Before I begin, I understand that either world view COULD easily be true, though I believe them both to be MOST likely wrong.

My view is that if you took all 'scientific' and religious books and documents, and burned them and wiped the memory of every person on earth, then in a thousand or so years brand new religions will be formed and brand new scientific theories of our origin will have also formed. I've heard many people use this example but only applying it to religion, but I think that it's naive to think that if society started fresh it would develop the EXACT same scientific formulas and get the EXACT scientific results, or even anything close to it. I mean, most atheists believe that what we currently know with 'science' is true, but then for all we know humans may develop some technology in the future that completely disproves our current views and we will be seen in the same light as we currently see flat earthers in history.

I think all world views are just guessing games, and we will never truly know our origin. We can only make guesses.

#Thanks for all the replies I am now going to bed.

I gave out two deltas during this exercise. The deltas were about these topics:

1. Perhaps we should have seen the last 5 years of drama about this as punishment in and of itself.

2. These charges came as a result of an investigation that was fabricated out of thin air involving Burisma and money laundering, and if you investigate anyone to the extent that Hunter Biden was investigated, you'd find something to charge them with.

I also think there is a chance that Donald Trump could furthermore harm Hunter Biden in some way so perhaps a pardon was justifiable on that end, though I can't think of a mechanism for how that would happen so far.

#Original Post:

Link to the statement I will be referencing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

There are two parts of this statement that really show a lack of credibility here.

First quotation:

Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

Yes, many people get away with lying on background checks. But that's fraud, and a failure of the justice system to hold people accountable for breaking the law. This is a very flimsy justification that really undermines the law. In a perfect world, all of these people should be prosecuted. Rather than saying "most people don't get prosecuted, so it's not fair this one person experienced prosecution" you should instead say "most people don't get prosecuted, and that's a problem"

Second, arguably more important issue:

For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth.

Biden multiple times said he would not issue a pardon for his son. Either he doesn't really believe this principle or he is acknowledging that he has broken it multiple times.

For more context (this part wasn't originally in the post): I get the general POV about Biden's legacy perhaps not being very large, but my honest hope and prediction is that this period of American history will be more intensely studied by future generations once Donald Trump is dead, and therefore Biden will be more highly scrutinized than other presidents. Kind of like how Nixon's presidency is highly scrutinized today but we don't hear a lot about Ford, Bush Sr. or Jimmy Carter now-a-days (aside from the fact that Jimmy's about to die). That intense scrutiny will likely have this time period seen as a mistake.

So that's it. Change my view. I want to believe Biden did the right thing here, I'm generally a fan of his governance.

Things that almost certainly won't convince me: Saying that Trump has done/will do worse things, saying that I'm a Trump supporter, saying that Republicans also have no principles so therefore it's OK, or bringing up the Hunter Biden Laptop story or Twitter files.

Knowing what we know now, and putting aside how you might feel about the process surrounding the nomination, do we think Garland would have actually been an effective justice? As AG he has shown zero willingness to hold trump to account. And after the untimely demise of RBG, he would not even have been the deciding vote to save roe v wade.

Sure, Gorsuch is just as rabidly pro-corporate and anti-woman as his ideological counterparts, but he is the fringe of his coalition and often goes his own way. He has been genuinely progressive on Native American rights. scoring some big wins on that front. To me, this seems preferable to a milquetoast centrist who would not have swung the balance on the major constitutional questions of our time.

Edit to add- At the time, Garland was widely understood to be a compromise candidate, broadly palatable to republicans, because Obama knew McConnell was gonna try and pull some shit like he did do.

Argument 1: Jesus said to "love thy neighbor as thy self.'

Trump's anti immigration policy supports concentrating undocumented immigrants without guidelines on how to do so humanely and deporting them to places the escaped because of violence

Argument 2: Jesus said "You have heard, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say offer no violent resistance to one who does evil",

January 6 was violent and supported by Trump even if Democrats are "evil" this isn't the teaching of Jesus.

Argument 3 Jesus said ""I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

Trump is not a Christian which leads me to believe he does not have a relationship with Jesus.

I believe meeting someone through a random online connection or pursuing a long-distance relationship creates a more meaningful and genuine bond compared to meeting through dating apps. Dating apps encourage users to focus heavily on physical appearances, often selecting or rejecting potential matches based on photos and superficial criteria rather than values, interests, or personality traits.

In contrast, meeting someone online in a non-dating context, like through shared interests, forums, or hobbies, often allows for deeper conversations and a stronger emotional connection. Long-distance relationships, though challenging, also tend to be built on communication, trust, and shared goals, as physical proximity isn’t a factor initially. These types of connections foster understanding and respect, which are essential for long-term compatibility.

My view stems from personal experiences on using dating apps and meeting new people via shared interests. To change my mind, someone would need to show me how dating apps can equally facilitate meaningful and long-lasting relationships beyond physical attraction.

Bill clinton is largely honored by the Democratic Party, but he’s actually the worst thing that’s ever happened to it.

Bernie sanders is right that the democrats abandoned the working class, and it’s primarily the fault of bill Clinton.

Ever since we barely won the presidency (only beating bush bc of Ross Perot), he moved the Democratic Party to the right. He and his crew were directly responsible for the rightward shift of the party. We all know his policy failures, like drug laws and weakening the social safety net.

We are still feeling this today. And obviously, we would not have Trump if not for Hillary (which is bill’s fault).

The chain is obvious (and I don’t need to go through it) and the democrats are still in the grip of the Clintons. They need more blame.

I believe it is imperitive that we pass legislation to tax the ultra wealthy in our society. The failure of such legislation in other countries is often referenced as reasons they don't work. Often using capital flight, lower economic growth and investment, and administrative difficulties as reasons for this failure. I also believe that the USA for the following reasons must be the one that truly moves the world towards less wealth inequality on any significant scale, and until we do we are actively hindering other countries ability to do so. The wealthy always want to generate more wealth and as such I believe the claims of lower economic growth and levels of investment are overstated. Even if the GDP takes a hit, is that not a tolerable and even worthy sacrifice for economic equality, contrary to popular belief greed is not good. As to the point of administrative difficulties I would mention all of the advances made in AI in recent years and how that may surely be applied to alleviating those difficulties.

1. USA can most effectively hinder capital flight simply due to the size of our economy, and yes, our military.

2. We are the epicenter of the global wealth inequality crisis being one of the worst cases amongst developed nations

3. We are in a unique position as the world's largest economy to set a moral and political precedent.

Any time a credit reporting agency adds a person entry to their database, that individual's data should be frozen by default until such time as the individual in question requests that it be unfrozen.

There are apparently new credit reporting agencies beyond the big three at this point... so now apparently we have to go and hunt down their names and register with them in order to ensure they aren't facilitating business on our behalf.

It would add an extra step to a consumer interacting with their credit in a significant way, but this in my view would be worthwhile given the potential for fraud reduction and more informed/controlled interaction between a person and their data.

Moreover, given how lax the credit bureaus have been with respect to folks' data it seems only fair that they should have to endure additional friction in carrying out their business.

It's also not obvious when minors should have to have their credit frozen? Guess we're just going to leave this up to the parents? Is anyone providing guidance about best practices?

( USA specific )

I find it strange to offer the same advice or the same judgement to male and female victims of domestic abuse. And to also view male and female perpetrators via the same lenses.

Why? Because an identical “act” of abuse is not the same when used against a man or a woman. Also the motivation and consequences of abuse differ between genders.

To give an example - MtF abuse much more frequently involves coercive control and high element of fear (largely due to physical power inequalities). Women are much more often stalked, severely injured and killed. This sort of abuse is often linked and caused by gender inequalities in society. Female victims are much more likely to experience repeated victimisation. And male abusers - to have a long pattern of abusing his victims.

While FtM abuse is more emotional and psychological. Male victims face much higher societal stigma and this type of abuse is far less researched and understood. Also, female abusers tend to be less “serial”, but more occasion based. Some research shows that female perpetrators are also more likely to use kids as a control tool.

So based on the above, I find it crazy to say “just imagine genders reversed!”. Because the patterns, actions and consequences are not the same.

So when deciding on the support for the victim and the accountability for the abuser - the approaches should be tailored to the specific gender dynamic.

Would love to hear counter arguments!

One of my long-held mantras in my life is a simple one: "We were not put on this earth to suffer". This year has shown me that the opposite is the truth. Life is one instance of suffering after another, and the only constants in it are that we are born, and that we die. In my individual life, I have been hit with an absolute onslaught of suffering. My health has deteriorated to the point where I may not ever be the same active person I ever was (I will leave specific details out for anonymity but let's just say long term injury, chronic health issue, and cancer scare). Socially, my closest friends have all reported some of the most horrible things that could possibly happen to them, often all at once. Being someone who people go to for emotional support, I have been greeted with an inability to maintain empathy (which I have always been phenomenal at), because I am too exhausted from seeing and feeling all of these terrible, terrible things happening to good people, in addition to my own shit. And in society, the world has never been angrier, never more hostile, never more difficult to navigate in ways that are seeing horrible actions and mindsets returning in full force. I'll admit, I made this account in an attempt to get back to my times of reddit from years ago, trolling and silliness and not taking things seriously to get away from it all. But, "getting away from it all" is not possible anymore. Awful things are shown directly to front pages, and I simply have not been able to help myself with engaging at awful things and stories. Additionally, outside of the internet, I've personally never seen more racism, homophobia, and sexism happening in front of me with my own eyes than this past year. Society is genuinely crumbling before us - I haven't even mentioned the bevy of international conflicts and wars that are being shown to us in real time like never before thanks to modern media.

So basically, I think we were put here to suffer as much as possible. There is a theory of existence which imagines another species of humanoids who have put us humans essentially into an ant farm type isolated ecosystem, and that they are throwing as much bullshit as possible at us to see how long it takes before we literally or figuratively "pop". I tend to be critical of conspiracy theory, but that one for whatever reason is one I fixate on. It makes too much sense that the world keeps getting more and more horrible and that for whatever reason we as a species can't put shit aside to fix it. Not only were we put here to suffer, I think that a significant portion of the world are either OK with or happy about it if it means they can inflict suffering, or have others suffer so they don't have to.

I feel myself becoming a more bitter, sad, jaded, and sometimes also angry, person. This is thanks to everything above, but in particular my own health this year as this is the most immediate stressor in my life which has resulted in me missing out on possible good things that I would use otherwise to cope. I would appreciate perspectives from the community who disagree, agree, or otherwise with the title of this post. Insight regarding this topic would be appreciated for me - thank you.

When I say "choice" I am not just talking about stupid behavior people end up doing that put themselves into a trouble (eg crime). I think religious beliefs, Political views, and (maybe even sexual preference/orientation... debatable though) are nothing more than choices people make. Unlike your skin color or disability, everyone has a full control over such choices.

In fact, I think people are already getting discriminated based on those choices I haves mentioned but only for specific ones. For instance if you come out as a neo-nazi or a scientology believer or a pedophile, you will be looking frowned upon. However I do not understand for some specific cases, such treatment is viewed as a "hatred"

This half-baked plan regarding “mass deportation(s)” is posturing on the part of the incoming administration.

The incoming Trump administration hopes immigration to the Unites States will slow or immigrants will, out of fear, head back to their country of origin.

The Trump Administration knows it doesn’t have the manpower to carry out “mass deportations.” And Americans, even those who support MAGA policies, will not volunteer to help carry out the “mass deportation” plan. There won’t be a sufficient number of recruits.

The Federal Government had insufficient resources to quell the 2020 unrest (after George Floyd’s death/murder). What will be different this time?

Donald Trump will push to have the armed forces deployed to expel migrants. This is a huge risk. If it can be done at all, blood will be shed. American troops will come into conflict with American citizens. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Farmers, big AG companies, and other employers who employ a large number of undocumented workers will push back against “mass deportations.” There is no vacuum. You expel the farm workers, there’s no one to take their place. It will take years to replace this labor force. These companies exist for profit. It’s un-American to topple business interests. Especially in the name of ideology. And if we call a spade a spade, it’s xenophobia.

Tyrants need scapegoats. Farm workers: you’ve drawn the short straw. You are to blame, according to this incoming administration.

If this administration expels migrants en masse, it’s not for the migrants’ good. The deporters will not be in a superior moral position. It will be a unilateral action on the part of the deporters.

Stop comparing farm laborers to slaves. It’s anachronistic and hyperbolic.

Some people when they have a daughter they have her ears pierced pretty much immediately and in my opinion this is just extremely weird and wrong. Just because she’s a girl does that mean she will automatically want pierced ears? There is a good chance that she will want her ears pierced, but let her make that decision herself when she’s a bit older rather than forcing it on her when she’s a baby. I’ve seen lots of people opposing things like circumcision and FGM on infants (which I’m also against), but I feel like this is an overlooked issue that people don’t really talk about.

I was having a conversation with a woman about why more women aren't pilots and they had all these reasons why, and they said something that gave me pause. They said that in aviation everyone is held to the same standard but when giving the reasons why more women weren't in aviation, they didn't mention that maybe women simply can't or aren't willing to meet that standard. I think firefighting is another job where women are expected to meet the same standard as well.

In jobs such as the military, women are held to an objectively lower standard and arguably a lower subjective standard when it comes to discipline. This doesn't make sense to me as if someone is doing a specific job, regardless of their sex, there is a standard to do that job and I think everyone should be held to that standard period. This means one of two things for me:

1. If someone is unable to meet the standards required for the job then they just don't have the prerequisites required to accomplish the job and should not be hired.
2. If the standards are lowered so that a group of people are able to meet the requirements, then the standards should be lowered across the board because this shows that's the actual standard needed.

The only exception that I can think of doesn't have to do with sex but rather merit where there is something extraordinary about you which would justify waiving a standard.

Yes, we shouldn't show up in our underwear at school/work, that's minimum decency. Beyond that? That's pretty much it.

Everything that doesn't specifically interfere with work (nails, heels, loose clothing, lack of protective gear, short sleeves, long loose hair, etc., can all be a hazard in certain occupations) shouldn't be considered at all in professional environments. Hair color, piercings, the color of one's clothes, whether you can see arms/legs or not, the formality of clothes - none of it is related to someone's ability to study/work well. Whether someone wears a three-piece suit or old sweatpants, has a bright pink mohawk or the most somber black ponytail, they are perfectly capable of paying attention in class, cleaning a room, discussing a business contract, manning a check-out counter, filing taxes, or teaching history.

Furthermore, it's well-known that dress codes usually are much stricter on women, to the point of controlling footwear and makeup by forbidding, making mandatory, or specifying exact requirements on heels, makeup, etc. - not to mention that some dress codes explicitly divide students'/employees' requirements by gender (or more often, sex). If a boy wants to wear a skirt to study, he should be free to wear a skirt to study. He's not studying with his legs, anyway.

Even worse, some dress codes can pose a huge challenge for people who can't easily afford a set of formal clothes (or several, since people need to change) to start working a "good job".

I've heard people argue that dressing up "professionally" means you get in the proper mindset for work, but honestly, I can't relate. I've always been able to do my job, and whether I'm wearing a nice shirt and elegant slacks or my biggest sweater and comfiest jeans, I care about doing my work well, studying well, etc.

I also realize that some people might argue that appearing "professional" will encourage others to take you more seriously, but I believe this is directly connected to the existence of this prejudice. To avoid the possibility of being taken less seriously at work, we're forced into dress codes, which automatically means that people who do not abide are, in fact, taken less seriously, which reinforces the idea, and so on, and so forth. The same goes for service jobs - I don't actually care if a hotel receptionist has a strong personal sense of style, but since that expectation is there, it feeds into a loop that results in employees who don't appear as plain as possible to look unprofessional compared to others. If this expectation didn't exist, because I believe that there's no good reason for it to exist, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

Obviously, this doesn't go for those professions that have uniforms because workers need to be easily identifiable, but even then, some are far too stringent and care about appearances way too much. I don't care if my flight attendant's shade of lipstick is the incorrect red. I don't care if they're wearing lipstick at all. I don't understand why anyone would care to begin with. If they're wearing the uniform, I can identify them and ask them for assistance even if they have purple hair and Chappell Roan-level of makeup.

Change My View!

I believe that ethics is not an objective or universal phenomenon but rather a psychological and cultural instrument evolved to encourage prosocial behavior that benefits the individual indirectly through the success of their community. In this view, ethics can be understood as a heuristic system - imperfect but generally effective - for promoting cooperation and mutual benefit in social groups.

While we have the ability to reflect on our ethical views, reason about them, and even change them, they are always serving our unconscious instincts. For example, in this view, one could understand psychopathy as an opportunistic adaptation to macro conditions that favor ‘unethical’ behaviors rather than as a diseased state. For example, in a prisoner’s dilemma, an entirely selfless population is vulnerable to cheaters.

Ultimately, through this way of seeing things, there is no ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ in a greater sense, but only ‘is’ and the ‘is’ is like that way because of simple fundamental rules of the universe, such as ‘things which proliferate, proliferate.’ Hopefully, you can appreciate how this view can lead to a bit of existential dread. If so, you will understand why I felt inclined to have my view challenged :)

There’s this constant societal pressure that says we should be content with our families, friends, and personal accomplishments. But honestly, when it comes down to it, having a romantic partner—someone you’re truly connected with—is what really fills the void. It’s the one relationship that, at its core, society tells you defines you. It’s the one that’s seen as essential for personal fulfillment, and if you’re not in it, it can feel like something important is missing from your life.

If a person is brooding, mopey, or extremely serious all the time because they’re single and longing for a romantic relationship, that feeling is entirely justified. The reality is that romantic relationships carry a unique kind of importance that no other relationship—family or friends—can replicate. We’re constantly told that family and friends are what keep us grounded, but what about the loneliness that comes from not having a significant other? Having a partner brings a level of connection that just doesn’t exist in platonic or familial relationships. It’s the one bond that society places above all others. Being in a romantic relationship is often viewed as the pinnacle of emotional fulfillment. Without it, that nagging sense of "something’s missing" can feel overwhelming.

It doesn’t matter how supportive your family is or how many friends you have. They can’t fill that particular need for companionship, intimacy, and emotional connection that a romantic partner brings. Sure, family and friends are important, but at the end of the day, they don’t fulfill the same role. They don’t provide the same level of affection, validation, or the deep connection that a romantic relationship can. The longing to be in a relationship isn’t just about physical intimacy; it’s about the emotional validation, the partnership, and the shared life experience that you can’t get from family or friends.

People who are single and constantly down about it aren’t being overly dramatic. Their sadness is real, and it’s rooted in a valid need. It’s not that they’re ungrateful for their family and friends, but when you’re alone and want someone to share your life with, those other relationships can’t make up for what’s missing. It’s not just about wanting someone to go out with or to spend time with—it’s about wanting someone who sees and values you in a way that goes beyond casual friendship or familial ties. It’s wanting that deeper level of commitment and connection that a romantic partner provides.

So when someone is sad or brooding because they’re not in a relationship, don’t dismiss it. Don’t tell them that family and friends should be enough. For them, it’s not about that. It’s about the one relationship that feels like it’s meant to be at the center of their life. It’s about that emotional connection that family and friends simply can’t replicate. Their feelings are justified, and it’s important to acknowledge that romantic relationships truly matter more than anything else. If you can CMV.

Edit: All of the responses I've read so far are attacking the choices that JK Rowling made in writing the books. I am focused on the book itself. This could be a different cmv, but I think that if you choose to take an issue with the books that JK Rowling writes, and are somehow susceptible to being convinced that slavery is good as a result of reading these fictional books, that is not the problem of the author. Of course I'm not saying you are meant to like or support the author. I won't be giving any deltas to arguments that are not focused on the universe becasue I think that those arguments would belong to a different cmv topic.

Edit 2: added an argument & response regarding Kreacher

First of all, I am only referring to the context of the books – not the views of the author. I don’t know or care if JK Rowling has made any comments in real life about slavery. I choose to disassociate the views of the author from the book itself. If you don’t agree with me, that’s a different CMV topic.

A lot of people have issue with the depiction of House-Elves and analogies to slavery. I agree that such a depiction would be problematic, but I see a few main reasons why this would not apply for House-Elves and Wizarding World.

1.      House Elves are literally not human. Who’s to say what their biological instincts are. It is not up to us as Human to dictate what a non-human requires

2.      House Elves consistently and repeatedly say that they want to serve humans. Hermione’s involvement in SPEW involves trying to free House Elves against their will (hiding clothes around the common room to trick them into taking clothes). Going against someone’s direct wishes is not something I would ever support.

3.      Dobby is the obvious exception, and we see Harry free him, and Dumbledore pay him a generous salary (in fact, offering him even more money, which Dobby refuses). We do not see any other instances of a House-Elf who wants to be freed, so we can only assume that this does not happen.

Common Arguments I have heard

1.      House Elves are conditioned to want to be slaves and can’t possibly be truly happy

Response: Based on our understanding of the Wizarding World, there is no way for us to know this for sure, and no reason why we should assume this (they are literally not human). If I were to use religion as an analogy, I could claim that all religious people are deluded, and I should knock down all places of worship without their consultation – obviously not something that I would condone. If SPEW was more focused on educating House-Elves and trying to understand why they want to be slaves, as opposed to trying to trick them into a life they do not want I would be more supportive. Just because JK Rowling doesn’t go into this detail does not mean the book supports slavery.

2.      Wizards treat House Elves as second class citizens

Response: This is mentioned a few times in the book, and the treatment of Humans against other magical creatures (goblins, centaurs, mermaids etc) is outside the scope of this CMV, especially because the books do not resolve this problem, and does not say Humans should be superior – it is an open ended issue. I will say that when Ron says that they should go back and save the House Elves near the end of book 7, this is an obvious turning point in his character for the better – Ron is correct in wanting to save their lives and not treating them as disposable, even if he does not think they should all be given clothes.

3.      There may be other House Elves who want to be freed

Response: There might be, but there is no way for us to know this, and it is not the author’s job to flesh out every minute detail. There is no requirement for the author to set up a “House Elf Protection Squad” in the book, just as how there is no requirement to set up a “Squib Protection Program” for all of the Squibs who would suffer obvious mental health issues by not being born with magical powers, or any other minority groups who would suffer hardships throughout the book.

4. Harry owns a house-elf at the end

Response: Because Kreacher wants to serve Harry. During the period where Kreacher did not want to serve Harry, they could not free him becasue he knew of the location of the hideout, not becasue Harry insisted on maintaining ownership. You can make any argument you want about whether or not House Elves are conditioned to want to be owned, but at the end of the day, no one has any proof or evidence that Kreacher would be happier if he was not part of Harry's household.

Title. There are two types of genitals in the world. 99.9% of us have either one or the other. Why are we so ashamed of possessing sex organs that we have to invent a special article of clothing that exists only to:

-make us uncomfortable, -make us less beautiful (because of tan lines) -enforce outdated and sexist views of societal modesty (men can go topless at the beach, but if a woman does it, it’s “obscene).

Also, they are cumbersome when wet and have to be hung out to dry for hours after use.

I go to nude beaches whenever possible, and clean up is a snap. Rinse off sand/sunscreen, dry your body off, and throw on a beach coverup.

When you use a bathing suit, it’s wringing out the bathing suit, finding a stupid plastic bag to put it in, so it doesn’t get your possessions wet, finding somewhere to change into street clothes, discreetly getting sand out of your crevices (because god forbid someone see your pubic area!!), and only then actually changing.

I think this outdated and culturally irrelevant forced modesty is a ridiculous holdover from Victorian era prudery. It was extremely common for people generally to swim nude before then, and nobody seemed to care back then.

There is a cultural bias that those perpetrators who do not raise their hand against women have higher moral standards than those perpetrators who raise their hand against both men and women. And if a perpetrator raises their hand only against women, then of course this will be qualified as misogyny and gender-based violence.

In my opinion, this approach should be changed, both at the cultural level and at the legal level. If a perpetrator believes that it is morally acceptable to assault men because of their gender, that means that the person has a sexist worldview, and that sexist worldview, that they do not view men the way they view women, should be taken into account in the rehabilitation process. The rehabilitation process should be aimed at working through the sexist views of this perpetrator, among other things. It also means that they committed the violent act at least partly because of the gender of the victim.

It's my first time posting here, so don't be mean please, I genuenely want to hear a different perspective to my current belief

But anyway: let's say hypothetically that you have someone who thinks women are all inferior. This guy really dislikes women. Let's call him Joe.

The worst thing you can do, is send a woman to talk to Joe. Joe will not listen, and he will be very annoyed.

But If you send a man that Joe deeply admires, Joe will listen to that person. And slowly, Joe will be a little bit more open to accept women, because you used something that he likes.

You know, for example when children hate broccoli, but eat it when it's mixed with cheese or something they like.

Sure, Joe may never respect women regardless of anyone's effort. Joe might just be like that forever.

It is not our duty to change his mind, but... It would make It easier? What do you think?

My personal experience: there was a really racist classmate during my time in highschool. Terrible dude. But he really liked the history teacher, and the teacher was always talking about respecting others regardless of skin color. Nowadays, this dude is an adult and is pretty much normal and has apologized for his past.

Another thing: the sandwhich method. people use It all the time. Compliment, criticize, compliment. That way, people are more inclined to agree with you, because you stroked their ego a bit, while also making them grow as a person.

By most people I'm referring to the understanding of the conflict in the global scope. Because of the recent events in Ukraine and Israel, a lot of people see the world as a bipolar system now (the United States and NATO versus Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea). In some ways, that is a correct interpretation. Ukraine is the US/NATO and it's allies supporting Ukraine against Russia which is being supported by North Korea and Iran. Israel being supported by the US/NATO against Hamas and Hezbollah, proxies of Iran and allies of Russia. However Syria is not that simple.

At first glance, most people think it's the Russia/Iran backed Assad regime against the US/NATO backed rebels, part of this is true. Assad is indeed a close ally of Russia and Iran, but the rebel situation is much more complicated. Mainly there's the SNA and the SDF, the SNA is a decentralized coalition of different rebel groups which range from fairly moderate to literally Al Qaeda, and the SDF is essentially a Kurdish force in the northeast. Both sides have received some support from the US/NATO in the past, but don't get much anymore. When Trump backed out of Syria in 2019, Turkey and the SNA took control of SDF occupied territory, but the SDF then received help from Assad's government. Turkey is a NATO member of course but the Kurdish SDF was a key NATO ally in defeating ISIS, a group that is obviously not well liked in the West but also still fighting Assad's regime.

That was a very condensed summary of the Syria conflict, but it illustrates the point kind of, people saying "the rebels must be supported by Israel or the US because they might soon topple Russia and Iran's allied government" are somewhat misguided, because although that would make sense in a bipolar system, Syria is not a bipolar conflict. Even though this is largely happening because Hezbollah and Russia (Assad's key allies) are dealing with other conflicts, it doesn't mean that the mostly Islamic fundamentalist rebels taking control of Syria is in the interest of the US, NATO, or Israel, even though those rebels are directly supported by a NATO member, Turkey.

TL;DR, the conflict in Syria has too many competing groups for it to fit in the bipolar cold war net that Ukraine and Israel are already in, so this has led to a lot of people online making a lot of misinformed commentary about the conflict.

If you catch your spouse cheating it sucks, but the AP did you a favor. By helping your partner cheat they helped expose them to you by showing that your partner is someone untrustworthy but also, if you know the AP personally, they out themselves as someone who isn't worth your time either. Also, the AP shows the partner is selfish, unworthy of you time, money, etc. And if the AP and you are friends or something, they show themselves to also be selfish assholes only interested in what benefits them.

To be clear, let me preface this by saying I do not advocate for the further colonization of Israel, I also believe they should pull out of Golan Heights and the West Bank.

We forget that inside of Israel are people, people that go to school, or work, or are caretakers to their children. Yes, they may be complicit, but not being complicit means they put a target on their head and on their families head. They have no care for the war, they just want to make ends meet.

To be forcing those people out from their homes would make us no better than Netanyahu and his crew.

Israel is here to stay, so we gotta figure out how to make do

Please note this is not a "suicide" view, although it's based in the recent vote in the UK to legalise assisted dying. My view is in the philosophy, not the legislation.

This vote has had a lot of attention and discussions, and some of these highlight what I see as a quite unhealthy attitude towards life and death.

I saw one father say that if his daughter was in the position of a Dutch girl who has been approved for MAID that he'd be outraged at the government for allowing it - somehow that he possessed his daughters life more than she does?

I think there is an insistence that we ought to go on living, that we MUST go on living, but really what's that based in? I don't think there's an imperative if someone feels that they shouldn't continue that's their decision to make.

If you have to force it, to force people to go on, then that sort of devalues it, in saying its not magical enough overall to exist, that we have to encourage and enforce others to endure it against their will.

Why "must" we go on? What is the imperative outside of an unhealthy relationship with life, and a fear of death from some who seek to escape the reality of mortality?

We are so focused on individual freedoms that we've forgotten we also actually need a healthy social environment. Things like the Chinese firewall sound very draconian, but the underlying intent was to keep social cohesion for a much more collective society. I think we need an independently designed, regulated online space with a focus on mental health.

Also I feel like each country needs to have its own national internet, and a separate process to access the global internet. So we don't limit our access to useful information, but still protect the most vulnerable of us from harmful content.

Nothing really important would be getting regulated, ideally. But things like fake news, scams, disinformation, extremist groups, alternative facts, etc.

The usual arguments against this are:

• The government regulating the content we get is dangerous. We don't trust anyone to do it.

Answer: Leaving it unregulated is how we end up with that kind of controlling government. The people that would control the internet for their own purposes are already able to fill our heads with propaganda right now, without needing to regulate anything. We've seen this around the world. The internet can be managed semi-independently, like with the Reserve Bank.

• Limiting our access to certain information just because it undermines the status quo goes against a free-thinking and open society.

Answer: We get so bogged down in idealism that we don't stop to look at the facts. I'm as much a free-thinker as the next guy, but echo-chamber algorithms actively discourage free-thinking, so really, in an effort to be "free", we're trading the farm for the berries.

• It is a slippery slope and opens the door to further regulation of our interaction with the world around us.

Answer: True. But everything has that impact. And it's clear this is an era of tumultuous change. So if we wait for our society to fall apart, and for despots to take power, then it will not be a choice anymore. At least right now we still have the option to choose. If autocrats come in everywhere, then they'll do it without our approval, regulating the internet to benefit themselves.

We need to be proactive to protect our society and sometimes that means swallowing a bitter pill.

I'm open to your thoughts and changing my view, so please. I'll be reading everything.

As I get older, I'm noticing that the hate on age gaps is arbitrary bullshit. It's 'shameful' for no reason other than because someone has decided it to be and society has just been brainwashed into accepting it. I've heard that older women say it's only because younger girls are easier to please, and that they can't handle a woman their age.

Well when I'm looking for someone to date i'm not looking for someone to 'handle' or who's going to be the most high maintenance. I'm looking for someone who's attractive that I enjoy being with and if it's a long term thing then someone who will support me in some way. Those are the things that matter far more than age.

Personally my own lower age limit is 21 simply because I like to go out and have drinks so the woman needs to be able to do that but if someone doesn't drink or do anything that requires someone to be a specific age then I don't see an issue with 18. Basically I see no reason to limit your dating pool just because someone else finds it 'weird'.

I realize this view is going to be appalling to some, and I'll be discussing some pretty intense subject matter here, mainly abortion, and heaven / hell. But I really think my logic here holds up and I'd love to hear feedback on my thoughts.

FWIW I am a former Christian myself, now effectively an atheist. But I was a Christian for the first 27 years of my life, I guess until I reached, as George Carlin once famously put it, the age of reason.

Christians believe that a life is created at conception, and that life, no matter what its physical form, is a soul, eternal, destined for some other destination after that life is extinguished on this planet. But the key here is, if it's a fetus, even the tiniest and most infinitesimal of biological entities, it's an eternal soul. Right?

So, think about its potential after it is born. This planet is, for lack of a better term, a battleground of sorts, the place where this soul has to make decisions and live in a certain way if that soul wants to end up in "heaven" in the next life, whatever that might look like. And I know there are different ideas on how that soul reaches the good place. Some believe it's about actions, the way they live their lives. Some believe that all you have to do is accept the love of Christ. Either way, you have to do SOMETHING to make it to heaven. There are few, if any, Christians who think you just get to go straight to heaven, no matter how shitty of a person you were in this life.

So then, by putting that soul to the test on this planet, you're opening it up to the potential to miss out on heaven. If that life were just aborted in the womb, it would never have had any opportunity to screw things up on earth and damn itself to eternal torment. A popular theory amongst Christians is that the aborted child just goes straight to heaven after the abortion. And I genuinely do not understand how anyone could view that as anything but the best of outcomes for that child.

Putting this all together, it's like this: if the baby is aborted, it's probably going to heaven. There's a chance it just goes into this place of "nothingness" as if it were never born, BUT, God has chosen to be silent on where our souls are headed, so we DO have to make a guess and we do NOT have any certainty whatsoever what happens to our souls after we die. But if we had to hedge our bets based on what we know about Christianity, it certainly seems like the most likely set of outcomes here is that aborted fetuses go straight to heaven, whereas those who are born into this world and have to live in it could mess things up and get themselves sent to hell, where they will then suffer for all eternity. Why on earth would you open up a child to the potential for such eternal torment when there was something else we could have done here to ensure an instant ticket to heaven?

Even if you don't believe in "hell" or in eternal torment as a possible final destination, the most popular counter-theory there is that "hell" is essentially nothingness, destruction of the soul, eternal nothingness. That's STILL infinitely worse than not being in heaven, though. If fetuses are going to heaven, whereas lives on this planet are either going to heaven but have the potential to be destroyed completely, it's putting that life at a lot more risk by letting it be born into this world, yes?

The only situation I can think of where allowing the life to be born into the world actually IMPROVES their situation is if you believe that the aborted fetus goes to a place of nothingness, and lives either go to the place of nothingness or to heaven. In that sense, it's better to birth the child and give it a chance for heaven, whereas its outcome after abortion is no worse than the worst possible outcome from life itself. But, again, God is silent on such things, and we have no assurance that this is how things actually work. And the "aborted babies go to heaven" theory just feels like it's more likely to be true, and so since we do have to make a decision on this front, we should be hedging our bets that the aborted fetuses go to heaven, and that subjecting them to life on earth is putting them at great risk. For that reason, it makes zero sense to be so outraged over the use of abortion. It does, in fact, ensure a far better outcome for the child than otherwise.

CMV.

For a democracy to thrive it needs the following (among others):

• A population that agrees on facts: Therefore, channels of information (e.g., podcasts, social media, and traditional media) need to be able to distribute fair and accurate information to the public.
• A population that is informed of their civic duty and is willing to honor them: This means that political participation should be enabled as much as possible e.g by making voting as easy as possible, but most importantly by making education much more than just preparation for a job, but more about how to function as a participant in a society where democracy is the political system
• A political system that is not corrupted by money and special interests: i.e. shouldn't be allowed to buy votes or pay (donate to) politicians to pass favorable legislation.

Around the world, all of the above points are being undermined for example in the EU one of the vice presidents of the EU parliament was arrested for accepting bribes from Qatar, see here: https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-kaili-charged-with-corruption-by-belgian-prosecutors-reports/

There are many examples of the lack or deterioration of the above basic requirements in numerous places hence my view is that liberal democracies will eventually only be democracies in name only in the future unless we find a way of fixing the :

• information sources so that people can agree on the facts
• Voting is made easier and people understand their civic duty
• Remove corruption from politics.

Edit:

I would also like to add that this is the key reason for the results in the US, I believe that their democracy has decayed so much as to give outcomes that make no sense given the facts of the contenders.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been wrestling with some frustrating experiences lately, and I think it’s high time we talk about how subscription services are making it nearly impossible to cancel and get refunds.

I feel like we’re being trapped, and I’m starting to wonder if we need stronger laws to protect consumers like us.

Here’s what’s been going on:

A while back, I signed up for Ground News. Seemed like a cool concept, but after trying it out, I realized it wasn’t for me. No biggie, right? So, within the 14-day cooling-off period (which is supposed to be our legal right here in the UK), I decided to cancel and get a refund.

That’s when the headaches began.

• The Great Cancellation Hide-and-Seek: Finding a way to cancel was like navigating a labyrinth. There was no straightforward “Cancel Subscription” button. I had to dig through FAQs, settings, and eventually reach out to customer support just to figure out how to stop the service.

• Refund Runaround:   When I finally got in touch, they refused to give me a refund. They pointed to some fine print buried deep in their terms and conditions. It felt like they were banking on customers not bothering to fight back.

• Communication Breakdown:  To make matters worse, they claimed they had no record of my previous communications. I had trouble accessing my email at the time, so I couldn’t immediately prove otherwise. Once I regained access and forwarded the emails, their response was dismissive, almost implying I was at fault.

This isn’t just about one company. I’ve noticed a pattern with various services—streaming platforms, fitness apps, you name it—where canceling becomes a nightmare. It feels like they’re setting up subscription traps to keep charging us, hoping we’ll give up out of frustration.

Why I Think This Is a Problem:

• Consumer Rights Are Being Undermined: We have legal rights for a reason, but they don’t mean much if companies make them impossible to exercise.

• Ethical Concerns: Businesses should operate transparently and fairly. Hiding cancellation options and burying important info in fine print isn’t just shady—it’s unethical.

• Need for Stronger Regulations: I believe we need laws that require companies to make cancellation and refund processes straightforward. There should be penalties for those that deliberately complicate these processes.

But Maybe I’m Missing Something Here:

• Business Perspective: Are there legitimate reasons why companies might make cancellation difficult? Maybe they’re trying to prevent fraud or misuse?

• Consumer Responsibility: Is it on us to read every single detail in the terms and conditions? Maybe expecting an easy cancellation process is unrealistic?

• Impact on Small Businesses: Could stricter laws hurt smaller companies that rely heavily on subscriptions to survive?

Why I’m Posting This:

I’m genuinely curious if my frustration is justified or if I’m overlooking something important. I don’t want to unfairly blame businesses without understanding the full picture.

So, Reddit, change my view. Is the onus on us as consumers to navigate these tricky cancellation policies, or should companies be held to higher standards to protect us from these subscription traps?