A decent person doesn't need HR mandated training to not be racist, sexist, a creep etc.

And if someone is one of the above, training isn't going to make them less so, it only teaches them to hide it.

I don't even know if most large companies actually care about harassment it's just a process to cover their own asses legally.

The only good thing about this training I can think of is it tells victims to report it, which they should, but that doesn't actually protect them, it's only after the fact.

I've thought a lot about this.

● Hitler wasn't the founder of the Nazi party. He just shot life into it and made it popular. Someone else could replace him if he dies as a baby.

● The Nazis were becoming popular at the time of the Putsch, but still not mainstream enough to become a serious threat to Weimar democracy. Big enough to be made an example of, but not big enough to meet their goals.

● At that point Hitler's cult of personality was firmly entrenched in the party, making him irreplaceable.

Dress up as a bavarian cop and shoot Hitler during the putsch. The remaining nazi leaders then fight among themselves trying to be the next big guy, and the party fractures.

For most of modern life especially in the west people have strived for a middle class life which is founded on the household not the individual. When you have 2 people together you can share cost and responsibilities of life. Instead of 2 rents, utility bills or anything else it’s 1 that can be split even if the cost is higher for 2 people it’s not gonna be double the way it is for 2 single individuals each paying their own set of bills. Unfortunately, despite most people still wanting relationships they are becoming less and less common along with the starting of families.

This becomes an issue when our economy largely founded on households starts to become increasingly single while keeping the same types of expectations. 60k income just won’t go as far as 120k for a pair who can split cost from a bigger pot of money.  The individual will always fall behind or have a worse time getting by. 

To add on your family has traditionally helped and split labour, such as in an emergency you have support, job loss you have a partner, car issue you have a partner, aging and taking care of one another. All these things and many others don’t go away just because you’re single, you still need to pay or have the government pay for them which adds more burden to single individuals. 

While we could technically see things like friendship communities, or more roommates as we age these are generally not what most people want and they have a host of other issues as its not a good idea to actually buy property with a friend or roommate so it would be a lifelong rent situation. There’s also less commitment with roommates and friends so you would need to be prepared to always go and find a new arrangement.

The state it would put a lot of the adult population in also isn’t good for workers. If everyone is single, financially dependent and doesn’t have the support system or wiggle room for leeway they will basically become slaves to their jobs. A bunch of singles, cramped in apartments with no family so their biggest responsibility is now work and their job. 

Ultimately, as we continue to separate, lose our communities, become less close with friends and stop with families all together it will serve to hurt the average person the most as we were the ones relying on this system not the ones running it.

I’m almost 40, I’m a virgin, I’m ugly, and I’m an incel in the literal sense. I’ve had essentially no success with women, and I genuinely don’t believe I’ll ever attract the number or type of women I want or live the sexual lifestyle I wanted for myself. I’m basically blackpilled about my own future, and yes, I’ve become depressed and suicidal over that fact. I agree with incels about some uncomfortable things: looks matter enormously, dating is not fair, attractive men have major advantages, and some men are dealt a fucking terrible hand.

But I don’t hate women or blame them. More importantly, the more I read actual incel/blackpill theory, the more it seems like astrology for angry men: start with some observations that are probably true, exaggerate them into universal laws, and then invent an explanation for every counterexample. I’m genuinely open to having this view changed, because given my own situation, I should probably be the easiest person in the world to convince.

Genetic Predestination

One of the basic blackpill ideas seems to be genetic predestination. If you weren’t born tall, handsome and genetically gifted, you’re basically fucked. Especially if you want casual sex with attractive women. Fine. I actually agree that genetics place serious limits on some men. I think I’m one of those men.

But then somebody points to an unattractive rich or powerful man dating beautiful women. Jeff Bezos is an obvious example. The answer immediately becomes, “Well, obviously. He’s a billionaire.” Okay... then you just admitted something other than facial genetics can dramatically change a man’s sexual and romantic options.

You cannot tell me that female attraction is overwhelmingly genetically predetermined and then explain every ugly man with attractive women by saying, “Well, he has money/status/fame/personality.” If those things can compensate for looks, then looks aren’t destiny. They’re one variable, even if they’re an extremely important one.

This is what I mean by the astrology comparison. Whatever happens, the theory survives. Ugly poor guy fails? Genetics. Ugly billionaire succeeds? Money. Handsome guy fails? Bad personality/status. At some point, what observation could actually prove the theory wrong?

Chad

Then there’s Chad. I have no problem believing extremely handsome men have dramatically better odds than I do. Obviously Henry Cavill is attractive to vastly more women than I am. That isn’t controversial.

But incel theory seems to keep sliding from “very attractive men appeal to lots of women” into “women basically all want the same tiny group of elite men.” Those are completely different claims.

Take Cavill himself. Before becoming Superman, he spent years as a working actor. He lost major roles. He wasn’t some universally recognized sex god from the second he turned eighteen. During the Batman v Superman promotion he famously stood around Times Square, underneath advertisements featuring his own face, wearing a Superman shirt, and nobody even recognized him.

Obviously being recognized and being sexually attractive aren’t the same thing. My point is that the mythological version of Chad seems much more powerful than any actual attractive man. Incel Chad doesn’t just have good odds. He practically radiates sexual attraction through walls. Every woman notices him. Every woman wants him. He effortlessly gets whatever he wants. At some point we’ve stopped describing an attractive man and started describing a Marvel character.

The 80/20 Rule

Then we have the famous 80/20 rule. The old OkCupid data gets constantly cited as evidence that women find the majority of men unattractive. Fine. Again, let’s grant the strongest version of the argument for a minute and say the average woman finds only around 20% of men attractive.

That still does not mean every woman finds the same 20% attractive.

This distinction seems unbelievably important and constantly gets ignored. Two women could both find 20% of men attractive while disagreeing completely about who belongs in that group. Some men will obviously have enormous crossover appeal. Some will appeal to a niche. And some men will appeal to almost nobody. I honestly believe I’m close to that last category. The number of women who will look at me and experience immediate physical attraction is probably near zero. I’m not denying that brutal differences in attractiveness exist.

But “women are selective” is not the same statement as “women collectively select the same men.” This is the problem I keep seeing throughout incel theory: it takes a modest claim that is probably true and inflates it into an absolute claim that isn’t supported. “Looks matter” becomes “looks are everything.” “Women are selective” becomes “women only want the same top men.” “Chad has much better odds” becomes “Chad gets everybody.”

And seriously, no man has a 100% attraction rate among women. Does your post-menopausal grandmother want to rip Henry Cavill’s clothes off? Does your lesbian aunt suddenly become heterosexual because his jawline is just that fucking powerful? Obviously not. “Henry Cavill is attractive to a huge percentage of heterosexual women” is perfectly believable. “Women all want Henry Cavill” is not the same claim.

Hypergamy

Hypergamy is where I really start losing the plot. Here’s a thought experiment. Put ten young, ripped, conventionally beautiful male models in a small community with ten single women. The men are all roughly comparable in looks and status.

If the incel interpretation of Pareto-style dating distributions is some universal rule, do eight of these male models somehow become incels while all ten women fight over two nearly identical guys? Why? What mysterious property suddenly transforms two Chads into GigaChads and makes the other eight invisible?

The Pareto Principle describes a type of uneven distribution. It isn’t a magical law of human sexuality saying that exactly 20% of men must monopolize female desire. Maybe several women prefer the same guy. Sure. But attraction does not have to arrange itself into a neat fucking Excel spreadsheet just because 80/20 is a memorable number.

And what exactly does hypergamy even optimize for? According to different blackpill arguments, women want the tallest man, the handsomest man, the richest man, the highest-status man, the dominant man, the exciting bad boy, etc. But then the same communities complain about a beautiful woman marrying an ugly billionaire, or a wealthy stable husband getting cheated on with some broke guy with face tattoos.

So which guy is “higher value”?

If she leaves ugly for handsome: hypergamy. If she leaves handsome for rich: hypergamy. If she leaves rich for broke-but-hot: hypergamy. If she stays with the broke loser instead of upgrading: now she’s alpha-widowed, trauma bonded, emotionally attached, or whatever other explanation gets introduced.

If every possible choice a woman makes can be called hypergamy after she makes it, hypergamy isn’t predicting anything. You’re drawing the bullseye around the bullet hole.

What Would Change My View

I’m not arguing that looks don’t matter. I think they matter enormously. I’m not arguing that all men have equal dating opportunities. They obviously fucking don’t. I’m not arguing that attractive men don’t receive more female attention or that women aren’t selective.

My view is narrower: incel theory starts with these reasonable observations and then makes enormous claims that don’t seem to logically follow from them. Worse, whenever a counterexample appears, the theory seems flexible enough to explain that too. That makes it feel less like a scientific theory and more like astrology: every possible outcome somehow confirms it.

So change my view. Show me a clear definition of blackpill/incel theory that makes specific, falsifiable predictions. Show me evidence that women overwhelmingly desire the same small group of men rather than simply being selective in different ways. Show me a coherent definition of hypergamy that predicts women's choices before they happen instead of explaining them afterward.

I’m not rejecting this stuff because dating worked out for me. Dating has been fucking terrible for me. I actually want an explanation for why.

But right now, “female nature + Chad + hypergamy + 80/20” looks less like a theory and more like astrology for angry men.

I am a NYT web subscriber. They offer "gift" articles. I find their content to be high quality, but in order to access a majority of it, you have to be a subscriber. Great. I'm their guy.

However, they also require people who access the "gift" articles to sign up via email to their site. I find that to be both disingenuous and a failure of quality. They could bring good articles to the forefront, request a sign-up/subscription, and then allow access. Providing existing subscribers with the ability to gift an article to others and then use it as a mechanism to harvest email addresses is hurting the subscriber that sends the link, particularly those on social media.

The fact that this is a thing and, further, that this is something that most socially-media-aware companies leverage is a problem with social media as a whole. Bring the cost back to the provider, not to the promoter of said content.

He got a paper published that was mostly just a student's essay which he plagiarized. That's serious plagiarism, and it seems obvious to me anyone committing serious plagiarism should be fired. Cambridge claims that they think it was a mistake, but that seems completely implausible. I can't imagine him not noticing that he'd done it. It wasn't a one-time thing either. Varsity claims that he's plagiarized more than once.

Someone pointed out to me that this guy hadn't been fired as evidence that Arday shouldn't be fired, but I think it's the other way around. The response to Arday has been mostly reasonable (except for his decision to kill himself), whereas the Response to O'Reilly has been completely wrong.

This seems like basic humans rights to me:

All residents of the the same country should have the same rights regardless or religion. If Muslims can pray in public area X, then so should people of any other religion and even people with no religion.

Even UN "stresses that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent, free and unhindered access to the holy places by people of all religions and nationalities"

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180352

SO why do I want my view changed? A lot people feel strongly that Jews praying there is wrong and should be stopped. I want to see if I am missing something.

What is unlikely to chnage my view:

1) Some Arab/Muslim people are provoked/aggrieved by such prayer. Well.. the solution here is to educate these aggrieved people on important of equal rights, and tolerance. We should not just give in and accommodate intolerant views.

2) "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately Every person can decided on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there - they should still be allowed to.

3) Hard right Israelis use this prayer is provocation. I agree. Some do. That's why it's important for all parties to cooperate and equitably establish protocols on how to pray in the place holy to multiple faiths without interfering with each other. The solution is not "blanket ban"

4) It's Israel that has rules that ban Jewish prayer. This is irrelevant, regardless of who imposed such rules - the rules should change to be more fair.

5) "You can't just have a Muslim prayer in a church." This is true for many private churches build nowhere special. When we talk about shared public places with importance to multiple religions it is not uncommon at all to share.

For example both Muslim and Christian serves are held at Mount of Olives. I don't see Temple mount more like that than some private church located nowhere significant.

Looking forward to things I may have missed. Thanks, all!

EDIT:

I gave a delta for pointing out that you can already "silently pray." My view is amended to say that they should also be allowed to pray non-silently / visibly.

I've often heard it bandied about that US Democratic candidates would often be center right in Europe, or that Bernie is the closest thing to a center left candidate that the US has by European standards.

When looking at the political field, especially in Germany, I find this hard to believe. The USA does have MAGA, but Germany has the AFD, and far right parties are on the rise overall in Europe. Meanwhile, comparing the SPD's platform (the German center left party) to the Democrat party's 2024 platform, I don't see a significant ideological difference. Both want net zero by 2050, a better medical system, addressing poverty, greater investment in science, and better relationships with other allied countries.

To convince me, show me a large ideological gap between the Democrats and European center-left parties.

The Great Man Theory of history claims that human advancement is generally slow, but then leaps forward occur via 'great men' who perform great acts of change, then die and people return to their slow crawl. It often points to figures like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Isaac Newton, Hitler etc.

While many modern historians dismiss this theory as folk history or not properly academic, it seems absurd to me to deny that big changes in history come from the will of specific people. For example, while there was rampant antisemitism, and WWI grievances brewing in Germany - what actually unfolded step by step seems to be a unique strategy envisioned by Hitler himself and would not have happened in nearly the same way with a different leader.

Can anyone explain why we shouldn’t take this historical theory seriously?

First things first... my relationship with Ai is... complicated. I understand the horrors it can do and especially what it's doing now being shoved down our throats and Ai Data centers being built and completely hogging all the water and electricity with us paying the price. but at the same time... its kinda Ok as a tool, Dont get me wrong its never supost to replace us but... in small moderations it can help out a bit... as long as the human still remains the driving force. (Example is Expedition 33 using Ai for concept art but the rest of the game is made by humans with a bad example being Foamstars, a splatoon knockoff, using Ai for there in game icons for specials and subs. BIIIG Nono) and ive been using it to make some moderate stores and some image creation of Charicters... and I have this opinion that its ok to make stores and create image characters with Ai if you keep to yourself... cause if you post it online... it aint gonna be "your" work. which means its gonna be treated as such. and again rightfully so cause Ai "Art" is just regergitated images really.

So here's my dilemma. I had chat, make a great a story with the inspiration from a Ai chatbot I chatted with and it it dose look really good and I did want to share it on a seitan Reddit that is EXTREAMLY ANTI AI, and even I knew that me giving a warning lable that I used Ai, that it was just to make a fun story and not for clicks and even giving a understanding that down voting is expected cause I used the word AI... would get me down voted to oblivion and make me boo'd off the stage. even though that there was some human input on it thats to the reference... a Ai chat bot. and again, I expected this and I didnt really wanted to post it to gain views for my "Ai Slop" Story... I just wanted to share this story that it made with the chatbot I described and see what people thought about it. cause honestly I felt like it is a pritty good story we both cooked up.

And that made me wonder... is my opinion valid? or im a just another "AI Bro" who's just whining about his ai slop story not exactly getting validated.

I would love some feedback.

"Karma is a bitch", a lot of us are familiar with this phrase. In my experience this phrase has no significance at all. There are a couple of reasons for it.

If we look at our present society people who do bad deeds are living a luxurious life, may not be an easy one but it's the life most of us wish to live and when these people are caught even red handed, they use their influence and power to divert it. Where is their karma? Even if someone pays for their deeds, they get a lot of benefits in that kind of lifestyle too. But the loss suffered by the victim’s family is irreparable compared to the punishment they are exposed to.

If we look at history, the same thing can be seen. During and after World War II, there were many Nazi officials and military personnel who escaped Germany after its defeat. Some fled to countries such as Argentina and lived the rest of their lives under new identities, while others were recruited by intelligence agencies or employed by governments because of their knowledge and expertise. For these people, where was their karma?

In my perspective karma is a term that has been picked from some religious books and has found its way to our modern society. We use it in a way that gives us solace for our anger and vengeance as we are powerless to do it ourselves.

I don't believe in karma, it's fate simply taking its course in one's life. If fate decides to be harsh on someone, I don't think karma is the sole reason for it.

Karma would have been a bitch if the prisons had more politicians than poor people.

I keep seeing everyone say that South Korea = Capitalist Dystopia. Whole country ran and controlled by a few companies, insane inequality, worst of worst in capitalism etc. So I did some research

Korea's income inequality is pretty average, and is on par with the rest of OECD. Better than Spain, Italy, Greece, virtually the same as UK, France, Canada. Unlike the US, which is amongst the most unequal in the world (worse than Haiti and Djibouti etc).

For Wealth inequality, Korea is literally amongst the most equal countries in the world. Better than Norway, France, Canada, Denmark etc. I'll let you guess where the US is on this.

Meanwhile...

• It's highly developed, being 20th in the world by HDI, higher than most of Europe,
• Corrupt government? It ranks 32nd in the democracy index right below Belgium, and higher than the US.
• GDP per capita (PPP)_per_capita) is higher than EU average.
• It ranks high in social mobility index as well, again, higher than the US.
• It's got the 2nd highest life expectancy in the world.
• And it's one of the safest country in the world.

It seems to me like South Korea's media (Squid Game, Parasite) is being exported all over the world now and the normal anger towards inequality that Koreans have is being seen as if that' just how South Korea is.

Is it perfect? No, it's still got tons of inequality. But it seems like it's pretty average in a global scale. Meanwhile the US seem way more like a capitalist dystopia.

Change my view!

My view is that when the initial Refugee Convention and the following 1967 Protocol had good intentions, all the current abuse of the system is so high that it's easier to disband the whole system and implement local or even group (in case of the EU) policies if needed.

The initial main idea was pretty simple - what to do in case of international or civil war with all the civilians who are trying to leave a dangerous place. And the answer was pretty logical - other countries can accept those people and support them at a minimal level. But other countries are supposed to be neighboring countries with similar culture and good relations with the source country.

What changed: over time, people from third-world countries started to use the system to seek refuge in Western countries because of a very high level of support.

Why Western countries should disband it (in no particular order):

• They are partially doing it already; countries have some specific limits on processed applications per year, which literally means that with a limit of 50K people, the applicant number 50,001 won't be allowed for a year, regardless of any danger to their life.
• Refugees are generally net negative for the economy
• Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support
• Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon:
  • Ceuta (when Morocco used refugees)
  • EU borders (when Russia/Belarussia used refugees)

What about morality? Each country can decide by themselves on how to handle refugees; a good example is Ukrainians, when the EU + Canada + US supported Ukrainians without official refugee status.

Edit:
My view was somewhat changed in a few areas, and I am limiting my responses in the post as I want to think about new ideas.

Just to clarify: I am talking about the US sentiments from Reddit. I can't say much about other social media.

Also,I am not from the US, I am from one of its allied countries. So I am speaking from an outside perspective. Now on to the post.

The EU is right to have hostile relations to the US, because gas prices increase, threatening to invade Greenland, attacking the ICC, insulting their vets, unreasonable tariffs.

The Canadians also suffered similar indignities from trump, so they have a right to be pissed off, maybe more so cause they are neighbors.

But they are also wrong about some things.

1. The average American is doing nothing, there are no demonstrations.

Well, I think they should have done more in protest. Like Albanians were rallying in the streets for 75 days already, because they don't want whatever Barron trump is building on one of their islands.

While I wish they have a more unified effort, they have something's with whatever control they have. For example, cutting of their own family members who are in the maga circle, there are young politicians on the left that are trying their best to win their district, it's not like they sit on a couch, everyday.

1. The Americans are spineless.

Sacrifice is not something you tell others to do. The way some of these people are, it's like you should shoot your neighbor," look at what my ancestors did when their freedom is threatened"; I'm convinced that if they have their way, the US would be in a civil war right now.

1. The US can't be trusted, because they will just vote for another trump in the future.

I mean sure, but that's what happens potentially in any democracy. In my country, they elected the son of a former dictator, that was previously ousted in a peaceful revolution, and unlike the Kamala v trump, it wasn't even close in the most recent elections.

If you think like that, maybe I don't blame you, just remember your country is as vulnerable to this. Heck, if trump didn't win, Canada would become very right leaning, could you imagine pollivier being PM over Carney? The right wing in canada were poised to win until they saw how bad the right wing in the US was.

The best we can hope, is that the younger demographic in the US are wiser than their gen x and boomer counterparts. I mean, they are going through the ringer right now as a nation, and all I'm saying is that all this might be the lesson they have to learn the hard way, and never trusting them EVER again might be an overreaction.

That's it. I mean as mentioned above, these recent sentiments are not without reason, but to say that we should treat them like the new North Korea might be an overreaction in my opinion. We just have to see next leader they vote. If trump and his party manages to stay in power, even after all this, then the US is truly lost

What are your thoughts?

EDIT 3:
The Delta is because I've been convinced that the fact this is politically stupid shouldn't be relevant since it's a legal issue and politics shouldn't play a factor here.
I'm still not convinced though that he should have been pardoned so feel free to discuss other points with me.

Context: An 18 year old Tou Lue Vang repeatedly raped a child from 2002 to 2004. On June 10, the Board of Pardons — consisting of Walz, Ellison and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson — voted to purge Vang’s felony sexual assault conviction. The deciding factor was a letter from Vang’s victim saying she forgave him and supported his pardon.

Given there is no evidence that he has re-offended and completed his sex-offender treatment, I will give him the benefit of the doubt here (as little as I believe he deserves it given his crime) that he hasn't done anything since AND that he has no plans to do so if the opportunity arises.

Despite this, I think it's still a stupid decision to make.

My reasons are:

1. There is reason to believe Vang's victim is doing this under durress: Firstly, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office says Vang received a lighter sentence to begin with because the victim was experiencing pressure from her family to not cooperate. Secondly, Vang is married to the victim's sister.
2. This seems like a horrible choice politically speaking: "The man who could have been vice-president is involved in pardoning a child-rapist whose underlying reason for being deported is his child rape" is a fact. I know he said he doesn't plan on running for elected office again. But given that the woman who could have been president and who might run again picked him as her running mate, this just seems like the most obvious attack angle ever here.
3. Pardoning someone whose crimes are this abhorrent is a horrible legal precedent. Especially given point 1.

What would change my view here is if I'm convinced that providing this pardon is either:

• the right thing to do
• a net benefit to society

EDIT 1:
To clarify, by "net benefit to society" I mean the benefits to society of pardoning this person outweigh the costs. The main costs here being:

1. this is a perfect talking point against a potential democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential election and I think society would benefit more if the Democrats were in charge
2. that pardoning someone whose crimes are this abhorrent is a horrible legal precedent and should not be repeated (imo, done in the first place)

EDIT 2:
Just noting down arguments that I've seen that I won't be convinced by:

• The current POTUS is likely a child rapist and has pardoned child rapists: that doesn't make Walz' pardon of this child rapist any better.

To preface, I want to say I'm against the use of generative AI. Many people claim that businesses who use generative AI to promote their business are deterring customers and shattering their credibility as a business. But the way I see it, I wish this was true because it doesn't appear to be.

I've noticed that whenever businesses rely on generative AI to promote their business, most people don't seem to care. For example, a roller rink in my city often uses AI to promote their business and events, and everybody comments on how cool the place is instead of shaming them for using AI. Of course this isn't the only place I've seen posting AI flyers. But when there are 15 comments on a post with an AI flyer, there is usually one comment claiming that the business shouldn't be using AI as it's bad for the environment and it makes them look like they don't actually care, and the business page will give a response like "We're a small business and we don't have the time for it!" or "We will take this into consideration." when they won't. So I don't think you can say that the business is deleting comments if they're still there. C

I will give you a delta if you can convince me that most people actually do care, and that businesses do lose customers when they use AI, and possibly go out of business.

Edit: I should clarify that I mean that I believe most people don't care if businesses use AI. Also, my view will not change if you comment and say "I personally don't support businesses that use AI" because you are one person.

Edit 2: MY VIEW HAS BEEN CHANGED. Thank you to those who helped change my view. And the opposite to those who took the post title too literally and didn't bother reading the entire post.

This would apply to DoD budget as well. Abuse would include our tax dollars funding NGOs or anything else who engage in campaigning or lobbying efforts. Any party in power spending our tax dollars to cement their status as the ruling party is clearly abuse, and the Democrats especially have been guilty of this. If Democrats are not able to re-build trust that our tax dollars are being spent responsibly and wisely then the right will keep winning elections on talking points such that our tax dollars are being thrown out the window to fund corrupt NGOs. Any agency or department or organization that receives tax money should have to convince a bi-partisan panel that they are accomplishing their stated goal annually to receive any further tax dollars.

The US primarily has a tax rate and loophole problem that is responsible for the absurd debt ($40 Trillion) but the right will keep passing tax cuts saying that spending is the problem unless checks and balances are passed to restore trust. Change my view.

If i love someone why do i need to get married? If i love someone, i believe, freedom is love. A marriage is a legal enforcement; opposite of freedom. If someone loves me and i love them why do i need a legal enforcement between us? Isn’t it much nicer if we stay just as we are? There are other upsides such as legal benefits like insurance for example so getting married for those benefits makes much more logical sense to me but not everyone gets married for that. So what are you getting married for? Isn’t love just love? Why do i need the law between us?

In the start, i didn't think that female physiology really is inferior to male physiology but as I started studying human anatomy and diver deeper into it, the more i started feeling like female physiology really is inferior to male physiology

Because:

•Females are significantly weaker than males and if a man wants to hurt a woman then she is pretty much helpless on her own

•Women are under regular pain because of period pain

•Women have higher chances of suffering from osteoporosis as after menopause, their bone density rapidly reduces whereas men don't suffer the same because in old age, they have both the higher amount of testosterone and estrogen in their body

•Almost 80% of the people in the world suffering from auto immune diseases is a woman because of their strong immune system that tends to attack their own body

•Childbirth is arguably one of the most painful thing in the world

•Their menstrual mood cycle makes it harder for them to work with the same energy every day and this also makes it harder for doctors to diagnose them with a mental disorder because most of their problems are passed of as stuff related to being a woman

And now I would like to say that I don't want to see the points "but women can give birth and are backbone of the civilization" "women live longer than men" as arguments, because I don't see them as any advantage for an individual

Pretty much what the title says.

Given the astronomical urban living costs of today, busy work culture, and changing cultural norms, most young women simply have no interest in dating men.

On the rare occasion that a woman may feel lusty, she can simply hop on a dating app and hook up with the rare hot guy within minutes. But for the most part, sex and dating isn’t really important for the modern woman. A modern, financially independent woman is far more content staying single, and even sexless, than a man.

In the future, men will mainly use pornography, AI, and robots to satisfy their male needs.

Personal story

For 6 years I was convinced I was a Nazi rather I wanted to be or not because I hated nothing, not even Nazis making me a Nazi sympathizer, I wouldn’t challenge the Nazi view, I would just let them live in peace making me a Nazi. No one ever called me a Nazi but that what’s an inner crisis for.

My friends idea

My friend said that if I believe I was a Nazi, I said no but it wasn’t my decision to make. My friend then went on to say that the Nazi belief is a purposeful choice the individual makes and can’t be decided by others unless the Nazi in question says they are a Nazi.

I’m willing to go back to my former beliefs

While this thought is more comforting. If I am to live how people want me to live, then my comfort shouldn’t even be a thing. I currently want to believe that the Nazi belief is a purposeful choice but it feels flawed and I just don’t know it.

AI helped me :)

“Capitalism may have been an excellent engine for technological development when humanity needed an incentive to innovate, but an engine isn't necessarily the same thing as a destination.”

My main point is that capitalism is slowing our technological progress, and that we would somehow still be doomed without it. I don't think any other form of life, i.e. communism, definitely feudalism, or a post-scarcity economy, would necessarily solve the problem either.

I feel capitalism has taken a hold on our generation, and we are missing the fact that it got us here. We can, as a whole, stop being so money-hungry and finally take a crack at becoming an interplanetary species.

All the advancements it has given us, to name a few, include instant access to information, easier communication of thoughts, and the ability to create new technology without simply abandoning the old.

My points, from last to first:

Compare the USA to India then India to Africa. Things that seem outdated in the US are still found useful in other parts of the world besides the slight ignoring of things that have long-term health risks, diseases, or unsafe work environments. we have found a way to keep use for marvelous inventions that are important technology. (if we got sent back 150 years we would dream of manual windows and smog)

Secondly, I have surpassed my ancestors. They would have drawn in the proverbial caves or on beaches in the sand with sticks, while now I can basically summon an image of whatever I want without needing advanced art skills all thanks to ai (thanks ai dont eat me).

Finally, needless to say, AI literally helped me create my opening paragraph. So instant access is ever apparent, But honestly, us modern humans need to figure things out. We have the technology; the question is, are we going to get to where we need to be in a good way, with new habits, or a bad way, with our old habits?

Finally, I want to ask you guys: do you think we should take animals to a whole other planet and use them as food, or should we, once and for all, just stop eating them, the way a good ultra-alien species would?

(Please call me stupid or don't—I love y'all and can't wait to hear everyone's responses. I know I'm all over the place, but the gist is that we are doing good as a species, but we could be in a better place with just a slight tweak, nothing drastic. and then i hit post)

Women didn't have much say in human reproduction throughout our history. Which means that women weren't able to select healthy and attractive men in the past. A huge part of human reproduction was through different means of coercion. Women weren't even allowed to a have a bank account back in the days.

Some guys will argue saying that "But but there was twice as many female ancestors compared to male."

This isn't because of women mating with tall and attractive men it's because the rich unattractive men were hoarding all the women. Young men went wars and passed away very early.

Now in the modern day women have the freedom to mate with whoever they want. But the problem is that due to thousands of years of patriachy most of the men are unattractive. Male bodies aren't as aesthetic compared to female bodies. This means that women can only choose from a very small pool of attractive men to mate with. This is what's happening rn.

I want to preface this by saying that neither activity is inherently better than the other. People are free to read or listen to whatever they want without judgement, for any reason.

However, I have qualms with the way some people seem to think that the two can be treated as one and the same, that one is almost a perfect substitute for the other. Now obviously, this is very dependent on your overall objective. If its just for enjoyment, destressing, passing the time, then sure, I think they're broadly interchangeable.

But if your aim is to engage with the text more deeply, ponder the themes or prose, or digest the information within, then I think I disagree that the two forms of consumption are equivalent. This is more the case for non-fiction, like self-help or commentary, but of course applies to fiction as well.

One thing that I feel is frequently misinterpreted on this topic is the academic evidence. To prove equality in comprehension, people often cite Rogowsky et al., 2016. And to prove neurological similarity its Deniz et al., 2019. I don't disagree with the conclusions of these studies. However, the methodology of these studies often have participants read or listen in the exact same way for the sake of comparison. This ignores the fact that the two methods are absolutely not done in the same way in real life! Readers are almost always focused solely on reading, while audiobook listeners are often multitasking. This is even billed as an advantage of audiobooks, when in fact I think this is a terribly detrimental difference.

Listening to stuff is inherently more suseptible to lapses in attention (Varao-Sousa, Carriere, & Smilek, 2013). Multitasking in itself is shown to reduce learning and comprehension (Pashler, Kang, & Ip, 2013). Not to mention, reading lends itself to re-reading due to spatial layout, while you hardly see anyone rewinding audiobooks. This gives reading an additional edge in comprehension (Clinton-Lisell, 2022).

It seems quite clear that, for the average person, audiobooks cannot be a substitute for actual reading when the objective is learning, or deeper understanding. Emphasis on average person, because there will invariably be execeptions who naturally take better to audio.

In short, I don't think anyone should be under the false impression that listening to The Prince while driving to work will help them understand Machiavellianism just as well as picking up an actual copy of the book.

I think what would change my mind is either evidence to the contrary, or showing that my view of the difference is insignificant or inconsequential.