input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Smartwatches are a fad and a niche product at best +
+ Just to clarify, I'm talking more about smartwatches with OLED/Retina displays, not e-paper displays (like the Pebble) though I would argue that those are still niche products with a limited appeal.
With smartwatches running Android or iOS, you're basically paying for a shittier, lower spec and more limited companion phone to your regular phone that saves you from the mild inconvenience of having to reach into your pocket/purse for your actual phone. Even if it isn't tethered to your phone, it still pales in comparison to an actual phone and I can't see the long term appeal of having one in lieu of a smartphone. There are some narrow circumstances in which it would be better (like hiking up a mountain), but that's about it.
I don't have anything against smartwatches, I think they're neat and I think there is a place for them but anyone who sees them as anything more than a niche product with limited appeal is deluded. They are not the next big thing. A good smartphone is convenient enough for most people.
Also, on the subject of the next platform/form factor of mobile devices/wearables, I think AR is the only thing that *could* outright replace smartphones altogether. People today think that the appearance of wearing AR glasses will limit their appeal, but remember people said the same thing in the 70s/80s about walkmans/headphones in public, the 90s about sitting at a computer (trust me: I was there), and the 2000s with tablets/smartphones. Once AR glasses are A) stylish enough and B) useful enough and once they reach a critical mass of users, whatever stigmas surrounding them will gradually disappear. Even before AR glasses are capable of much by way of introducing three dimensional objects into the world in a realistic fashion, just the appeal of having a floating screens/UI elements in front of one's face that one could interact with in a variety of ways should have a lot of appeal.
Anyway, back on topic: why should I take smartwatches seriously? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe society is just as racist as we were in the past. +
+ It seems like the general consensus is that the present is more progressive and accepting compared to say 50 years ago. While when it comes to laws I would agree but when it comes to society I am shaking my head at that statement.
It seems like a normal occurrence for someone to make some prejudge comments or attitude about another race/ethnic group. A lot of times it's been a conversation opener at a bus station like for an example someone saying "those damn Chinese are ruining the city" and my friend who works at a cafe had one customer say "I am glad to be served by a white person" her being part-native and the fact that a Filipino woman also works at the cafe, told him to get the fuck out. I work in a hotel and we usually have our breaks in the lobby except when a native(s) at least 2 or 3 co-workers go somewhere else here, I suspected racism being the case which prompted me to say this today.
Me: This seems to happen when natives are here
Co-Worker: Well they should be chucked right out anyway
Me: Wow (in a I can't believe you just said that kind of tone)
Co-Worker: (Smugly) I know
Me: I didn't mean that in a good way
These aren't the only examples I have but those stood out to me the most.
While I am aware that the past was no walk in the park, even though we no longer have residential schools, back of bus laws, or allowed to refuse service or employment on the basis of ethnicity without getting sued for it, and in most countries concentration camps. Many people seem to wish those were still happening, they still think their lesser people, think the world is better off without them and shun them like a leper.
I am a 29 year old white woman born and raised in Canada, a country that is supposedly the most tolerant of other races and cultures, if that's the case I can't help but wonder how bad it is in other countries. Even though I am from a small town I have seen racism in major cities too and I have traveled in Europe and at least a lot of people I've talked to complained about gypsies and immigrants. I don't even think it's an age thing since I've seen this in both the young (one 18 year old who thinks the natives are lying about residential schools) and the old (my friend thinks the most racist people are old people, who I've heard at least half the comments from).
I want to believe that we have come a long way towards race relations but I just don't see it.
TL:DR: Disgusted by the blatant racism despite living in a supposedly enlightened society. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that individuals who identify as transgender have an underlying mental illness that should be worked through in therapy rather than corrected by invasive medical procedures. +
+ I'm going to try to attack this issue from multiple angles and I want to preface by saying that I am NOT trying in any way to attack the transgender community.
-First off, I want to begin by discussing the very premise of labeling oneself as trans. I have an issue with transgender people saying that they are born with a [gendered] brain in a [wrong gendered] body. For many years women have been fighting for equality with men and in this light it is abhorrent to say that men and women have brains that are different. Feminists (both men and women) have fought hard to erase the entrenched beliefs of a patriarchal society. For example, to be a male yet be interested in feminine things and FEEL feminine is only upholding the belief that there are certain traits unique to and can only be possessed by females. This is the premise to my argument so bear with me.
Alas, as stated above, I believe that being transgender can be one's own way (subconsciously) to mentally rebel against society's very deep and entrenched gender roles.
-Secondly, I see thoughts of transgender individuals to be patterned similarly to the thoughts of individuals with the mental illness known as body dysmorphic disorder. Persons with BDD tend to have an obsession with a certain part of their body or facet of their personality that they blow out of proportion to reality. This obsession causes sufferers a great deal of emotional pain and can lead them to take extreme measures to remedy the perceived problem. Most people with BDD are adolescents.
For example, someone with BDD may be so obsessed with the shape of their nose that they seek surgery to reduce their concern and obsession. However, surgery is not a treatment for BDD. BDD is a manifestation of extreme anxiety and depression and fixing the obsession does not remove said mental illnesses from the person. Most individuals who do go to extreme measures as such tend to continue experience the anxiety and depression that manifested itself as an obsession with the shape of their nose.
-Now, in that vein how are we to say that the plight of transgender people is any different? Feelings of extreme anxiety and depression directed at the person's gender, correction of gender and not a lot of resolution with the underlying mental illness.
See this study: [Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/) Research has shown that "Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group."
This is my case. Please change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: for an average user of the site, the Ashley Madison hack is no worse than any other hack that reveals credit card information +
+ There are 37 million users whose data will be leaked. To sort through all of those names would be highly tedious, especially for someone who doesn't have much reason to suspect their spouse of cheating. Most of those 37 million will manage to go unnoticed, since no one would bother to search for them. Most of these users will not be caught by their spouses due to the high number of names to sort through (especially if they have common names). The only people truly affected by the names of clients being leaked are celebrities, since there will certainly be tabloids combing through the list for them.
For a typical user, the only negative impact this will have is that their credit card information will be leaked, making this hack no worse than, for example, the Target hack.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bernie Sanders is at least as electable as Hillary Clinton. +
+ I'm planning to vote for Bernie in the primaries but, if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll still vote for her in the general - I will do anything in my power to help make sure the next two SCOTUS nominations are not controlled by the GOP, end of story.
That being said, there seems to be this idea that Clinton would be a lock for the presidency but, if Sanders were to get the Democratic nomination, it becomes possible or even *likely* that the GOP will take the presidency. If that were *true*, then it would behoove me to support Clinton in the primaries, if I really am committed, above all else, to keeping the GOP from taking the presidency in 2016.
My primary reason for believing that Bernie Sanders is *at least* as electable in the general as Hillary Clinton (I actually think he's *more* electable, but that's immaterial to this CMV) is a set of thought experiments, which simply revolve around considering the behavior of individuals/groups voting (or abstaining) in 2008/2012, how that behavior would respond to Hillary being the nominee, and how that response would be *altered* by having Bernie as the nominee instead. For ease of illustration, I'm going to use Jeb Bush as the stand-in/proxy for the eventual Republican presidential nominee - if you think the GOP will likely nominate someone else, and it will make a difference in how a significant number of people vote (or abstain), feel free to specify why/how in your reply, and then proceed within the context of your chosen Republican presidential nominee.
-----
So, here are some examples of the general form of the thought experiment - this set of examples is, by no means, comprehensive, but I've yet to think of one which significantly advantages Hillary over Bernie:
* Describe to me the person or demographic, who voted for Obama in 2012, who would vote for Hillary over Jeb in 2016, but who would vote for Jeb over Bernie in 2016. (Impacts: Swing votes)
* Now describe to me the opposite group (Bernie>Jeb>Hillary) - which group seems larger?
* Describe to me the apathetic Democrat who, once they are familiar with Bernie as a candidate, is more energized by Hillary than Bernie. (Impacts: Democrat turnout, i.e. harmful abstentions)
* Now describe to me the opposite group - which seems larger?
* Describe to me the Republican who would make it to the polls to vote against Bernie, but would be like "meh, fuck it" and not bother to vote against Hillary. (Impacts: Republican turnout, i.e. helpful abstentions)
-----
Now, outside of that form of argument, one thing I've seen cited as evidence against Bernie in this respect is a particular Gallup poll, regarding attitudes towards those who identify as socialist:
My problem with that is as follows:
Every one of those descriptors, except for socialist, is a largely apolitical identity - whereas being "a socialist" is a political ideology.
The phrase "just happened to be [black/Muslim/Jewish/a woman]" implies that the nominee would have said identity, but would still mostly follow the tenets of whatever "your party" was - whereas "just happened to be [a socialist]" implies an ideological leaning that potentially conflicts with whatever you feel "your party" stands for.
Therefore, comparing the numbers for "a socialist" to all those other identity-based descriptors, without also including numbers for "a conservative" and "a liberal" simply doesn't provide a useful context in which to interpret the numbers for "a socialist".
I also think that, due to the way the question is asked, the poll winds up *seriously* underestimating the impact of *strategic voting* (i.e. voting for the candidate with the best chance of beating your least preferred candidate) against the GOP - I think it's just plain ludicrous to suggest that 41% of Democrats would prefer Jeb Bush to Bernie Sanders, simply because of the socialist label, but maybe I'm wrong on that point?
-----
Another argument is that the GOP media machine will be able to use the socialist label to get their base frothing at the mouth and drive turnout (this relates to the 3rd example thought experiment).
My feeling here is that, considering that has been Fox news' sole purpose for the last 8 years, they are already well beyond the point of diminishing returns - there is no part of the base, who is amenable to this sort of strategy, who isn't *already* frothing at the mouth, socialist or no - trying to use the socialist label to wring *even more* turnout from their base, at this point, is trying to squeeze blood from a stone.
-----
Finally, while the GOP's fear/anger-based strategy for motivating turnout is a finely-tuned machine at this point, turnout among Democrats is much more variable - so many on the left feel entirely apathetic towards the party, so turnout is unreliable.
I will admit, I don't even know exactly why, but Hillary seems to *personify* what people on the left are apathetic towards - nobody, *nobody* I've talked to, on Reddit or IRL, seems excited about Hillary. On the other hand, among those who have become familiar with Bernie as a candidate, he seems to energize people in a way that I've simply seen no recent evidence of *any* other potential candidate even coming close to.
Since voter-apathy seems to be a fairly huge problem on the left (relative to the right, at least) this seems like a *huge* point in Bernie's favor - especially because it could also have a fairly significant impact on Congressional races.
-----
One last thing: I know the socialist label is a big part of this discussion, but I don't want it to devolve into an **exclusive** focus on that - I am interested in how Bernie stacks up *against Hillary*, so if you are going to talk about how people respond to the socialist label, please keep it in the context of a comparison with how people respond to Hillary as a political fixture. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no good reason to colonize mars. +
+ Mars is significantly more expensive to get to and less hospitable than any place on earth. Here are the common arguments I've heard for martian colonization:
1. **We will run out of resources on earth.** Mars could be made of diamonds, iPhone 7's, and Amazon gift cards and it still wouldn't be worth the cost to go there. Furthermore it is a huge use of our limited resources here on earth to create and continue to supply a settlement on mars.
2. **We could get hit by an asteriod or nuke ourselves.** True, but aren't there much cheaper ways to invest in the continuation of mankind? We could build bunkers near the center of the earth, we could create satelites to detect, shift or destroy meteors or other space debris that threatens us, and that would save all of mankind, not just the limited amount who might have gone to mars.
3. **Exploration/mapping the universe.** Don't satelites do this better and much more cheaply?
4. **Inspiration for potential scientists.** This one seems true, but there are many other things that kids dream of just as much. When I was a kid I was inspired to become a programmer by watching giant fighting robots who could transform into cars. That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.
5. **Potential innovations as byproducts.** I know there are a lot of examples of this from the trip to the moon, but couldn't we have focused directly on getting benefits we know we want? For example, life extension. We are beginning to see that it may be possible to obtain immortality or close to it. The direct result of this would cause immeasureable progress to humanity. Our greatest minds could live forever. Our scientists and innovators could live longer and produce even greater inventions. Why not focus on that instead?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Not Everyone Is Beautiful. Self-esteem Efforts Are Misguided. +
+ I've seen quite a bit in recent years on social media, TV, and other mediums, an attempt to bring up the self-esteem of many people, most notably of which is probably young women. The idea is fantastic, but the methodology is misguided.
The problem we have faced in the past is a woman's worth being tied directly to her physical attractiveness. If a woman was physically beautiful, she was desirable, regardless of intelligence, personality, work ethic, values, etc. Of course, I'm over simplifying just a bit, but we're all aware of the problem.
Fast forward to recent years, and we have lots of groups attempting to combat the problem of physical attractiveness being a woman's value, but this is off base. They attempt to solve the problem by redefining beauty. They try to convince young ladies that everyone is beautiful, that curves (fat) are beautiful, that acne is beautiful, that being flat-chested is beautiful, etc. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you were to approach it from a statistical view, it is obvious that certain traits are generally more desirable than others. This is why most professional models are tall, have small waists, have angular facial features, small noses, full lips, large breasts, long arms, long fingers, long legs proportionally.
What is largely ignored by social campaigns that, in some ways, demonize beauty, is the idea of acceptance. Girls and guys are not taught to accept that they were dealt a certain set of cards for life. You can take care of your body, work out, eat healthy, etc, to get the most out of what you've been given, but young people are not generally taught to accept that they are who they are and they have certain limitations to live within. If you're short, frumpy, have a big nose, acne, or whatever, I believe it's better to teach people to accept who you are. It reminds me of a line from "The Incredibles" that made perfect sense. Yes, I'm referencing a child's movie, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. The main bad guy is Syndrome, and part of his sinister plot is to give everyone super powers because, "When everyone is super, no one will be."
Much in the same way, if everyone is beautiful, then nobody is beautiful.
For guys, a possible equivalent to a female's beauty is a man's athleticism. However, it doesn't seem that guy's are taught to be fooled into thinking everyone is athletic. Because beauty is more subjective, it is more difficult to quantify, but with athleticism, no one would try to tell me I'm just as athletic as Anthony Davis to make me feel better. They'd tell me he's a special athlete, and I need to accept I'll never be a professional athlete, and I need to not tie my worth to my athleticism.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think the Chattanooga shootings were terrorist attacks +
+ [On July 16, 2015, a gunman opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four service members immediately. Two other service members and a police officer were wounded, with one of the servicemen dying from his injuries two days later. The gunman, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, was killed by police at the site of the second shooting.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings)
I feel terrible for the families of the victims of these attacks, but to me, this was an attack on soldiers at a military target. The US military today is able to conduct war through drone strikes from across the planet. The attacks weren't on traditional war targets, but the US blows up enemy training grounds and recruiting sites all the time. We don't consider those attacks terrorist attacks, we consider them strikes on legitimate military targets that weaken our enemy. I think it's naive and arrogant to arrogant to think an American drone strike on a Taliban recruiting ground is a legitimate act of war and that an attack on an American recruiting ground is a terrorist attack.
I'm not trying to justify his actions or his beliefs, I'm more sayitg that **Terrorist Attacks** in my opinion are unjustifiable strikes against non-combatants, they are war crimes, they are despicable and criminal, but that the Chattanooga attacks were something different. The perpetrator is still our enemy, but we shouldn't demonize him as a terrorist.
If you have any further questions about my view or want me to clarify something, please let me know
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with police revenue raising. +
+ When police introduce a new form of speed prevention through easier distribution of tickets or they crack down on speeders, the motivation behind it doesn't actually make a difference. Whether they are doing it to decrease chances of accidents or they are revenue raising, the power still lies completely in the hand of the person behind the wheel.
Even if the police had the intention of revenue raising, that money still goes toward hiring more officers, putting more police cars on the road and getting better technology to combat road accidents. They aren't making anyone speed, they are just making the best of the fact that people are going to speed, so they might as well bring some revenue in from it.
I now see that the motivations behind revenue raising contradict the motivations that the police service is created to have. If revenue raising was the goal, the Police service would not only be out for the wrong reasons, but the entire outcome of what they would achieve would be counterproductive to society as a whole. Due to this, revenue raising cannot be seen as morally sound. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Trans people are just confused about what it means to be a man/woman. +
+ I think that Transpeople for the most part are either 1) chemically imbalanced, which can be easily treated through medication, or 2) just have a poor grasp on what it means to be a man/woman.
Being a man/woman isn't about conforming to traditional views of masculinity or femininity, it's about being an adult versus a child. The same thing with trianary genders systems, the people claiming them are just subscribing to old school/sexist ideas about what a man or a woman feels like, and because they don't feel like that, are pretending to be something else.
Not all women are going to feel like the traditional "feminine" stereotype, but that doesn't mean they aren't a woman, it just means they are saying that what defines a woman is how they differ from men and vice versa, instead of the less sexist idea that what defines a woman is how she is different than a child and what makes a man is how he differs from a boy.
TL;DR: What makes a man is how he differs from a boy, not how he differs from a woman. Trans/trianary gendered people are instead subscribing to sexist view that what makes a man is how differs from a woman.
Please, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The art of conversation and salesmanship is dead. +
+
As technology continues to progress, one thing that has started to become a lost art has been the face to face conversation. Typically there is a gap between old school folks who did not grow up with technology and the average 18 year old who was awarded the entire worlds information since likely age five. The art of conversation is becoming more and more rare. Reaction based conversation is uncommon. Anyone can come up with a perfectly crafted response if given enough time to do so, which is why it is hard to identify genuine people.
Gone are the days of yesteryear. The loyalty that people used to have to not only each other, but companies no longer exist. Pensions and not trying to spark a political debate but social security might not exist some where down the line. So we have older folks with financial security that won't be seen again with the new generations... We also have the folks who graduated around 2000 who grew up without technology but also with it and seem to be the bridge between the two generations. How do those people maximize their value?
Each generation loses something, there is a human element that today's generation seems to have lost. They are exposed to and are comfortable with all kinds of technology but there is a human aspect that is disappearing with each generation. At some point the value of experiencing the world and society in person , versus just reading about it online has to amount to something. Salesmanship has become a lost art and I am writing this post to see if anyone strongly agrees or disagrees with me. The art of salesmanship seems to be disappearing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Every American enterprise should have mandatory pro-bono. +
+ Pro-bono is a great concept. It literally means "for the public good." Pro-bono work is different from typical volunteer work in that it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.
Lawyers in the United States are recommended under American Bar Association ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of pro bono service per year(s). So, why can't other professions require this as well? This should be a Government regulated and enforced standard.
Aside from establishing a greater sense of community, this can also generate business for companies. Those who cleverly advertise their pro-bono work can catch the attention of many average consumers. Furthermore, this can reduce the necessity for exorbitant government handouts. Pro-bono is a form of guaranteed welfare.
To be honest, I am not *entirely* familiar with this concept. I only have vague ideas of how it works and why it is beneficial. To me it seems like a no-brainer. However, I'd like someone to challenge my view and educate me in the process!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Every not economically sustainable political ideology is utter nonsence +
+ I mainly want to challange socialists / communists and libertarians.
I think that the sole proposal of a economic Idea is pointless in our current world.
There is the socialist approach that would lead to a non competitive environment like in the eastern sector during the cold war. This approach fails when the state has too many payments for salary because the public sector is massivly overstaffed.
A good example is Greece. Furthermore does socialism encourage corruption of officials.
If there is no private interst in consumption of goods no economy can prosper. ( I dont mean grow irresponsible but develop to a certain degree)
Similarly the Idea of a basic income while the majority of people is still part of the workforce is just mind boggling.
The other extreme is Libertarianism.
I know there are modest versions like with socialism. But:
proposals like: cut all taxes, no regulation at all are just utter nonsense. In the current world we live in I dont see any chances for a fair market not governed by basic rules and regulations.
I can understand where the desire for freedom for the individual comes from but I fail to recognize the usefullness for society. When the state has no income it cannot guarantee basic services like water and electicity and the internet. Which would make the idea of "net neutrality" invalid. The best interest of this idea would oppose the best interst for all recipients of the impact of the change.
as /u/_stonecoldsaidso pointed out about a month ago.
And I agree with his idea. Uncontrolled markets can exist as long as there is no impact on other areas of concern.
And I dont see how libertarianism would deal with this issue especially when impacts on the function of the internet and other basic "public goods" can disrupt entire economies and even countries.
There might me additional ideologies.
I appreciate your comments :) And sorry, english is not my first language.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Ashley Madison hack was unjustified and is doing more harm than good. +
+ As someone who has admittedly cheated before and learned from my terrible decisions, I feel like this is completely wrong. However, literally EVERYONE I have talked to or asked their opinion about it today has told me that I'm wrong or that these people deserve it, yadda yadda. So here's my thoughts:
I don't feel like this hack is justified. I DO feel like cheaters are terrible people and having been on both sides I feel I've got a pretty good un-biased opinion of it. It hurts and hurting someone else is even worse, or at least to me it ended up feeling that way. But I don't think it's right that all of these people are getting exposed like this. This sounds terrible to a lot of people but, ignorance really can be bliss. Someone can be cheated on and be better off never knowing. The cheater may even have a change of heart and or regret their decision for the rest of their married life and do everything in their power to make up for it without ever actually coming out about it, making for a very happy relationship. Thing is, some of those kinds of people may very well have been using this site. Or people in open relationships where it woulda been okay regardless.
Yet everyone I talk to says "they're getting what they deserve" and yea, i mean, i get it, sometimes some people do deserve to be punished for something they did but, this feels wrong. I don't think they should be humiliated if they could have avoided it. There's a lot of reasons someone could have used this site, like distant spouses, emotional affairs, family shaming... and they dont deserve to be publicly humiliated. And its definitely not right for some hacker to just be able to do this all from the safety of being anonymous.
Everybody makes mistakes, doesn't mean you should be punished/humiliated for it. You can change or learn otherwise without that.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Free markets are great, but they are inappropriate for necessities like housing, etc. +
+ I think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small-government, financially conservative types. I feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to "walk away from the deal". Fundamentally that can't be the case when you're talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet. The whole USA is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare. Parts of the country such as San Francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky-rocketing rent. The cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime. Internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.
No one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics. It is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they're sick.
I have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it's not my field. I am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind (I'm a cook), which is why I'm so interested to see what new things you guys can show me. Thanks!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Marriage equality is a silly concept that reaffirms oppression by societal norms. +
+ So I've been reading a bit of Foucault lately (certainly not a lot, so I don't claim to be an expert). As such, he has influenced my views on gay marriage... and issue is used to support. I now see the gay community's fight for marriage rights as simply fighting for justice and rights as defined by the very people that oppressed them. Therefore I see marriage itself as a tool of social oppression and normalization.
I would compare it to the end of slavery in the United States. "Marriage equality" as we have it now would be like if at the end of the Civil War, instead of abolishing slavery, Congress simply passed an amendment that said that "black people can now ALSO own slaves."
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a closet sexist serving as a senior executive in a male-dominated industry that has the ability to inflict positive change onto the lives of quite a few women. +
+ Revulsion. Disgust. Anger. Resentment. Spitefulness.
Most humans would associate these responses alongside mass displays of torture or killing. Perhaps such a countenance would be most appropriately donned whilst becoming informed of the latest school shooting. There are many permissible circumstances in which one would be justified to feel such repulsion.
This is what I feel when discussing women's issues.
Throughout my young adult life, I have always sought out knowledge which furthered the distance between my personal beliefs and my upbringing. As a son of a son of a sharecropper from southern Mississippi, I was raised with fundamentalist Christian, neo-conservative paradigms.
Yet, for some reason, while the aforementioned constructs were so easily eliminated from my reality... Even the flurry of knowledge and humanity which spurned such personal renaissance was futile in this regard as I have trouble even acknowledging the women's rights movements as anything more meaningful than tabloid journalism.
If I were to be 100% honest, I can honestly say that I've never seen racism in the corporate world. Yet sexism does abound. I work in Network Security, one of the most male-dominated fields known to exist within corporate boundaries. Many women have spoken out about this, but I can confirm it is similar in experience to the way [this blogger has put it] (http://www.themakersofthings.com/2010/03/melissa-hathaway-internet-security.html).
I have worked under superiors who have outright stated their unwillingness to employ females, especially on male-dominated teams. I have seen a group of men conspire against a female counterpart in pursuit of righting perceived wrongs.
In my few short attempts to annihilate this final bastion of uneducated ignorance, (which, admittedly, has been expressed and interpreted as sexism) I have failed miserably. When the fallacies which seem to form the battle-cry for many associated with feminist movements ([70% Statistic](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html) and the [biological implications of gender] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask)) are seemingly ignored, it is very hard to empathize.
But today I received the inspiration behind this urgent desire for comprehension:
I was offered the position of a lifetime on the basis that the only other candidate in serious consideration, a female, wouldn't be quite capable of dealing with the "stresses of the environment". That was the official response I was given by my new supervisor... But while I've only been with the company for 6 months, she has been in her position for 4 years. Same department. No movement.
The guys make fun of her constantly. She makes it easy.
We use a chatroom/voting app online to determine where we go to lunch everyday. I was invited to it the first day of my employment, when I was treated to lunch. She discovered it about a month ago, when I spilled the beans by accident.
When the guys at lunch found out, they told me she would "ruin the fun" and joked that there "isn't a way to value an account as .7 a vote".
I laughed at the jokes and agreed with the remarks. This is my comfort zone.
But when she handed in her resignation this morning upon hearing the decision, I couldn't help but feel a little bit guilty.
For her coworkers, who viewed her as an unforgiving political stalwart, it was a victory. For her boss, who she had reported to HR twice for sexual harassment/discrimination, it was a monumental occasion.
"(He) had been trying to figure out how to fire her since (he) had been hired." he expounded at lunch today.
But when I stopped by her office this morning and saw the trash bin full of Kleenex alongside the two workplace 'awards' she had been given... it was difficult. Her eyes spelled defeat... deep. Not the kind that you come back from. The kind that comes from a life of perceived failure.
The group voted to go to a wings bar and drink in celebration. I was toasted as the "man who killed the witch." I smiled, but for the first time in my life I am feeling as though I must begin to confront my denial and willful ignorance.
Thus, I am here. Not completely by my own conscious will, but instead driven by a subconscious desire and need for justice. While I can't make things right at work, I am in a position now of senior executive leadership, the youngest to don such a title in the history of the firm. I sit at the head of a department of one of the largest financial firms in the country. I can start making a difference.
The problem I have is that I don't believe you. Even with the abhorrent anecdotal experiences I could cite, I haven't seen a shred of empirical evidence which shows this is anything outside of a few small circles. In fact, I can easily rationalize away my experiences with only a slight bit of denial.
But that would be easy. I already won a position I shouldn't have had the easy way. While I *despise* winning that way, business is business and the world keeps spinning. What I don't wish to do, however, is conduct myself in a manner in which I disadvantage my female counterparts, be they potential employees or individuals I encounter throughout my career. But I fear that my personal beliefs have a large potential for negating those altruistic ideals.
When Ellen Pao resigned from the firm, it was apparent to everyone with connections inside the industry that she was scapegoated. It was so well-known that publishers have been forced [to address this directly.] (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/07/13/who-fired-reddits-victoria-taylor-yishan-wong-alexis-ohanian-ellen-pao/)
I fit the median demographic for Reddit dead-center. I despised Pao. I degrade feminists. I am sexist, but consider myself left-leaning.
I am ready to change that. But everywhere I look, on every feminist site, I only see whining and complaining. No studies. No empirical evidence. Just feel-good baby food seemingly written for an emotional, illogical audience. This is how I view women's rights activists.
Help me change. Please...
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The risks of dying in a car accident outweigh the benefits of driving a car. +
+ Cars are terrifying. Car accidents happen all the time. ALL THE TIME. You hear about them on the local news constantly. More often than not, they result in fatalities. I drive all the time, but I'm very scared of it honestly. I'm terrified that I, or someone I love, will be in a terrible car accident at some point in the future. Not only that, I get this slight feeling that it's not only possible, but LIKELY to happen, considering how often car accidents actually happen.
I can think of a number of people right off the bat (people I either knew or people I went to school with or something) who have died suddenly in terrible car accidents. Most of them didn't involve alcohol. Their lives destroyed forever because of one false move by either them or another driver.
And that is all it takes. One false move. Driving 60 down a 2-lane highway? The driver coming the other way can barely, BARELY inch into your lane, cause a terrible head-on collision, and kill you in a matter of SECONDS. And that's what makes it so scary. I'm not afraid of my driving, I'm afraid of other people on the road. And the drunken assholes who get behind the wheel and kill people.
Seatbelts? Sure, they help a little, I guess. Okay, you won't get thrown from a car if it's a minor accident. But if it's a head-on collision on the highway, a seatbelt won't save you. You're fucked either way.
One tiny false move by another driver, and your life will be over in a matter of seconds.
This stuff scares me. Maybe I have a phobia. I still drive, but I can't get the idea out of my head that driving cars regularly has got to be the most risky, dangerous activity that is so widely accepted.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Superman should not have been able to beat Zod in Man of Steel. +
+ Taking the existence of super-powered aliens as a given, I think the most unrealistic part of Man of Steel was Superman standing any chance against Zod.
Zod was basically trained from birth to be the ultimate killer. He was the product of generations of eugenics to create the perfect fighter. He was his people's greatest military commander.
Superman was physically stronger than the average person of his race for having grown up in the "nutrient-rich environment" of Earth. But he grew up on a farm and received no formal training. He had only barely started to have a mastery of his abilities by the time Zod and his followers arrived.
Zod and his people were initially shocked by their newfound strength on Earth, but they quickly adapted. He achieved a similar power level to Superman in a matter of days, in addition to his previous training and skills. The advantage in sheer strength of Superman should not have been enough to overpower Zod. It is basically like putting a Navy Seal against a body-builder. The body-builder may be physically stronger, but he's still going to get his ass kicked.
Okay, a variety of points have been made which have collectively CMV:
* Zod's talents as a military leader were never explicitly about his personal fighting prowess. He also loses in single combat to Jor-El.
* Even if Zod were a better fighter and quickly adapted to his new strength on Earth, he was still out of his element and had not committed to "muscle-memory" things that were now second-nature to Superman.
* Superman's true power is that he is always as strong as the plot needs him to be, rendering the possibility of failure moot. Plot armor OP.
* Ultimately any fight between opponents of similar enough power can end in an upset, and Superman beating Zod may be an example of that.
Thanks everyone for the discussion!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The West Coast quality of life is overrated and it's not nearly as politically progressive as people think it is. +
+ I was born and raised here and a proud Giants fan, so I'm not trying to be a hater, just a realist and not a blind homer.
For one thing living here is not nearly as laid back as people say it is. It's insanely expensive, and to be able to afford anything nice you have to work your ass off here, much moreso than you would in the Midwest, South or even most of the Northeast.
People are overworked and grumpy because of the whacked-out ratio between wages and cost of living. In real terms, the West is poorer than most of the Deep South. It's totally normal to work 70-90 hours a week here to make ends meet. The standard of living in material terms is considerably lower than the rest of the country and people generally have less here.
The amenities are also not as good as the rest of the country for your money. Buying a house costs twice what it does in the South and three times as much as the Midwest, and you get smaller homes and tiny yards. Many houses are poorly built and air conditioning is still a luxury not everyone here has. Which sucks when it's 100 degrees outside.
The transit sucks outside of San Francisco, inner Portland and parts of LA, and even there it's only mediocre. The water quality sucks aside from in the Pacific Northwest. People go to bed early out West and the nightlife is very boring. You BETTER like the outdoors and camping, because honestly there is almost nothing else to do here.
The schools are absolutely atrocious out West unless you live in a rich area since nobody here wants to pay their taxes. This goes from the elementary schools all the way up to the crappy community colleges (though I will give my state Oregon credit for just recently deciding to make their community colleges free, since they aren't worth paying money to attend).
Aside from Spanish missions there is no history here much more than 150 years old, and most of the architecture in Western US cities is tacky stuff from the 70s, 80s and 90s. No rural charm like you'd find in New England or the Midwest in the small towns.
People aren't nearly as liberal as people believe either. It's definitely more libertarian and conservative overall. California voted against gay marriage at least once, and has passed on several opportunities to end the death penalty. The politics are very anti-worker and the trend is always to stick up for big business and the free market no matter what it costs the poor.
Tons of racism too, it seems like everyone in California hates the Mexican immigrants. Actually all of the races on the West Coast seem to have "beef" with each other, I know my Mexican ex-roommate from east LA hated black people. It's definitely not a post-racial utopia by any means. The Aryan Nations is based in Idaho after all - not the South.
West Coast people tend to be unfriendly compared to people from other regions. People don't do the neighbor thing, and meeting and talking to strangers is taboo. Whenever I travel on a Greyhound or train, it's almost always people from outside the Western US that are interested in chatting. Nobody here seems to have much of a sense of humor either and there is a tendency for West Coast people to take things way too seriously and get offended easily.
It's very easy to fall out of touch with friends here, I find, even if you thought you were super close to them. It's just a very self-oriented culture.
Lastly most of the Western US is not particularly pretty. While parts of it like Glacier and Yosemite are incredible, most of it is barren, flat and covered in sagebrush and short stubby grasses. Taken as a whole, the eastern US is much more green and scenic, even if it doesn't have the pockets of majesty the West has.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for? +
+ when i first started using Reddit, it amazed me that it had the power to draw the public's attention to anything you could find on the internet. in an age where mainstream news is biased and groomed, things like the TPP, police brutality, corruption, and even small specific situations like the élan school were brought to the attention of Millions because people upvoted it on reddit.
When SOPA was on your front page, with senator's phone numbers in the top comment, they were most certainly 'brigaded'. because the necessary people were slammed with thousands of voicemails and millions of emails, a real difference was made. what about all the times we link to petitions, or laws that are being voted on? ever notice what happens to the comment section of a youtube video or news item that makes front page? this is all brigading, but it is not a bad thing.
it's a bad thing when a group of people specifically team up to harass. but we shouldn't lump harassment in with voting... under this one term, 'brigading'
i really enjoy browsing the debates on r/subredditdrama because they (usually) link to an argument without encouraging you to take a specific side or have a certain opinion about it. sometimes i'll read 30-50 responses in a thread and forget that i was linked to it from SRD and it really annoys me that if i cast a vote somewhere in there, i risk a ban.
i guess the whole point is, it's silly that we can't cast a vote on a debate we are linked to within Reddit. especially when 'brigading' (bringing people's attention to something) is how Reddit has helped make the world a better place, in small but significant ways.
was i supposed to remove that? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Donald Trump would make a good president +
+ Two weeks ago, I thought Donald Trump had the biggest joke of a campaign. I didn't think anyone could take him seriously. I assumed if there were people at his campaign speeches it is because they were paid to be there. I was solidly behind Bernie Sanders.
Now I am not so sure. To be clear, I still think the most important issues are the ones Bernie Sanders talks about but I think Donald Trump will be better at solving these issues.
Here are the issues that I think are important to this country:
1. Growing rift between the rich and the poor and the weakening middle class
2. Political corruption - politicians make decisions based on who pays for their campaign rather than for the good of the voters
3. National security threats like ISIS
4. Imprisonment of victimless crimes like possession of marijuana
5. The trillion dollar national debt
I used to think gay rights and healthcare were big concerns but I think President Obama has done a good job of solving these.
1. Of these five issues, I think the weakening middle class is the biggest issue and this is where I think Donald Trump beats Bernie Sanders. I think the middle class has been shrinking not because people aren't working but because there aren't high paying jobs. Yes, part of this is because the CEO's of these companies are making 300x what the lowest paid employee makes and this is where I see Bernie Sanders being effective. However, I think the much greater issue is the fact that a lot of our high paying jobs have went overseas because of bad trade deals. For example, Donald Trump mentioned Ford building a 2 billion dollar manufacturing plant in Mexico right now. If we had higher taxes on imported cars then Ford would be forced to build that factory here. Everyone knows most of our manufacturing happens overseas and this needs to happen here. When manufacturing happened in the U.S. that is when the middle class was strongest. I remember one TIL saying that the average salary for a household in today's wages in the 1950s was $55,000. And that was with one individual in the household working, whereas today normally both people have to work. I think Donald Trump would be an incredible negotiator and make deals for the United States that help bring back high paying jobs.
2. Political corruption - Bernie Sander's record is flawless and I think because of Donald Trump's great wealth, no one could pay him off. Also, while most politicians make money from the increased attention they receive from campaigning, Donald Trump has already lost money from his campaign due to sponsorship deals like Macy's falling through and NBC's Miss America Pageant being canceled.
3. National Security - I have not heard an effective strategy for dealing with ISIS until I heard something Donald Trump said. He wants to deprive them of their wealth. ISIS is making a killing from selling oil. Donald Trump said he would bomb the oil fields then make a protective ring around the oil and have companies rebuild the oil fields. Now, this is pretty aggressive behavior. Not too much different than what Putin did with Crimea. However, it's a great deal for the American people. We get cheap oil, we are not nation building, and ISIS gets drained of money and can't buy weapons, can't pay soldiers, and can't continue their operations. I hate seeing these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from a selfish perspective because they cost trillions of dollars. We send billions of dollars removing a horrific dictator, yet we get no thanks. Many Iraqis hate us and they are not paying back any of the money it cost us to help them. I think Donald Trump will make us more secure and could save us billions on national security.
4. Imprisonment of victimless crimes - without a doubt Bernie Sanders would be better at this. I don't see Donald Trump removing harsh sentences anytime soon.
5. The national debt - Yes, a lot of this is owed to American citizens and the government gets a deal because interest payments are less than inflation. Still, I think it is a problem. Bernie Sanders would solve this issue by raising taxes on the wealthy which would be effective. Donald Trump would do this by bringing more taxable money into the country via better trade deals.
Finally, one last issue I see with Bernie Sanders is that even though I think higher taxes will solve a lot of problems, I still don't trust the government with its money management. I think Donald Trump would bring much more money back into the country from better trade deals. I don't like Trump's position on Edward Snowden (called him a traitor). I don't think creating more government jobs like Greece did is a solution but it is something I think Bernie Sanders will do.
I think Barack Obama has done a great job so far. Unemployment is down and healthcare coverage is up. Unfortunately we still have troops all over the world and Russia is growing in size despite economic sanctions. Our Iran deal wasn't that great (we didn't get our hostages back and we had to give Israel free weapons to placate them) and NSA spying seems to have continued although I am not sure after that recent court ruling. Civil rights have improved.
I know I have mentioned a lot of different issues. The most important one to me is the shrinking wealth of the middle class. I believe the healthiest societies are one where there is small difference between rich and poor. In summary, I think Bernie Sanders treats the symptoms of the problem rather than the root. I think Donald Trump solves the root of the problem by bringing more jobs back to this country.
I will also mention this because I know it will be brought up - Donald Trump has went into bankruptcy four times. To my understanding, he declared bankruptcy on certain assets and then retained those assets at the lower valuation. I don't know the in's and out's.
Finally, Donald Trump has a big ego and says idiotic things like 'most of the mexicans crossing the border are rapists.' I know illegal immigrants are a vital part to our country's economy and I didn't like that he said this. However I think what needs to be reformed are laws so that people who want to work can get in more easily. That doesn't mean they should just be able to walk in. I don't care if they do, but I think from a national security standpoint, we should be able to regulate what comes into our borders. Obama has done a great job at making it easier for illegals to get documentation. That said, there are problems that are caused by an unsecured border. The drug traffic is terrible for both the US even worse for Mexico. A secured border would fix this.
I know this has been a lot to read. I take my voting decision very seriously and I want to have good information. Thank you.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The term "white trash" is racist to every race but whites +
+ Warning you now, I use some hefty racial slurs in my explanation. I'm not racist and don't support the use of any of these terms, but I'm going to use them here as examples.
Now I'm not one for overly "SJW"-like thinking, and I'm not personally outraged by the term, but I'm floored by how rarely I see anyone realize or even acknowledge that the term is racist. The phrasing "white trash" assumes that white people are inherently not trash and that this is a special exemption to the rule and needs to be labeled as such. One doesn't say "black nigger" or "mexican spic", the hate is built into the word itself. The word *is* the hate label. Having to specify "white" before your insult just makes it seem like it's shocking to you that a white person is behaving abnormally. Like they're a weird example of a white person instead of just another white person in a sea of different examples.
Now, I've heard the arguments before that "there's no good word to throw at white people" and "I use the term and I'm not racist". Neither of these are valid points. A lack of a "good" insult doesn't make a bad one "good" and your feelings on the matter have no bearing on the reality of how the term is constructed.
I'm not saying people who use the term are racists, I just think they don't realize the implication. Every time I bring this up though I'm downvoted without explanation. The score will drop but I'll hear no hint of rebuttal, which has convinced me I'm right but I'm just saying something they don't like. But hey idk, maybe I'm totally wrong. I'm willing to hear it. CMV?
.
I have probably done a poor job of accurately representing my stance on the issue. In an effort to drive home my logic, I was a little extreme with my phrasing. I will concede that the use of the term isn't insulting to other races, but I think it does hint at the "white people are normally higher class" sentiment that fuels the entire phrase. If you find that *INSULTING/TRIGGERING* or not probably has more to due with you than the phrase but as /u/ratherenjoysbass said in the comments:
"I think white trash is fucked up in that it inherently assumes that most white people are successful, well-mannered people so we must delineate the people that did not make it as well, for some reason couldn't afford enough class, or are the genetic unwanted when compared to the rest of the white race. Most other racial slurs inherently include the entire race so even a white person saying white trash is still acknowledging racial superiority against the others."
Also thanks to /u/tit_wrangler for the the only comment so far that I've delta'd, in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dxn2g/cmv_the_term_white_trash_is_racist_to_every_race/ct9p2ip)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Banning someone from a subreddit is absolutely useless, given how easy it is to create a new account +
+ Reddit is a free website that absolutely anyone can use. In fact, it prides itself on the ease at which someone can create an account. So when a mod decides that they need to ban a user, there is nothing stopping that user from creating a new account and rejoining the website. It's like getting kicked out of the bar, putting on one of those shitty glasses/moustache combos from the dollarstore, and strolling right back past the security guard.
Banning someone does not prove a point. If someone did that to me, I would think it to be hilarious. They got rid of ConstableBobrovsky?, well then say hello to SergeantBobrovsky. You got rid of SergeantBobrovsky?, well then say hello to CaptainBobrovsky.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Keynesian economics is a thin cover for class warfare +
+ This stemmed from a discussion I had on another sub about the Greek economic crisis, and what people are saying should have been done in terms of policy by the EU and the Greek government, which dovetails with what I heard should have been done by the US government in 2008-2010 in the worst part of the Great Recession.
My understanding of Keynesian theory as applied to this kind of economic situation is that it prescribes the government to spend money by using public debt, getting that money to the worker and the spending class. This money, once spent, will require producers to produce more, meaning they need to hire more people, which will give those people more money to spend, creating a virtuous circle of economic growth.
Once recession is over and growth is good, the theory then says that the government should raise revenue out of the booming economy by taxing the producers, the saving class, and the wealthy so as to pay down the debt that it acquired in the previous step.
From that, I conclude that Keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich. The activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad (albeit necessary) and should be discouraged, minimized to only what’s absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.
At this point, I see five possibilities:
1. Keynesian economics is pure class warfare. Keynes and his followers believe that the working class deserves more and the capitalist class deserves less, and developed a theory to fit that opinion.
2. Keynesian economics is *co-opted* by people with an agenda of pure class warfare. It’s perfectly valid under the theory to create the virtuous circle through government spending on Rolls-Royces and summer homes for the rich, and perfectly possible to pay down government debt by heavy taxes on working-class activities like buying groceries and holding personal debt. *How* we spend and tax isn’t the issue, just that we do.
3. I have an incomplete understanding of Keynesian theory. There can arise economic situations where alternative actions are recommended. For instance, once the economy is growing and the debt is paid, does Keynesianism say to reduce both taxes and spending so as to “shake up the system” and achieve new growth? Or any other situation where good economic policy is to increase inequality and use the natural human jealousy, envy, and fear to spur people to produce more?
4. I have an inaccurate understanding of Keynesian theory in general.
5. My understanding is accurate, but my logic is faulty.
Right now my view is hovering between One and Two, but I’d really like to understand this theory better.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV Gender Identity and Gender Roles are the same thing... And they are both social constructs. +
+ Hello. I would like to make the argument that Gender Identity and Gender Roles are one in the same and socially constructed. Many people argue that there are three ways to look at gender.
1. Sex- This is based on physical attributes and is usually binary. This is simply the physical attributes of male, female, and intergender. These are obviously not social constructs.
2. Gender Identity- This is often seen what gender people "feel" that they are. For example, a physical male may identify as a female, and therefore their Gender Identity is female.
3. Gender Role- These are simply the societal expectations for each gender to act (i.e. Men don't wear high heels, women are more sensitive and emotional, blah blah blah)
I argue that Gender Identity CAN NOT exist without Gender Roles, and identity is simply based off of perceived Gender Roles... therefore, they are also social constructs. What it means to be a women is not something that we are born with. We are taught what it means to be a man and we are taught what it means to be a women. If someone was never exposed to the social constructs, these identities would not have a foundation to stand on... a socially constructed foundation.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People should not be able to live forever. Death is a necessary part of evolution and the natural life cycle. +
+ My girlfriend and I recently watched the documentary *The Immortalists* on netflix. The documentary is about scientific efforts to help humans reverse or even eliminate the aging process. One of the more promising avenues for doing this is through Telomerase Gene Therapy, which essentially helps to reverse natural degradation that occurs as our cells replicate (which contributes to the aging process). Although this sounds like science fiction and we haven't actually made anything immortal, scientists have [already used telomerase gene therapy to extend the lives of mice by up to 24%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494070/). In the documentary (and articles I've read), the people who are conducting this and other immortality research are convinced they are doing the right thing. They believe they are working towards the betterment of mankind.
Getting old sucks, no question, and death is not a pleasant thing to deal with. But if nobody died of old age, our overpopulation concerns would be even more harrowing than they already are. New generations wouldn't replace old generations, they would just add to them. Human society would change even more slowly than it already does, if at all (I mean just imagine how many people from the 18th century would still be alive, and what effect that might have on our current society). People need to be able to die, as terrible as death and aging can be.
Change my view!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Climate change should be the dominant international issue for politicians and activists today. +
+ Scientists widely accept that climate change is real. Consequently, they say that it will lead to extreme weather, a raise in the sea level, increased acidity of the ocean, reduced sea and ice cover, and drought. These effects will in turn impact not only human's general well-being, but will also displace coastal settlements and cities, negatively effect food sources, destroy ecosystems, and more.
Furthermore,
Thus, I think the number one concern for the human race as a whole should be climate change, and I find it hard to justify any other causes. Yes, human rights and the economy are important, immediate concerns--But, in the end, it won't matter in if the planet becomes uninhabitable. So climate change and efforts to reverse or combat it should be the dominant issue in the world now. Instead, of focusing on raising the minimum wage or gay rights, we should devote most of our resources and energy to solving climate change.
I'm liberal. I think there are tons of important issues that we need to address--education, gun control, mental health, women's rights--but these issues should be secondary to protecting our home.
Change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Drones used as weapons to kill should be banned just like chemical and biological agents are. +
+ War is never pretty, nor should it be taken lightly, but all this talk about 'the war of the future' being fought with robots and remote control drones is just inhumane, in both uses of the term. yes It takes humans off the front lines, and saves their lives, but it makes for a one sided battle, with heavy casualties on the other side. That's all fine and good when it's "the good guys" using them to stop the "bad guys", but look at the other side. flying machines that can be sent anywhere at any time to shoot and bomb targets. If you shoot one down, there is no victory, they just send more, with no real loss because the pilot is miles away in a tent with a joystick.
If both sides end up with drone technology, war will just revert into guerrilla style ambush style attacks, with both sides sending drones to attack the other sides bases, cities and civilians.
all the positive reasons for using drones are equally valid when used as a negative reason.
Chem and Bio weapons are banned because they cause mass casualties with very little risk to the side using them, and the opposition can't really fight back against it. Drones are the same.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is morally wrong to eat animals. +
+ I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals. Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other "do not kill" obligations we have in our lives.
I also believe that the logic of "humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this [pig/cow/etc.]" is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self-sufficiency and intelligence.
I believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question "Why *should* it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat?" rather than "Why shouldn't it?"
Most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. (With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island.)
Reddit, what do you think? Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A president who literally did nothing would be a positive thing. +
+ If the president literally did nothing, old laws would not get renewed, and it would be much harder to pass new laws without the president's signature. Many laws have what are known as Sunset Provisions, where a law must be renewed by a certain time, or the law will no longer be in force. For example, Cuba was on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, and it was a big deal when they were taken off the list. However, the list has to be renewed every year by the president, all the president had to do was to refuse to sign its renewal.
Another example is the Bush tax cuts, which were set to expire, but they were renewed. A final example is the Patriot Act, which was renewed.
Many people will say that it's up to congress to renew these laws, but the president must sign all laws passed by congress, unless they get a 2/3rds majority. If the president either signs or vetos a law, it will simply not be passed.
The same goes for all laws, since it will be much harder to pass them without the president's signature, and much harder to override a veto if the president never officially vetoed it.
TL;DR A president who does nothing will cause old laws to expire, and make it harder for new laws to be passed.
This scenario is when a president literally does nothing, he doesn't sign a single form or attend a single event. There could simply be no president with all this stuff happening automatically and it would be the same. To change my view, you must tell me why this would be bad. Remember, if a president did nothing, fewer new laws would passed, and older laws would expire.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: SJWs are as bad as the sexists/racists they purport to oppose +
+ I am angry beyond exasperation by the generalised hate some of the SJWs I appear to follow/friend are sharing/re-sharing on Twitter/Facebook recently.
I can't stand by it any longer -- if you share something that generalises men / women / white people / asian people / immigrants / wealthy people / poor people / Northern / Southern / City / Rural... In fact, pretty much anything you attack by generalising a group based on one bad example -- I feel the need to not only unfollow you, I think I need to make sure you understand why I'm doing it. Publicly.
That goes equally for people that make unfair assertions about people it's "cool" to hate: Such as calling UKIP (UK Independence Party who exist to try and remove the UK from the EU) racists, or Conservatives (once again, a UK political party, currently in Government office) thieves, or the police thugs. I've never met a racist UKIP member, a Conservative thief, or a police thug.
Prejudice happens. We all have prejudices. I have prejudices. Allowing that prejudice to become discrimination, and that discrimination becoming openly attacking people is something we all need to combat. If one of your friends starting mouthing obscenities towards a gay man, or a black woman, I'd hope you'd try to stop them. You should do the same for someone attacking a straight man too because he's male and straight and not because he's done something himself.
Somehow it has become acceptable to post insulting things like https://twitter.com/flexlibris/status/621873976063692800 which tar all men (in this particular example) with the same brush. People I respect retweet it. That's just not fair, and it's something I can't put up with any longer.
If you want to point out *a* man acting inappropriately, that's fine by me. I've done it before, and while I know a lot of people just turn away and pretend it's not happening, I'd like to believe that many would say something.
If you say *all* men are trash, you're attacking *me* and *I've* done nothing wrong.
This kind of generalisation behaviour is completely unacceptable to me, and these people are just as bad -- no, they're WORSE than the people they're trying to oppose. They DO know better and choose to be inflammatory.
Generalising a group of people based on bad information is exactly why many major conflicts occur worldwide. I'm not talking about in history and making a veiled Nazi reference, I'm talking about today. People *today* are excluded because of sweeping generalisations like the ones these people perpetuate.
I can't stand silently by it any longer. If I don't speak out against it, it gives silent consent to those that do it. However, I realise that perhaps I'm over-reacting and there's another side to this story.
So, before I go on a massive unfollow and outrage spree amongst people posting SJW type material: (Try and...) Change My View!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The principle of Free Speech would not be would not be violated by Reddit banning hate subs. +
+ For this CMV the [relevant XKCD] (https://xkcd.com/1357/) is not relevant. What I want to address is the idea that the "principle of free speech" i.e. Open debate without fear of reprisal would be violated by reddit if they banned hate subreddits. People that make the Principles of Free Speech (PFS) argument are talking about free speech as an enlightenment ideal. I get that, and that may be a fair argument to make.
My view:
Banning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization. Silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes X and Y claims will be banned. That would be a clear violation of the PFS. Whether or not that is a good idea is not what I am arguing today. My argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech. There is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a KIA poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments. Organization does not equal speech.
What will not change my view:
*Appeals to the first amendment. We have already established that we are not talking about that.
*Slippery slopes ("If Admins can ban subs, users are next")
*Bias ("Who gets to choose what subs to ban")
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:(too much) Immigration hurts a country's culture +
+ As a german, especially in the city I live, there's honestly too many turks and muslims here.
My old school was 80% turks/muslims/guys from eastern europe, which seriously lead to germans being made fun of, *for being german, in their own damn country*
But that's not the only example, when I go out, I see as much, if not more, foreigners on the streets.
And by 'foreigners', I don't mean anything like scandinavians, or people from developed countries for that matter, I mean all the muslims/turks/romanians, etc.
A little immigration doesn't hurt, that's for certain. But if there's more immigrants than natives in any place, something's not right.
^^^^I'm ^^^^not ^^^^racist^^^^ | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The UK fox-hunting ban, as it currently stands, is inconsistent and nonsensical. +
+ *Disclaimer: I'm unsure what the conventions are for this, but I decided not to go source-hunting for the various statements I'm about to make, with the understanding that if anyone disputes them, they should be able to find sources to the contrary (this being CMV, after all). If this isn't the case, let me know.*
A bit of background for anyone who doesn't know: a few years ago, the UK parliament issued a ban on fox-hunting with dogs. That is to say, you can now no longer deliberately set dogs to chase a fox, and subsequently allow them to kill it.
My contention is that the sole reason for this legislation is to 'spite' the upper-class practitioners of the 'sport' of fox-hunting (which I am not a part of, to be clear), which usually takes place in the form of a grand hunt with hordes of dogs, horses, horn blowing etc.
My reason for this is quite simple: though ostensibly designed to prevent animal cruelty, foxes are still classed as vermin in the UK. This means that you can legally kill them in the wild, without any reason, by pretty much any means you like. This includes snaring, a common method employed by farms, whereupon a trap is laid to catch the fox's leg in a loop of wire, restricting its movement and causing it to starve to death over a period of several days. Other traps and poisons can also be used, and I can say from experience in a rural environment that regulations are non-existent in practise.
The argument made by proponents is that, for the fox, being hunted in the manner I described is truly terrifying, and the dogs proceed to brutally rip them to pieces. They tend to use a lot of emotional language about how horrific it is, and make unsubstantiated claims about how these evil fox-hunters paint blood on their children's faces. The best thing is, I don't even need to argue against any of these, because *the ban doesn't even target them*.
While the foxes can no longer be *killed* by the dogs, the hunting itself is still very much legal. Now, the hunters simply finish it off with a gun, or a bird of prey. If they were feeling sadistic, they could even starve it to death over a period of several days, laughing and stroking their *evil* moustaches as it gets progressively weaker and pained. The ban doesn't even do the job they supposedly designed it for, and yet people still defend it.
I would go one further, and argue that even an 'improved' ban that targets fox-hunting more effectively isn't a good idea. The other common argument I hear is that fox-hunting is, by definition, a blood sport, and that as sentient beings, we should have higher moral standards, and not indulge in the killing of animals simply for our own enjoyment.
Now, I totally understand, and personally agree with, this argument. But, foxes and other animals *are still classed as vermin*; they can be killed for *any* reason, or no reason at all. Aside from much broader and stricter animal rights laws (which I would potentially be open to, but this isn't the discussion being had), the alternative (and what people seem to be in favor of) is some sort of ban on the killing of foxes for the purposes of having fun. I'm against that type of legislation on principle; laws should be based on actions, not on whether the perpetrator enjoyed themselves or not.
So, in summary, the ban as it currently stands is ineffective, inconsistent, and in my view, representative of class warfare and government-imposed moralistic regulations. This puts me in some, uh.. "interesting" company, politically, despite my otherwise bleeding-heart-liberal views. So please, reddit, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Agnosticism, under the definition of a "middle-man" position between theism and atheism, is incoherent. +
+ I believe that the "I'm not taking sides in this debate until more evidence is established" kind of agnosticism that many agnostics accociate with, is rational *only* if both theism and atheism has the burden of proof set upon them at the same time. However, I personally believe that the burden of proof is put on theism exclusively, which as a consequence renders this type of agnosticism incoherent.
I can understand why someone for personal reasons would still label themselves as this kind of agnostic during some kind of transitionary phase, in the sense that one is still actively contemplating for which side to side on. But other than that, I view it as a completely irrational position to hold.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Esports shouldn't be called sports +
+ I want to start by quoting the oxford dictionary's definition of sport.
"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"
see what esports lack? Physical exertion.
An argument I see being used commonly is "But poker and chess are also considered sports"
I'd like to refer again to the Oxford dictionary, poker and chess lack physical exertion. So like some have already argued, chess and poker aren't real sports, I'd like to prefer to them as professional hobbies or thinking sports.
And if you try to argue that esports are real sports because they have tournaments and are regulated, then I want to argue that monopoly is a sport, there is an [official monopoly championship](http://monopoly-championship-history.wikia.com/wiki/2015_World_Championship) too.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific +
+ This CMV is not about whether you or I believe aliens exist. It is about the widely held point of view: if you don’t think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you’re crazy. I understand where this view comes from; the [Universe is so unimaginably huge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U) and so filled with [galaxies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg), and therefore stars, and therefore [planets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_spacecraft), there simply *must* be other life out there. My view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.
My background: I am a physics and astronomy teacher, and I teach about this subject in depth every year. I think about it and research it often. I’m well acquainted with the [Drake Equation](https://xkcd.com/384/), the [Fermi Paradox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc) and [its many possible solutions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQkVqno-uI), the [Great Filter](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), and the debate over alien life in general.
My own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the ‘of course aliens exist out there’ side, but I thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them. However, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book *Alone in the Universe* by [John Gribbin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin), and I now think that the great profusion of life here on Earth is so rare that we are alone in the Universe.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely open to the idea of aliens existing. I kind of hope they do, as long as they don’t destroy us all! But until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist — an organized signal, clear alien-made trace elements on a planet’s spectroscopy, anything measurable — I think the correct scientific approach is that they don’t exist. CMV.
The most compelling argument that I've read below is that because we know life happened once in the Universe with us, it could happen again. Physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the Universe. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's given me something to think about. And so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non-life. Is it easy or hard? Could it have happened only once? *Alone in the Universe* argues that a LOT of things had to go just right for us to exist. I call these things 'Drake's Denominator' in class -- the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reductions in CO2/Climate Change are never going to happen by reducing energy consumption. +
+ All of the focus on combating climate change is ways to reduce energy consumption, alternate technology, and producing fewer tons of CO2. It think this is unrealistic that with a growing population, many countries in their industrial revolution and increasing standards of living we will never reduce our energy demands. The level of reduction to actually reduce climate change is substantial and even the most optimistic predictions about energy reduction would come close. Reducing energy consumption/increasing energy costs hurts people's standards of living and especially in developing countries where they are already so poor. I think it is realistic to think that a technology can be developed that scrubs the CO2 from the atmosphere and we can control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to the ideal level.
Tell me how we can really reduce out CO2 to a level that actually reverses climate change without a new technology that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Using stream-based services like spotify instead of having music files localy. +
+ Spotify. You spend so much time finding music, putting them into playlists and all of these is stored on spotify's servers. However, if you purchase premium, the monthly fee, you have the option to save it localy. But that's not the point here.
What i don't understand is the longevity in this solution. What happends that day spotify crashes/goes through bankcruptcy/et cetera? All that music, gone.
If instead, someone would use musicfiles like .mp3 or .flac it would be different, because you had control over it.
I really don't understand why, for big collectors of music why you would use spotify. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Its not possible to know that teachers should make more money +
+ A popular opinion among the American electorate is that teachers should make more money.
I'm not an expert in economics but I think the assumption here is a labor theory of value. People look at the number of labor hours and the "difficulty" of teaching, plus the social importance of teaching, and conclude that teachers are underpaid. It also pulls on the heart strings to support teachers. The same layman economic presuppositions underlie the idea that sports players are grossly overpaid.
However, prices cannot be determined beyond supply and demand. Since teachers do not operate in a free market, for the most part, we cannot really say how accurate their salaries are.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The criteria for being a vegetarian isnt not eating meat, its not buying meat. +
+ I cant see any logical ethical difference. Ive been trying out vegetarianism and the other day my friend was making this outrageous 3-4 foot sandwich and I got so tempted that I started thinking about it and figured theres literally no ethical difference between me eating meat and me not eating meat, as long as im not ever paying money for it and supporting it as consumer.
Essentially im saying that you can eat meat and still be a vegetarian as long as you dont actually buy it eg. having a bite of your friends sandwich.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think rapists are not able to be rehabilitated and society would be better off if we executed rapists. Change my view. +
+ I want to see if anyone can give a legit justification of why rapists aren't unsalvageable human beings, if they can be considered that. I'm looking for concrete evidence that rehabilitation actually makes rapists stop raping and if the kind of person that could rape someone is even capable of being considered a decent human being ever again. I hold this view because due to some events in my past that I'd rather not discuss I am incredibly biased on this issue. If yall catch my drift. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Our 11 Year Old Daughter is Too Young to Have a Personal Email Account or Text her Friends +
+ We are parents to an an 11 year old daughter. According to her, she is the only kid going into 6th grade in America that does NOT have her own email address or texting enabled on her ipod touch.
We admit - we are protective parents - one of us is a computer architect/engineer specializing in internet security and hacking prevention - and former wild kids ourselves, not wanting to make the missteps our parents did with us. I've asked some of her classmates parents what they do with their kids and I get mixed reactions. Some have regrets, another mom thinks I'm being too tight assed about it (her daughter is 9 and has an instagram account-- with 175 'friends??") I'm really trying to wrap my head around giving my tween email-freedom but really struggling with it and hope someone here can change my view. I totally understand - My daughter wants to fit in and to be able to correspond with friends, and its embarrassing for her when kids ask for her email and she doesn't have one at 11 yrs old. It's hard to find general information about suggested age parameters for tweens and email & other social media accounts. So---Please CMV on the issue of controlling my 11 year old tweens 'rights' to an email address, texting, etc.
Thank you in advance for your feedback... | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The correct response to someone driving slowly in the left hand lane on the highway is to merge in front of them and drive even slower. +
+ This summer in Colorado I've notice a large number of drivers cruising in the left-hand lane of major highways, at the same speed or slower than the drivers beside them. This is, of course, infuriating, illegal on many areas of the highway, holds up traffic, and increases the threat of road rage from the drivers behind them. Let's call these guys Left-Hand Cruisers (LHC's).
When able to pass the LHC, I generally pass on the right, match their speed, merge in front of them, and then let off the gas. I begin slowing down, forcing them to slow or merge right in response. If they refuse to move over, I flash my hazards to get their attention and let them know I'm not going to speed back up for them (or trick them into thinking I'm having issues, whichever.)
This usually just results in the LHC realizing what they're doing, merging right, and leaving it at that. Sometimes they try to merge back into the left lane once I speed back up, but I just put the brakes on them again. The hope is that LHC's will realize that someone driving slowly in the left hand lane is a nuisance, and holds up traffic. At least they're likely to think about it, and this makes them less likely to cruise in that lane in the future.
Even if they don't learn a lesson, and even if they refuse to merge right, this step will allow the faster drivers that were held up before to merge right (into the now faster lane) and pass the LHC with ease.
The only real risk is of road rage from the LHC, and I have encountered this. The normal response from them is to swing into the right hand lane, pass and merge in front of me, pedal to the metal. As long as I don't try to race them or anything, it's just left at that. They end up moving more quickly in the left-hand lane, or at least fast enough that I can't pass them again, and I leave them alone afterwards.
When I first started doing this, I noticed a significant change in the number of LHC's (after a few weeks), and it went from 2-3 each day to maybe one every week. I felt like I was making a large impact. With the warm weather returning, their numbers are increasing, so I feel that my "impact" may have been largely selection bias. However, I feel that it does make some difference, whether in the short run or the long run, and is worth doing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Farts are the purest form of comedy. +
+ This thought started out when I was watching Blazing Saddles with a group that included my father-in-law. Right before the scene when the guys are sitting around the campfire eating beans, my father-in-law mentions that he doesn't know why this scene is in the movie. When the men start farting, I start laughing like a maniac because I think farts are hilarious.
Now to my view, farts are the purest form of comedy. What do I mean by this? Farts are universal and everyone can relate to them. Farts don't make fun or antagonize any group of people.
Farts innocently remind us of a daily bodily function that is gross, but often in a humorous manner. There are practical jokes that can be played with no one getting harmed (rolling and locking car windows). I would also hope that just by seeing the title of this post makes some people internally chuckle.
So, to most easily change my view, someone would have to come up with another humorous thing that is "more pure." Meaning, no one is antagonized and that everyone can relate to and funnier than farts. I'm open to other things changing my view, but can't really think of anything else off the top of my head.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think /r/politics is relatively mainstream and those that criticize it are generally super biased +
+ I notice a lot of people grumble about /r/politics like it is an absolutely ridiculous cult, far out of touch with real discussion. I notice that almost all of these people that complain are right wing conservatives or libertarians. These are people that are generally part of a huge minority of the 18-30 something vote.
They remind me of Fox News watchers who think everything to the left of Fox News must be "extreme left" and crazy. In reality it's just that their information bubble is so biased, that the normal world appears insane to them.
Yes, the subreddit is filled with left-leaning headlines. And a lot of people who are excited by Bernie Sanders. But the demographic of the country, and especially young tech savvy people leans left on the issues (relative to US party leadership) and there's nothing inherently wrong or radical about that. It's just measured against a spectrum that includes a radical right. I have always found the discussion is much more substantive and reasonable and robust than even other political subreddits like /r/PoliticalDiscussion, which is generally very light on real discussion and dominated by libertarians and AnCaps. If you look at polls of teens and young adults, and even academics and field experts, it look far more like /r/politics than like /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/news or /r/worldnews which are generally filled with reactionary sentiment and outdated views on race, class, sociology, economics, etc.
Right leaning headlines are allowed. You see at least some conservatives in the comments all the time. The problem is they generally just post to register a vague complaint about all the liberals, and don't actually try to debate the merits. When they do bring their POV into it, it's not met with shrieking hysteria like people pretend, but usually someone with a pretty strong counter-argument. I think the hard truth that people don't want to swallow is that most of the conservative and libertarian movement is pretty intellectually dishonest and disagreeable these days, and the positions are so easily refuted when they're brought out of their bubbles that it creates bitterness and an attitude of taking your ball and going home. As Colbert said, "reality has a well known liberal bias".
If they actually had links and comments of equal merit to bring to the table, they could easily post them and change the dynamics of the sub. There are vigorous debates to be had on the issues, but the range of 21st century scholarly debate on issues like science, economics, sociology, healthcare, welfare theory, etc generally looks like a socialist rally to the average US conservative, but that just says more about them.
TL;DR I think /r/politics is pretty normal and reasonable and the people who complain loudest against it are the infamous Reddit reactionaries, who are much more outside the bounds of sophisticated political or economic discussion.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You cannot be a social progressive and against freedom of speech. +
+ Most social progressives, love democracy, and so it is of relatively little surprise to me that as they have achieved a majority (in Reddit and the West), that they want to exercise their new-found power over reactionary groups. I would offer, however, that at one point in time they were a minority, and with the advent of freedom of speech, their voices were allowed to shine in free, open, democratic discourse. I find it very disturbing that people who claim to be supporting "social progress" in society want to begin delimiting and banning thinkers who already exist as a minority that rests outside the norm of consensual decency.
You cannot use a principle of liberal social democracy, and then turn around and illiberally and antisocially try to close the door behind you. This understanding that freedom of speech is "good while it benefits us, but bad when it doesn't" is exactly the reason why it must exist, and was the very mechanism that gave us social progress: to allow individuals or minority groups to challenge the group-think of the masses.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Equal treatment and opportunities for all is dangerous for society in the long run, because it allows those who wouldn't naturally succeed and climb nature's ladder to reach positions of leadership and power where they can do serious damage. +
+ I do believe people should be treated with decency, but i don't know about complete equality. First off, i don't think that any two people are exactly equal so any act act of equality is really a false show of compassion, although we are all imperfect. Those who are in control and in power are there for a reason. They may be primarily of a certain race, or a certain gender, but that wasn't by accident. If the weak are allowed to take control of the steering wheel by a helping hand, sure everyone will applaud you and say what a good thing you've done at first. But, if that person doesn't know what they're doing they can take other people's lives including their own.
Man has done horrible things in the name of dominance, but the act of letting everyone dominate can be far worse. Some people were just meant to lose. If you want to win, you have to fight and claw your way to the top. If you are not strong enough, it is a sad thing but find comfort where you're at. In nature the lion doesn't pity the hyena, or cheetah if it cannot feed itself. Say the lion sais here, share my meal and ends up starving. The whole food chain will fall into disarray.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If straight and cis people attend a Pride parade, they should spend some of their time there volunteering. +
+ Context: I'm a straight cis man with a lot of straight friends (as well as LGBTQA+ friends) who often go to Boston Pride Parade and NYC Pride Parade. I've never gone to one myself (always find out about it a few days after it happens), but I'm planning on going to volunteer at next year's Boston parade, assuming I'm home from school in time.
I personally get a little uncomfortable when I see straight people partying hard at Pride parades. To me, the parades are supposed to celebrate marginalized social groups who are often shoved under wave after wave of oppression and hatred the other 364 days of the year and has this one day to fully let loose and celebrate in the face of a culture who still may not accept them in the way that they'd like. When straight people jump in, it almost feels like they're co-opting the one day in which non-straight people are finally in control. It seems to me to be similar to straight people putting a rainbow filter over their profile pictures - in theory, it might be OK, but in practice it shifts the attention from the LGBTQA+ people who deserve it onto the straight person who steps in. Almost like a "Look at me, I'm celebrating pride! Look at how great I am!"
And, yeah, to a certain extent I think this display of solidarity is good. Gay/trans/queer rights won't move forward without the support of those already in power - straight people - and it's nice to see people united across gender and sexuality boundaries in order to celebrate how far we've come and prepare for how far we still have to go. That being said, though, I think there's a point at which a display of solidarity becomes less about the people for whom the solidarity is shown and more about the people who are "showing" the solidarity. I think that at a certain point, support for the LGBTQA+ community can transition into an exercise in self-promotion and narcissism, and I'm not super comfortable with that.
This is why I think that straight/cis people who participate in Pride parades should spend some of that participation on volunteering. The parades really run on volunteers, and if a straight/cis person spends time doing the thankless task of picking up trash, filling and lugging big containers of water everywhere, or making sure a first-aid tent is properly staffed, it helps show support for the LGBTQA+ community in a way that simply taking selfies with a shirtless parader will never be able to. I think it's a great way to be an ally to the community in a way that doesn't obnoxiously trumpet that allyship, and it might teach people more about what really makes the revelry run smoothly and give them a new appreciation for something many almost take for granted.
tl;dr Volunteering is a helpful form of allyship for straight/cis people in a way that just going to the parade and celebrating is not.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Addiction is a habit, not a disease. +
+ If addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment? Why did some 75% of heroin-addicted Vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home? It’s hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore.
Imagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, I know what you mean, I drink a lot.
It totally absolves any responsibility by calling it a disease and is offensive to anyone with a real disease that they can't fix by just doing less of something destructive.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Redditors, of all people, should not be posting embarrassing pictures of strangers online (or condoning the practice) +
+ And people on the internet in general.
If it's your content, or your identity, or your friends, I get that. You & your little group are giving consent to uploading your material to the internet.
But that dumpy looking person at the grocery store didn't give you permission to post her picture online. That passed-out person on the street probably didn't, either. That random person in the crowd who just so happened to make a weird face the moment you snapped the pic, I'm sure he had no clue you took it.
Some of these pictures, they make me laugh, but most of them make me think that their privacy has been violated in some way and it makes me sad. I look upon these people in pity. *Yes*, they dressed that way to go to the grocery store & be seen by others, that was their choice. ***I get it***. But what right had you to pull out your smartphone, snap their picture, and upload it to the internet for the whole world to laugh at? Some of those people have mental illnesses, or other issues. Are they not in enough pain without you possibly adding to it?
I've heard it said that the Internet writes in ink. Once uploaded, it may never be truly & fully erased. By uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends & goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had. Their shame is compounded, again & again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.
I guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy. The malicious intent. Some of you Redditors have a big ol' stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS PARAMOUNT; TOLERANCE FOR ALL".
When you upload pictures of strangers to relentlessly mock & ridicule, where is your tolerance? Where is that incessant stream of political correctness when it's really needed? For people who claim to care *so much* about the poor and less fortunate, you really seem to enjoy laughing at them, and I find that dissonance disturbing.
I'm unable to reply in 3 hours, as I'm going to bed, but I'm willing to discuss this when I wake up. I am genuinely interested to hear what others think. Can you change my view, or will I change yours?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Aside from the historical aesthetic, capitaliz|sation of sentences and *Proper Nouns* should be abandoned as redundant. +
+ The Thai people don't even use proper spacing or punctuation and they do fine. It's basically just error control for human penstrokes, and it's simply unnecessary for that reason. I'm not disparaging the use of *Capital Symbols* now that we have them, but the rigid structure we adhere them to seems outdated at best. I think there are other context to convey that are worth more ruling, and that the few assigned to capitalization are easily inferred from context within today's hypertext society, and need less attention.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think America's gotten any worse, we're just more aware of it now. +
+ It seems that the prevailing opinion on the US is that its going to hell in a hand basket at record speed and is verging on becoming a police state, an oligarchy, etc. And the way people on reddit or in the media talk about it you'd think that the US has really gone downhill lately and that it's at a particular low point. I don't think that's the case. I'm not denying that the US is up to some pretty shady shit with the torture of prisoners, the lack of accountability for police, the mass-spying, etc. But the US has always been up to something shady and I'd say overall we live in the era were the US is probably the least shady it's ever been.
I mean consider the literal genocide of the Native Americans, or the Tuskegee experiments, the CIA brain washing, the brutal and lethal treatment of workers unions, the Red Scares, internment of Japanese-Americans, goddamn slavery and Jim Crow laws, practice of eugenics, the Banana Republics. This is all just as bad as anything America does today and some of it was even worse. So while some people act like America's reached a new low, I think they're more just maintaining the status quo and we're just more aware of the shadiness with modern media.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no problem with teaching the American Civil War as being primarily about States' rights +
+ I am an American High School student who was taught 2 different versions of the Civil war throughout my schooling career.
In elementary school we first learned about the civil war in fourth grade. In that unit, we were taught the very bare details of the war: The south seceded when they couldn't keep their slaves, and declared war on the north in doing so, Lincoln was a great guy who freed all the slaves with the emancipation proclamation, and then the north won.
In 8th grade I was taught more details to the story. The south seceded because the right of the states to decide on whether they keep slaves was being questioned, as well as there being the beginning of unequal representation of slave-nonslave states. The south secedes, war begins. I was taught this more comprehensive view in more detail in my junior year of High School, with emphasis on the economic and cultural dichotomy of the north and south: The north was a manufacturing powerhouse that didn't need slaves, and the South was largely agricultural and couldn't afford to *not* use slaves.
I, as a student, preferred being taught the States' rights version of the civil war, as it shows that the South was not comprised of nothing but slave-owning bigots, but that both sides were trying to preserve their way of life. This also allows for a better understanding of the reasoning behind how Reconstruction and Civil rights' issues were handled in the south.
I want to understand why people are against this form of teaching the civil war, so please, CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:We'd be better off if Napoleon had won at Waterloo. +
+ I don't particularly hold this view dearly, I just expect there might be some budding historians on Reddit with more information! It was influenced mostly by [this article](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/?no-ist), which is fascinating if you just fancy some historical reading. Basically, if Napoleon has won at Waterloo, and completed his conquest of Europe (bar Russia, of course, and maybe England), the continent would have flourished economically, socially and politically, more so than now. I will highlight the main points below.
**1. Revolutionary domestic reforms which all of Europe would have continued to benefit from.**
*"Yet he said he would be remembered not for his military victories, but for his domestic reforms, especially the Code Napoleon, that brilliant distillation of 42 competing and often contradictory legal codes into a single, easily comprehensible body of French law. In fact, Napoleon’s years as first consul, from 1799 to 1804, were extraordinarily peaceful and productive. He also created the educational system based on lycées and grandes écoles and the Sorbonne, which put France at the forefront of European educational achievement. He consolidated the administrative system based on departments and prefects. He initiated the Council of State, which still vets the laws of France, and the Court of Audit, which oversees its public accounts. He organized the Banque de France and the Légion d’Honneur, which thrive today. He also built or renovated much of the Parisian architecture that we still enjoy, both the useful—the quays along the Seine and four bridges over it, the sewers and reservoirs—and the beautiful, such as the Arc de Triomphe, the Rue de Rivoli and the Vendôme column."*
Napoleon was an extraordinary governor. Many of his reforms are what the rest of Europe based their institutions on, only much later.
**2. Napoleon was a lover, not a fighter.**
*In September 1805, Austria invaded Napoleon’s ally Bavaria, and Russia declared war on France as well. Napoleon swiftly won the ensuing War of the Third Coalition with his finest victory, at Austerlitz in 1805. The next year the Prussians also declared war on him, but they were soundly defeated at Jena; Napoleon’s peace treaty of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia followed. The Austrians declared war on France once more in 1809, but were dispatched at the Battle of Wagram and signed yet another peace treaty.
Napoleon started none of those wars, but he won all of them. After 1809 there was an uneasy peace with the three other Continental powers, but in 1812 he responded to France’s being cut out of Russian markets—in violation of the Tilsit terms—by invading Russia. That ended in the catastrophic retreat from Moscow, which cost him more than half a million casualties and left his Grande Armée too vitiated to deter Austria and Prussia from joining his enemies Russia and Britain in 1813.*
Bar the Russian Invasion mistake (and I will concede that it was a hell of a mistake), Napoleon did not display the characteristics of a warmonger. Upon his return from exile, his charisma as a leader ensured he reclaimed the throne without shedding a drop of blood, as each army sent to fight him joined him immediately.
When he was condemned by the allies in the Vienna Declaration, he wrote to them - “After presenting the spectacle of great campaigns to the world, from now on it will be more pleasant to know no other rivalry than that of the benefits of peace, of no other struggle than the holy conflict of the happiness of peoples.”
You can argue that it was just posturing, but there is no precedent to suggest it was not genuine.
*He told his council that he had renounced any dream of reconstituting the empire and that “henceforth the happiness and the consolidation” of France “shall be the object of all my thoughts.” He refrained from taking measures against anyone who had betrayed him the previous year. “Of all that individuals have done, written or said since the taking of Paris,” he proclaimed, “I shall forever remain ignorant.” He immediately set about instituting a new liberal constitution incorporating trial by jury, freedom of speech and a bicameral legislature that curtailed some of his own powers; it was written by the former opposition politician Benjamin Constant, whom he had once sent into internal exile.*
He immediately set about refunding the art galleries and public buildings of Paris, in the 12 weeks before the war would begin.
**3. Liberalism in the rest of Europe would have thrived.**
*If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.*
TL;DR - Napoleon was an all round great dude, and great leader who accomplished so much in such little time. If he had stayed in power for the 6 more years until his death, France and Europe would have benefitted greatly from it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's both invasive and sexist for /r/ladybonersgw to require submitters post their face +
+
---
Browsing naked bodies casually when I noticed that over at /r/ladybonersgw they require at least half of a guys face to be shown with every submission. Here's the rule with the line that made me go 'wait, that doesn't make any sense...' in bold.
It looks like it's enforced very often.
Reasons I think this is shocking and inappropriate:
* Sharing yourself nude on the internet is super taboo and the vast majority of people who do, for safety and privacy, would never show part or all of their face.
* It seems like a really silly and irrelevant way to accomplish no text posts.
* If this was a rule on a female gonewild, I feel like there'd be some sort of outrage at the invasiveness. Kinda like 'I'm sharing how much of myself, now everyone feels entitled to my face too?'
* As someone who wants to start enjoying the posts, it limits who is going to be posting which is disappointing.
* If the point was to avoid 'floating dicks' everywhere, which makes more sense than the reasoning they give, then the amount of body shown should be the requirement.
I don't think anyone should have to compromise their identity or do something many would be really uncomfortable with to be allowed to post on a subreddit. What am I missing that this rule is embraced?
*Disclaimer: Not an angry submitter or anything. I want to enjoy an overflowing of peen.*
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Non-white races are (intentionally or unintentionally), marginalized by social engineering. +
+ https://www.reddit.com/r/AsianMasculinity/comments/37da2i/word_of_the_day_social_engineering/
This post makes a very compelling point with tons of evidence to back up the stance. Compensating for individual biases, this still makes sense in my mind.
As a minority, I have felt the effects of social engineering firsthand. Asian achieves academically? Expected. White achieves academically? Studious, hard working, brilliant. Media headlines such as "Asians too smart for their own good" (Ivy league schools refuse high-scoring Asians) come with subtle implications that the Asian identity is attached to intelligence.
Furthermore, look at Hollywood. Positive Asian male role models: Sung Kang? Most films in Hollywood that cast Asians cast them in one of these roles:
* Nerd
* Joker
* Hardworking worker, but not leader
* Involved in organized crime (is antagonist/evil-protagonist)
Meanwhile, most Asian women are cast as the "prize" for the dominant white lead role. For example, Hugh Jackman and Tao Okamoto in "The Wolverine." One could argue that Rila Fukushima was cast to demonstrate a strong, independent female role model, but that doesn't change the fact that the romantic interest was obviously forcefully written into the film like an afterthought in order to generate revenue.
This is just some of my experience as an Canadian Asian. Based on my understanding of black stereotypes, black people must experience a similar kind of racism, but reversed. The analysis of the dichotomic nature of asian racism vs black racism in the linked post is very accurate, in my opinion.
CMV? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Motivational ‘mantras’ and similar psychological self-help techniques are bogus. +
+ I’m a pretty analytical person who favours fact over opinion. I’ve been exposed to a lot of self-help techniques through my family which I have always been quite disparaging of it. Recently I have been advised by a ‘career coach’ to create mantras for myself and to write these down and repeat them every day with the idea that it would help me realise my goals (and ultimately get a job.)
I want to believe in it, I think, but at its core it feels like the opposite of the fact-based view I hold about life. An example shown to me of a mantra is “I am positive thinking in everything I think and do.” By repeating this every day one is supposed to have this quality ingrained into themselves until it becomes self-fulfilling. My immediate reaction to it is that it’s lying to yourself. Instead of trying to trick yourself into believing something that isn’t true you should be realistic and think about why you don’t think positively and how you can resolve this.
When explaining my hesitations my career coach raised a point about pro sports players. Psychology is what separates the great from the good and a lot of that is in self-belief which I totally get and agree with. He then said “If it’s good enough for Mohammed Ali, its good enough for me.” This helped a bit though I’m still not thoroughly convinced.
I still find the idea of the repeating one of these mantras so corny and I don’t think I could do it wholeheartedly with belief in it which would be needed for it to help.
Help me change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Marriage is an unreasonable expectation of relationships. +
+ New here, so please correct me if I am doing anything wrong.
Before I begin I want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations. Also my grammar isn't the best so please forgive any errors.
The main issue I have with marriage is the consequences of ending it. I do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon. The idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me. This creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse. It also encourages many to "let themselves go." By that I mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc.
Secondly, I have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage. This ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children. It also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.
All of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents' marriage, but I am open to hear other arguments on the issue.
1. By penalizing I wasn't just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.
2. The argument I made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because I do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with...at least here in the US. My issue is mainly with society's expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.
Lastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line. I do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The American People Shouldn't Have The Right To Vote +
+ It seems that most of the american people have no real grip on how society or politics work. Judging by what I see on facebook (limited source), people out in public (slightly limited source), and on mainstream TV, I feel that most Americans have no idea how foreign policy works, how national policy works, how congress works, or how unrealistic their own political agenda is. People get duped into voting for people whom they do not research, or just vote based on party affiliation. Most notably people vote while admitting politicians are corrupt. If people are not willing to vote for people who will push real reform then why not just let the corporate overlords finish what we let them start? It seems we're at a point where whoever the banking/investment firm elite decide get to run, those are the candidates that get funded and we are given the illusion of who we would rather have - the left hand or right hand of the financial elite.
Let's me also mention how people don't read legislation i.e. the removal of the confederate flag (Tennessee Battle Fag) from state buildings.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The first goal of the human race, from a currently living humans' perspective, should be to achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) +
+ This CMV was inspired by this article on the future of AI http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
I recommend reading it a lot, its a great read, but extremely long. Anyways, in the article it talks about the rise of AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, or AI that's equivalently as smart as a human (the human equivalent is fairly unimportant, a self-learning AGI would go from the dumbest human to the smartest in a fairly insignificant amount of time). Anyways, the article then talks about the upcoming ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) in which AIs would be unfathomably smarter than us. Imagine how much smarter we are to ants and how a lot of the things that we regularly think of ants can't even conceive in their brains. That but worse, and the AIs are the humans and we are the ants. Now the article talks about a lot of implications of this, but one large implication is that it could lead to species extinction, or species immortality. The former because it could wipe out humans for our relative uselessness (maybe more useful as raw meterials) and the latter because we could either digitally store our consciousness for eternity or rejuvenate our bodies by continuing to reconstruct any bodily decay, atom by atom, quark by quark, etc. Anyways, scientists have no idea right now what will happen, especially because the AI is so much smarter than us that we can't predict the possible outcomes of what it will do, whether killing or saving us all.
Because of that, some scientists say that we should be as careful as possible approaching the AI so that we don't accidentally create an ASI that will destroy all humanity. But for current humans, we're going to die anyways, so the extinction of a human race is just our eventual death that will happen regardless. But we have one shot at living forever, one way or another, and with our own interests in mind, we should try to get there as fast as possible so that we have the highest chance of achieving our own immortality. If we mess it up, then we die anyways, but if we achieve species immortality its the ultimate prize, as contrasted to being cautious and dying before species immortality is achieved. And secondly, if we use the model of our own brains in making this AI, then even if it does kill us all, part of us will love on within AI. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think it's silly to have bicycles obey the same laws as cars and that the "Idaho stop" should be more widespread. +
+ The "Idaho stop" means that cyclist may treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.
I feel that the pros from the [wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop) summarize my views perfectly:
Pros
* Because of the positive externalities of cycling, bicycle laws should be designed to allow cyclists to travel swiftly and easily, and this provision allows for the conservation of energy.[5]
* By allowing cyclist to get in front of traffic, they become more visible, and in so doing, safer.
* Current laws were written for cars, and unlike cars, it is easy for cyclists to yield the right-of-way without coming to a complete stop. Because cyclists are moving slower, have stereoscopic hearing, have no blind spots and can stop and maneuver more quickly than cars, current traffic control device laws don't make sense for cyclists.
* With the Idaho stop, at special intersections where lights are controlled by sensing equipment, there is no need to provide extra equipment for cyclists.
* The stop-as-yield provision reduces conflict between neighborhood traffic-calming advocates wanting more stop signs and bicycle commuters.
* Changing the legal duties of cyclists would provide direction to law enforcement to focus their attention where it belongs—on unsafe cyclists (and motorists).[6]
* The usual law forces cyclists to choose between routes that are more efficient but less safe due to higher traffic volumes, and routes that are safer, but less efficient due to the presence of numerous stop signs. Allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs empowers them to legally make the safer routes more efficient.
* The only study done on the safety of the Idaho Stop shows that it is slightly safer.[7]
Cons
* The provision relies on the judgement of cyclists, but very young children ride bikes and lack the judgement to do this maneuver safely.
* Allowing cyclists to behave by a separate set of rules makes them less predictable and thus, less safe.[8]
* Bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and maybe they should have the same duties.[9]
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think right-wing Libertarianism is pure evil and should not be taken seriously by anyone +
+ I just don't understand how in an era when poverty is growing tremendously in America, and inequality is more ridiculous than it's been in any time since the era of lords and serfs, that people can have the nerve to whine and complain that the poor are spoiled and entitled and the rich are being persecuted.
Without social welfare and programs for people who need them, America would become similar to Latin American and African countries where you have a few hundred families that own everything, a small middle class that caters to them and defends them, and then the majority who are impoverished and have no hope of advancement or any opportunities and live in slums and favelas.
Hell, it's ALREADY becoming this way. Tent cities are popping up in America everyone, and homelessness is becoming more and more of a problem. Yet people seem to be in complete denial and will endlessly defend corporate greed and blame the poor for their own suffering.
Our democracy has already suffered so much from corporate control - how the hell can anyone advocate or suggest there isn't ENOUGH corporate power or influence in politics? Abolishing the government or reducing it to a "night watchman" state would only mean that corporations and the rich elite would be DIRECTLY calling the shots, rather than have to pull the government's strings to get their way.
The people who would suffer most from libertarianism are the weak, of course. The elderly, people with disabilities and children, who without support from the state would either die of starvation and untreated illnesses or would have to pimp themselves out to perverts, the majority of them who aren't lucky enough to be taken on by a benefactor.
Minorities would also suffer since their lower financial status would be even more of a burden to them than it already is in a semi-democratic society. Libertarians can claim to be socially liberal as long as they want, but considering they almost always side with the GOP over the Left or even the centrist Democrats it's obvious that money is far more important to them than the rights of minorities.
These guys are pretty much the same as the Nazis. Don't they realize that if labor had rights and were paid more fair wages, there wouldn't be as much of a need for welfare?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Natural is a meaningless word +
+ The word ‘natural’ implies something derived from nature, separate from humans. But why is there this distinction? Humans are obviously a part of and are derived from nature. So unless you’re under any religious persuasion, the word shouldn’t have any meaning. It seems outdated and non-applicable.
For instance it’s meaningless to me when someone says ‘it’s only natural’. What isn’t natural?
Saying ‘this happens in nature’ is the same as saying ‘this happens’. Because everything happens in nature.
And so on. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People's weight is none of your goddamn business. +
+ Generally speaking, you have two sides on the "Fat Debate": the fat acceptance movement (Healthy At Every Size, etc.) and the fat shamers (who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.
First of all, I don't buy HAES. I believe that anyone of any size can be *healthier* at that size. If I start jogging once a week, I probably won't lose weight, but I'll be a teeny-tiny bit healthier and that's good.
Secondly, BMI is an overall population indicator. There are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range. Same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range. However, I would state that *in general*, the further you slide on the scale from 22.5 in either direction, the further you're getting from optimal.
However, wherever people lie on that scale - underweight -> optimal -> fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.
You are not a stakeholder in a stranger's health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people's appearance. If you *are* stakeholder in their health (and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person's healthcare practitioners) then maybe you get to say something. *Maybe*.
The best analogy for this is smoking. I smoke and am slightly overweight (~10lb) and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.
I *know* that smoking is bad for me - I'm not an idiot. I view the HAES as a bit like "Healthy No Matter How Much You Smoke". It's not true, it may even be damaging. On the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ain't a bad thing. Attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.
It does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me. Their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits. They may even reinforce them.
It is *none* of their business if I smoke.
You know when you're eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you? That, **at best** is what fat shamers come off like.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be public health campaigns (much like we have anti-smoking campaigns), just that YOU PERSONALLY should never say a damn thing about a stranger's weight, EVER.
Don't bully fat people, kids. It helps no one.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women and Men (who are both heterosexual) cannot be platonic friends and are using each other, in most cases. And I find it unnecessary baggage within a relationship. +
+ I have had friendships with various males, and only one of them has not tried to at one point in time, make it sexual. This was not a big deal when I wasn't in a relationship and I would just turn them down. Once I was, they all tried much harder than usual to pursue something whereas before it was a more passive attempt. Once they realized I was "off the table" of sorts and was serious about my now boyfriend, the relationship just dwindled despite my continuing to talk to them just as much as before. I realized this was because the conversation would always be very short due to me not replying to flirtatious texts which probably got really boring for them.
What I mean by men and women cannot be just friends is that one or the other (possibly both), even if not having a physical relationship, is using each other for the ego boost that comes with someone of the opposite sex giving you attention and would under other circumstances, definitely hook up (or maybe at one point in time already have). I also noticed even women who have a lot of male friends they spent a lot of time with and "friend zoned" them, they would still get weird and upset if the man was in a romantic relationship and therefore had less time to expend for her because it was going to his SO. This doesn't happen with their male friends as long as they see them enough because the male friends aren't using their male friends to feel attractive.. but suddenly "just" female friends tend to get very territorial once they aren't getting the attention from the male friend that they were used to or able to get that constant validation.
Of course there will ALWAYS be exceptions. But I think, on average, this all proves to be true. This is also why I am pretty uncomfortable with my boyfriend having female friends that aren't also people I've met and felt comfortable with. He can, of course, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. The one he introduced me to automatically displayed the classic signs of using him for attention and being very touchy but pretending it's simply a "brother" like relationship. I would like to be comfortable with such friendships but it seems unnecessary to me within a relationship. In a group setting is fine, of course, as long as everyone is comfortable (which doesn't seem to happen if the friend has been in the persons life longer than the SO) but I am talking about opposite sex friendships when one or both parties are in a relationship with other people...I feel they have no reason to spend a lot of time interacting or spending time together one-on-one unless they are both lying to each other (or one person is) and hoping that something will happen (sexually or otherwise) without admitting it to themselves or like the [in my opinion] inappropriate feeling of playing with fire.
I hold myself to the same standard, of course. My one male friend that has not tried anything was also my roommate but I always included my boyfriend and introduced them, and they became friends even. We would hang out alone sometimes but in public (during daytime) or just while one or the other is in the kitchen cooking. I don't think anything would happen if we did drink alone, as we have before I was dating my boyfriend, but I would respect my relationship enough that I'm not really interested in doing that anyway. I also have zero sexual attraction for him and imagine this is the same with him, towards me. This is ONE of those exceptions out of the plenty of male friends who out of nowhere have tried to hook up or tell me they have feelings for me and I suspect is not the average dynamic of a male-female friendship. So while I think it MAY be possible, it is somewhat rare.
Obviously my view also applies to those who are strictly in monogamous relationships.
Tl;dr:
Most men who have female "platonic" friends would sleep with them if the opportunity arose and if are in a relationship, only keep them around in case and because of the ego boost of being around women who aren't unattractive (to feel wanted). Most women who have male "platonic" friends are using them for the attention they get by feeling a man likes them, and can't have them to feel like a sought-after, high quality woman...and also get jealous when they begin dating a woman despite their "just friend" claims. always exceptions, but believe this to be generally true. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Everyone else should just let White Males have reddit +
+ With all that is going on with Reddit lately I think the big thing that is being ignored is that this is largely a White male community. When it functioned in that way everything seemed to go more or less fine (of course there were others interspersed but that was the majority of viewpoints). As more and more groups began to be introduced there were shall we say competing interests. They correctly are asking for space within the community as well. However, the problem is White men had already kind of adopted this space as a place where they could discuss their problems without feeling guilty etc. For example, when people complain about false rape charges getting to the front page constantly or reverse discrimination cases etc etc. I think the SJW this and that we often see is just pushback from White Men feeling "invaded" for lack of a better word. I'm not saying this is right. I think this last ush of banning subs etc also has the same implications first FatPeopleHate is seen as appealing to women and feminists. Then Coontown seen as appealing to minorities. I think its reflective of White Men feeling like all other people get to have their spaces etc. but they never do. What I got from the threads is that people feel betrayed and I believe that feeling is genuine.
So here's the actual CMV. Why can't everyone just let White Guys have this one. Why can't we all just either accept that this is and will be a site that leans towards issues important to (straight) White Men and will be biased towards their opinions or leave and go to a different site. Its not like their aren't other hubs. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be differences of opinion etc. (newsflash: not all White guys think the same). But just as anyone is welcome to watch Logo and comment on it etc no one would complain that the content is too gay or be upset if anti-gay things or things that appear to be anti-gay get the equivalent of downvoted (and no I'm not comparing experiences in any way). I also think that if people recognized this gping in there would be less abrasive push back from the trolls and "dark side" of reddit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's more likely that there's a God rather than extraterrestrial life +
+ So my CMV is basically inspired by this article: http://qz.com/452452/where-are-all-the-aliens/.
I've noticed this a lot: a self-proclaimed atheist starts talking about the "probable" existence of extraterrestrial life, the billions of starts and trillions of planets, and how it's inevitable that life must've evolved somewhere else in the universe (enter the Drake Equation). I believe that we can, just as easily, take the same route and show that it's much more probable that (a being we would perceive as) God exists. Consider the potentially infinite number of dimensions that may exist (string theory [already proposes at least 10](http://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/)). Even if we're not string theorists, we're still stuck with a potentially infinitely-large multiverse where it seems probable that we would find some otherworldly and massively powerful and intelligent being that might even watch over our own universe.
In fact, given the possibility of infinite dimensions and a potentially-infinite multiverse, it's much more probable that God exists, rather than life in our own universe.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should refrain from sexual activity due to the potential of false rape accusations. +
+ For context, I'm an 18 year-old male who will be entering college this comming fall.
This issue has only been a concern of mine in recent months, in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because I've never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent. I don't think I'm of the party that has difficulty understanding consent. I also understand that there may be a great deal of fear for some women that they may be raped, and I don't wish to sound as though I'm downplaying that. But I have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed. I don't think of this potential as being very high; I don't think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating. I've personally spoken to someone who has gone through this process and it took him almost a year to clear his name.
I don't want this fear; I'm very open to the idea that it may be exaggerated in the media I've read, or that there are faults in my reasoning. But these are potentials and I can't seem to confirm them on my own; maybe someone else can poke some holes.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Car alarms are useless +
+ They are essentially just annoying. When people hear them they don't even assume it is a car getting broken into. Almost every time they go off it is because of an accident. If a window get's smashed I think a silent alarm would be better actually. I don't understand why they are still getting put into cars. They are just a noisy nuance that doesn't do what it is intended to do.
Any time my car alarm has gone off it was because I accidentally hit the panic button on the back of my remote (why that is there, I have not the slightest clue but I wish it wasn't).
That is my argument, Change my view | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Superhero movies are cancer for modern cinema +
+ When I look to modern Cinema, I see a huge tumor, in the middle. Basicly, all-of-yours Avengers, Iron-mans or Suicide-Squats-things. My problem is that I cant see the point or the reason for watching, or even creating sort-of-these high-budget low-artform movies.
One thing I wont get is why people watching these movies, their reboots over and over past decades. I can accept that old spiderman movies from early 2000s are childhood for some people and I fully respect it. But what is gonna give you when you make reboot (like latest spiderman honestly), which is ruining franchise? Are you aiming for lower-age audience? Are doing it JUST for money? Dont know the answer.
Then, there comes a popularity of those movies. Did we came to stage that we are going to Cinema only for those "films" but killing the rest of the cinema originality? When you come to that stage, Hollywood biggest studios have only concern for this type of extremly profitable movies and loosing care of "true movies".
Then, I cant stand the marketing of the movies. You can see list of next superhero movies by marvel or DC for next 10 years, whats the point of that? That you will see next 10 same bad movies only with different villain? **By my point, when you are longering the franchise for long as possible, you are fooling your fans.**
Then, there is a Superhero films in nutshell: People (or heroes, avengers, what-so-ever) are doing extremly unlogical decisions, killing people like robots (no emotion in there) and just killing villains, prepairing for it or just making their way of their personal problems. This is same for most of the movies. (If I didnt saw some best superhero movie, whitch doesnt do wrong these things, reccommend me one).
For once in while, I can see a good superhero movie, like Batman trilogy from Christopher Nolan. They are doing same things (beating villains, prepairing....) but they are doing it in way to respect the franchise. And its offen rare that someone like Nolan will accept a offer for another superhero blockbuster.
Am I too old, or the movies are for 12year olds (like MLP), but adults love it anyway? Can someone tell me? Besides that, please dont look at my grammar. Its extremly late and Im tired as hell.
Thanks, and CMV :).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that socialism is fundamentally better than capitalism +
+ For the purpose of this post, I am defining "capitalism" as a relatively free market system, with private ownership of the means of production. "Socialism" is defined as a system in which the government owns the means of production, and distributes all things necessary for decent quality of life (food, water, shelter, education, health care, etc) for free to all minors and any adult either working, seeking work, or enrolled in school. I understand that this definition is more specific than the true definition of socialism, but I want to preempt any arguments suggesting that people won't look for work if everything is provided for them anyway; they won't be provided for unless they contribute. Also, please note that I am not advocating any specific system of governance; I don't want a debate about the merits of direct democracy. Assume that the system of governance is something effective and relatively democratic, unless there is a compelling reason why my definition of socialism ensures ineffective government.
With that out of the way, here is my justification. I believe that capitalism ensures exploitation of the lower-classes. The winners in a capitalist system are nearly always those who were born into relative wealth already. Even the rags-to-riches stories of our time, such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, they were all born into at least lower-middle class. Those trapped in poverty are normal people, who usually work much harder than the people at the top, and get nothing for it. I don't mean to put down high-ranking executives, or other wealthy individuals, but I think that if capitalism is designed to benefit those who work hard, it's doing a shoddy job. Look at all the people in America, one of the world's wealthiest countries, who have to work two or three jobs to stay afloat, through no mistake or irresponsibility of their own. It's just not fair.
And that's the real problem with capitalism; it isn't fair. Global capitalism causes enormous waste, while billions starve. Cyclical poverty disproportionately affects minority citizens within the US, and non-European cultures around the world, proving the system is not only oppressive of impoverished people, but also a system of racial oppression.
Not only is it bad for people, but I believe capitalism is also bad for the environment. The reason for this is that there is no real profit motivation for companies to try to help the environment. Sure, a corporation can get a few extra sales by slapping a "Green!" or "Eco-Friendly" sticker on their product, but there is no incentive for corporations to do anything but the very minimum for the environment. Government regulations help, but they only go so far, and are difficult to enforce when companies can simply relocate their factories to places with less stringent regulations (and often less worker-protection, to boot).
So, with those reasons put out for why capitalism is bad, here's why I think socialism is better. Socialism prevents needless death and suffering by ensuring that everyone who contributes gets everything they need for a healthy life. Socialism ends cyclical poverty by giving everyone a chance at education, without worries about putting food on the table. Socialism is better for rewarding the hard-workers and punishing the slackers, because without unfair head starts going to rich kids entering the workforce, the real cream will rise to the top (there would be variable wages and such; the government employers could offer raises and promotions to their best workers). Socialism is better for the environment, because the government could have direct control, and would have much more incentive to manage the environment in sustainable ways than short-term-minded corporations.
I guess I can go further in depth in my replies, if needed. I'm looking for a good debate, and maybe a change of heart. Change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The left's response to Bush's comments on working more hours is just like the right's reaction to Obama's " If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that". +
+ Reddit, I have been causally watching this Jeb Bush comment make its rounds around the internet and news sites. It seemed pretty obvious to me the first time I heard it that he was talking about trying to reduce part time jobs and have more full time jobs. I am not trying to debate the merit of his argument or if the president has any say on if this could happen or not.
Bush Interview:
Obama's Quote:
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
It seems like everyone is trying to pull these comments out of context. Reddit pleas change my view. Am I missing something?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The predictions made in The Torah, their unlikeliness and the fact that they came true, make a strong case for the truth of the Torah +
+ Note: I do not believe that these prove anything conclusively, either the truth of the torah nor the existence of god, just that these predictions make a very strong case.
Deuteronomy 28 consists, basically, of a long series of predictions for the fate of the jews. Among these are that the temple will be destroyed, the jews will be scattered across the globe, they will be persecuted and remain small in number, and that they will eventually return to the land of israel.
Im currently on mobile with a very poor connection and can not find all of the relevant quotes but here are some:
"The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favour to the young."
When the jews were conquered and the temple was destroyed, it was done so by the romans who spoke latin. The jews at this time would not have understood latin. However, had nearly any other large or close nation been the ones to attack the jews, it is very likely that they would have known the language. Many of the closer nations, the jews traded with or dealt with politically and thus would have known their language. Because of this, predicting that their conquerors would speak an unknown language is not a likely prediction and it is strange that it comes true.
"AND THE L-RD SHALL SCATTER THEE AMONG ALL PEOPLE, FROM THE ONE END OF THE EARTH EVEN UNTO THE OTHER; AND THERETHOU SHALT SERVE OTHER G-DS,"
When the jews were conquered, they were scattered across the lands. This is strange both as a prediction and as an event. After conquering a nation, it was rare, if it happened at all, for the nation to be dispersed in this manner. Usually the conquerors would either use their victims as slaves, or keep them around to collect taxes. To disperse a nation like this makes no sense because then the conquerors have much less to gain.
"You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God."
The prediction here is that the jewish population will remain small. This has also come true. The current jewish population is around 14.2 millions people, or only .2% of the world. While few in number is not specific, remaining less than a percent of the world seems to be fairly small.
"Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life."
This verse seems to indicate the ever presence of anti-semitism. Despite being so small in numbers, jews have faced persecution at nearly every place they have gone. This prediction seems more obvious, as many strangers seem to face discrimination, but a prediction that came true regardless.
"The Lord your God will return your captivity and have mercy upon you and he will gather you in from all the nations to He had scattered you. Even if you will be dispersed to the end of the Heavens – from there your God will gather you…God will gather you and bring you back to the land that your forefathers possessed and you shall posses it.”
This is actually from chapter 30, but is still relevant. To have predicted 3000 years ago that the jews would not only be kicked out of israel, but would eventually come back to own it is remarkable. It could be argued that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, Israel was only given to the jews because of this prediction, but even if that is the case it is still incredible to have predicted 3000 years ago that not only would the jews still be around but that they would be able to reclaim ownership of israel.
It is my belief that these predictions make a strong case for the truth of the torah. Not only did they come true, but they are predictions that did not make sense to make at the time, and would have seemed at the time to be very unlikely. The fact that they came true is at the very least a remarkable coincidence, and creates very strong evidence for the torah to be taken as truth. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Healthcare and Education should be essentially free in an ideal society +
+ First, let me clarify that by education I mean K-undergraduate.
Medicine and education are two major components of a social system. In the U.S. both are highly privatized. However I believe they should be free for several reasons:
- One's health is essentially a genetic lottery. You shouldn't be punished because you were unlucky enough to develop cancer or be born with a blood disease
- Health can be a direct result of economic conditions and people should not be punished because of the quality and quantity of food their parent(s) provide.
- Education is essentially an economic lottery. If you don't have enough money to pay for college, good luck. Many people are only able to take out student loans because of a cosigner (or their parents outright pay it). Parent's don't have the credit? Your shit out of luck.
- Education is the foundation for the future of society. Forget job opportunities for now, higher education provides valuable skills that cannot be learned anywhere else. By not providing equal opportunities, we are decreasing the intelligence of the population.
- By educating the population, especially the poor, we will decrease crime as well. As of now, many poor kids know they'll never go to college even before they reach high school. By giving equal opportunity, kids will have incentive to stay in school and stay out of trouble. At least they *can* go to college.
- By not providing free education and health care, we are putting our population into a deeper hole of debt, crime and stupidity. A smart and healthy population can contribute to society much more than the status quo (in America).
Essentially, education and health are lotteries. Some get lucky while most don't. People should not be punished because of this. Investing money into an infrastructure that provides free education and health care is the basis for an advanced society.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anyone attempting to throw a Molotov Cocktail at police should be shot at and killed +
+ I'm watching the protests in Greece and have seen many other protests in other cities where protestors throw molotov cocktails (bottles of gasoline with a burning rag stuck in the top). This tactic is deadly and and should be met with appropriate deadly force by riot police.
Why do the police not respond with deadly force when they are being targeted with the very real possibility of burning to death? We all understand that riots create and encourage a dangerous environment where individuals end up acting in ways that they wouldn't individually. However, someone who comes to a protest with empty bottles, tanks of gasoline and cloth rags are not motivated by groupthink, they have planned these actions and should be met with appropriate deadly force.
Throwing molotov cocktails is not a form of protest, it is an attempt to kill in a horrific way riot police and in no way should be condoned by reasonable responses to protests.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Self Driving cars will not be commercially available by 2040. +
+ I know according to /r/futurology self-driving cars are the next big thing, but I don't think we've extrapolated this one properly. I see car technology slowly chugging along, more of what we are seeing today, help reversing, parallel parking etc. I see this trend continuing and improving, I don't think the next generation of cars will suddenly allow us to go 65 mph on the highway while we’re sipping margaritas in the back seat. I don't think that's the goal.
Google had a project where they created a self driving car, they were pretty successful. I think it's great new technology, but I don't see it transferring it over to average consumers.
If you disagree with me up until this point, here's my biggest concession. The trend of car ownership will decrease at a faster rate than self-driving cars will increase. Meaning, by the time we have self-driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: City life is hugely preferable to country/small town life +
+ I've spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and I honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone. The differences are too many to list, but the big ones are:
#Cities have significantly better municipal services.
The difference is night and day. Cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth. As 4G LTE rolls out, I can tell you exactly who's going to get it first. Everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable.
#Everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.
A really small town will have one or two general-purpose shops. Cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties. There are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like-minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored. There's a convenience store on just about every corner.
#Cities afford a degree of pseudo-anonymity.
If you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares. If you move into the country you've got a ton of people who have a **new neighbor** that they wanna get to know and everything. Even if you abstain from social interaction, you become "that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction." This tends to temper individualism, and it's not like you can "just spend time with the people you like," because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small.
#bugs
holy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa
#In the country, everything is high maintenance.
Since just about everything that isn't a tractor was designed to operate in a man-made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking. Cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A Country's peace and economic prosperity should be placed before human rights e.g freedom of speech,freedom of press,individual privacy +
+ Coming from Singapore,a country that has experienced tremendous growth from a 3rd world country to a first world country within a short period time there is no doubt there were many sacrifices made in the process.
However it has also been noted by people from other countries (western countries in particular) that this growth was achieved partly due to the fact that we have placed our placed our economic prosperity and peace before our human rights. One prominent example of this would be our freedom of press which was ranked at 150 out of 180 countries. My government response to this was that in order to maintain social and racial harmony control over the media was necessary in order to prevent racial riot and social tension from occurring which would in turn weaken our economy. Personally after seeing the Baltimore riots, i started to understand the rationale behind some of their actions as i would definitely do not want my country to descend into chaos due to riots. Furthermore, after starting to work i have come to the realization sometimes putting food on the table is more important than the rights we have.
In addition, to my surprise my government Media Development Agency (MDA) also monitor its people through the use of software provided by the Hacking Team( they have a company in singapore) . However, it seems like most singaporeans do not care if their country is monitoring their activities as i quote the common reply i get is '' I do not have anything to hide.So what should i be scared of?'' This mindset is very common as we feel that our country will only use the software to catch the bad people like terrorist and the invasion of our privacy is just for the greater good of the society so as to maintain peace and economic prosperity.
So i have come to the conclusion that in order to have peace and economic prosperity some sacrifices of our human rights is a necessary evil. Change my view reddit. Thanks
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The greeks are acting like entitled children. +
+ Hi, I'm new.
So the greeks are complaining about the EU's imposed austerity measures, the terms of their countries increasing debt problems, even going as far as to boycott german goods and compare them to nazi's.
But they *have* been outspending their means, and are lashing out because they have gotten used to their improved quality of life under the euro and are now being threatened with having that QOL decreased.
The alternative to the imposed austerity measures is the country defaulting on its debts and becoming a failed state, and the rest of the EU is taking on a large risk by continuing to loan to a country which over the last 5 years has done nothing but ignore the demands of their creditors and complain about sanctions.
Yes, its the government's fault and not the people's, but they can't reasonably refuse cuts to their public spending that they can no longer afford, and moreover, why blame the eurozone for trying to help, and not their own incompetent government? Edit: And striking, as if their country didn't have enough problems already?!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the New Horizons mission was a giant waste of money, and humanity would have been better off if the money had fed the hungry +
+ According to Forbes, New Horizons (the mission that just sent pictures of Pluto back to Earth) cost ~$700M.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/07/14/how-do-new-horizons-costs-compare-to-other-space-missions/
Now don't get me wrong, I am a space fan. I think we should go back to the moon, I support the ISS, and want to see man walk on Mars one day.
However, barring a close-up of ET, nothing that we find on the outer reaches of, or even beyond, our solar system is going to justify the money spent to find it.
I also support Man's desire for exploration, but there are things about this planet that we have yet to explore.
$700M would have fed a lot of hungry bellies. It would have housed a lot of homeless people. It would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them.
And quite honestly, I'm not even that charitable of a guy, but I see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 4 billion miles away.
Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: NYC sucks +
+ I used to want to live in NYC, but after travelling there multiple times and talking to friends who have lived/currently live there, I could not be more dead set against ever moving there. In fact, I have come to despise that place. As a quick note about the perspective I have: I'm a 3rd-year law student. I grew up in South FL, and currently live in Boston, MA. I'm not a stranger to life in a northeastern American city; maybe city life in general is not for me, although I do like Boston *much* better than New York.
First, it's filthy. There is trash *everywhere*, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. Being an old Northeastern city, it's filled with old buildings, many of which are in varying degrees of disrepair. It's just generally a dirty, sad place for me to be.
It's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had.
The cost of living is exorbitant, as everyone already knows. Rent alone takes up most of my friends' paychecks, and their places aren't even that nice or spacious. New Yorkers seem like they pay through the nose for a standard of living that ain't that great.
Then there's the climate. The winters are frigid and soul-crushing, complete with biting wind and extended periods of low sunlight or darkness. The summers are sweltering, and the heat only exacerbates the ever-present smell of rotting garbage. Plus, central air is apparently only for the wealthy northeasterners, because it is conspicuously scarce in most homes/apartments I've visited.
I can't understand the allure of that city. The wealthy live comfortable lives while most everyone else pays through the nose to live wretchedly. People get an inexplicable sense of self-importance and accomplishment simply by moving there and living there for a bit, regardless of what they're doing. Maybe I'd feel accomplished too, if I paid $800/month to live in a cardboard box and resisted the temptation to commit suicide by antagonizing the psychotic, fascist police to which NYC is a home.
TL;DR NYC is a crowded, dirty, dismal place and I cannot ever picture myself being happy there. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America is already a police state, the public just hasn't admitted it yet. +
+
First Amendment
Cops can tell you what to say, taze you for arguing with them, arrest journalists, and arrest you for filming them. They can break up peaceful protests by force. They bring assault weapons to memorial services and gay rights marches and anti-war demonstrations.
[Here](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/journalist-arrested) are some stories about arrests of journalists.
Second Amendment
Most states don't seem to have tried to take your guns away, but that won't stop them from arming the police with military weapons. If the police attack you, where can you go for help? Why are the (civilian) police forces authorized to carry weapons which are illegal in the states they police? Do police really get into gunfights with heavily armed drug dealers and save the lives of crowds of law abiding citizens, like something out of a 1980's cop thriller?
[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police) is the wiki about police militarization.
Fourth Amendment
Cops can seize your property without cause or warrant (civil forfeiture), and search your car, phone, or house without cause or warrant. Don't believe me? Look it up. Multiple recent court decisions defend an officer's wish to do whatever he wants with your things.
[Here](http://www.mintpressnews.com/supreme-court-rules-police-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-home/206199/) is an article about the most recent supreme court decision on searches.
[This](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C1ASUC_enUS632US632&es_sm=93&q=police+raid+the+wrong+house&oq=police+raid+the+wrong+house&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30l9.269565.274940.0.275095.27.25.0.0.0.0.299.3358.0j18j2.20.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..7.20.3353.s4Q1aX2iVQY) is just a google page, but how many of these wrong house, no knock searches are too many?
[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States) is the wiki about civil forfeiture.
It appears the court has ruled that police -do- need a warrant to search your cell phone.
Fifth Amendment
Cops can arrest you on the spot for literally anything they see fit, and you will be held -at least- until your bail hearing, and you will be lucky if you can afford your bail. Also, they can compel you through whatever means they see fit (lying, threatening, depriving of basic needs, torture) to bear testimony against yourself, even if you are innocent (any testimony given under duress is admissible to the court, and usually leads to conviction regardless of proof-of-guilt). Also, they fund their own departments by issuing citations and stealing property (seriously, if you haven't looked up civil forfeiture, do it now).
[Here](https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=1656) is a good video where a Virginia Beach officer explains criminal 'interviews.' If you have time to really watch this, please listen to what he says, and how he says it. His job is to look for wrongdoing, and he freely admits that if he wants to pull someone over, he can follow them until they do something he can pull them over for. [This](https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=1881) is where he starts to describe interrogation specifically.
Sixth Amendment
You can be kept in jail for years before you are brought before a judge, and can expect no help or information from the prison guards. Guards are there to keep people in, not to save lives. Numerous cases are rising to the public view regarding prison conditions, and maybe we should start throwing the 'cruel and unusual' term around. Either way, in 2011, about 3 people died in American jails -every day- with countless others tortured or left off the books (think Chicago's interrogation fiasco this year, or Guantanamo).
[Here](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site) is an article about Chicago's secret prison.
[Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/) is an article about police killings. Note the fact that they aren't even tracked very carefully.
[Here](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/deaths-in-jails-885-inmates) is an article about deaths in prisons. Again, information is out of date, and possibly inaccurate.
Eighth Amendment
Some Judges set reasonable bail, others do not. Some of the Judges caught setting unreasonable bail are called out, or disciplined, most are not. Chances are very good you will not be able to afford bail if you go inside. Think about that next time you're tempted to flip off a police officer.
I'm having a hard time finding specifics about the time between an arrest and a bail hearing, but pages I visit says it varies state by state, with multiple lawyers giving anecdotes of people waiting up to a year in jail before being -acquitted- because they couldn't make bail. Personally, I have known more than one person to spend months in jail after being unable to afford bail. Whether or not someone is found guilty, shouldn't this be viewed as a violation of our right to a speedy trial? Not sure about that one.
[Here](http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/ptrpa.cfm) are some statistics on drug bail.
[Here](http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail_executive_summary.pdf) is a document full of prison statistics, most relevantly, bail rates.
Bottom line:
You don't have rights anymore. Each of the constitutional rights we have were set forth by Americans to protect their families from overzealous government officials. These rights are not there to protect you from your neighbors. They aren't there to protect you from your employer. They were written specifically to protect you from the Government, and they have failed. Remember your history, read the constitution. Every one of the rights Americans hold dear is being violated by police, judges, and politicians every day. Every Day. EVERY DAY. Every bullshit arrest, every bullshit sentence, every bullshit traffic stop, every bullshit roadside search. If you try to exercise your right to free speech, you can be stopped for it. If you argue with the officer, he will pull you out of the car for an arrest and search without warrant. If you resist him in any way, or if you can't hear him, or if you step on the brake pedal by mistake, or if you just don't fall on your face quickly enough, he will shoot you. Those are the facts.
Every year, another generation of high-school students reads 1984, by Orwell. They tell us what to buy, and at what price (medicine, insurance). They tell us our wars are moral, or economically sound. They tell us who to love (media, soldiers, 'heros'). They tell us who to hate (war, media, socialists, WBC). We are in a constant state of war on at least one front (Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Mexico, and God only knows where else). They lie to us, and suppress anyone looking for the truth (media, arrest of journalists, denying the right to assemble or film officers). They tell us what to believe. They tell us how to behave. They will kill you if you do not fall in line exactly when and how they tell you.
It might not look like you live in a police state. After all, you can drive to work, do your job, buy your groceries, and go on vacation. However, if a police officer, a judge, or anyone else has the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America, what else can you call it? Do I need to dare you to piss off a cop? If you know what will happen when you piss off a cop, how can you accept that? Why are police even authorized to use deadly force? You really want them to kill someone for speeding? Well what about stealing your car, can we kill them then? How many lives are saved through the use of deadly force? Is it worth it?
Well it isn't worth it to me. I'm going to keep my head down until I can afford to get the Hell out of here. I'd rather Live as a citizen of the World than Die as a citizen of this country.
If you think the constitution protects you (at all), think again. They are walking all over your rights, and you aren't going to notice until they arrest you, or kill your children. If they never do, you will live your life among the sheeple, waiting for the law to tell you how to live.
I'm sorry if this comes across as somewhat belligerent, but I believe the seriousness of the situation in this country isn't exactly sinking in for the general public. Am I wrong? Is it already getting better? Are citizens safer than they used to be? Is my information wrong or biased? I would love a discussion about what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong, and what we can do next.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who say they don't feel like the gender they were born with imply that the two genders are different in some defining way, which seems backwards. +
+ First off, this isn't about transsexual people. If people aren't comfortable with the genitals they were born with, well then it's their bodies to do with what they like; power to them.
However, when transgender people say that they feel like they're the opposite gender, it stops making sense. If a person who was born male decides that they feel like they're a female, what are they basing that on? What does being female feel like, and how would they know? Doesn't that imply that females feel a certain way, and males another way? Isn't that considered backwards? Obviously the same goes for born-females who claim that they feel male.
In short, what does it mean to be a man or a woman? Wouldn't any answer to that question put parameters on something that shouldn't have parameters?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Makeup is bad. +
+ I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I can't think of anything redeeming about makeup.
1) It takes forever to put on. I feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that I think it's unnecessary, it's actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.
2) It's harmful. Not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, but it can be harmful to the self-image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc.
3) It's disingenuous. I think of it as false advertising. Celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them don't look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.
This is all that comes to mind at the moment.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Donald Trump is exactly what the Republican party needs. +
+ Donald Trump and his campaign has been in the news for quite some time. He's been the butt of many jokes. Many think he is hurting the Republican party and their image but I think the other candidates could learn a lot from him and the way he is campaigning.
The main reason is because he is being unapologetic. What Trump said about immigration was not racist. He did not say Mexicans or people of Latino descent were rapists and drug dealers, he claimed there is a high percentage of crime from ILLEGAL immigrants and that the Mexican government shoves their criminals into the American jail and healthcare systems instead of dealing with them on their own. Now, I've looked and looked and found many conservative sources that back his claim and many liberal sources that refute it, but it is not a racist comment regardless of whether or not it is factually correct. He didn't say immigrants, he didn't say Mexicans or Latinos, he said illegal immigrants.
Most political candidates would come out and apologize profusely and try to further clarify their point after such backlash but not Trump. Trump is standing by his words. The Democrats have been very good lately at painting their opposition as racist, sexist, etc. as a retort and Trump is not having it. He is taking the offensive instead of taking the defensive which both Romney and McCain did which is accredited to their loss.
If you look at the last presidential election, what were the candidates saying about each other? The Romney campaign painted Obama as a nice guy. He was the kind of guy you'd like to get a beer with and is a good family man, but he is an incompetent president and will lead us into financial ruin. What did the Obama campaign say about Romney? That he hates women, he hates gays, he hates Latinos, he tied his dog to the top of his car, he fired some guy which then killed his wife, and he doesn't pay his taxes. Most people will vote for a good guy that screws up over a terrible awful person.
Trump is not taking that stuff lying down. He's fighting back twice as hard. He's responding to his critics with twice the ferocity that they came at him with. The Republicans are not going to win if they continue to try and be the bigger person and not get down and dirty with the mudslinging that is American politics. The Republicans and their leadership have been sheepish ever since Bush's horrible second term and it is costing them elections and they are losing their base.
If you saw Chris Christie's speech, he blamed both parties for failing to compromise and for the state of the country. Do you see any Democrats blaming the Democratic party for anything and vowing to work with Republicans? That is not a strategy that will win.
Check out Trump's interview on NBC with Katy Tur. She constantly asks him leading questions about his offensive comments and Trump does not let her control the interview in any way. Many other Republicans would respond diplomatically in order to appear reasonable but Trump got it right. He stood by his words and didn't apologize. Do you remember during the Republican primaries of 2012 when George Stephanopoulos asked Romney questions about whether or not he supported states banning all birth control even though there were no states or candidates that supported that? Romney let him run all over him with that ridiculous question. Trump wouldn't stand for that shit and he would call Stephanopoulos out on that.
The Republicans were unhappy with McCain, with Romney, they are unhappy with Boehner and McConnell. They are losing their base of American conservatives. Trump is energizing that base and if more candidates took his approach, they could get conservatives back into the voting booths. Of course CNN, MSNBC, and CBS are going to trash him, they have always been much harder on Republicans than Democrats and anyone denying that is not being intellectually honest. He doesn't care. He's sticking to his guns which is what the Republican base needs.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ellen Pao was put on a "Glass Cliff" by reddit Co-founder Alexis Ohanian. +
+ After reading [this comment in the recent announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3go9c), and reading [Bethanye Blount's comments in this article](https://archive.is/IQ0Ud) I am convinced that Ellen Pao, for all of the mistakes she made, was 'set up to fail' by the reddit administration and those above her, namely, Alexis Ohanian.
I have long since believed all of the decisions Pao made were not made solely on her own. It was very convenient to blame this one person, but you do not do a 180 about-face turn regarding your company without the support of the other people who make decisions in your company, and without atleast some support of your staff. Supporting my belief in these now very strongly are the remarks that came from Bethanye Blounts. She was an engineer who joined reddit two months ago. She was basically the one responsible for making all of the promises the admins made come true. Here are her comments regarding the promises and Pao.
...
Now, I normally don't agree with most charges of sexism and misogyny. Most arguments of "glass cliff" would have been outright dismissed by me. You know what though? I find it really hard to see this as anything but someone being set up to fail. I find it really really fucking hard to sympathize with the admins here, and find it really really fucking hard to not blame *everything* on the reddit co-founder.
By the way, [Alexis is also the person responsible for Victoria being fired](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/), aka, the person responsible for the blackout, and for the widespread vilification of Ellen Pao (she was vilified before, but it was not *nearly* as widespread. The vilification was a spec of dust compared to the sandstorm of anger that followed Victoria's dismissal.)
Given this, I really really really can't see this as anything other than Ms. Pao being literally set up to fail. For all of her own faults, *I think she was literally hired just so she could be dismissed or leave.*
Will anyone here convince me otherwise? Thanks. I'll be here for a bit.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The current pursuit of equality and its focus on income misses the bigger picture of wealth. +
+ When people talk about inequality in America and other capitalist systems the focus is on income determining the wealth of individuals. Evening out people's income through taxing the rich and giving government assistance to the poor. It is my opinion that no lasting changes will be made to change the differences associated with different economic classes with this limited approach. How a person uses and saves money goes very far in determining their wealth and lifestyle they can live. Often good credit and smart savings can result in a more comfortable living than someone who makes a higher income but is irresponsible with money. Even if system worked and evened out incomes there would still be a sizable gap between those that knew how to use their money and those that didn't just as bad as there is currently.
It's similar to trying to solve Obesity by only decreasing the amount of food eaten. When losing weight cutting calories is very important, but exercise/lifestyle changes, balancing hormones, and proper nutrition all play a major role making people healthier and lose weight. Similarly wealth isn't gained simply by making more money, how a person saves and spends and uses their money is what makes wealth that lasts. A person may be blessed from birth with good genes or a family with money, but except in extreme cases (top 5% maybe) a person with bad habits will fail even with high income (become poor/ obese) and a person with good habits can succeed despite the disadvantage and a lower income. Hope that helped explain my view to allow it to be better challenged.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Feminists should change their title (maybe to egalitarians) to disassociate themselves from the extremists. +
+ First, I know "egalitarian" is a long word, a lot of people don't know what it means, and it doesn't have the history nor the recognition that the word "feminism" has, but I feel like it's time for a change.
The internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists (or "feminazis" if you will). It seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism (myself included) because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life's problems on the patriarchy.
My friends are starting to joke about feminism and I see more people mocking it every day. I believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are. This stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it's support. I feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the "feminazis" it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them.
This might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term "feminism" would be the extremists. They might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight. Of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the "true feminists" and call themselves egalitarian anyways.
In either case, I feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.
Change my view guys! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Abortion is largely unjustifiable +
+ To clarify my title I believe that having an abortion is unjustifiable unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or child, or the child is the product of rape. I understand that this is a touchy topic so I'm sorry if what I'm saying comes off as offensive. That is not my intention. My main reasoning is basically this.
Human life is incredibly valuable. It is a guarantor of all other forms of rights, or it at least allows for the possibility of other rights. As such the maximization of life should take precedence to other considerations, such as the right to choose whether or not you want to terminate a pregnancy. 80% or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.
To clarify my point here is a thought experiment. Say you have a 2 year old child and a woman who is pregnant. no one would argue that killing the 2 year old is wrong. No matter how humanely it happens, you are robbing the child of the years of life it could have had. having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 2 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.
Also, the woman giving birth wouldn't have to take care of the child. contrary to popular belief, in recent years the number of children being put up for adoption has [steadily been decreasing,](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-adoption-domestic-waits-idUSBRE90E15Y20130115) while the time it takes for those who want to adopt a child has steadily been increasing, with some couples waiting up to seven years.
As a note my stance here has nothing to do with any sort of spiritual beliefs. Also I'm left leaning on most issues so it has nothing to do with party alliances. please CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Piracy is largely indefensible and is base in a selfish desire for free entertainment. +
+ Darn typo
Every argument I see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small-time artists (not big corporations).
I will begin by rebutting common pro-piracy arguments.
1) *It doesn't hurt the artist!*
Even were this statement true(it's not) it has nothing to do with morality(and thus, the legality) of the issue. It may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner's property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign. Ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim.
2) *It's the freedom of information age!*
No, it isn't, since the information isn't free. Information isn't, nor should it be, inherently free. Classified military secrets, passwords, SSNs, browser histories, and credit card numbers are "information" but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.
3) *The poor wouldn't have bought it anyway. Besides, how do you expect me to pay for it?*
Another disregarding of morality, but let's address this directly. Information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc. are luxuries. They are not necessities. Thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well-being. Stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival.
4) *We should transition to donation system.*
This is one of the more laughable positions I have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor(which they almost always claim they are). That argument, which I agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights. Why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house? After all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself. All he lost was time, and that's not illegal to take, is it? So then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this? Because it's ridiculous.
I am open to discussion on this. I can admit I'm wrong, but I just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists; attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like SOPA.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the upcoming policy change is a positive direction for reddit. +
+ Reddit is a website, a business, it is the "front page of the internet".
This front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. I think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be.
I think free speech can flourish without hate speech. I think we can recognize accurately the INTENTION of certain subreddits. Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions but I think its the intention that matters and I feel from the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/) that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other "alternative" subreddits will be just fine.
I think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and I think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so I can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Iran will not attemp to build a nuclear weapon in the near future because the imputus for a nuclear deterrent - a threatened attack by the US - no longer exists. +
+ Back in the early 2000's, Iran had a good reason to want a nuclear weapon. They had been named as one of the three members of the "Axis of Evil" by president Bush. One of the other members was invaded and occupied by the US, leaving a massive military presence directly next door. Top level Republicans openly discussed the possibility of invading Iran. The President publicly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war or aggression against Iran. If anybody had a good reason to want a nuclear weapon, it was Iran. The third Axis member, North Korea, actually had one, and was not considered a realistic invasion target for that reason.
Their fears of foreign invasion were real, and not abstract. Little more than 20 years before, Iran suffered hundreds of thousands killed, and over $600 billion in economic losses defending themselves from a US backed Iraqi invasion, which eventually involved offensive operations against Iran by the US navy, including the downing of an Iranian airliner, killing the 290 people aboard. During that conflict, 100,000 iranian soldiers, and an unknown number of civilians, were killed or wounded by iraqi chemical weapons. Iran did not deploy chemical weapons in the conflict. Any iranian over 30 is old enough to rember what total war is like.
Now that the US has made a comprehensive deal with Iran, they no longer have any motivation to acquire a nuclear weapon. They are capable of defending themselves against local adversaries, and face no serious threats against which nuclear weapons would be necessary.
If you actually want to change my mind, please don't bring up the fictional narrative of Iran as a suicidal state that would gladly see its 3000 year old civilization and 80 million citizens vaporized in an effort to destroy Israel. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reddit should ban whatever sub they want - they shouldn't have to accommodate for 'free speech' +
+ A lot of people seem to believe that Reddit should be a "bastion of free speech". I disagree with such view for several reasons. I believe Reddit should do whatever it wants to do regarding banning subreddits, restricting content etc for the following reasons:
1. Websites come and go - Whilst Reddit has been around for a while now, nearly nothing on the Internet is permanent. If people do really care that much about freedom of speech, they'll flock to voat or whatever other website pops up to fill the demand in the market. If enough people emigrate from Reddit, then it'll even whittle down Digg style. Personally, I feel even if there is a certain % of the userbase who leaves Reddit, I feel there will be a significant enough amount of people left to keep Reddit fully functional. Heck, it might even get rid of the nutheads and make Reddit a more pleasant place.
2. The current downvote system doesn't guarantee open discussion anyway - The current downvote system is far from perfect. It might 'hide' the trolly comments but on certain subreddits, expressing a certain view will lead to a lot of downvotes and populist, sometimes circlejerky, comments often rise to the top. Many people use the downvote button as a 'disagree' button instead of a 'doesn't contribute anything of value' button. Can you really have an open, honest discussion in such environment anyway?
3. Business reasons - I don't know about Reddit's financials in detail but it needs some sort of income. If they struggle to get advertisers due to PR reasons, Reddit should be able to do ban subreddits and limit content if they want to. Reddit is a private business afterall and not a public service.
4. Majority of Reddit users don't give a shit - Now I have no proof for this and it would be interesting if there was some sort of poll. However, I genuinely feel the majority of Reddit users don't care whether Reddit bans certain subreddits. Like with many things, I feel there's a silent majority who really doesn't care about Reddit's user policy.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Modern day "hipsters" do not exist and the ideas behind them are far too abstract to be a subculture. +
+ Just as the title says, I firmly believe that the modern interpretation of the hipster does not truly exist and never has. I'm going to link an article from two years ago, and I'd appreciate it if you'd read it, [thanks!](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/caught-in-the-hipster-trap.html?_r=1)
If you've read that, you'll see all the contradictory things that make a hipster look like a hipster. Hipsters like old heritage looks, but they also like all contemporary clothing. Their footwear of choice are trainers, skate shoes, loafers, wingtips, sandals, and all manner of boots. Seems the only shoe that's off the list is a pair of stark black oxfords, but even then, I don't know. Hipsters like Apple products, but also love old technology! Their hobbies are anything outdoorsy or creative, except when they aren't I.E video games. They embrace both irony and sincerity ect., ect.,ect. It just seems like a strawman built up to shun anyone doing anything or acting in a certain way that you don't like. It also seems to be that the thing everyone hates about hipsters is their attitude, but deep down, it's an attitude anyone can have. It's an attitude of snobbishness and inauthenticity. I've mentioned this to a lot of people, I'd like to hear what others have to say, try changing my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's very hypocritical for AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) members to smoke cigarettes +
+ Pretty straightforward. If you join AA you are giving up the usage of substances that are addictive and harmful in multiple forms. Yet , having been to a fair number of meetings (as an observer, not a participant), it astonishes me how so many of them pick up cigarettes as a replacement. I completely understand picking up this new, legal habit under the circumstances , but I believe it is incredibly hypocritical to smoke a poisonous and highly addictive substance (which can cause harm to others) while strictly prohibiting other similar substances, or even less harmful/addictive ones, such as marijuana for example. Please change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anarchism could probably lead to social darwinism +
+ I'm not an anarchist, and even if what you say changes my view about anarchism leading to social darwinism, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anarchism.
I'm not comfortable with anarchism because I feel that it will lead to less equality and those who already are in trouble will be in trouble more so.
Anyway, why is anarchism not going to be negative in the long run? You can have freedom with a government. It has to be a good government, but it can still be done.
A friend of mine said that people can still help each other. This is of course true but, and I don't want to be a pessimist, I'm not sure people are going to be more helpful. People will still have their conservative ideas and not want to help people in trouble even if there's no government.
Another thing, what about public ownership of things like electricity? I don't know, but I assume most of this is public ownership. Won't people be without electricity?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The US is the most disappointing country in the world. +
+ Considering what the US could accomplish vs what it has.
What it could be: The richest country on earth, reflecting the largest GDP, top 10 GDP per capita, and most wealth per capita.
What it is: In terms of median income, poorer than Canada. In terms of median wealth, poorer than Greece.
What it could be: A nation where everyone has cheap and quality education.
What it is: Barely outperforms Greece on test scores. Massive student debt.
What it could be: Somewhere where quality of life and mobility make up for inequality.
What it is: A country where a majority of the population is barely making ends meet. Lowest chance of making it out of poverty among moderately rich countries, possibly except for Italy and the UK. Most Americans' best shot at a better life lies in emigration.
What it could be: A respected leader in human rights.
What it is: A country that lags even the Congo in terms of legal commitments to its citizens such as paid leave laws, UN treaty ratifications, and General Assembly voting patterns.
What it could be: The land of the free.
What it is: A country whose incarceration rates and juvenile life sentences make Iran look free.
What it could be: A force for peace.
What it is: The world's top military power. More guns per capita than any developing or developed country. Yes, even South Sudan. More than half of countries are less violent than us according to peace indexes.
What it could be: Live long and prosper.
What it is: Barely cracks the top 50 in life expectancy. Most people have little hope of retirement. % of women in Congress is below the global median, meaning more countries are better than us than worse
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that for people who are averse to sleeping with transgender people, the onus is on them to declare their aversions to their potential partners. +
+ Many times I've read statements from people who argue that transgender people should out themselves to potential partners who demonstrate an attraction to them, and if they don't they are somehow committing an offense against that person up to and including coercive rape. I feel that this position justifies prejudice and hostility towards transgender individuals. A very common reactionary comment is "If I brought a girl home and it turned out it was a guy/she had a penis, I'd beat the shit out of them", usually delivered with more provocative/offensive language. In my opinion, trans people shouldn't be obligated to out themselves to people who are transphobic, as that puts them at risk of harm.
From my perspective, trans people exist. Trans people are also capable of being attractive to others, and being desired by others. I further believe that arguing that trans people have a duty to out themselves is predicated on a stereotype that no one would willingly choose to have sex with a trans person if they knew the person was trans. To me, that seems observably false (I've seen people in happy relationships with trans people) and contradictory in a way that suggests transphobic beliefs (if you can be attracted to a person right up until the point where you find out they are trans, then the argument that you aren't attracted to trans people is demonstrably false; after all, you demonstrated your attraction to them in the first place).
I feel like the most honest position to take is to recognize that sometimes you may be attracted to trans people, rather than to refuse to acknowledge any attraction to trans people - because you can be! The situation of wanting to have a sexual relationship with someone, and then finding that they're trans demonstrates that you are perfectly capable of being attracted to trans people. In my opinion, if you don't want to have sex with trans people, then you are obligated to either tell your potential partners that you don't want to have sex with trans people, or you are obligated to ask them whether or not they are trans before initiating a sexual encounter. That way, trans people can decline a sexual encounter with you before it begins, without being forced to out themselves and open themselves up to the risk of violence.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |