Picture this:

You are in a funeral procession. You are near the back of the procession , with the remaining cars behind you being various members of your friends / family.

You come to a 4 way stoplight at a busy intersection. Suddenly, while the light is still red, the person driving the hearse slams on the gas, and heads straight into the intersection. As the hearse is weaving in and out of traffic and losing sight, the rest of the cars in front of you start following the hearse right into the intersection because they don’t know where the funeral is. By the time it’s your turn, you don’t know which direction to go because all the cars in front of you went all different directions , there have been at least 4-5 collisions. People have died. the blind is leading the blind. Everyone has lost sight of the hearse and are now fighting with eachother in the middle of the intersection, going back and forth arguing about whose fault this all was. And now you just have a bunch of cars on the road being driven by grieving people in a panic and road raging who have no idea where they’re going or what they’re doing. You don’t want to be involved in the mess and just want to go home so you just keep going through the intersection. This sounds like a lot, but it really all happened in about 10-15 seconds.

Meanwhile, no one realizes that the hearse was in fact not carrying the deceased person, but it was carrying undocumented immigrant farmers who were torn from their workplace. The hearse is not going to the burial site. It is going to a military base where they will load the immigrants onto a plane and ship them to the torture concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay. All while the rest of the funeral procession has given up trying to find the place and are heading home. The End.

So. Obviously the funeral is the Presidency, the hearse is the Trump Admin , the procession is the American people, crossing the intersection is tariffs/EOs. The scrambling mess of cars quickly losing sight of what’s going on and crashing into eachother is obviously the American people falling apart as we try to keep up with the headlines and rising costs and racism, and we all just end up beating eachother up because our leader led us into chaos and left us behind to deal with the mess. They don’t care if we kill eachother in the process. After none of us know where to go anymore and being exhausted from the BS, we just decide to go home (check out from the news and stop paying attention). We are all upset because all we wanted to do was grieve our loved one and we had to be led into this mess , making things unnecessarily worse, and now I have to file an insurance claim because someone rear ended me while I was trying to make it out of the intersection alive.

All while Trump is gearing up to start sending undocumented immigrants to a concentration camp. How silly of us to be crying over a fender bender, while the reality is far worse than anyone could’ve ever imagined.

The current state of both the US and Russia bear more similarities than either Russians and Americans want to admit. Among the similarities I see:

• Both countries derive national pride from the accomplishments of decades past. Think space race, moon landing, victory in WWII. Neither country can point to any recent accomplishments and do not derive nationalist pride from anything that has occurred in my lifetime.
• Both countries are guilty of bullying neighbors and being unreliable partners on the international stage
• Obviously the US has more experience with this sort of thing, but both countries have a history of aggressive military intervention that continues to this day. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, and many more
• The legislative bodies of both countries exist purely to act as cheerleaders for the President. Neither the house/senate or the duma seem to assert any power of their own. The US house and senate are subtly different in that you have members jockeying for power, but only to fight for the opportunity to be a rubber stamp for the president. The duma seems to just be a rubber stamp for Putin, period. Regardless, both legislative bodies now exist only to cheer on the executive.
• Both countries have presidents who seem hell-bent on annexing territory
• Both countries have massive oil+gas industries
• Both countries are on a path toward isolation on the international stage
• Both countries have allowed billionaires to have more than their fair share of influence

As an American, confronting these ideas makes me very uncomfortable. I see all of these things happening in Russia, yet I see them happening in my country. These are not good developments in my view. Change my view, show me where I’m wrong!

I’m furious at the Democratic National Committee, which handed us this disaster on a silver platter.

They had one job: Keep Trump out of office. Not because we wanted to "win," but because we knew exactly what he’d do. And now he’s doing it.

Trump is treating our allies like garbage—again. He’s making threats, escalating tensions, and proving once more that he has no respect for the partnerships that keep global stability in check.

He’s emboldened by our failure. The DNC gave him the easiest path back to power by refusing to listen, refusing to adapt, and refusing to give us a candidate who could actually fight. Instead, they doubled down on a failing strategy, shut down competition, and now expect us to clean up the mess.

This is their fault. Not because Biden lost, but because they set us up to lose. They ignored the warning signs, dismissed progressive voices, and manipulated the primary system to push a candidate who wasn’t up for the fight.

And now we’re supposed to just take it? Watch as Trump burns down our global relationships while the DNC shrugs and tells us to "vote harder next time"? No. Fuck that.

The DNC failed us—and unless we force them to face the consequences, they’ll do it again.

I refuse to let this cycle continue. We need real leadership, real change, and a party that actually fights for the people—not one that lets us get steamrolled and then blames us for not clapping harder.

I’m gonna make a bold claim and say the vast majority of people protesting out in the streets of LA aren’t illegals themselves, but it makes complete sense that they are out protesting something they believe to be unjust. That being said, illegal immigrants are risking it all to be in this country. They’re risking it all to get out of whatever awful situation they were facing in Mexico or wherever else. How does it make any sense to represent these people by waving the flag of the place they are trying so desperately to get away from?

I’m all for waving the Mexican flag at cultural events or heritage celebrations, but this is just a bad look. It is way too easy to see these protests and say, “if you love Mexico so much, then just got back!”

p.s. if I was late to work because a group of protestors protesting literally anything was blocking the freeway, I would go out of my way to vote against whatever they are supporting. That’s just me though.

I dont know if I'm just not grasping the story, but to me every character other than Ellen and Count. Its the same as Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost ark, he doesn't affect the outcome. I feel like if you have the beginning, her descent, and the conclusion while cutting everything else the story would still be the same. The only other character that has any impact would be Willems character the professor. So am I just not grasping the story or are the characters pointless aside from their reactions to the story they don't change.

As a woman, I’ve observed most female to female relationships existing on a plane of competition. Which, is a contrast to most relationships built with men existing from a level of attraction. Competition isn’t inheritor a bad trait. It can help us to achieve our goals and, many other things. But, titles such as home-wreckers or gold diggers which are perceived deviants of the definition of girls girls are only villanaised because, it obstructs said woman’s competition. Ultimately, all humans are operate on a level of survival and throughout time women have expected fake niceness unlike, men who haven’t always had to be nice to get what they want which, is why it’s much easier to spot a “nice guy” in comparison to, a fake girls girl. Oh woman, the Great Pretender. It’s not in all cases. There are obviously always outliers such as, pure bonds which mothers and daughters share or, sisters. Which, even most women wouldn’t attest to having. Which, would make this a very small percentage of woman and, I’m not doing the math but, certainly less than half of women on a broad level being girls girls. And, the only reason for sisters being so close would be shared proximity and, presumed loyalty. Or, trauma from childbirth. I think if women do act this way, it’s not authentic and out of self interest (losing a friend), to conform with society. But, it isn’t how most women feel. A statistic im presenting is most women being traffickers. Ofc, there’s mothers with babies who help people in need on the street but, these are outliers compared to the number of female traffickers, fake female sisterhood & bystander effects. More on this; a gold digger would only exist in very few cases such as, a really innocent man (and, most men especially old men aren’t) being swindled by a wise woman. I think if anyone dates anyone where there’s a huge imbalance they’re usually aware. And, don’t think the term’s fair outside of sex work which, shouldn’t exist anyways because, it’s financial abuse in most cases

I’d LOVE for my view to be changed 🫶🏽 Because, it’s a pattern I’ve personally observed in most relationships between women. And, it’d be nice to be proven differently And sorry for the bad grammar lol, having a tough night which led to me feeling like a quasi intellectualist of the night but, kinda gave up half way. Yes, English is my first language I’m 3am gah dammit And I meant, inherently a bad trait. Won’t let me edit it

straight men, yes they are common. but not as common as we think. the men who secretly are bisexual or even GAY and sleep with men behind their wives backs, ME getting cheated on by a man with another man, men who watch gay porn behind their girlfriends backs, men who would sleep with another man if he looked "feminine enough", the upcoming rising number of women who tell stories of their husbands being on the downlow, "downlow" men gay porn subreddits about fetishizing the idea of having a wife or girlfriend but having sex with men every warm tuesday, its scary. and before yall call me homophobic.. (theres absolutely nothing wrong with being same sex attracted and wanting to speak to men, just tell your girl in advance.) IM A BISEXUAL WOMAN. i said what i said. period.

The most common argument to explain Democrats defeat last november is that they no longer connect with working class americans. I think this isn't true at all.

In 2020 Bernie Sanders had the most populists message since FDR focused on working class people, and it wasn't enough to win the primaries, it was rejected in favor of a status quo politician as Biden.

People got 4 years of very gradual change but mostly business as usual with Biden, and then in 2024 democrats lose, and the explanation is that they don't connect with the working class. But the working class rejected Bernie in 2020...

I think there are other more important factors, first of all there is simply too much propaganda and noise around that hinder the message, it is simply impossible to communicate good economic proposals in an environment where everyone is shouting nonsense. When a candidate can say in a debate they have a "concept of a plan" and still be considered good enough for the office you know actual policy is of no consequence.

It's all about feelings now, material reality be damned, basically people is voting like they react to a facebook post and the one who makes the better click&bait headlines wins, no amount of good policy can overcome that.

"Free will" is a concept that's important in many moralistic philosophies, but centrally important in christian theology. Specifically Saint Augustine, the founder of christian philosophy, adopted the concept because it could explain a world of full of suffering and evil that was supposedly created by a God who's thoroughly good. The evils in the world, therefore, all came from the fact that God gave men freedom, which is good, but that meant men could choose to place their own interests before those of God.

But I argue, supported by the likes of Schopenhauer and others, that "free will", as it is understood in christian theology, is logically impossible. “Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is because he already is what he wills.” [Chapter 5 of On the Freedom of the Will]

I understand that this controversy is old, and has been discussed by many philosophers, but when brought up in discussion to this day (I say this in terms of personal experience) is a proposition regarded as a matter of opinion and world view. This can, however, be proven logically. The logical proof goes as follows:

"If you look at any decision, and ask why it was made, there are two possibilities: either there are pre-existing factors that cause the decision, or there aren't. If a decision has reasons (pre-existing determiners) it is not free, it was caused by it's reasons, which exist in the past and cannot be changed, according to causality. If it has no concievable causes, it is by definition random.

Therefore the concept of "free will" implies that people can alter the past when making decisions, in other to willfully change the causes of that decision.

Tldr: Human will is either caused by things (meaning not free) or not caused by things (meaning not will).

Sorry if this doesn’t make a ton of sense I’m not the smartest person and that’s mostly because I struggle with vocalizing my feelings and ideas so stay with me this might be long and I can try to clear any confusions up in the comments.

Maybe I’ve been reading, watching, and listening to dystopian fiction but ever since I’ve read 1984 I’ve had this idea in the back of my head that as humans continue to become smarter and more aware we build the tools that will build a future prison that will one day be impossible or close to impossible to escape from, and now or in the near future we will have to decide to stand up and take control of the development of technology and stand up and take control back from our government from the claws of the wealthy and power hungry or our future generations will be doomed to a living hell.

We have this common belief that has history has progressed our species has become more enlightened and as a result kinder. Also as a result every authoritarian regime in the past has been toppled while a small handful still exist today. Even these are always are at threat of the people realizing how badly they’re being screwed over and being revolted against and eventually overthrown.

While I believe this is true I remember this idea attributed to Nostradamus (even tho I can’t find the exact quote). To paraphrase he (according to my knowledge) said that there will be three Antichrists the last to be the most successful because he learned from the mistakes of the other two. While I’m not religious and don’t believe that Nostradamus was some sort of prophet, I do believe that while we as a species are smarter and more aware of the world around us the evil and power hungry tyrants are always still around waiting for their turn to conquer and control us for their own benefit and amusement. And they are learning from the failures of their predecessors.

Emperors learned from tyrants and warlords, kings study emperors, dictators learned from kings, and CEOs are learning from dictators each time smarter and more technologically advanced. It was easier to start an uprising when your rulers carried swords or muskets. Today there is a better understanding of human psychology that they keep us at each other’s throats instead at theirs. To give us a plethora of fun attention grabbing devices and media and biased news coverage that keeps us distracted as they slowly tear away at the pillars of democracy and human/worker’s rights. They make these devices addicting and gives us another plethora of addicting foods and drugs to make the idea of a peaceful or violent revolution harder to imagine since it would come at the cost of these addictions.

They will use our own democratic systems against us and make us vote away our own rights. And with an electoral college and gerrymandering they don’t even need a majority to do so only a plurality. They will fund technology that could be used to entrap us under the disguise of fun or safety. More security cameras in every sector of a town or city, ring doorbells on every house, realistic vr and ai, etc. They could, for instance fund a vr machine that hooks up to one’s nervous system under the guise of building a fun new game or a new realistic world to explore. This technology will be sold to prisoners they’ll say it’ll be used as a torture device but only for murderers and rapists, then used on “terrorists” then used on “enemies of the state”. It will be slow and they’ll play on our need for sadistic punishment on those we deem as evil. Then it will be used on you.

My point is that at a certain point the technology that the powerful have will be incomprehensibly more advanced than the technology that we the people will have. In a way it already is. Yes we have the 2nd Amendment but what is the right to own guns when they can drop a bomb from an unmanned aircraft thousands of feet in the sky? Or even better (and most importantly cheaper) use propaganda to make half of us support their tyranny so that instead of a revolt we get a civil war and fight each other to the death. They don’t even need to flex their military strength and waste their precious money.

I believe that there needs to be action taken a light and peaceful revolution where we can vote our own interests back into office and change the constitution to modernize it. Install more checks and balances and make it harder for bad actors to hold office. But I think while these things are necessary and we should fight for them I believe it will only push the can down the road and one day a tyrannical regime will take hold of this country and eventually worldwide that in once in place will have perfected the art of oppression and exploitation. And when they grab their power it will never be able to be taken back. This is basically the plot of 1984 and why I love but hate the book so much because while dystopias aren’t supposed to be prophetic instead a cautionary tale a world like 1984 is our future reality. It only needs to happen once and a strain of anti democratic narratives have been becoming more popular not just here in the states but worldwide and another fight to keep our freedoms is underway and I believe we should act NOW as we have our rights not after they’re taken as our current technology was only imagined as science fiction just 50 years ago. But these efforts while maybe successful now will ultimately be futile.

I am not sure how Sam would go to heaven after his ghost haunted Carl. Yeah, Carl was wrong with his scheme with Willie but Sam was being hateful and vengeful. Carl did not want Sam dead, he just wanted the codes to the account. I was rooting for Sam as a kid and liked that the bad guys went down. I watch it now and it is just utter revenge. Please change my view. I always loved this movie but had a different insight on it last time I watched it. Carl was just a regular guy who got into a life of white collar crime. He didn’t deserve to be haunted by Sam’s ghost.

In my opinion, people who drink alcohol show a blatant disregard for their health, no matter how much they claim to be "moderating".

Alcohol is a neurotoxic, poisonous substance, and even moderate consumption still carries risks — from liver damage to heart disease and even cancer. The idea that drinking in moderation is harmless is a myth perpetuated by alcohol companies and people who don’t want to face the reality that drinking is damaging in any amount.

If someone truly cared about their well-being, they wouldn’t be putting their body through the stress of processing a poison. Moderation doesn’t negate the harm; it just makes it more socially acceptable.

Alcohol kills more than 3 million people globally around the world, and contributes to a plethora of cancers and deadly diseases. I believe if people truly cared about their health, they would look after their body more, instead of succumbing it to such a fate.

I realized while typing that this would be a long post.

Now to expand upon the title, I meant weaker in every sense i.e. economically, politically, socially, and on the international stage.

While the US remains a global superpower and will remain a major player in world politics in the future, the other countires will certainly try to decrease its reliance on the US.

First comes trade; with the US applying tariffs left and right to other countries, many of them will in fact also apply retaliatory tariffs for US exports as seen in the case of Canada and Mexico. With the looming decision over applying tariffs on both EU and BRICS, the US will create a situation where the other countries will be more vary of trading with the US in the future whether the tariffs remain or are removed. Why trade with a country which can bare its fangs against you at any moment or try strongarming you into doing its bidding with a change in government? Even if not that, people from other countries can become against using your services/products. Layoffs would in fact increase since the companies are making less profits than before.

Politically, while the US will continue to remain important, other rivals such as China will rise in power as they can be seen to be far more stable as compared to the US. For one, China will not explicitly strongarm other countries to do its bidding the way US is currently trying to do. International relations are far more nuanced than simply trade, defense, and commerce. Trying to make another country forcefully do something might provide a short term solution to an issue but sours relations for far longer.

Socially, the US politics and the supporters appear to be on far ends of the spectrum. To be clear, I mean the liberals and conservatives, who continue becoming more distant from each other thanks to the feedback loop of hell thanks to facebook groups, subreddits, etc. With the current algorithms targeting engagement and with how the human psyche works, it is easier for companies to drive engagement by feeding people their insecurities, beliefs, etc. The companies keep their stocks high while the users keep becoming more radicalized. And with the advancement in AI (recommendation), it will be easier for individuals to feed into their beliefs. Just reading through few subreddit posts relatied to conservatives or liberalism showed me that the people had developed dogmatic beliefs about being right while the others are wrong. While there could have been opportunities for discussion before, many of them now refuse to understand why the others are like this due to being within their circle of belief for far too long. The only result is growing hate towards others without understanding their beliefs. This makes it far easier to fracture a country from within.

Again, these are just my thoughts on this and I can be wrong on many fronts here. I would love to talk more about this if anyone is interested.

But due to constitutional law and a two party government they haven't been able to do so. So they hired Trump to come in with a team he selects to destroy everything because if there's one he knows how to do it's how to sell a shitty product, in this case MAGA. And how to destroy a business, in this case America. This is exactly what they want. Serfdom. They want us to be serfs and peasants living in squalor with barely any food, and just enough to survive to work. They need to cripple the middle class to increase the amount of serfs that can work as those on social programs are too old, disabled, or chemically dependent, criminal, or homeless.

Feudalism 2.0. is coming.

And don't believe the so called democrats like AOC or Jeffries. They're in on it too. They have to play the opposition so you believe someone is fighting for you so you won't fight back as strong. Eventually they will "begrudgingly comply" and convince you to as well. It's all a big club, and we ain't in it.

There's always 3 tiers. Serfs, Clergy/Religious, and Nobility. So Nobility is the government, the clergy will be the Christian right, and the serfs will be us.

What about all the rich celebs etc that hate Trump? They will kiss the ring when threatened to lose their money.

CMV, I want to be wrong!

Update: well, I guess that's a thread. Maybe I'll look at this tomorrow and see if anything new has appeared. Basically, I wanted to see the best defense anyone could offer for the arangement between Musk and Trump, and to try to understand what people who aren't troubled by this arrangement are thinking. What I got most often were the following:

1. It's not corruption to buy a position in government, because lots of people do it.

This doesn't show that's Musk's arrangement with Trump isn't corrupt. At best, it shows that there are systemic issues with corruption in American politics.

Incidentally, I don't know of any other president in recent history who gave a position within a federal agency to a donor, nor in particular such unfettered access to their biggest donor. If the shoe were on the other foot (if Biden or Obama did this) there would be outrage from the right.

2. It's not corruption if it's legal.

Corruption is an ethical concept. Anti-corruption laws are made to stop corruption. Corruption has primacy here while the law is secondary. It's a problem if Musk's arrangement with Trump is legal, because it's blatantly corrupt.

3. Musk got the position through merit

People say that Musk is the right person to serve in this position because he owns an extremely successful business. This requires me to believe that the campaign donations are a coincidence. Furthermore, the right person to put in this position, assuming the aim really is "government efficiency," would be an experienced efficiency expert.

Comments: some of the people defending the arrangement cited Trump or Trump's administration in your arguments. For example, you've provided information from the White House's web site, or you've defended Musk's fitness for the role by appealing to Trump's praise for him. Since the person you are replying to thinks that Trump is corrupt, this is obviously not a very effective way to debate. It's like appealing to the Pope in a debate with someone who thinks the Catholic Church is corrupt.

***

Elon Musk donated at least $277 million to Trump's election campaign. Musk was then appointed to lead the "Department of Government Efficiency." His employees now enjoy high-level access to sensitive information in organizations like the treasury.

If Musk earned this high position through his qualifications, then the $277 million donation would be an improbable coincidence. The writing on the wall is very clear: Musk bought access to the executive branch from Trump.

In order to change my view, you would have to convince me that either the campaign donations are a coincidence, or that creating a new organization and then giving control of it to your biggest individual campaign donor is not corrupt.

Here is what I see: complete silence from feminist organizations regarding October 7. A disgusting piece defending Hamas. "Hamas is coming" written on a Christopher Columbus statue. A vigil for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, that the mayor refused to condemn. "Long live October 7th" - the leader of a pro-Hamas organization wrote on Twitter. It's quite clear that there is a non-negligible proportion of people with pro-Hamas views.

And don't tell me the "pro-Palestine doesn't mean pro-Hamas" nonsense. It's crystal clear that the links above demonstrate clear support of Hamas. If they genuinely support Palestine but not Hamas, none of the things above would have happened, but they did.

These are all way bigger concerns than Elon Musk's Nazi salute. At least Elon Musk didn't blatantly support an organization that killed 1000+ people at a music festival. As disgusting as the Nazi salute is, it pales in comparison to blatantly supporting Hamas, a terrorist organization that actually killed people and are comparable to Nazis.

As a 21F, I am the kind of person that Hamas will brutally rape and murder if they ever get the chance to. Therefore, I have every right to be concerned about how many westerners, university students (who are mostly liberal), and people who are otherwise progressive, blatantly spouting pro-Hamas nonsense. I used to be supportive of feminism and social justice movements, but after seeing their reaction to October 7, I can't support them anymore.

For those of you who aren't familiar, the Inconsistent Triad is a paradox in which it is observed that a both omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would surely not allow suffering to exist, however it clearly does.

My argument is as follows:

All attempts to solve the Inconsistent Triad such as the Ireneaen Theodicy and the free will argument (Plantinga) share the common view that an omnibenevolent God dislikes suffering but is forced to allow it as the nature of reality necessitates suffering for free will / soul-building to be possible.

However, if God disliked suffering, He ought to have created a reality unfathomable to us in which suffering was not a necessity.

His decision not to do so must be a result of a lack of omnibenevolence as an omnibenevolent but not omnipotent God would not have created a reality in which suffering exists but he can do nothing to stop it (unless of course part of His lack of omnipotence is an imperfect intelligence which is scary).

I guess you could argue that He allows it for a reason we can't comprehend due to His omnipotence, but I thought it was an interesting idea nonetheless.

The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, states, “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

If funds are not being allocated in the way that our elected officials decided would best benefit the US public (e.g illegal executive order to abolish the Department of Education), then US citizens should not be morally or legally compelled to pay taxes.

So for those who aren't familiar, one of the Vice Chairs elected by the DNC earlier this week is David Hogg, a 24 year old activist. There's nothing wrong with that aspect, its fine to have young people in leadership positions, however the problem with him is a position he recently took regarding an Alaska Democrat, Mary Peltola.

Mary Peltola was Alaska's first Democrat Rep in almost 50 years, and she lost this year to Republican Nick Begich. Throughout her 2024 campaign, David Hogg was very critical of her, saying she should support increased gun restrictions, and then he celebrated her loss in November saying again that she should support gun control, in Alaska. This is exactly what's wrong with the DNC.

In 2024, the Democrats lost every swing state, every red state Democratic Senator, and won only three Democratic House seats in Trump districts (all of whom declined to endorse the Harris/Walz ticket). If you look at the Senate map, there is no path to a majority for the Democrats without either almost all of the swing state seats or at least with a red state Democrats. Back in Obama's first term, the Democrats had seats in Montana, Missouri, West Virginia, and both Dakotas, but in 2010 after supporting the ACA and a public option on party lines they lost most of them, and in 2024 after supporting BBB on party lines they lost all of them.

My view is that the Democrats are knowingly taking a position that its better to lose Democrats in redder areas than to compromise on certain issues, something that has recently been exemplified by the election of a DNC Vice Chair that celebrated the loss of an Alaska Democrat. I think if this strategy continues, they will go decades without retaking the Senate and likely struggle to win enough swing states to take the Presidency again either.

I've been battling this topic by myself for quite a white, and I'm curious to see what others think of it. Also, I'd like to mention some general things about myself. I am 18, white, and I live in the US, and have never left this country. Also, I am by no means an expert on linguistics or anything. This is just my own logical reasoning, and that of course means I can very well be wrong on some things, or be not knowledgeable on certain important facts.

To put it simply, I believe that the n-word itself/in isolation is not racist, and I believe shunning people who aren't black that use it is dumb. My reasoning for this is that words can mean anything based on the intentions given by the person saying it. For instance, the phrase "fuck you" isn't always offensive. Many people say that as a way of screwing with their friends.

I personally believe that the word isn't racist without the person saying it wanting to be racist. Similarly to how I believe someone cannot accidentally be racist/sexist/etc(but they can accidentally be discriminatory). To me, this is because being racist, sexist, and the like is something that can only be done intentionally. For example, if someone were to be giving out free cookies to some people, but they unintentionally weren't giving them to women, then that would be discriminatory, but not sexist(once again, as long as it is unintentional). The point being, the person saying the n-word would need to be saying it in a racist context(for instance, calling a black person a filthy n-word). But in a context like this where we are discussing the word, then it wouldn't be racist(or for another example, singing a song where the word is used). The reason I am not saying the word is because I feel like my post would get removed(despite it not being against the rules), and also simply because I'm not the biggest fan of the word myself.

I also believe that restricting the word to a certain type of people is itself racist/discriminatory, as they're being given something that others cannot have.

So, what's my point?

I believe that placing such care onto the word only provides more hatred across both black and non-black people, and I believe that we should just stop caring so much. Either everybody can say it, or nobody can. As long as the word can be interpreted as being racist, then people are going to purposely use it to piss others off. For instance, the word bitch is being cared about more nowadays than a few years ago(afaik). People are now specifically calling women bitches because they know it pisses them off. While they did do this before, I believe the problem has gotten worse.

However, there is an important detail that I have left out thus far. I am personally advocating for the widespread use or neglect of the word. However, language changes over time, and I do believe that as time goes on, racists will develop a new word with similar meaning. However, the widespread use/neglect of it could potentially lead to a bit less racism in the world(as people would collectively come together and either adopt or abandon it, and the negative connotations would eventually fade away(which could potentially stop another word forming).

However, this comes with an issue. Many people may believe that this would be to "erase" black history, which is by no means what I am advocating for. Obviously the word is heavily associated with slavery, and from what I know people are restricting the word as a way of "reclaiming" it, but I personally feel that this would only be a constant reminder of the racist past of the word, which wouldn't be the case if we stopped seeing it as a racist word(via allowing everyone or no one to say it).

This isn't just about the n-word, but about pretty much every slur. But the n-word is the most infamous and best example of this.

There may be details which I am misunderstanding or not getting, as the opposition to this is very prevalent in society, so there is definitely a chance that I might be missing something. Or maybe it's the opposite, and people don't think about this that much. I dunno. If there is anything I'm missing, I'd love to see it and an explanation behind it in the comments. But regardless, I am greatly interested in seeing everyone's thoughts about this, and please try to stay logical and not be heated, as I know this is a sensitive topic.

I must start by saying that I don't believe that I am defined by my job but it is an important part of my life. I also consider that work is a thing that humans are meant to do and that it is one of the most important things for most people.

I am going to make a few assumptions (that most people on reddit seem to believe anyway) about the future state of language models.

• We will have incrementally more powerful models, and we will reach "AGI" through them (or any other way, it doesn't matter but for the sake of argument, let's say that it will be in the next 5-10 years)
• The intelligence that the models will have is not capped (well, I guess energy is capped but I assume that we will have enough energy for the foreseeable future
• The models will be able to improve themselves
• The models will improve themselves faster and faster, basically hitting some intelligence singularity in a very short time
• The implementation of such models within "robots" of some kind won't be hard

I am not sure that all these assumptions are true, but if they are I can easily see a future where:

• "We" will be able to cure any disease (+)
• "We" will be able to advance a lot as a species from most point of views (+) (and many other plusses)
• Models will be able to solve any "tech"/"computer" issue, implement any feature of this kind, etc (|)
• We'll also have robots which will be able to do any physical task that we might have (|)

I am sure that there will be a limited number of jobs that will require humans (maybe things like therapy staff, medical staff just for the sake of feeling that you speak with a human) or niche things like "human only" restaurants and so on. However, these (and I am sure that there are more) will be very limited in numbers so most of humans will be "free" to do whatever they want.

I am sure that we can solve the "money" side of things with UBI or anything similar (if it were to be implemented) but I don't think that this is good because:

• I really think that humans need a thing to do, a purpose (you might say that working for someone is not a purpose but I really think it is for humans. Since forever, we worked, to feed our family, to grow in status and much more. Yes, we needed to do that to survive but I really believe that it's ingrained in us)
• I really think that most humans need a thing to compete otherwise we become lazy. You might say that there will be other things to compete in but if things to do are not "required to survive", most people won't do them.
• Relying on someone else to do all other tasks will introduce a lot of vulnerabilities and dependencies.
• I am also really afraid of further school education of how it will be handled (but we might find a solution for this)

You might also say that children do not work (or elderly) but I think that it is totally different.

So I've seen some outrage, mostly from what I can see coming from Americans, about the concept of a country having an "official language" declared. Personally I fail to see how this can ever be an issue for any country.

An official language is just the state acknowledging that a language is the one it uses to communicate with it's citizens. A state can have more than one official language, and in the extent of endangered languages gives it a legal ground to provide financial and bureaucratic aid to support those languages. Having an official language doesn't make other languages illegal, it just means the state and state funded organizations will stick with the official language first and foremost; which it would already be doing anyway.

The vast majority of the world has official languages, so I fail to see how this is an issue to have.

I live in Quebec so this is the most unbiased French opinion. And before anybody acts all smug, I will admit that French is a beautiful language of arts and culture, it's worthwhile to read Voltaire and Victor Hugo in their native language, but practically, French is not worth learning today.

I've been in real estate finance and loans for several years, everybody acts like they don't speak English in Quebec, however, it's amazing how fast they learn to speak English when commercial investors need money.

For us Canadians, we've been forced to learn French since like Grade 4 and out of hundreds of friends that I grew up with, I can count on one hand how many still know the language today. Fact is, most of Canada does not even care.

I have a lot of friends that are Middle Eastern. Some of my Arab friends from Morocco and Algeria have literally told me that North Africa is removing French as an official language and replacing it with the native Berber language in addition to Arabic.

Let's look at economics and numbers just in Europe:

English - unofficial language of the world

German - unofficial language of Europe as the German economy is the largest in Europe by far

Spanish - Over 500 million speakers worldwide

Portuguese - Portugal may be small but Brazil alone has 200 million speakers

Russian - Over 200 million speakers

I'd argue French is not even a top 5 language in Europe. Let alone non-European languages like Arabic and Mandarin which have hundreds of millions of speakers.

The fact is French was popular in the 1800's but it's just a language spoken by poor countries today. If you don't believe me, look at Ligue 1.

Premier League, La Liga, hell even Bundesliga and Serie A are all richer than Ligue 1. Every league is capitalizing on massive TV deals across the world. Ligue 1 is still poor because only poor countries speak French.

Who can truly enjoy an event like the Super Bowl knowing you have the work the next day? The Super Bowl should be a day where you can get drunk, smoke some weed, and fuck up some chips and dip without worrying about how the hangover will affect you the next day. Never made sense to me that the Super Bowl is basically the biggest event of the year, and everyone is expected to go back to work/school like normal the next day. As a kid, I’d be sleep deprived the next day and grumpy because of this. Making this a national holiday would prevent all these problems. Am I wrong? Why has this not been made a thing yet?

I would like to start by saying that this is not a pro-life vs pro-choice post. That's not the point of this CMV, so I won't be engaging with the comments that are arguing for/against pro-life.

In the discussions on reddit about abortion, you'll often see pro-choicers demonize pro-lifers for not carving out exemptions for rape when they are discussing their views. You'll see pro-choicers justify their view by saying that someone shouldn't carry their rapists baby. This is a completely fair view with in the context of bodily autonomy. The problem is that this view doesn't matter in the context of "all human life has some inherent value" the way that pro-lifers believe.

The life of someone who was conceived by rape isn't any less valuable than the life of someone who was conceived in some other manner. So for the people who believe that all human life has some inherent value and should be protected, why would it make sense for them to carve out exceptions for rape?

Why wouldn't it be considered morally inconsistent if they make those exceptions?

Things need to get worse before it can get better. Two things must happen before things will get better: the republican voters must understand completely and unequivocally that the republican party as it is now is a stain on the world and must be eradicated, and the democratic party must understand that the only forward is progressive reform - and neither will be accomplished if the republicans are stopped anything short of a fascist coup.

If the republicans are voted out of office, great, the democrats will do nothing with their new majority. Perhaps a few bills here and there will be passed in the spirit of “undoing the damage caused by Trump”, but no real significant effect will be felt by the public - times will still be hard, fascism will still be at the doorstep, and the democrats will still follow a strategy of being center right.

Furthermore, many republicans will cling on to the idiocy of “we didn’t implement capitalism hard enough.” Only when they and their loved ones are hurt will they speak out - and by then they will finally realize that it is too late.

In theory, the Democrats could change their strategy and use their opportunity to crack down on corruption, but I don’t think that will happen - if Trump winning doesn’t teach them that their center right platform is failing, nothing will.

The system is broken. The people want change, neither party wants to bend to the will of the people, and yet the people accept this status quo because they themselves are still doing fine for now. Trump needs to destroy the system, and only then will real change come.

Every time tariffs are proposed, the media overwhelmingly frames them as harmful to the average person, focusing on higher consumer prices or potential trade wars. What they rarely mention is the fundamental balance that every country must strike between free trade and protectionism.

Free trade undeniably boosts economic growth, but it also exacerbates income inequality by suppressing wages in whatever sector gets outsourced. This is why low-skill jobs in the U.S. have seen wages stagnate or decline—because globalization has made it easy for companies to move production overseas where labor is cheaper.

Protectionism, in contrast, can give low-skill workers more leverage by making domestic production competitive again, ensuring that some industries remain viable in the U.S. While tariffs have costs (like slightly higher prices on some goods), they can also serve as a tool to counteract the negative effects of globalization on wages. Countries like China and South Korea have used protectionist policies strategically to build up domestic industries, and even the U.S. already engages in selective protectionism (e.g., tariffs on steel, subsidies for agriculture).

So why is it that 85% of media coverage on tariffs presents them as an unequivocal negative, without even acknowledging the trade-offs? Could it be that most major media outlets are owned by corporations and billionaires who benefit the most from globalization? Free trade keeps labor costs low, increases corporate profits, and concentrates wealth at the top—so it’s no surprise that the media, which represents the interests of these elites, pushes the narrative that tariffs are always bad.

I’m open to being convinced otherwise, but to me, it looks like the media serves the ruling class by systematically downplaying the role of protectionism in securing jobs and wages for the working class. CMV.

To begin with, I need to point out all the ways the solution is not wrong. Then we will see the remaining error, and why I believe it is something serious that needs to be fixed.

I don't have an issue with leaving out some details. It isn't realistic to write every conceivable detail in a concise statement; I expect readers to make reasonable assumptions. Here is the original Monty Hall problem as published in Parade:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the other doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, 'Do you want to pick door No. 2?' Is it to your advantage to take the switch?

The problem explicitly states that the host knows what is behind the doors. That's good, but the truth is that even if they didn't state it we could reasonably assume that was the case. The real Monty Hall knew. The host being left in the dark would be strange; if such a strange thing was intended, it would need to be written in the problem.

The problem does not explicitly state that the host deliberately reveals a goat. Technically, it is possible they tripped and accidentally revealed a goat. Or maybe they rolled a die to decide which door to open. But again: it is a reasonable assumption that they revealed it deliberately. It is interesting to figure out what the probability would be in the other versions, and it would be nice to be more clear, but it isn't strictly necessary to write "by the way, the host didn't trip" in the problem statement.

So what's the issue then? Unfortunately, even if the host knows what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat with no possibility of error, 2/3 is still wrong.

-the missing rule and why it matters-

The missing rule is that the host was required to reveal the goat and offer a switch. If the host simply decided to reveal a goat, 2/3 is wrong. For 2/3 to be right, the contestant must know everything before the game starts. Before the game started, before they even picked their first door, the contestant already decided that "as soon as the host reveals the goat and offers the switch, I'm taking it."

And this is where intuition comes into play. I have seen many people argue that this rule is not needed. I have seen many people argue that readers should assume this rule because otherwise the game makes no sense or would be boring. This is wrong, and it shows that the incorrect standard solution is damaging our intuition.

Anyone who has ever seen the real life game show is aware that the game did not work this way. I bring that up because it means we can't say "it isn't necessary to write this rule in the problem because people know it from the show." The show was very different from the problem in many ways, including that Monty might not offer a switch at all. He could just instantly reveal the chosen doors. Wait, isn't that boring?

Now let's consider whether the missing rule is "reasonable." Should we assume the missing rule because the game makes no sense without it? Well, with this rule in place the contestant knows everything before the game starts. Before they pick their first door, they already know that in the future the host will reveal a goat and they will switch doors. This rule is totally unreasonable for a game show. It isn't just that the real life game didn't work this way; no game show would work this way! There is no drama, no tension, no psychology.

With that in mind, let's reconsider whether it is "boring" for the host not to be required to reveal a goat and offer a switch. Now we can see that the host having the freedom to do that is exactly what adds drama to the show. If a contestant sees the host deliberately reveal a goat and offer a switch, they will think "Hmm, I saw an episode last month where they immediately opened the doors and didn't offer a switch. Why are they offering me a switch? What are they up to?" Now there is a psychological tension, almost a battle of wits.

The standard 2/3 solution to Monty Hall requires an unstated rule that is totally unreasonable to assume. In fact, the most reasonable rule we could assume makes 2/3 wrong. The fact that so many people don't realize this, and think it would be natural for a game show to have the 2/3 rule, is evidence that the standard solution isn't just wrong, but is damaging intuition.

One of the biggest tragedies and absurdities in our society is modern-day football. I think players are overpaid compared to what they actually contribute to our society.

Consider this: Cristiano Ronaldo is reportedly earning an astronomical $285 million annually at Al Nassr. That’s enough to fund numerous schools, hospitals, or libraries. Meanwhile, Neymar’s transfer to Paris Saint-Germain in 2017 cost €222 million (approximately $242 million)—a sum that could support countless scientific research projects.

Now, let’s talk about the folks who really keep the world turning: teachers, nurses, professors, and researchers, for instance, earn a fraction of these sums. While exact figures vary, it’s clear that their salaries are nowhere near the astronomical earnings of top footballers. Yet, they contribute more to our society than these glorified, overpaid ball-kickers.

It’s as if we’re overpaying for our bread and circuses, prioritizing entertainment over essential services. To add insult to injury, many of these footballers stash their cash in offshore accounts, hoarding wealth that could be put to better use, which means they pay less tax than the average person.

It’s just absurd and tragic that a ball-kicker earns more in a week than a teacher does in a decade, it’s high time we reassess our values and consider the true worth of these exorbitant salaries.

I was taught when I was kid that guns should be treated with respect. That a firearm is a dangerous tool that can be used for good or bad. So I have always held the opinion that if someone uses one recklessly or with disregard they should not own a gun. all gun owners at least also know the basics of safety and operation of a firearm.

someone should not own a gun just because they can but the reasons of owning gun shouldn't be narrow or too restrictive. For example Recreational sports, Hunting, Self Defense as a last resort, Collecting, Etc. There are many reasons to own a gun but I really don't agree with just because I can.

I Can't imagine it is too hard. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to kill, keep it pointed away from anyone you don't intend to hurt, keep your ammo separate and unloaded unless you are actively using the gun, always keep it in a secure location within eyesight if in use.

Last thing don't be so quick to pick up a gun in a tense situation most of the time a situation can be handled without a gun it's pointless death. I would rather die then kill a innocent man that looked like he had a gun.

TLDR Guns are dangerous tools that must be treated with respect and used only when needed/appropriate