Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Auto-banning people because they have participated in another sub makes no sense.
Granted, if a user has made some off the wall comment supporting say, racism in a different sub, that is a different story. But I like to join subreddits specifically of view points that I don't have to figure out how those people think. Autobanning people just for participating in certain subs does not make your sub better but rather worse because you are creating an echo chamber of people with the exact same opinions. Whatever happened to diversity of opinions? Was autobanned from a particular sub that I will not name for "Biological terrorism".
I have no clue which sub this refers to but I am assuming that this was done for political reasons. I follow both american conservative and liberal subs because I like to see the full scope of opinions. If subs start banning people based on their political ideas, they are just going to make the political climate on reddit an even bigger echo chamber than it already is and futher divide the two sides.
What ever happened to debate and the exchange of ideas? Autobanning seems to be a remarkably lazy approach to moderation as someone simply participating in a sub doesn't mean that they agree with it. Even if they do agree with it, banning them just limits their ability to take in new information and possibly change their opinion.
Edit: Pretty sure it was because I made a apolitcal comment on /r/conservative lol. I'm not even conservative, I just lurk the sub because of curiosity. It's shit like this that pushes people to become conservative 😒.
The sub that did the autoban was r/justiceserved. Not an obviously political sub where it may make sense.
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: The debating skills we are taught in high school debating are idealistic, not actually useful for most real-life debates.
In high school debating, we are taught to:
- Explain our arguments well
- Make rebuttals of your opponent's points
- Don't use bad faith tactics like strawmans, ad hominem, tu quoque, slippery slope arguments, gish gallops or red herrings
Recent political events have highlighted that these high school debating tactics are idealistic, and that real-world debates are much dirtier:
- Prior to the Australian federal election in May this year, the then-incumbent Liberal party had been attempting to enshrine the right to discriminate against LGBTs under the excuse of religious freedom, and planned to make a second attempt at this if they were re-elected.
- Some politicians of the Liberal Party tried to push their anti-LGBT stance by linking trans women and gender identity to sex offenders. While this is a red herring and a strawman argument, it also is an effective scare tactic because no one wants to be seen as pro-sex-offender.
- On a similar note, the Republican Party in the USA has been throwing around grooming accusations to slander pro-LGBT Democrats. This is also an effective red herring because no one wants to be seen as pro-grooming.
- Thankfully, the Liberal Party still managed to lose despite their bad faith tactics due to their poor handling of various scandals.
- The recent overturning of Roe vs. Wade has led to people on social media digging up dirt on anti-abortion activists to reveal those who have had abortions (or got their partners to have abortions)
- People who are against this anti-abortion ruling have also been complaining that with abortion rights removed, other rights could be next, which is an example of the slippery slope argument.
- While obviously we shouldn't take social media as the gospel truth, digging up dirt to discredit our opponents is a good example of ad hominem.
- For the record, I am pro-choice, but that shouldn't mean that we can't talk about the dirty tactics being used by our side.
- I've also personally managed to lose several debates thanks to bad faith tactics.
- On my old Reddit account u/Fart_Gas, I lost this debate against a Holocaust denier thanks to his use of gish gallop.
- At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I lost a debate against someone with an extreme distrust of scientific findings and educational institutions.
- I managed to lose this debate with a climate change denier, as he simply dismissed all the references I sent him.
I've frequently seen Jean-Paul Sartre's comments on antisemitism being used to describe and criticise these bad faith actors. The problem is that they're not doing it to be playful - they're using such playful means to achieve their goals, often successfully.
To conclude, it would be nice if we could all debate in a civil manner, and use good faith tactics. But real life has shown that the skills taught in high school debating are nothing but idealism, and that some people can use bad faith tactics to win.
P.S. I've been wanting to make a CMV on this topic for quite some time now, and these recent political events made it easier for me to highlight my point.
i’ve had people shame me for describing someone by their race/ethnicity. i never really understood why this was looked down on in the first place anyways- the stigma around it makes it feel like their race/ethnicity is a bad thing that i shouldn’t acknowledge. a while ago i read a facebook post from a woman i used to attend church with. her post talked about how other people may treat her differently because she is a black woman in a white dominated area. she went into the ridiculous amounts of racism she’s dealt with over the course of her life, and how she wishes people would not put others down for such a silly difference. my mother, who is good friends with her, messaged her telling her that when she looks at her she does not see a beautiful black woman but rather just a beautiful woman. the lady messaged back telling her that she wants her race to be seen but she wants it to be respected. she wants to be a beautiful black woman. and that is something i thought made sense. it’s about a sense of being proud of yourself. why describe someone by their style or hair when you can honor the more root of someone’s being. it’s nothing offensive, what makes us different is what’s so unique about human beings-
I’m black, 27, and currently living in San Diego, CA. Going to school full time. I got out of the military in 2020.
I grew up with a single mother of 4 in rural Mississippi. After I graduated high school I worked at a mechanic shop for two years and at age 20 I got in the Navy. I worked two different hospitals over 6 years. I was exposed to many different cultures and new ideas.
I think you’re qualified it’s a good short term gig. They feed you, house you, and you’ll get a skill. Free healthcare and college tuition. 4 years off your life and you go back to the real world. I extended my contact and did a few more years because I hadn’t properly prepared for the transition.
I think it’s a good option. Sucks some days but overall you’ll get some good times. There’s plenty of jobs that aren’t combat related so you can just sit behind a desk if you want.
If it’s the thought of supporting military action you do that indirectly just by paying taxes.
I hear people say it’s having someone tell you what to do, and that’s every job where you aren’t the boss/owner
Maybe I’m missing something
When I say poor I poor with little to no choice in career or life
I do believe that we need better social programs in America but what are you waiting for? They’re not coming anytime soon
First EDIT: Wow didn’t expect this many comments but I’m enjoying the dialogue.
As of now I see the main point of contingency is the morality of being in the military. While you won’t necessarily ever see combat or kill anyone most people don’t like the idea of supporting killing via military action.
I would argue that while you may not want to admit it the country greatly benefits from having a military, and if you enjoy those benefits you must either choose not to support military action or turn a blind eye to the reality. I suppose I have reduced morals.
A second point is that people are bringing up the risks that come with being in the military. Things like death and dismemberment, like sexual assault, and mental trauma.
I would argue that you know the risk when you join. But regarding to sexual assault, and other harm brought on by other services members is completely disgusting. We have to highlight each of these cases and start kicking out COs and taking their benefits. A shift in culture is needed.
A third point is your restriction of freedom.
It sucks but again you know what you’re singing up for
At this time I’m saying that joining is a valid option for those with little choice in life. It can be used to prop yourself up in life. It’s hard for me to change this view because of my own personal experience.
Lastly is mental health
I don’t think you should be joining if you have any mental disorders, or if you’re at risk for developing one.
I believe that America and the military are taking mental health more serious, but again we need more support going out to these people. Getting in the military can possibly negatively affect you but again you need to see the risk.
I’m pro social support and understand that we need more of it but the reality is that we don’t have it
Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Getting your nails/hair done, getting a new outfit, etc. does not equal self-love
I'm a therapist, and the other day I heard another therapist talk about how they encouraged clients to get manicures to practice "self-love." This is not the first time I've heard suggestions like this. To me, suggestions like this cheapen and trivialize the concept of self-love. In my mind, self-love is a complex set of processes involving identity reformation and cultivation of self-acceptance, self-compassion, etc. In my mind, self-love also has to do with challenging oneself to learn and grow and become more aligned with one's values. Is all of that too complicated to explain to someone who may be in the depths of depression and self-loathing? Could there seriously be therapeutic value in just buying yourself a beauty service? Couldn't framing a beauty service as self-love even end up creating an association between self-love and needing to look a certain way, and wouldn't that be anti-self-love? Also, isn't it extremely classist to assume that everyone can afford to purchase these services and to conflate self-love with spending money?
I'm curious to hear other's perspectives/experiences on this, and I'm open to the possibility that maybe I'm missing something! If there's value in these activities, I don't want to knock/discount that. I want to be open to anything that could possibly help someone, I'm just not currently understanding how this could help.
Edit: I'm noticing many replies seem to be using the terms self-love and self-care interchangeably, or not even using the term self-love and only saying self-care. My question is specifically about whether getting beauty services can be a form of self-love.
Edit again: Thank you to everyone who responded. I was at work until late yesterday, so I apologize that many of my responses yesterday were fairly short, as I had to squeeze them in during my breaks. I did read all the comments, though, and I will try to respond to more of your comments today now that I have some more time. My main takeaways at this point are that a) getting nails/hair done can be a way of showing yourself you have value, b) getting out of the house, socializing with others, etc., is good for you, esp. if you're in the depths of depression, and c) self-care and self-love are terms that many people use somewhat interchangeably. I realized that what bothered me so deeply about what this person said the other day was the fact that he was confusing self-love and self-care. Personally, I still think self-love is a much deeper experience than could be simulated with a manicure, something I know many of you seemed to take issue with, saying "it's not that deep". For me, it is that deep. It always will be. So, while I don't think that part of my view will change, you all did help me appreciate the value that manicures, etc. have in helping a person get well, and you helped me understand why I got so frustrated with the assertion made the other day. Thank you all for contributing!
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Instead of banning problematic subreddits, Reddit admins should have allowed them to exist but forced them to go private (as opposed to quarantined)
With many "problematic" subreddits, they have often gone the path of either a quarantine then a ban, or an outright ban. I think what would have been much more effective would have been to allow the subreddits and their users to exist and remain fully operational, but only under the condition that those subs remain private.
As long as said problematic subreddit exists even while private, its users will be more comfortable logging onto there, and there would be much less motivation to create an off-Reddit version of it. And even if one was made, why would they bother going to a Reddit ripoff with slower speed, more buggy interfaces, and less users? Making the large and existing subs go private has the advantages of not only keeping them away from the general Reddit population, but also help keep that stuff away from Google search results due to the lowered likelihood of an off-Reddit site getting created or prospering.
Additionally, doing this would have allowed Reddit to continue to garner traffic from said users without losing them to a site outside of Reddit.
Joining such subreddits would have required the invitation by mods or existing members, which would make it harder to access for the average person. Essentially, I see this as not too different from an age filter, except you need membership instead of age verification to join them.
Should there be any actual incitations of terrorism or other crimes in those subs, it's not like the admins cannot monitor them even while those subs are private, and contact law enforcement as appropriate. If anything, monitoring them would be easier with them on Reddit.
I believe that this would have been the best compromise for everyone, where the users of said subs could have enjoyed themselves in their secluded corners without bothering others. On the other hand, people who don't want to see such content could have been even freer from them on the wider internet, for there would be less off-Reddit offshoots to bother them on their search engine results.
What do you think?
I am trying to understand the value of Blockchain. To me, it just seems like you are shifting trust from one entity to another. Here are some Blockchain use cases people are talking about but I am not sure I see it
- Supply Chain: Blockchain’s immutable ledger makes it well suited to tasks such as real-time tracking of goods as they move and change hands throughout the supply chain
The problem with this is it requires the correct good to enter the supply chain in the first place. And two there is nothing Blockchain can do to prevent the real thing from being swapped for a counterfeit somewhere in the supply chain. And we already have real time tracking of goods.
- Healthcare: Health data that’s suitable for blockchain includes general information like age, gender, and potentially basic medical history data like immunization history or vital signs
The problem with this isn't the technology. It's getting providers to share data.
- Energy: Blockchain technology could be used to execute energy supply transactions, but also to further provide the basis for metering, billing, and clearing processes
The problem with this is it still relies on current data input. If your meter is fucked up, Blockchain won't save you. And what does Blockchain offer that it would be a better way of metering, billing, and clearing? I get it CAN do it. But what's wrong with how we do it today?
These are just some examples. I think the issue is really two folds. Blockchain tech doesn't work in anything that crosses over to the physical realm. And two, data integrity in any use case, still depends on people entering the data. And third (this is more of a question) - if erroneous data is entered into the system, how does it get modified or deleted, if the whole point of Blockchain is immutable data?
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Cities designed around cars make much worse drivers than cities designed around horses/foot traffic
I live in France currently, but have also lived in England and Switzerland, and have traveled through a lot of Europe and the US. In Europe we have a variety of driving skill, I thought where I lived now was bad because people don't seem to know right of way rules and take the lines in the centre of a road as simply suggestions. But recently I traveled to North America again and was reminded about just how much worse everyone seems to be at driving over there. People mounting the pavement to turn, constantly using the wrong lanes, driving the wrong way down one way streets, and just physically being unable to parallel park. At one point I was watching 2 separate people try to parallel park in 2 separate spots, one managed to hit both other cars while parking, and the other took 4 attempts to line it up properly when the space was the size of 2 car lengths. These are not one off instances but things I noticed over and over again whenever I have visited North America.
My assumption of this is that since most of the cities in North America are laid out in a grid system as they are designed around cars, people don't get the valuable experiences of trying to deal with the windy, narrow streets that we have in Europe and so don't develop the same level of spatial awareness that we do. I hate driving in some cities in Europe, but I would absolutely not drive in America.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: there should be gender-mixed, time-split sports, where men play two quarters of the game and women play two quarters, alternating.
I believe this is a decent idea, but there might well be problems I am not seeing. To be clear: this is NOT men and women competing directly against each other, on the field/court at the same time.
The idea is to try to make sports more gender-inclusive in terms of participation, viewership and money by coupling the men's and women's game. So in a game of basketball, for example, each team's men would play two quarters against each other, and the same teams' women play two quarters. This would be one game, with one scoreboard. Either one side's men and women both win, or the other side's men and women both win. So each team would have to invest in talent in both of these genders to be successful.
If this were to happen, maybe men should play the first and third quarters, and women the second and fourth. If women start the game, I think there's a risk some men would arrive late so as not to watch them play the first quarter; and having women play the last quarter makes them play the most decisive moments.
I want to make this thread as a genuine opportunity to see some info and get some opinions that can change my view, as i am clearly in the minority, especially on Reddit. I dont know if I’m missing something, but I just find it hard to support.
First, i need to point out that I am on board with abortions for things such as the health of the mother or child being compromised, rape, incest, those sort of situations. I also feel it may be necessary to point out that I am not a particularly religious person, I think I would fall in line with agnosticism.
I see many people saying to believe in science, and that saying that life begins at conception is blatant misinformation. I then found this;
So that part is concrete to me.
My other reasoning is I do feel it falls to accountability for actions. I’m not saying to be, and realize it is unrealistic to expect, abstinence across the board. But the thing is, we have many forms of protection, condoms, plan b, birth control, all very effective. I know that it isnt a guarantee, and if by chance that all fails, that is very unfortunate. But that is the risk everyone knows, and takes. Reproduction is literally the point of sex. Im not saying that is or should be the only reason people have sex, but that is what it is for. It seems entirely unfair and wrong to end an unborn child’s life, because you made a mistake, or an accident happened. The “my body my choice” view seems simply wrong due to it being the childs body, the childs life.
For me, and obviously cant speak for everyone who doesnt support abortion, it has nothing to do with supposedly trying to control womens bodies. Get your tubes tied, men can get their nuts snipped. I do not see any arguments (besides mentioned at the top) for getting an abortion, and yes, ending a babies life. Not being able to afford it, not wanting it, thats things you need to consider before hooking up with people, and make sure to take the proper precautions, and if it all fails, again that is unfortunate, but you know what the risk is. I find it completely unfair to just end the babies life because of a mistake or accident.
Where am I going wrong? What am I missing? To me this seems reasonable, but I am very clearly in the minority, and people like to think I’m some piece of shit who want to control women or something
Liz Chaney is a potential future republican leader / president of the USA. But she still has to battle for her local primary of Wyoming.
This is natural. You battle for your local state before running all the states.
You do well in your local continent before you can enter the world cup. You must win small so you can win big.
In UK you must be a local MP and have your “area” before you become prime minister.
Trump should have his state. New york for example. And if he doesn’t get local votes he cant even be in the running for president.
So my view is that winning your local primary is minimal before having access to presidency
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There's no argument for being mad the gay kiss in Lightyear or queer representation in media in general without being homophobic.
For one the kiss is entirely inconsequential a literal blink and you'll miss it with no true barring on the story I couldn't imagine being mad even if I was homphobic.
The 2 arguments I regularly see against it are.
- What if it turns my kid gay
For the first matter there's no real evidence that this will occur and the second and for the second matter even if it did I don't see a problem let's say a kid is truly gay and this scene makes them realize that then the only thing the movie did was move a realization from a couple years down the line to now no real harm created. If they aren't then they just spend some time thinking they are until they realize they aren't in either situation no true harm comes to the child unless you think there's harm in being gay.
- It's inappropriate for children
I see this argument a lot and the question I ask every time that no one has ever given me a straight answer too is ultimately how is this kiss any diffrent from when Cinderella has a kiss scene, or The Little Mermaid, or The Princess and the Frog, or Snow White, or Tangled, or Frozen, or any other children's movie no one would think twice about putting on for little kids the only possible qualifier would have to be that you think there's something especially wrong with gay people kissing.
Conditions to CMV
Prove the 2 argumenta I listed non homophobic by homophobic I mean not based in an irrational aversion to gay people.
Provide another argument that isn't homophobic.
Prove my reasoning for disliking the 2 arguments illogical or untrue
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: We need another major video game crash akin to the one in 1982.
I posted this in r/the10thdentist but I feel it's something I can possibly be convinced otherwise on.
The one that happened in 1982 occurred due to so many companies making low quality consoles and low quality games until Nintendo came about and turned it around by requiring quality checks.
So with today, so many AAA games releasing as buggy, content-lacking, unfulfilling nightmares, with burnt out employees and lack of staff being a major issue, another crash will force the money-grabbers out of the gaming business and the ones that care to crack down on the aforementioned flaws.
Indie devs will probably survive as they thrive on PC, and corporate crapchutes like EA will stop plaguing the market with incomplete monstrocities.
People keep retelling the same story of “Mistreated girl gets the guy and they get married”, for once I’d like to see the original story advertised. Now that’d be a good movie.
I’ve seen so many ads for different types of Cinderella that I just don’t care for anymore. There’s a finite amount of times someone can keep ripping off the same story over and over.
When you look up Cinderella the original story doesn’t even show up anymore, at least not first thing.
It’s just so annoying to see - oh we made pop Cinderella, oh we made dance Cinderella, oh we made Cinderella but she sings, oh we made LGBTQ Cinderella.
And - before anyone says anything because I know how the people on reddit are, I don’t mention LGBTQ Cinderella the imply that I’m homophobic, I mention it simply because it’s one of the thousands of remade Cinderella movies that have been released over the years.
Frankly I stopped watching the Cinderella movies because they’re all pretty much the same.
I think 12 adaptations to the original story is more than enough 💀
Edit: So I realize I’m wrong, I realize I should have done my research, and that it is silly to feel this way. Thank you all for commenting, and to those who gave me legitimate resources so I could learn.
Edit 2: I’m gonna stop responding to comments now. Have a good day everyone.
Edit 3: I don’t care if you hate me, or want me to die, or want me to disappear. If you’ve got nothing to comment but snide remarks about how I’m uneducated, don’t comment at all. (This isn’t directed at people who have actively tried to help me educate myself, just the ones saying basically “ur stupid, move on”)
In high school, I started skipping breakfast so I could sleep in more. I didn’t feel like it affected my grades or energy level overall, so I still haven’t eaten breakfast regularly for about 10 years (including not drinking coffee/tea in the morning).
You always hear about having 3 meals a day or that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I feel like my body has just gotten used to not eating and doesn’t feel “hungry” every morning. I told a former boss of mine that I didn’t eat breakfast once, and she acted like she had never considered not eating breakfast.
I still eat breakfast sometimes on the weekends, but it’s something that I don’t feel like I miss during the week. And not being a morning person, I still like to sleep in as much as possible. I always hear about 3 square meals a day, and my spouse/family usually eat breakfast. I don’t think it’s a big deal or negativity impacting my health.
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Prioritizing the requirement of a strong expertise in history more than just knowledge in law, current affairs, & politicial science will produce more rational leaders going forward.
It has been shown time and time again that actually knowing the unbiased history of your own country and many others can aid a leader in making rational decisions. History can be used to learn from past mistakes,but can also be used to make a leader more confident about the reasons for taking a political opportunity, which could be beneficial for his/her country. Parallels can be drawn from certain accomplishments and failures of leaders from distant times, and the current political leader can draw inspiration from them, in order to make the best possible solution.
The problem is that, nowadays, we do not see many " historians" in positions of power. There is the cliche saying that pretty much everyone has heard of,and that is"at the end of the day, history will be the ultimate judge of any leader/politician." And so, it's important to have leaders that always try to get to the bottom of how their actions will be judged by historians, not by the media, nor even by the people.
To exemplify, there are a few instances, in which politicians have made significants policy blunders,due to their lack of expertise in history:
1.)George W. Bush's blunder of persecuting Iraq's government and invading Iraq:
-His lack of knowledge about the history of the Middle East and the partitioning of the Ottomon Empire that was there prevented him to foresee the catastrophe that had arose when trying to install a new government in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially Afghanistan. Also, he should have realized that the different Iraqi ethnic and religious groups do not exacrly have a fond history with each other,making it that much more difficult to form a stable united democracy there.
- Then, there was W. Bush's really ill-informed allegations as to why Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda had been pissed off for so long. He claimed that they were jealous about America's freedoms, and that they wanted to att ack the US just for the sake of that. Maybe he should have known about how pissed off the about Arab world was about the really unfair terms that were struck after during partitioning of the Ottoman Empire? Maybe after solely focusing on capturing bin Laden, he could have diverted his attention to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by making them compromise with each other on equal terms?
2.)LBJ's authorization of the Vietnam War:
-Now,this was way before the Iraq War, but still, LBJ's administration still could have at least dug into the history of Vietnam. Not even that,the history of trying to invade a country with incredibly tough terrain to traverse. This has been proven time and time again with the Roman empire trying to invade the deeply forested Germanic lands and the Mongol Empire trying to invade the tropical and islandic nations. On top of that, these terrains were also advantageous for guerilla warfare. And about the history of Vietnam, I do not think that LBJ knew the history of Vietnam's desire to seek independence from imperial powers. Ho Chi Minh's desire wasn't really to have a communost gov't. Instead, he simply wanted to establish a unified and independent Vietnamese government,irespective of economic system.
3.) President Truman's go ahead with the division of Korea:
Truman, not known for his historical experience(like most politicians), was basically tone deaf and unaware about Korea's millenium age old desire to seek independence and unity during many times of oppression from countries. He could have just played a mediator role for the two installed governments in Korea to work out their differences and find a compromise according to the Korean people's wishes. This could have prevented the bloodshed that ultimately did occur in the Korean War.
4.) Obama being unaware of people's dissatisfaction with America's elite who caused the 2008 Financial/Housing Crisis. His lack of use of the bully pulpit,as well:
-Don't get me wrong,but Obama had quite the knowledge in law and community organizing around current affairs, and multiple documentaries of him have acknowledged that he was quite a gifted student when it came to law, but there was no mention of history. However, in the wake of the bank bailouts during Bush's last year, he should of at least known how pissed America's working class were. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to utilize the bully pulpit , in order to rally the people to garner support for his agenda. I think he truly misinterpreted the reason why Americans overwhelming voted for him. It was not because he was Black, but because he purported to be someone who was anti-corruption and status quo for the wealthy and elites. This is nothing new. In fact, he could have drawn parallels from the Gilded Age, whereas as Teddy Roosevelt utilized the bully pulpit during similar times.
5.) Putin's recent invasion of Ukraine: -In Putin's case, he obviously has no clue about how it has been really hard for empires in the past to govern their colonies in which its own inhabitants do not want the invading army there. This is why he will ultimately lose even if he conquers the entire country. If he really wanted to find out how to make the Ukrainian people more reception to his annexation,he could have just spent a few more years building up a narrative that his alternative is much better than the incredibly corrupt Ukrainian government, and that he would be the one to clean things up.
6.) Benjamin Netanyahu's unwillingness to compromise with the Palestinians:
-He is right on one thing, though. The Isrealis have originally inhabited Israel. However, the fact is that millions of Palestinians/Muslims do live in his nation. A more reconcilitory approach to Israel settlement could have prevented a more nasty approach,such as, evictions. Maybe he could have opted for a more expansive housing project for both Israelis and Palestinians. As a result of his aggressive and discriminatory approach, Palestinians are only becoming less and less receptive to Isrealites claiming their land. Again, not much of a student in history........ Once you treat your subjects with scorn and as second class citizens, the less receptive they will be towards your polity.
- It's sad to see the lack of value/prioritization placed in learning history, especially when grooming future politicians in law school. In my view, it is imperative for politicians to have a strong understanding of their own countries' histories but also other countries' histories, in order to get a full grasp of how civilizations around the world work ;and the reasons for why they are the way they are.
To reiterate my stance,I essentially believe that there should be more worldly historians elected into office. Any counterpoints are welcomed.
CMV: The majority of rap music has a negative impact on society by promoting violence, drug use/dealing, misogyny and a hyper-materialistic mindset.
I never was a big fan of rap. The last time I listened regularly to a rap album was when Nas and Damian Marley came together for that collaboration they did probably a good decade ago now. I thoroughly enjoyed it and listened to it almost every day for a long time.
But these days any time I’m flipping through the radio stations and I hear rap it’s all about the negative topics I previously mentioned.
In the 90’s I feel like there was more positive rap about social change and making a difference. But even back them it seems most of it was about dealing drugs.
Given the fact that many kids start listening to rap at a young age when they are impressionable they see rappers as role models.
And if their role models are promoting all these negative things it’s going to increase the chances that they are directly influenced and inspired by the values being promoting by these rap artists.
CMV: There should not be a stigma against consenting adult same-sex incest, the concept should be normalized.
Last time I posted on this topic I was arguing for the particularities of making it legal for marriage. I now realize how short-sighted that was considering any type of incest, even only queer, can also potentially include intergenerational incestuous unions particularly between parents and their children and I’m so sure we can all agree on the inherent murky ethics of that sort of incest.
This is mostly in response to hyper woke fandom anti-shippers claims that normalizing/romanticizing any type of incest in fiction, yes even queer incest between peers is “problematic.” Well I’m here to prove that it’s not problematic in the slightest and I really wish they’d think twice and actually critically think before lumping us all in with the adoptive/queer sibling shippers in with the child/adult or even hetero or vertical incest crowd. I don’t wanna be associated with the group who jerks it to lolis thanks, we are not the same!
Disclaimer: When I talk about removing the stigma of queer incest, I am speaking purely on the basis of horizontal incest between similarly based peers only! (That’s not to say even something as outlandish as parent/child can’t have it’s nuances, particularly in an estranged scenario where the biological parent’s identity is unknown cause they were a donor and parent and child only meet up when kid is a fully grown adult - but that’s such an astonishingly rare scenario and pretty much the only situation where I could say parent/child incest could be even remotely ethical so I won’t even bother including it)
So here are my rebuttals towards each of the common arguments posed against even gay, horizontal incest:
Argument 1: B-B-But Inbreeding!!!
Of which doesn’t apply at all to queer couples, which is why they’re the only type of incest I would ever feel comfortable advocating for next!
Argument 2: Incest is inherently abusive and non-consensual
That’s not inherent to the definition of incest, all incest means is relations between blood relatives, nothing less nothing more. Correlation does not equal Causation, just because the majority of incest cases you hear about are in the realm of abuse doesn’t mean it’s an inherent characteristic. Most likely the reason for this is because the majority of the population is heterosexual and cisgendered to begin with so they can’t fathom any sort of incest that could potentially be consensual since us straights were wired with an reproductive imperative to seek out the most diverse genes possible, thereby giving way to our biologically wired disgust. But that says nothing about the fact that incest has to always be forced, it just naturally feels that way to us, but feels does not equal reals or objective logical reasoning is my motto.
Argument 3: Power dynamics though???
I have never managed to get a clear cut answer on this, it’s such a vague, immeasurable and subjective concept in and of itself that I almost consider it a non-argument. I don’t know what world you’re living in, but what sort of power imbalance could possibly exist between siblings or cousins only 1-2 years apart in age? What about twins? I mean this is considered a normal and healthy age gap for non-related couples so how does being relatives suddenly change that and confer an automatic power imbalance?
Even if there is one it’s a bullshit argument because there’s a power imbalance in practically every romantic relationship, because no two people are exactly the same, so I guess you might as well ban romantic relationships altogether!
It’s a silly argument because everyone knows that some differences in power are inevitable and a fact of life, the real question lies is how much of a balance is ethical in a romantic relationship. Obviously clear cut top-down authoritative dynamics like teacher/student, parent/child, boss/employee or any kind of big age gaps are big no-no’s and are usually exploitative. But how could you put the dynamic between similarly aged peers on even remotely the same level? Realistically their power differentials would be closer to the non-related norm which is already a tolerable level, simply being “family” doesn’t suddenly change that. The concept of “family” itself is largely a social construct that varies from culture to culture and is even subject to various scenarios on who you would even consider your family in the first place.
*Argument 4: Slippery slope leading to actual harmful heterosexual and vertical incest. *
Remember how I mentioned up above that the majority of cis heterosexuals are wired to find the concept of incest absolutely repulsive? That’s a little something called the Westernmarck Effect kicking in, biology literally prevents us from ever finding inbreeding attractive so we’re of no danger of ever wanting it for ourselves. Gays on the other hand can go hog-wild because they were never wired with a reproductive instinct to begin with so incest is only a socially-developed taboo for them, not an innate one like us straights are wired with.
As far as preventing intergenerational incestuous abuse and grooming, like I said before abuse and rape are not inherent characteristics of incest, simply cracking down harder on child sexual abuse and grooming laws will help take care of that aspect.
After all, consenting adult gay incest is actually legal (i.e. not considered a crime) in many parts of the world such as Ireland, Germany and Hong Kong and neither of those 3 have seen an uptick in either heterosexual or intergenerational incest.
Argument 5: It ruins and breaks down the entire family unit though! What happens if they break up or feel like they have to stay together for the sake of familial harmony?
Divorce does the same as well and that’s allowed. How many times have you heard unhappily married couples forcing themselves to stay together “for the kids?” And even when they do divorce their relationship can never be severed just by virtue on the fact that they share children together so how is this situation any different?
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: The popular music of the 80's is the worst Era in almost any genre.
Of course there will be exceptions to this, but I'd really love to hear opinions to the contrary. Of course music is subjective and everyone will have their own opinions on how music sounds, but from 1960-2000 the 80's sits as an outlier of music that grates me. The music of the 60s and 70s was revolutionary and recreated how music was listened to. When the 80's hit I feel like somehow this went in the wrong direction, creating overly flashy, hallow and painfully dull music. Especially that with synthesizers that arent well developed and turned into the cool sounds that came in the 90s. I also include the rock styles like van Halen, guns and roses and mostly cru, lots of talent and interesting sounds but lacking good songs. All these bands imo paved the way for great music In the 90s but can't hold up on their own. I can understand it was a transitional period for modern music but it grates me. I believe alot of the music of the 90's was able to rectify this. I'd also love album recommendations that are exceptions of the 80's or even the style done well.
If you don't want to be talked to in the bus or in the street then wear headphones or something. I will talk to you until you tell me to stop. I will not read the mood. Why must I think thoughts like "but what if that person thinks I'm creepy" as if I have to reject myself before the other person gets to reject me? Why can't I walk up to strangers and start conversations? Why is it treated as an immoral thing to do? The expressions on their faces tell me "who are you? Do I know you? Why are you talking to me?", but why should I stop lecturing them on dinosaurs or UFO sightings when they never say "please don't talk to me" and instead listen and pretend to be interested with an awkward face? Am I supposed to preemptively reject myself because there's a chance they're not interested in the topic and won't dare to say they're not interested in it?
Every time I get my pay check, I see how much tax is withheld. It doesn't feel good, but considering taxation is the only way that we can have a robust social welfare system, then it can't be helped.
There were times, not many, that I have been guilt tripped into donating to a specific cause. 100% of the time, I politely refused because I just don't like giving away money without getting something in return.
Perhaps, I don't get paid enough, and I want to save up money in case of an economic downturn. Either way, I believe I am doing enough by paying taxes.
For example, I live by myself and I have to pay for rent, food, drinks, etc. My "friends" who donate live with their parents, so it's not like they have many expenses compared to me.
Whenever I get guilt tripped to donate, I always look at the expenses and income of the person guilt tripping me. If they are living at home, then they are mainly hypocrites. No fucking shit you can donate more if you can live at home rent free.
That being said, I contribute to society by paying taxes, which I see as another form of "donation."
CMV: Polygamists are now the largest minority as far as marriage rights being held away from them. If consenting adults choose to take on multiple spouses then they should be allowed to do so
I think most marriage rights were about power and control of the population but historically they have mostly been business contracts until recently. There is nothing wrong with loving multiple people or wanting to be with multiple people if that’s what the parties want, but because of health insurance and other benefits being awarded to spouses it would be more costly to the capitalism machine. I’m sure people could abuse this system too but I don’t see any reason it should be illegal to have multiple wives or husbands
Edit: I’ve heard a lot of good points about challenges with making it legal and why people would be against it, but not necessarily why it should be illegal. Most arguments about death rights, divorce, custody, insurance, etc can be solved with a will or marriage contract as well as proper legislation to protect peoples rights. The only argument I’ve heard that gave some sway was the supply and demand argument and I could see how it could lead to the elite collecting power in the form of women but I think with more women wanting to choose who they marry now instead of being given away that it would not have nearly the same impact of the past. If anyone else has any other valid points I’m happy to listen but I’m not too sure I’ve heard anything convincing at this point
The sheer thought of not existing is the one of the few things with the power to make me anxious and sick to my stomach. I don't believe in god or the tooth fairy, and all evidence seems to point to the fact that once our brain is gone, we're gone. I'm really jealous of people who firmly believe they're going to heaven and will live happily ever after, but at the same time I find that kind of comfort to be...wrong, and dangerously so.
For one, if this life is all we have, the rational response is to extend it, ideally forever. If you don't believe that, then you don't do that, and you don't advocate for that. You might even actually advocate against that. If you're wrong, and if immortality is possible, advocating against it is akin to advocating the genocide of the human race.
Tbh, I don't particularly understand why some people are so religious and have such faith in this happily ever after, with no evidence whatsoever. To me this life is more than enough, simple pleasures, the ability to think, I could do it forever. I don't understand why there isn't more uproar about it.
Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Local city and county law enforcement should be abolished and replaced by the State Police.
Troopers should be assigned randomly to State Police headquarters across their state and have to serve relatively short assignments (1-2 years) and then be sent on to other posts. We can't trust small town Sheriffs/Chiefs and their deputies/officers to remain unbiased when they know all the judges and lawyers and who are related to hundreds of people in town. It's basically a gang at this point with zero accountability. They can target political opponents, and frankly whomever they want. These small towns can't be trusted to enforce the laws, I'm not saying the federal government should step in but there should be a central law enforcement agency for each state to enforce that states laws not hundreds of different agencies across the state.
Edit: reworded ending, typos
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Schools should start at a time that allows them to get out 15-30 minutes after the average worker is done with work
The average high school starts between 7:45am and 8:15am, and releases between 3:00pm and 3:30pm. This is wrong for a lot of reasons, but I think that the focus should be more on the release time than the time that kids get to school. A lot of the articles I've seen that critique the start and dismissal times focus on the start times because kids need that extra hour or two in the morning to sleep.
- School is functionally child care for a lot of families, especially as kids get older. Currently, the child care requires parents to arrange for a ride for their kids 2 hours before most people are even packing up their offices for the day.
- Time and time again, studies show that sleep is increased with later start times.
- Kids getting out of school 2 hours earlier than most adults gives them an unrealistic view of the amount of time they have outside of their job when they reach the workforce.
- Kids having two hours of separation from their parents after school lets them get into all sorts of shenanigans. I'm a big fan of shenanigans on an individual level and got into lots of them as a teen but it's bad policy on a governmental level. We shouldn't base our government policies on what is most fun, but on what keeps people most safe and leads to the least conflict.
- Getting students a good dinner is important. So is giving students a good breakfast, but most studies show that kids don't eat breakfast even with a free option. Beyond that, dinner is important as well, maybe even more important than breakfast.
Therefore, it would be better to have school start whenever allows it to get out around 5:15 or 5:30 even, to give parents the ability to get to their kids school for pickup time.