So I think moral courage and physical courage are teo completely separate things. And that there really is no such thing as moral courage as a virtue.

Instead, moral courage is simply the strength it takes to be virtuous in other ways. To be honest, caring, kind, helpful, self assured, and so on.

If you don’t have the moral courage to be those things, that I think it’s a weak second to say that you’re a virtuous person because you’re always on time or you return peoples things after you borrow them.

There are different degrees of being a good person in this world, and they are not all equal.

What is the psychology and reasoning why people who do not like you dont admit that to you directly? When you confront or address your feelings they tell you one thing. But their actions say something completely different.

This could be family, friends, people you met, or anyone between. As someone who is straight forward and direct I never can understand why be fake toward someone?

Is it that the person enjoy the feeling of having access to that particular person?

Is it due to what other people can do for them at the moment and they dont see value in you at that moment?

Is it hard to be honest with other ppl out of fear of a back and forth argument or drama?

Or

Is it that they have a underlying issue with you but do not want to admit or address those issues or know how to voice them out?

Horror culture and stories found across many cultures often include humanoid creatures with deformed features and (for us) unnatural/unusual styles of walking which makes people uncomfortable/causes fear. One idea is: I recently read that around 50,000 years ago, different species of apes like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus, lived at the same time. The confrontation with these other humans could have caused early Homo sapiens to develop an instinct for recognizing differences between the species and could have triggered an evolutionary fear or distrust of Homo sapiens-like but not fully Homo sapiens creatures. Also, they are often perceived as ugly or cause disgust in some way which seems like a result of the same effect.

What are your thoughts on that?

I come an immigrant family, and had an interesting conversation at lunch at work. Everyone who was from an immigrant country said that when they go back to poorer areas after having lived in America, or made some money, that people can just tell.

Whether it's Jamaica, Serbia, the Philippines, everyone had the same experience. So I started wondering why that is. You can put on the same clothes as everyone else. Both your parents are from there, so genetically, you're the same. You've lived there before, so it's not totally alien.

What exactly is it about your mannerisms or tells that makes someone more priveleged stand out?

I mean, unless they manipulated/coerced their kids into mass shootings, what would be their crime?

For buying or allowing their kids to have guns?

Just because i like someone?

Someone who does what's best for everyone else even if it costs it?

Someone who does what's best for some faction (some humans rather than all)?

Think of all movies you've watched, fiction, happenings, ... when someone seemed good to you, then come up with response.

Is it binary? Is it a spectrum? Is someone more good? Less good?

Are intentions, actions good? Or is the individuals good?

What other adjectives can be associated with it? Kind? Benevolent? ...

What are different difficult scenarios that challenge the concept of good? Making it seem absurd, over-simplistic.

For a while now, I’ve been mulling over a pretty controversial question: Should everyone really have the right to vote? From a young age, we’ve been taught that democracy is the best system, a fair process where everyone’s voice counts equally. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what if not everyone is actually equipped to make such important decisions? What if some people, despite having the right, are simply not capable of voting in a way that benefits society as a whole?

Let me explain where I’m coming from. I live in a country where the majority of the population is manipulated by the government, driven by deep-seated biases—sexism, racism, religious intolerance, and misogyny. The education system is in shambles, leaving people uninformed about critical political issues. Every election, this majority chooses leaders who mirror their own prejudices, and those leaders, in turn, reinforce these biases, keep the population uneducated, and use fear tactics to scapegoat minority groups and neighboring countries. It’s a vicious cycle where the majority elects leaders who cater to their worst impulses, and as a result, real progress is held back.

This leads me to my controversial thought: What if we restricted the right to vote to those who are truly informed and unbiased? Imagine a system where only individuals who pass a "citizen exam" are allowed to vote. This exam wouldn’t measure intelligence, but rather values, awareness, and tolerance. It would assess whether someone harbors prejudice, whether they’re informed about key issues in their country and the world, and how they stand on topics like equality and education.

Those who pass would be granted the status of “good citizens” and earn the right to vote. This “good citizen” title wouldn’t just be about voting rights—it would become a symbol of honor, something people aspire to, inspiring others to become more informed and open-minded. The idea is that if only the informed, tolerant, and morally responsible citizens could vote, we’d elect governments that prioritize equality, education, and real societal progress. Policies would be driven by rational thinking, not prejudice or fear.

But here’s the biggest flaw in this idea—and it’s one I can’t ignore. The majority—those who wouldn’t pass such an exam—would never allow this system to happen. People don’t like being told they’re unfit or incapable, especially when it comes to something as personal and fundamental as their right to vote. The majority will never admit that they’re not qualified to make decisions that impact an entire nation. They’ll fight tooth and nail to protect the current system because it validates their voice, even if that voice leads to the election of corrupt, oppressive leaders who harm the country in the long run.

It’s a painful reality. Most people don’t want to face the possibility that they’re part of the problem. It’s much easier to blame others—to point fingers at minority groups, immigrants, or neighboring countries—than to accept that perhaps their own biases and lack of awareness are holding society back. This is why such a system would be nearly impossible to implement, because the very people who would lose their voting rights are the ones who have the most power in a democracy.

Even if, hypothetically, we could implement this system, there’s another huge risk: corruption. If a corrupt government were to manipulate the "good citizen" exam, they could rig the process to favor their own supporters. Imagine if the exam questions were designed to only pass those who share the ruling party’s ideology. Or worse, the criteria for being a “good citizen” could be manipulated, allowing the government to redefine what it means to be a qualified voter in a way that only benefits them. In this scenario, the exam would no longer serve as a tool for fairness, but rather as a way for corrupt leaders to stay in power.

That’s why it’s crucial that the citizen exam board—the body responsible for overseeing this process—remains completely independent and unbiased. They would need real power to resist political pressure and ensure the system stays transparent. Without these safeguards, the exam system could become just as flawed and corrupt as the current state of democracy, where leaders pander to the uninformed masses to win votes.

In the end, while I believe this theoretical system could lead to more responsible governance and a more informed electorate, I also know that it’s highly unlikely to happen in reality. The majority will never admit they are unqualified, and even if we could somehow implement this, the system could still be hijacked by those in power to serve their own interests.

So, here’s the question: Is democracy truly fair when everyone has the right to vote, regardless of their knowledge or biases? Should voting rights be something that’s earned, based on a person’s understanding and moral responsibility? Or does such a system pose too many risks of corruption and power abuse?

I know this idea is provocative, but I think it’s worth discussing. What do you think? Is democracy, in its current form, really as fair as we’ve been led to believe? Should we rethink who gets to vote, and if so, how can we protect such a system from being exploited? Let’s talk about it!

I don't think one can NOT use the Internet and technology, but it's been quite a challenge to find the best ways to do so. While I love the Net and its infinite potential, the hazards are plain to see.

I'm sure people know some figures - there are 100 games on Steam every month, 8 million hours of content on YT a day, etc etc. I've used 25 dating apps with nothing to show for it. And each time you ask an expert, they disagree with another one.

I'd say that the vast majority of content on the Net is repeated information or low quality...but there are gems out there.

I would also assert that you can't live in a hole and pretend streamers, Vtubers, Onlyfans, Twitch, NFTs and other things don't exist and don't impact society and the world. I actually stopped working with my long-term therapist because her lack of general knowledge regarding everyday life and society began to impact our sessions badly.

Personally, I almost never use social media except for FB and Reddit. There is just not enough time to check Telegram/Kik/whatever etc etc etc :)

I welcome quality discussion about this issue, as I am always looking for ways to spend time and energy wisely.

I know this is one of the questions humanity can't really answer, but just to give an example...

Some people like Harry Potter, some don't. There are some people who dislike Citizen Kane despite it being "the best movie" The list goes on. But yet there are awards of all kinds for various kinds of art, and workshops like Clarion.

I was once at a convention in which the publishing lead admitted in front of hundreds that "I've been doing this for 25 years, I can't tell you what books will sell and which won't"

Should we all just write what we like? What objectively dictates what art is "better" or not?

For the past few months I have been invested in a sort of idea of self improvement. I would like to see myself become more self aware of everything and have more life skills. There are some usual stuffs in the stuffs that I want to improve, like gaining confidence, social skills and all that. But I have been thinking about whether I should always make conscious efforts of improving a thing. Or just deal with things as they come in life? Let us say I went to some trip and I faced some mental issues that I understand can be dealt with in some way. Should I deal with then? Or should have i just thought deep about my traits earlier and improved them? The question is should I keep pinpointing the areas where I lack and improve them or just deal with certain issues that I face after only when a situation arises. Ik that my articulation is bit off. This is because I have been thinking about this issue a lot today and i certainly feel brain fogged and blocked cause of it. I hope you can understand the point.

This is a thought I’ve been forming thanks to my studies in computer science.

Our professors also discuss this topic from time to time during lessons. One of our professors gave an example: suppose a Moroccan woman (don’t ask me why he was so specific) needs to make requests at an embassy to get some documents approved.

With the transition from paper to digital, she cannot easily access this embassy service, but must necessarily go through IT interfaces to upload the documents.

If she doesn’t know how to use the technology, how can she upload the documents? She must necessarily rely on an expert.

So what has technology solved in this example? Nothing, it has only created problems and hasn’t sped anything up.

Technology should be inclusive, but in reality, it excludes those who use it, because it’s designed for people who already understand and use it.

Let me give another example, one that might clarify the situation, especially for those working in this industry.

Take a web programmer. Today, a web programmer doesn’t need significant prerequisites to get hired by a company. This is because the industry has “frameworks.”

For those who don’t know what frameworks are, imagine them as gigantic libraries. In these libraries, you can find “common operations” (imagine them as books) that are useful for executing web applications.

So, to become a web developer, you just need to learn these standard operations without understanding what’s actually happening inside them. In short, they use the “book” without knowing what’s written inside.

How does this connect to the case of the Moroccan woman? Well, a web programmer has the illusion of creating something, but in reality, they’re just taking something pre-built and reconfiguring it to create a specific web application.

This also creates the illusion of technological progress, but that’s a topic for another day.

A web programmer is more of a user than a creator of technology, just like the Moroccan woman trying to request documents from her embassy.

What happens when something in the framework breaks? Framework users can only wait for the bug to be fixed, blocking all infrastructures that depend on the framework.

What’s the moral? No one really knows how technology works anymore, not even those who work directly with it.

In this way, people become slaves to technology because they are dependent on it. Without it, they can’t work.

You might ask: “But who develops the frameworks? Do they control the technology, or do they also depend on other technologies and only know how to use those?”

The answer is the latter. Frameworks themselves depend on hundreds of thousands of dependencies, each solving a specific problem.

What’s the result of this? In this web of software depending on other software, it’s like a domino effect. If one piece falls, everything falls.

Here’s an example: a package called “left-pad” consisted of just 11 lines of code.

The author, in protest, removed the package from the web, and suddenly, a wide range of applications stopped working.

Essentially, technology now exists to support itself, and no one really knows what it’s built on anymore.

New programmers don’t care about learning how things really work because “there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.”

But in reality, the wheel must be reinvented as many times as possible because there isn’t a universal version of the wheel. There’s one for snow, one for the city, one for off-road, etc.

Each context needs an optimized version.

If the “general-purpose” wheel stops working, you can rest easy because your version, optimized for your personal purpose, can only break within your specific use case.

And since the use case is controlled and circumscribed, a problem can be easily solved.

This argument might seem delirious today, but in 10, 20, 30, or even 100 years, it will become more true.

Fewer and fewer people (especially newcomers to this industry) will understand how things work at a foundational level, and everything will seem random or even “magical.”

One day, something fundamental will stop working, and everything will collapse.

As fewer people understand the basic elements, these problems will become harder to solve.

In summary, to avoid becoming slaves to technology, it’s essential to understand how it works at the deepest level possible.

But one question remains: how do we help the Moroccan woman access technology? We need to design simpler and more accessible solutions.

This also applies to those working in technology. Frameworks are too complex; we need something simpler, and end users will benefit from this as well.

Only knowledge can save us, so always stay curious. :)

I (31F)'ve had a very tough five years. I'm still in the process of freeing myself from depression and CPTSD-like symptoms and recovering some sense of well-being and direction.

Looking back to these five years, there are three main causes of my suffering:

1. Life happens
2. Human relationships
3. Human mind and body

The first is obvious, we are in a game we have no control of and that can change the rules any time. It's pre-programmed, and it doesn't care about our well-being or survival. We do.

The second might be obvious, but it still surprises me how people think that the solution to their problem, more often than not caused by their relationships: parents, partners, friends, etc, is more relationships.

The third is a tough lesson to learn: the mind and the body truly have a life and a memory of their own. Thoughts and feelings come into our awareness instead of us being their authors. We, in the seat of The Observateur, observe how things play in our minds and bodies but have very little control of it all. People need a locus of control and so create narratives like 'Let go of everything you can't control, focus on self-control', which are bullshit as demonstrated by neuroscience, physics and philosophy. An example is when you intellectually understand something as natural. Still, it emotionally breaks you and even takes you to look at life differently, in some cases, to end it all.

Lately, I've realised that I'm much happier and stable when I focus on my relationship with the world - as an anonymous system with many human faces but without too much attachment and profoundness to avoid unnecessary damage - and my relationship with my dog.

I no longer believe in love and friendship, beyond a romanticisation that has little to do with reality.

There are rare exceptions that are unlikely to apply to 99% of humanity and under this basis, and being myself in that 99%, I have realized that the above is a better and healthier way forward.

I came here to hear about the experiences of people who also arrived at this logical conclusion and actually took it to its limits, which is to say, they actually lived it.

Axios reports "Americans' top concern around misinformation right now — more than foreign government interference or AI — is politicians spreading it to manipulate their supporters, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll."

Why it matters: The election is 40 days away and nobody trusts or believes anything.

I don't think this problem is solvable in the near future because the ultra-rich controls the flow of information. In the US, Money = Influence and I don't think it can be fixed because our society is based on Free Speech.

I think that this less than favorable situation is similar to the Trojan Horse because it's an issue that wasn't realized until it revealed itself.

Just always wanted to know what people would think

How much government do you want in your life?

What should a government's first priority be?

Are people inherently give certain rights?

I need an answer to this for an assignment for government class. Mods please accept, I read the rules and it doesn't say "no politics" anywhere.

Quick preface: I posted this on r/asksciencediscussion and the post got locked overnight (it probably wasn't sciency enough, which is fair), so I thought I'd try here. It's a controversial-ish topic, I guess, so please let me know if I'm breaking any community rules. I didn't see anything in the rules, but I could have missed something!

A colleague, whom I happen to really like and respect, has been bamboozled by a "doctor" who posted this big long article about how "vaccines cause autism." The article /appears/ to be backed by actual peer-reviewed papers and studies, but when I looked at a lot of "sources" provided in this article, I found all kinds of issues. If an actual study or paper was linked, the author misquoted a lot of them, drew parallels that didn't exist, or just used completely irrelevant studies to "prove" their point. Of course there were also a bunch of just bad "sources" (like other articles written by the same author, or other conspiracy theorists). If you're just scrolling through, it has all sorts of graphs and links and could vaguely appear credible, but when you actually try to follow the logic, it doesn't add up.

Anyway, my colleague shared a link to this article (which I'm reluctant to share but I can if it helps). The whole antivax thing really kicked off for him during covid, and now he's convinced they all have like metals and poison or some shit, and he's afraid to have his daughter vaccinated. He said "you'd understand if you were a parent" and he's stuck on the whole "we don't know what's in them" thing. I literally went through the article line by line and made a bunch of notes about how wrong it all is, and I was about to send it to him but I feel like it won't help him to connect the dots.

I wish there was a simple, elegant way to just disprove the entire stance. He's a relatively smart guy, and I feel like he'd listen to reason if it were in such a way that helped calm down his deeply emotional response. So, I guess that's what I'm asking for. Have any of you ever successfully brought someone back from the dark antivax side? How did you do it? Any advice or thoughts?

I was on a holiday in Rhodes and I was wondering how people live in places like this. How do small business owners (corner shops, mini markets on the beaches) live the rest of the year? One thing I was thinking a lot about is how do pharmacists live there? Were they born there, went away to university and came back? I guess these places don't close when it's not tourist season? Or there is always enough tourists to keep them running? If I were to go on a random Thursday in the middle of November what would it be like? What's life like outside of tourist season?

If stuck in a post-apocalyptic world like in “A Quiet Place” would it more ethical to attempt to raise your family in that world that will most definitely remain miserable for the remainder of their lives or to pull a “The Mist” ending? I can’t even imagine the heartbreak in either scenario, but in terms of “what would be best” what are y’all’s opinions?

Let's say you realize that this world is just a game like GTA and your body is just a character in this game that you control remotely. Like a game, whatever happens to your character in this world be it good or bad, it doesn't affect the real you in any way. You neither get any enjoyment nor any disappointment by playing this game but still, you have to play this game. In that case, how will you make your character live the life? Will you do good things, bad things, or just go with the flow? In this situation, it seems you neither have any reason to do anything nor not do anything. What will you do? What's your logic?

I want to know if other people struggle with this too. I began to realize how weird life and human beings are. When I was younger i completely thought life had meaning and it actually matters what you do in life. The older I got i started to realize how everything you do on this earth is weird and useless. I mean music? Just weird sounds we like. Movies? Just people acting and it being captured. Car rides? Just moving from place to place. I think you get my point. I completely hate thinking about how the world works but I can’t not think about it with everything I do.

I mean, was there ever someone in social power who was interested in grander vision than nationalistic, which is factional vision? Like making humanity multiplanetary species, discovering cure to cancer, constructing awesome cities, architectures, ... rather than interested in waging wars, being tribalistic, ...

Such a primitive culture it seems we currently live in. I wonder if in the future, they'd find it shocking, how territorial apes, small minded these humans have been. Rather than achieving great feats, they spent their lives in puny matters, dividing among each other, quarreling, ...

Why do humans keep electing, or humans with factional interests have been ending up in social power position? We fail to elect individuals like Carl Sagan, those who study science, universe, & elect those who study political past, you did this, you did that, ... so now WE will do this, or WE want this. Why can't "we" include all of us rather than just some humans against all others?

I’ve heard some people advocating for the abolishment of copyright and all the benefits that could have, but obviously the biggest concern is whether people would be getting paid for their art, coming up with the new inventions, developing software, etc. The most common response I’ve heard is that artists would first have to develop some free stuff to make a name for themselves, and then afterwards would be able to just switch the order of how they monetise their content. Just put a target of how much money they’d like to make before they’d release their content.

This has some benefits, as artists get their money before developing their product, so it’s safer as they’ll never spend resources developing a product that isn’t successful. But this also creates an upper limit to profit.

Furthermore, on the consumer side, this could create cashgrabs, but also could incentivise creators to take some risks, which is beneficial in the long term.

Would this work in reality? Are there any other alternatives that would work if we abolished copyright?

On one hand the government has no business telling two consenting adults not to have sex. But what if the prostitute has been trafficked and doesn't count as consenting? Will legalization affect human trafficking?

I realize this is a big topic with no easy answer. But with Google, forums, Reddit, Discord and the millions of things out there, it's sometimes difficult to determine what is useful or not.

For instance, there is no point in Googling "Best Discord servers for xxx" because there is no way to really know which is the "best" - all servers will say they are :)

I have definitely found great information on Reddit and some Facebook groups., However, I've also found lots of spammers and useless content. Some people do not set out to mislead - it's just that they may have had wildly differing experiences.

Generally, I look over the forum in question. If the general tone is ok - respectful and helpful - it's a good sign. If not, well...it takes about 5 to 10 minutes of intensive reading to get the "Feel"

I'm always looking for ways to get better at this, especially as it often becomes a case of "who watches the watcher" (you can Google Glassdoor and Trustpilot reviews, but are they trustworthy or paid?)

Was talking about random stuff with my family over dinner and I was talking about some neat stuff I'd been looking at recently about what the initial human habitation on the moon will probably look like, the various strategies put forward by the big companies, etc, and my family members just flat out don't see the point of any of it. The basic sentiment from them was, "What are you gonna do on the moon? What's the point? There's no atmosphere, water, food, it'll never happen and I don't see why anyone should care anyways. We should take care of the planet we have." A quote from one family member was, "Sure that stuff is good for sci-fi but they're never gonna be able to do that and who gives a shit, there's nothing there".

How do you answer to that to someone who doesn't see the point of expanding beyond Terra? Without going all nuts and bolts on the technical implementation details, since they don't or won't care or understand. How do you convey "the point" of getting humans off Earth to someone who thinks it's all pointless pie in the sky malarkey? What's the elevator pitch of why humanity should expand into more of our solar system?

Alcoholics who I met in real life usually could barely do anything when they were in the binge or even if they just drank a lot - and definitely they never were able to perform any complex duties.

On the other hand, casually reading about many alcoholics who are C-suite and top politicians (I'm originally from Russia so Yeltsin is a person who I think first, but there were also many like this on lower levels too) it makes me wonder - how did they ever climbed that high with this addiction and how did they stand on top for so long? Because again, I can't imagine any alcoholic who I know personally to be able to navigate any complex political situation and not be deposed in a week.