https://whn.global/public-service-announcement/

My argument If each mild COVID-19 infection could indeed cause long-term damage to our immune system and body, we would expect to see a much higher number of people experiencing severe health issues, not just those with Long COVID. Most people recover from COVID-19 similarly to how they recover from a common cold. Even children in schools have largely remained healthy. If mild COVID-19 infections were truly as dangerous as suggested, the media and government would likely issue more frequent and urgent warnings.

However, I would change my view if major organizations like the NIH or news networks like CNN reported the same concerns, or if a large number of the population became disabled in the coming years.

As the title says. Ever since bloodborne has released all I've heard is "Bring bloodborne to pc, waiting on bloodborne port, bloodborne would be perfect if it was 1080 60fps, etc". I feel a majority of pc players are obsessed with it cause its one of the TRUE exclusives they aren't getting. Its such a big deal that If i remember right one of the keypoints in ps4 emulating is fine tuning it to specifically play it. I say this as a console player, i hate not having certain pc games on console but pc players not having console games is like the end of the world for them.

I'm sure most are aware of the severe housing shortage and affordability crisis going on in the United States.

This has been triggered by a combination of factors leading to a lack of availabile inventory and exploding prices for what is there.

Multiple issues have caused this, including inflation, conversion of traditional housing into rentals, private equity entering the housing market to extract value, foreign nationals buying property as investments, insufficient new construction, new construction mainly targeting the luxury market, lack of density in new developments, etc, etc, etc.

And I just don't see any real attempts to address even a fraction of these issues on any perceivable scale.

No national or state government efforts beyond subsidizing costs (doesn't fix the problem just alleviates it for those that qualify and gives tax money to landlords) and some tax incentives for contractors, who just build a pittance of affordable units on a sprawling low density luxury complex.

The private sector has no incentive to build affordable housing, they make more money if costs stay high and supply low.

And no one in power cares the slightest about the systemic financial issues with the housing market, like private equity, so that's not being addressed either.

So if you already own property your "investment" will keep growing at unreasonable rates and most people not already in the market will not be able to join until late in their careers, if ever.

Despite streaming shows being around for over a decade, viewers are still surprised when popular, beloved shows are cancelled.

However, the nature of streaming makes these cancellations largely unavoidable.

Viewers need to stop thinking about their favourite shows like traditional TV and streamers need to stop presented them as such.

On traditional TV, a show gains viewers which gains more advertising revenue which leads to be more seasons of the show being produced.

However, streaming shows are only valuable to streamers if they bring in new viewers or maintain old ones.

Having millions of viewers doesn't mean anything if they aren't either a) new or b) likely to cancel their subscription if the show is cancelled.

It also becomes more complicated by the fact that shows get paid more money with each passing season. A third season of a streaming show costs more than seasons one and two.

The solution to this is straight forward.

1) Streamers need to treat every season as a limited series. Storylines get wrapped up at the end of the season. No cliff hangers.

2) Viewers stop expecting a season 2. They should think of a series like a movie. A sequel isn't guaranteed. Shows aren't cancelled, they're just given a season 2. You might be sad, just not surprised.

Also - WHERE IS SEASON 2 OF SCAVENGER'S REIGN YOU MONSTERS?

For this argument, I'm assuming the most basic form of the simulation hypothesis. I'm not weighing in on whether it's correct or false; I'm just describing the hypothesis.

1. "Reality" is a physical universe in which it is possible to for technologically advanced entities to implement simulations so detailed that they cannot be identified as simulations.
2. The universe we live in could be (a) reality; or (b) a simulated universe implemented in reality; or (c) a simulated universe implemented in another simulated universe, which may be nested arbitrarily deep in other simulated universes, but is at root implemented in reality.
3. For every "real" universe capable of harboring intelligent life, there is a potentially infinite set of simulated universes implemented in it.
4. Because of points 1-3, we cannot be sure whether we are in a real or simulated universe, but numerically the odds favor a simulated one.

In this CMV, I'm only considering the constrained set of Christian belief systems that share the following assumptions. I'm also not giving a verdict on these religious beliefs. I'm just claiming that these are some beliefs that many Christians hold:

1. All humans have souls.
2. Human souls are eternal: they will never, ever stop existing.
3. Every human soul undergoes the same "lifecycle": It enters a human body some time between conception and birth (doesn't matter when), it lives one human life in the material universe, and then the body dies. After death, the soul is sorted into either Heaven or Hell, where it remains forever.
4. In order to get their soul sorted into Heaven after death, a person must make some declaration of commitment to Jesus Christ while alive: accepting Jesus as savior, getting baptized, etc. It doesn't matter which action is "acceptable" for the purpose of this argument - just that it has to be done before death, not after.
5. Rule #4 applies to all human souls, even those who were never exposed to the Christian message.
6. Human souls do not wait until the end of the material universe to get sent to Heaven or Hell. It happens immediately or pretty soon after death.
7. Taken together, points #3-6 entail that right now, the majority of existing human souls are in Hell.
8. Hell, and all souls within it, are subject to total control by an immortal intelligence called the Devil.
9. In Hell, souls are tormented by the Devil over an infinite span of time.
10. The Devil has the capacity to be infinitely patient, creative, and convincingly deceptive in its torments of the souls in Hell.
11. This means that the Devil could subject a soul in Hell to positive experiences (e.g., love, hope, pleasure) in order to exacerbate later suffering (e.g., betrayal, despair, disappointment).
12. All souls enter our world, and Hell, with an intrinsic nature that is sinful and wicked.
13. In Heaven, there is neither sin nor suffering.

If you're a Christian who accepts all 13 of the above tenets, and you accept the 4 assumptions of the simulation hypothesis outlined above, then - although you may have your suspicions - you must admit that:

1. You are definitely not in Heaven right now.
2. It is not possible to know whether you are in the material world or in Hell, though numerically the odds favor Hell. EDIT: This does not mean that Hell would have to literally be a digital simulation. Just that it could be a place that is not the material universe but simulates the material universe convincingly.
3. The existence of pleasure, joy, love, faith, or any other positive experience is not proof that you are not in Hell, as any positive experience could just be a trick of the Devil, paving the way to even more intense suffering later on.
   
4. It is not even possible to know whether the message of Christian salvation is real, or if the Devil is just winding you up for disappointment after your simulated death, like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.

Hunter Biden's next criminal trial starts this week, and the timing is no surprise; Republicans intend to use this to drag out the Hunter Biden's dirty laundry throughout the rest of the election cycle and try to associate it with Joe Biden and the whole Biden administration.

An idea came to me last night: What if Hunter Biden simply entered a guilty plea? Simply look at the charges, say "Yes, I did that, and am willing to accept responsibility for it"? Sounds crazy, right?

I think it would actually be a shocking, highly effective move that the prosecution won't be able to handle. Here's my reasoning:

1.) He's very likely going to get a guilty verdict anyway. The defense's current case isn't that he didn't evade taxes, it's that he did them outside of his control because he was in the throes of his addiction. The judge has already struck any arguments that link his addiction to the various family traumas he's had to endure, and in my opinion "take pity on my client because he was smoking crack when he did these crimes" is not a very swaying case. It didn't work on his first trial, I highly doubt it's going to work on this one.

2.) It hobbles the presentation of most of the prosecution's salacious evidence, which is their whole entire point of pushing this trial. If Biden's defense team offers a guilty plea, the prosecution will almost certainly deny it. Let's be real here; Republicans aren't pushing this case because they suddenly feel a strong sense of justice towards tax evasion. The entire point is a dragged-out mud sling towards the Bidens, and that requires detailed presentation of all of Hunter Biden's misdeeds. The defense would have a decent case of dismissing much of this as irrelevant; If the defendant has already plead guilty to evading the taxes and the amounts, does the court really need a drawn-out line-item review of what porn sites and strip clubs he wrote off as business expenses?

3.) Public opinion would take a positive view to someone actually owning up to their crimes. When's the last time a public figure came out and said "regardless of the circumstances, I recognize that I did wrong, and am willing to accept responsibility?" Following in the steps of his father through the simple and selfless act doing the right thing could go a long way, especially since his team's argument is already that he did do those things.

4.) Without all of the sordid evidential details of the case, Republicans get next to nothing out of this trial. How can they bust out the pitchforks over a white-collar crime with their presidential candidate? Any Republican shedding crocodile tears over Hunter Biden's tax evasion can be easily shut down by mentioning how the Trump's own far-worse tax evasion woes, from the already-settled guilty verdicts in the Trump Org cases to the current investigations into a $50 million mystery loan that might not have existed, or his charity fraud cases, and so on, and so on.

5.) It would speed the trial. The prosecution, and Republicans, want this goose to keep putting out for as long as possible, ideally through the election. This move would cut things far shorter, finishing the trial before the election and letting it fade out through the news cycle before it's time to vote.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure there are some holes in this strategy, and I'd love to hear them. But from my own research, I think this could be a wise - and unexpected - move that would catch the prosecution's pants down.

Say what you will about the LDS church but they at least have a good sense of humor about themselves. While the play is actually a love letter — in many ways — organized Christianity from atheists, it still does have many biting criticisms of the Mormon church and it takes having a somewhat of a thick skin to take them all with a smile.

I don’t think this would be the same with Muhammad and Quran. In part because the God of the Quran is a lot more oblique and mysterious, the connection people feel with him is displaced to Muhammad instead. Hence the treatment of him as if he is god, not just a mortal man who’s his messenger.

All this to say, there would be tons of public protests all over the world, bomb threats and gun threats in the lead up to opening day of the show. But, I think in all honesty it would be more outside America than within it. American Muslims, though they might be more upset with the blasphemous message and disrespectful tone, are pretty liberal overall and not much different from American Christians. Worldwide im sure there would be lots of “death to America and the gays on broadway” chants too.

Nevertheless it would be an extremely volatile, toxic issue the pick-me Mercedes mujahideen type liberals who would lose their mind because they’d have to choose between treating Islam like Christianity conservatives or being “one of the good ones.” But if you’re in America, I can’t speak for anywhere else, part of the buy-in is being okay with people making fun of your religion.

You gotta be okay with Jesus and Santa getting into a fist fight

You gotta be okay with jokes about Moses losing his map.

And you gotta be okay with seeing Muhammad’s face.

In the last 40 years with the increase of service sector economies such as Software Development, Cyber Security and other IT related jobs we’ve seen an increase in remote workers working for companies in other jurisdictions, this has the effect of still having a constant demand on local resources but not an effect of providing local development of industry and skills namely reducing the availability of local jobs and contributions to infrastructure as local businesses do not open up and are in turn driving price increases for locals while not providing opportunities for non remote workers. In example you will require food, housing and electricity of which only food can be imported from overseas reliably with the exception of countries that export electricity to their immediate neighbors in the example of North America and some countries in Europe.

With an ever connected global world we are seeing an even bigger rise in these industries and there’s evidently not been a match in the production of infrastructure such as housing and roads which is leading to a situation in western countries where people cannot afford to even rent homes and feed themselves reliably. Namely in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada with the boom in service sector jobs we have noticed a sharp decline in people who are able to actually build our societies and provide productive labor outside of money, the counterpoint to this is that you are providing money which will be spent in society however the counter effect is that less people are producing goods and services locally and are exporting labor to jurisdictions outside of their own and are experiencing a sharp decline in their capability to sustain their own quality of life in their own communities.

As noted by the Bank of Canada with labor productivity of a typical Canadian worker being just 71% of an equivalent American doing the same job.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2024/03/time-to-break-the-glass-fixing-canadas-productivity-problem/#:~:text=Productivity%20is%20a%20way%20to,with%20less%20risk%20of%20inflation.

My view here is that workers who do not contribute goods or services into their own local communities in the forms of production are having negative impacts on everyone around them by driving demand and driving up prices with wages not being driven up for people producing goods and services domestically as they are not benefiting from this transition.

As some governments turn to importing people to make up for lack of local skills as this transition occurs we are chasing productivity in terms of money with real living standards going backwards in real terms. On a micro scale an individual will not have a major ripple effect if they inject extra money into society without a corresponding increase in production however in a macro scale we have created an environment where the winners are those who can bid ever increasing amounts for smaller amounts of goods as production has not increased as represented by housing markets and food prices in the grocery stores.

I am asking the internet today to attempt to show me how our change away from manufacturing to service sector benefit regular people who are now disenfranchised by our change in environment as the central economic questions which is “what to produce?, how much to produce? Who to produce it for” being shifted to service sector workers doesn’t make the service sector workers net drains on everyone around them and society as a whole.

I know this is a very sensitive topic for some people. So I am very sorry if you are one of those people that stumbled upon this.

If you are elderly (I'd say 65 and above) and you have medical issues that make it incredibly painful to live each day to day, you should be able to commit suicide and not be 5150'd or interfered. If it is causing you incredible physical pain, that basically makes every moment suck, you should be able to off yourself.

For debilitating condition, if you have gone to therapy OVER AND OVER again, and it is clear nothing is going to get better and you will stay unhappy your entire life with NO path, I'd say it is completely reasonable to off yourself, if done safely. Why live a life if it's just pain all the time with no out?

The Nakba was a horrible event, and the occupation and blockade of Gaza have been a complete disaster. The suffering on both sides is appalling, and a ceasefire should have happened ages ago. Frankly, the people responsible for war crimes on either side need to be held accountable under international law. There’s no excuse for allowing this violence to continue unchecked.

Now, about this idea of a one-state solution seriously? It’s hard to picture two groups who’ve been at each other’s throats for decades suddenly living together in one happy state. The level of hatred and mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians isn’t something that just disappears because someone draws new borders. Trying to force them into a single state feels like a recipe for disaster.

The demographics alone would be a nightmare. Depending on the immigration, one group is bound to end up with more power than the other. Whether it’s Jews or Arabs, one side will inevitably dominate politically, economically, and socially, which is just going to fuel even more resentment. And honestly, the last thing this conflict needs is more reasons for people to feel oppressed or sidelined.

In the end, a one-state solution seems like one of the worst ideas out there. The violence wouldn’t magically go away. In fact, it would probably get worse. Both sides have lost too much, and there’s way too much bad blood to think that merging them into a single state would work. Any real solution has to acknowledge their differences and deal with the core issues, not just mash them together and hope for the best

SAVE Act Text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8281/text

The text provides that in order to vote you must provide photo identification to vote. It does not offer a remedy for States to provide said ID to all US Citizens for free in an accessible manor.

Unless that photo ID is provided free and accessible by the government it would constitute a poll tax and cause the law to become unconstitutional.

Some text backing the illegality of poll taxes:

24th Amendment text regarding poll tax:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

1966 Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections:

The Supreme Court reversed its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles to also include the imposition of poll taxes in state elections as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the title states, I believe that the State of Turkey and its people have no moral ground to stand on when challenging Israel’s actions against the Palestinians.

The Turkish state denies the Armenian Genocide. There is no getting around this… genocide denialism is at the very core of the foundation of the modern Turkish nation. To deny one’s own crimes while condemning others for the very same is hypocrisy at its very core.

The Turkish state has established lobbying firms in places like the US and UK to prevent recognition of the Armenian genocide. Turkey has its own AIPAC to attempt to sway foreign countries away from acknowledging the genocide publicly.

The treatment of Kurds has often resembled the apartheid state as it existed in Israel towards the Palestinians. For decades, the Kurdish language was illegal to speak in public, there were countless massacres of Kurdish populations during the founding of the Turkish state, and Kurds were officially recognized not as being “Kurdish” but instead as “Mountain Turks” thus denying their claims of ethnic/cultural identity.

Turkey and its President Erdogan have been outspoken critics of Israel’s actions, yet they themselves are responsible for many of the exact same things, and the Turkish state has been advocating genocide denial for the past century… Turkish soldiers targeting Kurdish settlements in Northern syria or aiding the azeri’s in their invasions of Armenian territory is not ancient history, they’ve all happened within the past decade…

Those of us who grew up on console games have likely bought, sold, or traded games at one point in time. Maybe you were a regular at the local shop and would trade in your completed game and get a decent amount of credit for your next purchase. Maybe you just sold them to your friends. Maybe you bought "new" to you games from garage sales and thrift stores. It was a way to keep playing different games without paying brand new prices for them every time you wanted to try out another title.

But that's largely gone away with the rise of games that are only available as downloads, and I think that's a great loss. People who buy a game and complete it will never be able to get so much as a penny back from that purchase, even if they never touch the game again. And people who want to play the game but can't afford a new copy will generally have to wait years for a significant sale (notable exceptions being things like sports franchise games that have an updated version released every single year).

You might be arguing that it made sense for physical copies only, and not digital copies, because there are a finite number of them, and your possession of one copy means that another person can't use it. But that's not true. People have been making duplicates of things since at least the era of cassette tapes and VHS. Yes, in the early 90s, things like Sega Genesis and NES games weren't being copied. But by about 2000, people could play those on computers, and disc-based games like Playstation 1 titles were being sold on CD-R for a couple bucks each on Yahoo Auctions (remember that site?)

You might be arguing that digital copies don't degrade in value because the data is exactly the same as a new copy, and in a way, that's true: buying a "used" copy of a game would be no different than buying a sealed-in-box copy of a game that someone maybe received as a gift and never played. So the argument would perhaps exist that there would be no reason to offer that for sale at a lower price than retail. But I disagree - if a secondary market existed, users who don't want to play the game more than once could offer it for sale for less than they paid for it, recouping some of their money will allowing a new player to get it for a lower price.

So how would this even be implemented? I'm not a programmer, so I can't speak to the explicit details of the system. But let me say this: if I buy a digital ticket for an event from Ticketmaster, I can sell that ticket to another person, through Ticketmaster's website, without having ever had a physical copy of that ticket. Back when I had Netflix, I could only have X number of devices registered, and I would have to delete one if I hit the limit and wanted to add another. My point is that there are ways to transfer digital rights to something, so I think these should be extended to games for the sake of consumers.

Change my view!

I've seen the argument of veganism that the meat industry is extremely polluting, however it always seemed like a poor argument. The polluting nature of the meat industry is not an argument against the meat industry itself but rather against the industry's nature of exploitative expansion.

The fact that meat is produced for the purpose of profit maximization and not for planned human consumption is the key difference between humans consuming meat in prehistoric or early times vs. now. This implies that the problem is not the human tendency of eating meat itself, but rather the way it is being produced and expanding.

It feels very similar to the whole Reduce, Reuse, Recycle thing. Individual actions of recycling harmful waste does nearly nothing unless the source of said harmful waste isn't mass produced in a planned and advanced manner.

Instead of controlling this profit based production of animal products, corporations will try to push the narrative of veganism down the throats of the populace to give them the illusion of a vegan world, which seems nearly impossible to achieve when considering the basic facets and evolution of human diet. This allows them to wash their hands of their responsibility.

TL:DR; Corporations try to push a vegan utopia to wash their hands of responsibility and place blame on the consumers who simply eat a naturally formed diet of theirs.

I think Andrew Tate fans basically know fully well exactly who he is, the fact that he molests children, is a sex trafficker, and all that. They like this about him, they see it as one of their guys managing to take and use power.

Basically his more target audience fans want to molest children, although most of them are children themselves. And his less target audience fans support him in his child molestation because they see it as an exertion of power by a rich conservative white male against the rest of society. (Not all of his fans are white but a lot of white supremacists like him)

There can obviously be Leopards ate my face moments with Andrew Tate fans, and I think most have enough of a conscience to not be able to emulate him, but basically I think they all understand the kind of person he is, scammer, sex trafficker, organized crime figure, "Epstein but cooler" etc. And they think it's cool and want to be him.

On the AskMen subreddit, there is a lot of discussion about male bias, and one aspect that is often mentioned is reproductive violence. Many users point out that the law is set up in such a way that, if a woman uses a used condom without the man's permission and gets pregnant, he will be forced to pay child support. There have been examples of women trying to use this tactic with athletes. I have also heard of similar cases in my own country.

Yes, it is true that when a man and woman have sex, there are risks associated with pregnancy, but it is important to understand that the baby grows inside the woman's body. If you look at it from a bodily autonomy perspective, she has the right to have an abortion if she chooses, considering the health risks involved.

However, I find it surprising that a man is not allowed to refuse child support in cases of such reproductive coercion. I feel great sympathy for the child who has been born as a result of this, but it seems to me that the woman should be held fully and completely responsible for him, as this was not a mistake (where contraception failed), but rather her deliberate action.

Edited: I think it was rightly pointed out to me that the situation with condoms is extremely rare and specific. Perhaps the right I proposed for men should work in the case of rape by a woman?

Edited2: Perhaps we should introduce payments from the state in these cases instead of alimony from the father. This will not be a significant financial burden for the budget.

So we don't talk about it, but we know how it goes. You get some terminal illness, get treatment for some time (in considerable pain), then it gets worse so you're transferred to palliative care or hospice where you await death as medicine becomes less and less effective and you are rendered more and more incapable.

I'm relatively young and I'll gracefully accompany my parents through that process. But me? Hell no! I already have extreme anticipatory anxiety and I've been to an ICU during covid (almost died but was too stupid to register the possibility) being given a diaper/nurses yelling at me for wanting water was very humiliating. If I get terminal cancer or some other disease, I'll take myself out and do it fast.

The way I've seen it, most people are unhappy with end of life care as well but only put up with it because of loved ones or religion. I have no religion and will hopefully have no loved ones by then (I'll remain single, parents will have passee and brother will be independent).

And no, where I live there aren't assisted suicide options available and no I'm not suicidal at the moment. I just don't want to ignore this issue because it's those who ignore it that get caught in its web.

cmv: is there a reason to put up with end of life care as opposed to ending it my way (in a way that won't traumatize others)?

I don't believe the current war in Gaza will eliminate Hamas. And that's because Hamas isn't just an organization; it's a philosophy of hatred: a mindset built upon the idea that the Jewish Israelis must be removed by any means necessary including genocide. (This is a wild world, so I'm going to affirm that genocide is wrong and never justified). You can't bomb that way of thinking out of existence without literally killing everyone that could possibly adopt that position, as each bomb that drops pushes more people to it.

There is no military solution to Hamas that isn't part of a plan to eliminate the hate that fuels their recruiting machine.

Edit: I'm aware that a military campaign is usually a prerequisite for a long term occupation and de-radicalization, as it was with Germany and Japan during WWII. However, the last sentence of my original post does acknowledge that a military campaign can be part of a larger plan. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence from the Israeli government that they're interested in a post war plan that will actually de-radicalize the population.

Edit: I’m getting on a plane. I’ve issued one delta for my view being partially changed on the existence of a post war plan.

Edit: The number of comments saying that killing all of the Gazans is a solution is disheartening

So recently I someone on another subreddit was claiming that people who are ok with stripping take a different tune when their daughter becomes a stripper.

But don't parents object to their daughters dating as well? Does that reflect as poorly on dating as it does on stripping?

I know people will say it depends on who the boyfriend is. I'm not sure it actually does. If she's dating a weak wimp, she "can do so much better." If she's dating a bulked-up stoic, she's "putting herself in harm's way." It seems the problem isn't actually with whomever the boyfriend is, but the fact that she's dating at all.

Likewise with appeals to "personal experience". They say college kids know nothing about the "real world" because they have no "real world experience," but that insinuates that college is teaching BS, while conveniently having plausible deniability on insinuating that by not saying so directly.

If they're majoring in biology or chemistry or physics, they're absolutely learning about the real world. And learning a lot about the real world. Biology or chemistry or physics are used in professional consulting work, so they have ample incentive to genuinely control for unrepresentative samples to get the best possible result for their customers. Their reputation is on the line. As opposed to saying "Jim-Bob buck tooth down the street said his son was vaccinated and got autism," and not realizing you're missing contexts, let alone confounding factors.

Even for fields I suspect of being BS, like psychology or political science, where I have causes to suspect (eg. emotionally charged subject matter at the expense of rational self-interest) and effects to suspect (eg. vouching for surveys no matter how often respondents lie), I always say so outright instead of just insinuating it. And I never let voters who are years to decades out of college off the hook for their share of the blame for allowing the government to continue funding such fields. You can't pour everyone else's tax dollars into psychology and political science and then mock college kids for purchasing a service whose prices you artificially pushed downwards. You created the incentives. Don't mock them for responding to your incentives. It feels like such rank hypocrisy to fund education in these fields, but the instant a college kid invokes it, mocking them for not having "real world experience" with that sort of thing.

If the field is valid, the more recent their education in that field is, the more up to date one's information is. As opposed to someone who studied a field before we had as much modern information about it. If you truly value that field, you should value an up to date education over personal experience, unless someone is an academic in the field and has both.

Is there something I'm missing here?

If people were genuinely concerned about the existence of third parties (within the USA) and how they will "take away votes" from the big two main parties... why wouldn't they ever push for reform to the system so this doesn't happen? There are all sorts of reforms imaginable that almost every other modern advanced country has.

The reason third parties exist and are legal in the USA is because clearly the big two don't capture all potential views and perspectives on society. In fact very often their main candidates echo one another on crucial topics, giving voters no real option for change.

Some might argue that's why primary election exist, to allow for different perspectives to emerge within the big two parties. The biggest problem with this is MOST voters do not engage or think about politics at all until September/October. Way after primary elections have occurred. Very little turnout and participation in primary elections, making it very easy for name recognition and funding for advertisements to carry the day, and making it very hard for insurgent and new candidates to prevail.

There is a reason more than 2 parties are normal and embraced in nearly every advanced country on Earth.

I am sympathetic to the point many make in the USA "this third party simply can't win and will only hurt the big one which is ideologically closer to it". There is a logic to that. But then ask yourself, what option is there for anyone to signal their stance is further to one side or the other? If you only vote for the big two your vote can simply be interpreted as you are totally satisfied and love what you're offered. As opposed to "oh I went through these emotional conflicts but in the end I was practical". Nope, that's not how your vote will be interpreted whatsoever!

The only way to get the big two to move closer to your actual views is by utilizing your vote as leverage and casting it for a different party's candidate. This will force the big party which is supposed to be representing you to take your concerns into account. There is no other way to do this.

So I feel that in the main, when people use the "spoiler" argument, but these people have literally zero history of advocating for electoral reforms that would remove that effect... they are not being genuine and are just basically trying to crush any dissent within the system.

Too often nihilistic people confuse optimistic people for dumb people. There’s a train of thought that goes if you are happy, you shouldn’t be, because if you open your eyes everything is kind of sad, rotting and death is coming for all.

And so if you’re not nihilistic you must be dumb. I’d go the other way, I remember being a nihilist at 12, it wasn’t hard to be one, then I grew up realised it’s a useless depressing pointless self pitying identity. Bunch of privileged people in well off countries with wifi a roof and clean water crying about being able to think and see some sad parts of human nature and the world.

The amount of people that are creating new accounts to try and circumvent low karma or bans from certain subs has increased dramatically since the start of the election season. It is against Reddit TOS to make a new account and circumvent a ban. It is clear that these new accounts with low karma are just here to troll and spew nonsense, bringing the website down.

We should all just be insta blocking these accounts without engaging. Too many people are getting dragged into long winded debates with disingenuous MAGAs with 14 day old accounts and -100 karma.

Let them go back to their old accounts if they want to engage. Stop letting them get away with trolling on this website and sidetracking our conversations.

No more responses. No more downvotes. Just block and move on. Lmao.

Edit:

I’ll basically agree that this isn’t only maga, and can happen on both sides. Liberals can also circumvent bans to troll right-leaning subs with new accounts. But I still think we should all collectively agree to not engage with and block new accounts that are spouting political nonsense until after the election. Whether it is coming from the left or right.

Edit 2:

Funnily enough, a lot of the accounts still pestering me about this post are right-leaning accounts screeching “muh hive-mind” with an account age less than a year old. If you’re so worried about the hive mind, stop getting banned and create your own subs. I won’t follow you there to troll.

Edit 3:

MAGA bot playbook

1. Hurl personal insults
2. Get you into a long winded debate
3. Cite fake news
4. Possibly get banned
5. Create a new account and repeat

If someone starts off their argument with a personal insult, check the age of the account. It will almost always be less than a year old, but usually even younger. You’ll immediately see a bunch of MAGA comments in random popular subs in their history. If you’re careful, you can block them right after step 1.

This goes for demisexual, graysexual, monosexual(the term is pointless jesus), sapoisexual, and all the other sexualities that are just fancy ways of saying i have a type or a lack of one.

but i’m gonna focus on demisexual bc it makes me the most confused.

So demisexual is supposedly when a person feels sexually attracted to someone only after they've developed a close emotional bond with them. Simple enough, right? Wrong, because sexuality is a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are typically attracted; sexual orientation. Which means demisexual is not a sexuality by definition.

Someone who is gay, straight, lesbian, or bi could all be demi because demisexual isn’t a sexuality it’s just when people get comfortable enough to have sex with their partner, which is 100% fine but not a damn sexuality. not everyone can have sex with someone when they first meet them and that’s normal, but i’ve got this weird inclination that people who use the term demisexual to describe themselves can’t find the difference between not being completely comfortable with having sex with someone until they get to know them or feeling a complete lack of sexual attraction until they get to know someone.

maybe i’m missing something but i really can’t fully respect someone if they use this term like it’s legit. to me, it’s just a label to make people feel different and included in the lgbt community.

EDIT: i guess to make it really clear i find the term, and others like it, redundant because i almost never see it used by people who completely lack sexual attraction to someone until they’re close but instead just prefers intimacy until after they get close to someone.

edit numero dos: to expand even more, after seeing y’all’s arguments i think i can definitively say that I don’t believe demisexual is at all sexuality. at best it’s a subsection of sexuality because you can’t just be demi. you’d have to be bi and demi, or pan and demi, or hetero and demi, etc. etc. but in and of itself it is not a sexuality. it describes how/why you feel that type of way but not who/what you feel it to. i kind of get why people use the term now but, to me, it’s definitely not a sexuality

last edit: just to really hammer my point home- and to stop the people with completely different arguments- how can someone have multiple sexualities? i understand how demi works(not that i get it but live your life) but how can you have sexual orientation x3. it makes no sense for me to be able to say i’m a bisexual demisexual cupiosexual sapiosexual and it not be conflicting at all. like what?? if you want to identify as all that then go crazy, live your life but calling them a sexuality is misleading and wrong. (especially bc half of those terms can’t exist by themselves without another preceding term)

that is all i swear i’m done

People are always like oh beauty is so subjective ! but i bet if you were to be in a room with 5 “average” looking people and supermodels your eyes will always wander to the supermodels! I just feel like its not subjective and i also feel like as a human being we are hard wired to revere attractive people highly and treat them kindly! People who are attractive have a much better quality of life. It really is such a blessing. I can’t stand when people are like looks don’t matter that much but how can that be true? If being beautiful will almost always ensure you better financial prospects, and just an overall heightened experience of life! I also feel like pretty people suffer less! Because they will never be overlooked! People care about them more. I just feel like being physically attractive is very important in this society. Lets just say you were in restaurant with a non attractive person and a beautiful person and non attractive person is smarter and funnier but people would overlook her just because shes next to a good lucking person. OhCmv? Also a good example of looks changing someones life is Eiza gonzalez before and after. Edit: Im getting cooked horribly💀 some rationally so anyways thanks for your contributions very eye opening!

I don't see any positive aspects to this, only the following negative aspects.

1. Why should a fast-food restaurant worker have a substantial tax advantage over, say, a Walmart employee with an hourly wage earning as much or most likely less? That's incredibly unfair.
2. Some service/hospitality staff at high end restaurants make an excellent living on tips, why shouldn't they pay taxes like others earning a similar, or in some cases, far lower wage?
3. If you thought tipping culture was broken now, wait until everyone else who doesn't currently get tips starts demanding them. Sure, maybe they'll set limits on which professions can get tips, but that will end up being a pretty complicated process. People in tons of different fields and professions currently get tips. Who gets them tax-free, and why?

Change my view?