This might vary from region to region but I say this as someone who studies in Asia where the pressure of education is way more.

I say this in mind with both the teacher and the student. Most of the time teachers are overworked and don't have a fixed work schedules and have to work more than the school hours as well, they have to deal with twice more anxiety, pressure and burnout. This leads to dopamine reduction and because of this you see a lot of old people getting angry easily.

Due to these symptoms you will see a lot more outbursts on children for the smallest things, both the teacher who would yell at children for the smallest disturbances were usually overworked extremely old teachers, this become less understanding and this leads to a conflict relation between each other then an understanding relationship and teachers become despised.

Incels have become one of the most socially acceptable groups to ridicule. The term incel is now used interchangeably with misogynist and whenever a male posts something slightly controversial, the term gets thrown at them as a byword for loser.

But incels are not necessarily women-haters by default. If you're a young man who is ugly or fat or sexually unappealing for whatever reason, life is hard. I say this with some experience. I was a fat, baby-faced young man who didn't bloom until my mid 20s. I'm happy to say that I'm now a reasonably attractive and successful man who has dated a number of wonderful women but this was not always the case. And I never hated women. If anything, I used to put them on a pedestal. I saw them as these amazing, unattainable, exotic creatures. And that is because I had no experience with them. It wasn't until I was able to lose my virginity and actually spend time with them that I realised they're just regular human beings with the same hopes, dreams, flaws and self-doubt that I have.

No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice. We all want love and sex and validation. And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own, it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you. Especially as it feels like the rest of the world is getting love and sex and validation, even though that might not necessarily be the case.

And by demonising incels, by ridiculing them and laughing off their struggles, that's when we push them towards dangerous and damaging opinions such as those espoused by people like Andrew Tate. But there are so few people actually addressing incel's problems, there are so few people actually talking to them and their issues, what do we expect. We can't ignore a group's problems and then demonise them for listening to the only people who don't ignore them.

I don't know what the solution is but I do know that throwing incel around as an insult and ridiculing a group of people because they are too unattractive to get a girlfriend is cruel, counter-productive and only pushes young men towards hate and bitterness.

Rather than stopping reproduction which is the basic function of any species. We need to expand outwards. Develop technology to venture into space and live on different planets. The current mindset of most people is humans are bad and we must lower birth rates but that goes against our evolutionary survival code. No species ever thinks to voluntarily curb their own population, its the worst thing to do for survival. In fact most of our issues today in society or politics boils down to this problem. Some people think the world is better off with lesser humans and are hence in a way anti-human and there are some who are pro-human and think we need to expand further.

Whether or not it's rude to recline is like the zipper merge debate of airline travel.

Should you stop and wait 500 yards before the point of merge because you think you're so respectful and don't want to "cut in line", or do you want to merge efficiently the way the road was designed to do and not be an idiot?

Everyone should just recline their seat. The person in front of you reclines, you lose 3 inches. You recline, you gain 3 inches.

The only ones missing out will be people who purchased seats at the very back that can't recline. They'll naturally cost less as there will be less demand (IOW, people who are willing to trade less space for a cheaper ticket).

If you're also 6'7 or enormous, I get it. You won't have space and people might not even physically be able to recline into you. But that's not anyone else's fault. Airlines aren't there to accommodate extra large humans. It's like morbidly obese people that almost everyone agrees should have to purchase 2 seats. Well, if you're that f'ing tall or big, move up to business/first class or buy the seat in front of you if being reclined into is such a big priority.

"I should have to do this and that because I happen to be really tall?". Yes, because no one should "have to" cater to your needs because they're around you. You adapt to your environment, not the other way around. Lucky if people are understanding and don't mind, but it should not be expected or demanded, and you're certainly not entitled to it.

​

​

Please help with this marital dispute.

My wife wanders around and does a leisurely tour of the house while brushing her teeth. She can't talk, she can't use her hands to really do anything, she can't spit the toothpaste out.

I tell her to GTFO of the living room and back into the bathroom where a civilised human being stays while they're brushing their teeth, and she rolls her eyes and scoffs at me and claims that this behaviour is somehow entirely normal.

Reddit, I am always prepared to change my view if I am in fact in the wrong. But free range teeth brushing is weird, right?

Religion is quite literally the equivalent of reading a fictional novel and implementing the themes and practices of the novel into real life. I don’t think it’s conducive to any sort of progressive thought. It’s also not conducive to personal growth when compared to modern alternatives. It just doesn’t do anything good for anyone (or any considerable amount/grouping of people) and it should be forgotten.

To clarify I don’t think we should interfere with anyone’s right to practice religion. When I use the word respect I’m using it in the sense that to respect something you give value to it.

First off, I want to say I love black people and have nothing against them, even though some people will probably call me racist and all… One thing that irks me however is the fact that black people can say anything negative about white people and it’s justified.

I often hear black people talking about white people in a negative way. How white people don’t know how to dance, that they don’t season their food, the way white people talk, that white people have thin lips among other things. Peronally, I don’t take offense at any of this except the thin lips comment (I’ve always been insecure about my appearence and lips is one of them), but it’s not really about whether someone is offended or not. I think it’s wrong in general to talk negativtely about a group of people, white people in this case.

I don’t see why black people being oppressed gives them the right to mock white people’s thin lips or the way they talk. However, I think for example the comment about white people not seasoning food is not that deep, I can laugh at it and don’t take offense (I also season my food lol), but I still find it weird how it’s okay for them to still make that comment though. Imagine if someone said something about the way black people cooked, that would be racist, but when black people do the same with white people it’s… justified? The other day I saw two black people on TikTok talking about being annoyed at when white girls are in the beauty supply store? Just why. Why is that okay lol? Sure, someone replied to the video calling it out but I feel like most white people would be scared to call these black people out for being annoyed at white people. Then these white people would be called racist or something.

I (20m) have made very few decisions that were very strong or bold or risky. I have always been told that risk is never worth any reward that it might entail if it potentially disrupts the status quo of how things are. I am not only incapable of major decisions, but I don't feel any should occur if I cannot be 90-100% sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it will succeed. In the concept of "high-risk/high-reward", the risk is almost never worth it, under any circumstances. Any decisions that I make with a reasonable timespan are carefully thought out, compared, analyzed, deliberated, and then decided on. There is zero point to excitement or risk if it comes at the cost of logic, order, or efficiency. I am open to understanding new perspectives based on this topic, however I will likely never become more open to risk-taking as there is no environment where risk is worth it. Status quos are infinitely better than change unless the status quo is objectively worse than the proposed alternative.

Edit: It has come to my attention from your responses to this post and my own reflection on how things are with my view on things, that my perspective is flawed. I am realizing there are, in fact, many things wrong with my judgement of probabilities and decisions beyond trivial, operational decisions. I will be pursuing therapy at some point soon and engaging in further self reflection to attempt to loosen myself and lower my standards. I appreciate your responses, and I apologize if I came across as headstrong or disagreeable at any point. Thank you for your feedback.

Hello,

I've thought this for awhile now and I understand some think my standpoint on this topic is flawed. But I have yet to find a in depth explanation as to why from friends and family.

I feel shoplifting from big corporations is a net positive, and a valid form of protest against price gouging for basic necessities. I don't see in a near-enough future a form of public outcry that could resolve this. When profit is down prices shoot up to compensate, and when those items aren't bought for those high prices (especially on top of this awful grocery inflation) the prices go down.

I also feel with food waste in general, produce and "damaged" food that's perfectly fine will go down when companies are cutting corners to make a profit

Multi billion dollar corporations pay starvation wages. When I worked at a big box grocery store, I was checking out customer's grocery's while hungry because my food stamps ran out. That shouldn't happen. My store a year previous had thrown truckloads of groceries into a dumpster during a power outage, having police guard it from people trying to dig in the dumpsters. (I live 20 minutes from Portland, rittled with homeless shelters that are overwhelmed and underfunded)

Jobs may be lost because of shoplifting, I see the loss of jobs as a risk vs reward situation. Regardless of what any political party says there are plenty of jobs available, just not ones that are deemed "do-able" to those used to retail. (Not saying retail isn't hard, just that These jobs aren't marketed as beginner friendly and easy THEN turn out being hell. They're marked as hard, and are hard) as buyer demand goes down profit then prices will go down. Prices can only go up so high as people will start skipping breakfast, eating plain diets, etc.

I understand my view point may be flawed as to one worker losing their job they don't care about the collective.

I don’t care how attractive you are, I don’t care if you’re a male model, the most hottest guy in the universe that you’re so hot even the sun can’t compete with you.

If you have bad hygiene purposefully, you are automatically a 0.

Yes, I know depression exist, and yes I know people can’t afford it. I’m not talking about those dudes, those guys who actually want to be clean but can’t due to their circumstances. I have so much empathy and no judgment towards them, and none of what I say applies to guys in these situations. And if you now a guy in this position, please don’t feel discouraged to help if you are able to.

I’m talking about the guys who literally don’t put any effort into their hygiene because they don’t want too, they are comfortable being dirty, and think it’s “masculine.” News flash, it isn’t. I’m in high school and there’s so many guys who literally smell like absolute dogshit, they don’t take showers, they never brush their teeth, there hair is never washed, clothes have food/drink stains on them, wears no deodorant, just fucking filthy. It’s even worse in the summer to because they sweat so now the stench is even worse.

And what I noticed, there’s two distinct smells. The first is what I call “boy funk.” Yes I did not create that term but I always heard it being used, and now I know what they mean. Because most of these guys have that “funk” I don’t even know how to describe it, but it’s just musty. The next being “DFO” standing for “Dirty, Feet, Outside.” You know when it’s raining or wet outside and you step in some dirt? Mix that in with smelly feet, and outside air and that’s what you get. It reeks, I physically cannot breathe that stank in for so long I’ll get sick.

We need to really teach these young boys/men about taking care of their hygiene, because this problem has been going on ever since I was a little girl. The boys in my class almost smelled weird, and it was normalized. Boys need to take care of their hygiene just as much as girls, they should be held to the same standard as girls are when it comes to cleanliness, skin care as well. Skin care is not “feminine” everyone regardless of their gender should be taking care of their skin, I’m tired of seeing guys show their routines and called gay in the comments by a bunch of boys because they don’t want pimples the size of pepperonis.

Good hygiene is for all!

Basically I want to hear more new music, but I have a hard time with the Youtube Music and Spotify discover algorithms and I'm not aware of any algorithms that would have a high success rate for recommending me new tracks. I think that might be in large part due to my fairly eclectic tastes. If you put my Spotify liked songs on, you would not be able to get a consistent vibe going for more than 5 songs. This means that I get recommended a lot of stuff that just doesn't click with me and sifting through too much noise for the few tracks that connect is quite bothersome.

Of course, another explanation is that these algorithms suck even for less eclectic tastes. If that's the case, let me know about your experiences with these algorithms.

Finally, there's a bonus view, that's tangentially related but related nonetheless, that there's not a good way to quickly sort through a pile of songs other than just listening to each one for at least 50% of the tracks time.

So if anyone else has eclectic tastes and is able to quickly discover new music, how do you do it?

Edit: Canada doesn't have access to Pandora so I'd have to get a VPN.

I was one of the lucky ones to watch it in theatres when it came out in 2015. I remember me and my friends were jaw dropped seeing gargantua on screen and it really changed my perspective of everything afterwards. I never really cared or was interested in outer space, but after that 9+ years later i never stopped learning about space stuff.

Really changed the way i see things and gave me almost a existential crisis about how small and insignificant we are. Of course movies like pulp fiction, goodfellas and godfather are great movies, but i feel like interstellar is overlooked because its in the sci-fi genre and no other movie has me feel the way i did while watching it.

This happens so often nowadays. Somebody uses some phrase that literally taken would be horrible but then when somebody predictably doesn't react well to the phrase they say they didn't actually mean it and blame the other person for interpreting that way.

I was thinking about this the other day. If they really didn't want to be provocative, they would just slightly adjust what they were saying. Instead of "men are trash" "some men are trash." Almost everybody would agree with that. "There are mediocre white men"- I don't like that word personally, but a lot of people would take no issue with the phrase and I agree with the spirit of the phrase.

It's not like men are trash or mediocre white man are important phrases that are attached to civil rights. They're just slogans and adding qualifiers would improve them significantly because there would be less confusion and less anger.

As always, I look forward to hearing other people's thoughts

I believe that despite the obvious piracy concerns, free movie websites offer a valuable and unique discovery experience for film enthusiasts. Here's why:
-Uncurated Selection: Free movie websites boast a vast and uncurated library, filled with hidden gems, international films, and cult classics. This is a stark contrast to the curated and often repetitive recommendations on paid streaming platforms.
-The Thrill of the Hunt: The lack of algorithms forces you to actively search and explore, fostering a sense of discovery. Finding that perfect film feels like unearthing a cinematic treasure.
-Accessibility & Global Reach: Geo-blocking is usually absent, allowing anyone in the world to access a vast library of films. This democratizes movie access compared to the pay-to-play model of most streaming services.
However, I understand the counterarguments:
-Piracy Concerns: Free movie websites facilitate piracy, denying creators rightful compensation. This is a significant ethical issue.
-Quality Concerns: The inconsistent quality of films on these sites can be frustrating, with grainy footage, missing subtitles, and potential malware risks.
-Not for Everyone: The "free-for-all" approach might not suit everyone. Some prefer a curated experience with high production value.
Here's where I want my view changed:
*Are there alternative solutions for film discovery that don't involve piracy?
*Can existing streaming services be improved to offer a more diverse and user-driven discovery experience?
*Is there a way to balance accessibility with fair compensation for creators?

I'm open to the possibility that my view on the benefits of free movie websites might be outweighed by the ethical and practical drawbacks. However, I believe the spirit of exploration and discovery they offer is valuable for cinephiles. What do you think? Can you convince me otherwise?

Please bear with the preamble to my view.

I'm horrified at the tens of thousands of civilians dead in Israel's campaign in Gaza. I recognize that Israel has a right and need to defend itself to prevent something like October 7 happening again, but I don't see how they can realistically destroy Hamas through military action alone and there has to be a better way than leveling all of Gaza, killing 30+ thousand people (most of whom are civilians), and driving many thousands more out of their homes and to starvation.

I also don't support the restriction of movement and basic necessities in Gaza going back decades before October 7, or the illegal settlements and bulldozing of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

All of this is preamble to say that I am aligned with much of the pro-Palestinian cause and would like to protest for it, but I've seen too many instances of those protests involving hate towards Jewish people in general, not just criticism of the Israeli government. I'm half-Jewish on my dad's side, so I don't identify as Jewish but cannot condone antisemitism, especially not sentiment specifically in favor of Hamas.

I can recognize the difference between legitimate criticism of Israeli government actions and hatred towards Jewish people. Unfortunately I'm seeing some of both getting mixed together by different groups of protesters at for example the Columbia University protests; I live in NYC so these are relevant. I don't think that the presence of a few fringe elements should discredit an overall peaceful protest movement, just as I don't think a relatively small number of looters discredited the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests I joined in. But I am also mindful of the adage, "If you have 10 people and 1 nazi sitting at a dinner table and willingly eating together, you have 11 Nazis." I would never want to be that 11th Nazi.

To change my view you could:

• give reasons why it's more important to protest for Palestinian rights even if it gets mixed up with antisemitism
• show that the most toxic people in these protests are no more widespread than the most toxic people in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests
• show ways that I can determine ahead of time what protests will disavow antisemitism. I have been heartened to see some calmer protests happening in NYC separate from these college campuses, with significant groups labeling themselves as Jews for a ceasefire, I have hope these protests would not condone antisemitism

For context: I have a bachelor's in evolutionary biology and I am working towards my masters in the same.

Every time I hear someone try to disprove either of these theories, they use inaccurate information, strawman arguments, and other science to disprove these ideas that were confirmed using the same scientific method.

Some examples: I will hear people who don't believe in evolution say things like "evolution is just a theory, so it isn't a fact." Which is a terrible argument because the word theory in science is used differently than it is used in every day conversation. A theory is a hypothesis that cannot be rejected because all of the data and research indicates that it is true. Gravity is a theory, germ theory is a theory, plate tectonics are theories, this argument is never used against any of those theories, so it seems incoherent to use this argument against evolution.

"Microevolution is real, but macroevolution isnt." For the sake of this argument, people will say that microevolution is the changes within a species that occur from "something" to allow for adaptations to ensure survival and reproduction in an individual, but this could never happen on a larger scale. For some reason people who argue against evolution seem to think that random mutations don't make sense to them, therefor they cannot actually happen. I'm not exactly sure what mechanism they think drives microevolution, but they don't think it's mutation. On top of that, what mechanism would allow microevolution, but stop macroevolution from occurring? (Also, these two terms "micro and macro" evolution are meaningless because it is the same thing just on different time scales).

"You cannot see evolution in real life, so it can't be real" i have personally witnessed evolution in a lab setting multiple times whether it is looking at bacteria evolving and immunity to antibiotics, or looking at drosophila changing their genes over generations. We also have plenty of examples of populations being cut off due to some sort of weather event, or man influenced event which lead to massive changes in the phenotype of these organisms. One example is a group of anoles who were separated by 4 islands and each population evolved different traits. Some had longer legs for running on the forest floor, some had large, sticky toe pads for living on large leaves and in trees.

How to change my mind: demonstrate that you do not believe in evolution, but you understand what it is and how it is taught. As well as, describe why you do not believe in it.

I would have thought this was a pretty common sense idea, but after having some discussions in subs like r/FluentInFinance, I'm surprised to see how many individuals there are that think someone working under 8 hours at their salaried job is a mortal sin.

The 8 hour work day is a guideline at many jobs (obviously not counting jobs like retail, restaurants, etc. that work in shifts where you must work from Time A to Time B) but I see so many people on reddit saying that if you're working even 15 minutes less than that guideline, you deserve to be fired (see this post).

The way I view a salaried job is that they assign you a role and responsibilities. Why should it matter how long it takes you to fulfill those responsibilities/deliver requested deliverables if you're fulfilling them in a high quality, timely manner?

As some people point out - there is always more work to be done, and I agree with this. But if the company wants you to do more work than is defined within your responsibilities or deliverables, they should be paying you more to reflect that.

Work to live, not live to work. We should be favoring opportunities that allow us to work less and I'm disappointed to see so many people villainizing people who are able to work less than 8 hours a day, and claiming they're somehow abusing the company.

Curious why people are so eager to be slaves to a company they don't owe anything extra to - you're being paid to do the work, you're doing the work in less time than 8 hours. As far as I'm concerned, that extra time is your's to do what you wish.

If we'd say theres 10 billion people on earth (which wont be the case for some more years) and we gave every person 100 square meters we could still fit everyone inside the state of alaska so space is not an issue..

The main problem (to me) seems to be our incapability of handling resources.

There's more cattle on earth than every other land dwelling animal combined (by mass) and we have to feed them all just for a small portion of people to then eat that cattle. So there would be enough food for everyone as well if we wouldnt feed that food to our food.

Money is a big problem.. or more precise, the fact that we allow 1% of the people to own almost 50% of the money and we dont even try to counteract that by maybe taxing inheritance or even capping it at like 5billion bucks or whatever. we just watch how they accumulate more and more of the total wealth while we just print and print more making our money worthless while they always keep enough to keep things as they are.

quick fact: before WW2 there was this Rockefeller guy that owned half of the money. today its not 1 guy but 2000 people (everyone owning more than 1billion) but its the same effect. Buying power of many currencies in first world countries is at a similar level as 1930. Procentual amount of private people holding credits compared to companies is at a similar level and many other indicators as well that tell me (im a mechanic so I dont really know too much about that stuff) that we are getting to a point where the only thing saving us is either we get our shit togethet and start sharing wealth with everyone or 1/4 of the population has to die like last time. Obviously i know that, like last time, they wont share and its easier to get rid of a large junk of humanity.

So in conclusion: world is not overpopulated but we are to much people for the world we created. please CMV because I get shit on everytime I try to have a discussion about this.

Some actions aren’t fun, I argue they’re not worth doing.

2 things are really needed to be considered :

A. Will it bring gratification, in the future or now? If so, is it worth the struggle?

B. Will it avoid unpleasantness in a manner that is a net positive?

Video games are a quick way for easy gratification and are effective at doing so, I as a result spend most of my available free time playing video games, as it falls under A, and as it also avoids the boredom that would otherwise come, it also falls into B.

Something like the long-drawn boring 40 hour school week is unpleasant in the form of boredom, and an action like reading a book to pass the time, is not particularly enjoyable compared to things like video games, but it will avoid whatever unpleasantness drove you to do said activities, meaning it will fall into B.

At this point I’d say “if it isn’t fun in some way, it isn’t worth doing”, but then I would likely run into the “what about avoiding unpleasantness?”

For example, taking melatonin during the day is not enjoyable, but say, your computer malfunctioned and it broke. Sleeping this off would otherwise be a waste of good time that could’ve been used to maximize happiness, but in this case, falls under B by avoiding unpleasantness, and is a worthwhile action

Tasks such as work or school, are not enjoyable, and therefore not worth doing, It guarantees future gratification but is overall a negative due to the future gratification not sufficiently making up for the boredom already experienced, as the boredom itself was a negative that cannot be dodged. If is is necessary to sustain life, as in the case of working, then it simply means life isn’t worth the trouble.

The state pushes/already has nothing but unconstitutional bills that mostly aimed at being big government. For examples :

1.) The recent pornhub controversy
2.) the Death Star bill aimed at local governments from passing progressive laws ( Austin federal judge ruled unconstitutional )

3.) getting a state Supreme Court involved with a women having a life threatening dead fetus seeking medical care.

This just scratches the surfaces of unconstitutional bills and actions introduced in this state

Other than cultural significance, it's hard to understand the point of chopsticks and I'm having a really hard time thinking of something that's eaten with them that isn't significantly easier to eat with a fork.

To be fair, this view might have spawned from a date I went on once upon a time with an old gf in which she used chopsticks and I had to ask for a fork because I didn't know how.

It made me think on a broader scale that anytime an invention is created that achieves a purpose in a much better or easier way for the same or similar cost, the older, less effective invention should be phased out, so feel free to debate that point of view as well.

I don't want my life to be made public in front of hundreds of thousands of people especially if I am not the one in control. But if I was born in 2024 and my parents were TikTok influencers then I wouldn't have had the choice. I wouldn't publish detailed intricate stories of my friends or coworkers including their private information, likes and dislikes, and most embarrassing moments without their permission.

At the very least, it should be taboo to post pictures/videos of children until they are about 3-5 years old and can speak in full sentences (Ideally I think the age should be more like 7 because even if a 3 year old can speak, they are unlikely to understand the implications of the Internet and social media). Before that they cannot agree to whether they want their lives public on the Internet or not. Children are people not belongings and should be able to exercise their right to privacy until they are old enough to speak and have their own opinions.

One of my friends is a mother who is the parent of two young boys (13 and 11). But if you saw her social media profiles, you would think that she only had one son (the 11 year old). The 13 year old is an introvert who is very camera shy and doesn't like to be the center of attention. The 11 year old loves being on camera and making vlogs. I absolutely love how she waited until her boys could develop their own personalities and respected their individual choices instead of sharing everything from the get-go.

I know this is an extremely bleak and cynical view, but I've become convinced that the evolution of humanity on this planet was a terrible mistake of nature. Our supposed “higher intelligence” and ability to be self-aware doesn’t mean jack in light of the sheer scale of destruction and devastation our species has wrought.

We have mercilessly exploited and ruined previously pristine environments and ecosystems across the entire globe, driving countless other species to extinction through overhunting, habitat loss, pollution, and climate change. We behave as the most unrelenting, insatiable, invasive species ever, multiplying unsustainably and leaving a path of ruin everywhere we spread. And that’s not to mention what we do to each-other.

Our existence serves no higher purpose other than to consume and destroy everything around us in a vain attempt to fuel our continuous growth and perceived "progress." All the beauty and artistry we've created pales in comparison to the ugly omnicide we are committing against this planet's incredible biodiversity.

Objectively, the world would be better off had humanity never emerged from the primordial ooze. I realize this is an extremely harsh view that implies humanity has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I am struggling to find much evidence to the contrary when I look at the bigger picture of our existential impact as a species of rapidly-multiplying, mindless consumers. Perhaps there are perspectives I am overlooking or failing to consider? I am open to changing this view, but it would require a compelling argument. Appreciate any and all respectful responses.

I enjoy watching debates. I like hearing different points of view, seeing how people arrive at conclusions or how they back up their beliefs. I don’t really think that debates change any minds in the moment but I do think they help those listening conceptualize where different sides of an argument come from.

I will also say that by and large the debate format is broken. Anyone who watched the Republican primary debates, for example, were just a shouting match. There was 0 attempt to lay out an idea it’s just who can shout the talking point over the others, longest.

I think that debates should have mute buttons controlled by mods or by the audience or something. The notion that people can just shout over one another is just absurd. I think a lot of people don’t really like debates because they aren’t actually debating. People should be on mute by default until it’s their turn to talk.

Renowned MLB players, like Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and many others, all admitted to doping during the so-called ‘Steroid Era’, 1994 to 2004. A bump in the historical batting average of these years indicates steroid use was rampant during this era.

I have long believed these players to be nothing more than blatant cheaters and shouldn’t be considered for the hall of fame, but many of my friends argue that a majority of MLB players were doping at the same time, so the skill needed for these players to excel far exceeds the raw power provided by steroids and other PEDs.

Would love to hear people’s thoughts on the contrary argument.

Historically it's been shown that Republican tax plans have contributed more to the deficit due to the favorable advantage they have given to large corporations and the very wealthy. Wouldn't it be fiscally conservative to have a progressive tax rate to minimize borrowing and fund programs and initiatives- i.e. veterans benefits, social security, military & defense, Medicare - that voters from both parties want to see funded?

The only accurate thing I've seen Republican politicians do wanting to run the government like a business is taking on debt. We can't search all corners of the Earth for defense spending and foreign aid, complain about federal borrowing and give the largest tax breaks to the highest income earners.

The “colorblind” narrative is inherently harmful, and Black people (as well as many other non-White/leftist groups) have been saying so for years. It’s essentially pretending that society is meritocratic (it isn’t and meritocracy isn’t even necessarily “good”) as a way to ignore the effects of systemic racism and efforts to correct the disparities it has made (and still makes) in society.

For example, proponents of "colorblindness" in hiring (no DEI) would say that the market takes care of racist companies on its own, since a non-racist company will always have access to higher-quality labor at a better price. This would imply that the market is entirely impartial (it’s not) and isn’t operating in a systemically racist society (it is). The market is a system like any other in society - it can be influenced by a myriad of factors. This is one of the reasons why meritocracy is bullshit. The same argument is used by supposedly “progressive” non-Black (but mostly White) groups to disparage affirmative action, DEI, reparations or any form of restitution that will (at least in theory) benefit non-White, but especially Black people. They even use so-called “model minority” groups like Asians to push this agenda (this is not a judgment upon all Asians). Promoting civic nationalism/monoculture in a society that clearly practices systemic racism, even at the highest levels of power, only serves to aid in destroying subcultures (i.e Black culture) without ever addressing the core issues in the first place - aiding the promoters/enforcers of systemic racism.

In short, people who earnestly say they are "colorblind" (and are not attempting to hide their racism behind a veil of "impartiality") are inadvertently acting exactly like the liberals/moderates that MLK talked about in his Birmingham Address - the “fox” to the right-wing “wolf” that Malcolm X mentioned.

EDIT: For some clarification for a few people here, there is a difference between being ”colorblind on a systemic level as opposed to an informal individual/small group level. You can be colorblind on an individual level - or even in certain small groups where relationships are informal and friendly, or there are serious efforts to root out systemic racism + serious consequences for any violation to your position in the group - but in any form of larger social system, colorblindness is harmful (I.e. Forrest Gump having a Black friend with which he has informal, friendly, “colorblind” relations with is not harmful. A well respected professor at an institution that makes great efforts to root out systemic racism who grades essays “colorblind” is not being harmful. An anti-DEI CEO of a large corporation claiming that his hiring practices are “colorblind” IS being harmful).

At a time where the election is this close and Biden desperately needs young voters, Biden just put the nail in his coffin for reelection by signing the TikTok ban. I understand youth turnout is always very low, but one reason Dems didn’t get murdered in 2022 was because of TikTok. He was also losing a ton of youth support because of Gaza, but he is now the face of taking away something that the youth love spending their free time on.

After congressman Jeff Jackson voted in favor of the ban, the reaction by his fans was brutal.

On top of that, for the year TikTok has to find a parent company to find a buyer, all there is going to be even more videos flooding TikTok blaming Biden for TikTok, on top of the anti-Biden videos blaming him for Gaza, justified or not.

This was a huge political miscalculation that even the most amateur political advisors could have warned Biden about. The signing of the bill could have easily waited till after the election. This was a huge victory for Republicans and Trump, not because they gained voters, but because they are encouraging left leaning youth to simply just stay home and not vote. There was no political upside to Biden not signing, but there is massive downside to him signing.

Typically it is socially not acceptable to make fun of someone's religion and their religious beliefs.

Yet all religions are is really a collection of extraordinary (often totally outlandish) claims about the nature of reality, but without the need to back those claims up by scientific evidence.

So a guy or a group of people make some pretty outlandish claims without presenting any real evidence, typically this involves a higher being (or higher beings), they gather a large following, their followers write down their claims and stories, pass them on throughout the generations .... and an organization is born around those claims and stories .... which we call religion.

And I'm not even trying to make a case for atheism here. If someone were to simply say " I think there is likely a higher being for reasons XYZ..." that's one thing. But religions make some very specific and outlandish claims about who they believe that higher being to be and claim to have direct messages from said higher being, but don't see the need to provide any real evidence.

Holy books contain stories about how the higher being told its favorite people to destroy cities and even kill babies and mothers, how the higher being wants people to be put to death for working on Saturdays, how the higher being watches everyone but does not like it when gay men have consensual s3x, and the higher being wants women to be obedient. There's special messangers, called prophets who are in direct contact with the higher being, and it has happened some of special those messengers caught a ride on winged horse to heaven. And the higher being likes to really show off sometimes, so it/he/she does things like turn water into wine or help people walk on water. Religions regularly claim totally outlandish things that completely go against everything we know about physics and how reality works.

I'm not saying one should deliberately pick fights with religious people. But somehow it's the societal standard that when the topic of religion comes up you should be respectful towards someone's beliefs and not point out how ridiculous their beliefs may be.

So if someone told you they're a follower of religion XYZ and told you what they believe in, it would be considered very rude to call them out and tell them you think that their religion is nonsense or immoral. Yet we don't apply the same standards when it comes to other worldviews. For example if I met someone in a pub and they told me they're an anarcho-capitalist, most people wouldn't consider it extremly rude and totally unacceptable if I went like "no offence but I think anarcho-capitalism is stupid, tell me why you would support that". Yet if I said the same about Christianity or Islam it would be considered incredibly rude by most people.

Change my view. Why should it be less socially acceptable to mock and ridicule religion than it is to mock and ridicule other worldviews (e.g. communism, socialism, capitalism etc.)?

I am an atheist myself and my understanding of secularism is that it's a separation of state and religious institutions, in the sense that politicians should not decide on policies based on what religious institutions say. It also advocates for no religion being favoured or discriminated against within the state apparatus.

However, there seems to be a separate understanding of secularism that I'm not familiar with, one that explicitly favours atheist or irreligious behaviour. This is especially common in France and other parts of Europe, where in recent years religious dressings and symbols of various kinds have been banned in public spaces, including burkinis and potentially kippah. I do not understand why this doesn't go against the belief of liberalism. Women who choose to wear these attires or people wearing certain symbols are not posing a threat or threatening someone else's rights, so why are they not allowed to wear them? The basis of allowing these attires is not of religious origin, it's the foundational belief of the right to freedom of expression. It's strange that I am allowed to wear neon wigs in public, but if someone else founds a religion that has neon wigs as part of its religious expression, I'm banned from doing so?

I also see a lot of similar sentiment amongst a subset of younger atheists, where they will champion the suppression of religious expression, especially those of the Islamic faith, even if such expressions do not violate the rights of others or have a political motive behind it. For example, in the latest prayer ban saga in the UK, a lot of responses from the public are focusing on religious expression in schools in general, like how Muslim students shouldn't be allowed to pray, or wear hijab, and so on. There is this lingering atmosphere amongst younger atheists that religious folks should not be religious and should abide by atheism.