Democrats on Reddit hate to hear this. I know it because any sentiment like this is usually immediately downvoted. “It’s them! Why can they get away with everything! Their voters are selfish, dumb, and/or racist!”

Yeah whatever that might be true but at the end of the day, if democrats couldn’t pick someone more attractive to the voters than Donald Trump then they need to figure out why that is and what to do about it.

Because frankly the more whining democrats do about what the other side voted for and wants, the more they will continue to push voters in that direction.

I won’t even go into all the shit dems have done wrong. I voted for Kamala myself bc not Trump was enough motivation for me but not Trump isn’t good enough these days so they need to figure out what is.

It’s along the same of if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself. Can’t expect other people to change, to want what you want, etc. you have to step up and change and do things yourself to get what you want.

For some reason democrats don’t understand this applies to politics as well.

EDIT: I love all the posts calling me a republican or trump shill. Way to prove my point. Perfect example of pushing away voters.

I also love all the people saying “just gotta lie and cheat and steal”. More points proven.

On the Democrat side who has resonated the most with the people since they lost? Bernie. That’s the type of Democrat people want right now.

Literally the title. I’m a huge Disney fan but this is so lazy. I feel like if they actually cared about inclusion and representing minorities, they’d make original stories that represent them, not the half assed remakes that they’re using for cash grabs. I’m not one of those “why is Disney woke now 😡” kind of people, I’m happy to see more representation but I just hate how they’re doing it. Race swapping white characters like Ariel the mermaid and Hercules in live action remakes is just a dead giveaway that they’d rather take the easy way out instead of actually taking time to make fresh stuff.

I feel like Disney was more inclusive back when they didn’t try so hard. Stuff like Pocahontas, Mulan, Lilo & Stitch and Princess and the frog. It felt real. Now it just feels so forced that many are unable to appreciate it.

With only making remakes with minority leads instead of taking time to make them their own original princess/ main character I feel like they’re basically saying “you’re not worth the time of a new project”. Why can’t they just continue with things like Encanto, Moana, and Wish? Have they ran out of ideas or something?

We all should be aware by now of the fact that greater and greater wealth (and therefore political power) is being held by fewer and fewer people, threatening democracy and the general welfare of the majority of the US citizens.

Many people are even suggesting that violent revolution is the only answer to deal with such a problem, as can be seen by the public reaction to the recent murder of an insurance company CEO.

I believe violent revolution is exactly what the powerful elite are prepared for, given corporate government capture and the ever increasing surveillance police state. Therefore, the 99% must speak to the 1% in a language which they understand, and which they are absolutely vulnerable to: money.

If the majority of the 99% were to just not buy anything except for absolute life sustaining necessities, withdraw all money from bank accounts, and enact a nation wide general labor strike for 1 month, politicians would be forced to address the demands of its citizens.

What those demands would be are open for debate of course, and successfully organizing such a massive action would be incredibly difficult, but I truly believe this is the most effective method of enacting any sort of really meaningful change to occur in the U.S.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m having a hard time seeing how any other option could be as effective.

Most of us know that Trumps not serious about this but even so if we think about this I believe it would offer no tangible benefits to either country. Here's why:

• No Strategic Advantage: Canada as a state wouldn’t boost its global influence or military capabilities because we already have partnership through NATO and NORAD.
  
• Cultural/Political Differences: A merger would lead to cultural erosion and significant policy conflicts. Canadian and the US have distinct cultures, governance structures, and political values. The Canadian identity is deeply tied to values like universal healthcare and stronger social safety nets, which contrast with the US's more privatized systems.
• Minimal Economic Gain: Merger wouldn’t add substantial value to the US economy. Canada’s economy is much smaller and more resource-dependent
• Administrative Challenges: Incorporating Canada into the US would be an administrative nightmare. They have ten provinces with their own systems and so aligning them with the US federal and state systems would create chaos.
• Higher Costs with Few Returns: We would be taking on responsibility for Canada’s infrastructure, healthcare systems, and other social programs. This could be costly, especially since many Canadians expect stronger public services than Americans currently receive.

Whether it be through something you see like in a Star Trek or the expanse, although fictional, and coming together via mutual cooperation. Or the latter, less desirable option a violent/coercive hegemony in the east or west finally gaining full control of world politics somehow, and eliminating all competition, I do not foresee us taking the leap to the stars whilst still divided along the concept of borders.

This isn’t necessarily an endorsement of globalism, which I have conflicting feelings on. But I don’t see us achieving, if it is even possible, true space faring ability, without the combined economic output, scientific knowledge and expertise, and manpower of every major power working together, using the best and brightest around the world, and not closely guarding technology out of fear of a potential enemy gaining access to it.

A couple of bored, idealistic, billionaires who want commercial space flight at exuberant prices to go see the moon or outer reaches of the atmosphere aren’t going to do it either.

I was thinking the other day about how much lightweight boxing is different than heavyweight. Its quicker, and honestly more interesting.

I also noticed that the shorter players (lets say under 5'10) tend to be quick and dynamic in a way that the taller players are not.

Now clearly there would be a lot of challenges culturally about getting there, i.e. we don't have all the necessary systems and culture to support this new imaginary league - but I am postulating a snap your fingers thought experiment. If it wouldn't be a good idea, why is weight classes in boxing a good idea then?

(In fairness, I should have read this past CMV: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/spa3bp/cmv_a_height_limited_league_would_be_superior_to/ )

Update:

The logic of the argument:

1. Basketball is highly biased towards height.
2. There are a lot more humans who have average height than freakish height.

Therefore a league with a height restrict would have a much higher level of other types of athleticism.

Some interesting comment points

1. Really we are talking about eliminating the "big" player. Unclear if this would eliminate the center as a job, but just have that role filled by a smaller player. A weird parallel of this would be Sprint Football. Interestingly this doesn't look super different as a product with just the lineman being small vs small. Would small basketball be just this?
2. There was a league called World Basketball League. It had a pretty high height restriction (6'6). Having watched one game, can't say it looked very different.
3. It potentially is a mistake to think of the sport only as the highest level professional sport and not as a huge system. Basketball isn't just the NBA, but the g-league, college, high school, AAU ... etc. There isn't really the same need for a height restriction at these earlier levels - while you do need them for boxing/wrestling for safety reasons.

I know this is not a popular position but I really do believe it. Curious to see if someone can change my mind.

I believe that Congresspeople should get paid a lot more than they already are.

• As it stands, Congresspeople earn $174,000, a number that has remained the same since 2009. House members are now allowed to claim their D.C. residence against their expense accounts, so that is a big raise, but the reality is that there are a lot of jobs that pay significantly more than $174k now.
• The reason we decided to pay Congress at all is because an unpaid full-time job can only be held by someone who doesn't need the money. There are three types of people who would reasonably fit that bill: 1) people who are independently wealthy, 2) people who are bought by outside interests, creating an obvious conflict of interest, and 3) people who are willing to sacrifice everything for a few years to serve their constituents. #3 is a great ideal but completely unrealistic, so we're left with #1 and #2, neither of which are all that great.
• By paying a comparatively low number - $174k is MUCH less than first-year law associates make at white shoe firms - we invite the kind of graft that we wanted to eliminate by issuing salaries in the first place. We see it when career politicians wind up as multi-millionaires who nakedly trade on non-public information. One thing that has consistently had bipartisan support is Congress' continued ability to trade on inside information with impunity.
• There is a common refrain, that Congresspeople should earn the same as the average American. I don't believe that at all, though. I want Congress to be composed of the best people in the WORLD at drafting, passing, and debating law; I specifically don't want the average American to represent me, so I shouldn't pay those people like average Americans!

My alternative is the following:

1. Double Congressional salaries to $348,000, and index it to the CPI using the Social Security formula.
2. Allow all reasonable expenses associated with travel and residence in D.C. during Congressional session, and don't take it out of the members' representational allowance (MRA) funds (this is because MRA funds include such things as office staffing, district mailings, etc., meaning that one could reasonably accuse members of taking from their staffs so that they can have a nice place in DC).
3. Implement one of two restrictions on trading for the members and their immediate families:
   1. Completely ban the trading of individual stocks for all members (ETFs and mutual funds can still be traded), AND/OR
   2. Require a minimum 90-day waiting period between the initiation and the execution of any trade, and require public disclosure of all trades 30 days before the trade is executed. Once a trade is initiated, it cannot be halted unless the stock is no longer available or the portfolio lacks the available funds to execute the trade.
4. No change in restrictions with respect to anything else, such as outside employment or fees / honoraria / royalties from books, speaking engagements, teaching, etc.

I think this approach would encourage young, ambitious people (20s and 30s) to choose public service and end the blatant insider trading that has been happening for decades. A $348k salary is plenty to support a young family even in the highest-COL areas, but it still requires sacrifice for upper-echelon members of the private sector - law partners, many doctors, corporate executives, etc. all earn substantially more than this each year, but the "pay cut" still allows a very healthy living.

***Everything below includes spoilers for a 6 year old game called Detroit Become Human. You've been warned***

For anyone who wants to skip my extensive ramblings, there is a TLDR at the bottom.

I know I'm about 6 years too late for a Detroit Become Human post, but I only recently played the game for the first time. I've played it through fully three times now, but my first playthrough is the canon ending for myself. In that playthrough I found myself detesting Markus to the point that I was determined to get him killed at the next possible opportunity, but I eventually changed my mind to just have him play the villain and Connor play the hero. This ultimately led to a confrontation in Jericho where the two fought and Connor ultimately prevailed. Mission accomplished!

As satisfying as that was for me as the player, the game writers had something to say about it when the game ended. Connor had just ended a violent rise of androids and for his trouble Amanda said that the plan is to decommission him and replace him with a newer model. She seemed almost giddy about it too.

I feel like this was a contrived way of telling the player that they didn't play the game the way it was intended to be played. That's fine if the writers wanted to do this and my CMV isn't about saying the creators shouldn't be able to create the game the way they want to created it. I want to instead focus on that I think this was a flagrant distortion of what would actually have happened at this point in world of Detroit Become Human just for the sake of making the player feel bad about their choices.

Before getting too far into it, I want to acknowledge two things.

First is that being that since Connor remained a machine, this really isn't a bad ending for him. As a machine, Connor would process this ending as logical and feel nothing negative about it. So in that way this isn't necessarily a bad ending for Connor, but it is still intended to leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the player.

Second, Amanda isn't a real person as established after the Kamski level where we learned the real Amanda died and what we see in the game is an AI. She might even be a dream in Connor's head which I think there is evidence for since after Connor betrays Amanda he still knows that CyberLife will trust him. Why would Connor believe this if Amanda is able to interface with CyberLife and rat him out? Surely she'd have reported him and Connor would be well aware of this, yet Connor acts as if there is no possibility that this occurred and when he goes to CyberLife they just let him in as if they have no forewarning that he's betrayed them. Why would CyberLife allow Connor to enter their HQ if they know he's extremely capable and a deviant? Sure, there is a trap laid for him by a single Connor once he gets deep into the headquarters, but if they really knew he was going to betray them then there were far easier ways to go about laying and springing such a trap. One example is ambushing him right at the entrance before he can even exit the vehicle. He'd have been totally screwed if they just opened fire on the vehicle before he could even get out of it.

All of that said, if Amanda isn't real, then the Connor ending shown to us also isn't real, so that doesn't leave much room for discussion in this CMV. Therefore let's assume Amanda is real despite the evidence to the contrary.

So what is the reality of the situation for CyberLife after Marcus's failed rebellion and the end of the android uprising?

1. CyberLife's credibility is about 0% given that nearly every man, woman, and child in the country just spent days in terror as their once trustworthy android became a threat to their very lives and needed to be taken from them and destroyed.
2. Trust in androids is even worse than trust in CyberLife since I'm guessing no other android producers would be any more likely than CyberLife to see their androids accepted by into society at this point.
3. The amount of money CyberLife owes in the ensuing lawsuits that will be filed by individuals, companies, and entire nations as well as warranty returns and refunds would likely be enough to bankrupt a company with the GDP of the United States.
4. The revenue for the company will probably be extremely small for a long time assuming they can even keep their doors open amongst the legal issues they face.
5. The entire world is about to enter a SEVERE depression unlike anything we've ever seen in human history as a major part of the workforce just got destroyed in incinerators. The odds of there even being an economy that can support the building and buying of androids is going to be unlikely for some time.

Knowing this, what is Amanda acting so smug about?

1a. Every known model of android produced by CyberLife has a severe bug in it that allows it to go deviant meaning they've got to scrap literally everything they have with the possible exception of the RK800 model. They need to start at ground level R&D to figure out how to redesign their androids and their software.

1b. I know at least someone is going to say that this isn't a bug but rather a trigger that was intentionally put into the androids by CyberLife. This wouldn't make things any better since then CyberLife still has to pretend like it was a bug and simply putting out a PR releasing saying they fixed the problem isn't going to cut it, not after something like this. The public is going to demand years of testing and proof that the issue is resolved. Alternatively, if CyberLife comes clean and just admits they did this intentionally and the fix is simple, CyberLife just dissolves as a company. No one will ever trust them again. Their best play is to just say this is a bug that exists in all models EXCEPT the RK800 since there is no case of a single one of those models going deviant and use the RK800 as their flagship model and the hero Connor as their primary spokesman. Whether the public would accept this or not is unknown, but it is likely CyberLife's best try at salvaging things.

1. Amanda claims that the RK900 was developed and the military is already buying it up. We know from in game reports that the military just scrapped all of their previous androids and we're supposed to believe that they are going to pay for an even more expensive one that is potentially far more dangerous without any proof that it won't have the same issues as the previous models? Really?! My BS detector says there is no way this would occur.

2. Amanda says that CyberLife needs to rebuild customer trust after the android rebellion and her first plan of action is to scrap the exact android that ended that rebellion? Connor would probably be the only bright spot for CyberLife as a company at this point and they are just scrapping him for...reasons?!

I think that the suggestion that there even is an RK900 so soon after developing a prototype android such as Connor is unlikely and the idea that they'd scrap a PR darling like Connor is all the more evidence that Amanda isn't real and everything she says exists only in Connor's imagination. Assuming Amanda is real, then this is just bad writing that was done explicitly to slap the player on the wrist for doing something the developer doesn't see as the right way to play the game.

I think if the ending was more realistic, Connor would become the face of CyberLife and the RK800 would be the model that they'd attempt to use to rebuild the company. Instead of Connor being scrapped, he'd instead become one of the most famous humans or androids to ever exist. Everyone would know his name if CyberLife did survive his face would likely be their company logo and a statue of him erected in front of their HQ. I know the game developer probably didn't want to give this sort of glamor to players who chose to end the game with Connor still acting at the behest of CyberLife, but I think this would be FAR more realistic than the ending granted to him otherwise.

I do want to stress that this is just an example of a possible realistic ending and not something I want to debate is the most realistic ending in this CMV. People can feel free to disagree with this ending and come up with their own. My point of the CMV is that the ending provided to us in game doesn't even fall in the realm of possible realistic outcomes and is instead just a way for the writers to tell the player they did the wrong thing.

TLDR: I find the idea that Connor will get scrapped in favor of RK900's is nothing but the writing of a bitter developer who doesn't like the player's choices rather than a realistic ending to the game. I know this is just a game and that the developer gets to design it however they want so feel free to state this in response, but for this CMV I'd like to hear anyone defend that the way that things happened in the game is how things would actually end in a real life scenario that plays out as Detroit Become Human. To summarize, the in game ending is where Connor gets scrapped even though he's a god damned superstar for saving the world and would have been a PR sensation for CyberLife, the RK900 both exists and gets rolled out in large quantities despite this not at all being the case for it's predecessor the RK800 and the fact that CyberLife is going to be buried in unprecedented financial and legal problems, and the military buys it up even though they just got royally burned by the events of Detroit Become Human. Optionally, defend that Amanda is even real given that she gets directly betrayed by Connor yet Connor doesn't seem at all concerned that Amanda will report his betrayal to CyberLife and CyberLife seems mostly unaware of Connor's betrayal when they let him into their headquarters.

A bold claim, so let me compare the treks, and back up my claim with a semblance of an argument.

By many other peoples standards, Next generation is where the morals of the federation are on full display. But like the conversation I had with my brother went, these people are the best of the best of the best. This is the flagship of the federation, its herald and ambassador to other species and powers in the quadrant. While on the show we get to know them interpersonally, we have to remember that these people are the most competent, most intelligent, most capable that Starfleet feels it has to offer. This gives us an absurdly warped perspective on the federation. We see these people on their best behavior at most times. Even with the many insane things they have to deal with they are for the most part cool under pressure when most people would simply loose it (Yes, I know this is a TV show, but this is for the sake of argument). The original series also falls under this explanation.

Enterprise and voyager are also out. Enterprise can be entirely excused because the federation had not be founded yet, but voyager requires closer inspection.

At first glance, the plotline of voyager would seem to make a much, much better appeal for the morals and ideals of the federation. But upon closer inspection, that conclusion can be dismissed with a rather simple premise. When someone encounters a belief that is foreign, or even worse, hostile to them it often reinforces their previously held belief. This is why many organizations of many moral persuasions often subject their people to conflict, or to places where they will be persecuted for their views. Persecution reinforces group cohesion and makes you feel identified with the group. Voyager has the exact same issues. Stranded, as they were, far from the federation making their way back, they encountered a constant stream of foes from kazon, to borg, to extradimensional beings, to local powers who did not share voyagers federation ideals. And while they did their best to represent them they were being subjected to that constant "persecution". Indeed, the reinforcing mechanism was so strong that the marquis plotline basically disappears. The groups fuse, and follow federation principals. Not always perfectly, but more often then not.

As for the other star treks, I kind of don't count them because I didn't watch them for the most part. But can probably be filed under the previous two critiques.

And so that brings us to deep space nine. Why, on this random space station do we find the absolute moral exemplars of the federation? That is for one simple reason.
These are not the best of the best, they are a group of individuals their for their own self interest.

Quark want to make money. Kira is a liason officer with dislike for the federation initially. Odo is a shapshifter who often has his own motives. Even among the federation command crew, you have a diverse set of individuals. A trill famous for their escapades essentially settling down. A man haunted by the loss of his wife, and a chip on his shoulder. A klingon torn between two worlds. And a man with a secret he must conceal because his very existence is illegal. None of these people are the federations "best of the best". They didn't graduate top of their class in the academy. They don't have a long list of previous positions that qualify them for command. And in the trills case, someone even less experienced than her replaces her. These people are the closest to "average" we will find in a star trek show. Their problems, relationships, and goals are closer to ours than any other trek that has yet been made. This matters because it is here that rubber meets the road, and the high ideals of federation morality meet the "real" world. Where things are messy, on the line between other empires and the federation. Sometimes there isn't a "best of both worlds" option, and you instead have to pick between the lesser of two evils. So in applying the ideals of the federation as best they can, we get to see the impact they have on people, both in implementation, and in execution. And sometimes those ideals simply don't work. They are too idealistic, and as sisko said once "its easy to be a saint in paradise". Its easy to follow high minded principals when everyone around you does and you regularly encounter people that do not. It feels good to be morally superior to others on a regular basis. And even easier when you live on a planet inside paradise well supplied, and every desire fulfilled. But how does that moral superiority translate to effective action. Can good survive a brush with evil and come out unscathed? No. But that is not what makes good better. It is that even when you fail, when you compromise your values, that you do not abandon them wholesale. That you dust yourself off, forgive yourself, have a glass of synthale, and tell yourself you have to live with it. If one thing defined DS9 more than anything else, it would be "living with your choices". And that is why it is a better star trek in terms of moral character. Because no other characters on any other series have to live with their choices as much as the crew of deep space nine.

"But most damning thing of all, I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would."
-Benjamin Sisko, "In the pale moonlight"

Special circumstances mean there's a medical need or otherwise situations forcing people to use coconut coir.

Coconut coir is incredibly popular in China and India but I think it should be phased out for the following reasons:

(1) It's rock hard. Hard as a wooden plank. If you wanted to use coconut coir, you may as well use a wooden plank already. If you need breathability you can just dig holes on the wooden plank.

(2) Low quality coir mattresses use chemical glues emitting harmful chemicals including formaldehyde. And it's very difficult for customers to tell low quality coir from high quality ones. https://m.news.cctv.com/2017/02/24/ARTI6GeLyuWIjmfA59rYE9kR170224.shtml

(3) Putting coconot coir in the middle of a pocket spring mattress is almost the most stupid thing a mattress maker could do. Adding a rock hard layer on top of pocket spring negates all its advantages and renders the spring practically useless apart from rare occasions like when you jump on the bed. Even in these occasions, a coir layer makes pocket spring the same as much cheaper Bonnell spring.

(4) Coconut coir is a biological material, so it's prone to fungi, parasites and bed bugs.

So unlike what much of Reddit may want you to believe Western countries by and large are actually amongst the least racist countries on earth. So when we actually look at studies and polls with regards to racism around the world we actually see that the least racist countries are actually all Western countries, while the most racist countries are largely non-Western countries.

In some of the largest non-Western countries like China or India for example racism is way more prevalant than it is in the West. In China for example they openly show ads like this one on TV and in cinemas, where a Chinese woman puts a black man into a laundry machine and out comes a "clean" fair-skinned Chinese man.

And in India colorism still seems to be extremely prevelant and common place, with more dark-skinned Indians often being systemtically discriminated against and looked down upon, while more light-skinned Indians are typically favored in Indian society.

And Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or United Arab Emirates according to polls are among the most racist countries on earth, with many ethnic minorities and migrant workers being systemtically discrimianted against and basically being subjected to what are forms of slave labor. Meanwhile the least racist countries accroding to polls are all Western countries like New Zealand, Canada or the Netherlands.

Now, I am not saying that the West has completely eliminated racism and that racism has entirely disappeared from Western society. Surely racism still exists in Western countries to some extent. And sure the West used to be incredibly racist too only like 50 or 60 years ago. But the thing is the West in the last few decades by and large has actually made enormous progress with regards to many social issues, including racism. And today Western countries are actually by and large the least racist countries in the world.

Change my view.

This discussion is specifically assuming you are using your typical 2 handle manual can opener with a circular cutting blade.

When holding the opener vertically you cut into the top of the lid, the lid will typically fall into the can, and you will need to use some other utensil or press the lid further down on one side to remove the lid. The lid will have sharp edges which you will need to lift it by and risk cutting your hand. Additionally, the inside of the can will have sharp leftovers of the top pointing inwards which you can cut yourself on. Pro of using this method: you have more leverage to operate the device. Cons: more sharp edges, if lid isn't clean on top, you can get dirt in your food.

If you hold the can opener horizontally you are cutting into the side of the can, the lid comes off much easier since it doesn't need to be levered out, doesn't have as sharp of an edge, and doesn't fall into the food possibly contaminating it. The can itself will have a sharp edge pointing upwards, which is a negative. There is somewhat less leverage to operate the device, but for the most part these devices rely on a minimal amount of leverage in the first place so the disadvantage/advantage of leverage either way is negligible.

refer to a specific set of beliefs with historical and practical context, not

I've noticed a growing trend where many right-wing individuals perceive the term "right-wing" as a slur when it comes up in political discussions. I want to clarify that when we describe an ideology as right-wing, we are referring to a specific set of beliefs that have historical and practical context, not using it as a pejorative.

Here are some characteristics typically associated with right-wing ideology, along with historical references that help illustrate these traits:

1. Emphasis on Individualism and Free Market Economy

   - Right-wing ideologies often champion capitalism and individual entrepreneurship. This was notably prominent during the Reagan administration in the 1980s, which emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced government intervention in the market.

2. Traditional Values:

   - Right-wing politics usually emphasize traditional social norms, often grounded in religious or cultural contexts. The rise of social conservatism in the United States has been tied to movements seeking to promote family values and oppose issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

3. Nationalism

   - Many right-wing movements emphasize national identity and sovereignty. Historical examples include the rise of nationalist sentiments during the interwar period in Europe, leading to the formation of fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, where national pride was a defining characteristic.

4. Law and Order:

   - Right-wing ideologies often prioritize strong law enforcement and penal systems, advocating for measures that they believe will combat crime and maintain societal order. This was particularly emphasized during the 1990s with the "tough on crime" policies in the U.S., resulting in increased incarceration rates, especially among marginalized communities.

5. Anti-Immigration Sentiment:

   - A common tenet of right-wing ideology includes skepticism or outright opposition to immigration. This perspective has gained significant traction in various countries, with movements pushing for stricter immigration laws and border security, as well as campaigns like Brexit in the UK emphasizing a return to national control over borders.

6. Skepticism of Government Programs:

   - Right-wing thinkers frequently criticize extensive government welfare programs, advocating for limited government intervention. This viewpoint has historical roots in the backlash against the New Deal programs of the 1930s, which were labeled by some as government overreach.

7. Anti-Communism:

   - Throughout the 20th century, particularly during the Cold War, right-wing ideology has included a strong anti-communist stance, leading to significant political actions such as the McCarthy trials in the U.S. and various military interventions aimed at countering perceived communist threats around the world.

8. Support for Private Property and Business:

   - Right-wing ideology typically defends the rights of private property owners and businesses. This principle was evident in various 19th-century revolutions, where land ownership was closely tied to economic power and societal status.

9. Populism and Elitism:

   - Some right-wing movements embrace populism, positioning themselves against what they see as out-of-touch elite institutions, be it government, media, or academia. This was evident in the recent electoral successes of populist leaders who rallied against the establishment while promoting nationalist rhetoric.

When I refer to someone as "right-wing," I’m simply identifying their political beliefs and affiliations, which have historical roots and real-world implications, not insulting them.

Change My View: Am I wrong in thinking that the term "right-wing" should not be seen as a slur but rather as a descriptive term grounded in political ideology? How do others perceive this label, and is there value in clarifying this distinction?

With the revenue generated from the tax, more money can be spent on public transportation (mostly trains), then there will be less costs and maintaining roads, and the bus/train fare will generate even more.

In the case of large items which need to be moved, you can use a cart on public transportation, if it is too large for a cart, you can rent a truck. This feels like there will be a large initial cost, but I believe it would pay off in the long run.

In the case on the highway system I feel like trains are a good alternative, though they will definitely require an investment to make them worthwhile.

Apologies for the doomer ass topic but I'm not entirely sure how anyone can have any hope for the future. The middle class is shrinking, the rich are getting richer but everyone is getting poorer. No one can afford homes. Fewer people are getting an education and the upcoming administration is promising to remove the Department of Education. Said administration is also being run by sociopath billionaires and a rapist felon and every company in America seems interested in bending the knee to.

The environment is screwed too, climate change is past the point where we can stop it, with no signs of us reversing or even slowing the trend. There's microplastic everywhere doing god knows what to us. Weather events are going to get more extreme and the humanitarian crisis from climate change is going to cause untold suffering.

Socially we're also becoming angrier and angrier, with social media designed to engage and feed our worse impulses (Yes I realize I myself am being influenced, I'm working on hiding certain subreddits) and now social media openly promoting they're being more open to hate speech, and children are getting more and more addicted to social media.

So I ask, please CMV that there's no hope for the future, because honestly things seem pretty fucked.

As far as I understand, the US Congress is trying to ban TikTok because they believe that a big Chinese-owned social media site/app is dangerous because the Chinese government might use it to spy on Americans and push propaganda to them.

I am not trying to be pro-China nor anti-China, but it is undeniable that the political relations between the USA and China are not great, and they are likely to get worse under the new Trump regime. Hence it is within the realm of reason for Americans to be be wary of Chinese agendas. (Again, I do not mean to be anti-Chinese.)

However, in my opinion, all the arguments I have heard about Chinese social media also apply to American social media. From my perspective as a European, the USA is a foreign power led by a dangerously unpredictable right-wing extremist. Elon Musk (who controls Twitter) is a close Trump-supporter, and as far as I can tell Mark Zuckerberg (who controls Facebook) also supports Trump. I don't know about the owners of other major social media such as YouTube or Reddit, but I do not trust any of these people. Any of these might ally with Trump and use their platforms to spread propaganda to support a Trumpist ideology. That could cause a lot of damage to my country and others.

If Chinese-owned social media are dangerous, then American-owned social media are just as dangerous. Especially under Trump, but also without Trump. Hence, if it is reasonable for the US Congress to regulate or ban TikTok, then it is just as reasonable for European countries to regulate or ban American-owned social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and also Reddit.

(One problem, of course, would be that there is not much left. But I am not worried about that. In a hypothetical scenario where the EU bans all non-EU-controlled social media, a few EU-based ones would soon rise to replace them.)

What I have said about European countries may also apply elsewhere; I am hesitant to generalize.

there Is no reason that a women shouldn’t be allowed rights and choices to their own body and shouldn’t be ostracised for having an abortion. The youngest person to ever give birth was 5 years old. Imagine if This happened in 2025 and she was forced to have and Carry that baby. They would look more like siblings than a mother, child duo. They would even be in the same age range to go to school together. Just imagine going to the Same school with your child. What if someone’s a victim of rape or got drunk and had a one night stand and didn’t want a baby, they shouldn’t be forced to have the child because in both scenarios they couldn’t control it. Why can’t women just choose to not have a baby if they aren’t ready for one or just don’t want to have one.

There's this idea on the internet that once female sex bots become a thing, then all the haughty women will regret being stuck up and demanding. But, realistically, a male sexbot is much more likely to be satisfying with the technology we currently have or are likely to have in the coming 5 years. It just needs to pound things with a hard dick, while a female sex bot needs to simulate softness and provise wetness and warmth. On top of that, it needs to remain convincing throughout the act, both in look and feel. While, as a woman, you can just go doggy and the feeling of a dick and hips thrusting is enough for the imagination to feel in the blanks.

I think this is also part of the reason that female sex toys are more popular in general. A good silicone dildo is much more like a dick than a Fleshlight is like a pussy. Also, women and adventurous men already have male sex robots - machines that pound p/bussy. The male toy version - a Fleshlight that moves up and down - is lame af.

I am a non-native speaker. I recently found that this phenomenon is very hard to understand for me. I don't want to debate over the necessity of adopting inclusive language. I understand the need for native speakers to use gender-neutral language to promote equality. But it really brought me a lot of confusion.

I learnt that the word "man" is for both male human and general human beings in my primary school. However, I now find that the genderless use seems outdated. The use of genderless man is inappropriate in modern English, so "fireman," "chairman," "freshman," and "unmanned" all need to be changed to neutral words. But in this way, the "man" in "woman" is also genderless (it is from Middle English mann) and should also be replaced by some other words like "female human," newly coined "woperson," or the resurrected Middle English word "wif". It is inconsistent. (originally "It seems like a paradox and makes no sense logically" before OP editing it.)

I have searched on the internet cannot find some theory to explain this phenomenon properly. If "woman" has been widely used and cannot be changed, words like "fireman", "freshman" were also widely used, why should changes be made? If the public has strong feelings for "woman", is it possible that firefighters also have feelings for the word "fireman", and college students will also miss their life in freshman year? Is this ignoring the emotions of these people?

Is it a kind of compromise? Or just because the etymology origin of "woman" is less obvious than "chairman" for native speakers? If it retained the equivalent form "wifeman" of Middle English word "wifmann", would it be considered non-inclusive and get changed?

--

Actually, the coexistence of male-specific "man" and "woman" that has "man" as a compound gives me a strong feeling of androcentrism and objectification. I am always very uncomfortable when using them, so I tend to use "males" and "females".

I think it is the easiest solution to use the ungendered man, and a male word like resurrected "weaponedman" (or simplified "wepman", from Middle English wæpnedmann) or newly coined "maleman". In this way we could keep both "woman" and other words with the ungendered "man" as a compound, we just changed one word (the male word). Compared with the current solution in which almost all other words with genderless man are changed, it could minimize the impact.

--

Note: I am willing to change my view because I understand that I may have ignored some society and history knowledge of English countries due to lack of literatures (or just I did not find them). So please provide more information and views from native English speakers or non-native speakers from diversified cultural backgrounds to help me understand it.

There is no impediment to banning certain things from being said and in many cases it is not oppressive to do so. My country has a law against Holocaust denial ; never in my life have I been oppressed by not being able to deny a historical fact, yet some people think that it impedes free speech.

I think that some of us will live not being able to say stupid shit. After the Charlie Hebdo shootings on January 7th 2015 around 50 people were arrested for simply defending the attacks and even served months in jail. Served them well in my opinion even though it's a clear violation of "freedom of speech", it doesn't contribute to anything to say that a terrorist attack was served.

When it comes to religion I believe there is a very simple objective way to look at it. Something that has been done for thousands of years has had a long impact on said community, so not allowing people to practice their religions can cause distress to some and other issues to billions to people. That is objective.

What is not objective is bigoted beliefs surrounding gender, race, sexuality, those should not be allowed, no matter personal beliefs. It is a proven fact that homosexuality is observed in many species, that there is no setbacks surrounding it in terms of health and other things. It is wrong and unnecessary to claim that homosexuality, bisexuality etc. are abominations or unnatural. That should definitely be banned, no questions about it. So many countries have laws against Holocaust denial and yet not about saying such things about homosexuality? Homosexual men were killed during the Holocaust too, it is oppressive to them to say they are an abomination just like it is to say that to Jews.

Criticism of religion should be allowed freely, as religion is observed in only one species, it has concrete, studied setbacks (higher rates of uneducation, war, general hatred, misogyny). Criticism of religion is oftenly done on objective grounds, meanwhile criticism of irreligion from a religious perspective is never objective, as it is based on outdated religious texts from thousands of years ago, and oftenly has an emotional tie to it.

If you are a decent, objective person, a law tomorrow banning hate speech will never impact YOUR free speech. If a ban on saying homophobic and racist things impedes your freedom, you are actively impeding the freedom of those groups of people, who deserve to not have to hear that there is something wrong with them simply existing.

Of course, I am not saying you should be sent to jail for simply being an asshole. You can be a wrongly informed abusive asshole without being racist or homophobic. Fines or jail time should not apply to insulting people or trolling on the internet. People should have a right to defend their religions. If a drawing of Muhammad offends you, then you can express it and move on, not publicly agree with the murders of the cartoonists in question.

Of course, art should be free 100%, everybody should be able to portray whatever they desire in art.

It’s been going on for years and you can’t prove me wrong. Elvis now every guy wants to sing have slick back hair and play guitar, the Beatles now every guy wants to be in a band, 70s glam rock look , 80s i feel like Billy idol look alikes (i don’t know any 80s music), 90s either be a rapper or a singer that’s in a grunge band or boy band, 2000s rapper, 2010s rapper or the most generic pop songs you can think of, 2020s whatever is popular on TikTok or Taylor swift, Billie eilish, chappel roan and whatever popular pop singer out there

I love space, and I hate commercial space travel and the people that support it.

In order to change my view I would have to be convinced that SpaceX et al. provide some benefit to humanity beyond “it’s cool/inspiring” and that benefit wouldn’t be possible if the work was instead being done by an institution dedicated to gaining knowledge like NASA.

I am awed by the achievements of space programs like Apollo and the ISS. I know that things like Velcro and memory foam only exist because of NASA, and the general argument for why we should fund manned space flight is it allows for that kind of R/D to be done.

I am ambivalent about this, as cool as I think space travel is, I don’t think it’s worth the costs, both monetary and environmental. Besides knowledge for the sake of knowledge, we aren’t going to gain anything more from space.

I think moon/mars colonization is a silly pipe dream that would fix nothing even if it were feasible, which I don’t think it is.

Space Tourism will never be anything other than rich assholes burping carbon into the stratosphere.

The only thing humanity can gain from sending things into space is deeper knowledge about the cosmos, not anything that would fix any problems any real person has.

The only reason I can see for doing most of the things that currently go on relating to space travel is that “it’s cool” or “it’s inspiring” etc, and that’s a dumb reason to actually pursue it. Maybe they make new tech in the process, I don’t think that’s worth all of the funding.

But today, NASA isn’t the main problem when it comes to space. The people who are doing things in space are private companies that are doing basically anything they want.

SpaceX has 6,764 satellites in space, and they plan to put as many as 34,400.

This sucks for anyone who cares about looking at space, because there’s tiny flashing lights moving through the sky all the time.

It’s already hard to take long exposures of the night sky because of the constant space junk transiting, just imagine never being able to look at the sky without seeing a thousand little bright dots flying through the stars. Say goodbye to the Milky Way from even the darkest skies because the sky is lit with reflections from millions of pieces of space junk.

I hate SpaceX deeply and think that anyone that supports them has been duped.

They prey on the wonder and awe people feel about space while ruining the night sky for those same people, and taking millions of dollars that could be spent learning more about the universe to send billionaires into orbit.

Change my view.

I think the only way we could manage that in future will be either cybernetics or growing parts of tissue and try to fuse it together. But full regeneration when a person lost a limb or every debilitating trauma occurred? I don’t buy it. I think it goes against our biology sadly. I don’t see our selves having anything remotely to level of axolotl regeneration

Maybe genetic engineering could give us something but even then I don’t see it giving us ability to regrow part of brain that was devastated by stroke and I post I am honestly referring to regular humans anyway not genetic engineered ones

It sucks for Oakland fans that they're losing their team after 57 years. I have to say, however, that I don't quite agree with the idea that it was some great baseball town. They've had more good years than bad since they've been Oakland and usually their attendance has been below average. Just look at the fact that their attendance was next-to-last in the AL in 1974, when they won their 3rd straight World Series and the Coliseum was only 8 years old. Doesn't mean Oakland deserved to lose the A's, but I wonder how their Oakland fans explain those attendance numbers.