input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: I think Batman's dumb and I don't see the appeal. +
+ He's intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently. I think the majority of Gotham's problems could've solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which Bruce has money for.
I swear the guy is anonymous being Batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately. How naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back. Considering his track record, you think he really can't his stance on the not killing rule.
And even when it comes to I dunno fighting regular crime, I'm pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 100 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes. I think that just makes you an asshole.
I'm done: You guys gave me more reasons to hate Batman more and superheros in general.
| malleable | 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 believe in gender, other than biological sex. As in, I don't believe in any set gender norms/the existance of a non-biological gender. +
+ Please understand that I have no hatred for transgender people, and I will not force this view upon them or anyone. I have rather liberal views, really; I'm ready to accept a lot of things... But I have trouble understanding the reasoning behind gender dysphoria and all of that. I identify as my biological sex, yet I really feel more 'feminine' than 'masculine'. Yet I don't really believe in either term due to their outdated definitions and all of that nonsense.
I'm not a very spiritual person. And I don't believe in a lot 'outside' of what we can percieve. Yes I believe there's more to the world, but I don't believe in anything beyond biological sex. Of course it's not binary. Intersex people very obviously exist, that's just scientific fact.
**I'm starting to go off topic here, but I'm not sure how to elaborate on all of this.**
| 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 clear that I am meant to be alone +
+ I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anger is largely an unhealthy investment of time and energy +
+ There are very few instances I can think of in which anger is helpful or positive. I spend a fair amount of time on reddit reading people get angry about a whole range of things which are ultimately fruitless or destructive, including:
- The annoying or illogical things other people do
- The unjust way people are treated, from big corporations to the unjust ways governments and groups treat others
- Unfair events or circumstances, including unfair treatment of members of their own class
And many many more. My point is that responding to these events with anger - and not just with the feeling but the EXPRESSION of that anger - ultimately only makes the speaker and listeners feel more enraged, while doing nothing to learn more about the situation or make it better.
Anger is a completely normal human emotion, and I'm not proposing that we become emotionless robots or not express our frustration. But generally speaking, the more anger we express, ultimately the less productive the conversation will be.
Put another way - in a relationship, there is almost NO value in having anger toward your partner because it stifles communication and prevents each partner from trying to understand more about each other's actions.
We are all humans, nearly all trying our best to find happiness, and anger robs us of our ability to see that in others.
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 Slut/Stud Inequality Is Generally Justified +
+ Or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for “sleeping around", and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour.
I want to make this point clear – I am NOT debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of "slut." That is another argument altogether. I am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.
The reason for this, of course, is biological. It is generally imperative for males to propagate their DNA throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line. Historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter. The brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.
Given these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus.
Once again, to be very clear, I'm not making any moral claims about being a slut; I'm simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.
To illustrate this point, I would like to I highlight the scenario of Bob. Bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.
Now, here is Patrick. Patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.
The difference between Bob and Patrick is this – Bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while Patrick inherited over $5 billion from his father's trust fund.
So, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that Bob deserves higher praise. The difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different. In the same way, we can assert that (all things being equal) it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.
Now, anticipating potential rebuttals, I would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: I believe that heterosexual men (and homosexual women) deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts. To what degree, I'm honestly not sure, as I'm not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, I would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios. I could be wrong on this, but it's more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.
To make sure that you've been reading all the way down to the bottom, I would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with "crime."
Thanks!!!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Posting armed guards should be seen as a legitimate proposal to curb school violence. +
+ After every school shooting the debate gun violence in schools starts up with one side supporting reduced gun rights and the other side supporting banning violent video games. Whenever the idea of posting armed guards at schools is brought up the idea is always shot down as ridiculous. It was never given a reason why people look down upon it. I feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools. And if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would-be gunmen before the tragedy even starts. All other ideas on curbing gun violence doesn't seem to have the aspects of deincentification and directness that posting armed guards at schools has. That's not to say that ideas are wrong but adding this idea of armed guards to their respective platforms would, in my opinion, help curb school violence better than any of these opinions could individually.
___
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Universities should not discontinue class lists. +
+ For centuries, universities have published the results of end of year examinations on noticeboards where students find out their grade. It does not provide exact mark break downs, but does tell students what classification degree they received.
There has been a recent push to get rid of these class lists due to it hurting students feelings.
However, I feel that to do so would not provide any real benefit. If you did badly, you are going to find it just as hard in the employment market regardless of whether or not your peers are aware of your grade.
The class lists foster healthy competition between candidates.
There are already provisions in place for candidates to opt out of being in the class list if they have a good reason to do so.
Checking the class lists is also a tradition and, in some subjects, they are even read out by the university examiners in an annual ceremony.
Individual topic breakdown is and, as far as I am aware, has always been private. Otherwise the notice board would have to be the size of a tennis court! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I like Dave Grohl, but I don't like Foo Fighters. +
+ Dave's quotes and antics make it almost impossible not to love him. Breaking a leg on stage recently, and finishing the concert...major credit and rock n roll points.
I enjoy Nirvana's music, Queens of the Stone Age and Them Crooked Vultures. All great bands that I can enjoy.
I even enjoyed a War Pigs cover that the Foo Fighters did on David Letterman.
However, I've not found a Foo Fighters song that I enjoy.
I like bands that sound recognizable. ...by a musical style or vocal style. Every FF song I've heard simply sounds generic, like background noise. (Granted I've only delved into their popular stuff).
So, I really *WANT* to like them because of Dave...can you help me?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It should be mandatory for houses to have their house numbers clearly posted from the street +
+ House numbers should be *clearly* readable from the street, like on their house or mailbox. It would also probably be a good idea to have it painted on the sidewalk, but that's not the best option as it can be blocked by cars.
I only have one argument as to why this should be mandatory; emergency personnel (police officers, firemen, medical professionals, etc.) should be able to quickly find the house in case of an emergency.
As a pizza delivery driver, even if I know the general area of where the house is, it can take a good minute to find the house when the number is not posted on their house, and the sidewalk marking is scratched out. How are emergency personnel supposed to quickly find it?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless. +
+ This boggles my mind.
I know that some airlines are different like Southwest because they do not have assigned seats. But why don't people relax until their seating zone/group is called when you have a reserved seat?
It's not like the gate person knows that the boarding tunnel is clear or that the previous zone has almost completed been seated.
It just seems more relaxing for everyone to go in a "just in time" fashion versus standing in the tunnel, then standing in the plane and trying not to make the person in front of you who is trying to get into their seat anxious.
It's a small thing, but its madness and because we can only fit one lane of people in at a time it seems really inefficient for so many people to be standing around.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Consciousness is most likely a fundamental property of our universe. +
+
Consciousness is most likely a fundamental property of our
universe, as opposed to only existing after a certain complexity of arrangement of matter which we call sentient beings.
This statement has the implication of announcing plants, virus, rocks, dirt, stars and galaxies as conscious.
I am aware that given the mysterious nature of consciousness, this is a topic cannot be proven either way. But it is still valid to have opinions and some opinions make more sense than others. This is my current stance on it which is very much up to debate.
These points all contribute to my belief.
1. The only thing that can be known to be true is that there is such a thing as conscious experience. I cannot know for sure that anyone but me has a conscious experience, but I do know for a fact that I do.
2. Our consciousness is associated with our brain. Certain part of our brain seems to exert certain conscious properties. Remove that part of the brain and what remains is still consciousness, but with fewer attributes. E.g. [this woman](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/16/meet-the-woman-without-fear/) who does not feel fear. It's just not part of her experience because her brain lacks that property. Is she less conscious than others? That's up to debate, but I would argue no; she just lacks attributes to her experience.
3. Many have believed that consciousness is contingent upon sensory input. Can a person born without any sensory input whatsoever be conscious? Is there any experience to be had without senses? Maybe. Contemplatory people such as monks say there is. Regardless of what religion they're from - if any at all - they commonly speak of experiences of beyond all senses and feelings, just a state full of nothing which they can come back from and speak about. This proves nothing but it is interesting to think about.
4. There is nothing about a brain that suggest that consciousness should exist. Scientifically, there is absolutely nothing connecting matter to consciousness. Consciousness is not subject to science at all at the moment. The implications of consciousness is subject to science, such as psychology and just even the act of preforming science. But doing science on consciousness itself is not possible at the moment. This suggest that either consciousness is beyond the scope of science, or that consciousness is remains undiscovered to science for the moment. To argue that certain arrangements of matter spontaneously creates consciousness is not a convincing argument. It makes more sense that all matter in general holds properties of consciousness - not yet discovered -, and certain combinations of matter only increases the complexities of consciousness giving it new attributes.
5. There are studies out there that suggest that our own consciousness is just a combination of many (infinite?) different consciousnesses. Such as [this article](http://www.legiontheory.com/split-brain.html) where patients who had the information channel of neurons between their right and left hemisphere cut experience two separate consciousnesses controlling their body. Going in the opposite direction, [this article](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/09/monkey-brain-net-raises-prospect-of-human-brain-to-brain-connection) describes how consciousnesses can be connected together and multiple beings can share one consciousness of collective knowledge and reasoning. This is not a hypothesis, it actually happens as you can read in the article.
6. All these points shake the foundation of our intuitive feeling that consciousness is something strong and individual, personal and separate. Consciousnesses can be split to pieces, merged together and is actually very fluid. This all suggests to me that it is much more reasonable to think of consciousness as a fundamental property of our universe, and just like matter looks and behaves differently with different complexities and arrangements, there is all the reason to believe consciousness behaves the same. When we die, the complexities that our consciousness was subject to seize to exist, but the fundamental conscious property is still there.
Those who argue that consciousness only arise after certain arrangements of matter seem to be claiming something much more profound and illogical than what I proposed. Everything we know about our universe we have been able to boil down to fundamental properties. Why would consciousness act differently? Those who suggest so have the burden of proof, and until we know better it makes more sense to assume that consciousness is a fundamental property of our universe.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Toronto is the best city in North America +
+ I visited Toronto in 2012 and was extremely impressed. There's tons of stuff to do there, it's very vibrant, it's booming, and for a city of its size, it's actually very affordable to live in.
It's like what Portland wants to be, but 5 times the size. The only issue I have with Toronto is the people are not particularly friendly, but the same could be said of almost any city.
The food is excellent as well, and I love the waterfront and all the parks. Even though it's a huge city, you never feel that far away from nature.
It's also in Canada, which is my favorite country in the world. Does anyone want to try to change my mind and suggest a better city on this continent?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Once self driving cars become commonly used and as affordable as normal automobiles, it will be immoral to manually drive a car, and probably illegal. +
+ So self driving cars have become a popular topic recently. I believe that it will be immoral to manually drive in the distant future when they are common. Firstly, by manually driving, you are putting people in a lot more danger than you would while riding in an automatic vehicle. Your car would not be interfacing with the rest of the vehicles on the road, and you would be far more likely to cause an accident. If self driving cars become universal, then we could see the removal of streetlights and other road equipment meant to organize human driven traffic. Cars would be much more efficient, being able to stop and start and at the same time. There would be virtually no road deaths at all, and absolutely no reason to drive cars outside of events like motor sports or other things like that. Self driving cars would be safer, faster, more efficient, and eventually be the only road legal cars.
| 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 terms "homophobia" and "transphobia" are misrepresentative, aggravating and a poor equivalent to racism and sexism. +
+ Phobia has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't apply in most cases of homophobia and transphobia. I see the argument that prejudice against homosexuals stems from fear of their own sexuality, people assuming their sexuality, fear of difference et cetera; and I'm sure that's accurate in some cases. In most cases it seems more like trying to pretend that disdain and fear are synonyms.
Worse is transphobia, of which most cases I've seen stem purely from ignorance. Without evidence or information perhaps it's reasonable to believe that someone's gender can't be opposite their sex, perhaps it's unreasonable. Either way it's a far cry from anything resembling a phobia.
I know there isn't another convenient, readily known term but generalizing everyone who disagrees with you, often times wrongly, only widens the divide.
For clarification, I think there is a correct usage of these terms but it isn't as a catch all for LGBTQ prejudice. | 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 congressional system is far more representative than the Westminster parliamentary system +
+ Something I've noticed is that there is a prevailing opinion that the Westminster parliamentary system (i.e. the one used in Australia, Canada, and the UK) is far more representative of the populace than the US congressional system. This usually stems from the observation that there are generally more political parties at play under Westminster parliamentary systems than is the case under the US's congressional system.
But this argument seems to break down when more closely examined. In particular, my biggest problem with it is that parties in a Westminster system are very different from those in a congressional system.
Specifically, parties in a Westminster system are far, *far* more homogenous and rigid than those in a congressional system. From what I've seen, under the former it is rare to the extreme to vote against your party while in the latter it is notable when a vote is split perfectly along party lines. To give an example, the "Blue Dog Democrats" are a subgroup of the Democratic party that often "crosses the aisle" to vote with the Republican party. As far as I can tell, that sort of behavior would be likely to get one kicked out of one's party in a Westminster system.
In other words, party discipline is much stronger in a Westminster system than a congressional system.
The strangest thing to me is that this homogeneity kind of appears to defeat the point of having parties in the first place - if the point is that the parties are voted into power and do not split their votes, then why bother to have many different MPs? Surely it would achieve the same effect if each party was just given a block of votes equal to the number of seats they would hold, no?
This all seems rather obvious to me, which tells me that I am most likely missing something significant or perhaps misunderstanding some key feature of the Westminster political system.
For the record, I am from the US and therefore far more familiar with the congressional system than Westminster systems, though I do try to understand both as best I can.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The world would be better off if El Chapo had been extradited to this US +
+ I believe the world would have been better off if Chapo Guzman had been extradited to the US. I understand that there are all kinds of laws surrounding extradition, but ultimately I don't those are relevant because if Guzman had been extradited to the US, he would have been kept in the more secure and less corrupt environment. His chances of escaping would have been much much lower.
That man is responsible for a huge part of the recent drug wars in Mexico. He is indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths. The fact that he is out there and out of the reach of the law is a massive let down to the people of Mexico and ultimately the world.
Maybe the drug wars were partially caused by business opportunities created by drug policies in the US. But that's irrelevant. El Chapo is an evil man who deserves to be in prison, hands down.
The refusal of the Mexican government to extradite him makes the world worse off, as there is one more big time criminal who is not being brought to justice. 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: Government officials have very little control over economic growth and political candidates are either bluffing or stupid when they say they will "grow the economy." +
+ There are a few things presidents, congressional representatives and senators can do to influence the growth or shrinkage of the economy. Some politicians claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy, others claim that increased government spending (while keeping taxation the same) simulates the economy, but there is no consensus on this point, among economists or politicians. Deficit spending stimulates the economy, but we are already deficit spending, and the national debt is already rather large, so we can't do that forever. Low interest rates stimulate the economy, but elected officials have no direct influence over interest rates -- the Federal Reserve Board does that, and interest rates are already very, very low. New export markets also help, but the U.S. is already committed to several ambitious international trade agreements. Investor confidence helps, a little, maybe, sometimes, but the U.S. stock market is already overpriced. Beyond that, most economic growth comes from increases in productivity, and consumer confidence. Elected officials have no control over these.
If you vote for a candidate who promises to "create jobs" or "grow the economy," you're either voting for a liar or a fool. 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: "_____ism = prejudice + power" isn't a useful definition for discussing racism/sexism/etc outside of specific sociological contexts +
+ I want to start by saying that I understand how it can be very useful to talk about the importance power can play in discrimination dynamics and I think that distinction needs to be made when having serious academic discussions about the subject. That being said, the "power + discrimination" definition of the various ___ism words is, unless I'm mistaken, a new addition to these words and as such isn't part of how the words are used nor how most people use them.
(Note: by this I mean that as these are "newer" definitions, they naturally aren't used by those who don't deliberately conform to newer trends. Again, I could be wrong, but this seems like a safe assumption.)
It also seems like this definition is not useful in any intellectually honest context in that all it does is silence those who are complaining about non-traditional discrimination by focusing instead on the presumed misuse of "racism" and not on the situation in which they experienced discrimination, invalidating their experience and confusing those who aren't necessarily familiar with it's usage by introducing a new definition.
I guess the tl;dr is basically the power+ discrimination = ____ism definition isn't useful outside of explaining that power and pervasive discrimination has more of an impact than simply discrimination and the way it's used isn't actually useful in conversation.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You can't compare Serena Williams to Roger Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic +
+ *Note I'm not anti-women or online troll
I'm sorry, but male and female sports athletes can't be compared.
Any of the top 50-150 male ATP players would beat her 9.5 out of 10 times, there are huge differences in the sport.
1. The average serve for at the 2015 Wimbledon Finals for a Female(I saw the stat during a Semi-Final game) was 94MPH while the males was 124MPH. That's a huge difference, the fastest ever female serve was 131 while the males fastest serve was 163MPH, Cilic, Groth, Karlovic, Raonic, and Roddick all of those players average first serve is above [124MPH](http://heavytopspin.com/2011/10/13/us-open-serve-speed-by-player/).
2. Females play best to 2 sets and men play best to 3 sets
3. It was tested in Battle of the sexes tennis game where Bobby Riggs(Former number 1) at age 55 played 30 year old Margrett Court(Ranked 1 at the time) and she lost in straight sets. Note he latter played King age 26 who beat him at age 56,(He couldn't get any drop shots, but still forced a 3rd set.)
4. Serrnia said in 1998 at the age of 16 that she could beat and male under 200, Karsten Braash responded ranked 203 that he would play her, and she accepted and lost (6,1 6,1)(Note: She won the US open in 1999). Venus then challenged him and lost (6,2)(6,2).
Baraash said he played like a 600th ranked player to keep the game fun.
Also the whole Female World Cup players should be paid the same is total BS in my opinion for two reasons
1. The Female World Cup was projected to bring in 26M viewers while the Male World Cup brought in 800M-1B people(Note: That some countries don't have good reporting standards so the numbers are off.)
2. The Female World Cup brought in $40M Ad revenue while the 2015 male World Cup brought in $4B which is 100x more and thats why the Mens side is paid more.
In my opinion its insulting to women to pay them the same as the male tournament if they didn't earn it.
If they want the same tournament winnings they should be advocating for a single tournament not two different tournaments. The same with Tennis if you want to compare Serrna to the male version you should be pushing for a single tournament.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/06/05/the-billion-dollar-business-of-the-world-cup/
| 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 a 'twist' in a movie, however well done, is a cheap (but nevertheless amusing) way to appear 'smart' (SPOILERS) +
+ A multitude of films have twists in the plot, for example Gone Girl, Memento, a lot of films of M. Night Shyamalan, the Usual Suspects, Shutter Island, Fight club, well I can go on and on. [Here is a list of 100 twists](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070836741/).
It usually consists of a plot that advances, but with hidden information not completely revealed yet. When the information is revealed, it will heighten the liking of the plot. It feels 'Mind blowing', the movie instantly goes deeper, it is suddenly a more complex movie, and twists are ideal for deep analysis and allegories.
Adding a twist to a plot can make it everyone say 'Wow' and that one guy say: 'I knew it all along'.
I think an analogy of showing why people like this so much, because it is abit like being in the plato's cave and then suddenly showing the light and deeper meaning.
However, and this is my point, it is a simple and cheap way to make the movie much smarter than it initially was. I think there is also a high amount of plot twist movies in the IMDB top 250 (By no means a standard, but a good representative what is liked by movie-goers). Adding a well written plot twist makes a movie ripe for people to laud it, even though it is done to dead.
Basically my point is that it is a too simple way to make a movie 'smarter' and an overdone method of 'blowing peoples minds'. It instantly adds points for movie-goers.
As I said in the title, my point is not that is a non-amusing 'plot device'. But it is a simple way to add layers in a movie.
While watching a movie myself I always seem to like a twist (I thought Gone Girl did this very well and it sincerely surprised me) but afterwards when I am out of the cinema and more rational again I think 'hmm, just another twistmovie'. And apart from the twist nothing really interesting going on.
A well regarded movie where I didn't like the twist was 'The Usual Suspects'. The cinematography and acting was obviously well done, but only looking at the plot I thought it wasn't impressive taking away the twist. I am probably triggering now a couple readers, for that I am sorry. However this is not a critique of this movie, but more of an example.
I also think this is the reason why M. Night Shyamalan was so well recieved in the start of his career and now he is way less regarded than at that time. Because he does it all the time, and then it surfaces that it is a cheap movie 'plot device'. If he did it only once or twice people wouldn't have noticed it significantly.
(I am sorry for spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You don't need an opinion on something that doesn't affect you. +
+ I've held this notion for as long as I can remember. If something doesn't affect you physically, or alter your own personal life in any way whatsoever, then you have no need to be opinionated on it.
E.G. I'm not gay, so if someone is gay, I literally don't care at all. Because that doesn't do anything to me.
I'm a philosophy student. I can argue for and against things from a standard moral understanding, but past that, I can't say I'm really interested in things unless they ultimately alter my life in some way. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Punishment has little value in deterring bad behavior and is primary motivated by an innate human love of violence +
+ I think the real reason people punish others for transgressions is not so much to discourage the behavior, but rather to channel humanity's inherently predatory nature in a way that's socially acceptable and does not contradict with the moral values we have invented (or discovered, depending on how you look at it).
Most people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state. Humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.
Even bullies often justify their torments of victims as a form of punishment for not fitting the social norms, being "annoying" or acting in a way that is in their eyes unacceptable. Serial killers also often see their acts as a sort of punishment towards humanity. Rapists are often motivated by a desire to punish women. It seems like evil deeds are often motivated by a perverted sense of justice rather than mere selfishness or greed.
Another reason I think punishment has more to do with humans enjoying violence than it does with stopping bad behavior is the fact that corporal punishment of children is still very popular and defended by the majority of adults. I always felt like my parents took pleasure in punishing me, so I may be biased, but I really do think parents spank their children more out of anger and frustration than out of a will to help them develop.
Another reason I think it's innate is because the moral goodness of punishment is something virtually everybody agrees on. Liberals and conservatives alike usually have a "tough on crime" stance and would rather a violent criminal receive a harsh punishment even if it's more expensive and makes them less likely to be rehabilitated, than a lesser punishment that rehabilitated them more effectively. This sentiment is prevalent in every culture, even in societies like Scandinavia where the laws are more lenient.
We punish people because we perceive them as "deserving it" ie, we despise them and lust for their blood because we perceive them as being no longer part of the same species, and something that needs to be predated upon for the benefit of the community.
I actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates. The few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen.
In a nutshell, I think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it's prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat-eating species at the top of the food chain. Punishing people we consider "bad" also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In an intimate relationship, you have an obligation to satisfy your partner's sexual needs. +
+ Disclaimer: I am in no way justifying, or condoning pressuring anyone for sex in any situation, in any way. That being said:
What happens after the honeymoon period when one person still desires sex, but their partner has lost interest (commonly referred to as a [dead bedroom](http://reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms))?
I think it's still the duty of the disinterested party to at least minimally fulfill the sexual needs of their partner, if sustaining the relationship is a priority. In bullet form, here's why:
* Each partner in the relationship is the others' only source of intimacy and sex (assuming a monogamous relationship), therefore if one partner withholds sex, the physical needs of the other is not being met. What is ultimately a chore or an inconvenience for one partner is a physiological necessity for the other.
* Compromise is fundamentally part of every aspect of a relationship, and sex is no different. I'm conflicted in my thinking on this point: No one should be made to have sex if they don't want to. However, both my SO and I do things for each other that we don't necessarily want to do because it's better for the relationship, or it makes the other happy. I don't believe sex and intimacy should be treated differently- it's reasonable to have expectations of sex as a requirement of the relationship.
Thoughts? | malleable | 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 it's worth discussing politics in public. +
+ I've been trying to figure out where I fall on this, but I don't think it's worth potentially ruining a relationship with another person (a friendly relationship or other) by discussing your political views in person or online.
I live in the South, and recently there have been a lot of stuff going on with the Confederate Flag being taken down everywhere and the recent gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court. I think these are both great things, but the majority of my peers on Facebook/Twitter are aggressively against it gay rights and the fact that the Confederate Flag is now in the spotlight and being frowned upon. A part of me wants to speak my mind about it and tell them how I feel to reason with them a bit, but the other part of me thinks its a bad idea. Being vocal about my views could potentially cut off half of all people from even giving me the chance of meeting them and potentially being friends with them just because of my political views. I know a lot of people I consider friends that have political views that I don't agree with at all, and I don't know if letting everyone know how I feel about these situations is worth ruining that.
I have also heard quotes about how doing/saying nothing is worse than being against it, and that during the civil rights movement most people were silent which was definitely a bad thing, but I'm not sure if it's worth speaking up.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I can't wrap my head around why individuals who earn more money should be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes, when they utilize the services as often as anyone else. +
+ I believe that people have a **moral obligation** to donate money they do not need. Full stop.
But the government (specifically that of America) is not in the business of moralizing. The government is established to protect inalienable rights and to allow for fair competition. There are many cases where the government is not doing its job in allowing for fair competition, but I am not speaking about these cases. I'm going to give a few scenarios, and I'd love if someone who disagrees could criticize the conclusions I make.
- There are two pizza delivery companies. One of the company owners, Pablo, spent every night for the past 6 months figuring out how to optimize his business. He found better ways to incubate pizzas, better ways to stack pizzas in his pizza-mobile, and also found better ways to pizza his pizza. Because of this, more people are buying his pizzas. In the next year, Pablo earned three times as much as his competitor. Pablo sends his kids to public school, and has the same amount of kids as his competitor; he goes to the doctor when he is ill, and goes the same amount of times as his competitor; he's an American just like his competitor, and benefits from military defense in the same way; *why on Earth would Pablo have to spend multiple times as much money on these things than his competitor?* I really don't get it, I'm sorry. They utilize the same services in the same exact way, why is Pablo in essence *subsidizing* his competitor's payments just because Pablo is a smarter, more efficient businessman?
- There's a marathon going on in Vermont. Two hundred participants compete for the $1,000 given to first, second, and third place. Each participant puts down $20, which goes toward prize money and ensuring the event is run well. Each winner splits the prize money. At the end of the race, the three winners of first, second, and third place are shocked to find out that they are only taking home $120. The event organizers apparently decided that the winners, despite working harder and simply being better at their craft, and despite equally paying for the organization of the event, should have to pay the other participants for simply existing.
I just don't get it. If I drive to work and pass a bridge, I need to pay the toll because bridges cost money. Great. And perhaps I should pay in proportion to how much I drive, that seems like a good idea as well. But if I make a successful website that utilizes none of the services, and in fact very few services at all, is it not plainly *theft* that a bureaucrat decides where my EARNED money goes? I'd rather donate the money I don't need to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to environmental causes, to the cure for cancer, but the government seems to be stealing it from me so they can play live-action Battlefield 5: Real Life Edition.
Someone please explain what I am missing.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nations should be allowed to claim celestial bodies +
+ [The Outer Space Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) outlaws the claiming of celestial bodies by any nation, though in my opinion this discourages progress by killing incentives to expand into outer space, thereby also killing competition between nations which has historically been the single largest cause for space exploration.
By allowing nations to claim celestial bodies, you open scores of new incentives to expand into outer space, providing opportunities for economic growth, technological strides, and by extension ensure the survival of the human race.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Chipotle workers should be replaced with robots +
+ Every time I walk into Chipotle, the line is 20 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear. The bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 4-5 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.
It would be much easier if I could walk up to the assembly line, and press a button for "bowl." Then a button for "rice." Then a button for "black beans." With each button press, robots would squirt an appropriate amount of food onto my tray as it moves down the assembly line.
Another benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become "multi-threaded." Rather than having ONE assembly line, Chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines. On top of all this, it would save Chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.
I do not mean that we should replace 100% of Chipotle restaurant staff with robots! There should still be humans there to prepare the food, and to ensure quality. I'm mainly talking about replacing the 4-5 people on the food assembly line with robots. There would probably be one person monitoring assembly line quality.
| 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 should allow airline cabotage. +
+ Cabotage is the practice of allowing foreign airlines to operate domestic routes. Currently, if your airline is not headquartered in the United States, you can't fly between two US cities.
So Air Canada can fly a plane from Toronto to New York, but can't continue that plane on to Miami.
I think this rule is dumb and protectionist. [Airline safety and protocols are subject to international treaties already,](https://www.faa.gov/passengers/international_travel/) and if we wanted, foreign airlines could be subjected to additional FAA safety checks as a condition of being allowed to engage in cabotage.
With the current state of the US airline industry being [so close-knit as to promote collusion,](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-doj-investigating-airlines-20150701-story.html) a healthy dose of competition seems like it's in order. Opening up cabotage would allow a lot more competition in US aviation, which would be a big benefit to consumers as far as price. It would also likely allow a lot of airports which aren't presently hubs to get better overseas service. For instance, British Airways might not be able to justify a direct flight from Cleveland or St Louis to London, but it might be able to justify a flight that does St Louis - Cleveland - London.
| malleable | 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 the US should support a basic income but at the same time remove the minimum wage +
+ I believe that the US should support a basic income wage but at the same time remove the federal minimum wage. And possibly, in addition to that, the US should reduce spending on welfare programs because the basic income would cover those costs, including medicaid and federal food stamp programs.
My post was prompted by a recent years look at suggestions to increase the federal minimum wage. Bernie Sanders had suggested it. Several states are working on it. I saw one post that suggested we should increase the minimum wage because it is good for society. The problem though, you increase the benefit for one group (the employee) and take away from another group (the employer), you essentially could double the employers cost for wages. Why not vote on a basic income, all Americans will have to decide if that is what we want. Tax paying Americans can pay for the basic income if we want it. With minimum wage increases, you essentially put the onus on ALL employers that are currently paying minimum wage. It could be a small bookstore in Idaho or a coffee shop in New York. So I think we should remove the minimum wage and protect our society from poverty through a federal basic income.
I would suggest that we do an "opt-in income", meaning that if you want the basic income, you can ask for it, no strings attached. But, your other income cannot exceed the basic income. For example, if you make 100k a year, you don't really need the possible 15-20k? a year basic income. Or even if you make 20-30k, you are not eligible for the basic income.
On the removal of the minimum wage, I don't feel arbitrary wage rates set by the federal government is fair to the employer. Ultimately it is the employer that desires an employee to work at their business. A wage rate should be set between the employer and prospective employee. If it is too low for the employee, don't take the job. Or the employer should increase the wage to garnish more interest.
Here are my current views and final summary:
* A guaranteed basic income would address poverty issues without a forced requirement on employers
* A basic income might save US tax payers with a reduction on other programs like Medicaid and food programs
* A basic income would allow citizens the ability to train in new areas without worrying about income
* A basic income would reduce the burden on employers
* Removing the minimum wage is fair for employers and the basic income would mean that employees don't have to work at low wage rates.
Libertarian case for basic income:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "equal rights, equal lefts" isn't about equality, it's about violence +
+ A common meme among MRAs and the "pussy pass" crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it's "equality" in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.
A shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is "equal rights, equal lefts" which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.
I disagree that this is about equality at all.
1) Overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence. See this thread for an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3chyco/fsu_quarterback_is_filmed_punching_a_woman_in_the/
Most of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit. But if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him. Then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat
2) The stronger/larger person should show self restraint. Many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women. Is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights?
3) I think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women "getting their comeuppance" in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back (ie. "using their pussy pass") when in fact I've rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.
---
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The financial crisis in Greece represents a significant defeat for the Left & Socialist politics +
+ I'm European (England), as a result I've been watching the Greece situation unfold quite ardently.
It is my view that spending within your means is a moral obligation, regardless if its personal finance or government spending. Therefor I see the tactics employed by Tsipras and his party as cynical at best and downright reckless at worst - it's essentially been an effort to blackmail the Eurozone. As a result of this, I have sympathy for the Greek people as they will bare the brunt of the consequences from all this, but admittedly my sympathy is quite limited as they voted quite overwhelmingly in favour of supporting Tsipras when it was quite clear what could happen.
At the time of the referendum there were rallies in Scotland to support the 'No' vote, as well as France. These are areas with a very heavy left-leaning population (the SNP in particular in Scotland were also convinced that anti-austerity would work). Coupled with this, on Reddit I've seen a lot of people arguing that it is in fact not Greece's fault and the blame should be placed upon the lenders.
Obviously I do not agree with this standpoint as it paints Greece as some kind of foolish child who has no ability to look after itself. All this got me thinking - it is my view that those shifting the blame away from Greece do so to save face in the fact that the traditional left wing idea they may hold close - that of anti-austerity - has clearly not worked and instead has made things much, much worse.
I believe that Greece's situation represents defeat for the anti-austerity platform as a whole and the left wing ideals it represents.
CMV
My view centres around the seeming unwillingness to accept that hardline left ideologies were not the correct answer here - an example of cognitive dissonance (in a way) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We've gone way overboard lately with PC-ness and the Social Justice movement. +
+ This may be surprising to some if you look at my history on this sub, where I posted several CMVs critical of Gamergate, the police and conservatives, but here goes... we've gone way overboard with this PC/Social Justice mentality.
Recent examples are-
-the furor this morning (at least on twitter) over Amy Schumer in the WaPo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/06/dont-believe-her-defenders-amy-schumers-jokes-are-racist/
-Hannibal Burress had a minor run-in with several notable female twitter personalities including Gaby Dunn. https://twitter.com/hannibalburess/status/618179591140564992 (there's a whole list of responses, if it doesn't show up just go through his timeline)
-Jerry Seinfeld made news when he said he wouldn't play college campuses anymore, to much reminding of his relationship with a 17-year old twenty years ago, and snickering over how his material isn't even edgy anyway. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/living/seinfeld-comedy-colleges-feat/
-Chris Rock said the same thing last year. I guess he's a shitlord too. http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html
-Patton Oswalt, who at one point was booed in Philly for his anti-Bush beliefs back during 2004 or so, is now not worthy of being followed. He's in a category with Trump and Palin. http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/patton-oswalt-twitter-troll-unfollow/
-Not to pick on Gaby Dunn, but earlier this year she blew up at Josh Groban, because I guess young male celebrities being horndogs is completely new and has never, ever happened in human history. https://storify.com/amandataylor88/don-t-fall-for-this-famous-guy-s-flattery
Hell, even amongst the more notable far-left twitter there's infighting. Suey Park and Lauren Chief Elk are going at it over DMs to an ex/stolen laptops https://twitter.com/suey_park/status/617747933987889152
And depending on who you believe, Rania Khalek is anti-black http://bad-dominicana.tumblr.com/post/87992874258/rania-khalek-such-an-antiblack-piece-of-shit-like or "bad_dominacana" is racist against Arabs https://twitter.com/raniakhalek/status/514920026236018688.
I was, am and will be a dyed-in-the-patchouli liberal. I was ecstatic that gays can get married now. I will call Caitlyn Jenner whatever SHE wants me to. I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I absolutely believe all fortysomething of Bill Cosby's accusers.
That said, I'm starting to feel a little lost. I cringe when I see the word "thinkpiece." I hate that people get so caught up in a perpetual outrage machine and so high off their own self-righteousness they will destroy a life like Justine Sacco's (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0) for sport. (Also, how great is Sam Biddle for basically admitting he'd do it all over again for "the clickz?") I have to believe that the right or, "The Man," are absolutely loving this infighting. Endless digital ink is spilled on Black Widow in The Avengers while cops are still shooting anyone with a skin tone darker than Burnt Sienna.
Am I wrong? Am I the asshole here? Is all of this of vital importance? Will the 24/7/365 internet analytical news cycle bring us to the promised land? Or is this just a tool of cultural commentators on a deadline?
Try not to focus on the Twitter thing as much. There's pieces on Gawker, WaPo and Daily Dot that I've used for examples. Here's a piece on the AVClub where the writer complains about female fans of Captain Marvel for... reasons. Not sure. They're problematic somehow.
http://www.avclub.com/article/marvel-learned-wrong-lessons-carol-corps-218003
Someone in the comments said this seemed like neurotic hand-wringing by an alienated individual, and that could very well be the case. I didn't really spend a whole lot of time making a comprehensive essay about this because a-it's just reddit and b-I posted from the gut with immediacy. If someone wants to take this theme and do it up better, by all means go for it. I never claimed to be a social scientist. Or even just social.
Some good opinions here, with the major consensus being that these things seem big and important on the internet where everything is a hot take and people are either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil with no in-between. So in stepping out from the cyberspace will keep the perspective in check.
Good talk everyone! No name calling or trolling!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In the service industry I think tips should be divided evenly between kitchen staff and front of house staff. +
+ I work in a restaurant where the kitchen only receives about 20% of the tips made by servers out front and I think its utterly absurd how many waiters/waitresses think they deserve 80% of the tips if not more when they do no more work than the kitchen and half the tip is usually based on how fast they received their food in the first place.
I see absolutely no reason why they deserve more of the tips than the kitchen when their job basically consists of setting/cleaning tables and seating/talking to customers while in the mean time the kitchen workers are running around preparing a million little things in a hot kitchen going practically the same speed as the waiters.
Please note I live in Canada and waiters as well as the kitchen receive minimum wage of at least 11 to 12 dollars an hour.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The assumption that alien life exists is wildly optimistic +
+ Its pretty common to encounter people, including a decent number of reputable astrophysicists, who believe that the odds of life existing on other planets are so high as to be a near-certainty. These assumptions, as far as I can tell, tend to be based on the size and age of the universe (i.e. huge and old), particularly the number of "earth-like" planets.
But its my understanding that in fact knowing exactly how "earth-like" a planet is is pretty difficult, and that many planets listed as "earth-like" may not actually be earth-like in enough of the ways that matter--in other words, just because a planet is roughly earth-sized, roughly the right distance from a sun, and features heavy elements, doesn't actually mean that it in any way is earth-like *enough* to support life. In fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on "earth-like" planets seem to acknowledge.
In addition, the odds that a planet which does meet earth-like criteria actually will develop life are basically totally unknown--anthropic bias and the fact that we literally only have only one model planet to observe makes actually nailing down the odds of abiogenesis on some other, non-earth planet very difficult to estimate. And while it is true that abiogenesis seems to have occured roughly soon after conditions on earth met the necessary preconditions as we understand them, it is also my understanding that as far as we can tell abiogenesis only happened once on earth, with all life on earth ultimately stemming from a common origin. If abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why hasn't it kept happening?
TL;DR I think most estimates of the number of planets which actually meet the necessary conditions for abiogenesis (rather than just being broadly earth-like), and for the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring once conditions have been met, are very possibly way too high, and that it is just as likely if not moreso that both planets which can support life and abiogenesis on such planets are infinitesimally rare. While I would never say with 100% certainty that alien life does not exist, I am unconvinced by those who say it almost certainly does.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Dwight Schrute from the Office has some kind of autism and it's wrong to make fun of him. +
+ I have started binge watching The Office yesterday and it feels kinda wrong the way they treat Dwight. To me it seems he has some kinda of autism or psychological problem (I don't really know so correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems really wrong to keep provoking him and taking advantage of his lack of understanding of interactions. He's an asshole most of the times but I'm not sure if he can really be blamed for it.
I find it funny but I'm always left with a sense of guilt for laughing over it.
Maybe I'm being too sensitive to it? I mean Michael Scott makes fun of everyone in very wrong ways but Dwight seems to be picked on by everyone, not just Michael.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Barack Obama has been an excellent president +
+ Sure, his 2008 campaign was filled with wild hopes and dreams which won't get accomplished, but what did get accomplished is remarkable. Lets go over his achievements-
-Saved the US economy from what could have been a much longer and more severe recession or depression
-Ended two of the longest and most expensive wars in US history
-Killed Osama Bin Laden, effectively avenging the many Americans lost on 9/11
-Started much needed healthcare reform in the US
-Normalized relations with Cuba after over 50 years
-Made enormous strides for clean energy, drastically reducing America's carbon footprint
-Appointed justices that legalized gay marriage nationally, further improving acceptance of the LGBT community which has already improved so much over the course of his presidency
-Could reach a nuclear deal with Iran, improved relations with Iran to a point where they haven't been in a long time
-Will pardon scores of prisoners serving ridiculously overblown sentences for petty marijuana related crimes
All while dealing with the single most uncooperative congresses in history (shut down the government two years in a row, for starters). In my eyes, every good thing he has done absolutely makes up for every bad thing he's done (the only one I can think of is the TPP, which hasn't even passed yet) and has been the best president since pre-Reagan. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reddit will go in exactly the same direction under Steve Huffman and no one will care, Ellen Pao was a martyr +
+ Redditors main real concerns about the website were monetization and the limiting of "free speech" in the /r/fatpeoplehate drama. Reddit has still brought many people on board independent of Huffman to help advance the site and create revenue. Further having money and people behind him will influence Huffman and his situation is very different from when he founded Reddit.
In regards to "free speech" the subreddits that make Reddit the awesome website it is are all heavily moderated. The subreddits targeted were brigading other subreddits. The administration's views on hate speech won't change, they even said in their announcement that, ["If the reddit community cannot learn to balance authenticity and compassion, it may be a great website but it will never be a truly great community."](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_team_at_reddit/)
While there will be more communication on things like the Victoria firing Reddit is still headed in exactly the same direction. **To be clear I am perfectly content with the monitization of reddit and don't see it as a big deal.**
Ellen Pao's hatred came from her being the face of Reddit that started the changes. People latched onto her lacking resume and questionable sexual harassment lawsuit to demonize her and transform her into everything that is wrong with Reddit. She is still working at Reddit, just not as the public face of the company.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ellen Pao shouldn't have quite her job and surrender to the internet mob +
+ I'm seeing this shit a lot nowadays. Internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people's lives. I'm really sick of this. [Tyranny of shrill minority](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMU47R094T4) is the term I really like. I'm sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how "they did it", how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol' days. What a load of shit. Reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about Ellen Pao.
- Her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit. You might not like it, but that's about it. Plenty of CEO's are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company
- She didn't fire Victoria
- Nobody knows why Victoria was fired. It's none of your business anyway
- FPH definitelly wasn't the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, I would like to turn your attention to [this](https://i.imgur.com/A6ORPlL.png). Do you think this is okay?
- Modtools were like this for ages. The old CEO that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then Pao ever had
- She tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly? And this should be like a negative thing? For a CEO? Really?
The vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with. Reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people. Slow clap guys, you "did it"
| 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 moral justification for pirating movies, music, or other digital content +
+ Before I begin a disclaimer: I pirate movies, TV shows, and music. I don't intend to insult those who do the same thing that I do. I do, however, believe that the actions of myself and others who do the same are immoral and done merely for the sake of avoiding spending money of not spending money if one doesn't have to.
So:
I think an important point to start on is one that I think is always missed in these arguments. High quality digital content such as movies and television shows are a luxury in just the same way that diamonds are. Life goes on without them. I don't mean to say that I don't watch a lot of TV or listen to a lot of music but that doesn't make them a necessity it makes me spoiled with a luxury item. As with any luxury item, the cost for it is usually higher than other things. Those who claim to be "showing the system what's wrong" or "fighting a corrupt system" are acting no different from someone who breaks into a diamond store because they find diamonds to be nice but to expensive to bother paying for. 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 am personally against sunscreen and it is a fight with my wife about using it on our daughter. +
+ In my life I only remember getting sunburns on the days that I wore sunscreen. Throughout my life this has developed a dislike of sunscreen. I doubt anyone would ever change my mind about my personal usage (I believe mild amounts of sun are beneficial and if you have planned prolong exposure you can 'build up' your ability to withstand the sun).
I would love to change my view about sunscreen on my daughter though (as its the source of a huge fight with my wife), but I don't see how slathering her in lotions and salves (no matter how safe/organic) is a more effective course than cycling exposure with in sun time and no sun time, etc. and building up exposure times if a trip or such deems necessary.
If we were planning on taking a trip to the beach or somewhere else with extended sun exposure I would much rather dress my daughter in protective pants/hoodie. I would definitely prefer to put a loose mud all over her body than sunscreen.
Can someone convince me that I NEED to allow my daughter to wear sunscreen
| 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 ok that children of wealthy parents receive some benefit from their parents' work. +
+ People often complain that students from wealthier backgrounds have a step up, but is that really so bad? I think the provider of any family, of any socioeconomic background, would say their motivation for working is providing for their family and improving the lives of their children. This complaint comes up most often for college stuff. I would ask: if a wealthy family is having a fancy dinner, should only the parents get servings? Of course not, so why can benefits be shared in these instances, but not in academic ones? | 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 argument against Zoophillia based on lack of consent is only an effective argument for a tiny portion of the population. +
+ So the most popular non-religious argument against beastiality is that such actions are wrong because it is impossible to get any kind of consent. I think it is possible to argue otherwise (for some animals it is very easy to read their emotional state), but I won't argue that because I think the whole idea that consent would be necessary in these situations is completely inconsistent with how animals are treated by the vast majority of our population, including vegetarians.
Example 1(for the vegetarians, but applicable for everyone): Pet ownership. Do we get consent when we take a puppy from his parents? Do we get consent when we neuter them? If you assume that consent is essential in animal/human relationships, pet ownership itself becomes a kind of slavery or imprisonment. The owner provides food and housing, the pet is imprisoned and provides entertainment to the owner. Any argument you could run about this being justifiable without consent would frighteningly similar to arguments for why slavery in the U.S. was good for many of the slaves. Arguments that they "seem happy," or "they don't run away" are meaningless when you have kidnapped an animal and brought it up to be dependent on you. I'm not saying pet ownership IS slavery; I'm saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.
Example 2(for the carnivores): The vast majority of human beings eat animals. If you are one of this majority, the idea that you would ask an animals consent for anything is laughable. You could argue that unnecessary cruelty is still wrong, but much beastiality clearly involves the pleasuring of the animal, not the torturing of it. And regardless, arguments against cruelty have nothing to do with "consent."
So that's my basic argument. Come on reddit, 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: I think female teachers should not be judged as harshly as male teachers when they are arrested for engaging in sexual intercourse with their [teenaged] students. +
+ [This](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155546/Female-ex-Utah-teacher-36-sexually-abused-three-male-students-tearfully-begs-forgiveness-sentenced-30-years-bars.html?ito=social-facebook) is an adequate example of what I am talking about in terms of overly severe sentencing, however i'd love the discussion to be less about sentencing and more about societal judgement. As an example, of course she should never work in education again, but holy shit she shouldn't be rotting away for what is essentially a third of her life just for making 3 people extremely happy.
Why I think this:
I'm a 27 year old male with a perfectly normal upbringing, a healthy sex life and in a healthy relationship of over 2 years.
There is nothing I wouldn't have done to get the chance to be intimate with one of my female teachers starting from year 5 right up to university. In my teen years, regardless of losing my virginity at 14 to my then 13 year old girlfriend, I was still completely infatuated with every mildly attractive person I encountered. I was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, I wanted sex, and that was the extent of it. Whereas I feel women as a gender are not as predisposed to hormonal imperatives, so the base need for women does not exist anywhere close to the need that an adolescent man has to get the job done.
TLDR: Adult male vs teenage female, not OK, they're not as into it as men, and the act itself is being driven by a pretty gross desire to bang someone, which they've then chosen to act upon a teenaged girl. Adult female vs teenage male, what are you an idiot? Of course I'll bang you. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Paying workers the living wage is more important than profit. +
+ The reason we all come together and form societies is to work collaboratively for the good of us all. We write laws and enforce them to protect us from harm. We pay taxes and build public services for the greater good of us all. We build schools because we believe everyone is entitled to an education. We don't do these things to help businesses or organisations prosper, we do them for the benefit of individuals within society. Despite this, it's considered acceptable (by some) for businesses to pay their workers less than *the living wage*.
Doesn't this view validate the idea that the right of businesses to make money is more important than the right of the individual to make a decent living?
I understand and appreciate the argument that some small businesses may not be able to pay their staff the living wage and make a profit. I don't think *profit is bad*, and I understand that jobs would be lost if small businesses didn't make enough money to get by. However, I don't believe the apparent risk of loosing jobs justifies exploiting workers. If taken seriously, the same argument would justify slavery.
If a business is run badly, or the demand for the product they produce disappears, I imagine everyone would agree that that business doesn't have the right to exist for its own sake. Surely we can agree that a business *must* exist on its own merits? Why then in a society that exists for the benefit of us all, do we think businesses that can't afford to pay workers enough to live have a right to exist? Why isn't fair pay for workers - enough for them to have a decent standard of living - considered a fundamental necessity of a healthy business? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: One should not bring a kid into this world unless they can afford to pay their college tuition. +
+ Specifically talking about the United States.
College tuition, as in, 18 years from now.
I know this excludes about 95% of the population, and I know everyone wants to make copies of themselves, but it seems very irresponsible.
The two trends are that seem to be increasing relentlously are college tuition costs and percentage of people attending college, I blame the system for this, not the individuals, as the U.S. moves further away from manufacturing, the need for college educating people in our work force increases, there are less and less jobs available that *don't* require college.
It seems downright irresponsible to bring someone into a world that expects them to go to college and be $500,000 (or whatever it will be in 18 years) in debt.
Would like to hear all of your thoughts on the matter.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Video games offer the greatest potential for story telling +
+ Hello CMV. I truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods (books, tv, movies,theatre)
Allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character (besides cut scenes). You control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.
Also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this. Compare this to choices in say Arrow (tv show, if you have seen it you know what I am referencing). While the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.
Moving away from story driven games to player created stories. There is an fps that I play called planetside 2, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps. Here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive. Let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside (hard to explain unless you have played the game) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: the long division algorithm is obsolete, and should no longer be taught to schoolchildren +
+ A few decades ago, many schoolchildren learned [an algorithm for EDSRH](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Zccn0.png) (exact decimal square root by hand). This algorithm gives the exact decimal value (i.e. what a calculator would show you) of a number's square root, without a calculator or slide rule. Around 1970, this algorithm stopped being taught. Of course the square root itself is still in the curriculum, as is enough number sense necessary to _estimate_ a number's square root by hand, but EDSRH is out.
Specialists (e.g. calculator programmers) can of course still look up and learn EDSRH if they need it, so no knowledge is lost. But is it useful for enough students to be worth covering in classrooms? The consensus is no. Calculators are ubiquitous. If you need a square root, it's very simple to either _approximate_ it by hand, or find a calculator. You get by just fine these days without an exact method by hand.
Sure, learning EDSRH incidentally lets you practice other math skills like multiplication, but you could better use the same classroom time to practice those exact same skills while doing _useful_ problem solving.
EDSRH is a remnant from a time before calculators, when humans needed to know how to be calculators themselves. Now that we have calculators that do the same thing (only faster and with fewer mistakes), humans' time is better spent learning to use calculators properly, and to do things calculators can't.
You probably see where I'm going with this. My view is that we've reached the same point with EDQH (exact decimal quotient by hand). You were probably taught an algorithm for EDQH around age 10: the most popular algorithm is [long division](https://www.mathsisfun.com/images/long-division-explained1.gif) (though there are others I feel the same way about). It's time to remove it from grade school classrooms. That time can be better spent training to use calculators, and getting enough number sense to make smart estimations and interpret calculator output well.
For context, I have a degree in mathematics, and I probably do more math on a daily basis, both professionally and as a hobby, than 98% of the population. I don't think I've used long division once in 10 years, and if I forgot it today, I wouldn't bother to relearn it.
In your reply, if you make an argument that could also be applied to EDSRH, please be explicit about why you think EDQH is different. 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: I think hardcore (punk) music is boring. +
+ It all sound the same to me. And to be clear, I know this is what people tend to say about any music they don't "get." People say this about rap -- it's just noise, etc. But I like rap, and I think you can make a pretty good argument that there's a ton of variety in rap. From voice to lyrics to production to rhythm, there's really no reason to say Aesop Rock sounds like Mobb Deep, or a track off Illmatic sounds like a Drake mixtape.
I like a lot of types of popular music but don't like punk/hardcore. I looked up hardcore on wikipedia and it seemed like the songs had to fall within a pretty narrow range of genre conventions: short length, driving bass rhythm, simple chords, heavy distortion, shouted lyrics.
So my question is: what does a punk/hardcore fan listen for? What kind of stuff makes a good punk song if the songs are very similar in key respects, or am I missing the boat and there's a lot of variety out there?
Anyway, I am not trying to be a hater, I'm just out of the loop on this music and its appeal. Thanks. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: College students are incredibly foolish, and deserve no pity for their poor decisions +
+ In short, college students are absolute fools, and by and large deserve no pity for their stupidity. I understand what I’m saying is very contentious but allow me to try and explain without sounding like an arrogant jerk (I’ll fail, but whatever). One of the most frustrating things I see in the news is the ridiculous debate over “rape-culture” on college campuses as if they’re full of malicious serial rapists and murderers. Now, I’ll admit I am a member of a large social fraternity at my school, a highly ranked university in California with ~40,000 students, so let the bias be noted. I want to first point out that this “debate” is absurd, there is an imaginary opposition to the idea that rape and rape-culture is bad. You won’t find rallies supporting rape or anyone (of course a few but exceptionally rare) suggesting that rape is acceptable. What the debate clearly stems from is the idea that rape and sexual assault is some liquid term with varying boundaries. A man having sex with a drunk girl is considered rape by some people and to be fine by others. Those saying it is rape see the opposition as suggesting any drunk girl is conscientious “asking for it” and likewise those saying it is normal see the other side as suggesting being drunk rids you of responsibility for your actions. This creates an intense debate despite the fact that they all agree on the same fundamental principle.
With that out of the way, let’s talk about the behavior of college students. As I said before I am in a fraternity and the ridiculous nonsense I see every week of the school year is beginning to weigh on me. I have seen a girl give head on a dancefloor in our house surrounded by hundreds of people, I have been assaulted by random guys drunk as hell, I have had to physically remove several guys because they’re pissing in the corner of a room. Of course, we’re totally asking for all of this I suppose is the first thing that comes to most people’s minds. We throw parties, we supply alcohol, we play the music and turn on the blacklights. Who am I to look down upon the result of my creation? And the answer is that I don’t, if I didn’t enjoy it I wouldn’t be taking part in it. What bothers me however is the incredible entitlement and utter lack of dignity these people have. That girl I saw railing a line of coke and pounding away 3 shots out of a plastic handle? Oh it’s her life, who are you to judge! That guy shattering a window on the second floor? Oh you shouldn’t have given him alcohol, shame on you for throwing an unsafe party.
What I have come to realize is that most students are absolute idiots, at least on the weekends. One caveat, yes I may just be around the wrong crowds, but I would say with complete confidence that at least a third of the student body engages in the type of idiotic garbage I’m talking about. How does this relate to rape? If it isn’t obvious, it is because I end up being the victim. These attitudes and opinions sincerely make me scared to have sex with a girl, because I know just being in a fraternity will make me guilty of rape before I can even open my mouth to defend myself. I find it unbelievable that there is such a stigma against, let’s be honest, men in college. I have to hear about it all day, how dangerous it is to go to a fraternity party, how you’ll get drugged and taken advantage of. Well let me tell you a vast majority of the girls found in these places will drug themselves before any guy even gets the chance. I see girls get black-out drunk and f**k anyone that looks their direction every other weekend and I ask myself, “is this the same type of girl I see ranting and raving that just because she was drunk means she didn’t consent?” It is becoming increasingly hard for me to believe that they aren’t one in the same. Okay, okay I’ve been too anti-female, but believe me I think the guys are just as bad. I have heard of six people getting DUIs in my four years here in college. SIX DUIs, and a few drug related charges. What makes these people think this is acceptable is beyond me, but at least they will reap what they sow, I suppose.
This has probably been hard to follow, but I can sum it up pretty simply. While I’m sure plenty are sincere, and my heart goes out to them, I find so many self-victimizing claims of college students to be farcical. At this point I just don’t feel pity for the kid next to me in class facing a jail sentence for drug possession, or the girl freaking out because she is now known as the girl who banged five guys on the roof in one night.
Beyond having pity I’m angered by the fact these poor decisions end up being blamed on me. Let it be known to the world, because surprisingly no one seems to understand this, your university knows EXACTLY what happens at fraternity houses and they support it. They know underage drinking is everywhere they know the drugs are there. They know several of the fraternities “haze” and simply do not care. The police department knows as well, do you think they are ignorant of the massive weekly house parties? Knowing all of this and with absolute agency to stop these organizations from existing they allow it, because universities see the benefit in the greek system for promoting social events for students. Despite this, even if we don’t serve alcohol at a party if some idiot comes drunk we’re going down. We aren’t offered the fair treatment bars or venues receive even though we serve the same function. The system basically works like this: The university knows well of all activities and events and they allow them while publicly stating they are against underage drinking, hazing, and the like. But if or when something goes wrong like let’s say someone gets alcohol poisoning, the university and police department come crashing down on the organizations they support to save face and place all blame on the members. My reputation and life is under threat because I participate in something innocuous that is constantly scapegoated.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To achieve true equality, we must eliminate capitalism and inheritance +
+ The real problem with capitalism is that there is no equality of opportunity under this system. Your entire life gets determined by which class you happen to get born into. If the effect of this ‘happenstance’ could somehow be eliminated, so that everyone enjoyed equality of opportunity, then even though income and wealth inequalities continued to remain in society, this fact per se would not be a cause for concern. Access to larger income and wealth would then be determined not by ‘luck’ (of being born into a particular class) but by ability and effort. In fact, one can even go further: if the capitalist system could be so reformed that equality of opportunity for everyone could be ensured within this system itself, then even the continued existence of a group of people called capitalists and another group called workers, should not really matter. Needless to say, equality of opportunity in such a ‘reformed’ capitalist society must entail the confiscation to a significant extent, through death duties, of the property of the capitalists after their death so that their children do not enjoy an unfair advantage over others.
Equality of opportunity is possible only in a society which can achieve and maintain full employment without jeopardizing work discipline, that is, only in a society where people work with discipline not because they are afraid of being consigned to the ranks of the unemployed but because they voluntarily internalize the need to work with discipline. This can only be a society where the workers collectively own the means of production. Of course, mere formal or juridical ownership of the means of production by the collectivity of workers is not enough to ensure that they internalize the necessity to work with discipline; they must feel part of a ‘community’ and transcend their individual self-interest as a condition for this. Equality of opportunity in short is possible only under socialism. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Shampoo and special body wash products are unnecessary. +
+ Bar soap is all you need.
And you dont wash your hair at all, you just rinse it.
Sometimes I use shampoo, maybe once in a month or two, if I did something specially dirty or got chemicals in my hair etc. But your hair is healthier without it, and if I cared enough to find an alternative I would use something natural.
If you quit using shampoo, your hair might be greasy for the first couple days, but with nothing but proper rinsing your hair will be able to clean itself.
Face wash is unnecessary as well. Bar soap is fine. Special body washes are unnecessary. It is all a marketing ploy.
I am a clean and beautiful boy who has no problem attracting the opposite sex, and have never been led to suspect that my habits are somehow smelly or unclean.
What is the point of using these products? Please, Reddit, change my view: hygene products are a scam. | malleable | 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 see the end goal for 'Privilege' +
+ I swear I'm not a troll. I"m honestly confused.
I understand the concept of 'privilege' but I don't understand where it is heading. I listen to the countless videos, comics and messages that usually go along the lines of:
"my neighbour won't go to college because of his fathers drug problem. I will go because my father saved up for my tuition. I have privilege."
or insert whatever subject you want into that.
So I get the concept. BUT what I don't understand is where to go from there.
Some of the privileges that people attribute can't have anything done about them. Others are just who I am.
Lets take the famous 'white privilege'. (which I am. OH GAWD NO) I can't help but relate it to my christian upbringing where it was beaten (figuratively) into me that 'you were born with sin and must apologize for it! Seek redemption!'
What good does shame help in any situation? How about pointing at the disadvantaged and say 'lets help them!' Instead of pointing at you and saying 'you better acknowledge that you're white/a sinner/privileged! FEEL BAD FOR IT.'
...I'm rambling. I guess.
I'm not an activist person. I don't go to rallies. I think I just have problems with someone having a hate laced finger pointed at me for existing if I'm not going out of my way to do something. If my sin is existing, then I don't see what progress you are trying to make by just shaming me about it. Religion/race/whatever the subject of it.
let me know if I'm way off.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Biking is the most superior form of personal urban transport, and I think everyone should do it! +
+ Biking is the overall best form of personal urban transportation, and is vastly superior to cars, and even buses! Bicycles have a number of things up on cars especially: they're cheaper, easier to use, safer to use, more mobile, better for the environment, better for your health, better for infrastructure planning (a lot of cycling encourages dense urban growth to keep things accessible by bike), and I would argue they even make you happier! :)
* Cars easily sell for tens of thousands of dollars or more, which makes them inaccessible for many people, especially the poor who cannot afford payments and insurance. Bicycles are much smaller and simpler, and so are cheaper to produce, easier to produce in large quantities, and therefore can be made very inexpensive very easily. This makes them accessible to everyone, even the poor! In fact, they're so cheap, you might as well make some of them public use bicycles that can be used by anyone!
* Bikes don't need a lot of training to use. Kids can operate them just fine. They're that easy, once you get it, you know it!
* Being smaller and operating at lower speeds, bikes are much safer in crashes, although they come with the disadvantage of being very exposed while riding. Bike safety and controlled speeds should be taught so that people know their limits, and roads should be well kept.
* Bikes can be built very lightweight, and it's easy enough to pick one up and carry it when you simply can't ride it (such as at a set of stairs). This allows city infrastructure to have more diverse planning, and makes it easy to go off track to avoid traffic or problems on streets.
* Bikes don't produce any greenhouse gases, and have non-harmful upkeep. Cars and buses produce emissions that are harmful to the environment, and require all kinds of shit to keep them running (oil, lubricants, wiper fluid, etc) They're also smaller than cars and require less materials to make.
* Biking everywhere is great cardio, and is good for your legs. It often requires more effort than walking, burns more calories, and works your leg muscles more. And, it keeps your heart rate up, which is good for blood pressure and general wellness.
* Cities that bike are built more dense and concentrated in lockstep. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are two cities that are infrastructurally modified to promote biking, and people there seem happier and healthier. High urban density and biking infrastructure also opens up a lot of economic windows for the poor. With cheap bikes, they'd be able to get to more jobs at less cost to them, which would reduce economic inequality and spur consumption, investment, and growth.
* There's something that just makes you very happy biking. Going offroad and biking through a park is magnificent in the summer, and biking out into the countryside is a nice getaway from the city. The experience of biking is also exhilarating - your focus has to be on the whole time, so you're just experiencing everything with more urgency, and it's kinda cool to travel around the urban landscape like that.
So, I think biking is ultimately superior. Buses can obviously still be provided by those who need them, but most people should cycle. Trains are of course good in their own right too, but are not private transport that is as versatile as biking. (Of course, they should stay if they're already there, and probably expanded - to be bike friendly!) I want to hear an argument as to why I'm wrong, or be convinced of what other kind of private transport is better than biking. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Citizen's United was rightly decided, and attempts at campaign finance reform by capping donations are misguided +
+ I'm a Bernie supported and disgustingly liberal, but I can't seem to understand the arguments against Citizens United. I'm a bit busy so my argument will be short-ish and I won't e able to be super responsive.
First, I do understand that money in politics is pragmatically bad. Pointing that out won't CMV. My belief is that even though it is a bad thing, it is constitutionally protected.
Here's my reasoning:
1. Political speech is the type of speech that would be most likely to be targeted by the government due to vested interests. Because of this, we ought be the most protective of it and err on the side of overprotection.
2. Political donations constitute political speech. This is obviously the more controversial point. Political donations are a tool by which you use property you have earned to voice support for a candidate. In the same way that I can volunteer my time and labor with no government intervention, both of which have monetary values, I am allowed to donate money freely because I am using my property to make a statement. The argument that money isn't speech seems like a very restrictive standard to me. The only logically consistent opposition to this would be to contest that using property in was that make a statement doesn't constitute speech, in which case Billboards, flag burning, t-shirts, etc. all aren't protected by the first amendment, which I doubt anyone believes (if someone believes this, I'm willing to debate it and actually explain the reasoning, not just give examples).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If I don't plan on buying a brand new car or a house, then credit doesn't matter, and paying medical bills doesn't matter, and there are no real repercussions for not paying them. +
+ If I go to the hospital, and can't pay my medical bill, I understand that they bump it over to collections, and my credit score takes a hit. Collections calls me, I still don't pay, then they sell the debt to another collections agency. Rinse and repeat, eventually my debt is worthless from the lack of payments, and collection calls stop. Of course my credit is shit at this point, but I'm not planning to buy a house or a new car, so it never affects me. Or am I wrong?
I ask because I work with the chronically poor in America, and some of them have racked up $60,000 in medical bills they will never ever pay off. And they know this. But because they aren't really relying on bank loans for anything, it seems to not matter.
I've also noticed as a middle class white person, that every apartment I've applied for has explicitely told me they check renter's history, and not credit score. So not paying medical bills doesn't seem to affect that.
What am I missing?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Genres are good and being very specific with genres is a positive thing. +
+ Something I see come up a lot in music discussion threads, whether on Sputnik Music , /r/Music, or even a more niche sub like /r/PostHardcore, is that being very specific with genres is an annoying thing. This is an especially large joke in extreme metal discussions where there are multitudes of different sub-genres.
I think these are great. If you like a band with a specific sound and you want to find more bands like them your best bet is to search for bands in the same genre. Being vague or broad with genres is a great way to not find more bands like the ones you're looking for.
For example, say I like Protest the Hero and want to find more bands like them. They have a lot of influences in their style but could be chalked up into the umbrella genre of "metal." If I search "metal" I will get a *ton* of bands that sound absolutely nothing like Protest the Hero. Even narrowing it down to "Progressive Metal" still gets a lot of bands that aren't very similar, like Opeth. But if I search for "Mathcore" which is a lot more specific I can find bands that sound a lot like them.
There's no reason for the disdain of genres. No one complains about when movies get a million genre tags ([Example](http://i.gyazo.com/03027ec62e9f2efce7990a56ad3c79e2.png)) but when bands do they get annoyed and I can't see why.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I (white guy) do not benefit from racism +
+ I was born white in the USA, a country with a history of terrible racism and a justice system which is unfair to minorities. I continuously see articles like [I, racist](https://medium.com/@johnmetta/i-racist-538512462265) in which all white people are complicit in racism because they benefit from it, but that is where the argument stops. I have never seen a good defense of this argument.
Slavery was terrible for black people but it wasn’t great for white people either. Sure, a few plantation owners got away without hiring employees, but is that good for the economy?
In the Civil War, millions of people died. Segregation was terrible and it ripped society apart. People complaining about how Obama doesn’t look American miss the opportunity to talk about policy.
The justice system is in drastic need of reform. Cops, prosecutors, police unions, where to even start at how bad they are? There is an endless war on drugs that my taxes pay for. There is rampant imprisonment of non-violent felons that my taxes pay for. There is an endless ghettoization of minorities that my taxes pay for.
Do I want these things? No way! Do I vote against them every chance I get? Of course! Am I racist? Am I complicit? I don’t believe so. Let me hear it, reddit.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America should dissolve in a Velvet Divorce +
+ In the early 90s Czechoslovakia peacefully dissolved in the "Velvet Divorce" into two separate countries: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I like that they split the name evenly as well. They divided the national assets by population and want their respective ways. While there have been some hiccups, by and large both countries are doing fine.
I think America should undergo a Velvet Divorce of its own. First the how, then the why. I'd like to focus on why it's a worse outcome than the current course of the country, rather than on the problems with execution (which are admittedly huge).
The How:
Each political party designs a policy platform for their own country. Everyone votes in a "primary" referendum for the various platforms, and the two platforms with the most votes advance to the general referendum. Based on the current U.S. political situation, Democratic and Republican platforms are likely to win top-two. (If we want to do more, we can, but it seems like 3rd parties would still benefit)
In the general referendum, every state holds a vote between the two platforms. The majority decides which country the state will join.
The likely countries we'll call the "United States" and "America". These are short-hand for the more liberal/Democratic country and the more conservative/Republican country, respectively. They're likely to look somewhat similar to the last few presidential elections, though with perhaps some defectors in either direction, depending on which country the states see as the real successor to the USA.
For five years, the government plans and executes the division of itself, the national assets, and national debts by population. Anyone who wants to move from an area that will be in one country, to an area that will
be in the other, will receive government assistance to move. (I would predict an exodus of African-Americans from "America")
At the end of the five years, the USA is dissolved, its citizenship, currency, flag retired and replaced by those of its successor states.
The Why:
It's apparent to even casual observers of American politics that The USA is a nation divided, mired in gridlock. The result is a non-functional government in which no one is satisfied and major policy initiatives are tortured into Frankensteinian monstrosities to pass (Obamacare).
Americans have already begun to segregate themselves politically and we've seen a real deterioration of moderate politicians in both parties, who normally could help bridge the gap and find compromises.
This stagnation is hurting the USA both at home and abroad. Significant domestic policy challenges are going unaddressed on the federal level (climate change, loss of the middle class, deterioration of transportation infrastructure, tax reform, cost of higher education) and as a result, the USA is losing ground against other countries economically.
So instead of constantly tripping over each other, screwing up each other's plans, etc, why not divorce? The "United States" can try every left-wing wacko policy it wants, "America" can finally do all the nutbag conservative things it wants, and in thirty years, we see which country is the better for it? Could it really be worse than the partisan gridlock that is dragging the USA down?
Problems with this idea:
There are a lot, so I'll highlight some big ones on the procedure side and the effect side.
Military: Each nation would be nuclear-capable and have procedures and armaments the other side is familiar with. This means duplication of key assets (two NORADs, two Pentagons) and that new procedures will have to be developed to ensure neither has the advantage over the other. The "United States" might also suffer significance military brain drain to "America" due to the average political inclinations of service members.
World Economy: The world economy would go into recession as the world's biggest economy divides and both countries struggle with the inherent inefficiency of two economies where there was one. Especially if either side enacts trade barriers to the other.
Race to the bottom: "America" would probably remove or reduce labor, environmental, and health and safety laws that are considered bad for business, making it more attractive for capital investment. This would undermine the "United States"economy and progressive policies, as companies can get the same workers for cheaper.
Geography:
"America" would be continuous and vaguely similar to the Republican "L" of the south and midwest, with the "United States" split between the west coast and northeast. This is not conducive to the survival of the "United States" as an intact entity, I'm not sure there's a nation that's been divided into two parts that has survived very long. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The mayor of San Francisco is responsible for the death of Kate Steinle +
+ Ed Lee's continued policy of making San Francisco a sanctuary for illegal immigrants by not cooperating with federal law enforcement led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Therefore he is culpable for the murder he committed because without Lee's policy Kate would still be alive. I believe just as the Obama administration went after the state of Arizona for trying to enforce immigration law they should go after Lee for not enforcing it. In fact if it's with in the law Lee and any one else involved in Sanchez release should be charged with abetting a felon. At the very least the federal government should cut all funding from the city until they comply with immigration law. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The way women are portrayed in video games has no negative effect on society +
+ I’m a guy and I would say I agree with some aspects of the feminist movement, but other aspects I find silly/trivial. I’m currently dating a girl who is a VERY strong feminist. Over the weekend we were playing Mario Kart 64 and for as long as I can remember my go to character for Nintendo games has been Peach. There’s really no particular reason I do this other than I seem to do the best with Peach.
When I won the grand prix my girlfriend said “Ugh, I hate Peach, she’s such a weak and stereotypical female video game character.” To which I jokingly replied “Wow, that’s a SUPER sexist thing to say, and she’s obviously not that weak since I crushed you with her.” And her response to that was “Peach negatively reinforces the idea that women are weak and can only be saved by men in power like Mario.”
Then I made the mistake of saying “Well I don’t think that’s true.” We ended up getting into an argument over the portrayal of females in video games and how that perpetuates stereotypes in the real world. Her main argument was that most females in video games are portrayed as weak and need help from the male characters and this is detrimental to women in real life.
There were two issues I had with her argument, the first one being that there are a TON of badass female characters in video games who don’t need no man: Samus, Rosalina, Zelda/Sheik, Palutena, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, Ellie from the last of us, and GLaDOS (just to get a female villain in there). She shrugged this off by saying it’s still not enough because male protagonist characters outnumber female characters in video games. I feel like she wouldn’t be happy unless the numbers of male and female characters are exactly equal.
The second, and main issue I had with her argument is even if all female characters were represented as weak and helpless, I sincerely doubt there is any correlation between these characters and real world issues for women. For me video games are make believe, fiction, and stories. They’re imaginary worlds with imaginary characters. Saying the portrayal of women in video games perpetuates real societal problems for women (like pay inequality) is about as absurd to me as saying violence in video games perpetuates violence in real life, which from what I can tell [has been thoroughly debunked](http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-33466-001/). Most reasonable people realize that women don’t wear bright pink dresses, pick vegetables with faces out of the ground, and get kidnapped from a giant turtle/dinosaur hybrid.
I provided my argument, and also said if Mario’s and Peach’s roles were reversed I could seriously not care less, as long as the game was still fun. Her response was “You won’t ever understand because you’re a guy.” I tried to continue on the debate but was met with the same response every time: “You won’t ever understand because you’re a guy.”
So here I am trying to change my view, while I may not agree with the feminist issue of women in video games, I feel like I’m more empathetic than what my girlfriend is giving me credit for. Have there been studies done about the portrayal of women in video games/stories and their effects on society? Is there any hard evidence for this correlation?
| 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 currently an irrational stigma around using the search engine Bing, which it no longer deserves. In many cases, it is preferable to using google. +
+ Bing on the internet had a reasonably rough start. It launched in the period where google could do no wrong, was developed by Microsoft for the internet which related it to internet explorer -also known as the browser your grandparents use-, and spent a lot of time doing absurd and annoying product placement in movies. It quickly became the butt of jokes, and using Bing became the equivalent of having a hotmail account ending in "2000".
Additionally, there was a scandal where Bing was stealing from google, that brought on a lot of negativity.
Recently however, Bing is pretty usable. It's not markedly inferior to google, and in many ways it is better. Specifically in its video searches. The video client has a lot of great search options, and I almost always find what I'm looking for more effectively using Bing. You can try this yourself, Google "Kill la Kill opening 2" in both Bing and google, and see which one is easier to find the actual non-altered intro video. being able to preview the video in the window is a nice feature, and the video browser is especially good for porn, as it takes away the need to actually visit the specific websites and streamlines and aggregates the whole process.
In general, it feels as though Bing has become stigmatized to other things like Comics Sans, or Nickleback, which have become more "fun" to hate, but the repulsion they face is disproportional to their actual lack of quality.
Basically, I think Bing is not as bad as people say, and in some cases is preferable to Google. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Socialism/ Communism will not work in today’s society because people are selfish. +
+ Socialism and its later potential follow up Communism, are great ideas and in an ideal world would create an utopia, where everyone is truly equal and there is no gap between rich and poor, in fact there are no poor and rich. However previous experiments have shown that it just does not work due to the key concept Marx himself proposed, that in order for socialism to work, the whole world has to be socialist. In this case I would propose countries like Russia (Where I am from), China and others who attempted at doing this, but I failed. The counter argument would be that these states were authoritarian and never really had socialism. However that is the very issue, which I have with socialism, due to two reasons:
First, people are just not perfect enough to share all their work with others and live in communities where everything belongs to everyone, and nothing to them personally. That is the very reason why it later turned into a terrible state like Soviet Union, where there were no true elections anymore, corruption was high and some were “more equal than the others”. Meaning it was not the authoritarian state, which was the cause of the failure of socialism, but people’s inability to follow socialist rules, which led to the failure of the USSR in the 90s, whose system was heavily relied on Oil prices and the economy was otherwise weak.
Second of all, as mentioned before, in order for Socialism to work, the whole world has to comply with it. If for example say USA will start implementing even minor socialists norms, then other countries like China, where there is no free health care or free anything for that matter, will simply out perfume costly workers of USA and take away their jobs. Which is indeed the case with things like outsourcing and not so quickly growing USA economy. The solution for USA would then be to close itself up and live in a world where there are no imports or exports, this would protect its citizens from fierce external competition, but leave USA lacking behind in progress of all kinds. Examples for this are Venezuela or Columbia.
All in all, I still think that some elements of socialist systems are useful, like welfare for people who recently lost their jobs, paid mothers leave etc. However this are minor elements, which I think, should otherwise be implemented in fierce Capitalist society, where in order to succeed you cannot rely on gov. support, but 95 % on yourself.
| 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' economic policies (proposed minimum wage hike and income tax) are economically ill-informed. +
+ I don't really have a view on this. I confess, I am not very well-read on economics, and while Bernie Sanders' ideas seem good on paper my friends and family tell me they won't work.
The most common explanations I hear are these: a minimum wage hike would result in business closings from having to overcompensate employees, and it would cut quality in other areas. A 90% income tax on the wealthy is a punishment tax for becoming rich, and those who are already rich would remain unaffected, so it is not effective.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hiragana are superior to Kanji +
+ By superior, I mean more practical/usable as a writing system. I do not mean to argue about the aesthetics of the two writing systems.
Background: I am a weeaboo, so I elected to take Japanese for my college language requirement (3 quarters). I don't feel like I have all that great of a grasp of the language, but grade wise I received 3.9, 3.9, 3.8 so its not as if I am just completely awful at it. Towards the end of the course though, I found Kanji to be frustrating. Early on we learned simple kanji such as 一, 二, 三, 上, 下, and 中 (these mean 1, 2, 3, above, under, and inside respectively). With these it wasn't had to see how the character corresponded to the meaning. Towards the end though, we were learning kanji with many strokes to express one syllable, and I couldn't see any connection between the kanji and the word - take for example 勉強 (to study). With this, let me outline my points
1. It is easy to entirely memorize Hiragana, and difficult to do so for Kanji: There are ~50 Hiragana, and ~3000 Kanji. Just by numbers, its clear that the former would be easier to learn. Kanji characters in general being more complex than Hiragana ones compounds this issue. Even native Japanese speakers study Kanji through highschool. Furthermore I'd wager a lot of the more complex Kanji don't seem to be very tied to their meaning. This is to be expected given that abstract concepts, colors, etc are difficult to express through said strokes, but even if its to be expected, it still increases the difficulty of memorizing Kanji
2. Hiragana directly correspond to how something is pronounced, Kanji do not: This has several benefits. If you know how to pronounce a word, then it is simple to write it in Hiragana, not true for Kanji - you have to have memorized the Kanji. Furthermore, say you are reading and you come across a word that you don't know. There are two cases - either you can guess the meaning of that word from the context, or you can't. I argue that it is better if the word you don't know is written in Hiragana. With Hiragana, you can simply type out that word and search for it, either verifying your guess, or learning what word it is. With Kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you don't know how the word is pronounced from reading a Kanji you don't know, you can only search for 'your guessed meaning + kanji' and see if they are the same. If the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: Consider a sentence like "X event occured, so Y person felt ___". Without knowledge of Y's thoughts regarding X, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning isn't going to be effective.
3. While Kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming. Say you wanted to write Sunday. In Hiragana this is にちようび、in Kanji this is 日曜日. While the Kanji is 3 characters rather than 5, the middle character which replaces よう is a large number of strokes, it is faster to write the hiragana, and the tiny strokes in that Kanji make it difficult to write or read when you want your text to be small.
Disclaimer: My argument isn't predicated on any hard statistics or linguistic background (I have never taken a linguistics class, don't have the room for one in my course plan), just on personal thoughts. However, if you do have input for the argument in the form of relevant statistics, or the perspective of someone studying linguistics, then I'd appreciate hearing it. However, if you don't have
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No matter how cool Bernie Sanders seems, he will accomplish none of his campaign promises because Congress. +
+ Bernie Sanders is running a campaign on promises like free college and getting money out of politics. Nearly everything I've heard his campaign promise requires congressional action. As a congressman Bernie Sanders knows that.
From the [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-2016_n_7446570.html) : "Among the specific items on his campaign platform include establishing a $15 minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap, investing $1 trillion over five years to rebuild infrastructure, and overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision"
Each of those things requires new legislation. With 16 years in the House and 2 terms in the Senate Sanders should be familiar with the limits of each branch of government. This makes me think he knows he can't win so he is recklessly promising absurd things. When he inevitably loses and the winning candidate fails to deliver on the impossible goals he set out he can say "I would have done it differently" but we should know better. Even if he wins, he'll blame Congress for blocking his agenda. The only way he can possibly accomplish anything he promises is if 1) He wins the presidential election, 2) Like-minded democrats win a majority in BOTH houses of congress. Which, while it would be cool, is only possible in some incredibly unlikely fantasy land.
| malleable | 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 the current issue of same-sex marriage is todays equivalent to the interracial marriage issue of the 1960's and prior. +
+ To me, this is the exact same issue, just a different year. In 1967, the US passed a law which made it legal for two people of different races to marry; and just recently, in the year 2015, the US made it legal for two people of the same sex to marry.
Some of the arguments i have seen in opposition of gay marriage are:
* "homosexuality is a sin"
* "not natural"
* "erodes the sanctity of marriage"
* "slippery slope leading to marriage of _____"
* "not healthy for children"
* "goes against God"
These all seem to be the same arguments that were presented in the 1950's and 1960's when people were fighting for marriage equality between the races. So why haven't people learned anything about equality over the last 60 years?
This isnt an end all statement; but a great point. What is the difference?
| malleable | 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 water should be privatized +
+ I feel that water should be controlled by the government as a utility, and not by privet companies with shareholders to keep happy by making profits. There has recently been a push in Cascade locks, OR to sell a portion of groundwater to Nestle. After reading about it, I am not so sure it's a good idea. However, I think I understand the appeal. They have a lot of money to invest into a small town. But I am not so sure it's worth it to have that level of privet ownership of a natural resource. 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: There is absolutely no unrealistic beauty standard, for both men or women. +
+ Hey /cmv/, I expect this to be a doozy.
Basically, I see people complaining all the time about the media and their 'unrealistic standards' for beauty. And I get that the magazines will take models and photoshop the hell out of them. Okay, of course you can't photoshop yourself like a magazine ad in real life.
But go on Instagram right now and check out some of the girls on there. And I'm not talking about the professional models who use photoshop, I'm talking about the college girls who get ~~HUGE~~ relatively large followings and tons of 'likes' because they are drop dead gorgeous. The only thing they are using to adjust their pictures are Instagram filters.
I personally am friends with some of these girls, and they are just as drop dead gorgeous in real life as they are in their photos. Hell, in my opinion these girls look better than the photoshopped ads!
As a result, I don't believe there are unrealistic standards for women to be beautiful, because I see regular girls reach those standards all the time.
If you are a guy or a girl and want to be more attractive, it's very simple. Hit the gym, dress well. Done. Congratulations, you have achieved the 'unrealistic' beauty standard.
To me, it seems that most people who are complaining about these unattainable standards just don't want to put the time and effort needed to look good. And hell, I'm one of them! I'm not super jacked or anything. But I acknowledge this is my fault, so I shouldn't feel bad when all the guys in the ads are way better looking than I am.
So go ahead guys, C my V!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Kurt Cobain was the last real Rock Star +
+ With all the talk about Kanye West being the "living rock star" and what not, ive been thinking; kanye isn't a rock star, and if he is not, where are all the rock stars? What makes a rockstar is pretty subjective to me, a rockstar needs to wild, a rockstar needs to be cool, a rockstar should have his songs blast on the radio, a rockstar should have the girls want him and the guys want to be him, im thinking about guys like Mick Jagger or Robert Plant, and Cobain of course, the fact that he can go on stage and piss in a shoe and destroy his guitar, and have his songs play on mainstream radio, while all the highschoolers wear 'nirvana' t-shirts, thats a Rock Star to me. Convince me theres rockstars still out there.
Sorry for poor punctuation and grammar
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The solution to (future) student debt is not to make the colleges free, but to make them more efficient. +
+ I am seeing a lot of posts and news articles recently about lowering the student debt, most notably Bernie Sanders claim to make all colleges free. The debate seems to rage back and forth about whether this is tenable, and who would pay the cost, but for me, this seems to be totally the wrong direction.
When I went to university, out of the four years getting a psychology degree, I learned maybe 2 years of psychology. The rest of my courses were electives. In fact, I took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half. Upon graduating, I found out that most masters programs don't require you to have your bachelors in their subject, as they are basically teaching you from scratch (some will add one extra year if you are from a totally different discipline). Why can't the solution to be to push for less extraneous courses in college? It would lower the debt (less years) and allow you to join the workforce earlier.
Prime examples: Law school can be entered with any degree, Medical school requires a single years worth of prerequisite sciences and any degree, Masters of psychology can be done with any degree, Computer science Masters will require only 1 additional year if you have no background...
I feel like I am missing something obvious here. 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:Caloric balance is a shitty formula for weight loss +
+ I'm not taking issue with the science that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. Maybe that's the case, but I feel like focusing on the caloric content rather than the actual content of a diet really doesn't help with weight loss.
1)It's really hard to be precisely sure the exact number of calories in something, and the exact number that you burn. It seems far more practical to just focus on what you're eating rather than if I consume 2000 or 2200. For me prepare my own food using basically a paleo diet, seems to work a lot better than logging caloric counts in MFP ever did.
2) Reducing your caloric load without actually changing your diet doesn't modify your actual tastes. Whereas force exposing yourself to fruits and vegetables and working on the preparing of them will shift your tastes to prefer those flavors over less healthy ones. | resistant | 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 Liberal and I think illegal immigration is actually a problem. +
+ In light of Trump's bigoted comments recently making the news, I thought it might be a good time to post this. It seems like some portion of the media has the attitude that any objection to illegal immigration is inherently bigoted.
I believe illegal immigration is actually a genuine problem. I'm aware America in it's current form is a country of immigrants. I fully support legal immigration.
I don't believe the stock line that modern immigrants are fulfilling jobs that otherwise broke, unemployed Americans could not or would not perform. That idea is inherently racist when you think about it. It says one group of people are capable of performing a task that another group cannot simply because of their identity. I'm not saying that immigrants don't perform these jobs very well, but I see no reason to think that Americans and legal immigrants couldn't perform these jobs equally well.
There are plenty of unemployed Americans who aren't able to land jobs because illegal labor costs are very cheap. Companies that employ illegal labor have a significant incentive to keep this cheap form of labor in play, at the significant expense of regular Americans who want to be payed a living wage. Instead of having to pay a decent wage, these companies can get away with exploiting illegal immigrants for their cheap labor. If this wasn't allowed, if the laws preventing illegal labor work were actually enforced, there would be significantly less incentive for people to migrate to the US.
If you're in the Midwest or East, you don't really notice the amount of illegal immigration that's going on. But, if you're in the West, it's hard not to notice. Obviously it's hard to tell who has migrated here legally and who hasn't, but if you visit a Latino grocery store the size of Wal-Mart you'll notice a few things...they're all extremely busy, many of them don't speak English...which makes me think they're either visiting or have not been here very long.
Obviously this is a generalization, but it seems like every family has about 3+ kids. It's not at all uncommon to spot families with 5+ kids under the age of ten. How is this possibly a good thing? There are enough humans polluting our country as it is. Why increase the burden?
Most intelligent people have started to have less children, yet these religious people who are, on the whole, even less educated than we are, show up without decent paying jobs, take jobs that other Americans would have taken and now can't take, and proceed to have an expensive amount of children while having full access to our underfunded public school systems, our hospitals, and generally putting a ton of stress on every public service imaginable (libraries, jails, roads, landfills).
If their kids are sufficiently indoctrinated from a young age in the Catholic religion and adequately against birth control, will they proceed to have as many kids as their parents when they reach child rearing age? For every 3 kids another 3 kids? Is America not sufficiently religious as is? Do we need more religious believers strolling around attempting to inject dogma into our government/culture?
Meanwhile, since these people are showing up with nothing, their kids are often receiving the worst of the worst in terms of education and healthcare. What are the long term effects of that? Not only is the educational system more stressed with these ESL kids, but these kids aren't being adequately educated. Does America have a shortage of unintelligent people? Do we need to create more by putting undue pressure on the educational system? What are the long-term effects? How could they possibly be beneficial and not negative effects?
The media and politicians have a huge incentive to support and bend over backwards to their new huge audience, so I don't trust them to be at all honest in their discussion here.
Again, how is this possibly a positive thing? Why encourage it in the slightest? Are there not enough problems going on in America that you want to compound the problem by adding more people to the equation? More people means more complexity...complexity isn't usually a good thing because it does not make things easier. I don't see the benefit whatsoever. Let a regulated amount of the best and brightest people come here legally and get paid decent wages. Let Americans have jobs that pay decent wages.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Remote Work is the way of the future. Companies that offer little or no remote work options have an ethical obligation to explore and implement remote working flexibility for their knowledge workers. +
+ The office as we know it is a relic from a time before internet and the digital tools to work, plan, and collaborate from any location with an internet connection.
Most office jobs are already done on a computer connected to the internet, with email and different business applications. Business workflows that still involve physical papers in an office usually exist not because there isn't a complete digital solution on the market to replace and streamline the process, but that an effort to research and implement that solution has not yet been prioritized.
A great deal of office communication is done by email or over the phone. Communication which is done in person usually stems not from necessity, but social instincts from being obliged against your wishes to share a physical space during a certain time of the day as a condition for employment. If employees want to see each other during meetings or one-on-one conversations, there are tools like Skype to do that.
When office jobs only include work that can be accomplished anywhere with a laptop and internet access, and necessitate communication that can all be accomplished through email, phone, webcam, that job has the capability to be done completely (or at least partially with little exception) remotely.
To accept this premise about most office jobs, and to agree that a great majority of people would be fully willing and extremely happy about the flexibility to do some or all of their work from home or a location of their own choosing, I am left to conclude that businesses with these jobs have an ethical obligation on the part of owners and upper management to dedicate as much working time as necessary (that doesn't interfere with the company's livliehood) to researching and implementing a flexible remote work option for all personell completely or partially capable of performing their duties from any location with phone and internet access.
In 2015, company owners, directors, and mangement in a position to implement remote working flexibility for their employees that refuse to do so are probably lazy at best, and at worst are also abusing their leverage as the employer in a job market by persisting the now archaic model of the office, and are being inconsiderate towards possibly increasing their employee's happiness exponentially.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Guardian is the most objective, hard hitting, ethical and trustworthy news company/mass media organisation in the modern global journalistic landscape. +
+ Over the the last couple years (basically since Snowden stuff) I've slowly defaulted to going to The Guardian for my daily news needs. I have never been able to fault them on any of their work, and aside from few opinion pieces everything under The Guardian brand has been top journalistic work.
However, I'm well aware that holding somebody in such high regard puts you under enormous influence of their opinion, especially since media company's job is basically to convince me to think the way they want me to think. It's gotten that bad that now when I see titles of news articles on, say, Facebook often I'll simply Google the keywords and add "the guardian" and read their article instead of the original article that caught my attention. Regardless of how good The Guardian is you can hardly say you're well informed if all of your opinions come from the same source.
Some of my arguments for The Guardian (feel free to attack those):
- they seem to be the most independent news organisation with no ties to any other media conglomerates and or political organisations
- they embrace the internet and new technology
- they put journalistic integrity over any other concern; no story is too difficult or awkward to them
- they don't paywall their content and aren't even dicks when you block their ads, instead gently offering you to voluntarily subscribe
- despite being British, they tend to have a good spread of international content and don't focus on Britain only
So, please change my view that The Guardian is overall the best place to get your news.
P.S. If you don't like The Guardian, please offer alternatives. I like Deutsche Welle and Al Jazeera as well.
P. P. S. Just for the sake of context I'm Australian and I often read http://www.theguardian.com/au as well as http://www.theguardian.com/international.
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Using your mobile phone constantly when with someone is extremely rude and is accepted too much in society. +
+ If you are with a friend, family member, acquaintance, co-worker, at dinner etc, I think it is rude, awkward, insulting and shows a complete lack of respect for the other person/people's time and attention when someone for whatever reason feels like they need to constantly use their phone for social purposes when already socialising face-to-face.
I can't stand being around someone when they are (and there is always one or more of them) absorbed in their phone for more time than they are absorbed in conversation with people you planned to hang around with.
I know that they have no obligation to engage effectively in the moment with other people but when did it become socially acceptable?
I also feel that urge when there is a quiet moment to just start browsing facebook or start sending messages but I understand that it is rude to the other people I am with and consciously choose to not grab my phone. I leave it in my pocket or somewhere else whenever I am with anyone because I feel like they deserve my attention because I am with them. Obviously there are exceptions to quickly check you phone; like if you have been with the people for a long time and need to catch up on work emails or need to plan something, but I am talking about situations where the intention is to socialise.
I think it is incredibly rude- I understand people should be able to do what they want when hanging out but to take yourself out of the social situation in front of you is a waste of my time and is insulting me when I am actively being the person NOT resorting to the phone-absorption. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The terms "male" and "female" have no coherent, socially-sanctioned meaning. +
+ I should caveat that I'm talking about these terms as applied to humans -- not plants, nonhuman animals, or electronic devices.
And by "socially-sanctioned," I mean a definition broadly acceptable to the PC mainstream, such that you could print it in the OpEd section of the NYT without major media or social-media backlash.
The [OED definitions](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/female), while coherent, are trans-exclusionary and therefore not socially sanctioned:
So maybe there's a socially-sanctioned definition of "male" or "female" which doesn't reference anatomy? If you can think of one, you may CMV.
Citing studies less compelling/conclusive than mythologized by redditors, you might respond that "male" and "female" refer to the innate biology of the brain, not the body. But the studies you're thinking of identify general trends, not clear markers of a "male brain" vs. "female brain." It would be like talking about a "male height" vs. "female height." Not a very coherent concept.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Turning your head to check your blind spot is unsafe compared to alternatives +
+ I hate driving. One of the main reasons is (aside from being kind of a shitty driver myself), I feel like turning your head 135 degrees to check your blind spot is extremely dangerous, even though it's part of the standard procedure for changing into another lane. This is especially bad now that I've got a [Madza 3](http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2014-Mazda-Mazda3-Sedan-i-SV-4dr-Sedan-Photo-3.png), since the backseat windows are so high up that I have to crane my neck and can barely make out what's going on in my blind spot anyways. Also, having to turn my head to such a wide angle means there's a lot more time when my eyes aren't in front of me, on the road ahead.
I understand that it's absolutely essential to make sure there's nobody in your blind spot. But there's lots of solutions that allow you to use mirrors to check instead, among them being
- [adjusting your sideviews to incorporate the blind spot](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots)
- [buying one of these](http://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-C0400-Passenger-Adjustable/dp/B001DKT0DO/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1436313257&sr=1-1&keywords=blind+spot+mirror)
Both of these options let you keep at least your peripheral vision on the road and greatly reduces the time it takes you check your blind spot.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I won't support financial abortion unless we also set up a social safety net to make up for it +
+ Financial abortion, aka legal paternal surrender, is a concept talked about among Men's Rights groups whereby they believe men should be allowed to opt out of paying child support. This process would occur sometime after the woman is aware she's pregnant and notifies the man, and then MRAs believe he should be able to sign himself out of being the father if he desires (losing all the other rights of fatherhood like visitation, of course).
MRAs state that this gives a right to men that they lack in comparison to women, namely that women can choose whether or not they want to be a parent either by carrying the fetus to term or having an abortion.
I'm not going to argue that point here, as that's been done a million times over. I'm going to say for the sake of this post that I'll agree that men should have this right, BUT:
*Only if we also create a social safety net to help cover the funds needed for the child to have a good life. Funds that would otherwise have been paid for by the father.*
According to the UN, children have specific rights that the state must see to. The state has to make choices in the best interest of the child. If we're depriving the child of an income source, then the state has to see to it that the child is taken care of.
The best way the state can do that if the father opts out of paying is to make up for it themselves through welfare.
---
I'm going to anticipate some responses that I want to address. Yes, if a woman can't alone support a child financially, then knowing the father will opt out, she should not go through with having the child. However, it is her choice and her right to do so. I believe that people should be allowed to exercise control over their own body.
Once the baby is born it *must* be taken care of. (Trying to convince me that we shouldn't care about babies and just let them die if the mother is irresponsible will not work, sorry, I can't be that heartless.)
Also, just telling the mother to get a second job or work even more and find more income is flawed in my view, because poor single mothers probably can't take on many more responsibilities with affecting the child's life in a detrimental way.
---
CMV: either the father pays child support or society pays | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Scholarships that Are Available to People of Only a Certain Group (whether gender, religion, origin, race, etc.) are Unfair to People Excluded From It +
+ I've been pursuing a lot of scholarships and one of the things that irritate me is that there are certain scholarships that are not available to me based on my traits assigned by birth. (Male, Caucasian).
I'm not trying to suggest that I am entitled to every single scholarship and this is by no means a vitriolic rant at people who do qualify for said scholarships. But I am specifically against scholarships that rely on people of academic or athletic standing as their criteria but exclude people for not matching into the group they allow applications for. There are people who may deserve a scholarship more, based on achievement, but cannot have the chance to even try.
I'm sure that there must be a reason for this (as that's why I'm here today in the first place) but I can't find any reasoning that I can justify for such exclusion.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The tax on rich people is way too high and is therefore unfair. +
+ People always talk about how rich people (i.e. mega-millionaires and billionaires) are not paying their "fair share" in terms of income taxes. They say how the tax rate for the rich should not be smaller than the tax rate for those who are not rich. But even if there is a great disparity in tax RATES, the AMOUNT of taxes that a mega-millionaire or billionaire has to pay is still greater than the average person's. For example, an income tax rate of 10% on a person making 10 million dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 1 million dollars in taxes, but an income tax rate of 30% on a person making 100,000 dollars a year means that that person would have to pay 30,000 dollars*. Even though the millionaire has a lower tax rate, it's not fair that he/she has to pay 1 million dollars in taxes while another person only has to pay 30,000 dollars. There shouldn't be a penalty in the form of tax for people who make a lot of money; it's simply not fair. It's also not democratic because while each person only gets one vote, the richer person gets a greater financial obligation to society than the average person.
*I know this isn't how tax rates works but let's assume it is for simplicity's sake. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being obese IS a disability +
+ This CMV was inspired by this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3cfy8u/being_fat_is_not_a_disability/
I believe that being obese is a disability. Now, before you rip me to pieces, hear me out. It's a disability that a person does to themselves. It's a disability that is completely avoidable, and I think for these reason people don't like to classify it as a disability. However, I still think it's a disability because it makes it harder to perform every day tasks.
Here's a comparison that I use. Imagine you cut off your leg with a hacksaw, for no good reason. You're now missing a leg, and I would consider you to be disabled. You did it to yourself, and you could have made different life choices to avoid becoming disabled, but you are disabled all the same. You might argue that someone who cuts off their own leg obviously has some mental issues, but that could be said for a person who allows themself to become severely obese. For example, depression leads to overeating for many people.
So why should obese people be denied some of the "benefits" of being disabled, just because they did it to themselves?
And I hate that I feel like I have to even say this, but no, I am not overweight, and I do not have any personal agenda. I am honestly curious why people believe this, and I am willing to reconsider my views.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Babies do not belong at the zoo. +
+
Hi everyone! I went to the zoo with the SO yesterday (both in our mid 20's) and the amount of babies there (children under 1.5 years old abouts) was incredible. They're howling all over the place which is a no-no for most zoo patrons as it disturbs and can scare the wildlife. Why the fuck would you bother not only the other zoo patrons but the animal wildlife by bringing an infant in a place they can't comprehend or remember? I had finally had enough at the chimpanzee habitat when a baby in a stroller started screaming his head off which totally freaked out all the chimps. Chaos ensued within the habitat. It's just disrespectful for everyone involved.
TL;DR babies screaming at a restaurant is a-ok in my book. Babies screaming, freaking out animals in a "Quiet Zone" and not being removed from the premises is most assuredly not a-ok. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants. +
+ Under the assumption that you can consciously alter your wants, it seems to me that the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero. This would include departing from things as basic to the developed world as air conditioning. I don't see any benefit to wanting more material goods in life, even though I, unfortunately, still want more than I have.
This is less a moral argument than a practical argument. If you can reduce your wants to non-material desires, then the material provisions you should require to satisfy those desires should be meager; a pair of shoes, a shirt and pants to walk through park; books to read; etc.; and your life should, therefor, be easier and more free.
Again, this is under the assumption that you can alter your wants. Specifically, the capacity to want to want something -- wanting to want to exercise, wanting to want to read more, wanting to want less, etc. -- is the basis of this view point, and I'm curious if anyone has a compelling argument towards actually wanting to want more material goods.
**CLARIFICATION: My claim is NOT that "The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants to zero."** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Equal pay in sports for men and woman atheletes cannot be attained currently, due to economic factors associated with demand, not social injustice +
+ I'm seeing a lot of heat against FIFA because of the unequal pay distributed to US woman soccer players compared to men. (See this article for more info: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102811922)
Now, while I agree that pay gaps are a problem in ~~general~~ some fields, sports is a different ballgame (no pun intended). As such, the success of a franchise is dependent on the supporters who pay money for tickets, gear, etc. If we were to look at attendance figures for the National Woman's Soccer League (NWSL) for 2014 compared to Major League Soccer (MLS), we see a huge disparity in people attending games.
Of course, this translates over to other leagues. The NBA draws more people than the WNBA, both live and TV ratings. The revenue of the NFL is exponentially greater than the Independent Woman's Football League.
I'm not here to provide solutions to this, or look into why the mentality of America draws more into guy sports. Yes, I think that ladies should be paid equally. ~~I also think ladies have the ability to play all sports as good as men do, if not better.~~ And of course, ladies have as much of a right to play in any sport and play it professionally. But (and yes here comes a South Park reference) "...you can't expect people to watch." My conclusion: the pay gap in sports is a consequence of economic revenue, rather than social injustice.
Open to any replies and criticism.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The government being able to access my private information (phone calls, emails) or see where I'm going every day isn't so bad. +
+ I was listening to Radiolab's podcast entitled "Eye in the Sky" which details the work of Ross McNutt and the technology he developed originally to use in Iraq in 2004-5. The project had a silent aircraft flying around a particular city that was prone to bombing, and the aircraft would take photos of the city all day. If a bomb went off, we were able to look back at that area to find who planted the bomb, and then follow that person or group to wherever they ended up in order to arrest them. The technology was also used in Juares to solve the crime of a murdered police officer, and eventually led to a major break in arresting cartel leaders who were responsible for thousands of deaths in the city. Basically this is surveillance technology that could potentially solve crimes and save lives.
The speakers on the podcast were mostly against using this kind of technology, and it seems to be the majority viewpoint. Their only argument seemed to be that it "felt wrong" and that they would lose privacy if there was an aircraft flying around the city taking photos, and that terrible things could happen if that information was placed into the wrong hands.
I must be missing something. Unless I'm doing something illicit and illegal, what the hell do I care if the government can watch me run errands or listen to my boring phone conversations or find out how much I spent on shoes in the last year? What could they possibly do with that information that would come back to hurt me, as long as I'm within the boundaries of the law and I'm not harming anyone with my little boring life. If you don't want to get caught doing shitty things, then maybe don't do those shitty things. Why oppose a system that could make the world a better place and stop bad people from doing bad things just because it might make you feel a tad bit uncomfortable for no real reason?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Raising minimum wage to $15 per hour would hurt anyone who already makes more than $15 per hour. +
+ I currently make $16 per hour, and I can see no reason why I should support a raise in minimum wage. I have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that I can make this amount of money. I recently started my current job, and I have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary. If minimum wage were raised to $15 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain. My current salary would be barely more than minimum wage. Soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.
Therefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $15 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you are unable to make above 40k/year you are not very intelligent. +
+ My reasoning is that having under 40k sucks, it's managable, but it is a struggle. I understand 'intelligence' is a very murky word and everyone thinks they are intelligent, but in the general 'competency of life' sense of the word, if you are unable to hold down a good enough job that money is an ever present problem in your life, I question your intelligence.
Now would be a good time to exclude a few groups:
- Those who have a low income now, but are pretty confident in their ability to hit that threshold in a few years (think grad student).
- Very handy(?might not be the right word?) people, (I have a friend whose dad built an extension on his house, that's as good as money.)
- Those who could easily make a decent salary, but conciously decided that their life would be better if they made a lot less money (I have a friend that chose to work for a non-profit after receiving an engineering offer)
Obviously adjust the arbitrary 40k number regionally.
I don't mean to kick you while you're down, I'm hoping someone changes my views because this is my natural inclination and I'm sure I've made a fault somewhere (or two). This is literally the only sub on reddit that I could share something like this.
So there you have it, feel free to 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 severity of police brutality cases has been largely overblown by biased media coverage +
+ Let me start out by saying that I do not deny that police brutality is a serious issue and actions to prevent it are understandable from any viewpoint. My argument however is that the media has been looking for cases with such scrutiny that it has placed a very unfair and negative image on law enforcement as a whole. I believe it is entirely a case of the few bad apples spoil the bunch and that overeager enthusiasts have jumped aboard the hype-train breeding more antipolice sentiments than ever necessary towards all officers, causing those who are indeed just trying to do their job with no prejudice to tiptoe on glass and is actually hindering them from doing their job effectively.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Kids are expensive, they won't fulfill me in life. And I will regret having them. +
+ Hi guys! So, I'm planning on getting sterilized soon. The only reason I haven't started doctor shopping yet is because insurance hasn't kicked in. ACA currently covers all female sterilization. And I want to get it done for a variety of reasons. One being that I don't know for how long it will be covered. Especially once Obama is out of office. Since it's under the initiative he made. And also, I've wanted to get sterilized ever since I found out my mom got her tubes tied after my brother.
She was in a lot of pain since then, and blames the surgery. But. She's been feeling better lately ever since she's been treated for her depression. So who knows. Anyway, I've never liked the tubal ligation procedure, but found out about a year ago a whole world of options! Since I'm planning on making a permanent decision. I want to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone can't logic me into kids.
I am a very rational person, and only make emotional decisions when it comes to friends and romantic partnerships. But even then, there are logical undertones for choosing these people to enjoy in my life. The point is. Deciding to not have kids is a logical decision for me. I sucked at babysitting growing up. I like entertaining kids, just not taking care of them.
I have never felt that "maternal urge". I was beyond relieved as a kid when I found out you didn't have to have kids!
My view: I don't like taking care of kids. Tried a few times, been awful at it. They are ridiculously expensive, and I will regret having them.
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: Advertising should be banned +
+ Ads are everywhere. TV, Radio, Billboards, Movies, etc. But they add any value to society, IMO all the man-hours spent on advertising are lost, like digging a big hole in the forest and then filling it back in, just for the sake of creating jobs.
The only possible positive thing I can see about advertising is that it may inform a customer about a product that he may need and did not know about. But this seems to be a flimsy justification at best.
Of course, you could argue the practical limits and problematics of abolishing the advertising industry, but I'm not asking about that, but about the "morality", for lack of a better word, of advertising.
**I don't agree with any of the three points above. I am sorry that I don't have more timeto discuss this individidually with every one of you, but my views are:**
* Advertising isn't good because it informs the customer what product exists. That is a ridiculously unfair and unefficient system of informing the customer which products exist. It is not fair that some products inform more people of their existence because they can shell out more money on ads. I believe a better system could be implemented.
* Saying that you would have to pay for currently free services is not true too. You ARE paying them, with your time, by watching ads. And your time watching ads is DEFINITELY less valuable than 8$ per hour, which is min wage. So, it is much more efficient to pay for these services by selling your time to McDonalds/your current employer.
* Limiting advertisement is limiting free speech. This one is less clear. You can argue that limiting advertisement is limiting the actions of individuals and thus limiting free speech. On the other hand, by limiting the speech of big companies, we are making the speech of small companies louder, which IMO increases overall "free speech". Regardless, I have a utilitarianistic worldview, and so I don't really care much about limiting free speech if it provides more value to society as a whole.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The amount of finger pointing and agenda molding in American politics has become disgustingly inappropriate and is senselessly preventing the solutions to the real issues +
+ So this is an opinion I've had for a while, but after a recent bout of returning to watching certain news stations, it has been grinding my gears particularly of late. To me it seems that any tragic event which is deemed worthy to be broadcasted semi-nationally to nationally becomes fodder for both sides of the political spectrum to either smear the opposition or further their own agenda to a point of being disrespectful of those involved. For example: (And if there is more to this story then I apologize but I am basing what I know on what the common man sees in the news) the recent San Fransisco murder by the 6-time deported criminal. Yes I can understand how this would be a call to repair larger issues, but what I have seen so far has been nothing more than democrats pointing fingers at republicans to cover their tracks and republicans pointing fingers at the democrats to further their own agenda. All the pointing happened almost immediately after Donald Trump's immigration opinion controversy so the events wound up being the perfect fuel for fires. To me this it has almost been disgustingly disrespectful to the victim and her family to have been blasted on the news and using their tragedy to further political agendas. Along with values of disrespect, instead of actually addressing the issues at hand and working to form a solution to actually fix the issues at hand, both sides are so caught up in their own hot air that they refuse to work together and are actually being a detriment to any positive progress.
| 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 morally justifiable reason to consume animal products in the first world +
+ Given that livestock consume more water, feed, create more greenhouse gasses, and suffer throughout their lives to eventually be killed, while providing no essential nutrients* that cant be attained through plants, is there any morally justifiable reason to eat meat other than hedonism or (environmental or otherwise) apathy?
*B12 is, as many don't know, not attained directly from meat, but from contaminated water and faeces which are consumed by animals. As humans we can take the choice to drink contaminated water, kill animals or... consume fortified foods and supplements
*Iron is available in many plants and pulses
I should add that I've been a religious meat-eater for most of my life until only ~6-8 weeks ago | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The majority of minute silences are insincere and are just empty gestures. +
+ Today marks the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London. To commemorate this there has been a supposedly nation wide minute silence. While I wouldn't interrupt a minute silence I do think that they are arbitrary and not a good way of "showing respect".
Usually they are touted as a way of remembering victims of tragedies, however as someone who lives across the country, I do not know the victims or any of their family and as a result other than the circumstances in which it happened, their deaths have little to no effect on my life. Because of this, I think it is disingenuous and borderline offensive to those close to the victims for me to pretend that I am actively upset by their deaths.
In addition to this I said that minute silences are arbitrary; millions of people have died in the ten years since, some of them in similar circumstances even yet 99.9% of those will go " unremembered ". Surely by not holding a minute silence for at least the people who died in terror attacks we are tacitly implying disrespect? One could argue that it should be something carried out only in the home country of the victims which would not explain why the whole world continues to hold minute silences to commemorate 9/11.
I am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on minute silences however. For example it recently made the news that there was a minute silence in the stadium before a football game to acknowledge the death of a fan. I wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community (either his literal, local community or the community of football fans) coming together to show solidarity for someone who's death may well have personally affected many of them.
I apologise for the wall of text and any spelling mistakes due to mobile typing. Please change my view as it makes me feel like a cold and disrespectful person.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: An increase in the minimum wage would hurt only the lower and middle classes +
+ Over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of Bernie Sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $15/hour. While many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, I feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.
These company's would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it's not as if they're going to magically have more money. I understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business's, but I highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely wouldn't happen right away. Since I highly doubt the CEO or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that I can see:
The first would be to decrease the amount of employees. If approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut. While those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company's there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing.
The other solution would be for the company to increase prices (for retail/restaurants). With increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class. Practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores- the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as Walmart or Target. Even if your paycheck is increasing you'd still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck.
While ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things. I'm sure I didn't hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, I, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should really be eating less meat +
+ I decided to write this here because it's hard to have this discussion anywhere on reddit without getting low effort, kneejerk responses like: "found the vegan" and "for whatever animal you don't eat, I'll eat three!" If you're going to write that type of response... please don't.
I'll also preface this by saying that I've been a vegetarian for more than a decade. I know how off putting a preachy vegetarian can be as I know a few (in my experience the preachiest ones are usually the ones that have been vegetarian for a short amount of time or the ones that take to veganism with a religious fervour), but I will be respectful and hope my arguments are judged only on their merits. To start off:
1. I don't judge meat eaters or push people to stop eating meat altogether, but I am open to discussing vegetarianism with people who ask.
2. I don't expect the entire world to stop eating meat, all I'm asking is that we cut back (a lot).
3. I think there are situations where it is okay to eat meat, such as subsistence hunting/farming.
My responses to popular arguments I often hear *for* eating meat:
**Appeals to Nature**
1. Humans are omnivores; we evolved to eat meat. We need meat to live.
**Response**: Being an omnivore doesn't mean one has to eat meat. We are capable of surviving on a large variety of diets, some of which contain meat, others do not. The important thing is being able to meet our nutrient and vitamin requirements. In the developed world we have access to such a wide variety of foods that it is completely reasonable to be a survive on a vegetarian diet with minimal effort (and scientists agree). A vegan diet is also possible, though this diet requires more foresight and planning.
2. We are at the top of the food chain, therefore we should eat meat.
**Response**: I also have a driver's licence but that doesn't mean I *have to* drive. I would also argue that those of us living in the developed world *are not really part of the food chain* as not only does our existence not hinge on the whims of the natural world in our immediate vicinity in any way, through technology we are completely removed from whatever ecosystems we live in to the extent where we can be just fine without having to know the first thing about survival in the wild. The majority of humans in the developed world have never hunted or fished nor do they even know how to exist in the natural world without leveraging technologies to soften the impact of doing so. We also have zero predators or prey in any of our human controlled environments unless we willingly remove ourselves from these environments to go and looking for them.
Also we have an opposable thumb, the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore the ability to shape the world around us. That gives us an unfair advantage over every other species on the planet.
3. The Circle of Life (animals are jerks and kill each other all the time--why shouldn't we join in?)
**Response**: Because we're too good at it. Other sentient beings don't have the power to raise entire species in captivity and harvest them over and over again once the meat is *just right* for selling/eating ad infinitum. I think the fact that we're capable of making tools at a scale where we can basically sculpt our environments to our liking and removes ourselves from nature to the point where we can lead abstract existences that are incomphrensible to any species living on this planet comes with some responsibilities, like that we should avoid dispensing suffering upon any form of sentient life when possible and we shouldn't shit where we eat, ie: wreck the planet to the point where we can't live here anymore.
4. Vegetarians/vegans indirectly kill animals anyway, it's unavoidable
**Response**: Yes, that stupid Maddox argument has been sent to me a dozen times between 1998 and now. It is true that vegans/vegetarians are indirectly responsible for the deaths of animals, particularly vegetarians as we still eat some animal products. Does that make the diet not worth doing? Hell no! My meat consumption is extremely low as the only meat I eat is accidental. I don't believe it's possible to completely avoid the suffering of animals, but I do seek to minimize it as much as is possible.
People get too hung up on the titles "vegan" and "vegetarian". It's better to see them more as goals we should strive for or standards we should hold ourselves to, not a binary state like "believer" or "nonbeliever" that we need to cling to.
Arguments for reducing meat consumption
**Environmental**
Livestock cultivation is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases which is increasing as economies like China and India develop and the demand for meat in those countries increases. I believe livestock cultivation accounts for between 12-15% of greenhouse gases (of a total of %18 for agriculture), which is more than transportation. Also, cow farts (seriously) and animals that rechew regurgitated food are responsible for releasing two billion tonnes of methane (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere each year, which is being accelerated by rainforest deforestation to make way for more grazing land.
**Ethical**
I actually don't have a problem with subsistence hunting. I'd much rather people hunted their meat than went to the supermarket, though I recognize how impractical this would be at scale with 6 billion humans on the planet.
Factory farming causes a huge amount of animal suffering, there is really no silver lining or any way to sugar coat it. Some operations are better than others and there are some farmers that treat their animals well (as has been shown on reddit frequently), however these tend to be the exception to the lowest bidder norm, especially outside of North America where vegetarian/vegan initiatives or "free range" or "organic" movements haven't taken root yet. Here in Korea and other parts of Asia, there aren't even any animal rights laws (absolutely zero--someone could murder a stray animal and nothing would come of it).
All one needs to do is spend a few hours on YouTube looking at footage obtained from factory farming operations to appreciate the true impact that it is having. That's without getting into the inherent dangers of factory farms as breeding grounds for super viruses with the potential to kill a lot of people through meat consumption.
**Alternatives Exist**
I agree that a lot of vegan soy-based meat products suck. I always chuckle at the Ron Swanson bit on Parks & Rec where he says "please my I have another?" to the clerk offering free vegan bacon samples then proceeds to dump them in the garbage immediately afterwards.
The thing is that the alternatives are becoming better and more affordable. Companies like Beyond Meat (funded by Bill Gates) are actually trying to recreate authentic tasting meat through a new process that has results that are apparently indistinguishable from the real thing (especially chicken). In the long term, "in vitro" meat will reach a state where it does an excellent job of recreating the taste/texture of meat (eventually including fat), is scalable and ideally cheaper. The most important factors here are cost and taste: consumers will gladly eat fake chicken instead of real chicken if the fake chicken costs less and tastes better.
Conclusion
**TL;DR** To conclude, I still don't understand why this is such a controversial opinion, particularly on reddit and among my millenial peers. I'm not arguing that we should all become full on vegetarians/vegans here; I'm arguing that the entire world needs to cut back on meat consumption drastically for the above reasons. I'd really like to hear a convincing argument for eating meat at the current rates we do because I honestly can't imagine what a convincing argument would be yet the majority of people still refuse to accept the reality of meat consumption. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:"Freedom of speech only applies to the government" paints an ugly picture about how we value free speech. +
+ Legally and Constitutionally the statement "freedom of speech only applies to the government curtailing your words" is 100% accurate. This much I will not dispute.
However, I've long held the opinion that this kind of statement takes too literally, and perhaps too much demands that "freedom of speech" can only be viewed as a legal object of American culture, and rarely anything more. I believe there is a moral undertone of what it means to have this freedom, and if we create barricades and parameters for how we define that freedom, it becomes that much easier to take it away wholesale.
Now here is where I feel I have to offer a caveat:
My dissent to this statement should not be taken to mean I think people should just deal with hate speech, "fire" in a crowded theater or bigoted ideas. I think absolutely if you feel it is necessary to call out toxic attitudes, bad behavior or discordant themes that have a disparate impact on groups and individuals-it absolutely should be called out.
Furthermore, if someone makes statements or aligns themselves with viewpoints that challenges their responsibility to remain impartial in positions of power, influence or prominence then it is in the best interest of the individuals they preside over and the group they represent to let an individual capable of thinking before they speak (for a lack of a better phrase here) stand in their place.
That, however should not give individuals or groups carte blanche permission to engage in mobocracy to the point of going after the speaker's (for example, doesn't have to be verbalized 'speech') employer or livelihood, or even in some college campuses, crowding out individuals who come to attend a lecture about a topic and demand that person be stripped of the opportunity to earn a living, or collect a speaking fee from an institution that invited them to speak. I believe once an individual or group goes from challenging disagreeable rhetoric to actionable attitudes such as calling for someone to be fired from their job (again in the absence of the questionable individual making statements that damages their ability to function at that job) or be disallowed to speak in public, we're crossing into dangerous territories.
Reddit, please CMV here.
Thanks for reading.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Recycling paper is pants-on-head retarded expect for the people profiting from it. +
+
I have only one simple argument you'll find hard to beat. Why is recycled paper more expensive than virgin paper? Let's say I own a paper recycling plant and, since it's so much more energy efficient, I can blow the doors out traditional paper producers on cost. Why isn't everyone doing this?! I understand diminishing returns but why isn't the market glutted with recycled paper products? A quick trip to Walmart shows this isn't the case. See what you can get paid for waste paper and you'll get my drift.
"But, but, but... It takes more trees!" IDGAF. Apparently it takes more energy, in some form, to make recycled paper products than to grow new trees. Otherwise recycled paper products would sweep the market, blow it out. It's simple math. It's cheaper to grow trees and chop them down for paper than to recycle it.
Look, we're not using ancient hardwoods from Alaska to make toilet paper. I've taken forestry and horticulture classes. I've visited lumber sites and paper mills. These people aren't dumb fucks. They're using the land very carefully, with an eye to the future. They're rotating land and growth with 20-year cycles. We're not raping the land for wood like we used to.
Please keep in mind I'm only arguing for paper goods. Not sure where we're at regarding hardwoods, lumber and such.
Looking forward to your responses! Not sure you can CMV but I've learned amazing things here.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:While I Can't deny that Ellen Pao is a terrible CEO, the way Reddit has been treating her is not okay +
+ I was just at the apology post and pretty much every comment is at best "apology unaccepted." and at worst and more commonly "die you devil bitch!". What the hell happened to common decency? It's not like she started World War III, or committed genocide or held hostages at gunpoint. You want to know what she did she ran a website we always waste our time on poorly. Since when is that a crime against humanity? Oh wait it isn't. I'm not saying we have to like her but I'm saying this is not OK to call her devil or C**t, or wish bad things upon her or the worst has her face being posted on pornographic images that's not OK that's bullying and completely inappropriate. Would you want to be treated this way if you screwed up like her? So go change my view why does Ellen Pao Deserve all this?
| 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 rational reason for me to get married (28/M/grad student) +
+ Throwaway account, my main is used for school.
I'm 28, male, and a grad student (chemistry). I've been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful. She frequently brings up marriage and talks about how she believes I'll never propose to her, and I've told her that I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the whole concept of marriage. I would have no problem staying with her for my entire life, but I just don't understand how a ring and a piece of paper makes any difference.
Let me outline my preconceptions here: My parents' marriage fell apart due to infidelity and divorce. I watched my mom cheat on my dad, take all his money in court, and leave him psychologically damaged until the day he died. Admittedly it has me a bit scared.
Here are the benefits I often hear claimed about marriage, along with my response to them:
* More sex: We've been like bunnies for the whole relationship (at least twice a day) and honestly I have a pretty low sex drive. It's already more than enough.
* Children: I don't want kids, don't have kids, and am 100% sterile by choice. Nothing to do about it. She is equally happy to go without them.
* Added financial benefit / tax breaks: We already contribute equally to the relationship in terms of finances. We end up paying for everything about 50/50. Tax breaks? Ok, sure, but that's not going to sell me on it right off the bat.
Now here are some drawbacks I often see cited about marriage, along with my response:
* Expense: A ring is supposed to cost three month's salary?! A wedding costs over $10,000?! I'm a grad student, for crying out loud. This kind of stuff is absolutely not affordable, and even if it was it seems like a huge waste just to conform to a social norm. Paying more for a little bit of metal and rock than for a decent used car seems absolutely insane to me.
* Divorce Risk: Statistics don't lie. I have a 50/50 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.
I hate seeing how sad the thought of just being my girlfriend forever (but not my wife) makes her. I love this girl a lot, but I am also a very rational and logical person and can't seem to find the personal justification for marriage.
Please, try to change my view - and thank you.
I appreciate your time, and thank you very much.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: PC is vastly superior to console for gaming, or for any task. +
+ There is absolutely no reason for anyone to honestly believe that a console is better than PC. If you ask me what's one thing that console does better, I would say it's the fact that in games where you drive, you can choose how fast to go. (I.e. you can push the trigger as hard or as softly as you wish, which in turn makes you drive at different speeds. While with a keyboard, you can only push the button all the way or not at all. But of course, PC can use controllers, so it's a wash. But I would like to debate someone on this topic. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |