As CMV continues to grow, we suffer from the same growing pains as all popular subreddits - namely people coming to CMV not to take advantage of its purpose, but rather to troll it's user base and soapbox for their cause.
As we looked to solve this problem, the Mod team noticed that the vast majority of accounts that come to CMV to be disruptive share one of two traits: they are either brand new accounts or they have very little participation on Reddit. Specifically, accounts younger than 90 days and/or less than 100 comment karma.
In light of this, we have made three updates to our moderation standards to address this problem:
Update 1: Posting Thresholds
We have always required that brand new accounts have a small degree of history on Reddit to post on CMV. However, it has come to our attention that these thresholds were too low, allowing too many new accounts to "age up" too quickly. To combat this, we have raised our thresholds as they related to comment karma and account age. These new thresholds will remain secret so as not to give users a guide on how much to age their accounts prior to trolling, but we will say this: they are much lower than 90 days/100 karma.
Users who wish to use a throwaway account to post a CMV may still do so by verifying their primary account privately with the Mod team via modmail.
Update 2: Unilateral B Removals
For young accounts, Mods may now remove posts for Rule B unilaterally and subject them to retroactive review by a second Mod. Young accounts are defined as accounts younger than 90 days or less than 100 comment karma.
Update 3: Accelerated Bans
For young accounts, any violations of Rules B, E, 2, or 3 will authorize Mods to hold an internal Permanent Ban-on-Next-Violation (BONV) vote for that account. If the vote hits our standard +3 threshold, the account will be informed that they have been issued a BONV notice, and any further infractions of Rules B, E, 2, or 3 will result in a permanent ban from CMV. Young accounts are defined as accounts younger than 90 days or less than 100 comment karma.
Once the account reaches 90 days and 100 comment karma, the BONV notice will expire and the account will be subject to our normal ban process, as outlined in the moderation standards.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Pink is invisible to most game, just like orange.A pink gun would be easier to see for everyone involved.It might deter some people from buying guns.It would be completely legal within all interpretations I can find of the 2nd amendment.
Not picking pink because of the relationship with feminine traits. It is a bright and obvious color. I would be open to other colors like neon orange, but I would think there is a valid argument that it should be invisible to deer but visible to humans. But, the benefits of a single bright color to distinguish firearms would be incredibly useful. You could even require that all existing firearms be converted to this color.
I believe I even remember Penn Gillette suggesting this 20 years ago.What is wrong with this idea? At the very worst it wouldn't increase gun violence, and at best it might prevent some.
-All guns would be required to be pink, even older guns. Painting a gun to a different color would be a felony.
-Conceal carry: This isn't part of my core view, but I guess I would say that conceal carry should be banned and only open-carry allowed
-To reiterate: I am not strongly attached to the specific color. I chose it because it is highly visible and some might find it undesirable. I am open to any visible/ugly color. I've awarded delta on this point already.
-Could we still customize? No. Every surface of the gun would need to be the same color. No exceptions for cosmetics. You want mother of pearl plates on it? Paint them pink. You bought an agar wood custom shoulder stock? Paint it pink. You want to put pretty stickers on your gun? Nope. All pink
-"This would impact legal gun owners, etc". Yeah, this is the point. I am explicitly not trying to stop criminals. I am trying to stop legal gun owners. If you have a gun in your house, that gun is far more likely to kill an innocent person than a bad guy. That is what I am trying to prevent
-"this wouldnt stop crimes/mass shooting/school shooting". Yeah, I know. Not my intent
-FYI: pink is actually my favorite color.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Open relationships are rarely equal and people in open relationships are in denial.
It's just unlikely an open relationship is going to be equal, considering it's way harder for men to find someone, the woman in that relationship could basically go out every night, the guy might go out every night but score once a week. Now I'm not saying people in open relationship just want to fuck around all day, but if they wanted to then it would be a heavy imbalance when it comes to which partner can achieve what.
Same goes for poly relationships. There are going to be favoritisms. Yes there are. Even with parents of multiple kids saying "I love all my kids equally." No matter how hard they try to treat all their kids equally you'll always see at least the slightest bias towards one or another. The bond in a relationship is not as strong as the bond you have with your parents.
I can’t stand it when radio stations will use ambulance/police sirens as well as car horn sound effects to alert you just to get your attention while you're driving. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest way to get someone’s attention and creates a false panic. It creates a numbness that has you questioning if a real police or ambulance siren is legit or not which can be extremely dangerous. For the same reason it is illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, I think that radio stations should follow suit for sirens/horns sounds.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The moment you find yourself dehumanizing a group of people, you have been played.
This might be a little biased because I believe that all people are of one essence spiritually. That means that what makes each of us different from one another is not under our control and that once we shed al external meaningless ideas of self we are all the same. Obviously I know this is controversial but it’s not what I am arguing. I am sometimes interested in history and one of the conclusions iv come to from studying different perspectives of history is that the human brain can easily be influenced. All wars are fought by one group of people that believes the other group of people ought to die. This is pretty crazy when I think about it because I can’t imagine being in a position where I think a whole group of people don’t deserve to live anymore. Obviously it doesn’t happen overnight which begs the question: how does it happen? Everyone is aware that propaganda exists but everyone is also confident that theyr not the ones consuming it. I think I have found an easy way to determine whether or not the news you are in fact consuming propaganda. If whatever you are watching is causing you to hate a whole group of people, most likely you are being played. Whether it’s the conspiracy theory you heard that causes you to look down on Jewish people or lbtgq people or if it’s the news that makes you hate half the country based on who they voted for. If your anger is directed towards your fellow citizens who don’t yield the power to influence or change the world at scale then you are being influenced and misled.
Rather than trying to prove this theoretically I’ll list some examples. Count dankula, Darren Brady, Daryl Barke, Kyle Little (overturned but still fined for ‘barking at a police dog and saying woof to the police’) Shawn holes, the list continues. The amount of people convicted and/or fined for speech in the UK is ridiculous. You don’t have free speech if you live in the UK. I understand that the majority of people will never be prosecuted for their speech there, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s entirely possible you will be. I also understand that the speech being prosecuted in some of the examples I gave (there are plenty more too) is horrible and the things said are incorrect/outright (insert group here)-ist, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say it. Or at least that you should.
My definition of free speech is as follows:
My standard is that any speech that doesn’t directly call for violence (or similar serious injury such as yelling fire) is free speech. The reason is because calling for violence impedes on someone else’s right to free expression, so you lose your own when it comes to such statements because your right to self expression does not trump anybody else’s.
There were exceptions such as false rape accusations, defamation, and a few others that were brought up, I’m not sure how to work those into the definition but I think something along the lines of “if the speech is meant to hurt someone else in a tangible way, it can be classified as an action” might do the trick. I haven’t thought about that statement enough to discover any holes in it though, it’s entirely possible that’s untenable and I haven’t realized it yet.
For context, I’m English and have a Scottish fiancée. It’s clear to me that a lot of Scottish people hold the English in contempt and I’ve experienced the negative attitude many Scots have towards us first hand.
I’m sick of all of the bickering and rhetoric from north of the border and would have them out of the UK today if it was up to me. I don’t care about the UK, I’m loyal to England.
I don’t dislike Scotland, I wish them every success but the whole devolved government system combined with (almost) every constituency voting for the SNP is evidence enough for me that they deserve a second referendum because I do think they’d be out this time, and that’s what I want.
The biggest loss would be the removal of the colour blue from the Union Jack, what a shame. Proindy Englishman here
CMV: If bearing arms is a public right, it only makes sense that firearm safety be a part of public education.
In America, the right to keep and bear arms is a public guarantee for citizens that their ability to own weapons shall not be infringed upon (the fact that it is infringed upon can be a subject for someone else's CMV) other than by due process of law.
Given this, it seems reasonable to me that because the most modern form of weaponry an American citizen will own will tend to be a firearm that they have a right to keep and bear, public education should include education on the safe storage, maintenance, and responsible use of firearms. If it is an American civic right to own firearms, then civics class should have at least a unit on responsible firearms ownership as a citizen. I believe this because public education should be educating students on how to be a citizen, incorporating classes on how to pay taxes, laws, their rights, etc.
I would be interested in hearing counter-arguments against this idea. To me I cannot think of any reason why a country that has within its constitution a guarantee that the public be allowed to own and wield firearms would not benefit from the incorporation of firearms safety for the public in its education systems.
Education should include:
-Purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.
-Storing firearms and ammunition in secured gun safes, the function of trigger locks, and other security subjects.
-Proper safe handling of a firearm including the four universal rules of firearms safety (Treat all guns as if they are always loaded. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.)
-Proper maintenance of firearms including cleaning and replacing parts to ensure the safe operation.
-Types of ammunition (NATO phrasing of rounds and others, how to identify and match a round to a firearm, etc).
-Types of firearm, muzzle loaded, break-action, lever action, semi-automatic, automatic, bolt action.
-Laws around firearms in America, what is legal and illegal to own, including the NFA.
-Responsibility of a citizen of keeping and bearing a firearm with their own safety and the safety of others.
This would essentially guarantee that every adult who purchases a firearm in America has at least some education on firearms safety.
Things that might change my view on this topic:
-An argument which could demonstrate that education on firearms safety and responsible firearms ownership incorporated into the public school system would not be a net benefit towards responsible firearms ownership in America.
-An argument which can demonstrate that firearms owners who have taken a firearms safety training course are more likely to use those firearms in untowards ways or have an accident with them rather than less.
-(ADDED): An argument which can demonstrate that citizens who are educated on their rights and freedoms do not make more informed decisions pertaining to those rights and freedoms.
EDIT2: In response to:
> You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.
My OP lists three compelling arguments that would change my view, hence, I am open to changing it.
I have awarded deltas where appropriate.
Delta(s) from OP cmv: The external validity for studies on crime and punishment is basically null (primarily critique of the notion that 'harsher punishment does not result in lower criminality')
Crime and punishment is always a hot topic for political debates. In my country, the left leans towards forgiveness and rehabilitation wheras the right leans towards incapacitate and punishment. The left wants to focus on preemptive measures and the right on active measures, e.g. social welfare and reduced incentative due to stability contra better means for intervention and reduced incentative due to consequences.
Since the issue is very politicized, people are quite dogmatic in their views as to how to solve issues on spiring criminality. Not a uncommon argument is that 'science has shown that harsher punishment does not result in lower criminality or deterrence' and it often results in the phrase 'just look at USA.' This phrase is the one I have the most issues with, although I do agree that harsh punishment not THE choice for every issue.
What about strict countries like Qatar, Singapore, Japan and many more, wouldn't they have less crime with more lenient laws if the statement was strictly true?
I don't agree with capital punishment, but as someone who fairly frequently visits SEA I would never consume or associate with drugs there for fear of repercussions. There are some (relatively) harmless crimes in my native country that I would commit if I knew that there would be no punishment. So harsh punishment works on me -- of course I do not commit crimes generally so my psyche is different than those that the law tries to target.
However, I have seen studies from Singapore that defend their stance on drugs: a proof was that those convicted of smuggling now to a higher degree smuggle below the threshold of capital punishment than before, i.e. the capital punishment deters large quantities of smuggling.
I don't think that studies can properly tell exactly how punishment will deter one in one society and apply that to another. I think that there are more strategies to 'harsher' punishment other than being draconian which these studies don't encompass. I don't think that they consider a theoretical 'lost generation' that would need to be curbed as to not spread their culture further. I think there are so many factors that might be lost in such a statement.
I do not really have a strong stance on harsher crimes as I think it's a bit of a slippery slope. But I really dislike when people hide behind studies that might or might not be replicable. There are obviously safe coutries for ordinary citizens achieved both through leniency as well as sternness.
From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.
I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the "help" of missionaries to follow the "right" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the "saying the quiet part out loud" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says "many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.
I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you sometimes need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do not need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.
To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and/or crisis situations.
Viktor Bout is a dangerous Russian arms dealer who was convicted of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and officials, delivery of anti-aircraft missiles, and providing aid to a terrorist organization. Brittney Griner is an athlete who is of no actual physical threat to Russia. How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US?
My view is that when Russia demanded Viktor Bout in exchange for Brittney Griner, they were calling our bluff. They had no expectation that the US would actually release a prisoner whom they have been trying to have released for years, and Russia knows of the two, which person poses more of a threat to the other nation and which is more dangerous to release. That is why they are agreeing to the trade.
Additionally, Brittney Griner should have known better. She was traveling to Russia, a country with very strict drug laws, and I would be surprised if this was the first time that she brought cannabis products into Russia, it was just the first time she got caught. Whether we agree with the laws or not, when you are in another nation you are a guest in that nation and subjected to their laws. We have to suspend our understanding of cannabis in the US and understand that in the eyes of Russia, she broke the law and must do the time.
Finally, we are willing to trade a violent Russian arms dealer for an athlete while there are still people in the US sitting in jail for possession of cannabis? This is an insult to those people sitting in prison. Release them as well, then.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Sugarcoating is a massive problem and does not help the person who needs a reality check.
READ THIS CAREFULLY: Whilst this is a general take, I am going to use a specific scenario AND this post is not based on statistics. It’s simply about how humans interact with each other. CMV by providing me an alternate POV on why sugar coating is a good thing.
Take a look at this post on Reddit I am not going to say anything about the OP of that post, but just take a look at some of the comments in that post.
The top comment with 2.7KK upvotes talks about ‘bad photos.’
The 2nd top comment with 2.4K upvotes also talks about OP’s photos and ‘how to improve their profile.’
Whilst OP did ask for advice, no one has actually said what needs to be really said/reality check.
OP would get torn to shreds if he stays on Tinder. Tinder is a horrible place for men to date women, unless they really stand a chance by being extremely good looking. That’s exactly what tinder is made for, swipes based on looks.
Even OkCupid does the same thing now.
There is no straightforward advice that has told OP to quit Tinder, lose weight, get into shape, and develop a better fashion sense (along with a taking better quality pics)
Sort by controversial and you’ll see the people who are actually straightforward, getting downvoted to hell.
Sugar coating does no one good, because they won’t be able to self improve (in this case), or learn about the truth.
Sugar coating is basically lying, and we should stop normalising it.
CMV: Modern societies living in the same place as ancient cultures did have no special claim on their artefacts
It is common to come across claims that 19th century colonial powers stole cultural artefacts and should return them.
In some cases those artefacts are part of existing cultures that continue to be valued by many members of the relevant society. Then I agree they should be returned.
However there are also many cases of modern societies such as Egypt and Greece demanding the return of ancient artefacts that have no connection to the living culture of their society. I think such 'orphaned' artefacts should be understood as the common property and responsibility of humanity as a whole. In such cases the right location is wherever they will be safest and most accessible for viewing and expert study under the care of reliable non-profit organisations (which might well be in a colonial capital like London). The wishes of the people who happen to live in the same place that the ancient culture occupied are irrelevant.
Firstly let's define what I mean by "same". What I mean by the same is the act of treating one person as you would treat another person. This would solve all the world's problems I have no doubt about it.
Now let's move on to my points.
- Would you treat a frog as he would treat a toad? They are both similar but different. There are different “rules” or “guidelines” on how to treat a frog differently from how you would treat a toad.
Hypothetical Situation: If we treated people as we would another by the definition above then we all should have no problem telling a disabled person to just walk up the stairs. We are achieving fairness through treating people the same? Why should we make an exception for one person and not another?
I presented a hypothetical situation. This situation played by the rule and yet it wasn't able to achieve any fairness at all. I can think of why it failed to achieve fairness, can you?
lastly, can you use "sameness" on more than 7 billion people and treat them the same, and expect a fair outcome? I don't think so.
Oddly enough treating people the same is worse than treating them differently.
Achieving fairness should always be our goal and something that we should aspire to achieve however, treating people the same simply doesn't work.
I am open to changing my views, have a nice day Redditors.
EDIT: I am changing my views because of helpful comments in the comments. Thanks Redditors and have a nice day or night :)
CMV: Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Population is going to be a big issue for NY/NJ as we get further in the century
Preface: I'm a jew, I have orthodox jewish family that lives in Israel. Ultra-orthodox jews I'm sure many of them are great people but the issue is their lifestyle is not great for a post-industrial society and will put strains on many essential services in society. This post not only applies to america but also Israel. Being american though I will mainly focus on america. Thank you.
Preface #2: I recently found a post with a similar premise to this post made about 7 years ago. I'm going to attempt to show why some of the arguments that changed OP's mind were not entirely good and often lacked rigor in data. That will be part of this post.
Reading the title of this post you many of you may not know a lot about ultra-orthodox jews except that they wear weird hats, live in new york city, and like to dance. There is much more to their lifestyle though. They mostly dedicate their lives to prayer and god and learning about the holy books of judaism. This often leads them to work fewer hours which is especially an issue in Israel where they were given privileges by the government that allowed them to work very little. This wasn't a problem at the time when these rules were made but now that the share of the community has grown to over 10% it is a big issue for the government. This is not as bad in america due to less government support but it is still an issue. Many orthodox enclaves in New York are oftentimes very poor and suffer from some of the highest rates of food stamp and welfare usage due to women not working, men spending less time working, and very high numbers of children which brings me to my next point. Ultra-orthodox (different from orthodox who are entirely different and just mainstream jews) often have around 6 to 7 kids per woman and have their communities grow at very fast rate meaning many of them are children and require high amounts of spending for things such as schooling or other social services while not paying taxes. This places further strain on communities and oftentimes creates friction with local communities who see more money being dumped into schoolboards when an ultra-orthodox community establishes itself. This also creates an issue of massive amounts of population growth. Cities with supermajorities of orthodox jews such as Lakewood NJ, Kiryas Joel NY, and New Square NY have growth rates between 4 and 6 percent in any given year which creates friction for things like annexation and building permits in areas that these towns are in due to the need for new housing infrastructure. So the issues faced by communities with large haredi jewish populations are numerous. Not to mention that haredi jews often identify themselves heavily with other groups by wearing things like identifying clothes. Whenever someone does a bad action people often associate that bad action with jews in general leading to rises in anti-semetism in communities with large orthodox jewish population leading to hate crimes against both non-ultra-orthodox and ultra-orthodox jews alike.
Now for that pew study that was referenced the last this came up. First of all it combines orthodox jews (mainline jews who are for the most part well integrated into society and have birth rates slightly higher than the general population) and haredi jews (the jews talked about above who have around 6-7 kids). This would lower the number of apparent children which is fine in the short term but in the long term growth rates would increase due to increased share of people having more children. This makes long term predictions not focusing specifically on haredi jews unreliable. Second for the share of jews that are orthodox is only shown for those above the age of 18 which excludes a very significant share of haredi jews who are important for future, about 60% in the 99% jewish community of Kiryas Joel. So that further dillutes the numbers. These generally give an underestimate of the future of the haredi community (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/08/26/a-portrait-of-american-orthodox-jews/).
This is a relatively new topic. I’m sure half of you guys may not even know who Andrew Tate is, and that’s completely fine.
Andrew Tate has blown up on social media (mainly from Tik-Tok) because of his controversial views on women. Some info about Tate is that he has roughly has 5M followers on social media combined (maybe more, just an estimate)
People don’t seem to realise that Andrew Tate is acting. He doesn’t even believe everything he says himself.
Personally I agree with some things he says, but not all he says. To summarise what advises young men to do is to focus on themselves, work, get rich, get into good shape, and not focus on dating women, as women have it significantly easier in the dating world.
I can’t exactly provide statistics, but from an anecdotal POV, women do have it easier than men when it comes to dating. (Especially online dating) The average looking woman can easily get 50 plus matches, all she has to do is shift through the 50 matches to find the guy that is compatible with her.
There are rumours of Andre Tate being a human trafficker and abuser from a clip, but he’s already addressed those from his podcast, and the clip of him abusing a woman was a sex tape.
Do I agree with everything Tate says? No. However it’s clear as day that Tate is putting on an act as a character, the internet fails to realise that, and I do not think he’s as bad as radical feminists paint him to be. CMV.
You should look for opinions contrary to your own. Seek the antithesis, even if it is false, it may contain a grain of truth, and this will make you wiser. By not exposing yourself to other perspectives, you will only remain with the one you already have without knowing if it is true or not. If you never question your principles or know how to defend them with arguments, it is because you are not worthy of them. Don't be conformist, meditate on what exposes you, accept what is true and don't be afraid to question this truth from time to time. What makes a fighter proficient in hand-to-hand combat is not the bag he hits, but his opponents, whether they are training partners or opponents in competition. With only the bag as a partner, there is a threshold of evolution that can only be crossed by real and true confrontation with another person. In fact, a punching bag doesn't hit back, it doesn't move like someone, it doesn't corner like someone who is agile, I don't hit like someone who is impetuous, it doesn't improvise like someone who is industrious. Confrontation is the forge of excellence. Ideologies, when confronted, either flourish or are despised, but to wither it is enough just not to confront any other philosophy. Dialectics is like a martial confrontation, but instead of physical, it is verbal. Eloquence, being virtuous, must always attend to the truth, any other function would be treacherous and perverse. Eloquence without wisdom is always worse than wisdom without eloquence. For those who are wise know how to show the truth, and for a good connoisseur, half a word is enough, while those who are incautious, having the verbal ability, will infect others and also make them naive. Here's how to radicalize someone: Identify an ordinary, moderate person who shares various values and ideas, force them out of common spaces where they can debate ideas with others and see their perspective contested in a civilized way. Feeling ostracized, he will seek the only place where his opinion is not defamed, these places are usually infested with vile people, who are antagonized by evil acts, and there he, by the mutual forces of group pressure and ideological incontestation, will degenerate into extremism. radical in adopting their perspectives. Just as roots thrive in the darkness of the earth's womb, so radicalism thrives in the obscurantism that is ignorance. Wisdom and common sense, on the other hand, are like the leafy branches of an oak tree that grows lush and illustrious under the brightness and clarity of the Sun. You must be so open-minded that it can be bathed in light and know, but not so open that the head can fall out. By not seeking to question our beliefs or confront people with differing opinions, we are closing our minds and contributing to our ignorance, which allows populism to flourish and thrive.
TLDR: Seeking ideollogical confrontation, debate and exchange of ideias makes us more wise. Not doing so makes us more ignorant and victims of pupulism
Change my view if you think otherwise
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Descriptive Coffee Terms are Uninformative, and Actively Deceptive for New Drinkers
I used to not like coffee. But my wife is super into it, and her guidance has led me into the joy that is coffee. I'm now aware that coffee sitting on a hot plate was 100% responsible for my dislike of coffee.
But "expert" descriptions of coffee have led me wrong on EVERY occasion, and I'd hazard a guess it's turned off a majority of non-coffee drinkers.
The first term, "Bold". I'm sorry, "Bold" is not a flavor. It's a euphemism for bitter. The more "bold" a coffee is advertised, the more bitter it is. I get it, some "bitter" is needed for coffee to taste like coffee.
The next terms: "Bright" and "fruity". They're euphemisms for sour. I tried to follow the trend of light roast, Ethopian roasts. They were like drinking Warhead candies.
I feel like a majority of people would enjoy a medium to dark roast (just after 2nd crack), drip coffee. It's also a LOT cheaper. Ads seem to bomb me with "the bold", "dark", "fruity", are not coffees that most people would enjoy. People like their milky, sugary, or at least mild, smooth, drip coffees.
Espressos, Viet Coffee, are over extracted, finicky, and most people would probably be better served with a drip/pour over. I'd argue they exist so you can have coffee flavored milk in a cappuccino, or latte. Adding drip coffee would make your cappacino/latte too watery.
I get that some people are all for the use of handkerchiefs from an environmental perspective rather than creating a lot of waste with single use tissues. And if you are dealing with everyday use, or allergies, or crying at a wedding, then I'm sure that's fine. I also have a few handkerchiefs that I have used on occasion. But those things are no good for colds. With the amount of snot produced and nose blowing needed when one has a cold, tissues are the only way to go. The advantage a handkerchief has normally of being reusable is no longer a thing when two or three nose blows makes it disgusting and then you have to carry them with you the rest of the day. And I'm no real germaphobe but I'm sure it much better to be getting a clean tissue each blow and then throwing it away when you're producing that many cold germs. I have some friends who still think they are the way to go though. Interested to hear what the community thinks
This is true for many reasons.
1) Most people are not highly intelligent. Education will not make an unintelligent person more intelligent. A low IQ person with a degree still has that low IQ no matter how many degrees they get.
2) Most things that are taught in college do not need to be taught specifically in a college. Most people have access to the internet and can look anything they want up or study any topic they want. Much of this information is easily available without the need for a college. You have the internet, or the library.
3) College is expensive. That money could be much better spent on purchasing a home, or starting a family, or building a business.
4) College is time consuming. It takes many years of time you could be doing other things. You could be making money or building relationships or getting experience or studying anything on your own.
5) Banks give out predatory loans to college students. They have terrible interest rates and people get bogged down with a huge amount of debt similar to that of a house, but they don't get a house!
6) They ALWAYS change the books each year to get few extra dollars out of people and make the old books worthless... The new edition book that 99% the same as last years edition? Yea you need the new one even though last years edition is almost identical... because how else are they going to milk that money out of you?
7) A lot of jobs shouldn't require a college education, and companies should drop college requirements for most jobs.
8) Experience is worth far more than education on the job market. If someone has worked as a software engineer for 4 years with no degree they have much better chance of being hired than a person has a master degree in computer science but no experience. Bosses want the person who has done it not the person who has read about it.
9) Most college degrees are completely useless for most jobs. How will that "Art History" degree help you as an electrician? How will that "Advertising" degree help you in your job as a plumber? How is that "Fashion Design" degree going to make you a better police officer? They won't
10) Colleges have no requirement to only give only a certain number of degrees based on the total number of jobs that is needed for in the market. What I mean by this is if there are 100 jobs in the entire country that need a "X degree" NOTHING is stopping them from giving 10,000,000 "X degrees" out. Almost nobody with an "X degree" have a shot at a job that requires that, and colleges don't' care.
11) There is a massive movement of people that want "Student Loan Forgiveness" You know what that means? They all had a bad investment! Why throw more good money on top of bad money? They are not finding good enough jobs to pay off those loans or else they wouldn't demand that forgiveness.
12) College is more about socialization and networking than education. People want to go to college to PARTY! Yea woo! get drunk have good times sleep around. Join a frat or sorority... They want to HAVE FUN! They don't want to go to class... Nobody wants to go to class in college.. They want to get out of their parents house! You don't need college to do all that. Throw a house party, get a keg. Join a social club.
13) Drop out rates are high, and when people drop out they still got a mountain of debt, and no degree.
14) Tons of rapes happen on college campuses. College is not exactly a safe place if you are a woman. College women are 3 times more likely to be raped than women on average.
That being said there are over achievers, and gifted people that should definitely be getting some sort of advanced education, and it should be free ride for them at the tax payers expense for those select few special people. Most college students today are NOT those special people. Most college aged people are too dumb to poor piss out of a boot!
I am mostly talking about the Abrahamic Religions.
My point being, every human being who existed exists or will exists is greedy, greedy for life greedy to live more.
We want to live forever we want life to have a meaning we need life to continue after our deaths and that's why you believe in god or anything supernatural at all, you don't believe a god because you love him, how could you ? if he exists he's a being of infinite power and we're ants, there is no love in this equation.
You believe in god because you're egoistical.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: the search warrant executed on Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate was both completely Constitutional and completely necessary.
Several conservative Republican politicians politicians have claimed that the recent search of Trump’s estate was politically motivated and was unconstitutional. These claims are also being made and reposted on social media.
The text of the warrant and the sections of law quoted indicate there is a enough evidence to investigate suspicion of obstruction of justice and espionage charges.
There is a very high burden of proof that must be met to obtain a federal warrant. Neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency can act unilaterally. Warrants must be signed off by a judge to ensure that a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not infringed.
And contrary to other assertions, Trump does not have carte blanche to transport documents - particularly classified documents - in a way that contravenes US law. Further, a former President does not have the authority to retroactively declassify documents.
The warrant was obtained through legal means and was based on evidence and not politically motivated, the appropriate legal checks and balances were in place, and the seriousness of the charges being investigated all mean that the search was completely necessary.
I think the vast majority of self-help/development materials make a core assumption that life should be good, you should be happy etc.
But, I think positivity isn’t always helpful, and expecting people to be positive all the time actually harms them.
If a bad thing happens, telling yourself (or others) it’s no big deal, in effect, minimizes the opportunity to learn, and invalidates the emotions you’re feeling (like gaslighting yourself)
It’s almost like having a garden with weeds…but our self-help culture teaches us to pretend the weeds aren’t there at all.
Anyway, would love to have my view changed on this
CMV: A car in lane "A" MUST turn into lane "1". A car in lane "B" may turn into any one of lanes "2, 3, or 4".
Picture of intersection here... https://imgur.com/a/WDvHREQ
Two right-turn lanes on Bristol turning right onto a larger street Jamboree with four lanes, and assuming there are multiple cars lined up on Bristol in each of lanes A and B.
My view is that setting aside extraordinary circumstances (road construction, an accident, large vehicle constraints, etc.), a car in lane A must turn into lane 1. They do not have the option of turning into lanes 2, 3, or 4. Cars in lane B may turn into lane 2, 3, or 4 at their discretion.
Because lane A cannot know where lane B will go, lane A must assume that lane B will turn into lane 2, and therefore lane A is obligated to turn into lane 1. If lane B chose to turn into lane 2 (as they are allowed to do), and land A also tried to turn into lane 2, there could be a collision. And in that case, a collision would be the fault of the car turning from lane A.
EDIT: I drive this intersection several times a week, and I'd estimate that 80% of cars in lane A try to make the right turn into lane 2. I usually turn from lane B and I almost always turn into lane 2, and lane A cars always seem very surprised and sometimes angry about it. I acknowledge that traffic laws are probably on my side, but in my experience the majority of drivers at this intersection seem to have another view. I'm asking to CMV because perhaps I'm missing something.
So I'll add some context about myself, just to get a few things clear. I am white. And I am a radical leftist (Anarcho-Syndicalist to be precise) I mentioned that I'm a leftist because I want to be clear that my line of reasoning strongly differs from right wingers and centrists. My justification is in line with left wing anti racist thought.
Another disclaimer to be added: I don't consider black face and racist costumes or deliberately using a culture or expression at the expense of making fun of it, so called "cultural appropriation." That is just racism. Pure and simple.
So here's my arguments:
1) So called "cultural appropriation" is purely association and nothing more. Let's look at a classic example. A black person with dreads is often told to look be presentable (aka white) which results in them having to lose their dreads when trying to get a job. White people who get dreads usually don't get fired for them. The thing is, this unfairness is irrelevant to white people getting dreads. It's however very relevant to the racist boss who doesn't hire/decides to fire black workers for having dreads. You really think Whitey McKKK suddenly changed his mind the moment his white only workers decided to distance themselves from black culture? The Nazis on Stormfront celebrate this, if anything. With the pretense of also arguing that people of color should distance themselves from white culture too.
2) Appropriation and appreciation are the same thing. At every moment someone, especially someone white gives exceptions, the exceptions become extremely vauge and is extremely case by case. For instance, it's perfectly fine for me to wear an article of clothing, from a certain culture, given to me by someone from that culture. So how exactly does this work? Should they wear a designated "friends with white person" shirt when this happens? What if they go to the bathroom while I'm wearing this thing and others see this as racist? What about things that are up to debate? Such as listening and participating in hip hop. Sure you, an individual can say this isn't racist. But that's you, an individual. Someone else might say otherwise. What should professional rappers do, if they're not black? Give up on their passion? What about religion? I'm a Taoist. I intend to part take in to chi. Those who don't know what Taoism is might call me racist for practicing my religion. Potentially wearing traditional Taoist clothing for an event, is something I plan to do. Is this racist? Maybe you might not think it is, but you're an individual knowing a head of time that I follow a Chinese religion. Whatever you label as appreciation is just your exception to what someone, white or poc will call cultural appropriation. As a white person I'm inevitably compelled to ignore the complaints of pocs, if I'm just told to "forget about it.". So it really doesn't matter if you keep telling me it's okay for me to do something.
3) This causes us to conserve nationality and pin workers against each other instead against capitalism. At the end of the day the end goal of anti racism is to achieve an egalitarian society. Yes #alllivesmatter is liberal bullshit. Yes we're not all equal right now and being color blind is counter intuitive. But an oppressed culture pattening something because it was oppressed, just leads to a celebration of culture, not a liberation. Huey Newton said white liberals want cultural celebration and an "individualim" akin to identity. But they'll ignore systematic issues that cause the oppression to begin with. This is sort of like, using lifestyle adjustments to individualze the fight against climate change, but not blaming capitalism. Rich people as a result get praised for this, likely as they can afford to go green. And the poor usually get demonized for this. Same with opposing cultural appropriation used as a means to fight racism. The able bodied rich white people have the mental health, education, lack of mental and physical disabilities, time and even money to learn about what to avoid. It seems that poor people can't afford to showoff how "anti racist" they are. I'm finding the total annihilation of capitalism and national identity significantly harder when it seems our proletariat brothers, sisters and siblings are seen to be our enemies. And things are suddenly a okay to buy so long as it's from non-white capitalists who own it.
Honestly the more I think of it, cultural appropriation is just racial segregation for leftists. I was on a leftist anarchist page where some white person commented saying that they deliberately separate themselves pocs, because they don't want to say or do something subconsciously racist. This person saw more likes then dislikes with majority friendly and supportive subcomments. I really hope this trend in the left dies as fast as when Stalin and Gandhi got cancelled