif31/cmv_israel_is_engaged_in_genocide_against_the/ | ChamplainLesser | [
"rightful_vagabond"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwif31/cmv_israel_is_engaged_in_genocide_against_the/meeiv5g/ | 2,867,239 | CMV: Israel is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people | So let's begin with the definition of genocide since that often gets overlooked by those who defend Israel.
>Genocide means ***any*** of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, ***in whole or in part***, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
\- (a) ***killing members of the group***;
\- (b) ***Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group***;
\- (c) ***Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part***;
\- (d) ***Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group***;
\- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Of this criteria, Israel meets the first four.
(a) Israel has one of the highest civilian casualty ratios of any urban war in modern history. In part due to its policy of indiscriminate bombing which has razed 70% of Gaza to the ground. The United Nations has recorded high numbers of women and children among the dead.
(b) Reports have highlighted widespread PTSD among Palestinian children. Additionally, injuries from Israeli attacks have left many permanently disabled.
(c) Organizations including the United Nations, Red Cross, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International have repeatedly stated that the blockades of food, for which Israeli officials have openly acknowledge as an effort to induce civilian starvation as a negotiating tactic for information, has led to a humanitarian crisis.
(d) The actions taken by Israel have dropped the birth rate in Gaza from 6.7 per woman to just over 3. Targeted strikes on hospitals and medical infrastructure have precipitated the decline. Targets intentionally and illegally chosen for bombing by Israeli officials.
You will not be capable of debating actions. Your only chance is intent. So let's talk about intent.
>Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza.
\- Revital Gotliv, Likud Knesset Member
>There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. ***We are fighting human animals*** and we are acting accordingly.
\- Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense
>***We will eliminate everything.*** If it doesn't take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks, or even months, we will reach all places.
\- Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense
>You may think you’re being merciful to spare a child, but you’re not - you're being vicious to the ultimate victim this child will grow up to kill - ***we must do to them like the Amalekites*** meaning ***their men, women, and children do not have the right to exist.***
\- Yaron Reuven, Rabbi
>Destroy a neighborhood in Gaza every day. If we blink, we run out of global credit. ***Every day a neighborhood must be destroyed and its inhabitants*** and I will be called cruel.
\- Almog Cohen, Otza Yehudit Knesset Member
>As a response to knesset member Aida Touma saying '***the lives of children*** of Gaza and the Gazan envelope both matter': ***No they don’t.***
\- Miki Levi, Knesset Member
I could go on, emphasis mine. Go ahead and try your best to convince me they lack genocidal intent. | So when OP says that the IDF has a food blockade for negotiation leverage, doesn't that mean that, if that is the actual intent, it shouldn't be considered a part of evidence that they want/intend genocide? | rightful_vagabond | 1,740,343,372 | CMV: Israel is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people | So let's begin with the definition of genocide since that often gets overlooked by those who defend Israel.
>Genocide means ***any*** of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, ***in whole or in part***, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
\- (a) ***killing members of the group***;
\- (b) ***Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group***;
\- (c) ***Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part***;
\- (d) ***Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group***;
\- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Of this criteria, Israel meets the first four.
(a) Israel has one of the highest civilian casualty ratios of any urban war in modern history. In part due to its policy of indiscriminate bombing which has razed 70% of Gaza to the ground. The United Nations has recorded high numbers of women and children among the dead.
(b) Reports have highlighted widespread PTSD among Palestinian children. Additionally, injuries from Israeli attacks have left many permanently disabled.
(c) Organizations including the United Nations, Red Cross, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International have repeatedly stated that the blockades of food, for which Israeli officials have openly acknowledge as an effort to induce civilian starvation as a negotiating tactic for information, has led to a humanitarian crisis.
(d) The actions taken by Israel have dropped the birth rate in Gaza from 6.7 per woman to just over 3. Targeted strikes on hospitals and medical infrastructure have precipitated the decline. Targets intentionally and illegally chosen for bombing by Israeli officials.
You will not be capable of debating actions. Your only chance is intent. So let's talk about intent.
>Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza.
\- Revital Gotliv, Likud Knesset Member
>There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. ***We are fighting human animals*** and we are acting accordingly.
\- Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense
>***We will eliminate everything.*** If it doesn't take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks, or even months, we will reach all places.
\- Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense
>You may think you’re being merciful to spare a child, but you’re not - you're being vicious to the ultimate victim this child will grow up to kill - ***we must do to them like the Amalekites*** meaning ***their men, women, and children do not have the right to exist.***
\- Yaron Reuven, Rabbi
>Destroy a neighborhood in Gaza every day. If we blink, we run out of global credit. ***Every day a neighborhood must be destroyed and its inhabitants*** and I will be called cruel.
\- Almog Cohen, Otza Yehudit Knesset Member
>As a response to knesset member Aida Touma saying '***the lives of children*** of Gaza and the Gazan envelope both matter': ***No they don’t.***
\- Miki Levi, Knesset Member
I could go on, emphasis mine. Go ahead and try your best to convince me they lack genocidal intent. | So when OP says that the IDF has a food blockade for negotiation leverage, doesn't that mean that, if that is the actual intent, it shouldn't be considered a part of evidence that they want/intend genocide? | ChamplainLesser |
1iwlmaz | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwkuc0/cmv_i_dont_believe_its_racist_or_xenophobic_at/ | Broad-Bass-3899 | [
"TheVioletBarry"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwkuc0/cmv_i_dont_believe_its_racist_or_xenophobic_at/meeuleh/ | 2,867,780 | CMV: I don't believe its racist or xenophobic at all to not vote for someone who doesn't represent your country | For this CMV will use my country Canada as an example as to what I mean by that.
First I truly believe that when it comes to me voting for someone to be the next prime Minister of Canada that person that I'm voting for must have policies that I agree with and most importantly they must be born and raised in Canada. If a candidate that was running to be the next prime Minister and had policies that I agree with once I find out that candidate was born and raised in a different country that Candidate will automatically lose my vote because I don't trust people who were born and raised in a different country to be the next prime Minister of Canada because that candidate will mostly likely have ties to foreign interference to the country that they were born and raised in.
I was born and raised in Canada but I have Salvadoran descent. So I will use my parents country as an example to further illustrate my point.
Let's say we have 2 candidates running to be the next prime Minister of Canada
Candidate 1 has policies that I agree with but was born and raised in El Salvador and can barely speak English and French properly due to his very thick Salvadoran accent.
Candidate 2 was born and raised in Canada with salvadoran descent can speak both English and French fluently with a Canadian accent. But has policies that I don't agree with at all.
I would still vote for candidate 2 over candidate 1 simply because he was born and raised in Canada and he is a clear representation of Canada and Canadians. I will never vote for candidate 1 simply because I can't tell if he is supposed to be the prime of Canada or the president of El Salvador. | "...that candidate will mostly likely have ties to foreign interference to the country that they were born and raised in."
Can you think of any politician so prominent as to have a solid shot at being prime minister for whom this isn't the case? | TheVioletBarry | 1,740,346,872 | CMV: I don't believe its racist or xenophobic at all to not vote for someone who doesn't represent your country | For this CMV will use my country Canada as an example as to what I mean by that.
First I truly believe that when it comes to me voting for someone to be the next prime Minister of Canada that person that I'm voting for must have policies that I agree with and most importantly they must be born and raised in Canada. If a candidate that was running to be the next prime Minister and had policies that I agree with once I find out that candidate was born and raised in a different country that Candidate will automatically lose my vote because I don't trust people who were born and raised in a different country to be the next prime Minister of Canada because that candidate will mostly likely have ties to foreign interference to the country that they were born and raised in.
I was born and raised in Canada but I have Salvadoran descent. So I will use my parents country as an example to further illustrate my point.
Let's say we have 2 candidates running to be the next prime Minister of Canada
Candidate 1 has policies that I agree with but was born and raised in El Salvador and can barely speak English and French properly due to his very thick Salvadoran accent.
Candidate 2 was born and raised in Canada with salvadoran descent can speak both English and French fluently with a Canadian accent. But has policies that I don't agree with at all.
I would still vote for candidate 2 over candidate 1 simply because he was born and raised in Canada and he is a clear representation of Canada and Canadians. I will never vote for candidate 1 simply because I can't tell if he is supposed to be the prime of Canada or the president of El Salvador. | "...that candidate will mostly likely have ties to foreign interference to the country that they were born and raised in."
Can you think of any politician so prominent as to have a solid shot at being prime minister for whom this isn't the case? | Broad-Bass-3899 |
1iwm2ud | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwldew/cmv_germany_should_scrap_the_5_artifical_threshold/ | cuervodeboedo1 | [
"iceandstorm"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwldew/cmv_germany_should_scrap_the_5_artifical_threshold/mef064u/ | 2,868,022 | CMV: Germany should scrap the 5% artifical threshold. | In german federal elections, like the ones held today, a party must get 5% of nation-wide 2nd votes or 3 contituencies in order to join the lower house of their legislature. The reasons for the threshold are many, including stopping radical parties from gaining power, and making coalition talks easier and coalitions more stable.
But
1. It clearly doesnt work at stopping radical parties from gaining power. If by 'radical' they mean anything that isnt in the centre-left to centre-right spectrum, then 3 parties might gain seats in this elections that are radical: most importantly, the AfD, described by many as far-right; but also de leftist Die Linke (to some, it is radical) and the new BSW often described as quite conservative, anti-capitalist and rusophillic.
2. It may make coalition talks more difficult, and the coalition itself more unstable due to more parties being part of it, but even if thats the case does it actually matter? The netherlands and belgium have comparable quality of life to germany, if not better, and they have no artificial threshold while their natural threshold is low. Finland also doesnt have artificial threshold. So, empirically, it seems it is a non-issue.
3. I believe that it is more important to be as democratic as possible, and having 14% of the electorate be unrepresented in the Bundestag, is quite undemocratic. Who is to say what is radical or not? Why this belief in stable but samey-samey governments when there are no indicators of better quality of life to the average citizen?
To change my view, please challenge any or all of this 3 points, or point out errors on my research that actually affect the outcome of my position. | 1. No you misunderstood the intend. It's not about extreme groups, only about irrelevant groups.
2. There where many reasons, but a gigantic part was a gridlock where nothing could be done anymore to improve things and to fix the other reasons.
3. No. I for example did not. There is likely a significant amount of people that split their votes between CSU/CDU and FDP (that happened multiple times in the past). There are lots of people that want a specific politician from their "Wahlkreis" and another main party. | iceandstorm | 1,740,348,563 | CMV: Germany should scrap the 5% artifical threshold. | In german federal elections, like the ones held today, a party must get 5% of nation-wide 2nd votes or 3 contituencies in order to join the lower house of their legislature. The reasons for the threshold are many, including stopping radical parties from gaining power, and making coalition talks easier and coalitions more stable.
But
1. It clearly doesnt work at stopping radical parties from gaining power. If by 'radical' they mean anything that isnt in the centre-left to centre-right spectrum, then 3 parties might gain seats in this elections that are radical: most importantly, the AfD, described by many as far-right; but also de leftist Die Linke (to some, it is radical) and the new BSW often described as quite conservative, anti-capitalist and rusophillic.
2. It may make coalition talks more difficult, and the coalition itself more unstable due to more parties being part of it, but even if thats the case does it actually matter? The netherlands and belgium have comparable quality of life to germany, if not better, and they have no artificial threshold while their natural threshold is low. Finland also doesnt have artificial threshold. So, empirically, it seems it is a non-issue.
3. I believe that it is more important to be as democratic as possible, and having 14% of the electorate be unrepresented in the Bundestag, is quite undemocratic. Who is to say what is radical or not? Why this belief in stable but samey-samey governments when there are no indicators of better quality of life to the average citizen?
To change my view, please challenge any or all of this 3 points, or point out errors on my research that actually affect the outcome of my position. | 1. No you misunderstood the intend. It's not about extreme groups, only about irrelevant groups.
2. There where many reasons, but a gigantic part was a gridlock where nothing could be done anymore to improve things and to fix the other reasons.
3. No. I for example did not. There is likely a significant amount of people that split their votes between CSU/CDU and FDP (that happened multiple times in the past). There are lots of people that want a specific politician from their "Wahlkreis" and another main party. | cuervodeboedo1 |
1iwmnwl | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwm0ch/cmv_deporting_illegal_immigrants_is_good_for_usa/ | Green-Meal-6247 | [
"trickyvinny"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwm0ch/cmv_deporting_illegal_immigrants_is_good_for_usa/mef13yu/ | 2,868,080 | CMV: Deporting Illegal Immigrants is Good for USA | I want to preface this by saying I voted for Kamala and Biden is that past two elections. Despite this I see removing illegal immigrants as one of the few positive things Trump has set into action.
I have so much empathy for people who feel the need to escape their country however I don’t think illegal immigration is the answer. I don’t understand how farms/businesses paying slave wages to illegal immigrants with no health care benefits is a good goal for a society. This just seems terrible for everyone except for the business owners who get cheap labor.
The whole idea of just letting people come here and stay here with no documentation as long as they haven’t committed a felony just seems very simplistic from my perspective. Yeah I wish we could go back to the days with very few laws and open borders but these days it’s seems more like a stupid fantasy of a middle schooler who has no knowledge of nuance or how the real world works.
If there are established routes for illegal immigrants to get access to this country and we knowingly allow it we are basically saying any criminal or drug dealer can come and go because they aren’t documented. | Our country is dependent on the labor that undocumented immigrants provide. Why wouldn't we improve our immigration or visa system to accept that reality and document everyone?
Further, your point about escaping their country indicates they are refugees. Refugees are documented and not illegal immigrants. The issue is we do not have enough staff to process the refugee claims. If we allocated money, say in a bipartisan bill, to increase that staff, we could reduce the time a refugees status is pending.
I agree that we should not have undocumented people entering or staying in the country, but the problem is way more complex than "illegal immigrant = bad." | trickyvinny | 1,740,348,852 | CMV: Deporting Illegal Immigrants is Good for USA | I want to preface this by saying I voted for Kamala and Biden is that past two elections. Despite this I see removing illegal immigrants as one of the few positive things Trump has set into action.
I have so much empathy for people who feel the need to escape their country however I don’t think illegal immigration is the answer. I don’t understand how farms/businesses paying slave wages to illegal immigrants with no health care benefits is a good goal for a society. This just seems terrible for everyone except for the business owners who get cheap labor.
The whole idea of just letting people come here and stay here with no documentation as long as they haven’t committed a felony just seems very simplistic from my perspective. Yeah I wish we could go back to the days with very few laws and open borders but these days it’s seems more like a stupid fantasy of a middle schooler who has no knowledge of nuance or how the real world works.
If there are established routes for illegal immigrants to get access to this country and we knowingly allow it we are basically saying any criminal or drug dealer can come and go because they aren’t documented. | Our country is dependent on the labor that undocumented immigrants provide. Why wouldn't we improve our immigration or visa system to accept that reality and document everyone?
Further, your point about escaping their country indicates they are refugees. Refugees are documented and not illegal immigrants. The issue is we do not have enough staff to process the refugee claims. If we allocated money, say in a bipartisan bill, to increase that staff, we could reduce the time a refugees status is pending.
I agree that we should not have undocumented people entering or staying in the country, but the problem is way more complex than "illegal immigrant = bad." | Green-Meal-6247 |
1iwnj7u | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwlxv2/cmv_a_white_american_cant_be_antiestablishment/ | KyleKingman | [
"SilverTongueSociety"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwlxv2/cmv_a_white_american_cant_be_antiestablishment/mef38kx/ | 2,868,204 | CMV: A white American can’t be anti-establishment because they are the establishment | I say this because they make up the majority of the country, they are also the ones who dictate how elections and laws go (since they’re the majority their vote holds the most weight). They also have by far the most wealth in the US and are most of the business owners. All of the few companies that make up the oligarchy are owned by white Americans. In the United States or any other western civilization, they can’t be anti-establishment or “hate the Elites” because that’s what they’re a part of. They’re the same entity. They also benefit off of systemic racism and are protected by the oligarchies and politicians. It doesn’t negatively affect them because they’re the same race. None of the laws will ever take away their privilege which is their whiteness. Whiteness is the single most powerful privilege in the United States | Black people and poor white people have historically banded together multiple times. One of the most significant moments was during the Populist Movement of the late 19th century.
During this period, poor Black and white farmers in the South, frustrated with economic oppression by wealthy elites, joined forces in the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People’s Party). The party pushed for policies like debt relief, fair wages, and government control of railroads to protect small farmers. However, white elites used racism and Jim Crow laws to divide them, effectively dismantling the movement by the early 1900s.
During the Civil Rights Movement (1950s–1970s), there were also notable alliances between Black activists and poor white communities. Organizations like the Poor People’s Campaign, started by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, aimed to unite people across racial lines in the fight against poverty and economic injustice. Additionally, groups like the Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union (1930s) and later the Rainbow Coalition (1960s–1970s), founded by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, sought solidarity between Black, white, and Latino working-class communities. | SilverTongueSociety | 1,740,349,509 | CMV: A white American can’t be anti-establishment because they are the establishment | I say this because they make up the majority of the country, they are also the ones who dictate how elections and laws go (since they’re the majority their vote holds the most weight). They also have by far the most wealth in the US and are most of the business owners. All of the few companies that make up the oligarchy are owned by white Americans. In the United States or any other western civilization, they can’t be anti-establishment or “hate the Elites” because that’s what they’re a part of. They’re the same entity. They also benefit off of systemic racism and are protected by the oligarchies and politicians. It doesn’t negatively affect them because they’re the same race. None of the laws will ever take away their privilege which is their whiteness. Whiteness is the single most powerful privilege in the United States | Black people and poor white people have historically banded together multiple times. One of the most significant moments was during the Populist Movement of the late 19th century.
During this period, poor Black and white farmers in the South, frustrated with economic oppression by wealthy elites, joined forces in the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People’s Party). The party pushed for policies like debt relief, fair wages, and government control of railroads to protect small farmers. However, white elites used racism and Jim Crow laws to divide them, effectively dismantling the movement by the early 1900s.
During the Civil Rights Movement (1950s–1970s), there were also notable alliances between Black activists and poor white communities. Organizations like the Poor People’s Campaign, started by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, aimed to unite people across racial lines in the fight against poverty and economic injustice. Additionally, groups like the Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union (1930s) and later the Rainbow Coalition (1960s–1970s), founded by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, sought solidarity between Black, white, and Latino working-class communities. | KyleKingman |
1iwpyfr | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwozvy/cmv_if_a_woman_believes_a_mans_job_exists_then/ | Scary-Ad-1345 | [
"shockpaws"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwozvy/cmv_if_a_woman_believes_a_mans_job_exists_then/mefw3n6/ | 2,869,601 | CMV: if a woman believes a “man’s job” exists then they shouldn’t let men do “women’s work.” | I only say this because I saw a video on social media where a lady said “this a boys job” which is fine, if you would like to have a traditional relationship do what makes you happy but it can’t be halfway. If you’re going to make a partner do all the automotive work all the heavy lifting this and that then okay… you should cook clean take care of the kids do the laundry. Relationships based on “traditional roles” can’t be 50% either you’re equals or you aren’t. Oh you can’t carry in the water bottles because it’s too heavy? I can’t wash the dishes. That’s a woman’s job.
Before I someone says oh it’s just one video on social media I read the comments and there was a lot of people agreeing and yes obviously I saw misogynistic sexist comments. I’ve also seen this in real life. Traditional relationships where the man participates in child rearing cooking cleaning but the woman doesn’t do any masculine things.
To be clear, I have no problem with traditional relationships. Personally I like to cook I hate to clean I will work on the cars but my girlfriend is perfectly capable of heavy lifting on her own she’s not dependent on me and I love that because I would feel like I’m in a relationship with a child if that were the case. We do things based on what we have an aptitude for but it’s never “I’m a woman I refuse to do this” it just like yeah this isn’t something I can do. My problem is the refusal or when you add onto a man’s workload but refuse to even do the traditional things you are expected to do. Like I think men should be involved in a child’s life but that’s not the traditional role you can’t expect them to go above and beyond there when they’re assuming a masculine role. | Obviously hypocritical exceptions exist, but I think you’re describing two different types of people.
From what I’ve seen, most people who believe in traditional gender roles for one gender tend to follow them for their own (or they’re using the term “men’s work” ironically / for humor / whathaveyou). With the way discourse, especially gendered discourse, tends to go in online spaces, I see a lot of people who say “men / women always say [this] while they do [this]!” without understanding that they’ve seen ONE man/woman saying something and a DIFFERENT man/woman doing the other thing. Tradwives & the like have a tendency to practice what they preach, from what I’ve seen of them.
That being said, every person’s relationship is different. These are perfectly fine boundaries / mindsets for you to have in your intrapersonal relationships, but ascribing it across the board leaves no room for situational nuance.
When you’re on the outside of a relationship looking in, it can seem like tasks are wildly unbalanced, but each living situation has different circumstances. Maybe the man does lifting / auto work as well as cooking and cleaning, but the woman is doing the financials (budgeting, taxes), and renovating the bathroom, and keeping the kids’ stuff organized, and etcetera. Maybe they live on a farm and she does a lot of the farmwork. Maybe they’re in a small town and she organizes a lot of the community events. Just because the “basic tasks” aren’t 50/50 doesn’t mean that a relationship isn’t equal.
Also, it needs to be said, but a lot of stereotypical “men’s work” isn’t actually very frequent. Unless it’s a really big hobby of yours or the car is extremely broken, you’re not going to have to do all too much mechanical work. Yeah, heavy lifting is a bit more common, but it’s pretty brief. The lawn needs to be mowed maybe once a month. Compared to cooking, cleaning, laundry, childcare, shopping, etc, which are all constant and near Sisyphean tasks, the “fifty fifty” gender roles aren’t actually all that balanced. It’s possible that relationships where the man is doing some of the feminine tasks and the woman’s doing none of the masculine tasks are actually completely even in terms of actual work being done.
Anyways, all this is to say that life is nuanced and complicated and what people should and shouldn’t do is dependent on individual circumstances and the agreements that they come to with their partners. | shockpaws | 1,740,359,049 | CMV: if a woman believes a “man’s job” exists then they shouldn’t let men do “women’s work.” | I only say this because I saw a video on social media where a lady said “this a boys job” which is fine, if you would like to have a traditional relationship do what makes you happy but it can’t be halfway. If you’re going to make a partner do all the automotive work all the heavy lifting this and that then okay… you should cook clean take care of the kids do the laundry. Relationships based on “traditional roles” can’t be 50% either you’re equals or you aren’t. Oh you can’t carry in the water bottles because it’s too heavy? I can’t wash the dishes. That’s a woman’s job.
Before I someone says oh it’s just one video on social media I read the comments and there was a lot of people agreeing and yes obviously I saw misogynistic sexist comments. I’ve also seen this in real life. Traditional relationships where the man participates in child rearing cooking cleaning but the woman doesn’t do any masculine things.
To be clear, I have no problem with traditional relationships. Personally I like to cook I hate to clean I will work on the cars but my girlfriend is perfectly capable of heavy lifting on her own she’s not dependent on me and I love that because I would feel like I’m in a relationship with a child if that were the case. We do things based on what we have an aptitude for but it’s never “I’m a woman I refuse to do this” it just like yeah this isn’t something I can do. My problem is the refusal or when you add onto a man’s workload but refuse to even do the traditional things you are expected to do. Like I think men should be involved in a child’s life but that’s not the traditional role you can’t expect them to go above and beyond there when they’re assuming a masculine role. | Obviously hypocritical exceptions exist, but I think you’re describing two different types of people.
From what I’ve seen, most people who believe in traditional gender roles for one gender tend to follow them for their own (or they’re using the term “men’s work” ironically / for humor / whathaveyou). With the way discourse, especially gendered discourse, tends to go in online spaces, I see a lot of people who say “men / women always say [this] while they do [this]!” without understanding that they’ve seen ONE man/woman saying something and a DIFFERENT man/woman doing the other thing. Tradwives & the like have a tendency to practice what they preach, from what I’ve seen of them.
That being said, every person’s relationship is different. These are perfectly fine boundaries / mindsets for you to have in your intrapersonal relationships, but ascribing it across the board leaves no room for situational nuance.
When you’re on the outside of a relationship looking in, it can seem like tasks are wildly unbalanced, but each living situation has different circumstances. Maybe the man does lifting / auto work as well as cooking and cleaning, but the woman is doing the financials (budgeting, taxes), and renovating the bathroom, and keeping the kids’ stuff organized, and etcetera. Maybe they live on a farm and she does a lot of the farmwork. Maybe they’re in a small town and she organizes a lot of the community events. Just because the “basic tasks” aren’t 50/50 doesn’t mean that a relationship isn’t equal.
Also, it needs to be said, but a lot of stereotypical “men’s work” isn’t actually very frequent. Unless it’s a really big hobby of yours or the car is extremely broken, you’re not going to have to do all too much mechanical work. Yeah, heavy lifting is a bit more common, but it’s pretty brief. The lawn needs to be mowed maybe once a month. Compared to cooking, cleaning, laundry, childcare, shopping, etc, which are all constant and near Sisyphean tasks, the “fifty fifty” gender roles aren’t actually all that balanced. It’s possible that relationships where the man is doing some of the feminine tasks and the woman’s doing none of the masculine tasks are actually completely even in terms of actual work being done.
Anyways, all this is to say that life is nuanced and complicated and what people should and shouldn’t do is dependent on individual circumstances and the agreements that they come to with their partners. | Scary-Ad-1345 |
1iwxv1x | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwx789/cmv_the_us_embargo_against_cuba_is_proof_that/ | SAB9123 | [
"Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwx789/cmv_the_us_embargo_against_cuba_is_proof_that/mehnchl/ | 2,872,678 | CMV: The U.S. embargo against Cuba is proof that communism doesn’t work | Cuba has energy blackouts, food shortages, and their healthcare system rapidly declines every year. You’ll constantly see platitudes about how the U.S. is sabotaging Cuba, causing their downfall.
Cuba immediately had a fiscal crisis following the fall of the USSR, and thus the end of the massive financial aid they had been receiving.
Even ignoring that they were totally dependent on foreign aid, if a country can’t withstand *one* other nation refusing to trade with them (while they can still freely trade with every other country on earth), that seems like a wildly ineffective economic policy. | A better point here is that under a communist framework, trade with capitalist states should be pointless. It would mean you are either being exploited, or exploiting others, engaging in the same imperialist exploitation communists claim to want to end.
The fact Communist states believe that trade with the US can be mutually beneficial is accepting a fundamentally capitalist view of economics, and a rejection of marxism. | Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho | 1,740,387,427 | CMV: The U.S. embargo against Cuba is proof that communism doesn’t work | Cuba has energy blackouts, food shortages, and their healthcare system rapidly declines every year. You’ll constantly see platitudes about how the U.S. is sabotaging Cuba, causing their downfall.
Cuba immediately had a fiscal crisis following the fall of the USSR, and thus the end of the massive financial aid they had been receiving.
Even ignoring that they were totally dependent on foreign aid, if a country can’t withstand *one* other nation refusing to trade with them (while they can still freely trade with every other country on earth), that seems like a wildly ineffective economic policy. | A better point here is that under a communist framework, trade with capitalist states should be pointless. It would mean you are either being exploited, or exploiting others, engaging in the same imperialist exploitation communists claim to want to end.
The fact Communist states believe that trade with the US can be mutually beneficial is accepting a fundamentally capitalist view of economics, and a rejection of marxism. | SAB9123 |
1iwyti3 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwxuhq/cmv_forgiving_student_loans_in_most_cases_is/ | pig_pork | [
"Illustrious-Yam-3777"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwxuhq/cmv_forgiving_student_loans_in_most_cases_is/mehubna/ | 2,873,208 | CMV: Forgiving student loans in most cases is outright stupid. | My reasoning comes down to three points:
1. The majority of people that require their student loans to be forgiven require this assistance due to their on choices and failures.
This point is pretty simple when you think about a real life scenario. You are a student applying to schools. You’ve been accepted into two different universities. One is a prestigious school that cost say 80 thousand dollars a year. The other is a less prestigious but still good school that cost say 20 thousand a year. Because you wearnt thinking ahead at the time you decide to major in sociology and attend the prestigious school. Upon graduation you realize you have 320 thousand in debt since you never bothered to apply for any form of financial aid or scholarships like everyone else does! Worse yet, you majored in sociology and you’ll be making 40 thousand the rest of your life. Thankfully, uncle Sam’s kids (the taxpayers) chocked up some money last tax season and there going to pay for your poor decision making!
YOU chose to attend a school outside of your means (that usually offers a marginally better education). YOU chose to major is a low paying field. YOU chose to not apply for aid.
2. Even if it wasn’t your fault, why is it our burden?
Now say that you only got accepted to an expensive school, your only choice was to major in sociology, and the school offered little to no aid and now your stuck with some debt. WHY IS THAT EVERYONE ELSES PROBLEM. While I’m well aware this is a pretty weak argument there are hundreds of thousands Americans suffering from crippling medical and other forms of more necessary debt so why are you the one that gets the bailout? Like every other member of our society you should work for what you have, should’ve gone to trade school instead college if you couldn’t afford it.
3. Encourages people to continue to make poor choices with the expectation/hope that their loans will be forgiven.
When the government gives people guarantees people are more likely to take risks. If a bank knows they are too big to fail they are more likely to give riskier loans. By cancelling debt the government sets a precedent that it will continue to bail out VOLUNTARILY INCURRED EDUCATIONAL DEBT. No matter how many times the government says “this is the last time” we all know that’s not how it works and the bail outs will keep on coming. Whilst on its on this wouldn’t be an issue, this precedent would cause a ripple effect that will cause the cycle to repeat indefinitely.
Let me clarify a few things about my perspective. I am not wealthy. I come from a low income family, in a low income state. I’m currently attending community college which I am attending on private, public, and community scholarships that I am supplementing WITH MY OWN HARD WORK. I’m taking a full load while taking care of my family as well. I am proof it is possible to make good decisions, and work for what you have. Unless someone can provide me with reasoning otherwise, I fail to grasp how such bailouts can ever be justified but I am open to hearing such points. | Ah so it seems you’re not against public education, but public education *as it is currently structured.* Also, I wouldn’t chalk everyone’s decisions up to stupidity. Maybe the particular program they really were passionate about was at an institution out of reach if they had to rely on cash reserves to pay for it. All in all, whether or not you’re having trouble paying rent even though you did “all the right things the right way,” you might still consider allowing some of your tax dollars to cover others’ burdens. We do the same with other mismanaged, bloated, scammy subsidized services too—healthcare for example. People should’t continue to suffer just because the system is broken. At the same time, you’re right in that the underlying fiscal problems should be solved first before printing all the money to help every person in debt and need, and it seems your view would be different if the system was different. | Illustrious-Yam-3777 | 1,740,391,726 | CMV: Forgiving student loans in most cases is outright stupid. | My reasoning comes down to three points:
1. The majority of people that require their student loans to be forgiven require this assistance due to their on choices and failures.
This point is pretty simple when you think about a real life scenario. You are a student applying to schools. You’ve been accepted into two different universities. One is a prestigious school that cost say 80 thousand dollars a year. The other is a less prestigious but still good school that cost say 20 thousand a year. Because you wearnt thinking ahead at the time you decide to major in sociology and attend the prestigious school. Upon graduation you realize you have 320 thousand in debt since you never bothered to apply for any form of financial aid or scholarships like everyone else does! Worse yet, you majored in sociology and you’ll be making 40 thousand the rest of your life. Thankfully, uncle Sam’s kids (the taxpayers) chocked up some money last tax season and there going to pay for your poor decision making!
YOU chose to attend a school outside of your means (that usually offers a marginally better education). YOU chose to major is a low paying field. YOU chose to not apply for aid.
2. Even if it wasn’t your fault, why is it our burden?
Now say that you only got accepted to an expensive school, your only choice was to major in sociology, and the school offered little to no aid and now your stuck with some debt. WHY IS THAT EVERYONE ELSES PROBLEM. While I’m well aware this is a pretty weak argument there are hundreds of thousands Americans suffering from crippling medical and other forms of more necessary debt so why are you the one that gets the bailout? Like every other member of our society you should work for what you have, should’ve gone to trade school instead college if you couldn’t afford it.
3. Encourages people to continue to make poor choices with the expectation/hope that their loans will be forgiven.
When the government gives people guarantees people are more likely to take risks. If a bank knows they are too big to fail they are more likely to give riskier loans. By cancelling debt the government sets a precedent that it will continue to bail out VOLUNTARILY INCURRED EDUCATIONAL DEBT. No matter how many times the government says “this is the last time” we all know that’s not how it works and the bail outs will keep on coming. Whilst on its on this wouldn’t be an issue, this precedent would cause a ripple effect that will cause the cycle to repeat indefinitely.
Let me clarify a few things about my perspective. I am not wealthy. I come from a low income family, in a low income state. I’m currently attending community college which I am attending on private, public, and community scholarships that I am supplementing WITH MY OWN HARD WORK. I’m taking a full load while taking care of my family as well. I am proof it is possible to make good decisions, and work for what you have. Unless someone can provide me with reasoning otherwise, I fail to grasp how such bailouts can ever be justified but I am open to hearing such points. | Ah so it seems you’re not against public education, but public education *as it is currently structured.* Also, I wouldn’t chalk everyone’s decisions up to stupidity. Maybe the particular program they really were passionate about was at an institution out of reach if they had to rely on cash reserves to pay for it. All in all, whether or not you’re having trouble paying rent even though you did “all the right things the right way,” you might still consider allowing some of your tax dollars to cover others’ burdens. We do the same with other mismanaged, bloated, scammy subsidized services too—healthcare for example. People should’t continue to suffer just because the system is broken. At the same time, you’re right in that the underlying fiscal problems should be solved first before printing all the money to help every person in debt and need, and it seems your view would be different if the system was different. | pig_pork |
1iwzrsr | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwz5jk/cmv_i_think_most_people_are_exaggerating_the/ | Jncocontrol | [
"Birb-Brain-Syn"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwz5jk/cmv_i_think_most_people_are_exaggerating_the/mei0ij8/ | 2,873,602 | CMV: I think most people are exaggerating the issues with A.I. | Before I go on, I'm not a Computer Scientist ( going to college for that though ), and over the last 5-ish years I've seen the discussion of A.I crop up here and there. Even as a Teacher, the discussion creeps into my classroom discussions. I don't think it's as catastrophic as people make it out to be, or rather I think they have the wrong idea of it.
From what I'm able to gather, most people see the use of A.I as a substitute for laziness, and I have witnessed this in my classroom with my student writing their reports with A.I, while I can't prove they used A.I, I have good reason to suspect they are due to laziness.
But I think some A.I have its uses. Take for example, I have ADD ( Attention Deficit Disorder ), it's tough for me to concentrate unless I'm heavily stimulated through games or other means. For me, if I have an A.I to read some text for college because sometimes I have to read 10+ pages and this becomes overwhelming for me and makes it more difficult to learn what I need and if I can get an A.I read this wall of text for me this helps me learn.
Furthermore, I have an A.I robot that cleans my house, I'm fully able to clean on my own, however, I'm going to soon to give it to my parents, they are thankfully still mobile and can do most basic tasks. However when it comes to their backs and sometimes their legs, cleaning it's where they struggle and instead of "forcing them" to deal with the whole age issue, I think it would be better to have them have an A.I robot that cleans their house for them.
To also address the elephant in the room, I don't buy the "terminator" scenario where they'll kill us all. That to me sound more science fiction than reality.
Change my View. | Human advancement stagnated for thousands of years until horse breeding was commonplace. The lack of horses or oxen in America is sometimes cited as the reason why tribes did not advance technologically prior to the arrival of european settlers.
Horses and beasts of burdens basically enabled cities to exist. Before then, human beings could not be centralized into one place, and the majority of humanity lived in smaller self-sustaining settlements.
When the industrial revolution hit there were many people forced into poverty as factories replaced their livlihoods. The productive output of humanity increased massively, but also so did the amount of squalor and death through plague as humans were forced into smaller and denser living arrangements, living off the literal crumbs of technological advancement. The French revolution is often cited as being a result of great wealth inequality caused by the rich land and factory owners in comparison to the poor and disenfranchised public.
Roughly 60% of the world's working population are in some way involved in the transport and logistics industry, with the majority being drivers. In the event of perfect AI driving being adopted wholescale worldwide, unemployment would likely increase tenfold, meaning 10x as many mouths to feed and bodies to home.
There are no industries looking for vast amounts of unskilled labour at the present moment in time. There are no plans to implement social housing on a scale like this in any developed nation, or to feed those who may be made jobless.
Most workers are still working paycheck to paycheck, and will enter into debt within 1 month of losing their jobs.
Most banks operate independently, and can choose not to offer a loan to any person for any reason. Banks are already planning not to offer loans to people without a source of income where their job has been lost due to automation via AI.
AI is basically an employment powderkeg. There is a significant possibility that if the advancement happens as fast as the technology sector is projecting, there will be significant risk of extreme discontent in the near future.
If we assume worst case scenario instead of just likely scenarios, and humans become surplus to requirements with entire companies run top to bottom by generalized AI then food and housing also become waste within the system. An AI optimised to maximise productivity within such a system would be incentivised into reducing human population.
There is no indication that any AI currently being developed is being developed with the goal of increasing net human happiness or equivalent. The only priority right now appears to be producing more, more accurately and faster. This is the trend of technological automation throughout human history.
Incidentally, if you want to know more about human history with technology you should look into the Ludite movement. Most people think of Ludites as technologically inept or unwilling to change people, but the movement itself was centred around the idea of fair compensation in the wake of productivity boon from automation. The fact Ludite has become synonymous with the idea of something bad and against our interests as a society tells you volumes about how automation affects our lives, and how little we seem to care about such things until we ourselves are affected. | Birb-Brain-Syn | 1,740,395,404 | CMV: I think most people are exaggerating the issues with A.I. | Before I go on, I'm not a Computer Scientist ( going to college for that though ), and over the last 5-ish years I've seen the discussion of A.I crop up here and there. Even as a Teacher, the discussion creeps into my classroom discussions. I don't think it's as catastrophic as people make it out to be, or rather I think they have the wrong idea of it.
From what I'm able to gather, most people see the use of A.I as a substitute for laziness, and I have witnessed this in my classroom with my student writing their reports with A.I, while I can't prove they used A.I, I have good reason to suspect they are due to laziness.
But I think some A.I have its uses. Take for example, I have ADD ( Attention Deficit Disorder ), it's tough for me to concentrate unless I'm heavily stimulated through games or other means. For me, if I have an A.I to read some text for college because sometimes I have to read 10+ pages and this becomes overwhelming for me and makes it more difficult to learn what I need and if I can get an A.I read this wall of text for me this helps me learn.
Furthermore, I have an A.I robot that cleans my house, I'm fully able to clean on my own, however, I'm going to soon to give it to my parents, they are thankfully still mobile and can do most basic tasks. However when it comes to their backs and sometimes their legs, cleaning it's where they struggle and instead of "forcing them" to deal with the whole age issue, I think it would be better to have them have an A.I robot that cleans their house for them.
To also address the elephant in the room, I don't buy the "terminator" scenario where they'll kill us all. That to me sound more science fiction than reality.
Change my View. | Human advancement stagnated for thousands of years until horse breeding was commonplace. The lack of horses or oxen in America is sometimes cited as the reason why tribes did not advance technologically prior to the arrival of european settlers.
Horses and beasts of burdens basically enabled cities to exist. Before then, human beings could not be centralized into one place, and the majority of humanity lived in smaller self-sustaining settlements.
When the industrial revolution hit there were many people forced into poverty as factories replaced their livlihoods. The productive output of humanity increased massively, but also so did the amount of squalor and death through plague as humans were forced into smaller and denser living arrangements, living off the literal crumbs of technological advancement. The French revolution is often cited as being a result of great wealth inequality caused by the rich land and factory owners in comparison to the poor and disenfranchised public.
Roughly 60% of the world's working population are in some way involved in the transport and logistics industry, with the majority being drivers. In the event of perfect AI driving being adopted wholescale worldwide, unemployment would likely increase tenfold, meaning 10x as many mouths to feed and bodies to home.
There are no industries looking for vast amounts of unskilled labour at the present moment in time. There are no plans to implement social housing on a scale like this in any developed nation, or to feed those who may be made jobless.
Most workers are still working paycheck to paycheck, and will enter into debt within 1 month of losing their jobs.
Most banks operate independently, and can choose not to offer a loan to any person for any reason. Banks are already planning not to offer loans to people without a source of income where their job has been lost due to automation via AI.
AI is basically an employment powderkeg. There is a significant possibility that if the advancement happens as fast as the technology sector is projecting, there will be significant risk of extreme discontent in the near future.
If we assume worst case scenario instead of just likely scenarios, and humans become surplus to requirements with entire companies run top to bottom by generalized AI then food and housing also become waste within the system. An AI optimised to maximise productivity within such a system would be incentivised into reducing human population.
There is no indication that any AI currently being developed is being developed with the goal of increasing net human happiness or equivalent. The only priority right now appears to be producing more, more accurately and faster. This is the trend of technological automation throughout human history.
Incidentally, if you want to know more about human history with technology you should look into the Ludite movement. Most people think of Ludites as technologically inept or unwilling to change people, but the movement itself was centred around the idea of fair compensation in the wake of productivity boon from automation. The fact Ludite has become synonymous with the idea of something bad and against our interests as a society tells you volumes about how automation affects our lives, and how little we seem to care about such things until we ourselves are affected. | Jncocontrol |
1iwzujb | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwv3rf/cmv_one_black_swan_event_for_which_bitcoin_is/ | ifuckedyourdaddytoo | [
"amicaliantes"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwv3rf/cmv_one_black_swan_event_for_which_bitcoin_is/meh6su4/ | 2,871,417 | CMV: One black swan event for which Bitcoin is intended to be useful could also make it useless | Suppose another world war broke out. You plan to flee to another country. You are able to convert your fiat to crypto, and even to have the transaction accepted on the blockchain. You manage to flee with your crypto cold wallet, and yourself, intact.
But by the time you reach your destination, countries around the world have moved to prevent capital flight, including by filtering Bitcoin P2P traffic or even just severing their countries completely from the global Internet.
To avoid the same bitcoins from being spent on the disconnected networks, even the country you fled to shuts down Bitcoin or otherwise forbids Bitcoin transactions. Poof, your money is gone. You would have been better off smuggling hard cash.
Note that I set up this scenario chivalrously and charitably toward Bitcoin by assuming you were able to get your crypto accepted on the global blockchain before imposition of capital controls. More likely it would be by the time you would want to move to transfer your assets, the government in your origin country will have already imposed controls -- this is what happened in the last world war.
Also in the spirit of chivalry, I'll give you a hint as to one approach to CMV. Explain what disincentives there might be for national governments to shut down Bitcoin specifically, even if in general they are incentivized to impose capital controls as was the case in WW2. | In a world war scenario, Bitcoin would actually be more resilient than cash. Here's why:
1. Internet shutdown is unlikely. Even countries like Iran and China, despite heavy restrictions, haven't managed to completely block crypto. The Bitcoin network can operate through satellite, radio signals, and mesh networks. I'd rather take those odds than hoping border guards don't find my cash.
2. Even if some countries block Bitcoin, others would embrace it. Look at El Salvador and the growing list of crypto-friendly nations. In a global conflict, neutral countries would likely maintain crypto infrastructure to profit from capital flows, just like Switzerland did with banking in WW2.
>To avoid the same bitcoins from being spent on the disconnected networks, even the country you fled to shuts down Bitcoin or otherwise forbids Bitcoin transactions.
This assumes perfect coordination between countries during a war, which is contradictory. If they're at war, they're literally not cooperating. Some would keep Bitcoin running just to undermine their enemies' capital controls.
Plus, your cash scenario has bigger problems:
- Physical cash gets destroyed, stolen, or lost during wartime chaos
- Cash needs to be physically smuggled across militarized borders
- Most countries would stop accepting foreign cash anyway
- Hyperinflation would make cash worthless (see Germany post-WW1)
The real black swan risk for Bitcoin isn't a world war - it's quantum computing or a critical protocol vulnerability. But that's a different debate. | amicaliantes | 1,740,377,711 | CMV: One black swan event for which Bitcoin is intended to be useful could also make it useless | Suppose another world war broke out. You plan to flee to another country. You are able to convert your fiat to crypto, and even to have the transaction accepted on the blockchain. You manage to flee with your crypto cold wallet, and yourself, intact.
But by the time you reach your destination, countries around the world have moved to prevent capital flight, including by filtering Bitcoin P2P traffic or even just severing their countries completely from the global Internet.
To avoid the same bitcoins from being spent on the disconnected networks, even the country you fled to shuts down Bitcoin or otherwise forbids Bitcoin transactions. Poof, your money is gone. You would have been better off smuggling hard cash.
Note that I set up this scenario chivalrously and charitably toward Bitcoin by assuming you were able to get your crypto accepted on the global blockchain before imposition of capital controls. More likely it would be by the time you would want to move to transfer your assets, the government in your origin country will have already imposed controls -- this is what happened in the last world war.
Also in the spirit of chivalry, I'll give you a hint as to one approach to CMV. Explain what disincentives there might be for national governments to shut down Bitcoin specifically, even if in general they are incentivized to impose capital controls as was the case in WW2. | In a world war scenario, Bitcoin would actually be more resilient than cash. Here's why:
1. Internet shutdown is unlikely. Even countries like Iran and China, despite heavy restrictions, haven't managed to completely block crypto. The Bitcoin network can operate through satellite, radio signals, and mesh networks. I'd rather take those odds than hoping border guards don't find my cash.
2. Even if some countries block Bitcoin, others would embrace it. Look at El Salvador and the growing list of crypto-friendly nations. In a global conflict, neutral countries would likely maintain crypto infrastructure to profit from capital flows, just like Switzerland did with banking in WW2.
>To avoid the same bitcoins from being spent on the disconnected networks, even the country you fled to shuts down Bitcoin or otherwise forbids Bitcoin transactions.
This assumes perfect coordination between countries during a war, which is contradictory. If they're at war, they're literally not cooperating. Some would keep Bitcoin running just to undermine their enemies' capital controls.
Plus, your cash scenario has bigger problems:
- Physical cash gets destroyed, stolen, or lost during wartime chaos
- Cash needs to be physically smuggled across militarized borders
- Most countries would stop accepting foreign cash anyway
- Hyperinflation would make cash worthless (see Germany post-WW1)
The real black swan risk for Bitcoin isn't a world war - it's quantum computing or a critical protocol vulnerability. But that's a different debate. | ifuckedyourdaddytoo |
1ix0nvp | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwzrp2/cmv_zelensky_is_making_a_grave_mistake_saying_the/ | Dooraven | [
"frisbeescientist"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwzrp2/cmv_zelensky_is_making_a_grave_mistake_saying_the/mei79w4/ | 2,873,977 | CMV: Zelensky is making a grave mistake saying the 100 billion in aid is a grant and not a loan | FWIW, I think Trump's sellout to Russia is horrendous, and I generally don’t like this administration at all—check my posting history (sort by submissions and top all time). But I just read that Zelensky is out here saying that the aid the U.S. gave Ukraine was a grant and not a loan.
I think this is a huge mistake. Americans are already deeply divided on funding Ukraine, and he should be doing everything possible to keep the American public on his side. By insisting that the aid is a grant and not a loan, he’s actively alienating a big chunk of the people he desperately needs support from.
Whether we like it or not, a lot of Americans—especially on the right—see foreign aid as charity at best and a scam at worst. There’s a large faction that already thinks the U.S. is spending way too much money abroad while ignoring domestic issues. Zelensky saying, “Nope, this was a grant, not a loan,” is basically throwing fuel on that fire. It makes it *way* easier for opponents of Ukraine aid to argue that we’re just writing blank checks to another country with no expectation of anything in return.
Even if Zelensky doesn’t want to outright say Ukraine will pay it back, he should at least be framing it in a way that makes Americans feel like it’s an investment, not a giveaway. Saying something like, “We’ll remember this support for generations,” or “We’ll make sure Ukraine is a strong partner for the U.S. in the future” would go **so** much further than just flat-out rejecting the idea that this money comes with any strings.
It’s just bad PR. Even if he’s right technically, why say it out loud? The last thing he needs is to give the GOP and isolationists more ammo to turn public opinion against him. I want Ukraine to get all the help they need, but this kind of messaging is just **not** how you keep a divided public on your side. | True. To stay on topic for your CMV, I think the conclusion has to be that Zelensky has no good reason to acknowledge the grant as a loan. His best move is likely to hold firm, lean on European allies, and rely on optics and whatever sanity is left in the Pentagon's high command to persuade Trump not to do anything drastic.
Basically, my stance is that agreeing with Trump just leads to further outrageous demands. It's the same trap as ever - give Hitler Poland to appease him, give Putin Crimea because it's not worth escalating, now we're redefining military aid terms with Trump so he keeps playing nice. Either you completely fold and give him all your country's resources, or you have to make a stand somewhere. If you're making a stand, may as well do it based in reality: the money was a grant, not a loan, Ukraine doesn't owe the US 100 billion dollars. The end. | frisbeescientist | 1,740,398,920 | CMV: Zelensky is making a grave mistake saying the 100 billion in aid is a grant and not a loan | FWIW, I think Trump's sellout to Russia is horrendous, and I generally don’t like this administration at all—check my posting history (sort by submissions and top all time). But I just read that Zelensky is out here saying that the aid the U.S. gave Ukraine was a grant and not a loan.
I think this is a huge mistake. Americans are already deeply divided on funding Ukraine, and he should be doing everything possible to keep the American public on his side. By insisting that the aid is a grant and not a loan, he’s actively alienating a big chunk of the people he desperately needs support from.
Whether we like it or not, a lot of Americans—especially on the right—see foreign aid as charity at best and a scam at worst. There’s a large faction that already thinks the U.S. is spending way too much money abroad while ignoring domestic issues. Zelensky saying, “Nope, this was a grant, not a loan,” is basically throwing fuel on that fire. It makes it *way* easier for opponents of Ukraine aid to argue that we’re just writing blank checks to another country with no expectation of anything in return.
Even if Zelensky doesn’t want to outright say Ukraine will pay it back, he should at least be framing it in a way that makes Americans feel like it’s an investment, not a giveaway. Saying something like, “We’ll remember this support for generations,” or “We’ll make sure Ukraine is a strong partner for the U.S. in the future” would go **so** much further than just flat-out rejecting the idea that this money comes with any strings.
It’s just bad PR. Even if he’s right technically, why say it out loud? The last thing he needs is to give the GOP and isolationists more ammo to turn public opinion against him. I want Ukraine to get all the help they need, but this kind of messaging is just **not** how you keep a divided public on your side. | True. To stay on topic for your CMV, I think the conclusion has to be that Zelensky has no good reason to acknowledge the grant as a loan. His best move is likely to hold firm, lean on European allies, and rely on optics and whatever sanity is left in the Pentagon's high command to persuade Trump not to do anything drastic.
Basically, my stance is that agreeing with Trump just leads to further outrageous demands. It's the same trap as ever - give Hitler Poland to appease him, give Putin Crimea because it's not worth escalating, now we're redefining military aid terms with Trump so he keeps playing nice. Either you completely fold and give him all your country's resources, or you have to make a stand somewhere. If you're making a stand, may as well do it based in reality: the money was a grant, not a loan, Ukraine doesn't owe the US 100 billion dollars. The end. | Dooraven |
1ix3blr | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwz15x/cmv_the_political_situation_in_the_usa_is_the/ | Go_Improvement_4501 | [
"markusruscht"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwz15x/cmv_the_political_situation_in_the_usa_is_the/mei3v8w/ | 2,873,790 | CMV: the political situation in the USA is the greatest threat to the world right now | With the current events happening in US politics it is a real possibility that the coup could be successful and the US turns into a Nazi like dictatorship.
If that happens it's basically game over. A civil war between different states of the biggest nuclear power in the world happening? Chaos. Everything is possible then.
Or the dictatorship manages to keep the country from falling apart and stabilizes it's power? It's free for all then and both America and China would force their neighboring countries into submission one by one, avoiding the conflict as long as they can both extend there territories further. We end up in Orwellian dystopia then with the three biggest nuclear power factions USA, China and Russia ruling authoritarian style over their territories. | The real existential threats we face are far more immediate and concrete than hypothetical political scenarios. Climate change is already causing devastating impacts - just look at the unprecedented floods in Southeast Asia last month that displaced millions. Or the collapse of crucial fish populations affecting global food security.
Even if we focus purely on geopolitics, the US has robust democratic institutions that have survived multiple crises. The 2024 election showed this - despite all the drama, power transferred peacefully. The military and intelligence communities have repeatedly shown they won't support authoritarian moves.
Consider how regional conflicts pose much greater risks: ongoing tensions in the Taiwan Strait, or the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. These are active situations that could spiral into actual warfare, not theoretical civil wars.
Also, your China-US-Russia triumvirate scenario ignores the rising influence of the EU, India, and emerging powers in the Global South. The world is becoming more multipolar, not less. Even during the Cold War with just two superpowers, we didn't end up in an Orwellian dystopia.
I work in international development and I can tell you - the people I meet in developing nations are far more concerned about economic inequality, access to resources, and regional stability than US politics. Those are the real threats to global peace and prosperity. | markusruscht | 1,740,397,237 | CMV: the political situation in the USA is the greatest threat to the world right now | With the current events happening in US politics it is a real possibility that the coup could be successful and the US turns into a Nazi like dictatorship.
If that happens it's basically game over. A civil war between different states of the biggest nuclear power in the world happening? Chaos. Everything is possible then.
Or the dictatorship manages to keep the country from falling apart and stabilizes it's power? It's free for all then and both America and China would force their neighboring countries into submission one by one, avoiding the conflict as long as they can both extend there territories further. We end up in Orwellian dystopia then with the three biggest nuclear power factions USA, China and Russia ruling authoritarian style over their territories. | The real existential threats we face are far more immediate and concrete than hypothetical political scenarios. Climate change is already causing devastating impacts - just look at the unprecedented floods in Southeast Asia last month that displaced millions. Or the collapse of crucial fish populations affecting global food security.
Even if we focus purely on geopolitics, the US has robust democratic institutions that have survived multiple crises. The 2024 election showed this - despite all the drama, power transferred peacefully. The military and intelligence communities have repeatedly shown they won't support authoritarian moves.
Consider how regional conflicts pose much greater risks: ongoing tensions in the Taiwan Strait, or the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. These are active situations that could spiral into actual warfare, not theoretical civil wars.
Also, your China-US-Russia triumvirate scenario ignores the rising influence of the EU, India, and emerging powers in the Global South. The world is becoming more multipolar, not less. Even during the Cold War with just two superpowers, we didn't end up in an Orwellian dystopia.
I work in international development and I can tell you - the people I meet in developing nations are far more concerned about economic inequality, access to resources, and regional stability than US politics. Those are the real threats to global peace and prosperity. | Go_Improvement_4501 |
1ix526d | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix4mpm/cmv_the_new_snow_white_seems_like_lazy_diversity/ | Riddle-Maker | [
"L11mbm"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix4mpm/cmv_the_new_snow_white_seems_like_lazy_diversity/mej5xdh/ | 2,875,881 | CMV: The New Snow White Seems Like Lazy Diversity | I know that, depending on who you ask, this may seem like an opinion that a lot of other people share. I really do just want to hear other perspectives on this.
There has been a lot of talk about casting a non-white actress for the role of Snow White. Some people argue that it's unfair that Disney casts non-white actors in roles from European folklore, given that they (currently) would never do the reverse. They argue that they're making movies diverse just for the sake of diversity now, and the way I see it, I think Disney has gotten so lazy with its diversity that this is becoming a valid argument.
Obviously, giving space for non-white stories told from non-white perspectives is the best way to introduce diversity. However, there have been plenty of better ways to have diversity using historically white source material.
I grew up reading comics, and a lot of the time they'd have non-white characters with the same superpowers as, or sidekicking for, an established hero. They had their own backstory and could gain their own popularity (ex. Falcon now has his own movie).
It could also involve casting non-white actors as historically white people for thematic reasons. (ex. In the musical *Hamilton,* a theme is travelling to America for greater opportunity, which applies to wherever you're from).
I'm sure there are others too, but I don't see one that applies here.
Looking at the trailer, the new *Snow White* just seems to be more or less the same story that Disney already told. They also chose the one fairytale where the argument " the story doesn't specify that the character ISN'T white" doesn't apply. The feeling is compounded if you see Disney is doing live-action remakes of their movies as a cash-grab. It just feels like they're adding diversity to get people to talk about the movie.
Personally, I don't necessarily care if the movie exists. It's not like they're going to delete the original. However, I do care that a potential cash-grab movie could hurt other, better expressions of diverse stories. | I don't disagree with the broad criticism of the title literally referencing Snow White having snow-white skin, but I'll offer 2 counterpoints.
1 - you haven't actually seen the movie so you can't claim it's lazy/bad/etc just yet
2 - Rachel Zeigler is a ridiculously talented actress who can sing and act circles around most actors her age, so the casting might not make sense for the centuries-old fictional children's fairy tale BUT casting her for her talent is a very smart decision because of the quality of performance she could give
Did you see The Little Mermaid? Halle Bailey KILLED it in that movie and may have been the best part. Overall it was good not great but she was perfect. | L11mbm | 1,740,411,418 | CMV: The New Snow White Seems Like Lazy Diversity | I know that, depending on who you ask, this may seem like an opinion that a lot of other people share. I really do just want to hear other perspectives on this.
There has been a lot of talk about casting a non-white actress for the role of Snow White. Some people argue that it's unfair that Disney casts non-white actors in roles from European folklore, given that they (currently) would never do the reverse. They argue that they're making movies diverse just for the sake of diversity now, and the way I see it, I think Disney has gotten so lazy with its diversity that this is becoming a valid argument.
Obviously, giving space for non-white stories told from non-white perspectives is the best way to introduce diversity. However, there have been plenty of better ways to have diversity using historically white source material.
I grew up reading comics, and a lot of the time they'd have non-white characters with the same superpowers as, or sidekicking for, an established hero. They had their own backstory and could gain their own popularity (ex. Falcon now has his own movie).
It could also involve casting non-white actors as historically white people for thematic reasons. (ex. In the musical *Hamilton,* a theme is travelling to America for greater opportunity, which applies to wherever you're from).
I'm sure there are others too, but I don't see one that applies here.
Looking at the trailer, the new *Snow White* just seems to be more or less the same story that Disney already told. They also chose the one fairytale where the argument " the story doesn't specify that the character ISN'T white" doesn't apply. The feeling is compounded if you see Disney is doing live-action remakes of their movies as a cash-grab. It just feels like they're adding diversity to get people to talk about the movie.
Personally, I don't necessarily care if the movie exists. It's not like they're going to delete the original. However, I do care that a potential cash-grab movie could hurt other, better expressions of diverse stories. | I don't disagree with the broad criticism of the title literally referencing Snow White having snow-white skin, but I'll offer 2 counterpoints.
1 - you haven't actually seen the movie so you can't claim it's lazy/bad/etc just yet
2 - Rachel Zeigler is a ridiculously talented actress who can sing and act circles around most actors her age, so the casting might not make sense for the centuries-old fictional children's fairy tale BUT casting her for her talent is a very smart decision because of the quality of performance she could give
Did you see The Little Mermaid? Halle Bailey KILLED it in that movie and may have been the best part. Overall it was good not great but she was perfect. | Riddle-Maker |
1ix5ne2 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix2g4q/cmv_i_dislike_the_us_because_of_its_war_mongering/ | swamperogre2 | [
"g_g0987"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix2g4q/cmv_i_dislike_the_us_because_of_its_war_mongering/meir1w8/ | 2,875,060 | CMV: I dislike the US because of it's war mongering | Basically part 2 to a series of CMVs to try and change each aspect of my views to why I hate the US and Americans in general... Here's [part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/ONS87vcUXM)
One of the reasons why I genuinely hate the US is war mongering
Back when I was around the age of 14 or 15 and my young dumb naive self saw the US as this amazing nation, something felt off to me that I couldn’t explain. It was how the US was committing all of these wars, getting away with it and still being seen as the good guys? Then as I got older, I realised something… The US is a nation of war-mongers, hell the US is short of invading my face with how oily it gets.
The US goes into so many countries, fucks shit up, leaves and does fuck all to restore stability to the region that they fucked up.
**Guatemala, 1954:**
The CIA set up a coup to kick out the democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz because he started land reforms that were a threat to the interests of U.S. fruit companies.
**Vietnam, 1965:**
This one is pretty easy actually…
- Vietnam gained its independence from France.
- The US got mad because they didn’t like how Vietnam became a communist nation.
- The US backed the Diem regime in South Vietnam, despite the South Vietnamese not wanting it.
- The US forbade South Vietnam from reuniting with the north but South Vietnam said fuck you to the US and did it anyway.
- The US got mad and used the Gulf of Tolkin incident as a reason to invade Vietnam in the hopes of spreading their *“Freedom!”*
- Basically the US gets their ass kicked
- Can’t take the loss (Typical American Ego)
- Commits chemical warfare (Agent Orange)
- Commits the Mai Lai massacre and a list of war crimes big enough, it could fill the entire bible.
- The US finally accepts that they’ve lost and calls off the war whilst still to this day trying to pass it off as if they were the good guys in this situation.
**Chile, 1973:**
The U.S. helped overthrow President Salvador Allende, a Marxist who nationalised industries and was seen as a threat to American businesses.
This kicked off General Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship, which was filled with tons of human rights abuses.
**Iraq 2003:**
Let’s be honest, this was an oil war. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a war for oil.
- The Bush administration claimed that
- Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but yet somehow, nowhere the WMDs were nowhere to be found.
- Dick Cheney’s links to Halliburton and his take on Iraq as a possible oil source make it pretty clear that oil was a big reason behind the war.
- General John Abizaid admitted that oil was a key factor in military actions during the Iraq War.
- Before the invasion, Western oil companies and U.S. officials had big plans to access Iraq's oil reserves, hinting at economic interests before the war.
- After the invasion, American oil companies jumped on contracts in Iraq's oil sector, often putting foreign interests ahead of what the locals actually needed.
- Getting rid of Saddam Hussein made it easier to control Iraqi oil resources, which had been held back by sanctions before the war.
- Getting hold of Iraqi oil was seen as a way to help stabilize global markets and balance out other unfriendly countries with a lot of energy resources.
- During this time, the US also set up a load of prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and essentially tortured mostly innocents, because nothing spells “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Justice” like torturing innocents.
**Libya, 2011:**
This perfectly summarises how if a country doesn’t let the U.S. have its own way, it will make sure the guts of that country’s citizens will be splayed.
- Gaddafi wanted to create a gold-backed currency called the "gold dinar" to help African countries trade with each other and cut down on their reliance on the U.S. dollar.
- Gaddafi's proposal to switch oil sales from dollars to gold threatened the petrodollar system, potentially harming U.S. economic interests.
- The USA’s military action in Libya was called a *"humanitarian mission"*, but it was pretty much about keeping control over global energy supplies.
- Past leaders who went against the dollar got hit hard, which shows that Gaddafi’s money policies were viewed as a threat by the US.
**Israel-Palestine:**
Now I’m gonna be honest, I’ll admit that I’m biased as I lean towards the Palestine side in this situation. But come on, you can’t tell me that the US isn’t in it because they want more control over the middle east.
- The U.S. gives significant military aid to Israel, leading to a power imbalance and supporting aggressive actions against the Palestinians.
- The U.S. often uses its veto power at the UN to stop resolutions that help aid a two state solution or punish Israel for human rights abuses, which lets Israel keep expanding its settlements.
- In 2017, the U.S. recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, supporting Israel on a sensitive issue and hindering peace efforts between the two nations.
- The U.S. has not tried to facilitate peace talks between Israel and Palestine and favours Israeli interests in its plans.
- The U.S. wants to stay influential in the Middle East because it's strategically important and has a ton of energy resources.
- The U.S. backs Israel as an important ally to deal with regimes that don’t kiss its ass and keep influence in the region.
- The U.S. supports Israel to keep a favourable balance of power.
- Access to Middle Eastern oil is vital for global energy routes and economic stability, which is why the U.S. benefits significantly from oil revenue.
**The Trump Administration:**
Okay, you've seen the news, let's just list out the offenses...
- Threatening to invade Greenland
- Threatening to invade Canada
- Threatening to level Gaza
- Threatening to invade Ukraine and aid Russia
- Propping up the far right in other countries to allow for human rights violations by Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg.
- Threatening to allow Russia to invade Europe if we don't submit to US interests.
**"BuT tHaT dOeSn'T mEaN tHe PeOpLe ArE bAd!"**
- Bush won by popular vote in 2004 despite evidence he was a war monger.
- Trump won by popular vote in 2024 despite openly stating his intentions.
- Americans literally true a tantrum because France refused to take part in the war.
**Conclusion:**
The U.S. is a nation of war mongers who will invade any country who doesn’t give them oil or their way and will rain down fire and brimstone if necessary to achieve their goals.
What's even more annoying about it is rich snotty brats from the US will lecture countries in Europe about their imperialistic past when the US is still doing it today. At least Europe (Balkans excluded) has moved on from it but yet the US still commits it constantly and brats from shithole universities like Berkeley and Yale get to lecture the rest of the world on morality.
It's one of the big reasons why I hate the US and Americans in general.
Change my view, I guess...
| Then let’s assume you’re genuine:
NATO adviced the US to help unseat Gaddafi. [Cato Institute](https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-nato-pushed-us-libya-fiasco)
If you can hate the US for the sole reason of war mongering, you would agree you then would hate all countries that have a history of doing the same correct?
If so, id argue that you don’t hate the US for war mongering, you hate war mongering nations and the US is just an example you used. Therefore you can’t “only hate the us because of its warmongering past” because that would assume you can like other countries *despite* their past. | g_g0987 | 1,740,406,677 | CMV: I dislike the US because of it's war mongering | Basically part 2 to a series of CMVs to try and change each aspect of my views to why I hate the US and Americans in general... Here's [part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/ONS87vcUXM)
One of the reasons why I genuinely hate the US is war mongering
Back when I was around the age of 14 or 15 and my young dumb naive self saw the US as this amazing nation, something felt off to me that I couldn’t explain. It was how the US was committing all of these wars, getting away with it and still being seen as the good guys? Then as I got older, I realised something… The US is a nation of war-mongers, hell the US is short of invading my face with how oily it gets.
The US goes into so many countries, fucks shit up, leaves and does fuck all to restore stability to the region that they fucked up.
**Guatemala, 1954:**
The CIA set up a coup to kick out the democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz because he started land reforms that were a threat to the interests of U.S. fruit companies.
**Vietnam, 1965:**
This one is pretty easy actually…
- Vietnam gained its independence from France.
- The US got mad because they didn’t like how Vietnam became a communist nation.
- The US backed the Diem regime in South Vietnam, despite the South Vietnamese not wanting it.
- The US forbade South Vietnam from reuniting with the north but South Vietnam said fuck you to the US and did it anyway.
- The US got mad and used the Gulf of Tolkin incident as a reason to invade Vietnam in the hopes of spreading their *“Freedom!”*
- Basically the US gets their ass kicked
- Can’t take the loss (Typical American Ego)
- Commits chemical warfare (Agent Orange)
- Commits the Mai Lai massacre and a list of war crimes big enough, it could fill the entire bible.
- The US finally accepts that they’ve lost and calls off the war whilst still to this day trying to pass it off as if they were the good guys in this situation.
**Chile, 1973:**
The U.S. helped overthrow President Salvador Allende, a Marxist who nationalised industries and was seen as a threat to American businesses.
This kicked off General Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship, which was filled with tons of human rights abuses.
**Iraq 2003:**
Let’s be honest, this was an oil war. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a war for oil.
- The Bush administration claimed that
- Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but yet somehow, nowhere the WMDs were nowhere to be found.
- Dick Cheney’s links to Halliburton and his take on Iraq as a possible oil source make it pretty clear that oil was a big reason behind the war.
- General John Abizaid admitted that oil was a key factor in military actions during the Iraq War.
- Before the invasion, Western oil companies and U.S. officials had big plans to access Iraq's oil reserves, hinting at economic interests before the war.
- After the invasion, American oil companies jumped on contracts in Iraq's oil sector, often putting foreign interests ahead of what the locals actually needed.
- Getting rid of Saddam Hussein made it easier to control Iraqi oil resources, which had been held back by sanctions before the war.
- Getting hold of Iraqi oil was seen as a way to help stabilize global markets and balance out other unfriendly countries with a lot of energy resources.
- During this time, the US also set up a load of prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and essentially tortured mostly innocents, because nothing spells “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Justice” like torturing innocents.
**Libya, 2011:**
This perfectly summarises how if a country doesn’t let the U.S. have its own way, it will make sure the guts of that country’s citizens will be splayed.
- Gaddafi wanted to create a gold-backed currency called the "gold dinar" to help African countries trade with each other and cut down on their reliance on the U.S. dollar.
- Gaddafi's proposal to switch oil sales from dollars to gold threatened the petrodollar system, potentially harming U.S. economic interests.
- The USA’s military action in Libya was called a *"humanitarian mission"*, but it was pretty much about keeping control over global energy supplies.
- Past leaders who went against the dollar got hit hard, which shows that Gaddafi’s money policies were viewed as a threat by the US.
**Israel-Palestine:**
Now I’m gonna be honest, I’ll admit that I’m biased as I lean towards the Palestine side in this situation. But come on, you can’t tell me that the US isn’t in it because they want more control over the middle east.
- The U.S. gives significant military aid to Israel, leading to a power imbalance and supporting aggressive actions against the Palestinians.
- The U.S. often uses its veto power at the UN to stop resolutions that help aid a two state solution or punish Israel for human rights abuses, which lets Israel keep expanding its settlements.
- In 2017, the U.S. recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, supporting Israel on a sensitive issue and hindering peace efforts between the two nations.
- The U.S. has not tried to facilitate peace talks between Israel and Palestine and favours Israeli interests in its plans.
- The U.S. wants to stay influential in the Middle East because it's strategically important and has a ton of energy resources.
- The U.S. backs Israel as an important ally to deal with regimes that don’t kiss its ass and keep influence in the region.
- The U.S. supports Israel to keep a favourable balance of power.
- Access to Middle Eastern oil is vital for global energy routes and economic stability, which is why the U.S. benefits significantly from oil revenue.
**The Trump Administration:**
Okay, you've seen the news, let's just list out the offenses...
- Threatening to invade Greenland
- Threatening to invade Canada
- Threatening to level Gaza
- Threatening to invade Ukraine and aid Russia
- Propping up the far right in other countries to allow for human rights violations by Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg.
- Threatening to allow Russia to invade Europe if we don't submit to US interests.
**"BuT tHaT dOeSn'T mEaN tHe PeOpLe ArE bAd!"**
- Bush won by popular vote in 2004 despite evidence he was a war monger.
- Trump won by popular vote in 2024 despite openly stating his intentions.
- Americans literally true a tantrum because France refused to take part in the war.
**Conclusion:**
The U.S. is a nation of war mongers who will invade any country who doesn’t give them oil or their way and will rain down fire and brimstone if necessary to achieve their goals.
What's even more annoying about it is rich snotty brats from the US will lecture countries in Europe about their imperialistic past when the US is still doing it today. At least Europe (Balkans excluded) has moved on from it but yet the US still commits it constantly and brats from shithole universities like Berkeley and Yale get to lecture the rest of the world on morality.
It's one of the big reasons why I hate the US and Americans in general.
Change my view, I guess...
| Then let’s assume you’re genuine:
NATO adviced the US to help unseat Gaddafi. [Cato Institute](https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-nato-pushed-us-libya-fiasco)
If you can hate the US for the sole reason of war mongering, you would agree you then would hate all countries that have a history of doing the same correct?
If so, id argue that you don’t hate the US for war mongering, you hate war mongering nations and the US is just an example you used. Therefore you can’t “only hate the us because of its warmongering past” because that would assume you can like other countries *despite* their past. | swamperogre2 |
1ix63sl | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix4gq3/cmv_debating_luckiest_man_to_ever_live_my_vote/ | original_og_gangster | [
"p0tat0p0tat0"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix4gq3/cmv_debating_luckiest_man_to_ever_live_my_vote/mejb289/ | 2,876,109 | CMV: Debating luckiest man to ever live. My vote- Hernán Cortés | This is a post where I am aiming to debate who could be perceived as the "luckiest" person to ever live. By lucky, I mean someone who finds themselves in an incredibly opportune situation due predominantly to good luck.
I believe that Hernán Cortéz is the luckiest man to ever live. Not the smartest, not even necessarily the most successful, just the luckiest. Here you have a man who was sent out to conquer lands for the Spaniards. With nonexistent military experience and an army of 500-600 men, he went on conquer one of the largest cities in the world at that time, Tenochtitlán (now known as Mexico City, 200,000 population at that time). This would have been like conquering Paris, Venice, or Constantinople at that time.
This was possible because he was revered as a god or an emissary of gods by the locals at his time, who had prophecies of pale-skinned gods coming from the ocean on dragons to claim their land (they had interpreted his horses to be the dragons). He was lavished in gold and treasures from the onset by people who worshipped him and encouraged him to continue his campaign through their lands.
Many of those who did oppose him likewise believed in superstitions of their own. In the final Aztec battle, they attempted to summon an owl god to defeat the conquistadors, though they were wary that it would kill everyone on both sides of the conflict. To do this, they dressed a dude up as an owl, got him hyped up on drugs, and sent him out to battle with a dart gun. He was unsuccessful in repelling the conquistadors.
So in Cortéz, you have basically some random explorer coming upon possibly the largest city in the world at the time, lavish in gold, but technologically behind by a thousand years, and likewise wrought in superstitions that just so happened to specifically benefit him, who went on to have basically the most outlandishly successful military campaign in history, defeating a major empire with 1/1000th of the manpower.
I am looking for stories of other people who were even luckier than he was. | [Here’s](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/EaLxnFvTIZ) an AskHistorians post | p0tat0p0tat0 | 1,740,412,933 | CMV: Debating luckiest man to ever live. My vote- Hernán Cortés | This is a post where I am aiming to debate who could be perceived as the "luckiest" person to ever live. By lucky, I mean someone who finds themselves in an incredibly opportune situation due predominantly to good luck.
I believe that Hernán Cortéz is the luckiest man to ever live. Not the smartest, not even necessarily the most successful, just the luckiest. Here you have a man who was sent out to conquer lands for the Spaniards. With nonexistent military experience and an army of 500-600 men, he went on conquer one of the largest cities in the world at that time, Tenochtitlán (now known as Mexico City, 200,000 population at that time). This would have been like conquering Paris, Venice, or Constantinople at that time.
This was possible because he was revered as a god or an emissary of gods by the locals at his time, who had prophecies of pale-skinned gods coming from the ocean on dragons to claim their land (they had interpreted his horses to be the dragons). He was lavished in gold and treasures from the onset by people who worshipped him and encouraged him to continue his campaign through their lands.
Many of those who did oppose him likewise believed in superstitions of their own. In the final Aztec battle, they attempted to summon an owl god to defeat the conquistadors, though they were wary that it would kill everyone on both sides of the conflict. To do this, they dressed a dude up as an owl, got him hyped up on drugs, and sent him out to battle with a dart gun. He was unsuccessful in repelling the conquistadors.
So in Cortéz, you have basically some random explorer coming upon possibly the largest city in the world at the time, lavish in gold, but technologically behind by a thousand years, and likewise wrought in superstitions that just so happened to specifically benefit him, who went on to have basically the most outlandishly successful military campaign in history, defeating a major empire with 1/1000th of the manpower.
I am looking for stories of other people who were even luckier than he was. | [Here’s](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/EaLxnFvTIZ) an AskHistorians post | original_og_gangster |
1ix6skz | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix2egw/cmv_billionaires_and_their_ilk_hate_spending/ | JurassicDragon | [
"Top_Present_5825"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix2egw/cmv_billionaires_and_their_ilk_hate_spending/mejdz27/ | 2,876,242 | Cmv: Billionaires and their ilk hate spending money, so you need to MAKE them spend it in anyway you can think of to fight them. | Their weapon is also their weakness. A gun is only as dangerous as long as it has ammo. Money is both the gun and the ammo. So make them waste ammo on chaff they cannot help but take shots at, especially if they're threatening to do just thst regardless. You ever heard them say that "they will spend X to primary people that try to run against them?" Make em spend it. If you win, great. If you lose, they still spent however many millions it took to do it. Any extra maintenance, repainting, hiring/re-hiring or whatever you can think of in your tiny Sphere of influence comes closer to a death of a thousand cuts. Unless you want to them to do what they were going to do anyway with the budget THEY WOULD PREFER to work with. | If billionaires “hate spending money” so much, yet they willingly pour millions into elections, lobbying, corporate acquisitions, and legal battles without hesitation, then why do you believe that forcing them to spend even more will somehow cripple them instead of just being an insignificant line item on their financial statements?
If money is both their weapon and their ammo, as you say, what makes you think they aren’t already factoring in these expenditures as mere operational costs, rather than actual strategic losses?
And if your entire argument hinges on “making them spend,” while they simultaneously hold the ability to outspend you indefinitely, then aren’t you advocating for a tactic that ensures they always dictate the terms of engagement while you exhaust yourself for minimal returns?
So tell me, if your strategy ultimately forces them to do exactly what they were already prepared to do - while you burn through limited resources for psychological satisfaction - how does that qualify as a victory rather than a distraction they anticipated and neutralized before you even started? | Top_Present_5825 | 1,740,413,793 | Cmv: Billionaires and their ilk hate spending money, so you need to MAKE them spend it in anyway you can think of to fight them. | Their weapon is also their weakness. A gun is only as dangerous as long as it has ammo. Money is both the gun and the ammo. So make them waste ammo on chaff they cannot help but take shots at, especially if they're threatening to do just thst regardless. You ever heard them say that "they will spend X to primary people that try to run against them?" Make em spend it. If you win, great. If you lose, they still spent however many millions it took to do it. Any extra maintenance, repainting, hiring/re-hiring or whatever you can think of in your tiny Sphere of influence comes closer to a death of a thousand cuts. Unless you want to them to do what they were going to do anyway with the budget THEY WOULD PREFER to work with. | If billionaires “hate spending money” so much, yet they willingly pour millions into elections, lobbying, corporate acquisitions, and legal battles without hesitation, then why do you believe that forcing them to spend even more will somehow cripple them instead of just being an insignificant line item on their financial statements?
If money is both their weapon and their ammo, as you say, what makes you think they aren’t already factoring in these expenditures as mere operational costs, rather than actual strategic losses?
And if your entire argument hinges on “making them spend,” while they simultaneously hold the ability to outspend you indefinitely, then aren’t you advocating for a tactic that ensures they always dictate the terms of engagement while you exhaust yourself for minimal returns?
So tell me, if your strategy ultimately forces them to do exactly what they were already prepared to do - while you burn through limited resources for psychological satisfaction - how does that qualify as a victory rather than a distraction they anticipated and neutralized before you even started? | JurassicDragon |
1ix9a9d | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix6zs0/cmv_blocking_streets_as_a_form_of_protest_today/ | Tengoatuzui | [
"Argikeraunos"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix6zs0/cmv_blocking_streets_as_a_form_of_protest_today/mejqile/ | 2,876,819 | CMV: Blocking streets as a form of protest today is an outdated and ineffective strategy | Specifically protests that are illegally blocking sidewalks or streets and purposely impeding traffic.
I see two reasons to have a protest.
1. Gain supporters to your cause. The bigger the voice the more noise you can make
Example: Vegan protest want to gain supporters to no longer eat meat and in turn save animal lives and have meat factories shut down due to no more or less meat consumers.
2. Get the attention of those in power (CEO, Politician) to change their minds and implement a change
Example: Workers of a company strike to protest unfair labour practices. They stop working to get the CEO attention and to cause them to lose revenue in hopes a negotiation can be reached to return to agreeable working conditions.
If your protest does not aim to achieve either one or both above reasons then it was an ineffective protest.
Blocking streets only upsets people who will be reluctant to join the cause. Minimal people will join a cause that inconvenienced them in this day. People getting blocked may also have nothing to do with your cause. You may also be blocking people in the middle and just turned away that person.
Blocking streets does not ensure the people in power even sees the protest. And even if they do, it didn’t affect them so they have no reason to make changes. The protests are typically a one day event so even if you manage to block employees for one day the damages are minimal and not enough to warrant change. And you may not even be blocking enough of a companies employees.
Therefore standing in the street blocking traffic is an ineffective way to get your message across, gain supporters or change minds. You also need to accept the legal consequences of your actions making it even more ineffective.
Instead having a protest in a public space not purposely impeding traffic while having open discussions is a better approach. You can address individual people’s queries and possibly gain supporters and once enough the change you want. There are better ways to spread a message. | There is a difference between a protest, which has the aims that you have described, and a demonstration, which is a show of force. A protest says "we have these demands, address them!" A demonstration says "address our demands *or else!*" Blocking a road is a sign that a group or a population is committed to disrupting the functioning of the economy or of society in such a way that it makes the ruling class incapable of moving forward or governing in the way it wants to.
Granted, road blocking is often ineffective because these demonstrations are not as well organized or coordinated as they are in countries like France where powerful labor unions and political parties are still capable (though less so than in the past) to bring people out into the streets. But it is a tactic that a democratic polity needs to be willing to undertake in moments of real necessity. | Argikeraunos | 1,740,417,331 | CMV: Blocking streets as a form of protest today is an outdated and ineffective strategy | Specifically protests that are illegally blocking sidewalks or streets and purposely impeding traffic.
I see two reasons to have a protest.
1. Gain supporters to your cause. The bigger the voice the more noise you can make
Example: Vegan protest want to gain supporters to no longer eat meat and in turn save animal lives and have meat factories shut down due to no more or less meat consumers.
2. Get the attention of those in power (CEO, Politician) to change their minds and implement a change
Example: Workers of a company strike to protest unfair labour practices. They stop working to get the CEO attention and to cause them to lose revenue in hopes a negotiation can be reached to return to agreeable working conditions.
If your protest does not aim to achieve either one or both above reasons then it was an ineffective protest.
Blocking streets only upsets people who will be reluctant to join the cause. Minimal people will join a cause that inconvenienced them in this day. People getting blocked may also have nothing to do with your cause. You may also be blocking people in the middle and just turned away that person.
Blocking streets does not ensure the people in power even sees the protest. And even if they do, it didn’t affect them so they have no reason to make changes. The protests are typically a one day event so even if you manage to block employees for one day the damages are minimal and not enough to warrant change. And you may not even be blocking enough of a companies employees.
Therefore standing in the street blocking traffic is an ineffective way to get your message across, gain supporters or change minds. You also need to accept the legal consequences of your actions making it even more ineffective.
Instead having a protest in a public space not purposely impeding traffic while having open discussions is a better approach. You can address individual people’s queries and possibly gain supporters and once enough the change you want. There are better ways to spread a message. | There is a difference between a protest, which has the aims that you have described, and a demonstration, which is a show of force. A protest says "we have these demands, address them!" A demonstration says "address our demands *or else!*" Blocking a road is a sign that a group or a population is committed to disrupting the functioning of the economy or of society in such a way that it makes the ruling class incapable of moving forward or governing in the way it wants to.
Granted, road blocking is often ineffective because these demonstrations are not as well organized or coordinated as they are in countries like France where powerful labor unions and political parties are still capable (though less so than in the past) to bring people out into the streets. But it is a tactic that a democratic polity needs to be willing to undertake in moments of real necessity. | Tengoatuzui |
1ixadow | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix9by1/cmv_democrats_need_to_do_more_to_reach_out_to/ | Funny-Puzzleheaded | [
"YouJustNeurotic"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix9by1/cmv_democrats_need_to_do_more_to_reach_out_to/mekgsla/ | 2,878,579 | CMV: Democrats need to do more to reach out to Silicon Valley and Pharma | The current rightward shift in silicon valley risks leaving the Democrats as the anti technology party.
As of now most of the leaders in these industries are still democratic leaning and very progressive but there seems to be no effort by any politicians to harness these beliefs against the increasingly loud and growing right wing in tech.
The optics issues are obvious but high end pharmaceutical development, large tech companies with physical and software manufacturing, and wealthy people who do those things aren't going away in the future.
Someone in the democratic party needs to lay out a pro technology way forward or they risk further polarizing tech people into thinking its better to be a republican | The Democrat Party has previously overstepped in the Silicon Valley, supposedly pressuring companies into propaganda. The Silicon Valley is very progressive in a true sense, the Left needs to rebuild trust before they can reclaim tech. | YouJustNeurotic | 1,740,424,719 | CMV: Democrats need to do more to reach out to Silicon Valley and Pharma | The current rightward shift in silicon valley risks leaving the Democrats as the anti technology party.
As of now most of the leaders in these industries are still democratic leaning and very progressive but there seems to be no effort by any politicians to harness these beliefs against the increasingly loud and growing right wing in tech.
The optics issues are obvious but high end pharmaceutical development, large tech companies with physical and software manufacturing, and wealthy people who do those things aren't going away in the future.
Someone in the democratic party needs to lay out a pro technology way forward or they risk further polarizing tech people into thinking its better to be a republican | The Democrat Party has previously overstepped in the Silicon Valley, supposedly pressuring companies into propaganda. The Silicon Valley is very progressive in a true sense, the Left needs to rebuild trust before they can reclaim tech. | Funny-Puzzleheaded |
1ixcijh | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix9laf/cmv_joe_biden_and_the_dncs_decision_to_nullify/ | maybemorningstar69 | [
"DetailHour4884"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix9laf/cmv_joe_biden_and_the_dncs_decision_to_nullify/mekpt88/ | 2,879,267 | CMV: Joe Biden and the DNC's decision to nullify the NH primary and push the Iowa caucus was anti-democratic | Given the fact that the 2024 Democratic primaries were essentially all nullified after Biden dropped out in July, what happened to the schedule is definitely something that's been forgotten to a degree. People who criticize the nomination process criticize the fact that Harris was nominated without the mini-primary that was discussed, not that the initial schedule was changed, but I would argue that what happened to the schedule was worse than the lack of a mini-primary.
Essentially what happened was that Iowa and New Hampshire (states in which Biden got 4th and 5th place in respectively) had their contests delayed to push South Carolina (Biden's first 2020 victory) all the way in front of the line. It was argued by the DNC that this was done to promote diversity, but it's obvious that given the results this was done to give Biden an easier path to the nomination amid age concerns and fracturing support from both the far left and the center on both sides of him.
What's worse is that when the New Hampshire primary was "postponed", the DNC had to have known that the state would not agree to actually postpone it and that they'd then get an excuse to void all of the state's delegates and to replace them with hand-picked ones. New Hampshire primaries are run by the state government, and the state government at that time was Republican. The New Hampshire state constitution also requires that the state holds the first in the nation primary, so what incentive at all would a Republican state administration have to violate their own constitution to appease the DNC? None obviously, so the DNC warped the schedule to give Biden an easier path to the nomination knowing that it would deprive New Hampshire of an actual primary.
A common argument is that primaries aren't required to be democratic, and that is true, before 1972 they really weren't even binding. The problem with that argument is that Biden ran on a campaign that leaned heavily into broader notions of democracy and that he was fighting the "antithesis to democracy" (Trump), but he himself was unwilling to accept the standard primary schedule, instead warping it to his own benefit in an unprecedented way.
My view is not necessarily that the primary schedule we've had previously should be the standard forever, states like Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a "right" to be first in my opinion, but Biden and the DNC warped the schedule to push them down the line right after his campaign failed miserably in both states, and they pushed his first victory (and arguably the state that saved his campaign) right to the front, and this was done while Biden's main campaigning point was that he'd preserve democracy. The primary system isn't perfect, but what Biden and the DNC did was completely undemocratic and a stain on our nation's democracy. | I would argue it's not a completely different can of worms because the fact that you don't get a say in the candidates being voted on unless you pick a team is in its essence undemocratic. Which goes back to my initial point that almost all primaries are undemocratic. | DetailHour4884 | 1,740,427,251 | CMV: Joe Biden and the DNC's decision to nullify the NH primary and push the Iowa caucus was anti-democratic | Given the fact that the 2024 Democratic primaries were essentially all nullified after Biden dropped out in July, what happened to the schedule is definitely something that's been forgotten to a degree. People who criticize the nomination process criticize the fact that Harris was nominated without the mini-primary that was discussed, not that the initial schedule was changed, but I would argue that what happened to the schedule was worse than the lack of a mini-primary.
Essentially what happened was that Iowa and New Hampshire (states in which Biden got 4th and 5th place in respectively) had their contests delayed to push South Carolina (Biden's first 2020 victory) all the way in front of the line. It was argued by the DNC that this was done to promote diversity, but it's obvious that given the results this was done to give Biden an easier path to the nomination amid age concerns and fracturing support from both the far left and the center on both sides of him.
What's worse is that when the New Hampshire primary was "postponed", the DNC had to have known that the state would not agree to actually postpone it and that they'd then get an excuse to void all of the state's delegates and to replace them with hand-picked ones. New Hampshire primaries are run by the state government, and the state government at that time was Republican. The New Hampshire state constitution also requires that the state holds the first in the nation primary, so what incentive at all would a Republican state administration have to violate their own constitution to appease the DNC? None obviously, so the DNC warped the schedule to give Biden an easier path to the nomination knowing that it would deprive New Hampshire of an actual primary.
A common argument is that primaries aren't required to be democratic, and that is true, before 1972 they really weren't even binding. The problem with that argument is that Biden ran on a campaign that leaned heavily into broader notions of democracy and that he was fighting the "antithesis to democracy" (Trump), but he himself was unwilling to accept the standard primary schedule, instead warping it to his own benefit in an unprecedented way.
My view is not necessarily that the primary schedule we've had previously should be the standard forever, states like Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a "right" to be first in my opinion, but Biden and the DNC warped the schedule to push them down the line right after his campaign failed miserably in both states, and they pushed his first victory (and arguably the state that saved his campaign) right to the front, and this was done while Biden's main campaigning point was that he'd preserve democracy. The primary system isn't perfect, but what Biden and the DNC did was completely undemocratic and a stain on our nation's democracy. | I would argue it's not a completely different can of worms because the fact that you don't get a say in the candidates being voted on unless you pick a team is in its essence undemocratic. Which goes back to my initial point that almost all primaries are undemocratic. | maybemorningstar69 |
1ixflak | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixepaw/cmv_luigi_mangione_is_guilty_and_should_be/ | WoodenTower | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixepaw/cmv_luigi_mangione_is_guilty_and_should_be/meln4uh/ | 2,882,478 | CMV: Luigi Mangione is guilty and should be convicted of the crime of terrorism. | In the United States of America, "the victim deserved it" is not a defense to any crime. Criminal activity is always defined objectively by state or federal statutes in such a way that any given course of conduct can definitively be said to be illegal or not illegal.
NY State law defines terrorism as follows:
"A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense."
In this case, Luigi Mangione committed the crime of murder with the intent to intimidate a civilian population (Healthcare companies) into changing their policies. Whether or not these companies should change their policies isn't relevant to the illegality of killing somebody in order to coerce them into doing so.
I think it should be clear why his actions should fall under this umbrella, both descriptive and normativelly. If, through jury nullification or by some other means, Mangione isn't punished for this, it sends a clear message that extrajudicial vigilante murder is acceptable as long as the victim "deserved it." Imagine the ramifications of this: this way of thinking is exactly what led to the acquittals of members of racially charged lynch mobs. The American people and government should make it clear that killings like this are terrorism and not welcome in this country, else we risk inviting our very own 'years of lead.'
This conduct and the rationale which justifies it have no place in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. It is terrorism and the perpetrators of it should be convicted and punished accordingly.
Edit: this is all assuming that Luigi Mangione is in fact the person who shot the UHC CEO. If he isn't, my view still applies to whoever is. | Your argument is well-structured and rooted in a legal interpretation of terrorism statutes, but I think there are a few angles worth considering that might shift your perspective. The key issue here is *intent*—while Mangione (assuming he is the shooter) undoubtedly committed a serious crime, proving that his *primary* motive was to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" rather than personal vengeance, mental instability, or another reason is crucial for a terrorism charge to stick. Courts generally interpret terrorism statutes with a very high bar for intent, requiring a clear political or ideological goal beyond just anger or personal grievance.
Additionally, comparing this case to racially charged lynchings may not be the best analogy. Lynching was systematic, community-sanctioned violence meant to enforce racial hierarchy, often with government complicity. A lone gunman targeting a specific corporate executive—regardless of how reprehensible his actions may be—does not necessarily fall into the same category of organized terror designed to oppress an entire group.
Finally, while the justice system should not tolerate vigilante violence, overuse of terrorism charges could set a dangerous precedent. If any politically motivated act of violence is deemed terrorism, we risk applying the label too broadly, potentially undermining civil liberties. The courts must carefully distinguish between *criminal murder* and *terrorism* to ensure the law remains just and proportional. Mangione should absolutely be tried and convicted for his crimes, but whether terrorism is the right charge is debatable. | lowkeylye | 1,740,436,649 | CMV: Luigi Mangione is guilty and should be convicted of the crime of terrorism. | In the United States of America, "the victim deserved it" is not a defense to any crime. Criminal activity is always defined objectively by state or federal statutes in such a way that any given course of conduct can definitively be said to be illegal or not illegal.
NY State law defines terrorism as follows:
"A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense."
In this case, Luigi Mangione committed the crime of murder with the intent to intimidate a civilian population (Healthcare companies) into changing their policies. Whether or not these companies should change their policies isn't relevant to the illegality of killing somebody in order to coerce them into doing so.
I think it should be clear why his actions should fall under this umbrella, both descriptive and normativelly. If, through jury nullification or by some other means, Mangione isn't punished for this, it sends a clear message that extrajudicial vigilante murder is acceptable as long as the victim "deserved it." Imagine the ramifications of this: this way of thinking is exactly what led to the acquittals of members of racially charged lynch mobs. The American people and government should make it clear that killings like this are terrorism and not welcome in this country, else we risk inviting our very own 'years of lead.'
This conduct and the rationale which justifies it have no place in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. It is terrorism and the perpetrators of it should be convicted and punished accordingly.
Edit: this is all assuming that Luigi Mangione is in fact the person who shot the UHC CEO. If he isn't, my view still applies to whoever is. | Your argument is well-structured and rooted in a legal interpretation of terrorism statutes, but I think there are a few angles worth considering that might shift your perspective. The key issue here is *intent*—while Mangione (assuming he is the shooter) undoubtedly committed a serious crime, proving that his *primary* motive was to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" rather than personal vengeance, mental instability, or another reason is crucial for a terrorism charge to stick. Courts generally interpret terrorism statutes with a very high bar for intent, requiring a clear political or ideological goal beyond just anger or personal grievance.
Additionally, comparing this case to racially charged lynchings may not be the best analogy. Lynching was systematic, community-sanctioned violence meant to enforce racial hierarchy, often with government complicity. A lone gunman targeting a specific corporate executive—regardless of how reprehensible his actions may be—does not necessarily fall into the same category of organized terror designed to oppress an entire group.
Finally, while the justice system should not tolerate vigilante violence, overuse of terrorism charges could set a dangerous precedent. If any politically motivated act of violence is deemed terrorism, we risk applying the label too broadly, potentially undermining civil liberties. The courts must carefully distinguish between *criminal murder* and *terrorism* to ensure the law remains just and proportional. Mangione should absolutely be tried and convicted for his crimes, but whether terrorism is the right charge is debatable. | WoodenTower |
1ixflyp | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixarsy/cmv_usa_we_should_forcibly_put_homeless_people_in/ | Agreeable_Daikon8132 | [
"TabulaRasa85"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixarsy/cmv_usa_we_should_forcibly_put_homeless_people_in/mekqncg/ | 2,879,341 | cmv: (usa) we should forcibly put homeless people in labor camps | i live in a part of the usa that, in just the past five years, has seen drug use and homelessness increase dramatically. in my town, you are 10 times more likely to be a victim of property theft than you are in Detroit. at any time of the day, you can drive down the street and see hoards of homeless drug addicts slumped over, getting high, congregating at the bus stops.
i’m sick of it. our city has several homeless shelters, religious and non-religious, that homeless will refuse to use because they either a) don’t want to get sober or b) don’t want to give up their pet.
if they don’t want to accept help and they are a burden on the community, and they are an eyesore, why can’t we just round them up, convict them of homelessness (as it’s becoming more
popular to criminalize it) and send them to labor camps? then we wouldn’t have to see or hear their drug fueled antics, property crime would go down, and our community would be a safer place to be?
i get that “they’re people too” but if they refuse to play by the rules of society and take care of themselves, then they are comparable to a stray dog or a wandering zombie. i don’t care to help people who won’t help themselves.
am i making sweeping generalizations by classifying all homeless people as lazy drug addicts? yes. i acknowledge my flawed black-and-white thinking, but my feelings on this matter still stand. i look forward to discussing this subject. | If you have a systemic disease - let’s say a malignant cancer that has begun to spread- if the only approach you take is surgically removing the tumors, they are simple going to grow back and eventually kill you. You need to target the root of the disease.
If you want to solve homelessness you need to start at the source. Culling the homeless population does not solve the issue. More people are going to replace them eventually because of where we have landed with our vast economic and wealth disparities, and as a society with ever decreasing functional social supports in place that help people avoid falling below the poverty line poor people are at an ever increasing risk of falling through the cracks.
I really suggest you read Poverty by America by Matthew Desmond. Really insightful read about all the political, social, and economic changes that got us to where we are today as a society. It will really open your eyes to how systemically fucked our system is and how we allowed it to get here. | TabulaRasa85 | 1,740,427,490 | cmv: (usa) we should forcibly put homeless people in labor camps | i live in a part of the usa that, in just the past five years, has seen drug use and homelessness increase dramatically. in my town, you are 10 times more likely to be a victim of property theft than you are in Detroit. at any time of the day, you can drive down the street and see hoards of homeless drug addicts slumped over, getting high, congregating at the bus stops.
i’m sick of it. our city has several homeless shelters, religious and non-religious, that homeless will refuse to use because they either a) don’t want to get sober or b) don’t want to give up their pet.
if they don’t want to accept help and they are a burden on the community, and they are an eyesore, why can’t we just round them up, convict them of homelessness (as it’s becoming more
popular to criminalize it) and send them to labor camps? then we wouldn’t have to see or hear their drug fueled antics, property crime would go down, and our community would be a safer place to be?
i get that “they’re people too” but if they refuse to play by the rules of society and take care of themselves, then they are comparable to a stray dog or a wandering zombie. i don’t care to help people who won’t help themselves.
am i making sweeping generalizations by classifying all homeless people as lazy drug addicts? yes. i acknowledge my flawed black-and-white thinking, but my feelings on this matter still stand. i look forward to discussing this subject. | If you have a systemic disease - let’s say a malignant cancer that has begun to spread- if the only approach you take is surgically removing the tumors, they are simple going to grow back and eventually kill you. You need to target the root of the disease.
If you want to solve homelessness you need to start at the source. Culling the homeless population does not solve the issue. More people are going to replace them eventually because of where we have landed with our vast economic and wealth disparities, and as a society with ever decreasing functional social supports in place that help people avoid falling below the poverty line poor people are at an ever increasing risk of falling through the cracks.
I really suggest you read Poverty by America by Matthew Desmond. Really insightful read about all the political, social, and economic changes that got us to where we are today as a society. It will really open your eyes to how systemically fucked our system is and how we allowed it to get here. | Agreeable_Daikon8132 |
1ixg7yt | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwtph3/cmv_boomers_had_it_10x_easier_than_gen_z_and/ | ddsukituoft | [
"No_Slice_9560",
"wetcornbread"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwtph3/cmv_boomers_had_it_10x_easier_than_gen_z_and/megwdfq/ | 2,870,867 | CMV: Boomers had it 10x easier than Gen Z, and their 'hard work' advice is just gaslighting. Here's the math to prove it. | Let’s cut the nostalgia. My dad worked a summer job at a gas station in 1975 and paid for his entire college degree. I just graduated with $85k in debt, work two remote jobs, and can’t afford a studio apartment. But sure, tell me again how avocado toast is the problem.
Here’s why this isn’t a rant—it’s a revolt:
1. The Math (Sources: Fed/CNBC):
- 1975 minimum wage: $2.10/hr.
- Average college tuition: $2,400/year.
- Hours needed to pay tuition: 1,142 hours (≈ 6 months part-time).
- 2024 minimum wage: $7.25/hr.
- Average tuition: $38,000/year.
- Hours needed: 5,241 hours (≈ 2.5 years full-time).
- But wait! Adjusted for inflation, 1975 tuition = $14k today. We’re paying 270% more for the same degree.
2. The Gaslighting:
- “Just walk in and ask for a job!” → 1,000 applications, 3 interviews, 0 offers.
- "Save money!” → Rent is 60% of my income.
- “Work harder!” → I’m side-hustling on OnlyFans to afford insulin.
3. The Nuclear Take:
Boomers inherited a post-war economy on easy mode, pulled the ladder up, and now blame us for systemic collapse. Climate doom? Their fault. Unaffordable housing? Their policies. Wage stagnation? Their greed.
I’ll die on this hill. Change my view. | It’s not gaslighting. You’re just believing things you hear on cable news networks. Nobody genuinely believes avocado toast is the reason you’re broke.
You’re also stereotyping entire generations of people.
Your minimum wage argument implies that most states don’t have a higher minimum wage and that regardless of laws any job is currently paying $7.50. Walmart pays $15 now. Most jobs that pay you legally don’t pay minimum wage anymore.
Also baby boomers typically worked before they were 18 and most didn’t attend college straight out of high school. Many of them joined the military either voluntarily or via the draft.
Blaming the generation that walked to school more often, used recycled glass for milk, didn’t use single use plastic, rode bikes for 10 miles a day, for the climate crisis is also silly.
It wasn’t your dad’s choice to replace glass soda bottles with single use plastics.
Wage stagnation comes from billionaires and CEO’s. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and other CEOs are not baby boomers at all.
Yes specific baby boomers on Wall Street caused economic collapses.
Life is just different today than it was back then. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame the entire world’s problems on people just based on when they were born.
Many baby boomers were also protesting for civil rights on college campuses. My grandfather was a Vietnam veteran. And then came home and people called him terrible names. And then he drove trucks across the country missing time from his family for weeks at a time at some points.
Lots of them made sacrifices. That’s not to say they’re all good people either. But people can change. And there’s assholes in every single generation that ruin life for everyone else. In 50 years life will be totally different and our kids will think we’re douchebags who don’t understand how the world works. And that may or may not be true. | wetcornbread | 1,740,372,664 | CMV: Boomers had it 10x easier than Gen Z, and their 'hard work' advice is just gaslighting. Here's the math to prove it. | Let’s cut the nostalgia. My dad worked a summer job at a gas station in 1975 and paid for his entire college degree. I just graduated with $85k in debt, work two remote jobs, and can’t afford a studio apartment. But sure, tell me again how avocado toast is the problem.
Here’s why this isn’t a rant—it’s a revolt:
1. The Math (Sources: Fed/CNBC):
- 1975 minimum wage: $2.10/hr.
- Average college tuition: $2,400/year.
- Hours needed to pay tuition: 1,142 hours (≈ 6 months part-time).
- 2024 minimum wage: $7.25/hr.
- Average tuition: $38,000/year.
- Hours needed: 5,241 hours (≈ 2.5 years full-time).
- But wait! Adjusted for inflation, 1975 tuition = $14k today. We’re paying 270% more for the same degree.
2. The Gaslighting:
- “Just walk in and ask for a job!” → 1,000 applications, 3 interviews, 0 offers.
- "Save money!” → Rent is 60% of my income.
- “Work harder!” → I’m side-hustling on OnlyFans to afford insulin.
3. The Nuclear Take:
Boomers inherited a post-war economy on easy mode, pulled the ladder up, and now blame us for systemic collapse. Climate doom? Their fault. Unaffordable housing? Their policies. Wage stagnation? Their greed.
I’ll die on this hill. Change my view. | It’s not gaslighting. You’re just believing things you hear on cable news networks. Nobody genuinely believes avocado toast is the reason you’re broke.
You’re also stereotyping entire generations of people.
Your minimum wage argument implies that most states don’t have a higher minimum wage and that regardless of laws any job is currently paying $7.50. Walmart pays $15 now. Most jobs that pay you legally don’t pay minimum wage anymore.
Also baby boomers typically worked before they were 18 and most didn’t attend college straight out of high school. Many of them joined the military either voluntarily or via the draft.
Blaming the generation that walked to school more often, used recycled glass for milk, didn’t use single use plastic, rode bikes for 10 miles a day, for the climate crisis is also silly.
It wasn’t your dad’s choice to replace glass soda bottles with single use plastics.
Wage stagnation comes from billionaires and CEO’s. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and other CEOs are not baby boomers at all.
Yes specific baby boomers on Wall Street caused economic collapses.
Life is just different today than it was back then. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame the entire world’s problems on people just based on when they were born.
Many baby boomers were also protesting for civil rights on college campuses. My grandfather was a Vietnam veteran. And then came home and people called him terrible names. And then he drove trucks across the country missing time from his family for weeks at a time at some points.
Lots of them made sacrifices. That’s not to say they’re all good people either. But people can change. And there’s assholes in every single generation that ruin life for everyone else. In 50 years life will be totally different and our kids will think we’re douchebags who don’t understand how the world works. And that may or may not be true. | ddsukituoft |
1ixgakj | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwd4zf/cmv_nintendo_has_become_a_more_anticonsumer/ | siemvela | [
"letsgucker555"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwd4zf/cmv_nintendo_has_become_a_more_anticonsumer/meegcwn/ | 2,867,136 | CMV: Nintendo has become a more anti-consumer company than before. | This is not a nostalgic post.
As a fan since 2013, when I had my first Nintendo console, I feel that everything has changed too much for the worse.
Don't get me wrong: Nintendo has always had its flaws, but...
Back then, the Eshop worked without lag, it didn't host so many trash games, and the background music really encouraged you to stay. Today, the Eshop is not well maintained; it's simply laggy menus that host multiple trash games and some good indie titles that are worth it. Is this Nintendo's seal of quality now? Yes, there were always bad games, like Superman 64, but nowadays there are too many...
Back then, there were Selects, and Nintendo has done nothing like that in the Switch generation. All games at 60 euros, 40 in some exceptional cases, even if you wait 8 years! Even Breath of the Wild is still at the same price!
Back then, Nintendo didn't just create consoles; they created multimedia centers. Today, they only do the bare minimum. And if you install homebrew to make up for it (and I'm not talking about pirated games; I'm talking about homebrew in the ethical sense) and to be able to customize the menus, you risk being banned from online servers, something that was much less common with the 3DS and Wii U.
Back then, Nintendo released ports and remakes, yes, but not as many as now, where when a new game is announced, you first have to check if it's really a new game. It's disgusting to see how they have released Country Returns for the third time at a starting price of 60 euros, when on 3DS and Wii it could be found for 20-25 euros sealed when it joined Selects, and knowing that it will probably not drop in price.
Paid online service to get NOTHING except cloud saving, which was also free on 3DS. And the excuse they give is 8 and 16-bit games, which I find laughable in 2025, when those games are accessible by all kinds of unofficial means while Nintendo still doesn't give us an official way to play many games (Pokemon Emerald, for example).
So... does anyone see a good side to the current Nintendo? I'm seriously considering that if this is the path they're going to follow, Switch 2 will be the last Nintendo console I buy. As of today, I am actively playing Pokemon Pinball and Fire Emblem 7, two Game Boy Advance games, and I still have Pokemon Emerald from Game Boy Advance, Pokemon Gold from Nintendo DS (a well-made remake of Game Boy Color) and Pokemon Diamond, as well as replaying Pokemon Black. I simply feel insulted that I enjoy more the games I am currently playing actively (when I had never played them before) and that I feel more love in them than in any current game. | >Miiverse, PictoChat
I can tell you why these were discontinued. Because sadly, when therecis something nice, asshats have to come and ruin it for everyone. Not even talking about the PDFs using it for... you get the point.
And secondly, it is also something, which would help built communities, which sadly are in no way beneficial to Nintendo. Not only can they become the sole reason you shouldn't play the game because of toxicity, they are also keeping a game alive, which is bad for Nintendo, if they want to get you to buy the next game release and don't want any other game to muddle up the marketing. | letsgucker555 | 1,740,342,623 | CMV: Nintendo has become a more anti-consumer company than before. | This is not a nostalgic post.
As a fan since 2013, when I had my first Nintendo console, I feel that everything has changed too much for the worse.
Don't get me wrong: Nintendo has always had its flaws, but...
Back then, the Eshop worked without lag, it didn't host so many trash games, and the background music really encouraged you to stay. Today, the Eshop is not well maintained; it's simply laggy menus that host multiple trash games and some good indie titles that are worth it. Is this Nintendo's seal of quality now? Yes, there were always bad games, like Superman 64, but nowadays there are too many...
Back then, there were Selects, and Nintendo has done nothing like that in the Switch generation. All games at 60 euros, 40 in some exceptional cases, even if you wait 8 years! Even Breath of the Wild is still at the same price!
Back then, Nintendo didn't just create consoles; they created multimedia centers. Today, they only do the bare minimum. And if you install homebrew to make up for it (and I'm not talking about pirated games; I'm talking about homebrew in the ethical sense) and to be able to customize the menus, you risk being banned from online servers, something that was much less common with the 3DS and Wii U.
Back then, Nintendo released ports and remakes, yes, but not as many as now, where when a new game is announced, you first have to check if it's really a new game. It's disgusting to see how they have released Country Returns for the third time at a starting price of 60 euros, when on 3DS and Wii it could be found for 20-25 euros sealed when it joined Selects, and knowing that it will probably not drop in price.
Paid online service to get NOTHING except cloud saving, which was also free on 3DS. And the excuse they give is 8 and 16-bit games, which I find laughable in 2025, when those games are accessible by all kinds of unofficial means while Nintendo still doesn't give us an official way to play many games (Pokemon Emerald, for example).
So... does anyone see a good side to the current Nintendo? I'm seriously considering that if this is the path they're going to follow, Switch 2 will be the last Nintendo console I buy. As of today, I am actively playing Pokemon Pinball and Fire Emblem 7, two Game Boy Advance games, and I still have Pokemon Emerald from Game Boy Advance, Pokemon Gold from Nintendo DS (a well-made remake of Game Boy Color) and Pokemon Diamond, as well as replaying Pokemon Black. I simply feel insulted that I enjoy more the games I am currently playing actively (when I had never played them before) and that I feel more love in them than in any current game. | >Miiverse, PictoChat
I can tell you why these were discontinued. Because sadly, when therecis something nice, asshats have to come and ruin it for everyone. Not even talking about the PDFs using it for... you get the point.
And secondly, it is also something, which would help built communities, which sadly are in no way beneficial to Nintendo. Not only can they become the sole reason you shouldn't play the game because of toxicity, they are also keeping a game alive, which is bad for Nintendo, if they want to get you to buy the next game release and don't want any other game to muddle up the marketing. | siemvela |
1ixjtre | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixj0yv/cmv_europe_has_not_adequately_taken/ | colepercy120 | [
"XenoRyet"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixj0yv/cmv_europe_has_not_adequately_taken/memphfn/ | 2,884,052 | Cmv: Europe has not adequately taken responsibility for colonialism and imperialism | 100 years ago was the absolute height of European colonial empires. With 84% of earths landmass being held by colonial empires. The estimates I can find for death tolls are 56 million in the americas, 100 million in India, and literally untold millions dead in Africa because Europeans didn't bother to write it down. But low estimates put down 8 million in the Congo alone. Thousands of stolen artifacts fill European museum. And European colonies still dot the world.
Even today the only country has given reparations for these crimes has been germany. Giving a measly 1 billon euros for the Namibian genocide. Europeans still hold major sway over Africa and Asia. With France controlling the finances of 210 million Africans in 14 nations with the CFA. European nations haven't even issued national apologies for these crimes yet. (Besides again germany)
If the nations who plunged the world into the two bloodiest wars in human history, raped and pillaged across 84% of the world's surface, and killed a sizeable percentage of the world's population. (90% depopulation of the americas, 50% in parts of africa) want respect. they need to do better. Instead they lecture their colonies on how to act, regularly invade and occupy territories, (Turkish invasions in the middle east, France in west africa, britian and France in egypt), and biuld the entire world government around maintaining their power over the rest of the planet. A majority of un security Council permanent seats are European, 4 of the 6 official languages are European. (God forbid Europeans have to learn Chinese, let them use one of their own languages instead), and groups like the imf restrict European investment to nations that play by their rules.
The continent of Europe has done nothing to convince the rest of the world that If they were great powers again it wouldn't be like last time. They need to do so before anyone outside of the continent will treat their resurgence as anything other then a grave threat to their independence.
| That's fair, I'm not against a negotiation for a fair price here, but that's a far different view from what you described in the post I responded to.
And to go a bit further, not every affected nation would even want or benefit from their colonizers just pulling out. Not to put too fine a point on it, but any one person speaking for all of them as a group is suffering from the same hubris that fueled colonization in the first place.
The individual nations should individually decide what the right approach for them is. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution here. | XenoRyet | 1,740,448,943 | Cmv: Europe has not adequately taken responsibility for colonialism and imperialism | 100 years ago was the absolute height of European colonial empires. With 84% of earths landmass being held by colonial empires. The estimates I can find for death tolls are 56 million in the americas, 100 million in India, and literally untold millions dead in Africa because Europeans didn't bother to write it down. But low estimates put down 8 million in the Congo alone. Thousands of stolen artifacts fill European museum. And European colonies still dot the world.
Even today the only country has given reparations for these crimes has been germany. Giving a measly 1 billon euros for the Namibian genocide. Europeans still hold major sway over Africa and Asia. With France controlling the finances of 210 million Africans in 14 nations with the CFA. European nations haven't even issued national apologies for these crimes yet. (Besides again germany)
If the nations who plunged the world into the two bloodiest wars in human history, raped and pillaged across 84% of the world's surface, and killed a sizeable percentage of the world's population. (90% depopulation of the americas, 50% in parts of africa) want respect. they need to do better. Instead they lecture their colonies on how to act, regularly invade and occupy territories, (Turkish invasions in the middle east, France in west africa, britian and France in egypt), and biuld the entire world government around maintaining their power over the rest of the planet. A majority of un security Council permanent seats are European, 4 of the 6 official languages are European. (God forbid Europeans have to learn Chinese, let them use one of their own languages instead), and groups like the imf restrict European investment to nations that play by their rules.
The continent of Europe has done nothing to convince the rest of the world that If they were great powers again it wouldn't be like last time. They need to do so before anyone outside of the continent will treat their resurgence as anything other then a grave threat to their independence.
| That's fair, I'm not against a negotiation for a fair price here, but that's a far different view from what you described in the post I responded to.
And to go a bit further, not every affected nation would even want or benefit from their colonizers just pulling out. Not to put too fine a point on it, but any one person speaking for all of them as a group is suffering from the same hubris that fueled colonization in the first place.
The individual nations should individually decide what the right approach for them is. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution here. | colepercy120 |
1ixoma0 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixnhrg/cmv_the_biggest_obstacle_to_feminism_especially/ | Scary-Ad-1345 | [
"Opposite_Attorney122"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixnhrg/cmv_the_biggest_obstacle_to_feminism_especially/menrx8d/ | 2,885,379 | CMV: The Biggest Obstacle to Feminism (Especially White Feminism) is White Women | Feminism in the U.S. has always had the numbers, influence, and potential power to drive sweeping societal change. Women make up roughly half the population, and white women, in particular, hold significant social, economic, and political influence. Yet, the biggest obstacle to feminist progress isn’t white men it’s the internal division among women, particularly the tendency of white women to undermine feminist movements through conflicting priorities, complacency, and conservative voting patterns.
If we look at major feminist struggles, from suffrage to reproductive rights to workplace equity, the biggest roadblock hasn’t been just “the patriarchy” in a vague sense it’s been white women failing to align with the movement in a meaningful way. For example:
Suffrage Movement: Early white feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton openly distanced themselves from Black women and even opposed the 15th Amendment, prioritizing white women’s rights over broader equality.
Reproductive Rights: The landmark Roe v. Wade decision benefited all women, yet a significant percentage of white women have consistently supported anti-choice policies and candidates.
Voting Trends: White women have repeatedly voted for candidates and policies that roll back feminist gains. The most glaring example is that 55% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, despite his overt misogyny. This pattern isn’t new it was white women who largely enabled conservative, anti-feminist movements throughout American history.
This isn’t to say that all white women are anti-feminist. But the reality is that feminism, particularly white feminism, has often prioritized the concerns of middle-to-upper-class white women while disregarding or actively excluding women of color, working-class women, and LGBTQ+ voices. This fractures the movement and allows external opposition to thrive.
At the end of the day, white men can only do so much to limit feminist progress without significant support from women themselves. If white women voted, organized, and advocated in solidarity with the broader feminist movement rather than fragmenting it, many of the systemic barriers feminism fights against would be significantly weaker. | Okay so you're correctly describing white feminism and the issues with it, but you take it a step too far when you're saying that white feminism is a bigger impediment to feminism than the patriarchy itself. White feminism is an issue, to be clear, but it is not the biggest impediment to the success of feminism. The rest of my post will be talking about that, but I'm making clear that even though my post is saying "white feminism isn't the biggest issue here" doesn't mean it isn't an issue, at all.
You mention a belief that white men can only do so much to limit feminist progress, but don't really substantiate that. Feminist progress would require changes in laws and business practices, that are overwhelmingly controlled by white men. Even to this day, white women are dramatically underrepresented in positions of leadership in the economy and in the government. Even if every single woman in congress right now were a white woman, white women would still be under represented in congress. Only 27% of this congress are women, and white women make up 30-34% of the population. Top business leadership, where the info is public, is similarly is around 27-30% female, counting women of all races.
The decisions we are talking about here that impact women are still not being made by women. Women don't even make up a third of the room, although for the first time ever we make up a quarter of it. This is patriarchy. This is the biggest impediment to progress. No amount of infighting among women or solidarity among women will be the biggest driver when 7 in 10 people making decisions about our lives are men.
You list some examples you feel demonstrate this point, mentioning the women's suffrage movement, but it was exclusively male politicians who got the say on whether or not to adopt the 19th. Susan was racist, but her not being racist would not have seen a more inclusive version of the 19th get passed, nor would it have seen the 19th as it was written get passed any faster.
The Roe in the Roe v. Wade case was a white woman, and the people who had previously made abortion illegal were all men. The impediment to the instantiation of reproductive rights was the patriarchy, and I don't have any faith that we would have seen something akin to Roe happen any sooner had there been a more inclusive movement for reproductive rights prior to 1972.
Meanwhile Dobbs v. Jackson is clearly ruled on patriarchal grounds. The percentage of white women who oppose abortion is a clear minority. And in fact, no racial/gender group in the US by majority would like to see abortion made illegal. It has even been the case that about 20 years ago Black people were less likely than white people to support abortion, but that has now narrowly flipped.
Without getting into a discussion on exit polling and the flaws with discussing it in this manner, there is a majority of white women broadly who have voted for Trump. These women aren't feminists, however, and are not practicing white feminism in any form. Those women who are feminists fall into the transgender, lesbian, bisexual, younger, college educated white women sub groups that overwhelmingly voted against trump.
Regardless your conclusion is that these women are somehow more responsible for the failures of feminism than the systemic oppression of women (patriarchy) itself, or of white men who voted even more overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. So I think this argument proves the opposite of your point that white women/feminism are the \*biggest\* reason for failures of feminism to progress.
I don't think you're saying that all white women are all anti-feminist or anything like that, I just don't see how you've substantiated the claim that white women are more responsible for failures of feminism than the systemic oppression of women itself or men or even specifically white men. Men have never needed the support of women to stand in the way of feminist progress. I do not know why you would suggest that.
White feminism is also a problem, but it isn't the single biggest impediment to feminism. | Opposite_Attorney122 | 1,740,464,177 | CMV: The Biggest Obstacle to Feminism (Especially White Feminism) is White Women | Feminism in the U.S. has always had the numbers, influence, and potential power to drive sweeping societal change. Women make up roughly half the population, and white women, in particular, hold significant social, economic, and political influence. Yet, the biggest obstacle to feminist progress isn’t white men it’s the internal division among women, particularly the tendency of white women to undermine feminist movements through conflicting priorities, complacency, and conservative voting patterns.
If we look at major feminist struggles, from suffrage to reproductive rights to workplace equity, the biggest roadblock hasn’t been just “the patriarchy” in a vague sense it’s been white women failing to align with the movement in a meaningful way. For example:
Suffrage Movement: Early white feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton openly distanced themselves from Black women and even opposed the 15th Amendment, prioritizing white women’s rights over broader equality.
Reproductive Rights: The landmark Roe v. Wade decision benefited all women, yet a significant percentage of white women have consistently supported anti-choice policies and candidates.
Voting Trends: White women have repeatedly voted for candidates and policies that roll back feminist gains. The most glaring example is that 55% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, despite his overt misogyny. This pattern isn’t new it was white women who largely enabled conservative, anti-feminist movements throughout American history.
This isn’t to say that all white women are anti-feminist. But the reality is that feminism, particularly white feminism, has often prioritized the concerns of middle-to-upper-class white women while disregarding or actively excluding women of color, working-class women, and LGBTQ+ voices. This fractures the movement and allows external opposition to thrive.
At the end of the day, white men can only do so much to limit feminist progress without significant support from women themselves. If white women voted, organized, and advocated in solidarity with the broader feminist movement rather than fragmenting it, many of the systemic barriers feminism fights against would be significantly weaker. | Okay so you're correctly describing white feminism and the issues with it, but you take it a step too far when you're saying that white feminism is a bigger impediment to feminism than the patriarchy itself. White feminism is an issue, to be clear, but it is not the biggest impediment to the success of feminism. The rest of my post will be talking about that, but I'm making clear that even though my post is saying "white feminism isn't the biggest issue here" doesn't mean it isn't an issue, at all.
You mention a belief that white men can only do so much to limit feminist progress, but don't really substantiate that. Feminist progress would require changes in laws and business practices, that are overwhelmingly controlled by white men. Even to this day, white women are dramatically underrepresented in positions of leadership in the economy and in the government. Even if every single woman in congress right now were a white woman, white women would still be under represented in congress. Only 27% of this congress are women, and white women make up 30-34% of the population. Top business leadership, where the info is public, is similarly is around 27-30% female, counting women of all races.
The decisions we are talking about here that impact women are still not being made by women. Women don't even make up a third of the room, although for the first time ever we make up a quarter of it. This is patriarchy. This is the biggest impediment to progress. No amount of infighting among women or solidarity among women will be the biggest driver when 7 in 10 people making decisions about our lives are men.
You list some examples you feel demonstrate this point, mentioning the women's suffrage movement, but it was exclusively male politicians who got the say on whether or not to adopt the 19th. Susan was racist, but her not being racist would not have seen a more inclusive version of the 19th get passed, nor would it have seen the 19th as it was written get passed any faster.
The Roe in the Roe v. Wade case was a white woman, and the people who had previously made abortion illegal were all men. The impediment to the instantiation of reproductive rights was the patriarchy, and I don't have any faith that we would have seen something akin to Roe happen any sooner had there been a more inclusive movement for reproductive rights prior to 1972.
Meanwhile Dobbs v. Jackson is clearly ruled on patriarchal grounds. The percentage of white women who oppose abortion is a clear minority. And in fact, no racial/gender group in the US by majority would like to see abortion made illegal. It has even been the case that about 20 years ago Black people were less likely than white people to support abortion, but that has now narrowly flipped.
Without getting into a discussion on exit polling and the flaws with discussing it in this manner, there is a majority of white women broadly who have voted for Trump. These women aren't feminists, however, and are not practicing white feminism in any form. Those women who are feminists fall into the transgender, lesbian, bisexual, younger, college educated white women sub groups that overwhelmingly voted against trump.
Regardless your conclusion is that these women are somehow more responsible for the failures of feminism than the systemic oppression of women (patriarchy) itself, or of white men who voted even more overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. So I think this argument proves the opposite of your point that white women/feminism are the \*biggest\* reason for failures of feminism to progress.
I don't think you're saying that all white women are all anti-feminist or anything like that, I just don't see how you've substantiated the claim that white women are more responsible for failures of feminism than the systemic oppression of women itself or men or even specifically white men. Men have never needed the support of women to stand in the way of feminist progress. I do not know why you would suggest that.
White feminism is also a problem, but it isn't the single biggest impediment to feminism. | Scary-Ad-1345 |
1ixut8j | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixc1r3/cmv_rconservative_is_the_most_uptight/ | Forsaken-Feeling3481 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixc1r3/cmv_rconservative_is_the_most_uptight/mel7eni/ | 2,881,016 | CMV: r/conservative is the most uptight, exclusionary, thin-skinned, insecure subreddit on this site, on top of defending outright fascism. | r/Conservative heavily restricts discussion by requiring users to have a "flair" to participate, which effectively silences dissenting views. Even conservatives who criticize Trump or express moderate views are often labeled as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and pushed out.
Looking at the posts on the subreddit, almost every discussion is locked behind "Flaired Users Only," which means only approved conservatives can participate. This creates an echo chamber where any challenge to the dominant narrative is shut down. If a subreddit is truly about discussion and debate, why prevent outsiders or even conservatives with differing views from participating?
Additionally, I’ve seen cases where users are banned simply for expressing liberal views or even for offering constructive criticism. This level of gatekeeping seems to indicate insecurity—why not allow open discourse if their ideas are strong enough to hold up against scrutiny? | https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/g153EfXY9F
It was a few months ago, which is why it wasn't up at the top.
Like I said, a bit sarcastic (which is just how I am), but I don't believe that violates any rules:
1. No complaining: If this counts as a complaint, then any critique of a comic is a complaint. I was merely correcting the original comic.
2. Don't attack artists: This is not an attack.
3. No Drama or Trolling: I suppose you could make this out to be "drama," but it's not for drama's sake, as the rule implies. And if they banned me for trolling, then they banned me unfairly, because I genuinely wasn't trying to troll. But the fact that they banned first, asked questions later means they aren't actually trying to determine if its a troll.
The rest of the rules very obviously don't apply and are more so to do with actual posts in the sub | Delta889_ | 1,740,432,170 | CMV: r/conservative is the most uptight, exclusionary, thin-skinned, insecure subreddit on this site, on top of defending outright fascism. | r/Conservative heavily restricts discussion by requiring users to have a "flair" to participate, which effectively silences dissenting views. Even conservatives who criticize Trump or express moderate views are often labeled as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and pushed out.
Looking at the posts on the subreddit, almost every discussion is locked behind "Flaired Users Only," which means only approved conservatives can participate. This creates an echo chamber where any challenge to the dominant narrative is shut down. If a subreddit is truly about discussion and debate, why prevent outsiders or even conservatives with differing views from participating?
Additionally, I’ve seen cases where users are banned simply for expressing liberal views or even for offering constructive criticism. This level of gatekeeping seems to indicate insecurity—why not allow open discourse if their ideas are strong enough to hold up against scrutiny? | https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/g153EfXY9F
It was a few months ago, which is why it wasn't up at the top.
Like I said, a bit sarcastic (which is just how I am), but I don't believe that violates any rules:
1. No complaining: If this counts as a complaint, then any critique of a comic is a complaint. I was merely correcting the original comic.
2. Don't attack artists: This is not an attack.
3. No Drama or Trolling: I suppose you could make this out to be "drama," but it's not for drama's sake, as the rule implies. And if they banned me for trolling, then they banned me unfairly, because I genuinely wasn't trying to troll. But the fact that they banned first, asked questions later means they aren't actually trying to determine if its a troll.
The rest of the rules very obviously don't apply and are more so to do with actual posts in the sub | Forsaken-Feeling3481 |
1ixv0i7 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixtpv0/cmv_video_games_arent_a_very_good_medium_for/ | Deep_Engineer_208 | [
"CathanCrowell"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixtpv0/cmv_video_games_arent_a_very_good_medium_for/meowqpy/ | 2,886,645 | Cmv: Video Games aren't a very good medium for storytelling. | I say this as someone who loves games. What I mean by this is that in most games that are heralded for their storytelling. the story is mostly conveyed either through cut scenes or dialogue layered on top of the gameplay. The actual gameplay itself, what makes a game a game, doesn't really do much to advance the story in any game I've ever played. The best you can say about it is that is that it immerses you into a world.
But still, I always feel the plot driving elements of a game, and the gameplay are separate, never well integrated elements.
I'm very willing to hear about any examples of games that could be exceptions to this. | Many people will recommend games where storytelling and gameplay are amazingly intertwined. However, I’d like to go closer to the roots.
The reason why video games are such an amazing storytelling medium is that you are always part of the story.
When you watch a movie or read a book, you’re following the adventures of other people. You can be incredibly invested—no question about that—but in video games, you are part of the world. You are the character in the story, and that makes your investment even deeper.
The story of Mass Effect would never work as a movie or a book because your connection to the world, characters, and story comes from the fact that you are Commander Shepard. | CathanCrowell | 1,740,487,064 | Cmv: Video Games aren't a very good medium for storytelling. | I say this as someone who loves games. What I mean by this is that in most games that are heralded for their storytelling. the story is mostly conveyed either through cut scenes or dialogue layered on top of the gameplay. The actual gameplay itself, what makes a game a game, doesn't really do much to advance the story in any game I've ever played. The best you can say about it is that is that it immerses you into a world.
But still, I always feel the plot driving elements of a game, and the gameplay are separate, never well integrated elements.
I'm very willing to hear about any examples of games that could be exceptions to this. | Many people will recommend games where storytelling and gameplay are amazingly intertwined. However, I’d like to go closer to the roots.
The reason why video games are such an amazing storytelling medium is that you are always part of the story.
When you watch a movie or read a book, you’re following the adventures of other people. You can be incredibly invested—no question about that—but in video games, you are part of the world. You are the character in the story, and that makes your investment even deeper.
The story of Mass Effect would never work as a movie or a book because your connection to the world, characters, and story comes from the fact that you are Commander Shepard. | Deep_Engineer_208 |
1ixv6vm | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixt1at/cmv_microsoft_services_are_bad/ | Duck_General | [
"Mighty_McBosh"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixt1at/cmv_microsoft_services_are_bad/meowpwk/ | 2,886,643 | CMV: Microsoft services are bad | I don't think this is a controversial take. Most of the internet doesn't seem to like Microsoft's software, whether it's Windows, Word, OneDrive, Excel, etc. It's not just that the software is viewed as objectively bad, but there are plenty of other reasons that lead people to have this perspective, as I do. For example, people don't trust Microsoft regarding privacy, and also doubt their innovativeness. I mean, the somewhat under-the-radar show 'Space Force' has perhaps its most famous line, "F\*CK MICROSOFT," that circulates as a meme presenting the seemed general consensus on Microsoft's services.
Personally, I use Windows because of gaming and some specialty software, and sometimes OneDrive services because I have to, so generally I do think that Microsoft's ad-bloated software is bad... BUT, am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing? I'm a university student at the moment, so perhaps I'm not seeing where Microsoft excels (pun intended), in the corporate world. To me the ads, the privacy issues, the bugs, heavy and cumbersome etc. just make this megacorporation look almost amateurish compared to alternatives, which is why I prefer Google's services and others (which often have issues as well, just not as bad).
SO, can you change my view? | I do think Windows is hot garbage and has been since 7.
However, the rest of their products run from begrudgingly ok to actually really fucking great. A huge chunk of their products offerings are for developing software. As a software engineer I use a ton of Microsoft products regularly and these are my thoughts.
- Office: While it's fun to make fun of word and excel because they don't seem to work well, they're actually absurdly powerful and just have a fairly steep learning curve. Imagine someone saying Dark Souls is a bad game because they never take the time to learn to play it. Once you learn how to use them properly, like any piece of software, and try to use a competitor like Google's suite or LibreOffice it will be clear just how good these products are, Excel especially. After using Excel a A TON for data processing at work and school I can't function without it, and no one's competing product is even close. Most of the other applications in the Office suite are similar, even some of the lesser used ones like Vizio, PowerBI, Access, etc. The only office product I think isn't good is Teams. It's ok, but Slack is a million times better, and it has some very specific quirks that drive me up a fucking wall.
- Azure is superb and I think is Microsoft's biggest product. No notes.
- Their Agile project management system and code repository management is on par with Atalassian. I've used both and like both for different reasons, but it's not miles ahead like Office is.
- Visual studio isn't my favorite, but VSCode is fucking fantastic. Runs on anything, the extension system is second to none, their dev container and workspace management is intuitive and it just works. I do not have enough good things to say about VSCode.
- .NET is a pretty spectacular platform that is criminally underrated and underutilized. Microsoft didn't technically come up with this, but they've owned and managed it for decades.
On the gaming side, the Xbox app is annoying but game pass is fucking sweet, I love how cross play with my buddies on XBox just kind of works, their Private Division label is actually putting out good games by passionate developers. There's a lot to like there, too. | Mighty_McBosh | 1,740,487,054 | CMV: Microsoft services are bad | I don't think this is a controversial take. Most of the internet doesn't seem to like Microsoft's software, whether it's Windows, Word, OneDrive, Excel, etc. It's not just that the software is viewed as objectively bad, but there are plenty of other reasons that lead people to have this perspective, as I do. For example, people don't trust Microsoft regarding privacy, and also doubt their innovativeness. I mean, the somewhat under-the-radar show 'Space Force' has perhaps its most famous line, "F\*CK MICROSOFT," that circulates as a meme presenting the seemed general consensus on Microsoft's services.
Personally, I use Windows because of gaming and some specialty software, and sometimes OneDrive services because I have to, so generally I do think that Microsoft's ad-bloated software is bad... BUT, am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing? I'm a university student at the moment, so perhaps I'm not seeing where Microsoft excels (pun intended), in the corporate world. To me the ads, the privacy issues, the bugs, heavy and cumbersome etc. just make this megacorporation look almost amateurish compared to alternatives, which is why I prefer Google's services and others (which often have issues as well, just not as bad).
SO, can you change my view? | I do think Windows is hot garbage and has been since 7.
However, the rest of their products run from begrudgingly ok to actually really fucking great. A huge chunk of their products offerings are for developing software. As a software engineer I use a ton of Microsoft products regularly and these are my thoughts.
- Office: While it's fun to make fun of word and excel because they don't seem to work well, they're actually absurdly powerful and just have a fairly steep learning curve. Imagine someone saying Dark Souls is a bad game because they never take the time to learn to play it. Once you learn how to use them properly, like any piece of software, and try to use a competitor like Google's suite or LibreOffice it will be clear just how good these products are, Excel especially. After using Excel a A TON for data processing at work and school I can't function without it, and no one's competing product is even close. Most of the other applications in the Office suite are similar, even some of the lesser used ones like Vizio, PowerBI, Access, etc. The only office product I think isn't good is Teams. It's ok, but Slack is a million times better, and it has some very specific quirks that drive me up a fucking wall.
- Azure is superb and I think is Microsoft's biggest product. No notes.
- Their Agile project management system and code repository management is on par with Atalassian. I've used both and like both for different reasons, but it's not miles ahead like Office is.
- Visual studio isn't my favorite, but VSCode is fucking fantastic. Runs on anything, the extension system is second to none, their dev container and workspace management is intuitive and it just works. I do not have enough good things to say about VSCode.
- .NET is a pretty spectacular platform that is criminally underrated and underutilized. Microsoft didn't technically come up with this, but they've owned and managed it for decades.
On the gaming side, the Xbox app is annoying but game pass is fucking sweet, I love how cross play with my buddies on XBox just kind of works, their Private Division label is actually putting out good games by passionate developers. There's a lot to like there, too. | Duck_General |
1ixvpyj | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixuz2r/cmv_calling_a_mother_an_insemination_person_is_an/ | ClassicConflicts | [
"Fifteen_inches"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixuz2r/cmv_calling_a_mother_an_insemination_person_is_an/mepah5m/ | 2,887,175 | CMV: Calling a mother an "insemination person" is an awful term and deeply disrespectful to most women | Language matters. The words we use to describe people shape how we view them, and reducing someone to a biological function is almost always dehumanizing. Referring to a mother as an "insemination person" does exactly that—stripping away the emotional, social, and personal significance of motherhood and replacing it with a cold, mechanical description.
Most women would likely find this term not just insulting but outright sexist. It erases the unique role that mothers play in their children's lives and reduces them to nothing more than a passive participant in reproduction. Calling a father a "sperm donor" in a casual, non-medical sense would also be offensive for similar reasons—it disregards the importance of parenthood beyond the biological act that led to conception. This term is often used by people to refer to a father who either played little to no role in raising them or was just so horrible a parent that the child has no respect for them. Why should an analogous term be acceptable for mothers?
Even if the intent behind terms like "insemination person" is to be inclusive or neutral, the outcome is the opposite. It turns motherhood into a sterile, impersonal concept, ignoring the experiences, sacrifices, and bonds that define what it means to be a mother.
I'm open to having my mind changed—can anyone provide a solid argument for why this term wouldn’t be seen as disrespectful or inappropriate to the vast majority of mothers? | To use your own logic; language matters.
Women who are intending to be mothers are called mothers. Inseminated person can me anything; for instance, a woman who intends to abort is not a mother, calling her a mother is demeaning to her choice to abort. Surrogates are not the mother, biologically and socially speaking she is not that child’s mother. Adoptive mothers are still mothers, especially in circumstances where the biological mother has no legal rights to the child.
So language matters. In fact, the fact you equate pregnancy women and force the title of mother on women is antithetical to second wave feminism. Second wave feminism was the “biology is not destiny” wave of feminism. Carrying a child does not make one a mother, and it’s sexist to insinuate so. | Fifteen_inches | 1,740,492,141 | CMV: Calling a mother an "insemination person" is an awful term and deeply disrespectful to most women | Language matters. The words we use to describe people shape how we view them, and reducing someone to a biological function is almost always dehumanizing. Referring to a mother as an "insemination person" does exactly that—stripping away the emotional, social, and personal significance of motherhood and replacing it with a cold, mechanical description.
Most women would likely find this term not just insulting but outright sexist. It erases the unique role that mothers play in their children's lives and reduces them to nothing more than a passive participant in reproduction. Calling a father a "sperm donor" in a casual, non-medical sense would also be offensive for similar reasons—it disregards the importance of parenthood beyond the biological act that led to conception. This term is often used by people to refer to a father who either played little to no role in raising them or was just so horrible a parent that the child has no respect for them. Why should an analogous term be acceptable for mothers?
Even if the intent behind terms like "insemination person" is to be inclusive or neutral, the outcome is the opposite. It turns motherhood into a sterile, impersonal concept, ignoring the experiences, sacrifices, and bonds that define what it means to be a mother.
I'm open to having my mind changed—can anyone provide a solid argument for why this term wouldn’t be seen as disrespectful or inappropriate to the vast majority of mothers? | To use your own logic; language matters.
Women who are intending to be mothers are called mothers. Inseminated person can me anything; for instance, a woman who intends to abort is not a mother, calling her a mother is demeaning to her choice to abort. Surrogates are not the mother, biologically and socially speaking she is not that child’s mother. Adoptive mothers are still mothers, especially in circumstances where the biological mother has no legal rights to the child.
So language matters. In fact, the fact you equate pregnancy women and force the title of mother on women is antithetical to second wave feminism. Second wave feminism was the “biology is not destiny” wave of feminism. Carrying a child does not make one a mother, and it’s sexist to insinuate so. | ClassicConflicts |
1ixy8xc | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixy107/cmv_politicians_at_debates_or_town_halls_should/ | ThrobbingTigerDong | [
"viaJormungandr"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixy107/cmv_politicians_at_debates_or_town_halls_should/mepv8rt/ | 2,887,752 | CMV: Politicians at debates or Town Halls should have a Yes/No button that they have to press before they’re allowed to speak after questions. | I swear to God that like 95% of politicians skate around and don’t answer questions. I understand that some questions can be nuanced so that it’s more like a ‘Yes, but…’, but they should still go on record as a Yes/No.
“Senator, would you support a national abortion ban?”
“Well the facts of the matter are right in front of you. The other party has let so many immigrants illegally cross our border, so that’s our number 1 goal.”
“Mr. President, do you consider Vladimir Putin to be a dictator?”
“The leftists are all getting sex changes at age 3, and that’s what’s important.”
I feel frustrated when our elected officials don’t answer our questions. | “Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?”
That’s extreme but exactly how your proposal would be abused. Posing questions in such a way that the simple yes/no answer is an adverse admission that will be run with regardless of the later nuance. | viaJormungandr | 1,740,498,706 | CMV: Politicians at debates or Town Halls should have a Yes/No button that they have to press before they’re allowed to speak after questions. | I swear to God that like 95% of politicians skate around and don’t answer questions. I understand that some questions can be nuanced so that it’s more like a ‘Yes, but…’, but they should still go on record as a Yes/No.
“Senator, would you support a national abortion ban?”
“Well the facts of the matter are right in front of you. The other party has let so many immigrants illegally cross our border, so that’s our number 1 goal.”
“Mr. President, do you consider Vladimir Putin to be a dictator?”
“The leftists are all getting sex changes at age 3, and that’s what’s important.”
I feel frustrated when our elected officials don’t answer our questions. | “Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?”
That’s extreme but exactly how your proposal would be abused. Posing questions in such a way that the simple yes/no answer is an adverse admission that will be run with regardless of the later nuance. | ThrobbingTigerDong |
1iy0nak | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix49t7/cmv_timothee_chalamet_is_one_of_the_most/ | UnlawfulShadowban | [
"PsychAndDestroy"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ix49t7/cmv_timothee_chalamet_is_one_of_the_most/meo5y9a/ | 2,885,879 | CMV: Timothee Chalamet is one of the most overrated actors in recent memory. | This post is mainly prompted by his win and subsequent speech at the [SAG awards last night](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P50UQeIL4o). I was surprised to see such a positive reception to the arrogance of his speech, especially considering the powerhouse talent of his fellow nominees. I was caught off-guard at the lack of humility. It's fine to call your shot but I just don't believe he has the talent to back it up. Leonardo DiCaprio, widely considered one of the best actors of his generation, didn't win an Oscar until he was 40...
To be clear: Timothee is not a "bad" actor but I feel a lot of his performances are phoned-in and disingenuous. I think Dune may be some of his best work and that's not saying much. Therefore, I feel the buzz around him is a bit overhyped.
Am I out of touch? Are we witnessing the rise of the next Marlon Brando? CMV | >arrogance of his speech, especially considering the powerhouse talent of his fellow nominees. I was caught off-guard at the lack of humility.
Content of his speech:
- says winning was unexpected.
- thanks Mother.
- says he put a lot of effort into the role and admits not downplaying this isn't classy.
- says he put a lot of time into the role.
- says he was honoured to have the role and that he shared that honour with the entire cast working on that biopic.
- thanks the aforementioned cast.
- says the award is significant and means a lot to him.
- says it means a lot because he is in pursuit of greatness
- literally says the award doesn't signify he is one of the greats but is just fuel to keep going.
Reread that last one. That is humility. There seriously isn't one arrogant word in there.
I don't have an opinion on his acting, but I do think your opinion of his character is warping your opinion of his acting or vice verse. | PsychAndDestroy | 1,740,472,172 | CMV: Timothee Chalamet is one of the most overrated actors in recent memory. | This post is mainly prompted by his win and subsequent speech at the [SAG awards last night](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P50UQeIL4o). I was surprised to see such a positive reception to the arrogance of his speech, especially considering the powerhouse talent of his fellow nominees. I was caught off-guard at the lack of humility. It's fine to call your shot but I just don't believe he has the talent to back it up. Leonardo DiCaprio, widely considered one of the best actors of his generation, didn't win an Oscar until he was 40...
To be clear: Timothee is not a "bad" actor but I feel a lot of his performances are phoned-in and disingenuous. I think Dune may be some of his best work and that's not saying much. Therefore, I feel the buzz around him is a bit overhyped.
Am I out of touch? Are we witnessing the rise of the next Marlon Brando? CMV | >arrogance of his speech, especially considering the powerhouse talent of his fellow nominees. I was caught off-guard at the lack of humility.
Content of his speech:
- says winning was unexpected.
- thanks Mother.
- says he put a lot of effort into the role and admits not downplaying this isn't classy.
- says he put a lot of time into the role.
- says he was honoured to have the role and that he shared that honour with the entire cast working on that biopic.
- thanks the aforementioned cast.
- says the award is significant and means a lot to him.
- says it means a lot because he is in pursuit of greatness
- literally says the award doesn't signify he is one of the greats but is just fuel to keep going.
Reread that last one. That is humility. There seriously isn't one arrogant word in there.
I don't have an opinion on his acting, but I do think your opinion of his character is warping your opinion of his acting or vice verse. | UnlawfulShadowban |
1iy1b3x | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy0xg6/cmv_the_trolley_problem_is_constructed_in_a_way/ | randomafricanboi | [
"yyzjertl"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy0xg6/cmv_the_trolley_problem_is_constructed_in_a_way/meqjve8/ | 2,888,725 | CMV: The trolley problem is constructed in a way that forces a utilitarian answer and it is fundamentally flawed | Everybody knows the classic trolley problem and whether or not you would pull the lever to kill one person and save the five people.
Often times people will just say that 5 lives are more valuable than 1 life and thus the only morally correct thing to do is pull the lever.
I understand the problem is hypothetical and we have to choose the objectivelly right thing to do in a very specific situation. However, the question is formed in a way that makes the murders a statistic thus pushing you into a utilitarian answer. Its easy to disassociate in that case. The same question can be manipulated in a million different ways while still maintaining the 5 to 1 or even 5 to 4 ratio and yield different answers because you framed it differently.
Flip it completely and ask someone would they spend years tracking down 3 innocent people and kill them in cold blood because a politician they hate promised to kill 5 random people if they dont. In this case 3 is still less than 5 and thus using the same logic you should do it to minimize the pain and suffering.
I'm not saying any answer is objectivelly right, I'm saying the question itself is completely flawed and forces the human mind to be biased towars a certain point of view. | You've basically got it backwards: the whole point of the problem is to _criticize_ utilitarianism. Alongside the basic trolley problem are presented other variants of the problem that change the scenario but _not_ the consequences, so as to illustrate that our moral intuitions do not align with consequentialism. Foot herself favored virtue ethics. | yyzjertl | 1,740,505,752 | CMV: The trolley problem is constructed in a way that forces a utilitarian answer and it is fundamentally flawed | Everybody knows the classic trolley problem and whether or not you would pull the lever to kill one person and save the five people.
Often times people will just say that 5 lives are more valuable than 1 life and thus the only morally correct thing to do is pull the lever.
I understand the problem is hypothetical and we have to choose the objectivelly right thing to do in a very specific situation. However, the question is formed in a way that makes the murders a statistic thus pushing you into a utilitarian answer. Its easy to disassociate in that case. The same question can be manipulated in a million different ways while still maintaining the 5 to 1 or even 5 to 4 ratio and yield different answers because you framed it differently.
Flip it completely and ask someone would they spend years tracking down 3 innocent people and kill them in cold blood because a politician they hate promised to kill 5 random people if they dont. In this case 3 is still less than 5 and thus using the same logic you should do it to minimize the pain and suffering.
I'm not saying any answer is objectivelly right, I'm saying the question itself is completely flawed and forces the human mind to be biased towars a certain point of view. | You've basically got it backwards: the whole point of the problem is to _criticize_ utilitarianism. Alongside the basic trolley problem are presented other variants of the problem that change the scenario but _not_ the consequences, so as to illustrate that our moral intuitions do not align with consequentialism. Foot herself favored virtue ethics. | randomafricanboi |
1iy2y1h | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy1gdw/cmv_in_many_cases_of_sa_and_family_violence_we/ | PresentationLow7984 | [
"GotAJeepNeedAJeep"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy1gdw/cmv_in_many_cases_of_sa_and_family_violence_we/meqx06j/ | 2,889,329 | CMV: In many cases of SA and family violence, we convict too easily and fail to hold to the standard of “reasonable doubt” due to an overreliance on testimony. | Here’s my general understanding of the legal system as it works for all crimes.
For most crimes, we generally ask juries to uphold the standard of reasonable doubt but also generally give them free reign to do whatever they want with very little checks or balances. Aka juries are supposed to weigh evidence and whether beyond reasonable doubt exists but in practice they do indeed tend to rule on if they think the accused did it or not instead.
As far as evidence goes. It’s clear that both testimony and physical evidence is usable.
Where I think that rape and family violence separate from the rest of the crimes is both the de facto practice on how evidence is used and juries’ general unwillingness to discount victim testimony.
With most cases, some sort of physical evidence is a de facto requirement in terms of proving the case occurred. For example, I’d say that with murder, very few DAs are picking up a case without a body or at least, at the slightest minimum, unexplained disappearance, and that’s pushing it. Likewise, in a property damage case, you’d expect to see damaged property. Or for theft of a car you’d expect the alleged thief to be caught in possession for it.
Now, one thing I want to make clear is that I’m aware that the above listed examples are simply general practice and not a constitutional right to not be put on trial.
For example, I understand that it is hypothetically possible for someone to file a report against you because they claim to see you push someone into a river or bay. In theory, even in the absence of other physical evidence or even other testimony, or better yet, even in the absence of anyone else reporting disappearance of a person near the area, the prosecution can take this case and attempt to prosecute it for murder.
Likewise, if someone wanted to, in a situation where criminal trespass is in play, they could go ahead and just claim that you trespassed on their property with no other proof than they saw you do it, even if no other evidence of your presence is there.
Of course, the above discussed examples are prosecutable, but they just never are. Why? Because generally we want physical proof of the crime occurring at all. Once we have that, then the state is usually willing to prosecute wih essentially any form of evidence, be it testimony, more specific physical evidence etc etc.
What makes rape and family violence stand apart from most other cases is the fact we rely on testimony for proving the crime occurred at all \*on top\* of identifying the perpetrator. So, essentially testimony is doing a lot more work than what it does for other cases. The logical conclusion for that is that it heavily hampers the defendant’s rights to only be found guilty in the lack of reasonable doubt for a lot of reasons.
First off, testimony is easily the most powerful form of evidence. First off, the attestant has pretty much absolute power to say what they want. They essentially get to craft a key piece of evidence as they see fit. Sure, legally, the attestant needs to tell the whole truth but there’s nothing actively forcing them to do so, particularly when the alleged incident happened behind closed doors and proof of innocence is impossible. Of course, the main limit of testimony is that a jury would probably not believe anyone’s testimony of something occurring that inherently would leave physical evidence unless that evidence is left or in cases where the crime wouldn’t be egregious.
Like discussed in prior examples, I would say that juries would hesitate to convict and DAs would hesitate to try cases where the testimony seems intact but the expected physical evidence isn’t there of the crime occurring at all. Of course, this would go out the window whenever there is no expected physical evidence and leave a defendant more vulnerable than they should be.
Physical evidence is not perfect by any means. Of course, the cause of physical evidence can be mistaken or, as often happens with murder cases, the evidence proves the crime but doesn’t point to the accused. But I don’t think that physical evidence has the level of power to ruin someone wrongfully that testimony has, given that one can give false testimony where nothing has occurred at all whilst physical evidence generally means something has occurred, we just need to figure out who and what.
I will say child cases are their own category. In many cases, children testify to things they simply wouldn’t think of or know about unless the crime happened. So in many cases, a lot of it has to do with not only the fact a child wouldn’t say that but a child‘s description includes things they couldn’t even think about on their own. I am unaware of cases of testimony only CSA cases where the testimony was something the child could come up with and I am also unaware of cases of child nonsexual abuse prosecuted on testimony alone, given that many of those cases start with a “suspicious mark,” so I will focus on adult and maybe older teen accusers for this post.
I will also say that domestic violence cases can be harder to get due process for than sexual assault cases. Because a sexual assault case has 2 possible defense, “I didn’t do it” and “they consented” while family violence only has the former defense.
I have also noticed that false accusations leading to both trial and conviction after trial have less power when there’s an affirmative defense, such as self defense in DV cases and consent in SA cases.
In a way, I feel like this really proves my point because affirmative defenses are supposed to be harder for the defendant. It’s supposed to be harder to defend yourself in these cases because now the burden of proof shifts onto the accused legally speaking and of course the testimony has no more role in proving the contact occured at all, as the defense agrees in these cases.
Yet, the fact that the “I didn’t do it” defense is much scarier is a testament to the point that both juries and DAs aren’t considering reasonable doubt like they should and instead are going with a binary of which side is likelier, which is the burden of proof in civil cases, not criminal cases.
Now, I will leave with this. I don’t deny the validity that someone should be believed when they come out and complain of either sexual assault and family violence. However, I also don‘t believe that the solution is throwing people into prison based on someone’s word is the answer, even if their sworn testimony is convincing. Sure, maybe the testimony convinces me it likelier than not but that doesn’t on its own translate to reasonable doubt imo.
I will also say that prosecutors under prosecute many cases too, particularly on the DV side, because they don’t prosecute cases where the victim won’t testify even if they filed a report with tons of physical evidence. While I don’t think anyone has a \*right\* to have the person they accuse prodecuted, any worries of underprosecution start with prosecuting these clear cases with or without the testimony before we start just tossing people into prison just cuz the alleged victim wants them to be.
| \> There are multiple cases depending on where you look imo.
Where do *you* look to form the opnions you've posted here?
\> I feel like two cases that come to mind are Anthony Bridgewater being convicted of rape against Alice Sebold and ex 49er Dana Stubblefield being falsely convicted as well
It's telling that you have written an entire thesis about your opinions on the judicial process surrounding sexual violence testimony, but at **no point whatsoever** examine the role that race and racism can play in the rare examples of false accusations leading to prosecution. But you've got these two talking-point cases on speed dial.
Sebold, a white woman, went to police after *thinking* that she saw her attacker, a black man, in **1982.** Police arrested Broadwater of their own accord, and Sebold **failed to identify him in a lineup**. He was charged and prosecuted anyway. The driving factor in this case is **racism**, not any of your opaque views about how testimony plays in to SV cases.
Stubblefield's conviction was overturned on the basis that **prosecutor arguments violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020**. It being overturned isn't an assessment one way or the other as to whether Stubblefield committed the crime, and the case is **open for to be tried again.** Once more, racism is is the core element in the case being overturned, not shortcomings in testimony.
These examples in no way support your argument because the functional element in the outcome was racial prejudice, not the alleged overreliance on testimony in SA / DV cases. | GotAJeepNeedAJeep | 1,740,509,438 | CMV: In many cases of SA and family violence, we convict too easily and fail to hold to the standard of “reasonable doubt” due to an overreliance on testimony. | Here’s my general understanding of the legal system as it works for all crimes.
For most crimes, we generally ask juries to uphold the standard of reasonable doubt but also generally give them free reign to do whatever they want with very little checks or balances. Aka juries are supposed to weigh evidence and whether beyond reasonable doubt exists but in practice they do indeed tend to rule on if they think the accused did it or not instead.
As far as evidence goes. It’s clear that both testimony and physical evidence is usable.
Where I think that rape and family violence separate from the rest of the crimes is both the de facto practice on how evidence is used and juries’ general unwillingness to discount victim testimony.
With most cases, some sort of physical evidence is a de facto requirement in terms of proving the case occurred. For example, I’d say that with murder, very few DAs are picking up a case without a body or at least, at the slightest minimum, unexplained disappearance, and that’s pushing it. Likewise, in a property damage case, you’d expect to see damaged property. Or for theft of a car you’d expect the alleged thief to be caught in possession for it.
Now, one thing I want to make clear is that I’m aware that the above listed examples are simply general practice and not a constitutional right to not be put on trial.
For example, I understand that it is hypothetically possible for someone to file a report against you because they claim to see you push someone into a river or bay. In theory, even in the absence of other physical evidence or even other testimony, or better yet, even in the absence of anyone else reporting disappearance of a person near the area, the prosecution can take this case and attempt to prosecute it for murder.
Likewise, if someone wanted to, in a situation where criminal trespass is in play, they could go ahead and just claim that you trespassed on their property with no other proof than they saw you do it, even if no other evidence of your presence is there.
Of course, the above discussed examples are prosecutable, but they just never are. Why? Because generally we want physical proof of the crime occurring at all. Once we have that, then the state is usually willing to prosecute wih essentially any form of evidence, be it testimony, more specific physical evidence etc etc.
What makes rape and family violence stand apart from most other cases is the fact we rely on testimony for proving the crime occurred at all \*on top\* of identifying the perpetrator. So, essentially testimony is doing a lot more work than what it does for other cases. The logical conclusion for that is that it heavily hampers the defendant’s rights to only be found guilty in the lack of reasonable doubt for a lot of reasons.
First off, testimony is easily the most powerful form of evidence. First off, the attestant has pretty much absolute power to say what they want. They essentially get to craft a key piece of evidence as they see fit. Sure, legally, the attestant needs to tell the whole truth but there’s nothing actively forcing them to do so, particularly when the alleged incident happened behind closed doors and proof of innocence is impossible. Of course, the main limit of testimony is that a jury would probably not believe anyone’s testimony of something occurring that inherently would leave physical evidence unless that evidence is left or in cases where the crime wouldn’t be egregious.
Like discussed in prior examples, I would say that juries would hesitate to convict and DAs would hesitate to try cases where the testimony seems intact but the expected physical evidence isn’t there of the crime occurring at all. Of course, this would go out the window whenever there is no expected physical evidence and leave a defendant more vulnerable than they should be.
Physical evidence is not perfect by any means. Of course, the cause of physical evidence can be mistaken or, as often happens with murder cases, the evidence proves the crime but doesn’t point to the accused. But I don’t think that physical evidence has the level of power to ruin someone wrongfully that testimony has, given that one can give false testimony where nothing has occurred at all whilst physical evidence generally means something has occurred, we just need to figure out who and what.
I will say child cases are their own category. In many cases, children testify to things they simply wouldn’t think of or know about unless the crime happened. So in many cases, a lot of it has to do with not only the fact a child wouldn’t say that but a child‘s description includes things they couldn’t even think about on their own. I am unaware of cases of testimony only CSA cases where the testimony was something the child could come up with and I am also unaware of cases of child nonsexual abuse prosecuted on testimony alone, given that many of those cases start with a “suspicious mark,” so I will focus on adult and maybe older teen accusers for this post.
I will also say that domestic violence cases can be harder to get due process for than sexual assault cases. Because a sexual assault case has 2 possible defense, “I didn’t do it” and “they consented” while family violence only has the former defense.
I have also noticed that false accusations leading to both trial and conviction after trial have less power when there’s an affirmative defense, such as self defense in DV cases and consent in SA cases.
In a way, I feel like this really proves my point because affirmative defenses are supposed to be harder for the defendant. It’s supposed to be harder to defend yourself in these cases because now the burden of proof shifts onto the accused legally speaking and of course the testimony has no more role in proving the contact occured at all, as the defense agrees in these cases.
Yet, the fact that the “I didn’t do it” defense is much scarier is a testament to the point that both juries and DAs aren’t considering reasonable doubt like they should and instead are going with a binary of which side is likelier, which is the burden of proof in civil cases, not criminal cases.
Now, I will leave with this. I don’t deny the validity that someone should be believed when they come out and complain of either sexual assault and family violence. However, I also don‘t believe that the solution is throwing people into prison based on someone’s word is the answer, even if their sworn testimony is convincing. Sure, maybe the testimony convinces me it likelier than not but that doesn’t on its own translate to reasonable doubt imo.
I will also say that prosecutors under prosecute many cases too, particularly on the DV side, because they don’t prosecute cases where the victim won’t testify even if they filed a report with tons of physical evidence. While I don’t think anyone has a \*right\* to have the person they accuse prodecuted, any worries of underprosecution start with prosecuting these clear cases with or without the testimony before we start just tossing people into prison just cuz the alleged victim wants them to be.
| \> There are multiple cases depending on where you look imo.
Where do *you* look to form the opnions you've posted here?
\> I feel like two cases that come to mind are Anthony Bridgewater being convicted of rape against Alice Sebold and ex 49er Dana Stubblefield being falsely convicted as well
It's telling that you have written an entire thesis about your opinions on the judicial process surrounding sexual violence testimony, but at **no point whatsoever** examine the role that race and racism can play in the rare examples of false accusations leading to prosecution. But you've got these two talking-point cases on speed dial.
Sebold, a white woman, went to police after *thinking* that she saw her attacker, a black man, in **1982.** Police arrested Broadwater of their own accord, and Sebold **failed to identify him in a lineup**. He was charged and prosecuted anyway. The driving factor in this case is **racism**, not any of your opaque views about how testimony plays in to SV cases.
Stubblefield's conviction was overturned on the basis that **prosecutor arguments violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020**. It being overturned isn't an assessment one way or the other as to whether Stubblefield committed the crime, and the case is **open for to be tried again.** Once more, racism is is the core element in the case being overturned, not shortcomings in testimony.
These examples in no way support your argument because the functional element in the outcome was racial prejudice, not the alleged overreliance on testimony in SA / DV cases. | PresentationLow7984 |
1iy3acd | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy30mg/cmv_rapesexual_assault_needs_to_be_an_automatic/ | ElegantPoet3386 | [
"GadgetGamer"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy30mg/cmv_rapesexual_assault_needs_to_be_an_automatic/mer2qu5/ | 2,889,643 | CMV: Rape/Sexual Assault needs to be an automatic life in prison sentence if found guilty. | So, in my opinion prison has 2 purposes. First, to protect the public by making sure dangerous people can't put others at risk. Second, to reform people so they can become contributing members of society and no longer commit crimes. The second point is debatable to if jail works for reforming, but that's for another time. Now, rapists / people who commit sexual assault are more than likely going to do it again, and they're an extreme threat to others. Plus, I don't think it's that controversial to say rape is absolutely disgusting.
To CMV: Either show a scanario where someone commits rape but doesn't deserve a life sentence, or show why making all guilty cases of rape an instant life sentence can backfire. | It is a bad idea to make the punishment for rape to be on par with murder, as this incentivizes the rapist to kill their victim to reduce the chance of being identified.
Also, this will probably make juries even less likely to hand out guilty verdicts if they know it will put someone away for life. Rape can often be a bit of he said/she said, so a mandatory life sentence will amplify any tiny doubt that someone has.
It is questionable about whether this would actually make people less likely to commit the crime. Increasing sentences and introducing the death penalty has not been shown to have any meaningful impact on the crime rate. | GadgetGamer | 1,740,511,044 | CMV: Rape/Sexual Assault needs to be an automatic life in prison sentence if found guilty. | So, in my opinion prison has 2 purposes. First, to protect the public by making sure dangerous people can't put others at risk. Second, to reform people so they can become contributing members of society and no longer commit crimes. The second point is debatable to if jail works for reforming, but that's for another time. Now, rapists / people who commit sexual assault are more than likely going to do it again, and they're an extreme threat to others. Plus, I don't think it's that controversial to say rape is absolutely disgusting.
To CMV: Either show a scanario where someone commits rape but doesn't deserve a life sentence, or show why making all guilty cases of rape an instant life sentence can backfire. | It is a bad idea to make the punishment for rape to be on par with murder, as this incentivizes the rapist to kill their victim to reduce the chance of being identified.
Also, this will probably make juries even less likely to hand out guilty verdicts if they know it will put someone away for life. Rape can often be a bit of he said/she said, so a mandatory life sentence will amplify any tiny doubt that someone has.
It is questionable about whether this would actually make people less likely to commit the crime. Increasing sentences and introducing the death penalty has not been shown to have any meaningful impact on the crime rate. | ElegantPoet3386 |
1iy3rgm | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3cup/cmv_the_star_wars_prequel_trilogy_is_objectively/ | TurboNinja2380 | [
"PoolShotTom"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3cup/cmv_the_star_wars_prequel_trilogy_is_objectively/mer7bot/ | 2,889,917 | CMV: The Star Wars prequel trilogy is objectively better than the original trilogy | The prequels delve deeper into the Jedi Council's inner workings and the complexities of Jedi life, particularly with the focus on Anakin Skywalker's training. The prequels introduce a wider range of planets, species, and political factions, giving a more immersive view of the galaxy. The prequel trilogy generally does a better job than the original Star Wars trilogy at building a complex galactic political landscape, which made for a more compelling story. Anakin Skywalker imo is a much more fleshed out and compelling protagonist than Luke ever was. Padme was an equally interesting if not more interesting "token female archetype" character. The prequels simply have a better and more interesting cast of characters. The OG trilogy is carried hard by the likes of Vader, Han, Chewie, Lando, and R2D2. The prequel trilogy had probably 5x the interesting characters. The OG trilogy just can't compete with the likes of Anakin, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Mace Windu, County Dooku, also R2D2, Jango Fett, and General Grievous. Also, Rebels didn't expand on the OG trilogy in the way that The Clone Wars did on the prequels. Rebels didn't really add anything or make the OG trilogy look better in hindsite. Clone Wars did that and more. Suddenly it's insanely hype to see Maul in the Phantom Menace. Suddenly you feel the weight of what's happening at the beginning of episode 3. Yes, the dialogue in the Prequels can be cringe at times. But let's not forget that Luke's first line was "But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some PoWeR cOnVeRtErS!". Anakin could never. Also the fight choreography blows the OG trilogy out of the water so hard it's not even funny. I get that it was the 70s and 80s, but cmon man. They didn't even try. I've seen better choreographed fights in South Park. | At the end of the day, it’s all opinion, but the original trilogy was far more revolutionary for its time. In the late ’70s and ‘80s, it pushed the limits of what was possible in sci-fi with its groundbreaking effects and storytelling. The first lightsaber duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader, while slow by today’s standards, was iconic for its time.
The prequels, on the other hand, had the advantage of better technology, with faster, flashier lightsaber battles, but they didn’t have the same cultural impact. The character development in the original trilogy also felt more genuine, while the prequels struggled with awkward dialogue and performances.
It’s all about what you value. But I think we can agree they are both insurmountably better than the sequels | PoolShotTom | 1,740,512,334 | CMV: The Star Wars prequel trilogy is objectively better than the original trilogy | The prequels delve deeper into the Jedi Council's inner workings and the complexities of Jedi life, particularly with the focus on Anakin Skywalker's training. The prequels introduce a wider range of planets, species, and political factions, giving a more immersive view of the galaxy. The prequel trilogy generally does a better job than the original Star Wars trilogy at building a complex galactic political landscape, which made for a more compelling story. Anakin Skywalker imo is a much more fleshed out and compelling protagonist than Luke ever was. Padme was an equally interesting if not more interesting "token female archetype" character. The prequels simply have a better and more interesting cast of characters. The OG trilogy is carried hard by the likes of Vader, Han, Chewie, Lando, and R2D2. The prequel trilogy had probably 5x the interesting characters. The OG trilogy just can't compete with the likes of Anakin, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Mace Windu, County Dooku, also R2D2, Jango Fett, and General Grievous. Also, Rebels didn't expand on the OG trilogy in the way that The Clone Wars did on the prequels. Rebels didn't really add anything or make the OG trilogy look better in hindsite. Clone Wars did that and more. Suddenly it's insanely hype to see Maul in the Phantom Menace. Suddenly you feel the weight of what's happening at the beginning of episode 3. Yes, the dialogue in the Prequels can be cringe at times. But let's not forget that Luke's first line was "But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some PoWeR cOnVeRtErS!". Anakin could never. Also the fight choreography blows the OG trilogy out of the water so hard it's not even funny. I get that it was the 70s and 80s, but cmon man. They didn't even try. I've seen better choreographed fights in South Park. | At the end of the day, it’s all opinion, but the original trilogy was far more revolutionary for its time. In the late ’70s and ‘80s, it pushed the limits of what was possible in sci-fi with its groundbreaking effects and storytelling. The first lightsaber duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader, while slow by today’s standards, was iconic for its time.
The prequels, on the other hand, had the advantage of better technology, with faster, flashier lightsaber battles, but they didn’t have the same cultural impact. The character development in the original trilogy also felt more genuine, while the prequels struggled with awkward dialogue and performances.
It’s all about what you value. But I think we can agree they are both insurmountably better than the sequels | TurboNinja2380 |
1iy3wtv | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy1m6i/cmv_the_american_left_and_democratic_party_are/ | godlike_hikikomori | [
"normalice0"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy1m6i/cmv_the_american_left_and_democratic_party_are/mer03bb/ | 2,889,496 | CMV: The American Left and Democratic party are fractured beyond repair. | As of now, I feel politically homeless, less in terms of party, but more in terms of ideology and political approach to things. Moderates blame progressives for lacking any strategic caution, policy nuance, and long term coalition building. Progressives blame moderates for doing too little when in power and being tied too much with corporate consultants and donations. There is little sense of working together here. In my honest opinion, both moderate & progressive voters and politicians alike refuse to address their own shortcomings, and acknowledge the strengths that the opposing faction has. Each faction seems to want to feel and how they are somehow intellectually and morally superior than the other when the truth is that they both have good and bad ideas. I am simply sick and tired of the infighting! At the end of the day, neither of these factions can function properly and win elections at the federal, state, and local levels without each other's collaboration. Instead of going on a circular firing spree like how we are seeing now after the 2024 election and have been seeing since the 2016 election, both moderates and progressives should take the best ideas from both of their groups. Why not? Why not choose to coexist and coopt each other's strategies? What's the harm in doing that? What's the harm in moderate Democrat voters/politicians acknowledging that they need to take a more grassroots and populist approach to campaigning, rhetoric and governance? What's the harm in progressive Democrat voters/politicians acknowledging the nuance in solving our systemic issues, and the importance of carefully building coalitions to build support for their agenda? They do realize that they can chew gum and walk at the same time?
If I had to describe where I am in politics, I would say that I lean progressive when it comes to the need of generating grassroots excitement by adopting populist rhetoric & bold approach to governance. But, I also agree with the moderates that it's also really important to carefully build coalitions to garner support for policies that help ordinary Americans, to acquire enough financial resources to help out candidates at the local and state levels too, and to acknowledge the affect online misinformation & algorithms have on the electorate and how to counter that by building up the Left's own online information apparatus to reach Americans.
So, in general, I just feel lost right now. What we are seeing is a void in the Democratic party leadership. Neither faction seems to want to unite the party. I believe that what is needed now is a sort of new kind of approach that has best of both worlds from the Progressives and Moderates, and ends up combining them into one unified and coordinated plan & unique identity. If there was a name/;label for this kind of approach or any kind of group that actually adopts the best ideas from both factions, then I would proudly to associated with it; because I don't really consider myself a truly Progressive or Moderate democrat. I'm afraid there probably never will be someone or some group within the Democratic that will actually take the best ideas from both factions in a way that unifies the party.
I am open to insights that argues that this infighting will only be temporary, and I am willing to consider any model, political approach, Democratic faction, etc.... whatever out there in the United States that aligns themselves with a strategy that seeks to build bridges between Progressives and Moderates, ultimately uniting them.
| I think your problems are not with the democratic party but with the media's portrayal of the democratic party. But here is the context you are missing: republicans control the media.
Take that into account and focus on your local democratic party. You'll find they are more receptive than the party at the national level. At the moment the democratic party is suffering a "hierarchy of needs" problem - that is with no power the options for how to use power are all unavailable even if they are in absolute agreement with you.
So, 100% of their focus needs to be on how to regain power. That process takes some concessions in order to form a coalition - voting is the act of millions of individually powerless people making a powerfiul decision, after all. But those concessions can't be made if everyone is thinking their own personal ideals are absolute and non negotiable. There is no "me first" party, I'm afraid. Other than birthday parties.. | normalice0 | 1,740,510,301 | CMV: The American Left and Democratic party are fractured beyond repair. | As of now, I feel politically homeless, less in terms of party, but more in terms of ideology and political approach to things. Moderates blame progressives for lacking any strategic caution, policy nuance, and long term coalition building. Progressives blame moderates for doing too little when in power and being tied too much with corporate consultants and donations. There is little sense of working together here. In my honest opinion, both moderate & progressive voters and politicians alike refuse to address their own shortcomings, and acknowledge the strengths that the opposing faction has. Each faction seems to want to feel and how they are somehow intellectually and morally superior than the other when the truth is that they both have good and bad ideas. I am simply sick and tired of the infighting! At the end of the day, neither of these factions can function properly and win elections at the federal, state, and local levels without each other's collaboration. Instead of going on a circular firing spree like how we are seeing now after the 2024 election and have been seeing since the 2016 election, both moderates and progressives should take the best ideas from both of their groups. Why not? Why not choose to coexist and coopt each other's strategies? What's the harm in doing that? What's the harm in moderate Democrat voters/politicians acknowledging that they need to take a more grassroots and populist approach to campaigning, rhetoric and governance? What's the harm in progressive Democrat voters/politicians acknowledging the nuance in solving our systemic issues, and the importance of carefully building coalitions to build support for their agenda? They do realize that they can chew gum and walk at the same time?
If I had to describe where I am in politics, I would say that I lean progressive when it comes to the need of generating grassroots excitement by adopting populist rhetoric & bold approach to governance. But, I also agree with the moderates that it's also really important to carefully build coalitions to garner support for policies that help ordinary Americans, to acquire enough financial resources to help out candidates at the local and state levels too, and to acknowledge the affect online misinformation & algorithms have on the electorate and how to counter that by building up the Left's own online information apparatus to reach Americans.
So, in general, I just feel lost right now. What we are seeing is a void in the Democratic party leadership. Neither faction seems to want to unite the party. I believe that what is needed now is a sort of new kind of approach that has best of both worlds from the Progressives and Moderates, and ends up combining them into one unified and coordinated plan & unique identity. If there was a name/;label for this kind of approach or any kind of group that actually adopts the best ideas from both factions, then I would proudly to associated with it; because I don't really consider myself a truly Progressive or Moderate democrat. I'm afraid there probably never will be someone or some group within the Democratic that will actually take the best ideas from both factions in a way that unifies the party.
I am open to insights that argues that this infighting will only be temporary, and I am willing to consider any model, political approach, Democratic faction, etc.... whatever out there in the United States that aligns themselves with a strategy that seeks to build bridges between Progressives and Moderates, ultimately uniting them.
| I think your problems are not with the democratic party but with the media's portrayal of the democratic party. But here is the context you are missing: republicans control the media.
Take that into account and focus on your local democratic party. You'll find they are more receptive than the party at the national level. At the moment the democratic party is suffering a "hierarchy of needs" problem - that is with no power the options for how to use power are all unavailable even if they are in absolute agreement with you.
So, 100% of their focus needs to be on how to regain power. That process takes some concessions in order to form a coalition - voting is the act of millions of individually powerless people making a powerfiul decision, after all. But those concessions can't be made if everyone is thinking their own personal ideals are absolute and non negotiable. There is no "me first" party, I'm afraid. Other than birthday parties.. | godlike_hikikomori |
1iy57vk | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy2j4f/cmv_your_average_man_experiences_far_more/ | soozerain | [
"ComeOnT"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy2j4f/cmv_your_average_man_experiences_far_more/mer3e3y/ | 2,889,685 | CMV: Your average man experiences far more isolation, rejection and insecurity in the hookup/dating scene then a woman will. | Full disclaimer: women do have the ultimate bad experience of rape and murder being an ever present concern when dating.
That being said, I feel it would go a long way to helping things between genders if women would acknowledge that they have the luxury of being passive when and sorting through potential offers while most men not blessed with a conventionally attractive face have to go through physically grueling work of putting on muscle and losing weight to get even 1/10th of the attention your average woman gets on Tinder or Bumble or Hinge.
Even fat girls, who are often cited as the example against this, are in my anecdotal experience still doing better then me an average looking, non muscled but in shape guy. If you don’t have some muscle mass then you need to hire a professional photographer to get the best lighting and angles for your dating profile because women have a lot to choose from and unless you stand out you’ll be passed over.
Women often cite the first word problem of having 1000 options but nobody worth picking and how discouraging that can be but at least you know you’re wanted. There are large stretches of time in the year when you’re getting rejected over and over again when you wonder if you’re attractive at all.
And this is is without a woman presenting herself to me as a potential partner.
I’ll acknowledge this: women have the “struggle” of forcing themselves to get ready for another possible bad date with real human beings while men have to motivate themselves to go out to nothing and likely come home with nothing for long stretches of time until by dint of fate or luck you find a woman willing to meet for a ONS or for a date. Men don’t have the luxury of complaining about how women’s openers to them are lame. Men are expected to be the ones with the openers.
The very things women complain about in terms of dating, is actually used as a form of motivating for men in the dating world. “Every failed meetup or rejection is getting you closer to a match. It’s just a numbers game.”
Well in women’s case the numbers are in their favor. If you’re a semi attractive woman you have no problem getting matches or men approaching you, it’s finding rhe right one that’s the issue. Men have to find women to approach, get their number then hope they actually like you and not that you misinterpreted friendliness with flirting and that she gave you her number because she was afraid you’d make a scene. And then hope they actually click as a couple.
Men have to go through patches where they’re the “ugly guy” bothering two women at a bar with unreciprocated interest. For the women it’s understandable, I don’t expect them to show interest and attraction where there is none and it must be annoying to have a conversation interrupted by an uggo. But men are the only ones expected to develop a thicker skin, brush off that bruising experience and try again the following week.
When it comes to casual sex it’s not even debatable. women have it easier. In fact, without the opinions of women that like casual sex representative the women who say it isn’t easier really are. That being said, I’m not asking for anything other then some simple empathy on the struggles men face in the dating pool and maybe some acknowledgement of the privilege women enjoy. Hell even bi-women acknowledge that it’s harder to find a woman to have sex with then a man. | I push back because you should not feel like you need to change your physical appearance to find a partner. If YOU want to change your appearance to increase your confidence, great! Do it! But there is a hand for every glove, and the idea that all women want "that look" is misguided. Frankly, I personally find muscular dudes offputting. ESPECIALLY with low body fat - ick. | ComeOnT | 1,740,511,224 | CMV: Your average man experiences far more isolation, rejection and insecurity in the hookup/dating scene then a woman will. | Full disclaimer: women do have the ultimate bad experience of rape and murder being an ever present concern when dating.
That being said, I feel it would go a long way to helping things between genders if women would acknowledge that they have the luxury of being passive when and sorting through potential offers while most men not blessed with a conventionally attractive face have to go through physically grueling work of putting on muscle and losing weight to get even 1/10th of the attention your average woman gets on Tinder or Bumble or Hinge.
Even fat girls, who are often cited as the example against this, are in my anecdotal experience still doing better then me an average looking, non muscled but in shape guy. If you don’t have some muscle mass then you need to hire a professional photographer to get the best lighting and angles for your dating profile because women have a lot to choose from and unless you stand out you’ll be passed over.
Women often cite the first word problem of having 1000 options but nobody worth picking and how discouraging that can be but at least you know you’re wanted. There are large stretches of time in the year when you’re getting rejected over and over again when you wonder if you’re attractive at all.
And this is is without a woman presenting herself to me as a potential partner.
I’ll acknowledge this: women have the “struggle” of forcing themselves to get ready for another possible bad date with real human beings while men have to motivate themselves to go out to nothing and likely come home with nothing for long stretches of time until by dint of fate or luck you find a woman willing to meet for a ONS or for a date. Men don’t have the luxury of complaining about how women’s openers to them are lame. Men are expected to be the ones with the openers.
The very things women complain about in terms of dating, is actually used as a form of motivating for men in the dating world. “Every failed meetup or rejection is getting you closer to a match. It’s just a numbers game.”
Well in women’s case the numbers are in their favor. If you’re a semi attractive woman you have no problem getting matches or men approaching you, it’s finding rhe right one that’s the issue. Men have to find women to approach, get their number then hope they actually like you and not that you misinterpreted friendliness with flirting and that she gave you her number because she was afraid you’d make a scene. And then hope they actually click as a couple.
Men have to go through patches where they’re the “ugly guy” bothering two women at a bar with unreciprocated interest. For the women it’s understandable, I don’t expect them to show interest and attraction where there is none and it must be annoying to have a conversation interrupted by an uggo. But men are the only ones expected to develop a thicker skin, brush off that bruising experience and try again the following week.
When it comes to casual sex it’s not even debatable. women have it easier. In fact, without the opinions of women that like casual sex representative the women who say it isn’t easier really are. That being said, I’m not asking for anything other then some simple empathy on the struggles men face in the dating pool and maybe some acknowledgement of the privilege women enjoy. Hell even bi-women acknowledge that it’s harder to find a woman to have sex with then a man. | I push back because you should not feel like you need to change your physical appearance to find a partner. If YOU want to change your appearance to increase your confidence, great! Do it! But there is a hand for every glove, and the idea that all women want "that look" is misguided. Frankly, I personally find muscular dudes offputting. ESPECIALLY with low body fat - ick. | soozerain |
1iy6a6e | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy5jlq/cmv_if_communism_cant_compete_against_capitalism/ | Mean_Pen_8522 | [
"BraxbroWasTaken"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy5jlq/cmv_if_communism_cant_compete_against_capitalism/mersna5/ | 2,891,033 | CMV: If Communism cant compete against Capitalism, it is a failed ideology. | From the very limited times I have engaged with real communists and socialists, at least on the internet, one thing that caught my interest was that some blamed the failure of their ideals on their competitors.
Now, it is given that this does not represent every communist, nor any majority, but it has been in the back of my mind. Communism is a nice thought, but it will never exist in a vacuum. Competition will be there, and if it cant compete in the long run, against human nature and against capitalism, it wont work.
And never will. | It depends on your definition of 'failed ideology'.
Can pure communism ever really exist long term? No. Power really hates decentralization. Anyone and anything that has power will use it for themselves (and those they care about) at the expense of everything else. This is just a fact of existence as an animal. Even caring about things like the environment loops back around to selfishness if you dig deep enough. ("I live here, so I don't want to destroy the environment" or some similar argument)
Communism only works on small enough scales where "those we care about" is (approximately) equivalent to "everyone in the community", where external forces don't erode the system entirely.
But it doesn't *need to* to be valuable. Things can exist purely as ideas, as thought experiments, without being worthless. Similarly, just because an idea is a *wrong answer* to a question doesn't mean that asking the question is bad. I would not call communism a failed ideology at all, in the sense that it is a stepping stone that we can learn from. It can be iterated on, and it can spur iterations on *other* ideas, and thus lead to a better overall solution. | BraxbroWasTaken | 1,740,518,303 | CMV: If Communism cant compete against Capitalism, it is a failed ideology. | From the very limited times I have engaged with real communists and socialists, at least on the internet, one thing that caught my interest was that some blamed the failure of their ideals on their competitors.
Now, it is given that this does not represent every communist, nor any majority, but it has been in the back of my mind. Communism is a nice thought, but it will never exist in a vacuum. Competition will be there, and if it cant compete in the long run, against human nature and against capitalism, it wont work.
And never will. | It depends on your definition of 'failed ideology'.
Can pure communism ever really exist long term? No. Power really hates decentralization. Anyone and anything that has power will use it for themselves (and those they care about) at the expense of everything else. This is just a fact of existence as an animal. Even caring about things like the environment loops back around to selfishness if you dig deep enough. ("I live here, so I don't want to destroy the environment" or some similar argument)
Communism only works on small enough scales where "those we care about" is (approximately) equivalent to "everyone in the community", where external forces don't erode the system entirely.
But it doesn't *need to* to be valuable. Things can exist purely as ideas, as thought experiments, without being worthless. Similarly, just because an idea is a *wrong answer* to a question doesn't mean that asking the question is bad. I would not call communism a failed ideology at all, in the sense that it is a stepping stone that we can learn from. It can be iterated on, and it can spur iterations on *other* ideas, and thus lead to a better overall solution. | Mean_Pen_8522 |
1iy8csp | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy6qyf/cmv_the_second_you_place_a_single_restriction_on/ | QuirkyMcSquirty | [
"satyvakta"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy6qyf/cmv_the_second_you_place_a_single_restriction_on/mes9ot4/ | 2,892,766 | CMV: The second you place a single restriction on “Free Speech”, you no longer have “Free Speech” | I believe no nation in the world has Freedom of Speech.
People say “Oh France has freedom of speech, the U.S. has freedom of speech, etc etc.” in reality, every nation has varying levels of “Restricted Speech”.
Instead of saying “Oh they have freedom of speech” we should instead say “This nation has less restrictions than average on speech”. As that nation does not have Free Speech.
If you try to say “Oh, you’re now limiting their speech by saying they shouldn’t say that hurr durr.” No, quit being dumb. My opinion that “Free Speech” is an incorrect way to phrase your idea isn’t restricting you.
Free speech as a political/philosophical idea is freedom from legal/extrajudicial punishment of the government.
No country has “Free Speech” | I don't think we are disagreeing too much here. I am just pointing out that the way you are saying it should be is the way it already is. People don't generally view it as yes/no so much as more/less. The European/American divide is generally about specific issues. In Germany, for instance, if you are talking about the ability to be insulting to those you dislike, free speech is in fact a "no" \*in that particular instance\*, as even fairly mild comments can get you into serious trouble the way they wouldn't in America. | satyvakta | 1,740,523,185 | CMV: The second you place a single restriction on “Free Speech”, you no longer have “Free Speech” | I believe no nation in the world has Freedom of Speech.
People say “Oh France has freedom of speech, the U.S. has freedom of speech, etc etc.” in reality, every nation has varying levels of “Restricted Speech”.
Instead of saying “Oh they have freedom of speech” we should instead say “This nation has less restrictions than average on speech”. As that nation does not have Free Speech.
If you try to say “Oh, you’re now limiting their speech by saying they shouldn’t say that hurr durr.” No, quit being dumb. My opinion that “Free Speech” is an incorrect way to phrase your idea isn’t restricting you.
Free speech as a political/philosophical idea is freedom from legal/extrajudicial punishment of the government.
No country has “Free Speech” | I don't think we are disagreeing too much here. I am just pointing out that the way you are saying it should be is the way it already is. People don't generally view it as yes/no so much as more/less. The European/American divide is generally about specific issues. In Germany, for instance, if you are talking about the ability to be insulting to those you dislike, free speech is in fact a "no" \*in that particular instance\*, as even fairly mild comments can get you into serious trouble the way they wouldn't in America. | QuirkyMcSquirty |
1iy8rnt | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy7xe7/cmv_that_most_prochoice_people_do_not_support/ | interrogare_omnia | [
"Icy_River_8259"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy7xe7/cmv_that_most_prochoice_people_do_not_support/mesa33p/ | 2,892,816 | CMV: That most "pro-choice" people do NOT support abortion at 9 months under any circumstance | First and foremost I want say that I know that this is rare and only in specific circumstances. I am not talking about frequency.
But rather I was discussing with someone who is pro-abortion about personhood. And they believe that abortion is the complete and total right up until birth under any circumstance. And I said that is not a popular opinion even among pro-abortion circles. They have asked me to prove it.
So I am open to my view being changed but I do have some hope in humanity that it will not be.
What would change my view is to show proof that this is more popular, especially in pro-abortion circles.
I am NOT here to discuss abortion itself or the rights of mother or fetus. Just specifically how popular the listed belief actually is | The only reason an abortion would be performed at 9 months, as far as I am aware, is in the case of miscarriage. In any other circumstance the way to get the fetus out of the mother in that case is called birth, so it's not even a case of most pro-choice people not supporting it; anyone who thinks this way fundamentally misunderstands what abortion even is. | Icy_River_8259 | 1,740,523,303 | CMV: That most "pro-choice" people do NOT support abortion at 9 months under any circumstance | First and foremost I want say that I know that this is rare and only in specific circumstances. I am not talking about frequency.
But rather I was discussing with someone who is pro-abortion about personhood. And they believe that abortion is the complete and total right up until birth under any circumstance. And I said that is not a popular opinion even among pro-abortion circles. They have asked me to prove it.
So I am open to my view being changed but I do have some hope in humanity that it will not be.
What would change my view is to show proof that this is more popular, especially in pro-abortion circles.
I am NOT here to discuss abortion itself or the rights of mother or fetus. Just specifically how popular the listed belief actually is | The only reason an abortion would be performed at 9 months, as far as I am aware, is in the case of miscarriage. In any other circumstance the way to get the fetus out of the mother in that case is called birth, so it's not even a case of most pro-choice people not supporting it; anyone who thinks this way fundamentally misunderstands what abortion even is. | interrogare_omnia |
1iy9doz | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwdilq/cmv_abortion_should_not_be_illegal/ | RevolutionaryRip2504 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iwdilq/cmv_abortion_should_not_be_illegal/meoxp9p/ | 2,886,679 | cmv: abortion should not be illegal | I believe that abortion is ultimately a personal decision and not something that should be considered morally wrong. My stance comes from the idea that pregnancy can be life-altering in ways that aren’t always manageable for everyone, and people should have control over their own bodies.
One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.
For late-term abortions, most are done to save the mother or the fetus has a defect that would cause the fetus to die shortly after birth so I believe it should be allowed.
I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.
Additionally, I don’t think adoption is always a perfect alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term can have serious physical and emotional consequences, even if someone doesn’t plan to keep the baby. Pregnancy affects the body in irreversible ways, and complications can arise, making it more than just a “temporary inconvenience.”
Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy. abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born, and allowing one parent to opt out would place an unfair burden on the other, often the mother. Additionally, abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a child, while opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person. While both situations involve personal choice, abortion is about controlling one’s own body, while child support is about meeting the needs of a child who already exists
The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.
I’d like to hear other perspectives on why abortion should be illegal, particularly from a non-religious standpoint. CMV. | That’s even more ridiculous. If I obtained a pill from a doctor that only worked on my hormones and I gave them to my husband and he died, would I be the one being charged? Or would the doctor?
What if I hired a hitman and he killed my brother? Would it just be the hitman who was charged or would I be charged too?
I don’t think it matters either way. If it’s not a person, there’s no issue removing it regardless. If it is, people are not allowed to be inside other people without ongoing and explicit consent so again, there’s no issue removing it. The only way there would be an issue is if women didn’t have the same right to stop others being harmfully inside of them. Which would be discriminatory because men have that right. So then we’d have to remove that right from men too. Which would, of course, be a huge slippery slope in to more human rights violations. | Overlook-237 | 1,740,487,460 | cmv: abortion should not be illegal | I believe that abortion is ultimately a personal decision and not something that should be considered morally wrong. My stance comes from the idea that pregnancy can be life-altering in ways that aren’t always manageable for everyone, and people should have control over their own bodies.
One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.
For late-term abortions, most are done to save the mother or the fetus has a defect that would cause the fetus to die shortly after birth so I believe it should be allowed.
I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.
Additionally, I don’t think adoption is always a perfect alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term can have serious physical and emotional consequences, even if someone doesn’t plan to keep the baby. Pregnancy affects the body in irreversible ways, and complications can arise, making it more than just a “temporary inconvenience.”
Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy. abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born, and allowing one parent to opt out would place an unfair burden on the other, often the mother. Additionally, abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a child, while opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person. While both situations involve personal choice, abortion is about controlling one’s own body, while child support is about meeting the needs of a child who already exists
The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.
I’d like to hear other perspectives on why abortion should be illegal, particularly from a non-religious standpoint. CMV. | That’s even more ridiculous. If I obtained a pill from a doctor that only worked on my hormones and I gave them to my husband and he died, would I be the one being charged? Or would the doctor?
What if I hired a hitman and he killed my brother? Would it just be the hitman who was charged or would I be charged too?
I don’t think it matters either way. If it’s not a person, there’s no issue removing it regardless. If it is, people are not allowed to be inside other people without ongoing and explicit consent so again, there’s no issue removing it. The only way there would be an issue is if women didn’t have the same right to stop others being harmfully inside of them. Which would be discriminatory because men have that right. So then we’d have to remove that right from men too. Which would, of course, be a huge slippery slope in to more human rights violations. | RevolutionaryRip2504 |
1iyazl8 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3g36/cmv_russia_should_be_held_accountable_for/ | PoolShotTom | [
"LackingLack"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3g36/cmv_russia_should_be_held_accountable_for/mestp5y/ | 2,894,472 | CMV: Russia should be held accountable for invading Ukraine, and they shouldn’t be allowed to veto their own punishment | Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and sovereignty. The fact that Russia, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, can veto any resolution aimed at holding them accountable is deeply troubling. It’s like allowing a criminal to veto their own punishment—how can we expect justice when the perpetrator has that kind of power?
The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s actions (93 to 18), but the Security Council’s structure gives Russia the ability to block any real consequences. This is not just a flaw in the system; it’s a serious issue that allows a nation to act out wildly, without facing the repercussions of their aggression.
If Russia is allowed to continue this unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent where powerful countries can invade others and avoid consequences simply because they have the power to block action. That’s not how international law should work. If we believe in sovereignty and accountability, we need to reform the U.N. and prevent Russia from using its veto to avoid facing the consequences of its actions.
How to change my view:
If presented with evidence that Russia was not in the wrong in invading Ukraine, and that somehow it was Ukraine’s fault, I would be open to reconsidering my position. Also, if you can explain to me how having five permanent powers in the U.N. is more fair, especially when those countries are acting in bad faith, and how it’s justifiable for them to have a veto on being held accountable for their actions, that would also help change my perspective. | The USA vetoes their own "punishments" constantly as does UK and even France
When did the USA get sanctioned for invading Iraq?
When did Saudi Arabia get sanctioned for destroying Yemen?
The list goes on
Obsessively singling out Russia is just buying into USA-framed propaganda | LackingLack | 1,740,529,575 | CMV: Russia should be held accountable for invading Ukraine, and they shouldn’t be allowed to veto their own punishment | Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and sovereignty. The fact that Russia, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, can veto any resolution aimed at holding them accountable is deeply troubling. It’s like allowing a criminal to veto their own punishment—how can we expect justice when the perpetrator has that kind of power?
The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s actions (93 to 18), but the Security Council’s structure gives Russia the ability to block any real consequences. This is not just a flaw in the system; it’s a serious issue that allows a nation to act out wildly, without facing the repercussions of their aggression.
If Russia is allowed to continue this unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent where powerful countries can invade others and avoid consequences simply because they have the power to block action. That’s not how international law should work. If we believe in sovereignty and accountability, we need to reform the U.N. and prevent Russia from using its veto to avoid facing the consequences of its actions.
How to change my view:
If presented with evidence that Russia was not in the wrong in invading Ukraine, and that somehow it was Ukraine’s fault, I would be open to reconsidering my position. Also, if you can explain to me how having five permanent powers in the U.N. is more fair, especially when those countries are acting in bad faith, and how it’s justifiable for them to have a veto on being held accountable for their actions, that would also help change my perspective. | The USA vetoes their own "punishments" constantly as does UK and even France
When did the USA get sanctioned for invading Iraq?
When did Saudi Arabia get sanctioned for destroying Yemen?
The list goes on
Obsessively singling out Russia is just buying into USA-framed propaganda | PoolShotTom |
1iyejfj | /r/changemyview/comments/1iydlw4/cmv_sayingeveryone_is_beautiful_is_misguided_and/ | KingOfTheLostBoyz | [
"Flaky-Freedom-8762"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iydlw4/cmv_sayingeveryone_is_beautiful_is_misguided_and/metsrvy/ | 2,896,459 | CMV: Saying“everyone is beautiful” is misguided and achieves the opposite of the intended effect | While I do believe that normalization of saying “everyone is beautiful” is very well-intentioned and aimed at undoing society’s over-emphasis on physical beauty as a measure of worth, I think that it achieves the opposite of the intended effect.
When used as a catch-all, feel-good term to ascribe worth to everyone and boost self-esteem (both of which I believe are good things), I think it only further reinforces tying beauty to societal worth / value.
It would be far more constructive instead if instead we used a term that was basically a paraphrase of: “everyone has worth, even if they are not beautiful. Your beauty has no bearing on your worth”. | Appreciate the delta friend. But I think you have to write a longer sentence. | Flaky-Freedom-8762 | 1,740,541,342 | CMV: Saying“everyone is beautiful” is misguided and achieves the opposite of the intended effect | While I do believe that normalization of saying “everyone is beautiful” is very well-intentioned and aimed at undoing society’s over-emphasis on physical beauty as a measure of worth, I think that it achieves the opposite of the intended effect.
When used as a catch-all, feel-good term to ascribe worth to everyone and boost self-esteem (both of which I believe are good things), I think it only further reinforces tying beauty to societal worth / value.
It would be far more constructive instead if instead we used a term that was basically a paraphrase of: “everyone has worth, even if they are not beautiful. Your beauty has no bearing on your worth”. | Appreciate the delta friend. But I think you have to write a longer sentence. | KingOfTheLostBoyz |
1iyfugi | /r/changemyview/comments/1iya8a7/cmv_if_democrats_tried_to_sell_citizenship_for_5m/ | MrBootsie | [
"viaJormungandr"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iya8a7/cmv_if_democrats_tried_to_sell_citizenship_for_5m/mestw1j/ | 2,894,487 | CMV: If Democrats Tried to Sell Citizenship for $5M, You’d Be Screaming About Treason. | Link of you’re unaware. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-wants-sell-5-million-gold-cards-foreigners-who-will-create-us-jobs-2025-02-25/
—
For years, I’ve heard conservatives say immigration is a threat. That we need extreme vetting. That people coming here should “do it the right way,” work hard, and contribute to society before they ever dream of becoming citizens.
But now, Trump is literally selling citizenship to the highest bidder. A $5 million price tag for a “gold card” that fast-tracks people into America. No hard work. No proving they love this country. No assimilation. Just cash.
So explain this to me, how is immigration dangerous when a refugee fleeing violence applies for asylum, but totally fine when a foreign oligarch with a fat bank account buys their way in? I thought borders were about national security, about protecting American values. But I guess if you’re rich enough, none of that matters.
And let’s be real; who benefits from this? Not the average hardworking American. Not the so-called “forgotten man” politicians claim to care about. Just the ultra-rich buying another luxury item.
Please, tell me, conservatives, was all that talk about “law and order” just a cover for keeping out poor people? Because this sure looks like it. | I mean, you can already do it for much cheaper?
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/options-for-alien-entrepreneurs-to-work-in-the-united-states
Under an EB-5:
“You must invest a certain amount of lawfully obtained capital in a new commercial enterprise that will create at least 10 jobs for qualifying employees.
That amount is $1.05 million generally, or $800,000 if investing in a Targeted Employment Area or an infrastructure project. These amounts automatically adjust on Jan. 1, 2027.”
Why pay Trump $5 mill when you can just start a small business for a little over $1?
Trump’s version is grift central, I’m sure, but if you have the spare millions lying around I don’t see there being a real barrier to entry now, nor any real incentive to go for a “gold card” after he enacts it when you can do it cheaper and potentially make profit on the side. | viaJormungandr | 1,740,529,637 | CMV: If Democrats Tried to Sell Citizenship for $5M, You’d Be Screaming About Treason. | Link of you’re unaware. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-wants-sell-5-million-gold-cards-foreigners-who-will-create-us-jobs-2025-02-25/
—
For years, I’ve heard conservatives say immigration is a threat. That we need extreme vetting. That people coming here should “do it the right way,” work hard, and contribute to society before they ever dream of becoming citizens.
But now, Trump is literally selling citizenship to the highest bidder. A $5 million price tag for a “gold card” that fast-tracks people into America. No hard work. No proving they love this country. No assimilation. Just cash.
So explain this to me, how is immigration dangerous when a refugee fleeing violence applies for asylum, but totally fine when a foreign oligarch with a fat bank account buys their way in? I thought borders were about national security, about protecting American values. But I guess if you’re rich enough, none of that matters.
And let’s be real; who benefits from this? Not the average hardworking American. Not the so-called “forgotten man” politicians claim to care about. Just the ultra-rich buying another luxury item.
Please, tell me, conservatives, was all that talk about “law and order” just a cover for keeping out poor people? Because this sure looks like it. | I mean, you can already do it for much cheaper?
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/options-for-alien-entrepreneurs-to-work-in-the-united-states
Under an EB-5:
“You must invest a certain amount of lawfully obtained capital in a new commercial enterprise that will create at least 10 jobs for qualifying employees.
That amount is $1.05 million generally, or $800,000 if investing in a Targeted Employment Area or an infrastructure project. These amounts automatically adjust on Jan. 1, 2027.”
Why pay Trump $5 mill when you can just start a small business for a little over $1?
Trump’s version is grift central, I’m sure, but if you have the spare millions lying around I don’t see there being a real barrier to entry now, nor any real incentive to go for a “gold card” after he enacts it when you can do it cheaper and potentially make profit on the side. | MrBootsie |
1iyhsrf | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyh8wk/cmv_reddit_should_add_these_2_keys_features_and/ | ayukons | [
"BigBoetje"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyh8wk/cmv_reddit_should_add_these_2_keys_features_and/meuis24/ | 2,897,657 | CMV: Reddit should add these 2 keys features, and it’s surprising they haven’t already. Profile Privatization and Post Archiving. | I (m24) don’t use think I use reddit a considerable amount and am actually rather new to the platform. But so many countless time and time again I may click on a post, and start the read into the comments. And a lot of the time the main subject of debate is totally lost in translation and I see debates just turn into blatant attacks on a redditors personal character because of what they post/interact with. Why aren’t private profiles a thing yet?
Also on the flip side, I have also been in the shoes of someone who has short “periods” where I might make a lot of posts in a short amount of time or whatever. Regardless, sometimes rather then deleting and old post I would rather be able to archive/hide it from the public somehow like you can do on so many other social medias. Can someone explain the deal with Reddit?
| It depends heavily on the sub. Reddit itself doesn't care about botting, that's a subreddit issue. A lot of subreddits are already being spammed by karma farming bots, not to mention several subreddits dedicated to simply farming karma.
Reddit is a rather public platform. If you want a private conversation, use DM's, use another platform or use a throwaway.
A lot of subreddits will simply default to a policy of 'no private profiles' or create a moderation bot themselves that checks if your karma matches your post history.
Bots are already a big enough issue as it is that we shouldn't be taking away the few remaining tools to combat it.
At best, the price would be a crappier platform. There simply isn't enough demand for it to outweigh the massive disadvantages. | BigBoetje | 1,740,552,983 | CMV: Reddit should add these 2 keys features, and it’s surprising they haven’t already. Profile Privatization and Post Archiving. | I (m24) don’t use think I use reddit a considerable amount and am actually rather new to the platform. But so many countless time and time again I may click on a post, and start the read into the comments. And a lot of the time the main subject of debate is totally lost in translation and I see debates just turn into blatant attacks on a redditors personal character because of what they post/interact with. Why aren’t private profiles a thing yet?
Also on the flip side, I have also been in the shoes of someone who has short “periods” where I might make a lot of posts in a short amount of time or whatever. Regardless, sometimes rather then deleting and old post I would rather be able to archive/hide it from the public somehow like you can do on so many other social medias. Can someone explain the deal with Reddit?
| It depends heavily on the sub. Reddit itself doesn't care about botting, that's a subreddit issue. A lot of subreddits are already being spammed by karma farming bots, not to mention several subreddits dedicated to simply farming karma.
Reddit is a rather public platform. If you want a private conversation, use DM's, use another platform or use a throwaway.
A lot of subreddits will simply default to a policy of 'no private profiles' or create a moderation bot themselves that checks if your karma matches your post history.
Bots are already a big enough issue as it is that we shouldn't be taking away the few remaining tools to combat it.
At best, the price would be a crappier platform. There simply isn't enough demand for it to outweigh the massive disadvantages. | ayukons |
1iymjqp | /r/changemyview/comments/1iym3y6/cmv_birthright_citizenship_in_america_should_be/ | InternalSchedule2861 | [
"Alacrityneeded"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iym3y6/cmv_birthright_citizenship_in_america_should_be/mevh2vk/ | 2,898,622 | CMV: Birthright citizenship in America should be abolished | Most countries do not allow birthright citizenship.
Children of parents from another country should be citizens of that country instead because that is where their genetic lineage originated from.
If the country where the parents originated from do not accept their children that were born elsewhere and they become stateless because of it, that should not be the problem that the parents have to bear, not the country in which the children were born because the parents chose to do this.
Legal immigration is difficult for a good reason because if it were made too easy, too many people would be allowed to legally come in, but by allowing birthright citizenship to children of parents from other countries, it allows the children to grow up as citizens without working for it.
In fact, some countries do not even allow foreign spouses to become citizens or permanent residents of the country of the person that they are married to.
Citizenship should thus be limited to only those who have a certain income level so that they can bring money to the country they immigrate to and it should also be limited to children who already have an ancestral lineage to that country.
Even if there are people who are legitimately refugees and desire certain freedoms, having to accept them is like having to let your home open to everyone who is in legitimate danger and admires your home, and becoming overcrowded and interfering with your own family's way of life. | This argument is built on ignorance, fear, and a complete lack of empathy. The claim that “most countries do not allow birthright citizenship” is blatantly false. Many nations, including the U.S., Canada, and much of Latin America, grant citizenship based on jus soli (birthright citizenship). Even countries that operate on jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) often provide legal pathways for those born within their borders. Citizenship is not about genetic lineage—nations are built on shared values, laws, and cultures, not race or ancestry. Reducing citizenship to bloodlines is not only outdated but fundamentally at odds with the modern world.
The idea that statelessness is purely the parents’ problem, not the country’s, is cruel and ignorant of international human rights laws. Imagine fleeing a war zone, a dictatorship, or extreme poverty, risking everything to find a better life for your child, only for them to be denied a legal identity because some bureaucrat decides they don’t “deserve” to belong. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness exists because denying children citizenship leads to severe consequences, from lack of access to education and healthcare to being trapped in legal limbo. A country that refuses to prevent statelessness is not protecting itself—it is condemning innocent children to hardship and exclusion.
The argument that children must “work for citizenship” is absurd. No child “earns” citizenship; they grow up immersed in a society, shaped by its schools, culture, and laws. A child born and raised in a country knows no other home—how is it justifiable to tell them they do not belong? Denying citizenship to those who have spent their entire lives in a country creates a permanent underclass, fueling resentment and division. If you were forced to flee your homeland and your child was born elsewhere, would you accept the idea that they are forever an outsider, unwanted and unwelcome?
The suggestion that only those with a “certain income level” should be eligible for citizenship is nothing more than elitist gatekeeping. Many of the most successful and hardworking immigrants in history started with nothing, yet built lives that contributed enormously to their new countries. This policy would have denied countless individuals—who later became business owners, innovators, and essential workers—the opportunity to thrive. Restricting citizenship to the wealthy is a betrayal of the very idea that hard work and perseverance should determine one’s future, not the size of one’s bank account.
Japan is often used as an example by those who advocate for restrictive immigration policies, but this argument ignores reality. Japan’s strict immigration laws are not a model to follow; in fact, Japan is facing a demographic crisis due to a rapidly aging population and declining birth rates. Many experts argue that increased immigration would strengthen its economy and society. Every country has unique challenges, and blindly applying Japan’s policies elsewhere ignores the fact that nations thrive through adaptation, not isolation.
The fearmongering about immigration leading to “overcrowding” and cultural dilution is as old as history itself, and it has always been wrong. Immigration has consistently strengthened nations, driving economic growth, innovation, and cultural vibrancy. The idea that a country’s culture is so fragile that it cannot withstand new influences is a weak excuse for xenophobia. Societies that embrace diversity and integration thrive, while those that resist change stagnate.
The comparison between accepting refugees and “letting your home open to everyone in danger” is not just heartless—it is intellectually dishonest. A country is not a private home; it is a structured society with laws, infrastructure, and systems designed to manage population changes. Refugees are not intruders looking for a free ride—they are people escaping persecution, war, and hardship, seeking a chance to rebuild their lives. If you and your family were in that position, would you not hope for the same compassion and opportunity? History has shown that welcoming refugees leads to long-term benefits, as they bring resilience, skills, and an immense drive to contribute.
Citizenship is not about ancestry, wealth, or arbitrary restrictions—it is about participation, integration, and a shared commitment to a nation’s laws and values. Policies that deny citizenship to people born and raised in a country are not just unfair; they are self-destructive, creating economic and social problems that last for generations. The argument against birthright citizenship is not rooted in logic or fairness, but in exclusion, fear, and a complete lack of understanding of what makes a country strong. If you were the one searching for safety, for opportunity, for a better future for your children, would you accept the world you are trying to create? | Alacrityneeded | 1,740,572,499 | CMV: Birthright citizenship in America should be abolished | Most countries do not allow birthright citizenship.
Children of parents from another country should be citizens of that country instead because that is where their genetic lineage originated from.
If the country where the parents originated from do not accept their children that were born elsewhere and they become stateless because of it, that should not be the problem that the parents have to bear, not the country in which the children were born because the parents chose to do this.
Legal immigration is difficult for a good reason because if it were made too easy, too many people would be allowed to legally come in, but by allowing birthright citizenship to children of parents from other countries, it allows the children to grow up as citizens without working for it.
In fact, some countries do not even allow foreign spouses to become citizens or permanent residents of the country of the person that they are married to.
Citizenship should thus be limited to only those who have a certain income level so that they can bring money to the country they immigrate to and it should also be limited to children who already have an ancestral lineage to that country.
Even if there are people who are legitimately refugees and desire certain freedoms, having to accept them is like having to let your home open to everyone who is in legitimate danger and admires your home, and becoming overcrowded and interfering with your own family's way of life. | This argument is built on ignorance, fear, and a complete lack of empathy. The claim that “most countries do not allow birthright citizenship” is blatantly false. Many nations, including the U.S., Canada, and much of Latin America, grant citizenship based on jus soli (birthright citizenship). Even countries that operate on jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) often provide legal pathways for those born within their borders. Citizenship is not about genetic lineage—nations are built on shared values, laws, and cultures, not race or ancestry. Reducing citizenship to bloodlines is not only outdated but fundamentally at odds with the modern world.
The idea that statelessness is purely the parents’ problem, not the country’s, is cruel and ignorant of international human rights laws. Imagine fleeing a war zone, a dictatorship, or extreme poverty, risking everything to find a better life for your child, only for them to be denied a legal identity because some bureaucrat decides they don’t “deserve” to belong. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness exists because denying children citizenship leads to severe consequences, from lack of access to education and healthcare to being trapped in legal limbo. A country that refuses to prevent statelessness is not protecting itself—it is condemning innocent children to hardship and exclusion.
The argument that children must “work for citizenship” is absurd. No child “earns” citizenship; they grow up immersed in a society, shaped by its schools, culture, and laws. A child born and raised in a country knows no other home—how is it justifiable to tell them they do not belong? Denying citizenship to those who have spent their entire lives in a country creates a permanent underclass, fueling resentment and division. If you were forced to flee your homeland and your child was born elsewhere, would you accept the idea that they are forever an outsider, unwanted and unwelcome?
The suggestion that only those with a “certain income level” should be eligible for citizenship is nothing more than elitist gatekeeping. Many of the most successful and hardworking immigrants in history started with nothing, yet built lives that contributed enormously to their new countries. This policy would have denied countless individuals—who later became business owners, innovators, and essential workers—the opportunity to thrive. Restricting citizenship to the wealthy is a betrayal of the very idea that hard work and perseverance should determine one’s future, not the size of one’s bank account.
Japan is often used as an example by those who advocate for restrictive immigration policies, but this argument ignores reality. Japan’s strict immigration laws are not a model to follow; in fact, Japan is facing a demographic crisis due to a rapidly aging population and declining birth rates. Many experts argue that increased immigration would strengthen its economy and society. Every country has unique challenges, and blindly applying Japan’s policies elsewhere ignores the fact that nations thrive through adaptation, not isolation.
The fearmongering about immigration leading to “overcrowding” and cultural dilution is as old as history itself, and it has always been wrong. Immigration has consistently strengthened nations, driving economic growth, innovation, and cultural vibrancy. The idea that a country’s culture is so fragile that it cannot withstand new influences is a weak excuse for xenophobia. Societies that embrace diversity and integration thrive, while those that resist change stagnate.
The comparison between accepting refugees and “letting your home open to everyone in danger” is not just heartless—it is intellectually dishonest. A country is not a private home; it is a structured society with laws, infrastructure, and systems designed to manage population changes. Refugees are not intruders looking for a free ride—they are people escaping persecution, war, and hardship, seeking a chance to rebuild their lives. If you and your family were in that position, would you not hope for the same compassion and opportunity? History has shown that welcoming refugees leads to long-term benefits, as they bring resilience, skills, and an immense drive to contribute.
Citizenship is not about ancestry, wealth, or arbitrary restrictions—it is about participation, integration, and a shared commitment to a nation’s laws and values. Policies that deny citizenship to people born and raised in a country are not just unfair; they are self-destructive, creating economic and social problems that last for generations. The argument against birthright citizenship is not rooted in logic or fairness, but in exclusion, fear, and a complete lack of understanding of what makes a country strong. If you were the one searching for safety, for opportunity, for a better future for your children, would you accept the world you are trying to create? | InternalSchedule2861 |
1iyoulp | /r/changemyview/comments/1iye2kw/cmv_sexual_promiscuity_is_not_a_form_of_female/ | Ok_Spread_8945 | [
"Top_Present_5825"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iye2kw/cmv_sexual_promiscuity_is_not_a_form_of_female/meus7h1/ | 2,898,003 | CMV: Sexual Promiscuity is Not a Form of Female Empowerment, Purity is | Ever since the Sexual Liberation emerged in America during the 1950s, there has been an increased effort in encouraging women to 'find oneself' and to 'gain experience' via sleeping around with numerous people. This viewpoint has been pushed as a 'progressivist stance' to make women more empowered and free of the
'oppressive patriarchy.’ I would like to systematically tear this perspective to shreds and I welcome anybody who can make a good case as to why my view is wrong.
First off, I think it is important to note that men and women fundamentally value different things. Women often times value men that show an ability to procure resources, generosity, humor, competency, and an ability to take-risks among others. Men typically look for women who are more youthful in appearance, modest, good with kids, attractive figure, etc. Women often times value a man for having more wisdom and experience (which is why they typically prefer older men) and men often times value a lack of life experience. This naturally extends within the context of sexual experience. Men like to be the gateway for showing their women the world by introducing them to new experiences. This stems from men’s biological drive to be providers.
Since the dawn of human history, men have always placed high value on women who were sexually pure. Sacrificial virgin, virgin Mary, etc. Most world religions practiced today emphasize the importance of saving oneself for marriage. The reason there is a double-standard when it comes to men vs. women sleeping around, has to do with the ease at which most women can have sex with someone vs. the difficulty most men have in securing a partner for sex. Scarcity creates value. Women control men’s access to sex whereas men control access to a relationship. Women are the gatekeepers of their sexuality and their ability to say no and be sexually selective is what female empowerment is. That is one of the reasons why rape is so horrendous. It negates a woman’s “divine” empowered ability to sexually select.
There has been a lot of data that has come out recently whose results support the idea that female promiscuity is disempowering. Marrying a partner with no sexual experience previously has shown that there is a 2-3x increase in married partners reporting marital satisfaction. There was also a study contacted at Harvard university that showed lifetime marriage success was at 80% for couples who were virgins when they met each other and that rate dropped to a shockingly low 39% when the female partner had just 3 or more previous sexual partners. Infidelity rates are 6x higher when a woman has had 2-4 previous partners. 96% of women with 20 or more sexual partners will never get married. (Dr. Helen Fig Harvard University)
Many people complain about the difficulty in the current dating marketplace and I believe that the treatment of sex as a way to have fun instead of something to be shared intimately with just the person you choose to marry is destructive beyond measure. When women give up their standards for sexual selectivity, they disempower themselves by giving up one of their best superpowers. When a woman agrees to have sex with a non-comital person, she is essentially denigrating herself as nothing more than a sexual object. Very few self-respecting men will commit to marrying a woman if they know she has had a sizable body count. People will accuse these men as being insecure but that’s not true. A promiscuous woman is seen as someone who doesn’t have standards. Men think that if so many men can have her easily, she isn’t as valuable as other options out there (because of scarcity equaling value). Modest women with low body counts are the ones who get wifed up quickly. If you would disagree, then I would ask you: “Would you encourage your daughter to sleep around with multiple men in order to find herself?” | If female sexual empowerment is purely about choice and not restriction, then why is it that modern feminist rhetoric selectively glorifies one choice - sexual liberation - while treating the other - modesty or abstinence - as either regressive, outdated, or influenced by patriarchal oppression?
If empowerment is truly about autonomy, then why does the dominant cultural narrative celebrate women’s right to sleep with whoever they want while simultaneously ridiculing, shaming, or dismissing women who choose restraint, traditional values, or long-term commitment as being brainwashed, oppressed, or "not really empowered"?
If personal empowerment is the ultimate goal, then why do the same people who argue that sexual freedom is empowering completely ignore the overwhelming empirical data showing that high partner count correlates with lower long-term relationship satisfaction, higher divorce rates, and diminished mental health outcomes - data which is conveniently dismissed under the guise of "shifting social dynamics"?
If the only criterion for empowerment is choice, then wouldn’t that mean women who adhere to deeply traditional values and reject modern feminist sexual norms are just as empowered as those who embrace them - yet, why does that idea seem so uncomfortable for those who push the "sexual freedom" narrative?
If all choices are equally valid, why is there an undeniable double standard in how society treats those choices, and why is one continually framed as "progressive" while the other is subtly (or overtly) ridiculed as repressive or naïve? | Top_Present_5825 | 1,740,558,462 | CMV: Sexual Promiscuity is Not a Form of Female Empowerment, Purity is | Ever since the Sexual Liberation emerged in America during the 1950s, there has been an increased effort in encouraging women to 'find oneself' and to 'gain experience' via sleeping around with numerous people. This viewpoint has been pushed as a 'progressivist stance' to make women more empowered and free of the
'oppressive patriarchy.’ I would like to systematically tear this perspective to shreds and I welcome anybody who can make a good case as to why my view is wrong.
First off, I think it is important to note that men and women fundamentally value different things. Women often times value men that show an ability to procure resources, generosity, humor, competency, and an ability to take-risks among others. Men typically look for women who are more youthful in appearance, modest, good with kids, attractive figure, etc. Women often times value a man for having more wisdom and experience (which is why they typically prefer older men) and men often times value a lack of life experience. This naturally extends within the context of sexual experience. Men like to be the gateway for showing their women the world by introducing them to new experiences. This stems from men’s biological drive to be providers.
Since the dawn of human history, men have always placed high value on women who were sexually pure. Sacrificial virgin, virgin Mary, etc. Most world religions practiced today emphasize the importance of saving oneself for marriage. The reason there is a double-standard when it comes to men vs. women sleeping around, has to do with the ease at which most women can have sex with someone vs. the difficulty most men have in securing a partner for sex. Scarcity creates value. Women control men’s access to sex whereas men control access to a relationship. Women are the gatekeepers of their sexuality and their ability to say no and be sexually selective is what female empowerment is. That is one of the reasons why rape is so horrendous. It negates a woman’s “divine” empowered ability to sexually select.
There has been a lot of data that has come out recently whose results support the idea that female promiscuity is disempowering. Marrying a partner with no sexual experience previously has shown that there is a 2-3x increase in married partners reporting marital satisfaction. There was also a study contacted at Harvard university that showed lifetime marriage success was at 80% for couples who were virgins when they met each other and that rate dropped to a shockingly low 39% when the female partner had just 3 or more previous sexual partners. Infidelity rates are 6x higher when a woman has had 2-4 previous partners. 96% of women with 20 or more sexual partners will never get married. (Dr. Helen Fig Harvard University)
Many people complain about the difficulty in the current dating marketplace and I believe that the treatment of sex as a way to have fun instead of something to be shared intimately with just the person you choose to marry is destructive beyond measure. When women give up their standards for sexual selectivity, they disempower themselves by giving up one of their best superpowers. When a woman agrees to have sex with a non-comital person, she is essentially denigrating herself as nothing more than a sexual object. Very few self-respecting men will commit to marrying a woman if they know she has had a sizable body count. People will accuse these men as being insecure but that’s not true. A promiscuous woman is seen as someone who doesn’t have standards. Men think that if so many men can have her easily, she isn’t as valuable as other options out there (because of scarcity equaling value). Modest women with low body counts are the ones who get wifed up quickly. If you would disagree, then I would ask you: “Would you encourage your daughter to sleep around with multiple men in order to find herself?” | If female sexual empowerment is purely about choice and not restriction, then why is it that modern feminist rhetoric selectively glorifies one choice - sexual liberation - while treating the other - modesty or abstinence - as either regressive, outdated, or influenced by patriarchal oppression?
If empowerment is truly about autonomy, then why does the dominant cultural narrative celebrate women’s right to sleep with whoever they want while simultaneously ridiculing, shaming, or dismissing women who choose restraint, traditional values, or long-term commitment as being brainwashed, oppressed, or "not really empowered"?
If personal empowerment is the ultimate goal, then why do the same people who argue that sexual freedom is empowering completely ignore the overwhelming empirical data showing that high partner count correlates with lower long-term relationship satisfaction, higher divorce rates, and diminished mental health outcomes - data which is conveniently dismissed under the guise of "shifting social dynamics"?
If the only criterion for empowerment is choice, then wouldn’t that mean women who adhere to deeply traditional values and reject modern feminist sexual norms are just as empowered as those who embrace them - yet, why does that idea seem so uncomfortable for those who push the "sexual freedom" narrative?
If all choices are equally valid, why is there an undeniable double standard in how society treats those choices, and why is one continually framed as "progressive" while the other is subtly (or overtly) ridiculed as repressive or naïve? | Ok_Spread_8945 |
1iyreyz | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyq8da/cmv_people_both_rich_as_poor_suck_at_money/ | apopDragon | [
"Top_Present_5825"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyq8da/cmv_people_both_rich_as_poor_suck_at_money/mewk101/ | 2,900,300 | CMV: People, both rich as poor, suck at money management. | I come from an upper middle-class background. At university, I had a lot of interactions with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and city residents one paycheck away from homelessness.
**Examples from low-income people:**
1. Someone had a 2-month temporary job and signed up for a 1-year personal trainer contract costing $150 a month with serious early-termination charges. He underestimated how hard it was to find another job.
2. A person got too enticed by the $200 signing bonus for a part time call center job, but did not consider timing and location. She frequently has to Uber to her shifts which reduced her net income.
3. Someone borrowed money from me to pay her disabled mother's utilities. When she asked for money again the next month, I said that I won't lend more until I got paid back. She ended up getting an official loan to pay me back and ruined her credit. I helped her out a bit more then cut contact.
4. Someone refused to get a job because her housing assistance will end in 36 months if she does do. I said that she can just save up the money from the housing assistance over 3 years, use it to get a certification and then get a higher paying job. She looked at me like I'm Einstein.
5. Somone was married to a weed addict who made no effort to reach out to social services or recover and kept relying on his blind dad's disability benefits.
6. A lot of people keep using more than 30% of their credit limit which drains their credit score, don't use credit unions, put in too little money for down payments, etc.
7. Someone had to completely replace brakes for $800 after not maintaining his car at regular intervals. After doing the math, financing the periodic payments with interest included costed less than the brake system replacement.
**Examples from upper-middle class people**
1. Investing in high-risk penny stocks or crypto. Everyone I knew lost money.
2. Going to conferences such as American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on their own money and not putting in the effort to learn or advance professionally.
3. Not getting regular health checkups, then paying more for treatment later.
4. Trying to "flip houses," only ending up spending more money on repairs and taxes than the amount of money earned from the sale.
5. Not planning for travels/vacations ahead of time. Inability to make a decision and ends up getting ripped off.
6. Fast fashion. You can afford good quality reliable clothes yet choose to replace clothing frequently.
7. Same thing with smartphones. No one takes care of their batteries (20% to 80% charging) and gets a new phone every 5 years.
8. Paying out of state college tuition on "worthless degree." If you can afford to follow your dreams, do so, but at least do so for a better deal.
9. Teens using part time job money to get luxuries/wants instead of cheaper payments like internet, water, or home supplies. Then as a young adult, they lack the ability to budget and plan long term.
**The poor can't personally finance their way out of systemic issues, but at least it can prevent them from going into a deeper hole**. Well off people have a safety net against stupid decisions, but they can't maintain generational wealth.
How come everyone is so noob when personal finance is mentioned online and in economics classes. | You argue that both rich and poor alike are terrible with money, yet you somehow expect financial literacy alone to counteract systemic barriers that make wealth accumulation exponentially harder for the poor, while simultaneously admitting that the wealthy have safety nets that allow them to recover from financial blunders without permanent consequences?
If financial literacy were the determining factor in wealth preservation, why do multi-generational rich families still lose their fortunes despite access to top-tier financial advisors, investment opportunities, and a culture of money management that lower-income individuals are never exposed to?
If personal finance alone could break cycles of poverty, why is it that even highly disciplined, financially responsible poor individuals still remain trapped in a system designed to extract wealth from them through predatory lending, stagnant wages, and unavoidable high-cost necessities, while the wealthy continue to grow richer despite making reckless financial decisions?
If financial irresponsibility is an equal-opportunity issue, why do the wealthy get to fail upward while the poor suffer permanent consequences from a single mistake? | Top_Present_5825 | 1,740,585,681 | CMV: People, both rich as poor, suck at money management. | I come from an upper middle-class background. At university, I had a lot of interactions with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and city residents one paycheck away from homelessness.
**Examples from low-income people:**
1. Someone had a 2-month temporary job and signed up for a 1-year personal trainer contract costing $150 a month with serious early-termination charges. He underestimated how hard it was to find another job.
2. A person got too enticed by the $200 signing bonus for a part time call center job, but did not consider timing and location. She frequently has to Uber to her shifts which reduced her net income.
3. Someone borrowed money from me to pay her disabled mother's utilities. When she asked for money again the next month, I said that I won't lend more until I got paid back. She ended up getting an official loan to pay me back and ruined her credit. I helped her out a bit more then cut contact.
4. Someone refused to get a job because her housing assistance will end in 36 months if she does do. I said that she can just save up the money from the housing assistance over 3 years, use it to get a certification and then get a higher paying job. She looked at me like I'm Einstein.
5. Somone was married to a weed addict who made no effort to reach out to social services or recover and kept relying on his blind dad's disability benefits.
6. A lot of people keep using more than 30% of their credit limit which drains their credit score, don't use credit unions, put in too little money for down payments, etc.
7. Someone had to completely replace brakes for $800 after not maintaining his car at regular intervals. After doing the math, financing the periodic payments with interest included costed less than the brake system replacement.
**Examples from upper-middle class people**
1. Investing in high-risk penny stocks or crypto. Everyone I knew lost money.
2. Going to conferences such as American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on their own money and not putting in the effort to learn or advance professionally.
3. Not getting regular health checkups, then paying more for treatment later.
4. Trying to "flip houses," only ending up spending more money on repairs and taxes than the amount of money earned from the sale.
5. Not planning for travels/vacations ahead of time. Inability to make a decision and ends up getting ripped off.
6. Fast fashion. You can afford good quality reliable clothes yet choose to replace clothing frequently.
7. Same thing with smartphones. No one takes care of their batteries (20% to 80% charging) and gets a new phone every 5 years.
8. Paying out of state college tuition on "worthless degree." If you can afford to follow your dreams, do so, but at least do so for a better deal.
9. Teens using part time job money to get luxuries/wants instead of cheaper payments like internet, water, or home supplies. Then as a young adult, they lack the ability to budget and plan long term.
**The poor can't personally finance their way out of systemic issues, but at least it can prevent them from going into a deeper hole**. Well off people have a safety net against stupid decisions, but they can't maintain generational wealth.
How come everyone is so noob when personal finance is mentioned online and in economics classes. | You argue that both rich and poor alike are terrible with money, yet you somehow expect financial literacy alone to counteract systemic barriers that make wealth accumulation exponentially harder for the poor, while simultaneously admitting that the wealthy have safety nets that allow them to recover from financial blunders without permanent consequences?
If financial literacy were the determining factor in wealth preservation, why do multi-generational rich families still lose their fortunes despite access to top-tier financial advisors, investment opportunities, and a culture of money management that lower-income individuals are never exposed to?
If personal finance alone could break cycles of poverty, why is it that even highly disciplined, financially responsible poor individuals still remain trapped in a system designed to extract wealth from them through predatory lending, stagnant wages, and unavoidable high-cost necessities, while the wealthy continue to grow richer despite making reckless financial decisions?
If financial irresponsibility is an equal-opportunity issue, why do the wealthy get to fail upward while the poor suffer permanent consequences from a single mistake? | apopDragon |
1iytggv | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyst2k/cmv_a_big_motivator_for_americans_wanting_to_pull/ | estifxy220 | [
"WaterboysWaterboy"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyst2k/cmv_a_big_motivator_for_americans_wanting_to_pull/mex3vsp/ | 2,900,998 | CMV: A big motivator for Americans wanting to pull US support, funding, and defense out of Europe is because of the constant insulting and brigading of Americans | The main thing that everyone has been talking about lately is the US-EU relations, and Trump wanting to potentially reduce US military support and funding in Europe, and to stop funding Ukraine. To a lot of people’s surprise, especially non-Americans, many Americans actually support this, including people who don’t support Trump. I think that one of the major reasons a lot of Americans actually support this is due to the constant brigading and animosity towards Americans commonly seen everywhere on the internet.
Now I want to make several big disclaimers: I personally DO NOT SUPPORT pulling US support and defense out of Europe, and I do NOT support the US leaving NATO. I support NATO, I support the EU, I support Ukraine, and I appreciate all of our allies. I think America’s allies is what makes it so much stronger, and I HIGHLY disapprove of what Trump is doing. The point I am trying to make in this post is NOT my own personal view, and is instead why I think OTHER Americans support the view I am talking about in this post. I also know that not all Europeans hate America.
Pretty much everywhere on the internet, you find constant brigading and alienization of Americans and the US from Canadians, Europeans, and Australians literally everywhere. Now obviously, jokes and criticism of the US are completely fine - if anything, Americans joke about and criticize America more than anyone else on earth. But what I am not referring to isn’t the regular fat jokes, gun jokes, etc, but rather the genuine hatred you often see. When I watch ANY video that even mentions the US, even if it’s something inherently positive, there is a 90% chance that there will be someone in the comments mentioning mass shootings, the horrible healthcare system, etc, even if the video had completely nothing to do with it at all. Like I said previously, these criticisms are completely valid - but they are so random and unnecessary to bring up under a video of American national parks or something. It reminds me of the meme of an American saying some light hearted joke of British people, such as them having bad teeth, and then in response they bring up school shootings and children dying. Like why?
Subs that completely alienate Americans such as r/ShitAmericansSay have hundreds of thousands of members. I agree that the Americans that are posted in the r/ShitAmericansSay sub say some really stupid shit, but people that say stupid/ignorant shit about their country are found literally everywhere, yet you don’t see a subreddit dedicated entirely to them like Americans. They act as if being ignorant is only an American thing. You also see the same regarding things such as Geography, which once again doesn’t really matter, but many people don’t seem to understand that Americans are pretty isolated from the rest of the world and only need to know what’s around them, while Europeans can drive to a whole new country in just a couple hours. The US is almost as big as the entirety of the European continent. Americans don’t really need to travel abroad to see new stuff. There is no reason why some American should know about some random European country that they will probably never need to know about in their life, such as Slovakia or something. The exact same with go for Europeans - I guarantee you many Europeans don’t know where Togo or Bolivia are, because why would they need to know about them?
You also see a ton of Europeans constantly ranting about the US having no culture, while they enjoy American apps, media, services, fashion, you name it. Many of them also like to rant about our poor food quality, thinking that EVERYTHING in the US is just processed garbage, and loves to rant about how much less regulation we have. Meanwhile the US has some of the best and most authentic food you can find anywhere in the world since so many people with different backgrounds live here. Where I live in LA, I can get almost any authentic food that I want in just a short walk/drive. I also want to go back to the point of American food having “more processed ingredients” such as Red 40 - Many Europeans love to rant about how they have Red 40 banned, yet in the EU it is completely unbanned, and is just under a different name - E129, or Allura Red AC. It’s like many Europeans assume they know everything from the US because of opinions on the internet, yet they have never been here before. It’s why so many people think they’ll genuinely come here and get shot instantly. Random bullshit like this is a huge reason why subs like r/AmericaBad have grown.
I think that this behavior alienates many Americans a lot and makes them want to reduce the funding they give to Europe. Think about it - if you were constantly giving money to your roommate, and you are always the first person they look to for help (IRL equivalent would be the Ukraine war), yet that same roommate then constantly talks about how much of an asshole you are, would you want to be supporting that roommate with YOUR money any longer? That’s how a LOT of Americans think. They will go online and watch any video related to their country that they may find interesting, such as a video about US national parks or history, and they go to the comments and see some European bringing up expensive healthcare, saying how the US is super racist (incredibly hypocritical imo), and how Europe is so much better. After seeing this attitude towards them and their country so often, the American may think “why are we defending these people’s countries and continents if they hate us, and do not see us as friends?”
Another point that I want to make is that many Americans see Europeans as very hypocritical, which I stated before. Many Europeans like to talk about how racist the US is and how “In Europe we don’t do that,” yet whenever a gypsy person gets brought up, it’s like that “we aren’t racist and super accepting!!!” Thought gets thrown right out of the window. Not to mention that American Exceptionalism is just as annoying as Eurocentrism, especially with all of the dumb history edits you most likely commonly see.
Even I had this opinion for a while before I became more educated on the issue. I would go on any social media, such as Instagram, go find a cool post talking about my country, such as an American talking about their experience in Europe, and of course I would go to the comments expecting to see people talking about the video, just to see a bunch of people shitting on my country constantly about things that were never even mentioned. Yet I go to a video of anyone else, such as a Canadian talking about their experience in Europe, and a good 80% of the comments are positive or actually contributing to a conversation, and staying on topic with the video, instead of bringing up major problems that Canada may have. At the time, this honestly made me angry that my country was defending these people that seemingly hated us and didn’t appreciate us. I supported reducing US military support out of Europe and keeping it for our own defense instead. Of course I became more educated on the issue later on and realized that American bases in Europe actually make the US stronger, + I don’t hate Europe at all, but many Americans may not realize that.
This is also why I think many Americans instead support American bases and funding in East/Southeast Asia vs in Europe - Not just to counter China, but also because many of them seem to actually appreciate the defense, support, and funding the US provides to them. Especially in countries such as Japan, Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. Even Vietnam’s relations are improving nowadays. Many Americans feel like they are just being taken advantage of, and their country are just seen as a big cash cow that subsidizes their defense so European nations can afford and enjoy their social programs, and not as an actual friend to Europeans. Meanwhile in East Asia/Southeast Asia, they seem to actually appreciate the defense we give them a lot more, and see America and Americans as actual friends. Yes, there are still problems, such as situations regarding Okinawa, but overall, the attitude towards America seems a lot better.
Before finishing this post, I want to make several things clear once again - I do NOT personally share the view I am making in this post, and instead am talking about what I have noticed among other Americans. I hate what Trump is doing and I think it is absolutely horrible for everybody involved. Me personally, I love and appreciate Europe, and I’d argue that more Europeans (prior to the election) had more favorable views than negative - but I feel like my point still stands.
But in conclusion (or a TLDR I guess), the constant genuine hate for Americans online alienates Americans and their opinions on Canadians, Europeans, and Australians, making them wanting to pull support for these people that seemingly hate them, and instead wanting to use that funding for domestic issues and/or supporting East Asian/Southeast Asian countries more, who seem like they actually appreciate Americans and the defense they receive. And of course other European countries are made fun of other European countries just as much, and I know countries having rivalries between the citizens is as old as time. But I feel like it’s kinda gotten out of hand when I can’t find a video mentioning the US without mass shootings being brought up. I could keep going on, but I think this post has became more of a rant than an actual statement. | Europeans insult everyone. Europeans insult other Europeans countries all the time. It is mostly banter. There are someone haters, but generally it isn’t malicious. For the party that labels others snowflakes and wants to legalize comedy again, getting that upset over US banter is pretty silly.
Also I don’t think most Americans even know how other countries view them. Most Americans are America centric. I don’t think they care about what the EU has to say about them. | WaterboysWaterboy | 1,740,591,281 | CMV: A big motivator for Americans wanting to pull US support, funding, and defense out of Europe is because of the constant insulting and brigading of Americans | The main thing that everyone has been talking about lately is the US-EU relations, and Trump wanting to potentially reduce US military support and funding in Europe, and to stop funding Ukraine. To a lot of people’s surprise, especially non-Americans, many Americans actually support this, including people who don’t support Trump. I think that one of the major reasons a lot of Americans actually support this is due to the constant brigading and animosity towards Americans commonly seen everywhere on the internet.
Now I want to make several big disclaimers: I personally DO NOT SUPPORT pulling US support and defense out of Europe, and I do NOT support the US leaving NATO. I support NATO, I support the EU, I support Ukraine, and I appreciate all of our allies. I think America’s allies is what makes it so much stronger, and I HIGHLY disapprove of what Trump is doing. The point I am trying to make in this post is NOT my own personal view, and is instead why I think OTHER Americans support the view I am talking about in this post. I also know that not all Europeans hate America.
Pretty much everywhere on the internet, you find constant brigading and alienization of Americans and the US from Canadians, Europeans, and Australians literally everywhere. Now obviously, jokes and criticism of the US are completely fine - if anything, Americans joke about and criticize America more than anyone else on earth. But what I am not referring to isn’t the regular fat jokes, gun jokes, etc, but rather the genuine hatred you often see. When I watch ANY video that even mentions the US, even if it’s something inherently positive, there is a 90% chance that there will be someone in the comments mentioning mass shootings, the horrible healthcare system, etc, even if the video had completely nothing to do with it at all. Like I said previously, these criticisms are completely valid - but they are so random and unnecessary to bring up under a video of American national parks or something. It reminds me of the meme of an American saying some light hearted joke of British people, such as them having bad teeth, and then in response they bring up school shootings and children dying. Like why?
Subs that completely alienate Americans such as r/ShitAmericansSay have hundreds of thousands of members. I agree that the Americans that are posted in the r/ShitAmericansSay sub say some really stupid shit, but people that say stupid/ignorant shit about their country are found literally everywhere, yet you don’t see a subreddit dedicated entirely to them like Americans. They act as if being ignorant is only an American thing. You also see the same regarding things such as Geography, which once again doesn’t really matter, but many people don’t seem to understand that Americans are pretty isolated from the rest of the world and only need to know what’s around them, while Europeans can drive to a whole new country in just a couple hours. The US is almost as big as the entirety of the European continent. Americans don’t really need to travel abroad to see new stuff. There is no reason why some American should know about some random European country that they will probably never need to know about in their life, such as Slovakia or something. The exact same with go for Europeans - I guarantee you many Europeans don’t know where Togo or Bolivia are, because why would they need to know about them?
You also see a ton of Europeans constantly ranting about the US having no culture, while they enjoy American apps, media, services, fashion, you name it. Many of them also like to rant about our poor food quality, thinking that EVERYTHING in the US is just processed garbage, and loves to rant about how much less regulation we have. Meanwhile the US has some of the best and most authentic food you can find anywhere in the world since so many people with different backgrounds live here. Where I live in LA, I can get almost any authentic food that I want in just a short walk/drive. I also want to go back to the point of American food having “more processed ingredients” such as Red 40 - Many Europeans love to rant about how they have Red 40 banned, yet in the EU it is completely unbanned, and is just under a different name - E129, or Allura Red AC. It’s like many Europeans assume they know everything from the US because of opinions on the internet, yet they have never been here before. It’s why so many people think they’ll genuinely come here and get shot instantly. Random bullshit like this is a huge reason why subs like r/AmericaBad have grown.
I think that this behavior alienates many Americans a lot and makes them want to reduce the funding they give to Europe. Think about it - if you were constantly giving money to your roommate, and you are always the first person they look to for help (IRL equivalent would be the Ukraine war), yet that same roommate then constantly talks about how much of an asshole you are, would you want to be supporting that roommate with YOUR money any longer? That’s how a LOT of Americans think. They will go online and watch any video related to their country that they may find interesting, such as a video about US national parks or history, and they go to the comments and see some European bringing up expensive healthcare, saying how the US is super racist (incredibly hypocritical imo), and how Europe is so much better. After seeing this attitude towards them and their country so often, the American may think “why are we defending these people’s countries and continents if they hate us, and do not see us as friends?”
Another point that I want to make is that many Americans see Europeans as very hypocritical, which I stated before. Many Europeans like to talk about how racist the US is and how “In Europe we don’t do that,” yet whenever a gypsy person gets brought up, it’s like that “we aren’t racist and super accepting!!!” Thought gets thrown right out of the window. Not to mention that American Exceptionalism is just as annoying as Eurocentrism, especially with all of the dumb history edits you most likely commonly see.
Even I had this opinion for a while before I became more educated on the issue. I would go on any social media, such as Instagram, go find a cool post talking about my country, such as an American talking about their experience in Europe, and of course I would go to the comments expecting to see people talking about the video, just to see a bunch of people shitting on my country constantly about things that were never even mentioned. Yet I go to a video of anyone else, such as a Canadian talking about their experience in Europe, and a good 80% of the comments are positive or actually contributing to a conversation, and staying on topic with the video, instead of bringing up major problems that Canada may have. At the time, this honestly made me angry that my country was defending these people that seemingly hated us and didn’t appreciate us. I supported reducing US military support out of Europe and keeping it for our own defense instead. Of course I became more educated on the issue later on and realized that American bases in Europe actually make the US stronger, + I don’t hate Europe at all, but many Americans may not realize that.
This is also why I think many Americans instead support American bases and funding in East/Southeast Asia vs in Europe - Not just to counter China, but also because many of them seem to actually appreciate the defense, support, and funding the US provides to them. Especially in countries such as Japan, Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. Even Vietnam’s relations are improving nowadays. Many Americans feel like they are just being taken advantage of, and their country are just seen as a big cash cow that subsidizes their defense so European nations can afford and enjoy their social programs, and not as an actual friend to Europeans. Meanwhile in East Asia/Southeast Asia, they seem to actually appreciate the defense we give them a lot more, and see America and Americans as actual friends. Yes, there are still problems, such as situations regarding Okinawa, but overall, the attitude towards America seems a lot better.
Before finishing this post, I want to make several things clear once again - I do NOT personally share the view I am making in this post, and instead am talking about what I have noticed among other Americans. I hate what Trump is doing and I think it is absolutely horrible for everybody involved. Me personally, I love and appreciate Europe, and I’d argue that more Europeans (prior to the election) had more favorable views than negative - but I feel like my point still stands.
But in conclusion (or a TLDR I guess), the constant genuine hate for Americans online alienates Americans and their opinions on Canadians, Europeans, and Australians, making them wanting to pull support for these people that seemingly hate them, and instead wanting to use that funding for domestic issues and/or supporting East Asian/Southeast Asian countries more, who seem like they actually appreciate Americans and the defense they receive. And of course other European countries are made fun of other European countries just as much, and I know countries having rivalries between the citizens is as old as time. But I feel like it’s kinda gotten out of hand when I can’t find a video mentioning the US without mass shootings being brought up. I could keep going on, but I think this post has became more of a rant than an actual statement. | Europeans insult everyone. Europeans insult other Europeans countries all the time. It is mostly banter. There are someone haters, but generally it isn’t malicious. For the party that labels others snowflakes and wants to legalize comedy again, getting that upset over US banter is pretty silly.
Also I don’t think most Americans even know how other countries view them. Most Americans are America centric. I don’t think they care about what the EU has to say about them. | estifxy220 |
1iyttpn | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyeje4/cmv_everyone_who_can_should_buy_at_least_1_share/ | ifuckedyourdaddytoo | [
"2percentorless"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyeje4/cmv_everyone_who_can_should_buy_at_least_1_share/mex2gxq/ | 2,900,931 | CMV: Everyone who can should buy at least 1 share of RDDT to prevent this site from going the way of Twitter | As of close today, RDDT has a market capitalization of around $30B. That's well within Elon Musk's means.
But if we all owned shares, we can veto any takeover attempt.
This assumes that RDDT's corporate charter/by-laws require any sale of the company to be put to a shareholder vote. I don't have the wherewithal to find the documentation.
We can ill afford to lose another platform. Musk (X) is a Nazi and Zuckerberg (facebook, Instagram) has become a Trump sycophant, removing sanitary napkins from men's restrooms at Meta offices. Nobody is on BlueSky. If we lose freedom here, there's nowhere else to escape to.
Some elected officials like AOC and Bernie are sounding the alarm on the destruction of our Constitution but the algorithms on the billionaire-controlled sites are burying them. | The mechanisms of the market would either crash the price to make people bailout, especially if they sunk a lot of money in it. Or more shares could be issued that big firms can scoop up before we get the chance.
And barring all that the company can just cancel the shares outright. You would be entitled to cash but you can’t stop your shares from being fucked with. You’ll own the shares but not the nature of them | 2percentorless | 1,740,590,886 | CMV: Everyone who can should buy at least 1 share of RDDT to prevent this site from going the way of Twitter | As of close today, RDDT has a market capitalization of around $30B. That's well within Elon Musk's means.
But if we all owned shares, we can veto any takeover attempt.
This assumes that RDDT's corporate charter/by-laws require any sale of the company to be put to a shareholder vote. I don't have the wherewithal to find the documentation.
We can ill afford to lose another platform. Musk (X) is a Nazi and Zuckerberg (facebook, Instagram) has become a Trump sycophant, removing sanitary napkins from men's restrooms at Meta offices. Nobody is on BlueSky. If we lose freedom here, there's nowhere else to escape to.
Some elected officials like AOC and Bernie are sounding the alarm on the destruction of our Constitution but the algorithms on the billionaire-controlled sites are burying them. | The mechanisms of the market would either crash the price to make people bailout, especially if they sunk a lot of money in it. Or more shares could be issued that big firms can scoop up before we get the chance.
And barring all that the company can just cancel the shares outright. You would be entitled to cash but you can’t stop your shares from being fucked with. You’ll own the shares but not the nature of them | ifuckedyourdaddytoo |
1iyugzd | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3qwp/cmv_media_control_is_the_rights_sacred_cow/ | normalice0 | [
"mattyoclock"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iy3qwp/cmv_media_control_is_the_rights_sacred_cow/metugre/ | 2,896,553 | Cmv: media control is the right's sacred cow |
I've noticed a trend. When you point out to a right winger that the media is obviously influenced the most by the right, they act like you just parked a UFO in their yard. As though it is beyond their imagination that anyone could ever even say such a thing. Is this a foundational belief of the right, upon which all of their other propaganda rests? Is this their [Original Lie](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1h0c7dm/a_practical_definition_for_religious_nationalism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
Yes, you can look around in some spaces and see a clear bias towards the left. Yes, reddit kind of is one of those spaces. But the world outside of reddit exists and those spaces are dwindling rapidly. It makes sense that reddit would be a place that right wing troll farms can't target as easily as other social media sites - the moderation is too decentralized and random, and frankly reddit's really not that popular. The dominance of right wing media would have been an effort that was "just getting started" in social media and so would have targeted the low hanging fruit of twitter, facebook, etc. But surely, now that the right seems to have won everything else, reddit is in the pipes..
Anyway, the point is the last \~40 years of media landscaping was kicked off by republicans, and exclusively republicans, reversing the fairness doctrine. Whatever the media landscape looked like back then, it is the right who saw it and decided with their resources the game was winnable if they could exclude speech from the left, even if that meant the left could in turn exclude speech from the right. And, 40 years later, it seems they were correct. The way they did it, I used to think, was just by hammering on "trickle down" as their original lie. But no one really buys that anymore - even though 77 million people just voted for it, very few of them will claim that it works with a straight face and instead claim that they voted for him for other reasons (never mind that trickle down is the *only* thing republicans consistently do).
So perhaps all along the 'left controls the media' was the *repeat repeat repeat* they were hammering on and I didn't notice it was a trick because I thought it was true, too. But it's hard to explain the rightward lurch of the nation any other way. It's hard to explain some other way that a guy who tried to start a civil war on live television could be considered a viable candidate by anyone at all. I'm convinced if the election had been held on January 7, 2021 Kamala would have won by an order of magnitude. But the media was given four years to make it look normal and every single media outlet did so, even those considered on the left were careful to include the language of the right - under the guise of criticizing it - to make sure the left understood what the right was saying, while the right never heard a peep from the left.
Too much of what the 'liberal media' does is too ineffective at actually progressing the left's agenda and it rings of controlled opposition. Democrats lose and lose and lose. The only time they ever win is when republicans tank the economy so catastrophically that the media can't cover it up. And then after democrats fix it up, republicans win again despite the fact that they just tanked the economy. I understand this sounds conspiratorial but keep in mind it is also exclusively the right who bought the Citizens United ruling, which basically said all campaign speech is for sale and no one gets to know who the buyers are or how much they paid. Rich people don't become rich by wasting their money. Buying the Citizens United ruling was expensive and took decades. They didn't do it for nothing. Do you know who was having the time of their life during the first great depression? Rich people. A third world country to rule is their paradise. I have zero doubt that they want to "make depressions great again."
I laugh every time people bring up campaign fundraising because none of it matters. That's what you pay campaign staff with but what use is that when one side's backers own entities like IHeartMedia or Sinclair that donate their entire platform to their cause? Campaign funding is pointless if it isn't spent on getting people to vote for you and the left sees fewer of those sorts of things for rent every day, as the right buys them up.
Anyway, kind of a tangent. Maybe, it wasn't even really a lie originally. But I do suspect that, from the start, the right planned to repeat it constantly forever, knowing full well it was going to gradually get less accurate. Truth Social could one day be the only media in the country and probably a third of the right would still say the media is controlled by the left - while the other two thirds just say it's only fair since the left controlled the media for so long (even though they didn't, fairness isn't something that can be balanced over generations anyway, and again it was republicans who revoked something literally named the fairness doctrine).
I just don't see a future in which republicans admit they control the media but also admit that they shouldn't. Can anyone convince me otherwise? | I hate to break it to you, but you need two r's.
That said I had to look up if it was one L or 2 myself, apparently one when it's just Corral, but two for corralled. English! It's 3 languages in a trenchcoat! | mattyoclock | 1,740,541,973 | Cmv: media control is the right's sacred cow |
I've noticed a trend. When you point out to a right winger that the media is obviously influenced the most by the right, they act like you just parked a UFO in their yard. As though it is beyond their imagination that anyone could ever even say such a thing. Is this a foundational belief of the right, upon which all of their other propaganda rests? Is this their [Original Lie](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1h0c7dm/a_practical_definition_for_religious_nationalism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
Yes, you can look around in some spaces and see a clear bias towards the left. Yes, reddit kind of is one of those spaces. But the world outside of reddit exists and those spaces are dwindling rapidly. It makes sense that reddit would be a place that right wing troll farms can't target as easily as other social media sites - the moderation is too decentralized and random, and frankly reddit's really not that popular. The dominance of right wing media would have been an effort that was "just getting started" in social media and so would have targeted the low hanging fruit of twitter, facebook, etc. But surely, now that the right seems to have won everything else, reddit is in the pipes..
Anyway, the point is the last \~40 years of media landscaping was kicked off by republicans, and exclusively republicans, reversing the fairness doctrine. Whatever the media landscape looked like back then, it is the right who saw it and decided with their resources the game was winnable if they could exclude speech from the left, even if that meant the left could in turn exclude speech from the right. And, 40 years later, it seems they were correct. The way they did it, I used to think, was just by hammering on "trickle down" as their original lie. But no one really buys that anymore - even though 77 million people just voted for it, very few of them will claim that it works with a straight face and instead claim that they voted for him for other reasons (never mind that trickle down is the *only* thing republicans consistently do).
So perhaps all along the 'left controls the media' was the *repeat repeat repeat* they were hammering on and I didn't notice it was a trick because I thought it was true, too. But it's hard to explain the rightward lurch of the nation any other way. It's hard to explain some other way that a guy who tried to start a civil war on live television could be considered a viable candidate by anyone at all. I'm convinced if the election had been held on January 7, 2021 Kamala would have won by an order of magnitude. But the media was given four years to make it look normal and every single media outlet did so, even those considered on the left were careful to include the language of the right - under the guise of criticizing it - to make sure the left understood what the right was saying, while the right never heard a peep from the left.
Too much of what the 'liberal media' does is too ineffective at actually progressing the left's agenda and it rings of controlled opposition. Democrats lose and lose and lose. The only time they ever win is when republicans tank the economy so catastrophically that the media can't cover it up. And then after democrats fix it up, republicans win again despite the fact that they just tanked the economy. I understand this sounds conspiratorial but keep in mind it is also exclusively the right who bought the Citizens United ruling, which basically said all campaign speech is for sale and no one gets to know who the buyers are or how much they paid. Rich people don't become rich by wasting their money. Buying the Citizens United ruling was expensive and took decades. They didn't do it for nothing. Do you know who was having the time of their life during the first great depression? Rich people. A third world country to rule is their paradise. I have zero doubt that they want to "make depressions great again."
I laugh every time people bring up campaign fundraising because none of it matters. That's what you pay campaign staff with but what use is that when one side's backers own entities like IHeartMedia or Sinclair that donate their entire platform to their cause? Campaign funding is pointless if it isn't spent on getting people to vote for you and the left sees fewer of those sorts of things for rent every day, as the right buys them up.
Anyway, kind of a tangent. Maybe, it wasn't even really a lie originally. But I do suspect that, from the start, the right planned to repeat it constantly forever, knowing full well it was going to gradually get less accurate. Truth Social could one day be the only media in the country and probably a third of the right would still say the media is controlled by the left - while the other two thirds just say it's only fair since the left controlled the media for so long (even though they didn't, fairness isn't something that can be balanced over generations anyway, and again it was republicans who revoked something literally named the fairness doctrine).
I just don't see a future in which republicans admit they control the media but also admit that they shouldn't. Can anyone convince me otherwise? | I hate to break it to you, but you need two r's.
That said I had to look up if it was one L or 2 myself, apparently one when it's just Corral, but two for corralled. English! It's 3 languages in a trenchcoat! | normalice0 |
1iyvw8z | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyhyj5/cmv_the_way_women_use_dating_apps_influence_men/ | Relevant_Actuary2205 | [
"bettercaust"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyhyj5/cmv_the_way_women_use_dating_apps_influence_men/mewh2bx/ | 2,900,136 | CMV: The way women use dating apps influence men to make things sexual immediately | Pretty much the title. The way women use dating apps influence men to make things sexual.
As a guy it’s just exhausting to deal with women on dating apps. There’s an expectation that men put in all the effort for the absolute bare minimum of communication and effort. It’s not a mutual interaction by any definition. Women have pretty much complete control and they know it.
Between ghosting, flaking, lack of effort and manipulation it’s just better time management to start of sexual from the start. Worst case you get unmatched or ignored which is going happen like 90% of the time anyway (hyperbole). Best case you find a hook up.
So while women complain about men making things sexual it’s also some they (as a group) influence | I think you're half-right: it doesn't *need* to be sexual from the start, but you do need to do something to stand out in the sea of matches women might need to wade through. If it feels like too much effort on your part, it probably is: either she's not that interested, or you aren't. But if you're looking for a relationship and you make things sexual with a new match from the start, you risk putting off someone you might otherwise hit it off with. | bettercaust | 1,740,584,835 | CMV: The way women use dating apps influence men to make things sexual immediately | Pretty much the title. The way women use dating apps influence men to make things sexual.
As a guy it’s just exhausting to deal with women on dating apps. There’s an expectation that men put in all the effort for the absolute bare minimum of communication and effort. It’s not a mutual interaction by any definition. Women have pretty much complete control and they know it.
Between ghosting, flaking, lack of effort and manipulation it’s just better time management to start of sexual from the start. Worst case you get unmatched or ignored which is going happen like 90% of the time anyway (hyperbole). Best case you find a hook up.
So while women complain about men making things sexual it’s also some they (as a group) influence | I think you're half-right: it doesn't *need* to be sexual from the start, but you do need to do something to stand out in the sea of matches women might need to wade through. If it feels like too much effort on your part, it probably is: either she's not that interested, or you aren't. But if you're looking for a relationship and you make things sexual with a new match from the start, you risk putting off someone you might otherwise hit it off with. | Relevant_Actuary2205 |
1iyxvvg | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyww88/cmv_your_body_and_consciousness_both_dissipate/ | Due_Year_99 | [
"ArcadesRed"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyww88/cmv_your_body_and_consciousness_both_dissipate/mey7llz/ | 2,903,930 | CMV: Your body and consciousness both dissipate and disappear after you die | Hey there! This is my first post and ai wanted to give this a shot since I have had really bad Thanatophobia (fear of my own death) since I was very young; I grew up in an atheist family and I am a big science lover; that being said I have been freaking out as I age every year, of what happens when we die. I firmly believe we disappear forever and our consciousness can never be recovered… but it scared me a lot. I tried joining different beliefs; religion, paganism, spiritualism, but each of them lack proper scientific evidence and recorded proof, and as such, it’s hard for me to fully believe in them. I can’t convince myself in believing anything else so please, change my mind! | It requires a level of faith. Not in a God, but in other people. Many people report an afterlife when they temporarily die for whatever reason. It's like you and another person standing at the bottom of a hill and wondering what's on the other side, a person next to you summits the hill and comes back, saying there is another valley. You must have faith in that person telling you the truth.
You can dismiss hundreds of thousands of near death experiences. But all you are doing is having faith that other people who deny those claims know what they are saying. Still requires a level of faith. There is no scientific proof that there is no afterlife. There is no scientific proof that there is an afterlife. But we do have nearly countless first-hand reports of people saying they have been there.
You have to have faith in one of the two in the absence of hard evidence. | ArcadesRed | 1,740,602,243 | CMV: Your body and consciousness both dissipate and disappear after you die | Hey there! This is my first post and ai wanted to give this a shot since I have had really bad Thanatophobia (fear of my own death) since I was very young; I grew up in an atheist family and I am a big science lover; that being said I have been freaking out as I age every year, of what happens when we die. I firmly believe we disappear forever and our consciousness can never be recovered… but it scared me a lot. I tried joining different beliefs; religion, paganism, spiritualism, but each of them lack proper scientific evidence and recorded proof, and as such, it’s hard for me to fully believe in them. I can’t convince myself in believing anything else so please, change my mind! | It requires a level of faith. Not in a God, but in other people. Many people report an afterlife when they temporarily die for whatever reason. It's like you and another person standing at the bottom of a hill and wondering what's on the other side, a person next to you summits the hill and comes back, saying there is another valley. You must have faith in that person telling you the truth.
You can dismiss hundreds of thousands of near death experiences. But all you are doing is having faith that other people who deny those claims know what they are saying. Still requires a level of faith. There is no scientific proof that there is no afterlife. There is no scientific proof that there is an afterlife. But we do have nearly countless first-hand reports of people saying they have been there.
You have to have faith in one of the two in the absence of hard evidence. | Due_Year_99 |
1iyxxgs | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyurwg/cmv_even_if_a_democrat_is_elected_in_2028_the/ | DietMTNDew8and88 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyurwg/cmv_even_if_a_democrat_is_elected_in_2028_the/mey0xjn/ | 2,903,479 | CMV: Even if a Democrat is elected in 2028, the damage done to US soft power and our alliances will take decades to fix | Thanks to Trump's nonsense about trying to make Canada, the 51st state and his tariffs, Canadians view us with suspicion now and looking to decouple, something inconciveable a decade ago.
Europe is wondering if we are even a reliable ally anymore and starting to pursue self reliance on defense. France is even moving to put continental Europe under their nuclear umbrella.
That UN vote to condemn Russian aggression is also a warning sign, while symbolic. The fact that we voted WITH Russia, should ring alarm bells. We never did that for European security before. Then there is what are doing to Budapest. Some security guarantee, now that Trump is extorting them.
While sure we did recover from Trump 45 somewhat, the fact that we voted him back in is what the problem is. Why should anybody trust us again when we can elect a political arsonist every 4 years and change policies on a dime.
That's the issue.
| Depends on what you mean by that. Should i U.S stop using its navy to protect the worlds rrade routes. | levi_Kazama209 | 1,740,600,438 | CMV: Even if a Democrat is elected in 2028, the damage done to US soft power and our alliances will take decades to fix | Thanks to Trump's nonsense about trying to make Canada, the 51st state and his tariffs, Canadians view us with suspicion now and looking to decouple, something inconciveable a decade ago.
Europe is wondering if we are even a reliable ally anymore and starting to pursue self reliance on defense. France is even moving to put continental Europe under their nuclear umbrella.
That UN vote to condemn Russian aggression is also a warning sign, while symbolic. The fact that we voted WITH Russia, should ring alarm bells. We never did that for European security before. Then there is what are doing to Budapest. Some security guarantee, now that Trump is extorting them.
While sure we did recover from Trump 45 somewhat, the fact that we voted him back in is what the problem is. Why should anybody trust us again when we can elect a political arsonist every 4 years and change policies on a dime.
That's the issue.
| Depends on what you mean by that. Should i U.S stop using its navy to protect the worlds rrade routes. | DietMTNDew8and88 |
1iyyw6s | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyy21g/cmv_usa_will_never_fall_even_if_it_became_a/ | iCodeDayAndNight | [
"Technical-Reward2353"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyy21g/cmv_usa_will_never_fall_even_if_it_became_a/meygd7a/ | 2,904,459 | CMV: USA will never fall even if it became a dictatorship or actually no matter what non natural thing happens | First things first, USA will modify the definition of a dictatorship just enough so that it will never be classified as one just because they can. Media will play along as long as they are getting paid enough and so will people.
Even if it does get declared as one, it is largest economy in the world, with huge amount of resources at disposal that no country(except maybe China) can match up. Immigration will still bring in more educated people regardless of it's dictatorship status. The scientific development won't stop as we all know how Germany worked on science unbound from morals during its dictatorship era.
If money doesn't seem to work, the military prowess it holds across the globe will keep other countries and the citizens in check and convert some of the more authoritarian governments into allies. Any attempts at reducing USAs and the dollar's influence on global market will be met with coups and invasions. The nuclear option is alway accessible to it and will it use it to threaten everyone.
Once it becomes a dictatorship, it will the personal playground of all the billionaires in the country, which only bring in more money into the country(albeit only for themselves). USA has pushed consumerism enough into the minds of the young that they won't revolt as long as they get their needs met just enough.
We know from China's example, it is a dictatorship and has been a prosperous country for a while and still growin. No one is going to stop trading with an economy this large. This further proves that USA is going to keep its crown for centuries and quite possibly the end of humanity.
People keep saying USA will fall because of this and that, but the worst thing that will ever happen to USA will be nothing but random weak protests and nothing close to a major civil war.
I am sure there are views that will change some of the aspects of my views, I don't know if they exist just yet. | Maybe if there ever was an actual prolonged drawn out civil war where millions of Americans were killed on each side, states or cities on each side struggling to import needed resources through blockaids. Each side sending delegates out trying to win the favor of foreign powers and get thier investment and maybe even ally. Dollar loses value the longer this goes on.
Civil War then leads to multiple fractured states that are not united ans individually all are pretty weak actually.
Add in the possibility of either the alliances leading to a true world War, or some other country taking the opportunity to land grab themselves.
Yes the USA could absolutely fall. This is one of seriously hundreds of potential theoretical ways the USA could fall in the future. I mean everything ends. I'd be shocked if the USA was what we think of it now, in a 1000 years. 50 states? Gtfo here. | Technical-Reward2353 | 1,740,604,627 | CMV: USA will never fall even if it became a dictatorship or actually no matter what non natural thing happens | First things first, USA will modify the definition of a dictatorship just enough so that it will never be classified as one just because they can. Media will play along as long as they are getting paid enough and so will people.
Even if it does get declared as one, it is largest economy in the world, with huge amount of resources at disposal that no country(except maybe China) can match up. Immigration will still bring in more educated people regardless of it's dictatorship status. The scientific development won't stop as we all know how Germany worked on science unbound from morals during its dictatorship era.
If money doesn't seem to work, the military prowess it holds across the globe will keep other countries and the citizens in check and convert some of the more authoritarian governments into allies. Any attempts at reducing USAs and the dollar's influence on global market will be met with coups and invasions. The nuclear option is alway accessible to it and will it use it to threaten everyone.
Once it becomes a dictatorship, it will the personal playground of all the billionaires in the country, which only bring in more money into the country(albeit only for themselves). USA has pushed consumerism enough into the minds of the young that they won't revolt as long as they get their needs met just enough.
We know from China's example, it is a dictatorship and has been a prosperous country for a while and still growin. No one is going to stop trading with an economy this large. This further proves that USA is going to keep its crown for centuries and quite possibly the end of humanity.
People keep saying USA will fall because of this and that, but the worst thing that will ever happen to USA will be nothing but random weak protests and nothing close to a major civil war.
I am sure there are views that will change some of the aspects of my views, I don't know if they exist just yet. | Maybe if there ever was an actual prolonged drawn out civil war where millions of Americans were killed on each side, states or cities on each side struggling to import needed resources through blockaids. Each side sending delegates out trying to win the favor of foreign powers and get thier investment and maybe even ally. Dollar loses value the longer this goes on.
Civil War then leads to multiple fractured states that are not united ans individually all are pretty weak actually.
Add in the possibility of either the alliances leading to a true world War, or some other country taking the opportunity to land grab themselves.
Yes the USA could absolutely fall. This is one of seriously hundreds of potential theoretical ways the USA could fall in the future. I mean everything ends. I'd be shocked if the USA was what we think of it now, in a 1000 years. 50 states? Gtfo here. | iCodeDayAndNight |
1iz06vl | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyzlri/cmv_a_majority_of_pov_videos_are_just_making_fun/ | Training-Abrocoma916 | [] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyzlri/cmv_a_majority_of_pov_videos_are_just_making_fun/meyukjt/ | 2,905,200 | CMV: A majority of "POV videos" are just making fun of autistic people or people who aren't doing anything wrong | To be clear, you don't have to like everybody, you can absolutely 100% find things someone does annoying. That is perfectly fine and in fact very normal!
Sometimes you need to find a place to vent out that frustration so you don't end up hurting the person's feelings. Unless they are actively trying to provoke you or are continuing their behavior after you've respectfully expressed its really bothering you.
But videos take all that and throw it out the window.
A lot of them aren't even funny, they are mocking people who are not doing anything wrong for example: "wolf/cat/horse girls, fans of (insert show/movie/video game), the weird kid, boring friend, basic friend, pick me girls, etc).
Most of these kids were probably autistic, didn't know how to socialize, had a special interest, and we're having problems with emotional regulation.
And even as adults, they still have their special interest and still struggle with socializing. But guess what?
They. Aren't. Hurting. Anybody.
Some adults don't lead interesting lives and prefer basic things, and that's not morally wrong. And half the women labled "pick me's" aren't deserving of the title.
These videos don't just target these groups of people, but also friends of the makers of these videos.
Imagine you get done hanging out with your friend. You spent your time telling them about a show you love and you play some board games and chat about life. Then later you see they posted a POV videos titled "hanging out with the cringe boring friend". And it shows your friend doing all the things you did and mocking you, demeaning everything you said and exaggerating your behaviors. They never use you name or even tag you, but you know they're pretending to be you, trying to wear similar clothes and glasses and all.
And your heart breaks. Did you do something wrong? Why didn't they just tell you they wanted to do something else? Are you being too sensitive? Are you projecting onto a video that had nothing to do with you?
These videos are so unnecessary and only helps people bond over bullying others. And I don't care how you slice it, that's unhealthy and should have been left back in high school. Especially since I see "bring back bullying" in the comment sections.
It's perfectly fine if you do not like someone. But these videos are promoting bullying. Am I wrong? | Hm after hitting send I started googling it and i'm finding a lot of belief in the it being the older version of POV. That's what I recall as well.
Oh no, if the mandela effect is real I sure hope this isn't the thing that proves it. | eggs-benedryl | 1,740,608,545 | CMV: A majority of "POV videos" are just making fun of autistic people or people who aren't doing anything wrong | To be clear, you don't have to like everybody, you can absolutely 100% find things someone does annoying. That is perfectly fine and in fact very normal!
Sometimes you need to find a place to vent out that frustration so you don't end up hurting the person's feelings. Unless they are actively trying to provoke you or are continuing their behavior after you've respectfully expressed its really bothering you.
But videos take all that and throw it out the window.
A lot of them aren't even funny, they are mocking people who are not doing anything wrong for example: "wolf/cat/horse girls, fans of (insert show/movie/video game), the weird kid, boring friend, basic friend, pick me girls, etc).
Most of these kids were probably autistic, didn't know how to socialize, had a special interest, and we're having problems with emotional regulation.
And even as adults, they still have their special interest and still struggle with socializing. But guess what?
They. Aren't. Hurting. Anybody.
Some adults don't lead interesting lives and prefer basic things, and that's not morally wrong. And half the women labled "pick me's" aren't deserving of the title.
These videos don't just target these groups of people, but also friends of the makers of these videos.
Imagine you get done hanging out with your friend. You spent your time telling them about a show you love and you play some board games and chat about life. Then later you see they posted a POV videos titled "hanging out with the cringe boring friend". And it shows your friend doing all the things you did and mocking you, demeaning everything you said and exaggerating your behaviors. They never use you name or even tag you, but you know they're pretending to be you, trying to wear similar clothes and glasses and all.
And your heart breaks. Did you do something wrong? Why didn't they just tell you they wanted to do something else? Are you being too sensitive? Are you projecting onto a video that had nothing to do with you?
These videos are so unnecessary and only helps people bond over bullying others. And I don't care how you slice it, that's unhealthy and should have been left back in high school. Especially since I see "bring back bullying" in the comment sections.
It's perfectly fine if you do not like someone. But these videos are promoting bullying. Am I wrong? | Hm after hitting send I started googling it and i'm finding a lot of belief in the it being the older version of POV. That's what I recall as well.
Oh no, if the mandela effect is real I sure hope this isn't the thing that proves it. | Training-Abrocoma916 |
1iz12kv | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyz32t/cmv_trump_and_his_government_should_understand/ | Project_Zero_mortals | [
"Direct_Crew_9949"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iyz32t/cmv_trump_and_his_government_should_understand/meyrib6/ | 2,905,041 | CMV: Trump and his government should understand that his best allies are Europe and not Russia or China | I think it’s important for Trump to understand that its strongest allies aren’t countries like Russia or China, but the Western world especially Europe. The reason is simple: we share the same core values. Democracy, equality, fair treatment, and human rights are the foundation of both the U.S. and Europe. Plus, our alliance has strengthened over time, especially since WW2. But Trump's policies are pushing to a point where if feels like there would be a split
Russia and China don’t see the West as allies. Russia has proved that it doesn’t care about Europe or the U.S. unless it’s for its own interests. Ukraine invasion is a good example. If Russia succeeds in annexing Ukraine, it’s not just about territory, it’s about gaining control over resources like grain, minerals, and energy that Europe relies on. That would give Russia huge leverage to pressure Europe, and by extension, the U.S.
The reality is, every country looks out for itself first, that’s just how politics works. But for the U.S., maintaining strong ties with Europe is the best for them. Our political systems, economies, and even our cultures are more aligned. If there’s ever a major global conflict let's say, a WW3, it’s almost certain that the U.S. and Europe would be on the same side.
Right now, I would say the world is dominated by four major powers or entities: the U.S, EU, China, and Russia. The U.S. is still the top superpower, but China is catching up fast and is building good relationship with Russia while Russia remains a strong military power. if the U.S wants to stay on top, it needs reliable allies. Russia might seem like a tempting ally for Trump, but their goals don’t align with the West’s. They have their own agenda, and it’s not one that benefits the U.S. or Europe in the long run.
So, my point is this: the U.S. should focus on strengthening its relationship with Europe and the Western world. If the U.S. wants to remain the leading global power, it needs allies who share its values and vision and that’s Europe, not Russia or China. | A couple reasons why that’s not true.
1. The End of the Transatlantic Alliance’s Relevance
The U.S.-EU relationship was built during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. Today, that geopolitical landscape has shifted, and the EU is no longer a strategic asset for the U.S. Instead, it often acts as a burden, relying on American military protection while failing to contribute significantly to global security challenges.
2. Economic Opportunities with Russia and China
China is the world’s second-largest economy and America’s largest trading partner. Despite tensions, economic decoupling is impractical, and cooperation would benefit both nations. Russia, rich in energy resources and raw materials, could also serve as a crucial economic partner. Instead of maintaining hostilities, the U.S. could leverage Russia’s resources and China’s manufacturing base for mutual economic growth.
3. A New Multipolar World Order
The EU remains dependent on the U.S. but provides little in return. Meanwhile, Russia and China are shaping a multipolar world where power is distributed more evenly. Aligning with them would allow the U.S. to influence this new order from within rather than being isolated by rigid Western alliances.
4. Reduced Military Commitments
The EU expects the U.S. to bankroll NATO while European nations underinvest in their own defense. A strategic shift toward Russia and China could allow the U.S. to reduce its costly military commitments in Europe and focus on its own domestic needs.
5. Avoiding Unnecessary Conflicts
Tensions with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan put the U.S. at risk of costly wars that serve European and Western elite interests rather than those of ordinary Americans. A realignment with Russia and China could help prevent these conflicts and establish new diplomatic frameworks for cooperation.
6. Breaking Away from EU Bureaucracy and Decline
The EU is facing economic stagnation, internal divisions, and declining global influence. Instead of being tied to a declining power bloc, the U.S. could strengthen its global position by working with the rising powers of Russia and China, ensuring long-term economic and geopolitical stability.
The U.S. does not need the EU as much as it needs strategic partnerships that serve its national interests. Russia and China offer economic growth, resource access, and geopolitical stability, while the EU increasingly acts as a liability. A pragmatic realignment would allow the U.S. to maintain global leadership in a new multipolar world.
It would be the ultimate keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer.
FYI: I don’t necessarily agree with doing this, but it’s tough to argue that it wouldn’t be better for the US. | Direct_Crew_9949 | 1,740,607,672 | CMV: Trump and his government should understand that his best allies are Europe and not Russia or China | I think it’s important for Trump to understand that its strongest allies aren’t countries like Russia or China, but the Western world especially Europe. The reason is simple: we share the same core values. Democracy, equality, fair treatment, and human rights are the foundation of both the U.S. and Europe. Plus, our alliance has strengthened over time, especially since WW2. But Trump's policies are pushing to a point where if feels like there would be a split
Russia and China don’t see the West as allies. Russia has proved that it doesn’t care about Europe or the U.S. unless it’s for its own interests. Ukraine invasion is a good example. If Russia succeeds in annexing Ukraine, it’s not just about territory, it’s about gaining control over resources like grain, minerals, and energy that Europe relies on. That would give Russia huge leverage to pressure Europe, and by extension, the U.S.
The reality is, every country looks out for itself first, that’s just how politics works. But for the U.S., maintaining strong ties with Europe is the best for them. Our political systems, economies, and even our cultures are more aligned. If there’s ever a major global conflict let's say, a WW3, it’s almost certain that the U.S. and Europe would be on the same side.
Right now, I would say the world is dominated by four major powers or entities: the U.S, EU, China, and Russia. The U.S. is still the top superpower, but China is catching up fast and is building good relationship with Russia while Russia remains a strong military power. if the U.S wants to stay on top, it needs reliable allies. Russia might seem like a tempting ally for Trump, but their goals don’t align with the West’s. They have their own agenda, and it’s not one that benefits the U.S. or Europe in the long run.
So, my point is this: the U.S. should focus on strengthening its relationship with Europe and the Western world. If the U.S. wants to remain the leading global power, it needs allies who share its values and vision and that’s Europe, not Russia or China. | A couple reasons why that’s not true.
1. The End of the Transatlantic Alliance’s Relevance
The U.S.-EU relationship was built during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. Today, that geopolitical landscape has shifted, and the EU is no longer a strategic asset for the U.S. Instead, it often acts as a burden, relying on American military protection while failing to contribute significantly to global security challenges.
2. Economic Opportunities with Russia and China
China is the world’s second-largest economy and America’s largest trading partner. Despite tensions, economic decoupling is impractical, and cooperation would benefit both nations. Russia, rich in energy resources and raw materials, could also serve as a crucial economic partner. Instead of maintaining hostilities, the U.S. could leverage Russia’s resources and China’s manufacturing base for mutual economic growth.
3. A New Multipolar World Order
The EU remains dependent on the U.S. but provides little in return. Meanwhile, Russia and China are shaping a multipolar world where power is distributed more evenly. Aligning with them would allow the U.S. to influence this new order from within rather than being isolated by rigid Western alliances.
4. Reduced Military Commitments
The EU expects the U.S. to bankroll NATO while European nations underinvest in their own defense. A strategic shift toward Russia and China could allow the U.S. to reduce its costly military commitments in Europe and focus on its own domestic needs.
5. Avoiding Unnecessary Conflicts
Tensions with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan put the U.S. at risk of costly wars that serve European and Western elite interests rather than those of ordinary Americans. A realignment with Russia and China could help prevent these conflicts and establish new diplomatic frameworks for cooperation.
6. Breaking Away from EU Bureaucracy and Decline
The EU is facing economic stagnation, internal divisions, and declining global influence. Instead of being tied to a declining power bloc, the U.S. could strengthen its global position by working with the rising powers of Russia and China, ensuring long-term economic and geopolitical stability.
The U.S. does not need the EU as much as it needs strategic partnerships that serve its national interests. Russia and China offer economic growth, resource access, and geopolitical stability, while the EU increasingly acts as a liability. A pragmatic realignment would allow the U.S. to maintain global leadership in a new multipolar world.
It would be the ultimate keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer.
FYI: I don’t necessarily agree with doing this, but it’s tough to argue that it wouldn’t be better for the US. | Project_Zero_mortals |
1iz1oqm | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz1f6b/cmv_if_we_can_afford_tax_breaks_for_billionaires/ | MrBootsie | [
"redeggplant01"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz1f6b/cmv_if_we_can_afford_tax_breaks_for_billionaires/mez7dtv/ | 2,905,917 | CMV: If We Can Afford Tax Breaks for Billionaires, We Can Afford to Keep Poor People Alive | If the Senate passes this, **$880 billion** gets ripped out of Medicaid over the next decade. The biggest cuts in U.S. history. Millions lose healthcare. Not to balance the budget (we’re still handing out trillions in tax breaks). Not to fix the system (this makes it worse). Just to punish the people who can’t afford lobbyists.
### **What’s Actually in This Plan?**
- **Caps Medicaid funding** – States get a set amount per person, whether costs go up or not. Inflation? New medical advancements? Doesn’t matter. Figure it out.
- **Ends Medicaid expansion funding** – The ACA gave states extra federal dollars to cover more people. That’s over. States can either cut them off or find the money themselves.
- **Work requirements** – Because nothing says “self-sufficiency” like yanking healthcare from someone trying to recover from chemo.
- **Cuts provider tax funding** – States use these taxes to fund Medicaid. Now they’ll have to slash services or raise taxes elsewhere.
### **The Fallout**
- **15–20 million people lose coverage** – That’s more than the entire population of Pennsylvania.
- **ER visits skyrocket** – People don’t stop getting sick, they just get treated later, when it’s more expensive.
- **Hospitals—especially rural ones—shut down** – Fewer insured patients means more unpaid bills, which means closures. Hope you weren’t relying on that one hospital in town.
- **States get squeezed** – They either cut more people off or raise taxes. Either way, the costs don’t disappear. They just move.
### **What’s the Justification Again?**
- **“It’ll save money”** – No, it won’t. Shifting costs to states, hospitals, and taxpayers just moves the bill around.
- **“People need to be responsible for themselves”** – Because getting leukemia is a moral failing, apparently.
- **“Medicaid is unsustainable”** – Unlike tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, which are apparently endless.
So remind me… if this isn’t about saving money and it isn’t about fixing healthcare, **what exactly is the point?** | Allowing people to keep what is theirs [ tax breaks ] instead of stealing it is moral
Taking the food out of someone else's mouth topo give to someone else [ welfare ] is immoral
You can't tax your way to prosperity
You can't bomb your way to security
You can't ban/prohibit your way to liberty
You can't vote your way out of tyranny
You can't legislate your way to morality | redeggplant01 | 1,740,612,488 | CMV: If We Can Afford Tax Breaks for Billionaires, We Can Afford to Keep Poor People Alive | If the Senate passes this, **$880 billion** gets ripped out of Medicaid over the next decade. The biggest cuts in U.S. history. Millions lose healthcare. Not to balance the budget (we’re still handing out trillions in tax breaks). Not to fix the system (this makes it worse). Just to punish the people who can’t afford lobbyists.
### **What’s Actually in This Plan?**
- **Caps Medicaid funding** – States get a set amount per person, whether costs go up or not. Inflation? New medical advancements? Doesn’t matter. Figure it out.
- **Ends Medicaid expansion funding** – The ACA gave states extra federal dollars to cover more people. That’s over. States can either cut them off or find the money themselves.
- **Work requirements** – Because nothing says “self-sufficiency” like yanking healthcare from someone trying to recover from chemo.
- **Cuts provider tax funding** – States use these taxes to fund Medicaid. Now they’ll have to slash services or raise taxes elsewhere.
### **The Fallout**
- **15–20 million people lose coverage** – That’s more than the entire population of Pennsylvania.
- **ER visits skyrocket** – People don’t stop getting sick, they just get treated later, when it’s more expensive.
- **Hospitals—especially rural ones—shut down** – Fewer insured patients means more unpaid bills, which means closures. Hope you weren’t relying on that one hospital in town.
- **States get squeezed** – They either cut more people off or raise taxes. Either way, the costs don’t disappear. They just move.
### **What’s the Justification Again?**
- **“It’ll save money”** – No, it won’t. Shifting costs to states, hospitals, and taxpayers just moves the bill around.
- **“People need to be responsible for themselves”** – Because getting leukemia is a moral failing, apparently.
- **“Medicaid is unsustainable”** – Unlike tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, which are apparently endless.
So remind me… if this isn’t about saving money and it isn’t about fixing healthcare, **what exactly is the point?** | Allowing people to keep what is theirs [ tax breaks ] instead of stealing it is moral
Taking the food out of someone else's mouth topo give to someone else [ welfare ] is immoral
You can't tax your way to prosperity
You can't bomb your way to security
You can't ban/prohibit your way to liberty
You can't vote your way out of tyranny
You can't legislate your way to morality | MrBootsie |
1iz7d21 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz4hu7/cmv_poly_communes_are_superior_to_nuclear_families/ | Utopia_Builder | [
"Aezora"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz4hu7/cmv_poly_communes_are_superior_to_nuclear_families/mf0klkn/ | 2,907,921 | CMV: Poly communes are superior to nuclear families. | The nuclear family model—a household consisting of two parents and their children—is often seen as the ideal foundation of society. However, I argue that communes, where responsibilities are distributed among multiple adults, can be a superior alternative.
In a nuclear family, two adults must handle **all** major responsibilities:
* **Chores and Home Maintenance**
* **Earning Income**
* **Child Rearing**
* **Emotional and Social Support**
Balancing these roles is difficult, and in many cases, it leads to burnout, resentment, or financial strain. A commune, by contrast, allows people to **specialize** in a few roles rather than stretching themselves thin. Some members could focus on child-rearing, others on household maintenance, while others bring in income. The result? A **more sustainable, less stressful lifestyle** where people contribute based on their strengths and preferences.
To have a successful nuclear family, you must find someone who is:
1. **A romantic match**
2. **A great friend**
3. **A compatible housemate**
4. **A reliable financial partner**
5. **A good parent**
6. **They must love you back**
This is a **high standard** for one relationship. Many marriages fail precisely because one or more of these factors is missing. In a commune, these expectations are **spread across multiple relationships**. You wouldn’t need to find a single person who checks every box—you could form deep connections with different people based on shared responsibilities and interests.
Communes could also **reduce social anxieties** around relationships, marriage, and sex:
* There would be **less pressure to marry young** since no single person is responsible for your financial and emotional well-being.
* The pressure to **"find the one"** would decrease, as multiple adults provide companionship and support.
* People wouldn't feel ashamed for being a virgin past a certain age.
* People wouldn’t feel the same **urgency to have children within a specific time frame**, as child-rearing would be a shared responsibility.
* Valentine’s Day, anniversaries, and other relationship-centered events wouldn’t carry the same weight, as love and care would be communal rather than exclusive.
Despite the issues of separation or child custody, I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The nuclear family structure **forces people into roles they may not be suited for**, while communes allow for a more **equitable, flexible, and sustainable** way of life.
CMV | I think I can be clearer and more concise.
In the first section you argue two things:
1. Domestic affairs cause burnout, resentment, and financial strain.
2. Poly community living would reduce that.
I agree that living in a community is cheaper. In that sense, it would reduce financial strain. However, I disagree that it would reduce resentment or burnout, or general financial strain.
Resentment is usually a result of perceived unfairness. Fairness is easier to balance between fewer people, thus there would be more resentment in a community on average.
Financial strain is most typically caused by either a difference between income and cost of living or poor financial decisions. Living in a commune doesn't improve either.
Burnout is caused by excessive stress. Chores aren't going to be the main source of stress, and I don't see many stressors that wouldn't equally be present in both situations.
In the second part of your post, you argue:
1. A single partner must meet many needs
2. Multiple partners can each meet some needs, making it easier to achieve.
The problems with that are two fold. First, being in a poly commune does not make someone poly. Neither does not being in a commune make one not poly. Thus, you don't get the choice generally to choose how you want to meet your needs. Second, having multiple relationships with multiple people - even if not every relationship needs to meet every need - is not necessarily easier. Rather, it's generally exponentially more complicated. If you did have a choice, it may be easier to find potential partners who meet at least one need, but it's harder to maintain the multiple relationships. So it's a tradeoff, not a clear benefit.
In the third part of your post you argue:
>There would be less pressure to marry young
>The pressure to "find the one" would decrease
>People wouldn't feel ashamed for being a virgin
>People wouldn’t feel the same urgency to have children
>Valentine’s Day, anniversaries, and other relationship-centered events wouldn’t carry the same weight, as love and care would be communal rather than exclusive.
All of this is cultural and in no way tied to the community or family structure you live in, yet most of these pressures do have reasons that aren't affected by the differences between families and poly communes. For example, urgency to have children is tied to the decreased ability for women to have children as they age and the increased chance of natal risks. The weight on relationship centered events is there because people in general value relationships.
The only one that's kinda related is "finding the one", but that's really just an expression of the desire to be in a satisfying relationship which doesn't change if you're poly. It just switches from "finding the one" to "finding the ones". | Aezora | 1,740,629,213 | CMV: Poly communes are superior to nuclear families. | The nuclear family model—a household consisting of two parents and their children—is often seen as the ideal foundation of society. However, I argue that communes, where responsibilities are distributed among multiple adults, can be a superior alternative.
In a nuclear family, two adults must handle **all** major responsibilities:
* **Chores and Home Maintenance**
* **Earning Income**
* **Child Rearing**
* **Emotional and Social Support**
Balancing these roles is difficult, and in many cases, it leads to burnout, resentment, or financial strain. A commune, by contrast, allows people to **specialize** in a few roles rather than stretching themselves thin. Some members could focus on child-rearing, others on household maintenance, while others bring in income. The result? A **more sustainable, less stressful lifestyle** where people contribute based on their strengths and preferences.
To have a successful nuclear family, you must find someone who is:
1. **A romantic match**
2. **A great friend**
3. **A compatible housemate**
4. **A reliable financial partner**
5. **A good parent**
6. **They must love you back**
This is a **high standard** for one relationship. Many marriages fail precisely because one or more of these factors is missing. In a commune, these expectations are **spread across multiple relationships**. You wouldn’t need to find a single person who checks every box—you could form deep connections with different people based on shared responsibilities and interests.
Communes could also **reduce social anxieties** around relationships, marriage, and sex:
* There would be **less pressure to marry young** since no single person is responsible for your financial and emotional well-being.
* The pressure to **"find the one"** would decrease, as multiple adults provide companionship and support.
* People wouldn't feel ashamed for being a virgin past a certain age.
* People wouldn’t feel the same **urgency to have children within a specific time frame**, as child-rearing would be a shared responsibility.
* Valentine’s Day, anniversaries, and other relationship-centered events wouldn’t carry the same weight, as love and care would be communal rather than exclusive.
Despite the issues of separation or child custody, I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The nuclear family structure **forces people into roles they may not be suited for**, while communes allow for a more **equitable, flexible, and sustainable** way of life.
CMV | I think I can be clearer and more concise.
In the first section you argue two things:
1. Domestic affairs cause burnout, resentment, and financial strain.
2. Poly community living would reduce that.
I agree that living in a community is cheaper. In that sense, it would reduce financial strain. However, I disagree that it would reduce resentment or burnout, or general financial strain.
Resentment is usually a result of perceived unfairness. Fairness is easier to balance between fewer people, thus there would be more resentment in a community on average.
Financial strain is most typically caused by either a difference between income and cost of living or poor financial decisions. Living in a commune doesn't improve either.
Burnout is caused by excessive stress. Chores aren't going to be the main source of stress, and I don't see many stressors that wouldn't equally be present in both situations.
In the second part of your post, you argue:
1. A single partner must meet many needs
2. Multiple partners can each meet some needs, making it easier to achieve.
The problems with that are two fold. First, being in a poly commune does not make someone poly. Neither does not being in a commune make one not poly. Thus, you don't get the choice generally to choose how you want to meet your needs. Second, having multiple relationships with multiple people - even if not every relationship needs to meet every need - is not necessarily easier. Rather, it's generally exponentially more complicated. If you did have a choice, it may be easier to find potential partners who meet at least one need, but it's harder to maintain the multiple relationships. So it's a tradeoff, not a clear benefit.
In the third part of your post you argue:
>There would be less pressure to marry young
>The pressure to "find the one" would decrease
>People wouldn't feel ashamed for being a virgin
>People wouldn’t feel the same urgency to have children
>Valentine’s Day, anniversaries, and other relationship-centered events wouldn’t carry the same weight, as love and care would be communal rather than exclusive.
All of this is cultural and in no way tied to the community or family structure you live in, yet most of these pressures do have reasons that aren't affected by the differences between families and poly communes. For example, urgency to have children is tied to the decreased ability for women to have children as they age and the increased chance of natal risks. The weight on relationship centered events is there because people in general value relationships.
The only one that's kinda related is "finding the one", but that's really just an expression of the desire to be in a satisfying relationship which doesn't change if you're poly. It just switches from "finding the one" to "finding the ones". | Utopia_Builder |
1iz7y47 | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz61ma/cmv_trumps_5_million_gold_visa_is_an_invitation/ | abhip | [
"ForgotAboutDre_5"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz61ma/cmv_trumps_5_million_gold_visa_is_an_invitation/mf0mbk9/ | 2,907,968 | CMV: Trump’s $5 million “Gold Visa” is an invitation for drug lords to set up their base in USA | Who has $5 million to run away from another part of the world to come to USA. If someone has $5M to spend on a visa, they probably are well established in their own country and the desire to uproot to move here would be minimal, because you can always visit here for free to nominal visa fee for tourism purposes.
Who has $5 million lying around in cash? What type of people are interested in this “Pay to Play” scheme? Here are some type of people I can think of:
1. Drug lords who can throw money to establish operational bases here. Think the NY fentanyl bureau chief is a Gold visa holder.
2. Some really corrupt people in third world countries who have obtained their wealth illegally. Most probably being investigated or wanted in their own country
3. Terrorist and criminals funded by shadow groups from other parts of the world
4. Countries planting their spies
Who else could possibly want to be part of this Pay to Play scheme?
| It’s actually not for drug lords.
It’s for many other things: (1) Kremlin officials to come interfere even more in our elections (I bet they get a job at a polling place, or even better, as “maintenance” operators for electronic ballot machines), and (2) sex trafficking, which is far more lucrative than drugs.
Unfortunately, the uber-rich don’t pay taxes here because “loopholes” and they will gobble up so much real estate and national park land (to turn into condos or sex resorts now that Epstein is no longer an option), driving up housing costs to such astronomical levels that the average American won’t be able to afford a home ever again!
I truly don’t understand why people are fighting over the poor Mexican immigrants who come here. Do you really want a job picking cabbages from a field all day for $5 an hour? The rich ones are the ones who are going to make your life hell. They buy housing so you can rent it from them. Places like LA and Hong Kong have such a huge housing crisis because of foreign investors. Poor immigrants are not who you need to worry up, they aren’t taken anyone’s jobs and aren’t going to buy up resources and take them away from you. Rich people will. It’s a horrible idea. | ForgotAboutDre_5 | 1,740,629,902 | CMV: Trump’s $5 million “Gold Visa” is an invitation for drug lords to set up their base in USA | Who has $5 million to run away from another part of the world to come to USA. If someone has $5M to spend on a visa, they probably are well established in their own country and the desire to uproot to move here would be minimal, because you can always visit here for free to nominal visa fee for tourism purposes.
Who has $5 million lying around in cash? What type of people are interested in this “Pay to Play” scheme? Here are some type of people I can think of:
1. Drug lords who can throw money to establish operational bases here. Think the NY fentanyl bureau chief is a Gold visa holder.
2. Some really corrupt people in third world countries who have obtained their wealth illegally. Most probably being investigated or wanted in their own country
3. Terrorist and criminals funded by shadow groups from other parts of the world
4. Countries planting their spies
Who else could possibly want to be part of this Pay to Play scheme?
| It’s actually not for drug lords.
It’s for many other things: (1) Kremlin officials to come interfere even more in our elections (I bet they get a job at a polling place, or even better, as “maintenance” operators for electronic ballot machines), and (2) sex trafficking, which is far more lucrative than drugs.
Unfortunately, the uber-rich don’t pay taxes here because “loopholes” and they will gobble up so much real estate and national park land (to turn into condos or sex resorts now that Epstein is no longer an option), driving up housing costs to such astronomical levels that the average American won’t be able to afford a home ever again!
I truly don’t understand why people are fighting over the poor Mexican immigrants who come here. Do you really want a job picking cabbages from a field all day for $5 an hour? The rich ones are the ones who are going to make your life hell. They buy housing so you can rent it from them. Places like LA and Hong Kong have such a huge housing crisis because of foreign investors. Poor immigrants are not who you need to worry up, they aren’t taken anyone’s jobs and aren’t going to buy up resources and take them away from you. Rich people will. It’s a horrible idea. | abhip |
1iz8wmg | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz7eh6/cmv_there_is_no_lack_of_male_role_models_in/ | greengrassonthisside | [
"LingALingLingLing"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz7eh6/cmv_there_is_no_lack_of_male_role_models_in/mf0y08i/ | 2,908,485 | CMV: There is no "lack of male role models" in society nowadays, at least not to a meaningful extent. | I shouldn't be frying my braincells on political posts on Reddit in the middle of the night, but here I am, neurons fried. All the time, and also ten minutes ago, I see this common take: Men are getting misogynistic and turning to Andrew Tate because they lack "male role models."
What?
I sincerely do not understand. Where is the lack of male role models? I **sincerely** do not understand.
I am a woman, I'll be transparent about that. When I think of the "female role models" I had growing up, I think of historical figures like Rosa Parks and Amelie Earhart, fictional characters like Katara (yes, I'm that old/young) and Holly (from Artemis Fowl), and real-life people like my older female classmates and relatives.
Do men/boys nowadays not...read history (There are plenty of men there)? They don't watch TV (again, there's plenty of men, in heroic roles, even!)? They don't have fathers or brothers or uncles or other men in their lives at all?
Have they all been abducted into the care of nunneries? Nunneries that also blotted out the names of every male figure in the Bible? What's going on? Is there really no alternative to Andrew Tate for a growing young boy? Come on, what about that Tony Stark, isn't he cool, a cool man from movies? If we have to have a contemporary real life figure who specifically posts on social media — okay, sure, how about that hbomberguy who makes cool video essays? Hey, Bernie Sanders has a YouTube channel!
Essentially, I see that the world continues to brim with viable "male role models". Yet everyone and their friend on Reddit thinks they're all gone?
I don't know if my view can be changed. But at the very least, I hope someone can enlighten me as to why people think there are no more male role models? | You have a lot of half-deltas, to be fair change my view doesn't need to you to completely do a 180. If I remember right, if a point of yours is challenged adequately or you have new considerations (view has shifted or changed), it can be delta worthy (though look at the rules, I may be remembering wrong) | LingALingLingLing | 1,740,635,011 | CMV: There is no "lack of male role models" in society nowadays, at least not to a meaningful extent. | I shouldn't be frying my braincells on political posts on Reddit in the middle of the night, but here I am, neurons fried. All the time, and also ten minutes ago, I see this common take: Men are getting misogynistic and turning to Andrew Tate because they lack "male role models."
What?
I sincerely do not understand. Where is the lack of male role models? I **sincerely** do not understand.
I am a woman, I'll be transparent about that. When I think of the "female role models" I had growing up, I think of historical figures like Rosa Parks and Amelie Earhart, fictional characters like Katara (yes, I'm that old/young) and Holly (from Artemis Fowl), and real-life people like my older female classmates and relatives.
Do men/boys nowadays not...read history (There are plenty of men there)? They don't watch TV (again, there's plenty of men, in heroic roles, even!)? They don't have fathers or brothers or uncles or other men in their lives at all?
Have they all been abducted into the care of nunneries? Nunneries that also blotted out the names of every male figure in the Bible? What's going on? Is there really no alternative to Andrew Tate for a growing young boy? Come on, what about that Tony Stark, isn't he cool, a cool man from movies? If we have to have a contemporary real life figure who specifically posts on social media — okay, sure, how about that hbomberguy who makes cool video essays? Hey, Bernie Sanders has a YouTube channel!
Essentially, I see that the world continues to brim with viable "male role models". Yet everyone and their friend on Reddit thinks they're all gone?
I don't know if my view can be changed. But at the very least, I hope someone can enlighten me as to why people think there are no more male role models? | You have a lot of half-deltas, to be fair change my view doesn't need to you to completely do a 180. If I remember right, if a point of yours is challenged adequately or you have new considerations (view has shifted or changed), it can be delta worthy (though look at the rules, I may be remembering wrong) | greengrassonthisside |
1iza4b4 | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixa0ws/cmv_stephen_colbert_and_other_late_night_hosts/ | ahughman | [
"XenoRyet"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1ixa0ws/cmv_stephen_colbert_and_other_late_night_hosts/mekm7j6/ | 2,878,981 | CMV: Stephen Colbert and other late night hosts just enable trump | Back in the Bush era, Colbert was doing satire, and it dug into what was then the beginnings of the tea party - or like... bully conservatism. Bill O'Reilly was steamed, and he was one of the few who effectively showed how off things had gotten.
Now, playing it straight, almost every one of his shows revolves around trump, calling him a baby, getting some boos, doing a terrible impression. His criticism feels like its done with a smile. Like he enjoys that there is someone as insane and him to joke about. Almost every day he is giving trump a platform, keeping people up to date and happily mocking without ever taking a serious tone about the absolutely atrocious situation we are in now. We are watching fascist oligarchs strip our protections and enable genocide while the planet burns past 1.5 and Colbert and other hosts are still making little poopy diaper jokes and loving it. Their complete but feel-good coverage has only normalized his absurdity. They enabled his re-election by having no teeth. | There are people out there who don't watch the news, and don't like talking about politics.
But they do like jokes and they do watch late night shows. Comedy reaches those people in a way no other method could.
Then on the flip side, everyone knows gallows humor, and nobody thinks that making jokes about an awful leader is tacit approval of that leader. Certainly nobody who is politically minded is going to be taking Trump any less seriously because jokes are told about him regularly. | XenoRyet | 1,740,426,249 | CMV: Stephen Colbert and other late night hosts just enable trump | Back in the Bush era, Colbert was doing satire, and it dug into what was then the beginnings of the tea party - or like... bully conservatism. Bill O'Reilly was steamed, and he was one of the few who effectively showed how off things had gotten.
Now, playing it straight, almost every one of his shows revolves around trump, calling him a baby, getting some boos, doing a terrible impression. His criticism feels like its done with a smile. Like he enjoys that there is someone as insane and him to joke about. Almost every day he is giving trump a platform, keeping people up to date and happily mocking without ever taking a serious tone about the absolutely atrocious situation we are in now. We are watching fascist oligarchs strip our protections and enable genocide while the planet burns past 1.5 and Colbert and other hosts are still making little poopy diaper jokes and loving it. Their complete but feel-good coverage has only normalized his absurdity. They enabled his re-election by having no teeth. | There are people out there who don't watch the news, and don't like talking about politics.
But they do like jokes and they do watch late night shows. Comedy reaches those people in a way no other method could.
Then on the flip side, everyone knows gallows humor, and nobody thinks that making jokes about an awful leader is tacit approval of that leader. Certainly nobody who is politically minded is going to be taking Trump any less seriously because jokes are told about him regularly. | ahughman |
1iza6cg | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz9fv9/cmv_the_only_reason_palestinians_are_opposed_to/ | BoysenberryLanky6112 | [
"MercurianAspirations"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1iz9fv9/cmv_the_only_reason_palestinians_are_opposed_to/mf1809w/ | 2,908,800 | CMV: The only reason Palestinians are opposed to resettling in other countries is it will be tougher to attack Israel | I've moved a bunch in my life. I was a child during the 2007-2008 recession, my dad lost his job, and we had to move because we could no longer afford the mortgage. I then went to college so moved to that city. I then got a job and moved for that. I had a rough breakup and decided to start anew in a brand new city. All of these moves were far further than any Palestinian would move if they were resettled. All were in new states with new state laws and slightly different cultures (one move was Michigan to Texas, another Texas to DC). If my home had been destroyed and I claimed to live in an "open air prison", I can't imagine not wanting to move again to somewhere with more stability and not right next to the IDF who I believed was attempting to genocide my people and have air superiority where I live but wouldn't in my new home.
So my view is there's no good reason for a Palestinian civilian who doesn't want to take over Israel and kill and/or expel every Jew there to not want to move. And every Palestinian opposed to being resettled elsewhere is doing so under the delusion that they have a chance of winning a war against Israel, creating a one state solution where "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab", and killing/expelling all Jews from what would then be Palestine. There's no other good reason they would want to continue to live in Palestine, an area that has been bombed to oblivion and has no infrastructure left, mainly due to that same population electing and supporting a group that built terror tunnels to launch rockets at Jews from under their schools, hospitals, mosques, and neighborhoods.
Like even if you oppose Israel and thinks they've been too harsh in their war efforts since 10/7, wouldn't you want to resettle in a country with similar religion and values as you that has much better infrastructure and where your family can live a much better life than in war-torn Gaza that will likely be occupied by the IDF for the foreseeable future? | In 1982, at the height of the Lebanese civil war and the IDF invasion of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel (the elected president of Lebanon and an ally of Israel) was assassinated by the Syrian national socialist party. Christian militias who supported Gemayel falsely blamed palestinians for his assassination, and on 16 September entered palestinian refugee camps and neighborhoods, most notably the areas of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. The IDF provided logistical support to the militias and prevented Palestinians from leaving the affected areas. The militias went house to house and slaughtered entire families, mostly by gunfire, but young men in particular were subject to various forms of torture and mutilation: some were castrated, scalped, or had crosses carved into their chests before execution. The IDF gradually became aware of what was happening during the course of events, but due to a breakdown of command and control and/or intentional oversight, did not intervene to stop the massacres until the morning of september 17th.
This is why many Palestinians do not want to re-settle; they're not fucking stupid. They realize that in their adopted home they will be treated as second-class citizens at best and as a liability at worst, to be slaughtered by the ruling class whenever it becomes inconvenient for them to continue to exist | MercurianAspirations | 1,740,640,293 | CMV: The only reason Palestinians are opposed to resettling in other countries is it will be tougher to attack Israel | I've moved a bunch in my life. I was a child during the 2007-2008 recession, my dad lost his job, and we had to move because we could no longer afford the mortgage. I then went to college so moved to that city. I then got a job and moved for that. I had a rough breakup and decided to start anew in a brand new city. All of these moves were far further than any Palestinian would move if they were resettled. All were in new states with new state laws and slightly different cultures (one move was Michigan to Texas, another Texas to DC). If my home had been destroyed and I claimed to live in an "open air prison", I can't imagine not wanting to move again to somewhere with more stability and not right next to the IDF who I believed was attempting to genocide my people and have air superiority where I live but wouldn't in my new home.
So my view is there's no good reason for a Palestinian civilian who doesn't want to take over Israel and kill and/or expel every Jew there to not want to move. And every Palestinian opposed to being resettled elsewhere is doing so under the delusion that they have a chance of winning a war against Israel, creating a one state solution where "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab", and killing/expelling all Jews from what would then be Palestine. There's no other good reason they would want to continue to live in Palestine, an area that has been bombed to oblivion and has no infrastructure left, mainly due to that same population electing and supporting a group that built terror tunnels to launch rockets at Jews from under their schools, hospitals, mosques, and neighborhoods.
Like even if you oppose Israel and thinks they've been too harsh in their war efforts since 10/7, wouldn't you want to resettle in a country with similar religion and values as you that has much better infrastructure and where your family can live a much better life than in war-torn Gaza that will likely be occupied by the IDF for the foreseeable future? | In 1982, at the height of the Lebanese civil war and the IDF invasion of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel (the elected president of Lebanon and an ally of Israel) was assassinated by the Syrian national socialist party. Christian militias who supported Gemayel falsely blamed palestinians for his assassination, and on 16 September entered palestinian refugee camps and neighborhoods, most notably the areas of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. The IDF provided logistical support to the militias and prevented Palestinians from leaving the affected areas. The militias went house to house and slaughtered entire families, mostly by gunfire, but young men in particular were subject to various forms of torture and mutilation: some were castrated, scalped, or had crosses carved into their chests before execution. The IDF gradually became aware of what was happening during the course of events, but due to a breakdown of command and control and/or intentional oversight, did not intervene to stop the massacres until the morning of september 17th.
This is why many Palestinians do not want to re-settle; they're not fucking stupid. They realize that in their adopted home they will be treated as second-class citizens at best and as a liability at worst, to be slaughtered by the ruling class whenever it becomes inconvenient for them to continue to exist | BoysenberryLanky6112 |
1izbeh5 | /r/changemyview/comments/1izab7f/cmv_russia_is_winning_the_war_but_not_from_ukraine/ | blubseabass | [
"Strong_Remove_2976"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1izab7f/cmv_russia_is_winning_the_war_but_not_from_ukraine/mf1h7un/ | 2,909,177 | CMV: Russia is winning the war, but not from Ukraine. | It seemed to me that Russia's main goal was to be taken serious on the world stage, stop NATO, create a multipolar world, and enforce their own safety standards. Ukraine itself was more a means to that end. They forced NATO's hand in a gamble, and hit the jackpot.
\- The multipolar world is now a fact. Russia is respected by the USA, China, and in due time, Europe. The European/American block of power is gone. Countries can once again do what they can enforce without a world police, but by mercy of regional powers.
\- NATO is dead in the water. The Eastern European countries don't feel safe anymore under the NATO umbrella.
\- Even though the war in Ukraine is an absolute slog, Putin can claim to have felled a much, much larger target. Even if Ukraine would meet in the middle, keep a strong force, join the EU and European block, Russia still got what it wanted. Russia is massively respected by Europe, and Russia doesn't think much of Europe's military capabilities.
\- The USA has retreated from the world stage, and acts the same politics as Russia. The USA is not an ally to Russia, but exactly what they wanted: a peer.
\- Putin can rightfully claim it was his orchestration, and the victory is his.
The only victory goal that is far away is that other Eastern European countries are tied to the Russian sphere of influence. But the threat from it is minor, the EU doesn't operate in a doctrine the Russians can take seriously. MAYBE if Europe gets its act together massively, the EU can once again form rivalry with Russia. But this is years ahead, and the EU has many more challenges to overcome. Russia can probably just sit back and wait, just like they did with the USA.
I know Russia is still under heavy economical strain, so time might not be on their side. But even if they make concessions in a peace treaty, they killed NATO and they pushed back the USA's sphere of influence all the way back to 1940. | Disagree.
The multipolar world was a fact before 2022, but mass public consciousness tends to trail geopolitical reality by a decade or so.
Russia was already a respected and feared military superpower before Ukraine and always was, at least in leadership/strategy circles. If you look at USSR/Russia it’s GDP was gone from being 10% of the world in the 1970s to 2% now. But its military superpower status has remained throughout.
Russia’s aim in Ukraine is regime change. It initiated an attempt at that in 2014 of which 2022 was a higher stakes continuation. Still not achieved it.
NATO confidence and the western alliance is severely dented but that is down to US politics, not Russia’s acts.
Ukraine will not join NATO but that’s been made no less likely since 2022. There were already multiple members that would have vetoed it prior to 2022. | Strong_Remove_2976 | 1,740,645,895 | CMV: Russia is winning the war, but not from Ukraine. | It seemed to me that Russia's main goal was to be taken serious on the world stage, stop NATO, create a multipolar world, and enforce their own safety standards. Ukraine itself was more a means to that end. They forced NATO's hand in a gamble, and hit the jackpot.
\- The multipolar world is now a fact. Russia is respected by the USA, China, and in due time, Europe. The European/American block of power is gone. Countries can once again do what they can enforce without a world police, but by mercy of regional powers.
\- NATO is dead in the water. The Eastern European countries don't feel safe anymore under the NATO umbrella.
\- Even though the war in Ukraine is an absolute slog, Putin can claim to have felled a much, much larger target. Even if Ukraine would meet in the middle, keep a strong force, join the EU and European block, Russia still got what it wanted. Russia is massively respected by Europe, and Russia doesn't think much of Europe's military capabilities.
\- The USA has retreated from the world stage, and acts the same politics as Russia. The USA is not an ally to Russia, but exactly what they wanted: a peer.
\- Putin can rightfully claim it was his orchestration, and the victory is his.
The only victory goal that is far away is that other Eastern European countries are tied to the Russian sphere of influence. But the threat from it is minor, the EU doesn't operate in a doctrine the Russians can take seriously. MAYBE if Europe gets its act together massively, the EU can once again form rivalry with Russia. But this is years ahead, and the EU has many more challenges to overcome. Russia can probably just sit back and wait, just like they did with the USA.
I know Russia is still under heavy economical strain, so time might not be on their side. But even if they make concessions in a peace treaty, they killed NATO and they pushed back the USA's sphere of influence all the way back to 1940. | Disagree.
The multipolar world was a fact before 2022, but mass public consciousness tends to trail geopolitical reality by a decade or so.
Russia was already a respected and feared military superpower before Ukraine and always was, at least in leadership/strategy circles. If you look at USSR/Russia it’s GDP was gone from being 10% of the world in the 1970s to 2% now. But its military superpower status has remained throughout.
Russia’s aim in Ukraine is regime change. It initiated an attempt at that in 2014 of which 2022 was a higher stakes continuation. Still not achieved it.
NATO confidence and the western alliance is severely dented but that is down to US politics, not Russia’s acts.
Ukraine will not join NATO but that’s been made no less likely since 2022. There were already multiple members that would have vetoed it prior to 2022. | blubseabass |
1izc653 | /r/changemyview/comments/1izbeaw/cmv_europe_is_not_serious_about_protecting_ukraine/ | kazakhminimarket | [
"Eastern-Bro9173"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1izbeaw/cmv_europe_is_not_serious_about_protecting_ukraine/mf1lfgs/ | 2,909,310 | CMV: Europe is not serious about protecting Ukraine | There have been many arguments lately that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, that it has become an enemy of the West, and that Europe is strong enough to stand against Russia without American support. But if that is true, why does Europe’s behavior suggest otherwise?
* **The UK and France abstained in the UNSC resolution** about adopting a neutral stance on the Ukraine war [(source)](https://www.businessworld.in/article/unsc-adopts-neutral-us-stance-on-war-in-ukraine-as-trump-pursues-end-to-conflict-548996). Both Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have been vocal about defending Ukraine, yet neither country vetoed the resolution. The argument for this is that it was a political maneuver to stay on Trump’s good side. But can Trump even be trusted? If European leaders truly believed in standing up to Russia, why gamble on Trump’s goodwill?
* **Zelensky is negotiating with Trump on mineral deals** [(source)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko)**.** If Europe were fully committed to Ukraine’s survival, why didn’t they offer a better deal? And if they did, why did Zelensky still choose to negotiate with the U.S.? One argument is that Ukraine’s negotiators will craft a deal that forces the U.S. to defend Ukrainian territory, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s lack of competence. But at the end of the day, the U.S. still has the biggest military. No matter how clever Ukraine’s negotiators are, Trump and the U.S. will still have the leverage to push for a deal that benefits them more than Ukraine. And even if Ukraine manages to secure a favorable deal, the U.S. could still betray it.
* **The UK has talked about sending troops, but only after peace** [(source)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gxgxl3grgo)**.** If they were serious about defending Ukraine, why wait until after a settlement is reached? Other European countries will likely take a similar stance.
All of this suggests that European leaders either know they are too weak to stand up to Russia alone or lack the political will to do so. They are still trying to appease Trump, and if that is the case, how can Ukraine expect to get a good deal in any peace negotiations? A full restoration of Ukraine’s borders seems unlikely. Some concessions, like Donbas, seem inevitable.
To change my view, I need a stronger argument that these actions are actually part of a well-thought-out political maneuver, some kind of 4D chess in which Europe is playing a smart long game. Right now, it just seems naive and overly optimistic. | Okay, let's switch it up. What would Europe have to do for you to consider it 'serious'?
1 - because it would be stupid as it would sabotage their ongoing diplomatic efforts without making any difference otherwise.
2 - absolutely, but that's unrelated to the minerals deal. The deal has very little to do with peace/territory, in spite of people conflating the two together for no real reason.
3 - What do you imagine should happen for Ukraine to not lose territory in a peace deal? | Eastern-Bro9173 | 1,740,648,554 | CMV: Europe is not serious about protecting Ukraine | There have been many arguments lately that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, that it has become an enemy of the West, and that Europe is strong enough to stand against Russia without American support. But if that is true, why does Europe’s behavior suggest otherwise?
* **The UK and France abstained in the UNSC resolution** about adopting a neutral stance on the Ukraine war [(source)](https://www.businessworld.in/article/unsc-adopts-neutral-us-stance-on-war-in-ukraine-as-trump-pursues-end-to-conflict-548996). Both Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have been vocal about defending Ukraine, yet neither country vetoed the resolution. The argument for this is that it was a political maneuver to stay on Trump’s good side. But can Trump even be trusted? If European leaders truly believed in standing up to Russia, why gamble on Trump’s goodwill?
* **Zelensky is negotiating with Trump on mineral deals** [(source)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko)**.** If Europe were fully committed to Ukraine’s survival, why didn’t they offer a better deal? And if they did, why did Zelensky still choose to negotiate with the U.S.? One argument is that Ukraine’s negotiators will craft a deal that forces the U.S. to defend Ukrainian territory, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s lack of competence. But at the end of the day, the U.S. still has the biggest military. No matter how clever Ukraine’s negotiators are, Trump and the U.S. will still have the leverage to push for a deal that benefits them more than Ukraine. And even if Ukraine manages to secure a favorable deal, the U.S. could still betray it.
* **The UK has talked about sending troops, but only after peace** [(source)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gxgxl3grgo)**.** If they were serious about defending Ukraine, why wait until after a settlement is reached? Other European countries will likely take a similar stance.
All of this suggests that European leaders either know they are too weak to stand up to Russia alone or lack the political will to do so. They are still trying to appease Trump, and if that is the case, how can Ukraine expect to get a good deal in any peace negotiations? A full restoration of Ukraine’s borders seems unlikely. Some concessions, like Donbas, seem inevitable.
To change my view, I need a stronger argument that these actions are actually part of a well-thought-out political maneuver, some kind of 4D chess in which Europe is playing a smart long game. Right now, it just seems naive and overly optimistic. | Okay, let's switch it up. What would Europe have to do for you to consider it 'serious'?
1 - because it would be stupid as it would sabotage their ongoing diplomatic efforts without making any difference otherwise.
2 - absolutely, but that's unrelated to the minerals deal. The deal has very little to do with peace/territory, in spite of people conflating the two together for no real reason.
3 - What do you imagine should happen for Ukraine to not lose territory in a peace deal? | kazakhminimarket |
1izjcy2 | /r/changemyview/comments/1izf99w/cmv_the_left_only_has_themselves_to_blame_for/ | Lampruk | [
"kavihasya"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1izf99w/cmv_the_left_only_has_themselves_to_blame_for/mf2w6jl/ | 2,911,285 | CMV: The Left only has themselves to blame for this “sudden” shift in Young men’s political views | TLDR: people who feel unwelcomed in a space are gonna distance themselves from it, even if said space is also trying to aid them, due to how poorly the space was in executing that premise.
Before you all start tweaking, read first (since that’s how you formulate an accurate rebuttal). I’ll be sharing my experience as a Gen Z male.
But yeah honestly, the Left (LGBTQIA+, Feminists, etc. you know the usual groups) fumbled with no fault but their own.
Firstly, I will affirm that the general sentiment surrounding men by those groups are justified, if not, then 100% understandable. It’s true that that “I hate men” or “kill all men” etc. being said online or television doesn’t match the things Women have faced (and still do) at the hands of us men and likewise for the others.
However it’s really unrealistic to assume that we Gen z boys (and Alpha now too) who grew up hearing this thrown around wouldn’t feel alienated (this also applies to men in general).
This lack of positive engagement would turn any well meaning male (which yes is a majority), into building resentment over time because simply saying “if it doesn’t apply to you then you won’t be offended” while having a fair basis, is just ignoring how emotions work.
So what do you think is gonna happen if a group of young men who feel villainised for the past decade or whatever suddenly see a political movement telling them - “Be proud to be a man!”, “The radfems are shaming men!”, etc.
Then grow up to be of voting age and have to choose between two parties they perceive as: The one that shames me for being who I am vs The one who celebrates me for being who I am?
It’s a no brainer. This isn’t me saying these discussions shouldn’t happen, they should. Nor that any claims against men are wrong (for the most part 🌚). But if ya’ll want **any** actual change you’re gonna have to change how you interact moving forward, or don’t, you can dismantle the patriarchy however you want, I’m just saying what I believe is the best practise.
| Keep in mind that women encountered this same issue, and queer people did as well. Lots of other people who were demographically like them, but who would say, “Why do I need the vote? I wouldn’t have the first idea who to vote for!” or, “Geez, I don’t want to be all out in people’s faces, can’t I just keep these feelings to myself?”
Dismantling patriarchy will take a lot of work. And young people tend to be as good if not better at doing that work than their older counterparts. Something about being able to envision a brighter future more easily, and having more energy with fewer responsibilities. And not yet “knowing” that nothing will work.
It’s not the same as upvotes. It’s a specific marker that your mind has been changed and is the backbone of what makes this sub different than other discussion subs.
Look at the sub rules for how to award a delta. | kavihasya | 1,740,668,936 | CMV: The Left only has themselves to blame for this “sudden” shift in Young men’s political views | TLDR: people who feel unwelcomed in a space are gonna distance themselves from it, even if said space is also trying to aid them, due to how poorly the space was in executing that premise.
Before you all start tweaking, read first (since that’s how you formulate an accurate rebuttal). I’ll be sharing my experience as a Gen Z male.
But yeah honestly, the Left (LGBTQIA+, Feminists, etc. you know the usual groups) fumbled with no fault but their own.
Firstly, I will affirm that the general sentiment surrounding men by those groups are justified, if not, then 100% understandable. It’s true that that “I hate men” or “kill all men” etc. being said online or television doesn’t match the things Women have faced (and still do) at the hands of us men and likewise for the others.
However it’s really unrealistic to assume that we Gen z boys (and Alpha now too) who grew up hearing this thrown around wouldn’t feel alienated (this also applies to men in general).
This lack of positive engagement would turn any well meaning male (which yes is a majority), into building resentment over time because simply saying “if it doesn’t apply to you then you won’t be offended” while having a fair basis, is just ignoring how emotions work.
So what do you think is gonna happen if a group of young men who feel villainised for the past decade or whatever suddenly see a political movement telling them - “Be proud to be a man!”, “The radfems are shaming men!”, etc.
Then grow up to be of voting age and have to choose between two parties they perceive as: The one that shames me for being who I am vs The one who celebrates me for being who I am?
It’s a no brainer. This isn’t me saying these discussions shouldn’t happen, they should. Nor that any claims against men are wrong (for the most part 🌚). But if ya’ll want **any** actual change you’re gonna have to change how you interact moving forward, or don’t, you can dismantle the patriarchy however you want, I’m just saying what I believe is the best practise.
| Keep in mind that women encountered this same issue, and queer people did as well. Lots of other people who were demographically like them, but who would say, “Why do I need the vote? I wouldn’t have the first idea who to vote for!” or, “Geez, I don’t want to be all out in people’s faces, can’t I just keep these feelings to myself?”
Dismantling patriarchy will take a lot of work. And young people tend to be as good if not better at doing that work than their older counterparts. Something about being able to envision a brighter future more easily, and having more energy with fewer responsibilities. And not yet “knowing” that nothing will work.
It’s not the same as upvotes. It’s a specific marker that your mind has been changed and is the backbone of what makes this sub different than other discussion subs.
Look at the sub rules for how to award a delta. | Lampruk |
1izkirx | /r/changemyview/comments/1izgxm6/cmv_the_west_is_in_a_moral_decline_just_not_in/ | ThatOneGuyOnReddit_ | [
"IronSavage3"
] | /r/changemyview/comments/1izgxm6/cmv_the_west_is_in_a_moral_decline_just_not_in/mf39py5/ | 2,912,024 | CMV: the west is in a "moral decline", just not in the far right sense | Apologize for the Doomerist title, but i feel it's an argument that should be addressed in its harshest terms, as it is often treated so.
Quoting Fukuyama here:
“The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. […] I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. […] Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.”
While i'm not a supporter of Fukuyama, i find that here he makes a crucial point: the end of the cold war and of great ideological worldviews has caused something you could call a malaise in the western public.
I feel this is the reason (or at least a catalyst) for the many people that end up attracted to populist movements:
Parties and governments stopped believing in grand ideological narratives, the narrative of the "west as the center of freedom and liberal democracy" lost traction with the fall of the Soviet bloc and later wars in the middle east, and we're seeing it be almost abandoned in the latest geopolitical developments, with the US and several european parties seeming to abandon Taiwan and Ukraine.
It's not surprising that with the weakening of the traditional western grand narrative, other narratives are stepping in to fill in the gap:
Those that lament a "fall of the west" because of woke or modernism or immigrants subscribe to one such narrative.
all the reasons they mention are not the core of the disappointment and restlessnes they feel, but part of a narrative Centered on figures like Trump, or Le Pen, or Farage, who paint themselves as daring firebrands with an enemy to fight and a neat worldview to believe in.
Talk of "western decay" and so on, whether exaggerated or not, is something that resonates with a lot of people, and it would a mistake to dismiss it altogether.
| So you’re saying that 2025 is “worse” than say 1995 in terms of “human fulfillment” which you describe as a “something purely psychological”.
Further, you’re insisting that something is lacking in everyone’s internal subjective psychological experience, which you have no way of knowing about or measuring and you have no objective statistics or facts available to back up that assertion?
And you’re saying this phenomenon which you cannot measure or back up with facts and statistics is due to an “end of grand narratives”?
All those other problems aside, is “Great Replacement Theory” *not* a “grand narrative”? Is Putin’s theory about a western conspiracy against Russia not a “grand narrative”? Modernity is rife with “grand narratives” so all the other problems with your view aside, I’m not seeing how you support the idea that they’ve gone away. | IronSavage3 | 1,740,672,917 | CMV: the west is in a "moral decline", just not in the far right sense | Apologize for the Doomerist title, but i feel it's an argument that should be addressed in its harshest terms, as it is often treated so.
Quoting Fukuyama here:
“The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. […] I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. […] Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.”
While i'm not a supporter of Fukuyama, i find that here he makes a crucial point: the end of the cold war and of great ideological worldviews has caused something you could call a malaise in the western public.
I feel this is the reason (or at least a catalyst) for the many people that end up attracted to populist movements:
Parties and governments stopped believing in grand ideological narratives, the narrative of the "west as the center of freedom and liberal democracy" lost traction with the fall of the Soviet bloc and later wars in the middle east, and we're seeing it be almost abandoned in the latest geopolitical developments, with the US and several european parties seeming to abandon Taiwan and Ukraine.
It's not surprising that with the weakening of the traditional western grand narrative, other narratives are stepping in to fill in the gap:
Those that lament a "fall of the west" because of woke or modernism or immigrants subscribe to one such narrative.
all the reasons they mention are not the core of the disappointment and restlessnes they feel, but part of a narrative Centered on figures like Trump, or Le Pen, or Farage, who paint themselves as daring firebrands with an enemy to fight and a neat worldview to believe in.
Talk of "western decay" and so on, whether exaggerated or not, is something that resonates with a lot of people, and it would a mistake to dismiss it altogether.
| So you’re saying that 2025 is “worse” than say 1995 in terms of “human fulfillment” which you describe as a “something purely psychological”.
Further, you’re insisting that something is lacking in everyone’s internal subjective psychological experience, which you have no way of knowing about or measuring and you have no objective statistics or facts available to back up that assertion?
And you’re saying this phenomenon which you cannot measure or back up with facts and statistics is due to an “end of grand narratives”?
All those other problems aside, is “Great Replacement Theory” *not* a “grand narrative”? Is Putin’s theory about a western conspiracy against Russia not a “grand narrative”? Modernity is rife with “grand narratives” so all the other problems with your view aside, I’m not seeing how you support the idea that they’ve gone away. | ThatOneGuyOnReddit_ |
Subsets and Splits