As it stands currently, hunting waterfowl with a shotgun larger than 10-gauge (0.775") is currently illegal everywhere in North America, however changes in firearms technology has rendered these restrictions functionally obsolete. These regulations should be removed to allow individuals to use historic large-bore fowling guns for hunting.

The regulations surrounding the use of large-bores, at least my hypothesis anyway, is attributable to one man: Fred Kimble. Fred was an incredibly prolific market gunners & successful live-pigeon shooter from Pioria Illinois, as well as arguably being the inventor of the choke-bore shotgun. In 1872 Fred Kimble had a 6-gauge (0.919") muzzle-loader made to his specifications, and with this gun he went on to kill thousands of ducks and win dozens of competitions. As a result, competition organizers prohibited guns larger than 10-gauge, and with the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 every single state & province in North America passed a similar prohibitions in their hunting legislation, making the use of 8-gauge (0.835"), 6-gauge (0.919"), and 4-gauge (1.052") guns illegal.

However, guns of this era were loaded substantially lighter than they are today. Today the most popular cartridge for waterfowl hunting is the 12-gauge (0.729"), with a typical 3" case being loaded with 1-1/8 oz. to 1-1/4 oz. of shot or a 3-1/2" case being loaded with 1-3/8 oz. of shot. In the 1890s, a typical 12-gauge would have been loaded with 1 oz. to 1-1/16 oz. of shot, with some authors like S. T. Hammond suggesting in his 1898 book Hitting vs. Missing with the Shotgun that charges as light as 5/8 oz. was the ideal weight for this calibre. Likewise, Fred Kimble was known to load his 6-gauge gun 1-1/2 oz. of St. Louis #3 shot over 6-drams of black powder, which are essentially identical to the 3-1/2" 10-gauge I cartridges I use today. A typical London made 8-gauge for that era would have been loaded 2 oz. of shot and a 4-gauge would have been loaded with 3 oz. to 4 oz. of shot.

While these big-bores have some unique benefits & advantages, by the numbers they're not so substantially better that they'd have any meaningful impact on waterfowl conservation efforts, nor would it be likely for them to become particularly popular to begin with. Browning, the last manufacturer of 10-gauge shotguns, has discontinued production of their 10-gauge guns as of early 2024, so it's unlikely that you'd see new production of the large bores other than on an extremely bespoke custom basis. There are practically no downsides to allowing their use, but allows people like myself the joy of shooting them as historic curiosities.

Generally I feel sad for service dogs because when they are out they are always , or at the least usually, working and we all know how much dogs likes to go out and play. Then usually their owners don’t allow people to pet them . Some service dogs owners are especially taking this to next level. Just yesterday I saw this girl (online) who had a service dog for…autism . And her service dog was basically just acting as a emotional support dog (even she herself said her dog used to be a ES dog before )

And then she was getting all mad when people wanted to pet her dog. Come on now. Your dog isn’t even doing a job which he shouldn’t get distracted . So why he isn’t allowed to get petted ever? and then she takes her dog to everywhere and then gets upset because of all the attention dog gets makes her anxious . Sorry but if you get anxious by extra attention last thing you should do is bringing a dog to school with you 😭 anyway this one was just one example, I saw so many people acting like this , but the be honest I really don’t think not letting the dog get petted even for a second most of the time is necessary.

Not defending the show in anyway. It's bad.

I just keep on seeing this take that Velma was woke nonsense and even some people claiming it was "anti-white". This mostly stemming from what the main character says or does.

This however confuses me because the entire show seems to depict the titular character as awful and hypocritical. People seem to understand that almost every character doesn't like Velma and the shows moral seems to run counterintuitive to basically everything she says. In fact any character who starts talking about societal issues were shown nearly exclusively in a bad light.

If anything the show was anti-woke.

You could maybe change my view by showing me how someone watching the show could see Velma as positive or how it's messaging would lead to them promoting progressive stances or maybe even prove that the anti-wokeness was more due to incompetence instead of purpose.

Insect? Bug. Arachnid? Bug. Hemiptera? Bug. Worms? Bug. Crustaceans?... I mean essentially water bugs but neither here nor there for the argument of this post.

I do not give a single barf what google or the scientific community says. An entomophobe is very likely to have arachnophobia as well. Whether the BUG in question is creepy and crawly, fly and flutter, or wiggle around, or lay eggs in a nest or in another host: a BUG is a BUG.

H*ck, the ultimate criteria for a bug is if it was featured as a character in a BUG's Life. I rest my case.

Bill Belichick (72) and his girlfriend (24) was the inspiration for this post, as well as my own experience dating significantly older men.

I believe large age-gap relationships are fine. Generally there are a few points I see people make about them being bad and immoral:

1. They have nothing in common

Let us say you are a 21 year old navigating social dynamics. Is it not possible for you to interact with people in a friendly way that isn't within 2 years of your age? Do you not have tenured middle-aged professors you've had great chats with before class starts, or younger nephews you give mentorship to, or an older diner waitresses that you always share a laugh?

It's bizarre to say that if someone isn't in to the exact things you are, you can't get along with them. Add on to that that we can have interests outside our specific generations. Music like Diana Ross would still hold up for someone who like Dua Lipa. Old classic movies and new streaming series can still be shared regardless of age.

Meanwhile, your partner doesn't have to be in to anime for you to watch it, and you don't have to be in to football to appreciate their interest in it. Heck, there is actually something very wonderful in sharing new things with your partner that they would not have discovered on their own.

2. They can not possibly be physically attracted to each other

Taking specifically the older-men, younger-women dynamic:

The appeal of the younger beautiful woman to an older man is obvious. I don't need to go in to too much detail about how our culture prioritizes youth and beauty. While many human's attractions do change with age, many still are going to find a young attractive model....attractive, independent of your own age.

So let's look at the younger woman's attraction to the older man.

If society values youth and beauty, we then scorn the older and conventionally less-attractive. Taking the 72 year old Bill from earlier, to say a woman could not be attracted to him in any situation outside of being paid for is equivalent saying he is ugly and undesirable with no exceptions. His value is solely in his bank account, and he is a bad human being with a black Amex card.

But I don't think that is the case. There are many beautiful men in their 50s and 60s and 70s. You'd be hard pressed to find many women that wouldn't at least admit there is some attractiveness in a George Clooney or Hugh Jackman or Pierce Brosnan type regardless of their age.

That's just on a physical level though. Attractiveness extends beyond aesthetics. The successful CEO/doctor/lawyer fantasy is not based just around their money, but their status. Accomplishments and fame and drive is sexy.

3. Someone is exploited

We've established that two people with a large age-gap can have overlapping interests and hobbies and conversations to share, and that two people can be attracted to each other for a variety of reasons.

Why do we scorn them for enjoying it?

3.1 To protect the younger person

Speaking as a younger person who has dated older, this is the trickiest one. Many older people that are in to younger can be emotionally stunted or controlling/abusive. However, many older people in to other older people are emotionally stunted/abusive too. The biggest difference comes in the power dynamic: limitless wealth will always have more power to marionette someone with no finances.

If that was truly the issue though, we would be pro-caste system and only approve being in a relationship within your tax bracket to ensure all are on equal ground.

Or, we think a 24 year old is incapable of making any personal decisions. Unfortunately, no matter age, people "do not know what they don't know" and will never be able to gauge their own emotional readiness accurately. The problem is that people then extend that ideology to a ~30 year old as well because people are grossed out by the numerical and physical difference more than the maturity difference.

3.2 Because it's shameful it's just for money

For the sake of the argument, let's throw away everything I've written about attraction and just assume it is a financial transaction. Why is that wrong? The younger enjoys fine-dining, fancy Galas with fancy clothing, and seeing the world. The older enjoys sharing that with someone. They both have a smile on their face and isn't that the whole point of enjoying the short time we have on this earth?

Final note: I have dated older men (45-70) since I was around 18, now in my late 20's. I had wonderful experiences and I have had awful nightmare dates. The wonderful experiences have made me the happiest person and shown me the world. In the future I plan to only date men roughly within 10 years of my age as it is more in-line with what I am looking for in a long-term partner.

I do not believe most 18 year olds, or people in their 20s, can be equipped to handle intense and committed relationships with older people for a variety of reasons. However, to write off all age-gap relationships stems from an ageist culture that believes older people are disgusting third-class citizens undeserving of being found attractive or prioritized.

(this argument assumes there is no scarcity for the drug, and that me using it would not prevent others from having access to it or raise prices)

If the health issues due to obesity are greater than the side effects of ozempic then the patient should take ozempic. There has been a tremendous amount of hate for this drug from both extremes of the "fatphobia" spectrum. On one side you have the extreme anti-fatphobia crowd that thinks ozempic is bad because there is nothing wrong with being fat, and on the other end you have those who genuinely hate fat people thinking ozempic is wrong because you should have to lose weight the old fashioned way.

Most people sit somewhere in the middle on that spectrum. So do I. Drugs are neither good or bad. All that matters is their effects, and ozempic has shown astonishing clinical results in weight loss. Think most people would agree obesity is a big public health issue in our society (or maybe that's a CMV for another day). I don't think it's morally wrong to be fat, but I don't think it's good for you.

Personally I want to stop being fat for both health and aesthetic reasons, and I don't think that should be moralized. While it is not a huge priority in my life right now, I'd love to go on ozempic if it could help me lose weight. If I lost some weight it would be so much easier to be active and live a genuinely healthy lifestyle. And I would feel better about myself. I don't see what the big deal with "doing it right" is. I acknowledge that there are some side effects but those side effects pale in comparison to the hit to my quality of life caused by obesity. I have tried many many times to lose weight "the right way" to no avail. I have since learned to feel okay in my body, but tbh I would be a lot more comfortable if I were 100lb lighter. (26yo 6'4" 350lb male for anyone who needs to know). As I get older my weight is going to affect my life span. If going on ozempic could add years and quality to my life why shouldn't I use it?

I know a lot of people will say "it could have side effects we don't know about yet," but I don't find that convincing. Everything could have side-effects we don't know about yet. Being obese has side effects I do know about and experience right now. I view this argument the same as I view anti-vax arguments: the FDA's drug screening process is a lot more reliable than my unscientific intuition.

Edit:

On the argument "when you stop taking it you'll gain the weight back"

I would be willing take it forever. And even if I couldn't, I just want to be healthy and active while I am young at least for a little while. My chance to do that is slipping away.

I haven't been a healthy weight since before puberty. I have never been athletic. I want to try sports and actually be good at them. I want to be able to run without shame and pain. I want to feel good when I look in the mirror. Even if it's temporary I want just a little time like that.

This argument alone cannot be dispositive. Being healthy for a little while and then going back to being fat is better than having been fat the whole time.

Edit 2:

I find it hilarious that I have explained multiple times how I managed to lose weight and keep it off when I lived in a different country with conditions that made it easier to make healthy choices and instead of trying to help me find solutions based on what has already worked, many brilliant health experts in the comments are suggesting "no, ignore that. Keep everything in your life exactly the same but just start doing diet and exercise. You lack the willpower? Well stop it you silly goose. It's actually easy if you aren't such a pathetic loser."

I didn't really set out to make this post a referendum on me, personally, but go off if it makes you guys feel better.

For context, Harry Kane is a professional soccer player and he was arguably England's best player.

The thing is that he has not won a major team trophy with England or any team has played on.

He has won ceremonial trophies like the Audi Cup and Tiger Cup, but those are ceremonial trophies hosted by outside corporations and not considered "real" trophies by most soccer fans. Soccer competitions are complex so I'll spend a good amount of space defining it.

This CMV is about the idea that Kane will never win a team trophy in a certain set of categories defined as real by most soccer fans and not what is a real trophy, so I'll define it for the purposes of the CMV. It's defined as a trophy given for finishing 1st in either a domestic league or European-wide or domestic knockout cup competition (so think English Premier League, Bundesliga, DFB Pokal, FA or Carabao Cup, UEFA Champions League).

I'll also add single game end of season competitions that are a result of winning a team trophy (which would disprove this CMV outright), but also can be entered as a second place team if the 1st place winner of the league and biggest national cup competition are the same time, so the English Community Shield and German Super Cup as far as Kane is concerned.

For reference, in Germany this season and before next season, the club team trophies he'd be in contention for are Bundesliga (league competition), DFB Pokal (knockout cup competition), German Super Cup if Bayern qualify and he remains with them throughout the summer, and the UEFA Champions League (Europe wide).

Of course, internationally, any trophy in a non-friendly based competition works, so that would be UEFA Nations League, the Euros, or the World Cup.

Now, for a somewhat shorter section of why he'll never win, I'll say that it's because he's come close so many times and never won it, and that shows that he simply does not have the mentality needed to secure a full on competitive team trophy.

He's been to two English League Cup (current Carabao Cup) finals and lost. He's lost a Champions League final. And he's lost 2 Europe finals with England. That's 5 competitive finals he's lost.

Ironically, as far as the season long league competition goes, his highest finish ever is ... second. So, that's a lot of competitions where he's finished second basically.

What this tells me is that individually he's a brilliant player. His individual goalscoring stats for Tottenham Hotspur, England, and Bayern Munich (his current club in Germany) are amazing and he has been top scorer in these competitions and has multiple individual trophies, but at the age of 31, he has not one team trophy in a non-friendly tournament.

If he hasn't figured out how to win one at 31, I don't think he realistically ever will. He may finish second multiple times, just like he did with England this last Euros, but imo it's too late for him to put himself together for winning one now.

I'll acknowledge that it's not fully his fault per say. He spent the bulk of his career with Tottenham Hotspur, which were never a clear top team like Liverpool during COVID or Man City, but even if it's not totally his fault, he had time to switch out to a more stacked team, which he'd have easily qualified for given his individual stats.

Now, in his 30s, he is on a team that had won the league 11 years straight before he arrived, before failing to win any trophy for the first time in a decade plus when he played his first season. That further hammers home the point that Kane has missed his best chances at a team trophy. Even when he finally got his chance at a super team, it was during a year when other teams were finally able to get on Bayern's level after so long.

He still has a solid shot at winning a major team trophy, but my prediction is that he retires as the best player of the 21st century to never win such a trophy.

I am tired of seeing the complaints online. Rodri deserves it. Here's why:

At the core, the Ballon d'Or is about 3 criteria: individual performance/ decisiveness, team success and fair play.

1. Individual Performance: Vini had a solid 7.36 in 49 games, but Rodri more than 0.5 ahead- 7.89 across 63. In decisive games, yes Vini dropped a hat trick in the Supercopa Final and went off in the UCL Final, rating 9.0 and 9.5. But Rodri also had his moments- especially in the Euros (e.g. comeback vs Georgia) and Premier League decider vs West Ham (9.0). Winner: Rodri
2. Team Success: Both bagged league titles. But Rodri added a Euro trophy, while Vini brought home the Champions League. City's record? They dipped from 2.6 points/game with Rodri to 0.8 without him in 4 games. Vini’s influence was from 2.58 with Vinícius to 2.25- it's big, but Rodri's absence is felt across the team. Winner: Rodri
3. Class and Fair Play: Rodri's professionalism and class speaks for itself, but Vini led a worldwide push against racism- IMO what he's doing is more impressive than a humble post match interview after defeat. Winner: Vini

Net net, Rodri edges out on performance and team success for the year. I genuinely don't think it's about racism like we're hearing from the Vini camp. I think the inverse- he was genuinely not the better player, but a better advocate in football.

Wdyt?

Every Friday, posts are withheld for review by the moderators and approved if they aren't highly similar to another made in the past month.

​

This is to reduce topic fatigue for our regular contributors, without which the subreddit would be worse off.

​

See here for a full explanation of Fresh Topic Friday.

​

Feel free to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns.

I feel like a lot of people act like being able to fart infront of your partner is some sort of sign of peak comfort, when I think it just depends on the individual and what you and your partner are ok with. Same honestly goes for not wanting them to fart infront of you. Accidents aside because obviously getting upset or shaming someone for an accident is just mean and unreasonable. But I’ve always felt like I will never fart infront of a partner. I don’t mind if my partner farts around me at all, in fact my boyfriend farts infront of me every day. I have just never farted infront of him because I don’t fart infront of anyone. I choose not to fart around him. I feel like whatever you’re most comfortable with is what you should do when it comes to this.

And if someone is especially grossed out by farting, it’s ok if they don’t want a partner who farts a lot. If you are a gassy person just date someone who is gassy too or who doesn’t care if you fart around them on a somewhat regular basis. I also think it depends on how you grew up. My partner grew up with a family who fart around each other regularly, meanwhile I can’t recall a time I’ve heard my family members fart. Not in a “never fart that’s horrible” way but just in a I can’t really remember anything having to do with that, even if I try. So I’m not a huge fan of farting infront of others, and it makes me feel more attractive to not have my boyfriend be aware of me farting. He on the other hand was quickly comfortable once he knew I didn’t mind because he grew up around his parents doing it. I just feel like a lot of people I see act like it’s some supreme sign of comfort and people are making themselves uncomfortable if they don’t/wont do it in there partners presence. This is definitely not the most serious post, but it’s been on my mind for the last 20 minutes or so after seeing something that reminded me of it.

It certainly seems like a lot of people have been discussing the college recently, and always, in my view, with the incorrect framework. I think that there are somewhat sound principles behind having an electoral college, but there are two fundamental contradictions within it, and neither are addressed by those who favor a popular vote.

The first of these contradictions (and I'll get to the other one quite a while later) is that the electoral college as currently implemented tries to synthesize a system that wants to be about the states and tries to make it about the people. If you offer people in every state a weighted vote, there is going to be a natural tension between those that favor the weighted part and those who seek to dispel it, which is more or less the course that the argument runs these days— between those who feel it protects 'small states', (however ill generalized they often are), and those who think that's not needed.

While I will say that I think that this question of proportionality doesn't matter to whether the college is a good idea in principle, on the contrary the other part of that formulation, the "voting" part, often gets accepted as a given. I think that if we are truly focused on keeping states central to the process, this is counterproductive. But why care about states?

—————————————————————————————————————————

A personal adage that I've adopted is that a country cannot be large, centralized, and democratic. They can and often are two of the three, but it's impossible to truly encapsulate all three attributes. 

Democracy, being measured by the question of "do the people rule," is easier to answer in the affirmative in smaller polities. If you live in a town of 5,000 people, you know your mayor and the major political players in your community, and can probably approach them fairly directly with any concerns that may arise. Being a single government, it is democratic and centralized, but not large. A country of 15 million people is definitely far less democratic in that sense, but you still likely can have some decent amount of influence if you really seek it out. Once you get to a country of 300 hundred million though, I would argue that the degree of involvement that a normal person could have vanishes more or less completely, assuming that everything is run from an overpowering central government.

As power thus gets transferred to lower levels of government, centralization declines, but because those governments have fewer people, individuals in these subdivisions of the larger polity are closer to their governments, and therefore in a large country there is an inverse relationship between democracy and centralization, generally speaking.

This is more or less the main argument for devolution, and for states and municipalities to be generally more involved than the federal government, but I think that having the illusion of a national election— let alone having the real thing via a National Popular Vote— directly undermines this by presenting people with the illusion of democracy in a country too large for it to exist in a tangible way. You can disagree with that desire, and want an national vote because you do believe in the promise of a strong central government, but if you are really about state power then you ought to acknowledge that even having a vote at all is undermining one of your central tenants in this way, and that letting states decide the president by legislators appointing electors that aren't your responsibility is better for state autonomy.

—————————————————————————————————————————

So that's the first contradiction; the second is that the electoral college is a compromise between parliamentary and presidential democracy, back in a time when modern conceptions of a semi-presidential system didn't exist yet. Once again, you can disagree over whether or not parliamentary or presidential democracy is better, but given that I'm going to argue the former is, then the electoral college by virtue of its origins is a much better starting point for such a reform than the popular vote is.

The original conception of the college was against the backdrop of parliamentary democracy. The original idea that was settled on was for Congress to choose the president, and this was something that both the large states and the small states agreed with. This was eventually decided to invite too much intrigue, and there was a notion that the president had to be kept separate of Congress, and the final version of the electoral college was principally a way to preserve the relative voting power that the states would have had were the President to be elected by a joint session of Congress,

Of course these days there are a lot of perfectly functioning democracies that elect their head of government through the legislature, and a lot of them work significantly better than the American system. The chief reason for this is that they are truly giving the most important power— that of forming a government— to a more representative body.

When you elect a president, it is a winner take all system, in that the winner of the electoral college wins all of the executive branch, which these days is where most of the policy actually takes place. If you don't win the presidency, all you can do is try to stonewall the government's agenda— you can't actually form a government of your own.

This becomes additionally apparent in the midterms, when the president's party often loses seats. If a party loses the popular vote in the House by 5% during the midterms, how can they claim that they still have a popular mandate? How can we justify giving all the power to one party when there is another national election in the middle of the executive's term, that ends up becoming more about blocking the executive than getting a good government installed?

This, I feel, is one of the fundamental problems, but then you also have the question of representation. As I said, whoever wins the presidency just controls the government, and the minority party is shut out of the executive branch. Even if you aren't going to see political rivals appointed to cabinet positions in a parliamentary system at the very least they still have seats in the legislature. The only difference between electing someone who wins the popular vote by 2% or loses it by 2% (via the college) is that one in 50 people are going to be happier, but that doesn't change the fact that you are still shutting out half the country from having any real voice in the government, because of how powerful the executive has become. 

This also gets into the question of third parties. Other countries have regional parties that are able to gain representation and negotiate with the major parties. Sometimes third party support is even needed for parties to form a government in the first place, in other countries. Because the US President is a single person though, any similar arrangement is essentially impossible even if we were to have viable and independent candidates.

—————————————————————————————————————————

The chief issue with the college is that it buys into the lie of presidential democracy. It is not that it is unrepresentative of the popular will— that will is in any case too complicated and fragmented to ever be represented by one ticket. If anything, the fact that there is a popular vote at all is a mistake, because it creates the illusion of voter responsiveness that in reality is extremely minute. Campaigns are mostly won by whoever spends the most money in the right places, because individuals who aren't exceptionally well off can't have any real influence when the constituency has 300 million people in it.

I'd say that ideally, the best form of government for a country this large would be a loose parliamentary confederation. Handle what can be handled at the local level, and let congressional representatives run the show, that way the degree to which each part of the country is represented is proportional yet tangible.

And if that is the goal, then going to a popular vote would be an almost intractable mistake, because it takes us further from such a representative scheme, by denying that there could ever be advantages to indirect, state-administered elections deciding who the federal government should be run by, and abandoning it to a system that's ostensibly equal but is in reality invariably oligarchical.

While Parliamentary Democracy is an ideal of mine, letting states choose the president makes some sense in theory, and if done properly could encourage us to focus on the levels of government that really ought to matter— those where the people, the demos, can functionally create a multiplicity of more democratic societies than the national one we currently operate in.

So just to get my own biases out of the way, I would like to note that I already voted for Harris and this was the first presidential election I have been old enough to participate in (I was still 17 back in 2020),

So I personally believe that Donald Trump is going to win the Presidential Election and I personally don't even think that its going to be close, I personally suspect that Trump will likely sweep every swing state this election alongside winning all of the expected states, Feel free to focus in on just 1 specific reason for this view or do all of them at once though.

1. Trump outperforms the polls - So in both 2016 and 2020 Trump exceeded the polls by a significant margin, according to 538 In 2016 Clinton was expected to win the rust belt + Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada yet only ended up winning Nevada and losing the rust belt, she also was expected to win by 4% of the popular vote but in reality only won by 2%. In 2020 although Biden was expected to win and indeed won he still preformed far worse then the predictions as he was expected to have also won the states of North Carolina and Florida and he also preformed worse in the popular vote being expected to win by 8% but only ended up winning by ~5%.

Because of this its clear that Trump tends to out preform overall polls by ~3% point each election and as of now the electoral forecast both in 538 and Nate Silvers forecast have Trump winning the election and the margins in the popular vote would technically mean that Trump would win the popular vote, something that would effectively make a democrat win in the electoral college impossible.

I also understand that the polls in 2022 generally tended to underestimate democrat support or were even decently accurate but I don't think that this is at all indicative that the polls are any different this time as democrat support in the 2018 midterms was likewise much closer/underestimated as compared to the presidential election.

2. Alan Lichtman is wrong about the Keys - I feel its important to address this specific point but overall I understand that Lichtman has been pretty correct about his election predictions and has predicted a Kamala Harris win, however I generally believe that his view of the keys is incorrect, as of now he predicts that 4 of the 13 keys are against the incumbent party however based on my own view it is actually 8 of the 13 keys that are against the incumbent party

a. Long/Short Term economy - regardless of the objective status of the economy its clear that most Americans do not feel that the economy is any good, over 60% think the economy is headed in the wrong direction and just as many think the US economy is in a recession, this is the first time in history that sentiment about the economy has so totally decoupled from the actual economy and thus has to be taken into account with regards to voter sentiment.

The other 2 keys are foreign millitary success/failures - Pretty much all people regard the pull out from Afghanistan as a Failure which flips that key and there aren't any foreign millitary successes to speak of, Ukraine is already losing the war against Russia due to lack of millitary aid and Israel has effectively started a war with the entire middle-east specifically due to too much millitary aid. The foreign policy has atleast in public opinion been a disaster and thus those 2 keys also fip against the incumbent party.

3. Early Voting Data suggests a Republican Landslide - So I understand that 2020 was unique in its situation, republicans heavily demonized early voting and thus there was a massive swing of republicans against early voting so its inaccurate to compare the data in 2024 to the data in 2020. However objectively republicans are far more likely to vote regardless In Person on election day, as of right now democrats only lead in early voting by just 1% which is hardly the margin that would be necessary to account for the republican wave at the polls on election day, Its also important to note that early voting requests are apparently 14% in favor of the democrats which generally seems to mean that democrats simply aren't enthusiastic enough to actually go through with voting as they are significantly underperforming these margins as well.

I'm fully aware that young people tend to vote in favor of democrats and that they tend to also vote a lot later in the voting cycle meaning its likely that young voters are underrepresented in current data, however as of right now just 17% of votes are under the age of 40 whereas 44% are over the age of 65, generally boomers significantly lean in favor of Republicans, it was also in my opinion a tactical blunder on Harris's part to label herself as a "new generation" of leadership, but based on voting trends gen X and earlier generations simply wont vote meaning this only serves to alienate the majority of the voter base.

I will admit re-reading this that Its clear I come off as very cynical about the situation however I'm willing to change my view if (although not exclusively if):

1. There is evidence that the early republican vote will heavily defect from Trump and that this level of defection would offset any level of defection from the democrat side.

2. Independents/Undecided's would vote significantly in favor of democrats over republicans in a way not seen in 2016 or 2020

3. The methodologies used in polling were changed In a way that would somehow underestimate support for democrats in a way that was not the case in either 2016 or 2020.

4. That American sentiment about the economy and foreign policy aren't nearly as bad as the polls would suggest or that these specific polling methodologies are misleading or wrong.

Materialists often try to solve the problem of 'consciousness' (the enigmatic subjective experience of sense data) by claiming that consciousness might simply be the inevitable outcome of a sufficiently complex material structure.

This has always struck me as extremely odd.

For humans, "Complexity" is a concept used to describe things which are more difficult to comprehend or articulate because of their many facets. But if material is all there is, then how does it interface with a property like that?

The standard evolutionary idea is that the ability to compartmentalize an amount of matter as an 'entity' is something animals learned to do for the purpose of their own utility. From a materialist perspective, it seems to me that something like a process of compartmentalization shouldn't mean anything or even exist in the objective, material world -- so how in the world is it dolling out which heaps of matter become conscious of sense experience?

'Complexity' seems to me like a completely incoherent concept to apply to a purely material world.

----------

P.S. Clarification questions are welcome! I know there are a lot of words that can have multiple meanings here!

EDIT: Clearly I needed to be a bit more clear. I am making an argument which is meant to have the following implications:

• Reductive physicalism can't explain strong emergence, like that required for the emergence of consciousness.

• Complexity is perfectly reasonable as a human concept, but to posit it has bearing on the objective qualities of matter requires additional metaphysical baggage and is thus no longer reductive physicalism.

• Non-reductive physicalism isn't actually materialism because it requires that same additional metaphysical baggage.

Changing any of these views (or recontextualizing any of them for me, as one commenter has so far done) is the kind of thing I'd be excited to give a delta for.

Let me begin by acknowledging that I understand that the opinion I am going to present here might be one of the most controversial to ever land on this subreddit. For starters, it is extremely un-American, as it seems to directly flout what many would argue is the founding principle of the country—that “all [people] are created equal.” While this raises a valid point, I do not believe that traditions should be honored when there are superior alternatives. I also recognize that, if implemented, the system I am proposing would be extremely vulnerable to corruption by unethical actors, in a manner similar to how literacy tests were used to disenfranchise people of color in the past, hence the “theoretically” in the title. Therefore, I am not necessarily arguing that it should be implemented, but merely that it would prove more effective than our current system should it be implemented fairly.

With that important disclaimer out of the way, it is now time to outline what I am proposing. I believe that a large part of the populace is, quite frankly, unfit to vote, and does more harm than good to the country when casting their ballots. I believe that every US citizen should be subjected to 3 cognitive ability tests and 3 emotional intelligence tests (i.e., empathy selection tasks; empathy quotient tests; etc.) once every four years. It has been well understood for years that “cognitive tests are well-standardized, contain items reliably scored, and can be administered to large groups of people at one time” [2]. Furthermore, it has been shown, as evidenced by [1], that empathy can be reliably tested. By weighting the average of 3 tests for each, we minimize volatility risk, so as not to disenfranchise somebody based on poor performance on one test. I believe that the cost of this testing program will be mitigated by the increase in governmental efficiency brought about by the presumably more competent candidates put into office by a more capable electorate. The key idea I am proposing is to weight people’s votes proportionally according to which percentile their combined score falls into. For instance, a voter whose combined score falls in the 80th percentile will have their vote weighted eight times as much as a voter whose combined score falls in the 10th percentile, who will have their vote weighted twice as much as a voter whose combined score falls in the 5th percentile, and so on. The candidate whose weighted votes combine for the highest total wins.

It was only through observing the last ten years of American politics that I eschewed my earlier view—that the vote of every citizen should count equally. Seeing large swaths of the country repeatedly vote against the electoral interests of both themselves and their communities, many seemingly only to anger or harm others, has made me embrace this new, radical vision for the electoral process. In my opinion, people with higher cognitive capabilities and a greater degree for empathy will vote more for their own interests and the interests of their communities. Such voters should beget better representation, which in turn will beget stronger outcomes.

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9514084/#:~:text=EAS%20is%20a%20valid%20and,educational%2C%20and%20other%20interventional%20purposes.
2. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/other-assessment-methods/cognitive-ability-tests/#:~:text=Traditional%20cognitive%20tests%20are%20well,of%20people%20at%20one%20time.

When officials and congresspeople are elected by majority vote they have a huge incentive to use public funds to buy votes to remain in power, and when so many people rely on that money extreme partisanship is unavoidable, and it always ends with a more and more fractured society along fake ideological lines that are actually a facade to protect economic and political interests.

If officials were elected randomly there would be no point in using public funds to consolidate power and partisanship wouldn't be a mean to stay in power and control public funds.

I personally am pro-choice. Please don't make this screaming about assumptions regarding my personal views. This isn't even really primarily about choice vs life, it's about how both sides treat and view each other. I understand that the choice vs life debate is part of that discussion though.

Pro-life people are often vilified and thought of as in opposition to the values that lead someone to be pro-choice. Meanwhile the values that lead someone to be pro-life are ignored. I fully and completely understand why pro-life people are so adamant in their stance: they think babies are being murdered. If I also thought babies were being murdered, I'd try to stop that too.

Let's say someone is religious, they believe in souls or some variant of a spiritual existence beyond the physical body. Given this belief it is reasonable to say "Yes, an unborn baby has a soul and therefor is as valuable a life as any of us". So abortion would then be baby murder. This isn't something that can ever really be compromised on. If someone believes in souls then it's baby murder, I totally understand why they don't want "Just a little baby murder for people who choose to have abortions".

This also applies to things like "her body her choice", because if you believe in souls, then it's the baby's body who does not get a choice. If you do not believe in any spiritual extra-physical existence, then ya I agree her body her choice. Really all benefits of a pro-choice outlook have to be directly weighed against baby murder, and so are obviously less valid to pro-life people.

To me this is not, and really has never been, a feminist vs anti-feminist, or right vs left, or any us vs them argument aside from "Do you believe an unborn baby is as valued a life as a born one?" which frequently becomes a matter of personal views on religion and spirituality.

I haven't re-examined this viewpoint in a long time. Typing it out here I feel re-convinced that despite my personal pro-choice stance, both sides are virtuous. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.

If you are a white male you are least likely to be demonized and impacted by the mostly white males who are elected. Also, the richer you are the easier it is for you to vote, and the least impactful policies will be on you.

The older you are the more free time you have, culminating with retirement, and the least impacted because of higher accumulated wealth and a shorter time to live.

The less educated you are and the more in need of government services you are, the harder it is to find the time to research and vote.

There are many more examples I’m sure.

This theory seems solid. CMM?

I want to start this out by saying I am not some kind of “head in the sand” parent who thinks only some kids are capable of getting into trouble or pushing boundaries or exploring certain topics. I don’t believe in the “not my kid” mentality. What this post is more about is the parental actions some parents take to enable activities that in some cases are illegal because they believe their child is safer due to their involvement or even worse, it makes them the “cool” parent.

The top two topics that come to mind (but I am open to discussion on other things and having healthy conversation) are sexual activity and alcohol consumption. For the purposes of this point of view, I am mostly talking about teens that are below the legal age of consent and/or below the legal drinking age.

I 100% believe in sexual education and understanding of how the body works, how pregnancy occurs, how disease spreads, and how to protect against it (I am sure I am leaving nuance of education out, but all education is good education if it leads to safe practices IMO).. I also believe in drug and alcohol education and talking to my kids about effects, situations, addiction and family impact, etc.. and on both fronts building a relationship with them that keeps the door open to talk or make a phone call for help, no questions asked. When it comes to sexual education I would encourage my kids to wait to have sex with a committed and loving partner that they see a long term relationship with, but also that it is ultimately their decision and I am a resource for them if they need to go to a doctor to get a prescription to be safe, or if they need money for protection, but that is somewhat where I draw my line. Similarly with drinking I would encourage them to not drink, but remind them that driving or getting in a car with someone who has been drinking is far worse then having a drink in the first place, so if they need a ride I will always be there to get them and they won’t be in trouble for making that call.

Now here is where I challenge you to Change my Mind: -I don’t understand why parents FACILITATE their child’s sexual activity, especially when the are under the age of consent even with a similar age partner, and let the partner sleep over or have privacy for the act. I feel like it is irresponsible to enable this for your child and saying they will ‘find a way’ might be true, but also, what message does it really send to say that sex should be a regular part of such a young relationship? I really do not judge people for sexual activity as adults, but when you know your child is below the age of legal consent, is it not your job to try and protect them even from themselves? I am really open to hearing points of view. -Regarding drinking, I do not understand the mentality of providing alcohol to underage kids, for the purpose of fun with their friends, saying they will drink anyway and you rather it be under your roof.. this feels like a serious liability that people don’t consider. I am well aware that drinking culture is different in other countries, so for reference I am in the US and looking it it from that POV. I can understand serving your own child a single drink with a special meal or for a cultural reason just among family.. what I don’t understand is the facilitation of drinking parties for teens.

I really intend for this to be lighthearted and respectful, as I know there are people who will feel otherwise. Please don’t feel this is a judgment of you personally if you don’t agree. I am trying to understand mindset and realized benefits for thinking differently. If you convince me to change my mind, just know I am stubborn so good on you! ☺️

I'm by no means claiming that animals aren't important, but whenever I see charity events for aquariums and the like I can't help but feel like it's such a waste of money.

Human lives could be saved with the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into saving the lives of animals. I agree that it sucks that various ecosystems are damaged or worse, or that many animals are on the verge of extinction, but humans are more important.

I can kind of see the argument of "helping animals helps humans indirectly." But saving those animals are at best a band aid on the real issues. People should focus on charities that are trying to solve the root problem, such as climate change and affordable clean energy, to name a few. Far more animals will be saved in the long run by donating to those groups.

My only conclusion is that people are distracted by the cute animals and fail to prioritize their spending. But I've also never heard anyone share this opinion, so I might be missing something.

That is why I'm here.

edit: I want to add that I'm not asking for laws to be put in place to prevent people from helping animals. This is a questions of logic.

I don't understand why people would do this, it doesn't makes sense.

edit 2: I found one reason so far. Several people have told me they believe that animals are more important that humans. Those people do indeed have valid reasons to prioritize animal charities. I honestly didn't think that type of person existed before today.

I know it's a simple answer, but I was over complicating the whole thing in my head and never thought of it that way

edit 3: In the end, I think I all comes down to something as simple as priorities.

I view humanity's survival as the most important thing. Other people prioritize things around them and donate to local charities. Some people prioritize individuals and donate to Go Fund Me and other such websites. and some people prioritize sea turtles.

I cannot fathom the mind of those people, but I guess I just have to accept that they exist. I think it was naive of me to try to define human priorities though logical argument, since it is often the result of things hard to source, and I can understand why some people got a little defensive over my question.

I came here a bit emotional myself, I had just found out that the youtuber DougDoug has donated more than a million dollars to the monterey bay aquarium. I was really frustrated at the waste of money and baffled at why people were donating so much.

Part of me thinks that if people really thought about it they would make a different choice. But I know that's illogical to think such things. Everyone has a unique perspective defined by their experiences and genetics, this is just one more example of that truth.

To say my view has been changed might be an exaggeration, but at least I can say that my mind has been opened.

Thank you

In the American electoral system, the candidate who secures the most popular votes does not always reflect the true will of the electorate, particularly due to low voter turnout in states that are predictably aligned with one party. This dynamic creates a significant gap between popular vote totals and actual electoral outcomes, leading to a misleading representation of public support for presidential candidates. Voter apathy is higher in spectator states. Voter turnout in battleground states is around 70% while turnout in spectator states is near 60%.

One of the primary reasons that the popular vote can be an unreliable indicator of a candidate's viability is the psychological impact of perceived inevitability. The rationale is simple: if a voter believes their candidate has no realistic chance of winning in their state, they may feel that their vote is inconsequential. This phenomenon is known as "voter apathy," and it leads to lower turnout rates among those who might otherwise support the alternative candidate who has no shot at winning the state. Consequently, this reduced turnout can skew the popular vote (not to mention a third-party candidate could really affect the numbers if given a chance.

Moreover, this trend is compounded by the fact that voter mobilization efforts often focus on competitive states, which are deemed essential for securing electoral votes. Resources, campaigning, and outreach tend to concentrate on swing states, where both parties believe they can make a difference. This focus leaves solidly red states with less attention from campaigns, reinforcing the sense of futility among potential voters. In this way, the very nature of the electoral system discourages participation in states with a strong partisan leaning, further exacerbating the discrepancy between popular vote outcomes and actual support for candidates. This not only results in lower turnout among these voters but also diminishes the overall popular vote total nationwide. Thus, while a candidate may receive a significant number of votes in more competitive states, their overall popular vote total can be undermined by the low turnout of supporters in states that are not perceived as battlegrounds.

Furthermore, this situation raises questions about the true nature of electoral legitimacy. If a candidate wins the presidency by securing electoral votes primarily from swing states, while significant portions of the electorate in other states abstain from voting, it calls into question whether the popular vote accurately reflects the will of the people. A system where voter engagement is contingent upon the perceived competitiveness of a state ultimately undermines the concept of a truly democratic election.

TL;DR: The popular vote alone does not provide a clear or fair picture of a candidate’s support when considering the effects of low voter turnout in states presumed to favor one party. The psychological factors at play—especially among voters in heavily partisan states—can lead to significant discrepancies between actual public sentiment and the popular vote totals. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on popular votes to gauge the success of a presidential candidate, revealing a deeper complexity within the American electoral landscape.

don't think it's rude for me or it's against women to think that periods are gross

For one, saying I think periods are gross does not mean I hate all women. I just find the bodily fluid gross

2. It's natural but still gross. Bodily fluids in general are considered gross. I don't want to see or look at poop, pee, or blood and the same goes with menstruation. I don’t think people should shame women or think they themselves are gross. I’d think a man’s semen is just as gross as their period blood

It's obviously not something someone can control, but it does make me uncomfortable hearing all the weird details about it and that is ok in my mind

Many, if not most, scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is a byproduct of brain processes, and many believe consciousness is essentially an "illusion" existing to serve the biological needs of the organism.

If this is true, than we have the same moral responsibility to a robot with AI who claimed they were conscious and could feel pain, than we do to a human. Even if that robot was programmed to say that. After all, are we not programmed to say that by natural evolutionary processes?

How is the robots claim different than the human's? If my brain is "saying" I'm conscious, how is it any different from the robot's complex processor saying it's conscious?

If you are not aware, NASA has put together a mission to send a probe to Europa, a moon of Jupiter (Can Life Exist on an Icy Moon? NASA’s Europa Clipper Aims to Find Out - NASA) I think there's a better than 50% chance that there is life on Europa, and for as monumental of an occasion finding life on another planet will be, I also think that it will be a bigger shock - scientifically speaking - if life is not found!

I say this because we have already found life in places we never thought it could exist. I think this is rather profound, that the implications of NOT FINDING LIFE on other planets (well, a moon) could be more significant than finding life.

• Top Ten Places Where Life Shouldn't Exist... But Does | Smithsonian

Do I have false confidence in life's ability to thrive in the extreme? I am posting this here in the hopes of finding more information that could either further confirm or contradict what I've said here.

Change my view

---

I want to thank you, collectively for changing my view on this. I hadn't thought about the step by which inanimate matter comes to life. No scientists have been able to replicate it... It really does seem like a fluke!

I will try to issue some deltas to a few people, but I want you all to know you have my thanks!

This is not a “woe is me” or a “men vs. women” kind of post, but rather an interesting thought I had after a conversation with my friends who are in a band together.

Music is a very male dominated industry, and there’s not a lot of women who are into music. Because of this, women tend to stand out more, therefore have an easier time getting noticed. This goes for all kinds of music, rock, pop, EDM, etc. if you’re a woman who’s an aspiring artist/musician, you will have a much easier time getting gigs simply because you’re a woman.

My friends in the band even considered removing their current male singer for a female singer because it’ll help their band get more gigs, and they’ve had to work twice as hard to book the shows they book. Meanwhile, another girl I’ve seen (not to put her down) isn’t as “talented” as the guys in the band, but already has a lot of views on YouTube and gets plenty of shows. She doesn’t have to try as hard to promote herself, or practice enough to be pretty good, but as long as she’s a woman, and looks decent, she’s set. Even one my friends told me “in music, simply being a girl is enough to get gigs.”

Even in mainstream music nowadays, you have artists like Billie Eilish, Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, etc. who are dominating music, and they get more recognition than the men do.

“If that’s the case, why aren’t there more girl musicians?”

That’s simply because most girls don’t take an interest in music. If we had an even amount of men and women taking music lessons or getting into music as a hobby, we’d have a lot more girls performing shows than men.

So let’s see if anyone wants to change my views on this because it seems very obvious in today’s music industry.

We were and still are fascinated by creatures of myths, dragons, vampires, sirens. They were entertaining tales for boring professions that talked about what might be out in the rest of the world. The oldest writings we know of talk of awe inspiring beasts and sea monsters.

There was a cmv yesterday about conspiracies resolving around lack of education and that's a fair point. Conspiracies also often contain bigotry like non whites being unable to figure out how to build pyramids. But the biggest driver to conspiracies is the desire for the world to be more interesting than it is. "I want to believe"

Aliens being kept secret from us, proof of giants existing but being hidden, secret lands the nazis escaped to, shadowy cabals that are responsible for all the world's ill, and shady government agencies that enforce it are all great stories. Conspiracies look for compelling fantastical stories to tell first and circumstantial proof second.

Because if conspiracy theories aren't true it would mean earth is simply boring. And if were not careful we will see compelling leaders of any political orientation spin exciting tales that we wish are true so much that we brush off the evidence against us.

The other day, there was a CMV with 5k upvotes that contained this statement:

Extreme rhetoric is allowed to fester in smaller leftist communities

I argue that the problem is not isolated to small leftist communities, rather, the hostility toward men starts at the very top. Here are two false statements demonizing men from the #1 Democrat in the country:

Kamala Harris: "...women on average are paid 80 cents on the dollar of what men are paid for the same work. [...]. And these are actually not debatable points."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/23/kamala-harris/colbert-kamala-harris-flubs-wage-gap-statistic/

Kamala Harris: "Took a moment with ... to see if we could think of any law that gives the government the power to make a decision about a man’s body. The answer? No."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3179597/harris-wrong-government-absolutely-control-men-bodies/

At the same time, I am not aware of any example of the Democratic Party addressing problems that affect men disproportionally while talking openly and positively about the male nature of the solution.

CMV by showing me a counter-example.

EDIT

Come on, can't anybody show me an example of KH or the Democratic Party positively addressing problems that affect men disproportionally? Not even a single one? Please, CMV, please!

EDIT2

Please please please please show me one example, just one, so that I can CMV, or the mods will delete this post!

The entire concept of "allyship" in modern social justice discourse is that someone actively devotes themselves to addressing the cause of a group that they don't belong to. This necessarily seems to imply a certain degree of exclusivity, since it's not realistically possible to actively devote yourself to every single cause at once. So in effect demanding allyship from someone is demanding that they put the needs of your group above those of all other groups, including the ones they belong too, since they can't really be an effective ally to every group at once.

So it seems to me that there's only two possible reasons someone would make this demand of others. They either believe that it's realistically possible to be an ally to every group at once (naïveté) or they're implicitly asking that their needs be put above those of others while also demanding a level of support their team unwilling to offer in kind (narcissism).

While I'm currently convinced of this view, what would change my mind is a convincing alternative reason why someone would make this demand of others aside from naïveté or narcissism.

It's quite common for government officials and the media to talk about "trust in government" as an important indicator of societal welfare following a crisis event. It's been a big talking point in conversations around Robodebt (in the Australian political context, where I reside), and the National Anti-Corruption Commission's Response to it. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, it is a single metric of the "proportion of the population that express confidence in the national government" which is measured through a fairly direct question, and "trust in government is linked to political participation, social cohesion and collaboration in tackling societal challenges." There are other ways of measuring this out there, but they concern the same concepts: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16974-0

The underlying theory is a communicative liberal theory that highly values people's engagement with and investment in government institutions as virtues and public goods.

This is all unhelpful for the following reasons:

1. Correlation =\= causation. This is substantiated by my following points.
2. It is often used as a proxy for real outcomes. In the Robodebt example, the argument is often phrased as "the system harms people which causes them to lose trust in government, and that's a bad thing" whereas it should simply say "the system harms people and that's a bad thing". By foregrounding perception and communication, it relativises what should be agreed as universal public goods- the provision of welfare services. It makes governance about how government messaging affects people's feelings, as opposed to how their institutions impact their material conditions.
3. Too much trust in government is a bad thing. It is axiomatic that a certain amount of distrust and scepticism is crucial to a healthy democracy. Distrust makes people care about what happens behind closed doors, whereas high amounts of trust lead to deference and purely representational politics.
4. You don't need to trust the government to act according to its policies. The criminal justice system relies on disincentives, not trust, to prevent people from committing crime. There's a whole range of other policies that at their core should function according to incentives. Of course, co-operation matters, but it should not be core.
5. It sometimes shifts the burden of action. This follows on from the above point. It allows politicians to say things that amount to "the people betrayed us" or "the people are not acting in their best interest" when in fact it is the government that is not doing what it has the responsibility to do.
6. Government is not monolithic. People can trust one aspect of it while distrusting another. You can have someone who is highly involved in local government saying they distrust government generally, because most institutions that they come into contact with that they don't get a say in may be run badly or to their detriment. Therefore it doesn't accurately account for people's engagement with public institutions
7. It implies that radicalism is a bad thing. The last thing our world needs at the moment is a moderate defence of the status quo, a sense that things will get better by themselves, or that we should leave things to do experts. There are many people out there who distrust government insofar as it is a set of institutions guided by the hand of capital, who would rather see different forms of government or a different concept of government as self-governance, with public institutions mediating that.
8. In sum, it is transactional. And that's a big part of why it's talked about during elections, because it is used to convey parties' perception of how loyal people are towards them. It is a roundabout way of creating a virtue (with all that implies) out of trust in the status quo.

Feel free to let me have it. I understand why this is an unpopular opinion. Hell, you may even be able to change my mind!

I’m just heartsick after hearing story after story about women in states with extreme abortion laws in health crisis being sent home to get worse before they can get care.

YES, the special interest groups who wrote these laws are to blame. YES, politicians who proposed and passed these laws are to blame. YES, the people who voted for these politicians are to blame.

But aren’t the doctors also a little bit to blame for following the law and not the standard of care? How can they sleep at night knowing women are dying or near death and they’re not doing anything to change it? What do the doctors and nurses who denied care to Joselli Barnica think, knowing she died?

How does one take an oath to “first do no harm,” and then remain complicit in the system that is harming women?

I see a lot of people online say that Diversity is killing video games and how games are "woke" now. I cannot disagree more. Its the lack of actual diversity thats hurting the industry. Real diversity is arguments, different view points, tension, and showing that were different. Take Dragon Age: Origins. In that game it shows how elves are considered second class citizens to humans and the discrimination they face. That is diversity that builds to the lore and feels human, because diversity shouldn't be "everyone gets along". It should be "even if we are completely different and im supposed to hate you we can still be friends." It should be that we can have different view points yet still all work together. In the new game Veilguard everyone is treated the exact same regardless of gender or race, removing the differences between them. It leads to every character feeling the same.

Note: I didn't realize I didn't make this clear but I meant for RPGs, my favorite (and really the only genre I like)