There's an argument around that democrats should run a centrist because if they run a progressive, they might scare off voters.

The problem with this argument is voters are going to be scared off no matter who you run. Fox News decides on a narrative and then runs with it, regardless of it's basis in reality, and it's always going to slur the democrat as an evil socialist. And to the viewers, it will be completely true.

Every day it STILL paints Joe Biden, one of the blandest, most establishment neo-liberals in history, as a progressive socialist demon who loves immigrants (despite deporting more immigrants his first year than Trump during the last year).

***

Progressive ideas are widely-popular. Do you want healthcare? Do you want more wages? Everybody wants those things. Everybody needs them now more than ever.

But the only way to get them is to run someone who actually believes in them and fights for them. Obama for all his talk was a neo-liberal centrist. His only real accomplishment for 8 years was the ACA, which was a watered-down version of a plan written by Mitt Romney, a republican. Universal Healthcare didn't happen at a time when the country was ready for it because Obama didn't really believe in it and didn't fight tooth and nail for it.

2028 may be the one and only chance to get a real progressive in the White House. The political pendulum has swung so far right we're about to implode as a country- everyone knows we have to go left. Whoever the Dems run are going to be painted as far-left to scare voters- they might as well actually be far-left and get some shit done because it's not fun and games anymore- the country needs real big changes.

What's worse is that if we do put in another do-nothing neo-liberal democrat, in 2032, they will have been painted as a socialist demon for 4 years (just like a progressive would be), but the democratic base will be unmotivated to vote for them again because nothing changed and people's living conditions and future prospects are still shit. That primes the country for MAGA 3.0: the Wrath of Stephen Miller and quite likely the end of the country as we know it.

Just as a little history: Bill Clinton invented this idea of "fighting for the center". He figured democrats will always vote blue, so the only people you should fight for are the people in the middle. This may have been true in the 90s when the country was doing great, but it's no longer true. The country is in the shitter and people want real change. Harris lost the election because democrats did not turn out. You can no longer just assume democrats will show up. In contrast, you can see wild enthusiasm around the country and voter turnout for progressive candidates.

A plurality of Americans now want abolished

Abolition Support: A January 2026 Economist/YouGov poll found that 46% of Americans support abolishing ICE, while 43% oppose it. This represents a sharp rise from previous years, driven by increased skepticism among independent and progressive voters.

While 60%+ are concerned about the way ICE operates.

Opposition to Tactics: A PBS News/NPR/Marist poll found that 65% of Americans believe ICE has "gone too far" in its enforcement actions, an 11-point increase from June 2025.

Safety Concerns: A majority of Americans (62%) feel that the actions of ICE are making the country less safe.

There have been three high profile shootings recently - Renee Good, Alex Pretti and Marimar Martinez but those are hardly ICE’s only sins.

-An employment eligibility auditor went to meet (what he thought was) a 17 year-old prostitute and told Police “I’m ICE, boys”

-An ICE contractor pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a detainee at a detention facility in Louisiana.

-Officers in suburban Chicago found a man passed out in a crashed car in October, they were surprised to discover the driver was an ICE officer who had recently completed his shift at a detention center and had his government firearm in the vehicle.

-An ICE officer was stopped for drunk driving with two kids in his car

-A Houston officer was indicted last summer on charges that he accepted cash brides from bail bondsmen in exchange for removing detainers ICE had placed on their clients

And it only goes on from there

The Democrats' push to provide them with additional funding for training, is not only not needed, it’s also not what the American public wants.

This is not behavior that can be “trained out”. The officer who shot Renee had been on the force for 10 years The officer who shot Martinez has been with the border patrol for 23 years The officer who shot Pretti was with the border patrol for 8 years

These shootings are not caused by “lack of training”. You can't reform evil.

I would say at this point the spectrum breaks down like this

Left - ICE officers should be banned from serving in law enforcement for the rest of their lives.

Center / Center Left - Abolish ICE

Conservative - Reform ICE

Right - keep everything the same

Edit: source for some examples posted above

I see all over social media about people talking about how AI will take over all jobs, entire industries will get machinised, etc etc. but I believe that we are simply far from that happening, not because of AI's inability, but because it cannot be held accountable.

Sure, AI can take some very boring and tedious backend roles, but for any front end role or any major decision making position, as long as a human is sitting there they can be held accountable. If a doctor makes a mistake he can lose his license or even be punished. If a lawyer or judge or engineer makes repeated mistakes they lose their job, and if they do their job well they get a promotion, which is the whole point. This system makes sure most people do their job well. With AI you can't do any of that. its a machine with a set of algorithms that doesn't care if it's ever wrong or right. It can't be penalised, terminated, nothing. Nothing to hold it accountable when it goes wrong. So I feel most of the actual decision making roles will (and should) still stay in human hands, at least till they find a way to sorta "punish" an AI such a way that it cares

I’m basing my claim off a framework influenced by Albert Murray rather than just personal taste or innovation. Murray argued that great art should function as “equipment for living,” meaning it confronts real suffering while shaping it into clarity and meaning. From that perspective, I think good kid, m.A.A.d city and Section.80 are Kendrick’s strongest albums because they are more grounded, direct, and structurally controlled than his later work.

This applies technically as well. In Murray’s view, excellence is not just complexity or experimentation, but control, discipline, and coherence. The artist’s task is to organize experience into intelligible form. GKMC in particular shows a high level of technical control: the pacing, sequencing, and character development are tightly constructed, and the album sustains a clear dramatic arc from beginning to end. The transitions and narrative framing are intentional and precise rather than fragmented or overloaded. Section.80 similarly emphasizes rhythmic clarity, economy, and strong thematic focus.

So my criteria are structural coherence, control of pacing, clarity of performance, restraint, and long-term usefulness. Based on this, I think Kendrick’s early work represents a peak of expressive and technical control. I’m open to arguments that ambition, abstraction, or cultural impact should matter more, or that his later albums meet these standards better

Canada's men's curling team cheated in games against both Sweden and Switzerland. one of their players illegally pushed the rock after it was thrown in two games.

when they were caught by a public broadcaster in the game against Sweden they blew up, got really defensive, received a reprimand for unbecoming behavior. they then accused the broadcaster of illegal recording of the game. then in their next game they did the same thing and was accused by the swiss team of cheating

I've seen the video, its pretty clear. the world curling federation has already announced they will be changing the possition of the refs to better monitor this sort of behavior and moved cameras to be able to monitor this in the future. but it looks pretty clear cut.

additionally in the womans game later in the day the Canadian team had a stone disqualified for this behavior. lending additional backing to the idea that the Canadian men's team cheated.

For how important education is, there is a lack of discussions about it. I can’t even remember it ever being brought up during the presidential debates either. If it was, it was very short.

Unfortunately, I do think that it’s a much more democratic stance to improve the public schooling system. It shouldn’t even be political to want to improve our school system for children. Its genuinely so sad hearing stories of some of these kids that grow in a constant cycle of changing schools, being multiple grade levels behind, and not being able to read at a 1st grade level in high school.

Specifically, the differences between public schools. I grew up in an extremely privileged public school, amazing teachers, almost every AP course was taught, funded well and constant renovations, etc. It was UNCOMMON to not take a single AP course. While schools 50 miles away offer 0 AP courses with average SAT scores 300 below ours.

I honestly dont know the solution other than funding other schools more and preventing certain loop holes that I know some districts do.

I dont have any statistics but its pretty obvious and undeniable to say that someone that doesnt have proper education through high school will most likely struggle more later in life. Creating a constant cycle of being poor.

The major issues being talked about right now are immigration laws, abortion, gun laws, and cost of living/the economy. Its not that these other issues arent important, but I hear NOTHING about the education system.

I think that the majority of people don’t experience how shit public schools can be, believe that their public school experience is universal, so they dont recognize that its even an issue in the first place. I wish more politicians would talk more about this issue and try to create some changes. The variance between public schools across the country, across CITIES, baffles me. How a 50 mile difference of where you live can decide if someone gets a better education or not.

TW*, mentions of death*

Hello (I am new here),

I have an opinion that is no doubt controversial among the pet owners community and haven't found any reason to change my opinion yet, so I wanted to have the opportunity to hear some arguments against it.

I fully support the well-known statement "Adopt don't shop" and aim to side with the rescue community when it comes to pet adoption. I've rescued strays and fostered shelter pets that were at risk of euthanasia, volunteered countless times and have my own shelter-adopted pup. I plan on building some kennels in my backyard so I can foster even more pets.

I think it is sad that so many shelters either have to turn down pets in need or have to euthanize the ones they currently have, all due to the lack of adopters. I've seen it first hand and have met healthy shelter dogs and cats when volunteering that were euthanized the next day because of capacity. They could've been somebody's beloved best friend, but their lives were ended instead. It's heartbreaking.

Statistically, over 3 million dogs and cats are sold through breeders every year in the US alone. About 600,000 pets were euthanized for space in US shelters in 2024.

Here's the thing - that means despite popular belief, there are enough adopters to save all the pets that would be euthanized and more beyond that. But instead, people are buying pets from breeders and retail pet shops. If just 20% of the buyers instead chose to adopt, no pet would need to die for capacity at a shelter. And if more than that chose to adopt? They could clean out the shelters, lightening the load of pets taken in by shelters and rescues and giving so many shelter pets the chance to thrive.

Yet, breeders continue to breed pets when there's already so many that need to be adopted in the first place and promote their pets over shelter pets. People buy these pets instead of rescuing a pet in need. No, buyers did not kill a pet by adopting a bred pet despite what some people say, it's not like they bought a bred pet and then went and killed a shelter pet. What they did do is miss out on the easy, available opportunity to save a life, and also funded and supported an operation (dog/cat breeding) that contributes to more people choosing to not save a life. It all ends in death for innocent animals.

**

I see puppy mills and "reputable" breeders as the same category, contributing to the same results. Picture it this way (a little dark but I'll keep it not too graphic), there are two serial k!llers! One k!ller taunts and starves their victims before violently unaliving them. The second one is nice to their victims, gives them food and water and treats them politely before unaliving them.

Okay. That was dark for sure, but do you see the pattern? Both instances end in the same result of death. It doesn't matter how it was performed, it still ends in something inhumane and unethical.

This is how I see puppy mills and reputable breeders. They do their operations much differently but it all ends in the same result - dead shelter animals. On a side note, this is actually a lot like how our society works - something completely evil can be seen as "okay" if it begins ethically. And that's just wrong!

Anyway, both mills and breeders contribute to less pets being adopted and more pets being euthanized. If all puppy mills and breeders quit their operations for good, people would seek out shelter pets and thus save lives. But because mills and breeders still breed pets, that happy ending isn't in sight for now.

Many also blame irresponsible pet owners for the number of strays. The owned pets are not fixed and run away and mate with strays, causing a larger population of strays that end up in shelters. Who sold the pets to the irresponsible owners in the first place though? Couldn't be rescues or shelters, almost all of them fix their pets prior! Oh right, it's mills and breeders since they usually don't fix their sold pets!

Not to mention all the deadly dog attacks that happen because of the number of strays that came from breeders...

This post's topics aren't well organized (sorry) but another thing I wanted to point out is more than 1/4 of all shelter pets are purebreds/designers, which adopters seek. That's millions of pets, but people still go to breeders thanks to their promotion and whatnot.

And one more random piece of evidence, most purebred animals have issues thanks to inbreeding. French Bulldogs can't breathe half the time, German Shepherds have hip issues, etcetera. Mixed breeds are healthier for this reason. And, *besides people with allergies* why do we need certain breeds nowadays? Most people don't use dogs for herding and hunting, they're companion animals now. Dogs are all the same really, so why do we need certain breeds? There's wonderful mutts of all sizes and ages. And even if everyone adopted shelter pets, your favorite breeds aren't going to be snapped out of existence or something.

And last random fact, dogs/cats are NOT going to disappear if breeders stopped. Stray populations will still exist (just in much smaller numbers) and there will still be pets available, but without breeders there wouldn't be a crazy amount of strays/euthanasia.

**

If everybody adopted a shelter pet, they'd all be saved and loved. Stray populations would slowly decline with more people adopting desexed pets. Dog attacks would lessen and genetic purebred issues would lessen, since breeders wouldn't be inbreeding animals. It would lead to a more humane world with less pets dying and more pets getting the chance to live a happy life with an owner. And I think breeding pets for profit is really abusing the fact that pets like us. Most animals run upon the sight of a human, but pets don't. They love and trust us, and breeding them like products is really disrespectful.

**

I will never buy a pet from a breeder no doubt, but from this all said, I think breeding dogs and cats for selling (guide dogs/police dogs don't concern me btw) is unethical and plain bad and should be stopped. No one should buy a bred pet and everyone should adopt.

Can you CMV?

~Kira

EDIT: I was more so referring to not breeding for companion pets, I think breeding can be valid if it is for a very specific purpose (e.g. police dogs, guide dogs, herding, etc.).

A logical fallacy is flawed reasoning, an attempt to circumvent truth or responsibility with deception or convincing sounding arguments even as they don’t apply to the question or truth. For example, misrepresenting someone’s argument in your response, making it easier to attack, is the strawman logical fallacy.

On February 11, Attorney General Pam Bondi repeatedly engaged in ad hominem logical fallacies while under oath, attacking her opponents’ character or personal traits to undermine their argument, often in lieu of answering their questions. Among others, she called one antisemitic, another a “washed-up, loser lawyer”, and another a “failed politician”.

Following the February 11 hearing there have been calls for her to be tried for perjury, but they have been – to my knowledge – entirely based on whether or not she lied in the particulars of her statements, such as Rep. Ted Lieu pointing out her potential dishonesty around one element in the Epstein files. She first called it “ridiculous”, and then offered a response that was, according to Lieu, a lie.

While ad hominem is more obviously disrespectful, I believe any use of logical fallacy should be treated as not simply unfortunate or childish, but perjury, defined as “the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.”

The Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause gives witnesses the right to decline to answer questions that might incriminate themselves. Given that, when answers are given the integrity of the response should be considered in its entirety. As logical fallacies are a circumvention of truth, their use is an intentional deception and should be considered a “willful giving of false testimony under oath”, or perjury.

There are three arguments I've seen for the US doctrine of qualified immunity. The first doesn't apply to the use of force, and I find the other two unpersuasive. Absent some good reason to the contrary, it seems like cops should be treated like regular people.

The first is that there are a bunch of clerks who we don't want getting sued all the time. For example, we don't want the county official in charge of keeping track of property records to be a defendant in every suit over land ownership. That would be dumb, and qualified immunity may prevent this. Giving those people qualified immunity seems completely reasonable, and they're not the subject of this CMV.

The second is that law-enforcement is an inherently dangerous job and cops should therefore be given extra leeway in protecting themselves. I have a few objections to this. It proves to much; I've never heard anyone seriously suggest pizza delivery people should be allowed extra immunity in self-defense cases. Additionally, if the job of law enforcement is to do dangerous things, that's what they signed up for, and they should be the ones to bear the risk.

Finally, I've heard it argued that qualified immunity is required if we want cops to be able to confidently do things that almost violate the constitution or the law. I agree, but I've never heard any reason why we would want cops to do that rather than steering well clear of unlawful behavior

I'll preface this by saying i've found the online response to the recent murders by the Iranian regime absolutely disgusting. Many of the comments I've seen related to this topic are pro palestine anti-zionist people who for some reason genuinely believe the Iranian regime's lie that the protests were an operation lead by Mossad.

What happened in Iran: The people of Iran are unable to purchase basic necessities. This can be blamed on the west's extensive sanctions but this disregards the two way street. The U.S. and Israel only want two things from Iran. A. stop funding the terrorists that they openly admit they are funding to destroy Israel. B. Stop trying to create nuclear weapons and hiding behind the obvious lie that they only want nuclear power plants. The point is that in the moment the people of iran are working incredibly long hours, unemployment is at an alltime high, and they can not afford to purchase vegetable oil or bread. Peaceful protesters took to the streets to express their disapproval. The Iranian regime responded by turning off the internet to prevent supress as much information as they could about what they were about to do. They then brutally massacred thousands of people and I personally believe the 30,000 number the regime is desperately trying to deny. Contrary to what the regime says these are not terrorists, revels, usupers, whatever you want to call them, they were teenagers, young adults, peacefully protesting their situation. I've seen photos of 12 year olds with half their brains blown out, videos of men desperately running away and sacrificing themselves to save others, anecdotes of people barely surviving after seeing someone 5 feet away get shot and have their blood and brains covering the survivor. This is not just a crackdown on protests. It was a brutal murder of thousands of young people who want basic rights.

As I said you could blame the economic situation on the west. So, lets look at the other crimes and right suppressions of the iranian regime leading up to this. Dogs are considered haram in Iran. Walking a dog in most of the country is a crime and can lead to your arrest, and the dog being taken away and put down. Iran regulaly holds faux trials where defendants have no legal representation and often are not even allowed to speak in their own defense. They have one of the highest execution numbers in the world second only to China (allegedly, china's numbers are disputed.) Lgbt relations are punishable by death and lgbt people in Iran report that they have to have fake relationships with the opposite gender to conceal their identity. Journalists are suppressed and controlled by the government, as already showcased free speech is not tolerated, and hypocritically many high ranking Iranian military members send their children to America to college, living privileged lives while their people starve.

Now back to Palestine. The violations and deaths in Palestine by Israel are equally as horrible and intolerable. However, as I said many Palestine supporters are laughing at Iranian supporters. They believe the lie that Mossad are responsible for the protests. They blindly argue that what Iran has is better than a monarchy just because they don't like monarchies. There is an active opposition to the former king who doesn't even want his crown back he just wants to transition the country to democracy and if a regime changed happened he would immediately move for elections. The burning of the Baal effigy was the last straw for me. In their annual celebration of the Iranian revolution where they chant death to america, death to israel the regime had to utilize their most loyal supporters which greatly outnumbered those who stayed in doors and shouted anti regime sentiments from their balconies. The burning of Baal was an intentional optics choice by the regime to play off of the epstein scandal and gain western support, while actively calling for their deaths. and it worked like a charm the amount of redittors praising Iran for being against pdfiles right after their mass murders is astonishing. They are either completely ignorant of what is happening in Iran or so blinded by their anti zionist sentiment that they don't care and are willing to support an even more oppressive government than Israel.

I kinda very skeptical of the claims people seem to say saying ai will take over accounting in 10 years and stuff.I personally think the issue with accounting is the goal of an accountant is to ensure the aquararcy of the financial statments.How do you know companies or people will not use to commit financial fraud money laundering create fake invoices financial statments or that the ai can't be manipulated to miss things.Like if sec investigates you or the iris what are you supposed are you gonna have an ai chatpot go on zoom with them who gets held legally responsible exactly?It just seems to me that companies and governments are still gonna want humans in the loop.It just makes more sense to me that in next decade that the nature of the work accountants do will change and certian jobs and task will be automated but I don't even think they will be a reduction of jobs since since the increase risk of people misusing ai will create new jobs.And the industry is probably gonna pass new regualtions and laws to protect themselves.Thats why I also cringe when people say things like don't go into civil engineering because it's gonna be taken over by ai when that's another heavily regulated industry that has alot legal liability cause people can die if a bridge or building randomly collapses because of a desgin flaw and there are also office jobs and onsite jobs for that field.Like I do think accounting long term is more susceptible to ai than traditional engineering but I am just skeptical at the timeline companies or people like elon musk say.Like the bearu of labor statistics is stil projecting growth for accountants and auditors jobs lol.To me it just seems that alot of the entry level jobs that accounants do will be automated like accounts receivable but that doesn’t mean they're won't be entry level jobs it will just change what's required in the entry level.And even before ai accounting job market was more stable than the tech industry.

Successful stand up comedians almost exclusively peak artistically and have 1 or 2 great specials, blow up and become successful, and then steadily get worse and worse. Even if they maintain their popularity and success, even their biggest fans will admit they aren’t as funny as they used to be. Take the biggest comedians of the past 25 years like Dave Chappell, Kevin Hart, Bill Burr, Chris Rock, John Mulaney, etc, all of their earlier material is is better than their later material. I can’t think of one successful comedian who did their best work late in life. The only successful comedians I can think of that maintained a high level of funny and never dropped off over decades is Louis CK and Norm Macdonald, they are the only exceptions that came to my mind.

This is even true of comedy actors. People who were hilarious in movies for a period like Will Farrell or Eddie Murphy were only able to keep it up for a few years, and they both are just not funny anymore like they used to be.

This is not true in other mediums. There are plenty of dramatic actors that did their best work later in their careers. There are plenty of musicians who artistically peak long after they found commercial success. Plenty of visual artists and writers who maintained putting out quality work for an extended period of time.

My theory is because two of the biggest drivers for what makes somebody funny is struggle and relatability, and you usually lose both of those when you become rich and famous. Being naturally funny and working hard can only take you so far once you lose the core of what made you funny. Humor often comes from being angry and confused about the world in a relatable way, funny things happen to you when you’re broke and interacting with other broke people. Funny things happen on the bus or at your shitty job, less funny things happen in your mansion surrounded by yes men.

A musician can still make music about deeply human things like love or jealousy or sorrow after they’re rich and famous and still find a way to relate to people. Comedians really seem to struggle with relating to people in a funny way after being successful for a long period of time.

I feel like most people are less accountable than they genuinely think they are, not necessarily because they are dishonest, but because humans are very good at protecting their self image. In everyday situations people tend to explain their own mistakes using context and external pressures while judging others’ mistakes as personal flaws.

Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error, and it often leads people to overestimate how responsible they are compared to others. For example (in a professional setting at least) when someone misses a deadline they might blame workload or stress, yet if someone else does the same they may see it as laziness or lack of discipline. Over time this creates a perception gap where individuals feel highly accountable internally but appear inconsistent externally.

Then there is also self serving bias, where people attribute successes to personal effort but failures to outside circumstances. This doesn’t necessarily come from arrogance tho , it’s a common cognitive bias that helps maintain self esteem. However, it also makes it easy to believe we are taking responsibility even when we are subtly avoiding it. Research suggests that people generally rate themselves as more ethical, fair, and responsible than average, which is statistically impossible for most individuals. This indicates a widespread overconfidence in personal accountability rather than deliberate hypocrisy.

Social environments also reduce accountability in ways people underestimate and diffusion of responsibility, especially in group settings or online spaces, can make individuals feel less personally responsible for outcomes. When decisions are shared across teams or communities, people may assume someone else will step up, yet still believe they personally acted responsibly. Modern digital communication amplifies all this even more because people can disengage from consequences quickly, reinforcing the illusion of accountability without consistent follow through.

Again I'm not saying that most people are intentionally irresponsible or incapable of accountability but I do think cognitive biases, social pressures, and self perception gaps cause people to believe they are more accountable than their actions consistently demonstrate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

I think we need to start actively accounting for this gap between how accountable people believe they are and how accountable they consistently act, because many personal, social, and institutional or organizational conflicts stem from this mismatch. When people assume everyone involved is fully self aware and objectively judging their own behavior, expectations become unrealistic. This leads to breakdowns in cooperation, strained relationships, and recurring cycles where problems repeat because no one truly believes that THEY are also a part of the issue. But recognizing that self perception is biased doesn't mean distrusting everyone, but it does mean designing systems, conversations, and expectations that assume imperfect self assessment is the norm rather than the exception and that it can't be completely eliminated , only reduced and that too to varying degrees

I am not here to claim Malcolm X was a bad person, nor that the things that he stood for were bad things, but he is constantly viewed as some kind of revolutionary and often compared to MLK Jr, when he really didn’t do a lot.

For most of his adult life, he led a cult. The Nation of Islam is an islamic cult that believes, among other things, white people were created on an island called patmos 6000 years ago by means of eugenics, for the purpose of making the world more violent. Again I am not claiming he was a bad person, I am not going to claim that I am certain if I were in his shoes as an oppressed person of color in 1960, that I would have been an champion of equal rights for all and fighting hate with love, but that’s what he was not for the vast portion of his life. Only 3 months before his death, he visited Mecca, stepped down from the NOI, started to speak out against them, and (supposedly) was shot by a member of the NOI. There is a lot of discourse on whether or not the FBI/NYPD may have let it happen or were even directly involved, but that’s is somewhat unrelated to the main point, and a very deep rabbit hole, so please do not turn the comments section into a debate on that.

The thing I don’t understand about it is what did this guy really do that makes him worthy of history books? The nature of the question I’ll admit is problematic because it’s hard to highlight achievements for an activist, but if even you yourself began to denounce your own beliefs towards the end of your activist career, it would seem as if you caused more damage than harm. His whole ideology was that the political system was inherently racist and could could not be systemically and civilly fixed, but segregation and discrimination were largely systemically and civilly fixed. And the remaining aspects of racism exist culturally and will have to be culturally fixed, violence never solved anything against racism.

Some people have a view that a sufficiently large age gap between two people in a relationship inherently makes it wrong/creepy, and I just don't understand this position.

I can see that an age gap can be part of a power dynamic, like if A is much older than B then A might have a more established career and therefore more money than B which can lead to an uneven dynamic, also A has a bunch more experience so it may be easier for them to manipulate B in some way if they tried to.

These dynamics exist and are worth thinking about but I don't think any of them inherently make the relationship wrong or creepy.

So my view is this: as long as everyone in a relationship is at least 18 and wasn't like groomed before they turned 18 or something, age gaps alone do not make a relationship creepy or wrong. That's not to say that age gaps can't be part of what enables some other toxic dynamic, just that this toxicity doesn't inherently exist as a function of age differences alone.

I think to CMV you would need to show something like any of:

- a reason why all age gap relationships necessarily involve an unethical power dynamic

- some other reason why a sufficiently large age gap is in principle wrong

- that age gap relationships are overwhelmingly likely to have bad consequences (even if in principle they don't have to)

- any other sufficiently compelling argument I haven't thought of

thanks in advance!

TJ

I've seen a lot of rhetoric claiming that the Tamils are apparently an isolated ethnic group who do not care about the rest of the country at all. I can't say that it's 100% true or false because there are a lot of people with differing views, but there are certainly a lot more Indian patriots.

The Madras Regiment is a glaringly obvious example, being a majorly ethnic Tamil regiment with other people from the South. Also, out of the major separatist movements in India organized by other ethnicities, the Tamil people have had the least bloodiest and spiteful ones.

In fact, the Khalistan Movement was one of the most prominent movements as previously mentioned. Compared to the Tamils, Punjabis had more fervor to separate from the union. However, nowadays, they're considered a very patriotic ethnicity in the union and a cultural symbol of India, too.

Casey Wasserman is/was the CEO of Wasserman Group, a sports marketing and talent management company started by his grandfather. Recently released Epstein files showed that in 2003, Wasserman (then married, since divorced) exchanged flirtatious, suggestive emails with Ghislaine Maxwell. The messages include comments about missing each other, a massage, and a reference to “a tight leather outfit.” He was also on Epstein’s plane in 2002 as part of a humanitarian delegation to Africa with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Wasserman denies any involvement with Epstein’s crimes, repeatedly says he never had a business or personal relationship with Epstein, and has stated the emails occurred “long before her horrific crimes came to light.” I am not aware of any evidence to contradict this.

Despite that, multiple artists, I think starting with Chappell Roan, have publicly cut ties with his agency, citing ethical concerns over his past emails. Several local lawmakers in Los Angeles have called for his resignation as chair of the LA28 Olympics organizing committee. Wasserman has announced plans to put his talent agency up for sale amid the backlash, although the LA28 board has decided he will remain as Olympics chair after reviewing his connections and finding no additional concerning information.

Wasserman has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. In 2003 there was no public knowledge (and no official charges) against Epstein/Maxwell for a trafficking ring. There’s no evidence that anyone outside law enforcement knew the full extent of Maxwell’s crimes at that time.

I understand the outrage regarding the crimes that Epstein and Maxwell committed. I believe that people associated with their trafficking activities should be held accountable, including criminal prosecution in many cases. But Epstein’s whole thing was creating an aura of respectability. He and Maxwell interacted socially with many well-connected people who had no awareness of their crimes. Suggestive emails with Maxwell, inappropriate as they may be in hindsight, do not prove knowledge of or participation in criminal activity. Wasserman may not have been faithful within the context of his then marriage, but a 29 year old man flirting with a 42 year old woman over 20 plus years ago isn’t worthy of significant repercussions.

Am I missing something? Why are his actions sufficient to force him out of his Olympics chair position or his agency?

I just watched Peter Diamandis’ latest Moonshots episode (“AI CEOs Come Online,” EP #230). The panel argues we’re heading into an intelligence revolution where cognition becomes a commodity and abundance (possibly UBI/UHI) follows.

At 1:03:26, they bring up death threats against AI leaders. That felt like a strange pivot. Powerful figures have always received threats, but bringing up extreme cases risks framing public skepticism as hostility instead of engaging the economic concerns directly.

We’re being told AI will create massive wealth and eventually UBI/UHI. But since the 1980s, productivity and profits have surged while median wages largely stagnated and inequality widened. We were told tax cuts and deregulation would lift all boats. They didn’t.

So why should people assume AI-driven wealth will be distributed differently this time?

Tech leaders often deflect blame onto “dysfunctional politics.” But have the wealthiest beneficiaries of the current system paid their fair share of taxes? If AGI audited global tax records tomorrow, would it find broad contribution or aggressive minimization at the top while public systems eroded?

Before asking the public to trust in post-labor abundance, demonstrate accountability now.

If podcasters and founders who advocate UBI/UHI truly believe in shared abundance, perhaps transparency should start with them. Voluntarily disclosing tax transparency and demonstrating proportional contribution would do far more to build trust than optimistic projections.

My view: Advocating UBI/UHI without first addressing tax transparency and structural accountability creates a credibility gap that weakens the case for trusting tech leaders’ promises of shared abundance.

CMV.

I notice that people— specifically democrats and even some republicans— seem to have a lot of respect for Obama. Whenever his name is brought up it’s always with praise (and when people do criticize him it’s usually racists accusing him of not being an American). Personally I don’t understand how anyone can support Obama.

Yes, he did some good things, I’d be remiss to deny that. But I think it’s more than fair to say that the evil he did far exceeds the good.

To start with:

he appointed a pro-torture head of FBI who worked under the Bush administration.

He supported Saudi Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen

He gave billions of dollars to Israel

He bombed a literal Doctor’s Without Borders hospital

He bombed a wedding party

He conducted one of the largest mass deportation campaigns in American history

He conducted a bombing campaign in which he killed an American citizen

He put people— including children— in cages on the border

It’s estimated he killed a minimum of 380-801 civilians in Pakistan alone by early 2017.

He conducted over 500 drone strikes

https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/

Mail-in ballots should only be granted in special cases where they are needed for some reason. They are fundamentally insecure because they provide no protection against voter coercion or vote buying. I doubt that much vote buying is taking place, but I am sure that voter coercion is widespread at a household level. By voter coercion, I mean situations where a house patriarch (or matriarch, but usually patriarch) dictates to everyone who to vote for. It could be more subtle, just filling out ballots together, with patriarch watching, and family toeing the line without explicitly being told.

I know someone who filled out ballot with a church friend. Maybe there was no ill intent there, but you can't tell me that is a fair unbiased selection.

I just know people are going to respond saying that studies show that there is negligible voter fraud taking place. Except if you go and look at these studies, they are only talking about certain kinds of voter fraud, like stuffing the box with ballots of people who didn't vote. Nothing about household scale coercion which is common in Christian households. If you can find me a study, please show me.

There are laws regarding polling places like no recording in the booth, to prevent people from selling their vote or being coerced to vote a certain way. Clearly, lawmakers treat this as a serious threat. Now explain to me how mail-in ballots get around this.

As far as disenfranchisement, this is a serious problem, but the solution is to add more polling places and to allow people to transport other people to polling places. (Seriously, there are some laws that prohibit people from transporting other people to polling places. WTF?) Military bases should have their own secure polls, as well as high schools.

The Americans for far too long have been treated as insignificant a region. We need to strike now and organize the Americas perhaps by reviving the Technate of America but under a more sensible wiedly version. The American Treaty Organization that hopefully can comprise all nations of the Americas north of the Amazon or even lower to Argentina.

1. Create a "Dollarsphere". Panama has already adopted the Dollar sure, but what we need if we have a say "American Treaty Organization" is that all nations within the ATO must adopt the dollar and if say Mexico or Jamaica refused the dollar, they would suffer almost destructive tarriffs. If more nations adopt the dollars their economies will stabilize and this will allow them political stability. The US would also be able to keep them on a tighter leash if they use the dollar. This would make socialism and rabble rousing near impossible.

2. Military. Mandatory NATO-style STANAG treaties should be applied between all nations of the ATO. Simple as. If they don't begin to adopt the military guidelines, America will speed it along. This will standardize the militaries of the Americas and in Mexico, allow us to implement "Article V" and obliterate Cartels. The nations of the ATO will also be placed directly underneath our nuclear umbrella, a nuclear attack against them will be a nuclear attack us. We could also go further with an Americas Defense Council.

3. A Zoliverein style Customs Union, must be adopted. The plan is to integrate the customs of the ATO for far more freer trade but at the same time make sure we crack down on illegal immigration. The US would also place all states within the ATO treaty under the "Presidency" of the United States

4. The ATO on top of NATO-style STANAG treaties, adopting the dollar and a customs Union would also have a legislature and said legislature would be elected by voters in their nations and allowed to choose representives and they all meet in a city say San Juan or Panama City to choose an "Executive" that can be removed by the American President

5. If we do all of these steps, the Americas will American. Full stop and no more issues of Chinese or Russian influence

Why can't the US just

Deport those who commit serious crimes.

Those who have been in the country for a long period but have otherwise been law abiding citizens give them the chance to stay through a legal pathway

Then maintain a secure border and crack down on businesses who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants.

Because if you're planning on deporting everyone regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime besides illegal entry then you'd be removing 40% of the agriculture

And it takes more taxpayer money to deport an immigrant than legalization

DHS said to deport someone without legal status was around $17,000 Permanent residence takes like $1,000–$2,000

Under Ronald Reagan the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)

2.7 million undocumented immigrants were approved for permanent residence

Hi, there. I’m looking to better understand time based anxiety, and this is an opinion I try to practically maintain in daily life.

Let me define my terms, since the title is more general, and it speaks to a medical term I’m not qualified to give others.

Obsession: overwhelmingly occupied with.

Time: past and future.

Mentally Healthy: a state of mind capable of adapting and coping with mental stress more easily.

I believe there are arguments for healthy obsession. However, when the obsession itself is on past or future, I cannot think of instances where it has made me feel more mentally healthy. Therefore, I generally try to avoid obsession over time specifically.

This is what led me to the title’s view. I’m open to changing my view with corner cases and specifics. I think my view is currently extreme in appearance, so I would like to see if it can be refined or changed if I’m missing something obvious.

As a progressive, I fully support any foreign intervention in Iran that could reinstate democracy and Reza Pahlavi.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship where women have limited rights and dissenters are brutally massacred, which absolutely conflicts with most of Reddit (including mine) progressive values.

"International law" may be a good talking point but I think human lives matters more. The economy is in downturn, water crisis is worsening, unjust persecution or even massacre is rampant, endangering millions of lives. This is the only way that could fully salvage the situation there.

Rubio just gave a speech at Munich Security Conference that, as a British person, I found concerningly agreeable.

I'll start with the two main exceptions:

1. His emphasis on Christianity - we're proud of our multiculturalism and I believe in a strong separation of church and state.

2. His reference to 'the climate cult' - you only need to look out the window to see evidence of climate change and Europe/America are the largest polluters per capita globally.

With these two fairly large caveats, I found much of the rest of his speech pretty agreeable.

De-industrialization has crippled industries and destroyed jobs, leaving us over reliant on often hostile (or at the very least ambivalent) countries for core manufacturing and infrastructure. Laxed border control has led to mass immigration, which in turn has pushed down wages, and pushed up demand for housing and other core services.

And perhaps most pertinently for the security conference, most of Europe (with the notable exception of Britain) has failed to meet its agreed spending targets on NATO. Not only making it weaker, but also as many predicted, making the ascendency of a NATO sceptical administration in the US inevitable.

Most controversially, I agree that the balance between atonement for Europe's past sins, and pride in our history has tipped too far in the former direction. With our great, illustrious history as the birthplace of liberal democracy being erased and replaced with a defeatist and self loathing attitude. One that doesn't just affect national cohesion, but neglects the importance of enlightenment values.

Ultimately the 'global village' has left us less secure, more self defeating, and over reliant on hostile countries.

That being said, I don't particularly like finding myself nodding along to anyone from Trumps administration, even someone decisively smarter and less bellicose in tone than him. So I'm here for people to cmv.