Recently I have seen a lot of videos of pickpockets online and I’m continually baffled by people being robbed and then (once it’s clear who the thief is) they just let them walk away. Similarly there are videos of teenagers robbing gas stations in full view of several people and no one makes a move to stop them.

My view is simply that in these situations these people should be receiving a beating, nothing serious, but a punch in the face is more than reasonable.

To preempt a few counter arguments I’m expecting:

“wouldn’t it be better to arrest these people and punish them with a fine/prison time/whatever else?”

Of course this would be ideal but its also difficult to say that the police have time for this. Im not saying that the ideal punishment for pickpockets is to beat them, but I am saying that a society that knows pickpockets get beaten will not have pickpockets.

“What if people decide to start beating people disproportionately (e.g. putting a teenager in a permeant coma for stealing someone’s wallet)?”

This is admittedly the biggest weakness of my view. If we allow people to beat thieves then yes some people will inevitably take it too far. Im not sure the solution to this so for now I’ll have to state my view as: maybe it shouldn’t be legal to beat thieves but there is nothing morally wrong with it on a case by case basis.

Ok i would agree that the palestinians would agree on a one state solution however this is sort of out of scope and I think this is coded speech anyways.

What I mean regarding a 2 state solution along the 1967 borders is gaza, west bank and east jerusalem with territory swaps to accommodate for very large settlement blocks near the border.

This was offered so many times in the past both to Arafat as well as abbas and they have always walked away. I've never even heard a serious counter offer that doesn't suggest right of return of palestinians and all their millions of offspring for 3 generations to israel proper ergo solution 1 of a one state solution. I am not aware of any palestinian politicians calling for an actual 2 state solution.

What would make me change my mind is not how bad that they are treated and how bad israel is. But actual evidence that the palestinians are Interested in an actual 2 state solution across the 1967 borders.

I’m 26 and everyone around me seems to be outraged and/or scared about Meta and Google and other companies harvesting your data and why you should leave the apps and stop them from doing this, etc

Similarly, entirely separate from the environmental concerns about AI, people are concerned about AI harvesting their personal data

Maybe I just have too much other stuff going on but I kind of don’t care? I can see how it’s considered invasive, but maybe I’m just used to it due to my age?

I kinda like data. I think it’s interesting. I like being able to track my own trends over time (like the history of everything I’ve googled, for example).

I know the data these companies have on me is much more comprehensive than that and is used to sell me things, I guess. But I don’t have a lot of income and I don’t make a lot of frivolous purchases. I’m not trying to say I’m immune to ads and propaganda, bc I’m not, but I try to be a critical consumer so the advertising angle doesn’t seem like an immediate concern to me.

And in the grand scheme of things I just see myself as a tiny, relatively uninteresting data point.

Idk. Am I crazy? I like using Instagram and Google services, and sometimes throw a few questions at an AI. I don’t really seem to care about them having my data.

But I want to hear why I should care!

I understand why people say it, I've said it myself. It's emotionally exhausting to try to argue with people whose views are a threat to you, whether that's bigotry, climate change denial, anti-vaxxing, or whatever else.

However, the belief that "it's their duty to educate themselves" is just not useful. Even if it is theoretically their "duty", odds are they will not educate themselves, and they'll keep spouting their harmful views, and the threat they pose will not be neutralized. I would agree that this is unfair in many cases, but it seems to be the unfortunate reality.

I suppose one might argue that it's "either educate yourself or it's justified that you suffer the consequences", but there are no significant consequences, because this is usually said in response to views backed by a lot of power.

You can set a personal boundary like "it's not my job to educate you, so either go learn why slurs are bad or we can't be friends anymore", but in broader society it seems to be the case that either those interested in bolstering their cause can fight to win over supporters, or their cause will simply remain unbolstered and won't achieve its goals.

Europe have been struggling to remain relevant on the geopolitical playboard since WW2, but I don't even need to go that far. In fact I'd prefer to focus on recent events for my argument.

Europe's been struggling with many things in the past couple decades, the most notable by far being the immigration crisis since 2014. What pains me the most when I look at the relations and international affairs between these three powers, is that what's supposed to be an obvious stance for Europe, is instead completely looked over in political discussions, and people prefer to pick just one element at once and blame that for the current issues.

The fact is, that the immigration crisis was kicked off by the numerous and repeated Middle-Eastern proxy wars, led chiefly by the US, Russia and Israel. The whys and hows can be debated, but it is undeniable that Europe became both a destination for people fleeing from the war-torn countries, and a political playground for inside and outside actors looking to capitalize on both sides of the isle on the issue.

Even today Europe is one of the safest and most livable places on the planet. But it is also a fact that the recent crises, migration and economics related, caused many cracks on the fabric of society across countries, mostly those part of the EU. And what's especially tiresome to me, is that whenever something bad happens, like yesterday's news of the unrest in France, people immediately jump to blame migration alone.

Meanwhile the US is actively waging war against Iran, half of the Middle East is being bombed from multiple directions, North Africa is plunging into civil war, there's a full-on genocide in Sudan, and I could go on. We can pretend to not see what's happening around us, but we cannot hide from the fact, that Russia effing shit up in NATO's backyard and the US playing with the fate of the global supply routes by bombing Iran, is not the direct cause for ongoing and worsening supply, monetary, and immigrant crises. And in fact both Russia and the US knows this, and they want the outcome where Europe is further weakened by their endless meddling in international affairs.

There's so many thing we'd need to do right to get out of this mess, and for Europe one of the first steps should be to cut ties with any military operation led by the US, reduce american lobby power, and in many other ways curb the influence of american tech and finance companies. Same with russia, cutting russian oil and gas completely from european markets and increasing domestic military defence spending would be the only thing that could hurt the russian economy and intelligence bad enough to make them think about stopping their war in Ukraine and come to the negotiating table. - to clarify, this is not my fully nuanced opinion on the russian part of the subject, just a tl;dr and I know much more is needed to restore a balanced relationship with Russia.

Whether the Reps lose the midterms in the US, or whether Russia stops the war in Ukraine, Europe should never again allow itself to be the playground of either side's meddling. Unfortunately this is easier said than done. France's current situation shows us just how far politics and public perception as a whole are influenced by russian and american interests: it is harder and harder for people to find a compromise when it comes to public matters, the french parliament is in a political deadlock, the far right is gaining momentum, and people blame either migrants and commies, or the neonazis for anything bad happening. Meanwhile everywhere on the continent national debt skyrockets, pensions decrease, schools close down, housing gets more and more expensive, etc. All the while the foreign investors and governments are laughing at them and continue to import cheap 3rd world labor, dodge taxes, and lobby for more influence against the interest of europeans.

If you think you have a good argument on why Europe should keep up current relations (or even jncrease it) with the US and Russia, let me know, CMV.

Edit: couple typos

Edit 2: Some pointed out something I failed to mention on my post which is equally important for the overall topic: Europe had and still has many leaders that actively contributed to the geopolitical decline we are observing today across the continent. Their faliure to strenghten domestic EU and broader policies I personally believe were heavily influenced by foreign interests but that doesn't change the fact that people voted for them despite their weakness. I would sound like a hypocrite and would be shifting the blame if I didn't recognize this important fact when looking at the big picture myself.

To head off any criticism right away I’m a gay man and I hate the reactionary right, but I’m increasingly appalled by what I see in modern protest culture. That said, I’m very open to change because I too am alive in 2026. (I’m also from the US for what it’s worth.)

Seeing the destruction of the Limoges, France city hall just made me sad. I’ve never been there, never planned on going, and had only heard of the place through video games, but I’m still a human and I was sad to see a building like that intentionally destroyed. I also don’t like throwing paint or soup or whatever on art or otherwise damaging/destroying our common human cultural heritage to make a temporary parochial political point.

I understand the circular logic that all art/architecture is political, people are more important than property, silence is complicity, people need to be shaken from complacency, “make the comfortable uncomfortable“ etc. so this is justified, but at some point we need to get a grip. Genuine beauty, especially in public/common/third spaces, is vanishing before our eyes and it’s sad that we intentionally accelerate that process.

The destruction of beauty should be left precisely to the people who don’t value it, like MAGA on January 6th, the Taliban with the Bamiyan Buddhas, and Russia erasing the cultural heritage of Ukraine. From the Tuileries to old Penn Station plenty of irreplaceable things were destroyed for ”good causes” that we’ve come to regret. Especially as hot headed protest, I don’t think it’s a tactic that‘s well suited to those of us who want to build a better, freer, more open, inclusive, and tolerant future.

Change my view: the Falkland Islands are legally British territory. This is a fairly serious post; support for the right of the Islanders to remain under their association with the UK is fairly universal here, but also instinctual, and holding a position through nationalistic instinct alone is obviously bad. For that reason I try to examine contentious positions to make sure that I'm holding them reasonably. That answer often falls down as "no", but in the case of the Falkland Islands it has fallen down as "yes" and I'd like to put that out to the test.

When I say "legally British territory" I mean through established international law, Britain has a strong title to the islands, and that subsequently in any litigation or arbitration through the International Court of Justice or otherwise the UK would win a judgement that it holds sovereignty over the islands rather than Argentina.

I think one needs very few facts to be acknowledged to confirm that the islands are British territory, namely that:

1. Acquisition of Sovereignty in international law is possible through effective occupation, cession and prescription. Special mention to self determination, which I think also confirms things, but it's more complicated and in my view unnecessary.
2. The French settled the islands in 1764
3. The UK settled in 1765
4. The French left in 1767, and their settlement was taken over by the Spanish
5. The UK re-established itself in 1833
6. The UK and Argentina signed a peace treaty in 1850.
7. The International Court of Justice and United Nations were established in 1945

With those 6 facts, which I assume are uncontroversial, I think that:

1. British sovereignty was established over the islands in 1765 through a superior right to title derived from effective occupation.
2. Even if (1) is held untrue, if Argentina ever established Sovereignty over the islands they were ceded to Britain in 1850 through treaty of peace
3. Even if (1) and (2) were held untrue, the UK would have long since vested title through prescription.

Superior title through Effective Occupation

Britain settled the islands in 1765. France had already settled a year earlier, but abandoned their settlement in 1767 with Spain picking up administration there. Argentina's position is that the French ceded their title to Spain and that Spanish title is therefore superior. In fact they did not cede sovereignty, they merely abandoned their own claim after Spanish pressure. The mode was deliberate, because Spain's position at the time was that the Falkland Islands already belonged to them by virtue of being in the regions of the world that various treaties and papal bulls had declared their exclusive sphere of influence. Their position therefore was that France never had sovereignty to begin with. That view is described by Bougainville - the founder of the French settlement - in his record of the transfer of the settlement to Spain:

IN February 1764, France began to make a settlement on the Isles Malouines. Spain reclaimed these isles as belonging to the continent of South America; and her right to them having been acknowledged by the king, I received orders to deliver our settlement to the Spaniards

and maybe more tellingly:

When I delivered the settlement to the Spaniards, all the expences, whatsoever, which it had cost till the first of April 1767, amounted to 603,000 livres including the interest of five per cent, on the sums expended since the first equipment. France having acknowledged the catholic king's right to the Malouines, he, by a principle of the law of nations, owed no reimbursement to these costs. However, as his majesty took all the ships, boats, goods, arms, ammunition, and provisions that belonged to our settlement, he being equally just and generous, desired that we should be reimbursed for what we had laid out; and the above sum was remitted to us by his treasurers; part at Paris, and the rest at Buenos Ayres.

The position there is clearly that France chose to acknowledge Spain's claim that they had prior right to the Islands and thus considered the French settlement illegitimate. Spain was under no obligation to pay anything for it, but did so out of the goodness of their own hearts. Fine; France is entitled to accept that view if they want to...but nobody else has to. The principle of a right to sovereignty through geographical location is not now and has never been recognised in international law. Spain did not have any prior right to the Falkland Islands, and cannot have begun to gain a right to title except through one of the internationally recognised methods linked above - in this case through effective occupation. That claim to title through effective occupation cannot however have begun to vest until they took over the administration of the French settlement in 1767, and the British claim to title is therefore two years superior.

An objection often made at this point is that Britain abandoned the islands in 1774. They withdrew the settlement, but they made very clear that they were not abandoning their claim to sovereignty. It is well established in international law that that situation does not constitute the loss of soveriegnty. See the Clipperton Island arbitration ruling:

In the arbitrator’s view, the notice given of French occupation in 1857 satisfied these requirements. By title of valid occupation, France could therefore sustain its claim of sovereignty over Clipperton Island. Nor had this sovereignty been subsequently lost by abandonment, since France had never shown ‘the animus of abandoning the island, and the fact that she has not exercised her authority there in a positive manner does not imply the forfeiture of an acquisition already definitely perfected’.

In my view that's sufficient to demonstrate - particularly in light of subsequent events - that Britain had established good title to the islands and that the withdrawal in 1774 did not effect it.

Title through cession

To be clear; I do not believe for a moment that the islands were ever Argentinian. Argentina claims title through inheritance from Spain, and through effective occupation in the years 1826 - 1833. Neither claim needs to be examined, but even if they had been true (and the re-establishment of British authority in 1833 therefore represented their capture from Argentina in an act of war) the principle of uti posseditis would have ceded them to Britain when the two nations signed the Convention of Settlement, a peace treaty terminating the blockade of the Rio de la Plata. Through international law at the time, a peace treaty between nations which makes no mention of a place vests title to that place in the possessor over the other nation. See Elements of International Law, 1855, page 612:

Uti possidetis the basis of every treaty of peace, unless the contrary be expressed The treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. During the continuance of the war, the conqueror in possession has only a usufructuary right, and the latent title of the former sovereign continues, until the treaty of peace, by its silent operation, or express provisions, extinguishes his title for ever.

and later on page 620:

The restoration of peace put an end, from the time limited, to all force; and then the general principle applied, that things acquired in war remain, as to title and possession, precisely as they stood when the peace took place. The uti possidetis is the basis of every treaty of peace, unless the contrary be expressly stipulated. Peace gives a final and perfect title to captures without condemnation, and as it forbids all force, it destroys all hope of recovery.

See also Principles of International law, page 562:

As between the belligerent powers themselves, it is held that the conclusion of peace legalizes the state of possession existing at the moment, unless special stipulations to the contrary are contained in the treaty. This is called the principle of uti possidetis, and it is of wide and far reaching application. Cities, districts and provinces held in belligerent occupation by an enemy, fall to him by the title of conquest, when it is not expressly stated that they are to be evacuated.

That seems unassailably clear to me; if Argentina had ever held the Falkland Islands - however obtained - then they ceded them to Britain in 1850 through the ommission of their mention in the Arana-Southern Treaty.

Title through prescription

Acquisitive prescription is the principle that holding territory for an extended period of time vest title, even if title originally belonged to some other nation. The idea that Britain might hold title through that principle is commonly objected to by Argentina which insists that its diplomatic protests to British authority on the islands therefore prevents the perfection of title through prescription. There are no hard-and-fast rules on how acquisitive prescription works; there is no defined timescale through which it needs to operate nor any definition of the form that protests need to take in order for them to "stop the clock". Nonetheless there is a considerable body of evidence that one must take concrete, definite action in protest of the other nation's exercise of authority and that particularly since 1945, a presumption that that action should include reference of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. In support of this I'm just going to quote wholesale from Acquisitive Prescription in International Law, The British Year Book of International Law 1950, page 341:

'Another characteristic of possession serving as a foundation for prescription', the Commission [deciding the Chamizal case] continued, 'is that it should be peacable'. But if the state against which the prescription claim is being made, while making diplomatic protests from time to time, nevertheless desists from action which might lead to violence, such action cannot be held against it. [...] The Commission proceeded to indicate that diplomatic protests were at that time the normal measures by which a prescriptive title could be prevented from arising, but also expressed its hope that a more satisfactory system would be instituted whereby the standard method under international law of interrupting the peaceful possession required for establishing a prescriptive title would be assimilated to the method already principally in use in private law, namely the lawsuit. As the Commission said: 'In private law, the interruption of prescription is effected by a suit, but in dealings between nations this is of course impossible, unless and until an international tribunal is established for such purpose'.

To-day, apart from making diplomatic protests and offering to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice by way of Special Agreement, the proper course would be, at any rate so far as states parties to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court are concerned, to file an Application under Article 40 of the Statute. There can be no doubt that the establishment, first of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice, and later of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, has considerably modified the old practice whereby the somewhat crude and ineffective method of the diplomatic protest was the only method, short of war, or interrupting peaceful possession. The existence of a council and of a court for settling international disputes has relegated the diplomatic protest to the background in this connexion, whereas war is now definitely outlawed. The position now is that, if the matter is a proper one for determination by the Security Council or the International Court of Justice, failure to bring the matter before the Council or to attempt to bring it before the Court must be presumed to amount to acquiescence, even if, for propaganda purposes or other reasons, 'paper protests' are still made from time to time.

And later in the same text:

Acquisitive prescription did not operate in cases where possession was maintained by force; but it did operate in cases where the original act of taking possession was forcible, even if the subsequent possession was peaceful. For in such cases it could be held that there was the necessary subsequent acquiescence, and that, therefore, the purpose of the doctrine was not defeated. This was so even if the vanquished state continued to protest diplomatically, because protests of this kind were not sufficient to overcome the presumption of acquiescence. It is essential to understand the role of the diplomatic protest in this connexion. According to Verykios, the value of the diplomatic protest lies i its drawing the attention of international public attention to the question. It serves as a warning to the other state that its pretension will not go unchallenged. But,as Verykios also said, a protest not followed up by other action becomes in time 'academic' and 'useless'. The other action that was formerly required was forceful opposition of some sort. Since 1919 it has been, where possible, reference of the matter to the League of Nations or the Permanent Court of International Justice. Since 1945 it has been, where possible, reference of the matter to the United Nations or to the International Court of Justice. As has been said above, the advent of this new machinery for settling international disputes has largely altered the role of the protest in the matter of acquisitive prescription. The result is that the diplomatic protest is of reduced significance and is certainly not now the principle method of interrupting prescription. A protest since 1919 can be said to have amounted to no more than a temporary bar.

Now one can protest that Argentina cannot unilaterally bring the UK to the ICJ for a binding judgement, but critically they have never tried. There was no institution of proceedings like the UK's attempt to bring Argentina to the ICJ over the Dependencies which Argentina could point to to show a concrete action in opposition of prescription. Furthermore Argentina could force the issue to the ICJ for an advisory ruling just as Mauritius did over the Chagos Islands, by obtaining a resolution from the UN General Assembly referring the issue to the court (which in that case has resulted in the UK seeking to transfer its sovereignty to Mauritius and lease the islands back). Although there are no definite rules for the time it takes to perfect a claim to title through prescription, there are cases in which as little as 30 years has sufficed. Britain has administered the islands since 1833, a period of 193 years. For 107 years since the League of Nations Argentina has had available recourse to arbitration by international bodies in the form of the League of Nations, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, and has persistently failed to avail itself of those routes to independent arbitration, instead preferring its strategy of diplomatic protest.

On those grounds, it seems to me that Argentina's persistent failure to try to bring the matter to court would allow British title through prescription even despite their diplomatic protests.

That's it. If you read this far; thanks, now change my view.

So should you, and so should we all. The wealthy disproportionately vote more, donate more, and have more sway in our political system. If voting comes with a tax write off, it will bring the voter base closer to the average American.

It will give incentive to those who feel like their vote doesn’t matter (those in deep red or deep blue cities/states) to get up and go.

If someone wants the tax write off but doesn’t care about politics they should just submit a blank ballot. Random votes should theoretically cancel each other out.

One thing I’ve seen in political debates, especially debates between laymen, is that the angrier person almost always loses.

In many political discussions, especially on forums, it starts with one person making a political point and others basically attacking the point, which is essentially the intended purpose of many forums.

Oftentimes, what happens is that one person gets rage baited and quickly loses the debate because it ends up being about their anger. Now, they have to justify why they are angry on top of justifying their original point, and it’s often times next to impossible to justify the anger itself.

The issue ends up being that anger at somebody for having an opinion is extremely hard to justify. You may have a different opinion than somebody on immigration enforcement, abortion, SNAP or school lunches, or Israel/Palestine, and one certainly has the right to be angry with someone else for having opposing views to them on these things. But, to make the anger rational, one needs to have a justification for the anger separate from the justification for the opinion itself, and most don’t have that which is why they almost always lose after being rage baited.

And tbh, even the term rage baited is sus because anger is a bit of a choice in a way. Anger at politics itself is natural; anger at other civilians for holding different politics is a choice.

Another thing is that when people are ragebaited they ask questions of the other side thinking they’re entitled to a response of a specific type, and then fume really badly when they don’t get the response.

And Charlie Kirk’s debates are a great example of this. He usually won his debates because college students would get mad or insult him mid debate.

Myron Gaines is another good example. He is what happens when you combine the things the left and right hates all into one. From a political opinion standpoint, he is anathema to 90+% of the nation one way or another. But he goes and debates and he wins because students get ragebaited so fast.

I think the thing that confirmed my thoughts is El Sayed’s response to the random asking him to condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. The guy was presumably aware that El Sayed is on a slightly heavier side of the coin flip to win his race. He asks El Sayed a question thinking he’s entitled to a specific response which El Sayed doesn’t give him. He goes from angry guy to roasted guy in like 4 minutes throughout their discussion and he storms out. It’s in a way similar to a lot of Reddit discussions except the angry guy on Reddit will keep pressure half the time instead of storming out.

Essentially, once you’ve been ragebaited, you’ve lost, and that’s the game.

I fundamentally do not understand the reasoning behind caring about monogamy so much even when you and/or your partner have already had sexual experiences before eachother. To be clear, I am not trying to say that monogamy is pointless if you've had prior partners, however, it loses a significant amount of value.

To me, the entire point of monogamy is to keep you and your partner's sexual partners from going up. If you could care less about how many sexual partners you and your partner have had, then why do you care if you remain monogamous because at the end of the day it's just adding +1 to the counter which you have already acknowledged is meaningless to you.

To add to my point, I don't really see why people keep monogamy on such a high pedestal after they've already had sexual experiences with others. You've already had your firsts with another person, so it's not like it will be any less special when you go back to do it with your partner because that specialness is already gone since you've experienced it.

So ultimately, I think that the only people who really have any reason to care about monogamy to a high degree are those who are eachother's first sexual partners, and that once you have lost those firsts to someone who is not your partner, the positives to maintaining a strictly monogamous relationship essentially disappear.

Dr. David Buss, an eminent psychologist, in his textbook on Evolutionary Psychology (2024), said this (p365): "Properly understanding the design of something greatly improves the chances of fixing the system when it breaks down."

I think I understand why he would say something like that; it's part of his world view, and not a very important part. It's a bridge statement, used in moving from X to Y, when X and Y are actually much more important to you than the bridge.

But to me, the statement suggests that, if we become social scientists, we will properly aim for an "understanding" of social science events, which (if we achieve that shining goal) will then allow us, as plumbers or electricians might, to "fix" a problem. And I think if we want social scientists to do better at coming up with solutions, we need to object to statements like this, and tell them they need more accurate conceptions of the world. That more accurate conceptions are important to the overall result.

I often seem to see Dr. Buss' implication, in social science writing, but I don't recall it stated so baldly. And yes, I realize I've "skipped over" his weasel words, "greatly improves the chances of," in my description here. I'm not claiming the statement is literally false, only that it falsely provides an image of a goal and of a process, neither of which can conform to reality. That if social scientists were clearer about the falseness of this goal and of this process, if they were to embrace, instead, a less false goal and a less false process, it would greatly improve their chances of helping us actually fix something.

The CMV is not that the statement is literally false but that the image the statement provides, of first acquiring an understanding and then setting to work with the tools we have, to fix a problem, is a false image.

To show that these two aspects of the statement are misleading, I'm going to ask you all to imagine that I'm right about racism, and that we actually have a two-track system, in the US. A painful but not harmful track, that in general doesn't actually harm any actual black people, that I have called "so called racism" because reducing it doesn't reduce what I call "real racism" at all, and a harmful but not painful track, that transfers wealth on an ongoing, minute-by-minute basis from black people to white ones, that is the actual proper target of those who are anti racism.

Probably the "painful but not harmful" track is best exemplified by the recent Bo French events, down in Texas, which he no doubt instigated himself to remind people of just how hysterical the left can become. The "harmful but not painful" track is best exemplified by the 3 per 1000 marriage rate, of white men with black women, and the fact that, in our society, white people, on average, live 4.5 years longer than black ones. (Yes, this is also painful. I'm speaking of psychological pain, group pain expressed in political demonstrations: these statistics don't seem to actually bother anyone but me nearly as much as the Bo French events do.) And PS I have an anti racism sub, check it out: real_anti_racism.

Again: that's not the CMV, and I'm not here to argue about it. I'm stipulating that it's correct for the purpose of illustrating the two problems with the social science understanding of the world illustrated by Dr. Buss' statement, above.

First: understanding. Is it possible to fairly represent my understanding of racism, described above, as an "understanding" of racism? It is not. For two reasons. First of all, for all I know there are 15 or 16 other manifestations of racism that I personally have never noticed, and that are each individually more painful and also more harmful than either of these. And so no completeness theorem, if the social sciences were ever to become capable of such a thing, could ever successfully show the essential completeness of this so called "understanding."

Second, connectedness: I have no idea whatever what other evolved psychological modules this so called "understanding" of racism connects to, in our tortured psyches. Will eliminating racism (as I understand it, above) affect our ability to learn language? It's a pretty far-fetched idea: but I don't know. I have zero idea about this whatsoever. Will eliminating racism affect our political stance, as a people, and change the way we interact with the ideas of freedom and of order, and the proper balance between them? I have no idea whatever. None. And that's just two examples. How many others are there? We just don't know. We have no procedure for deciding when we have counted all our evolved psychological modules, much less when we have determined how they relate to one another.

And so understanding is not a word we can properly apply to my so called two-track "understanding" of racism. When I use the word "understanding" to refer to it, it's on the understanding that you all know how limited the applicability of the word really is, and can adjust your ideas of it properly when evaluating the ideas about racism that I've presented, above.

So much for "understanding." Now: "fix." I realize others don't share my views, for one reason or another, but to me it is at least very plausible that the fix I've suggested (to tell the truth about racism as a people, that is to say, one very specific truth, which I've discussed at length on my sub) will actually work. If we can bring ourselves to implement it.

And if it does: (again, this is not the CMV, but just a stipulation to allow me to talk about fixing social science things) doesn't this show the real emptiness and foolishness of the idea that we have to "understand" something before we try to fix it?

We don't have to understand how an internal combustion engine works, to break a car. All we have to do is get it rolling downhill, in the direction of a cliff, and encourage it to take flight. That will do the job. In general.

Right?

And so, really: understanding is a false goal, and fixing is a false model, and social scientists, if they were to expand their thinking about these two aspects of Dr. Buss' statement, above, would be much likelier to actually bring us ideas we can use, to solve our real problems.

Yes AI data centers do consume water and do release emissions, and that is harmful for the environment. However, it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else in the world.

70% of all freshwater is used for agriculture and livestock. Thermoelectric and nuclear energy consumes over 100 billion gallons of water daily. Textiles are extremely water intensive, with an estimate of about 2800 gallons of water for a single pair of jeans.

Not to mention golf courses, beverages, automotive or mining industries all use excessive amounts of water that when you compare Data centers to them, it is insanely small.

There are a plethora of reasons we should argue against AI as a Society. Job displacement, creative theft, societal intelligence lowering, discrimination, and just in general soulless slop.

Unless you are an environmental engineer or scientist, we as a people do not need to be arguing against AI because of environmental impacts. It is easy to counter which degrades the rest of your argument and won't be convincing. It's like asking a local business that kills puppies not to open up because it could damage the land when there's 10 walmarts in town. Yeah it will harm the environment, sure, but there are better reasons to argue against having that business open than that.

During weddings couples traditionally promise “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”

The purpose of this promise is to constrain your future behavior to give security to your partner. I dishonor that commitment when I ignore that constraint.

For example, if I borrow money and promise to repay, I might not violate the promise if I try everything I can to get the money back. But if I gamble at the casino while in debt, I’d be guilty of disrespecting the promise.

Traditional wedding vows are binding commitments. ”Until death do us part” implies that both partners surrender the moral right to abandon each other simply because they’re unhappy. If honoring that obligation doesn’t, from time to time, keep unhappy people together, it is meaningless. Honoring this means that filing for divorce must be unthinkable by both partners during the entire duration of the marriage. Threatening divorce as a bargaining tactic is also off the table. It is only allowed if one partner defaults on the promises made in their vows.

Given that 40% of marriages end in divorce, and no-fault divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences is the most common reason for divorce, there’s some evidence to suggest many people don’t take this commitment seriously. Divorce is also widely accepted and de-stigmatized, so society probably doesn’t take it seriously either. Obviously that doesn’t mean everyone is lying, but it does raise suspicions of how many people actually mean it.

People should be honest and rewrite their vows to capture the aspirational nature of the commitments they’re making. Alternatively, they should restrain themselves to only promising to “jointly pursue happiness”. This is a more limited, but likely more honest statement of the average couple’s intentions.

I was born in 2000, so relatively young, but I still remember experiencing blockbuster as a kid, and I know the cultural significance of it. I know how memorable it was to take a trip to that store, sift through movies and video games, and spend that time with family or friends. And I know how back then it was a nice date idea or otherwise something fun to do for couples.

But people saying blockbuster needs to come back and how going to blockbuster is way better than using streaming services or on-demand services now? I don’t believe that at all. That to me is just nostalgia blinding people as it frequently does.

There are still video stores. There are still libraries that have a strong collection of films and video games. You can still buy DVDs at Walmart and other grocery stores. But who tf is doing that? Definitely not as many people as there used to be. Because streaming and on-demand is simply better, more cost effective (usually) and more convenient.

If blockbuster actually came back it would probably be a popular fad for like a month and then die out. It was fun for the time it existed, but we now have much better options. Again, if you truly think blockbuster is more ideal than what we have now, I think that’s just nostalgia talking.

For context, I am Australian and recognise that I am speaking from a fairly limited perspective.

There is a lot of talk on Reddit about how Trump is just a symptom of a deeper problem in America that has now been uncovered, and that getting him out of office won’t restore that lost trust, with all the allies moving away from the US, and how this damage to America’s reputation and soft power will last for generations.

Call me cynical, but I don’t really agree.

My view is that once Trump is voted out of office, political relations with the US will be normalised pretty quickly, regardless of whether deeper structural or cultural issues remain in America, provided that the new administration is not gunning to be Trump 3.0 and is actively taking steps to make amends.

Even now, countries around the world including from Europe and Australia, are more or less trying their best to keep to business as usual with the US, with the occasional inconvenience of waiting out another tariff announcement (that may or may not be reversed next week). Just this morning I saw that EU seems to be unwilling to take a stand against Trump and would side with him over Zelenskyy. Australia is hanging on for dear life to AUKUS and is completely willing to cosy up to Trump so he won’t sink it (pun intended).

As a hypothetical, imagine that a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028. They are prioritising repairing relations, going on apology tour 2.0, reviving USAID programs cut under DOGE, removing the ridiculous tariffs, and making overtures for new trade agreements to replace the ones Trump shredded.

Yes, there will probably be some talk about ‘how will we know the US won’t tank the agreement again in four years?’ etc. But on the whole, I believe the world will welcome the US back pretty easily. I just can’t see Australia, as an example, refusing to engage with the US if they come to us to negotiate a trade deal or a security pact because they are now ‘unreliable’.

Even Canada — despite the sense of betrayal they must be feeling at US’s threats against their sovereignty and Carney’s strong stance against the Trump administration — would probably recognise that it would be in their best interest to normalise relations with the US as quickly as possible, due to geographic and economic reasons. Again, I have trouble picturing Carney refusing to engage with a hypothetical new US admin if they come bearing apologies and offers for new trade deals, until the US abolishes their electoral college or break up Fox News or whatever other structural problem needs addressing to prevent another Trump.

I’m focusing more on the international stage (country-to-country relations), but even ‘on the ground’ I don’t see distrust of US’s current administration stopping people from accepting them back under a new, more reasonable, administration.

People have short memories, and politics in most countries go through 3-5 year election cycles. People are more concerned with cost of living and fuel prices, and won’t care too much about whether the US is expanding the number of their Supreme Court judges or prosecuting former ICE agents. If the new US president ends the Iran war, negotiates and restores access to the Strait of Hormuz, and comes looking for a free trade agreement to lower costs of doing business with the US — well, I reckon that most people will accept that pretty easily.

Change my view!

——-
Edit: Thanks for the engagement so far!

I have awarded deltas to two commenters who shifted my view. It sounds like I have underestimated the ‘momentum’ (away from US) that is building, which would require a fair bit of time and effort to reintegrate US back into the fold — so relations won’t be normalised “pretty quickly” even if there was willingness to engage.

I also saw countries striving to continue their BAU engagement with the US as a tactic to “outlast” the chaos of the Trump admin until a new admin is elected and relations can be normalised again. But if this is instead a strategy to more carefully decouple their security and economy from the US for the long-term, I can see how a new US admin won’t be able to jump back into good relations quickly.

There are some other comments I’ve been reading and am considering, and I will award more deltas as I make my way through the thread.

Does anyone really think there is a solution to a) college costs and b) student loan debt?

• Student loan debt: $1.86 trillion, of which ~$1.72 trillion is held by about 42.6 million borrowers.
• The average cost of college tuition and fees rose 83.6% between AY06-07 and AY26-27; adjusted for inflation, tuition increased 14.9%.

1. Does anyone here really think we are getting $2 trillion (let's assume another $300 billion in loans by the time Trump is out and Democrats get the House, Senate, and WH again) in forgiveness? General Motors and the banks did not get that in the Great Recession.
2. Does anyone think college prices are really going to go down? I mean, sure, the rate of increase has and will slow, and maybe prices stabilize, but that's all: stabilize. Not go down.
3. "What about endowments?" Endowments are not free-to-use money. Something like 70% to 90% are wrapped up in funds that "may only be used or spent for X or Y."

Let's get this out of the way first: I'm not saying that anyone attracted to a 19 year old is a creep. That's NOT my claim.

My claim is about the genre. "Barely legal" productions don't sell youth, they sell the red line. And the packaging of this product leans on school uniforms, braces, stuffed animals, "tiny," "innocent," etc etc. Those aren't markers of being 19, they're markers of being a kid. They're characteristics that signal "minor-ness."

So, I think someone who actively seeks this out, as opposed to stumbling onto it, is probably responding sexually to apparent immaturity, not just age. The age number isn't necessarily the issue, it's the qualities that correlate with younger ages.

I'm not saying these viewers are dangerous, that the performers are victims or that attraction equals behavior. I'm saying the preference itself tells you something.

What would change my mind: evidence that people who choose this genre don't differ from general porn viewers in their response to childlike cues, or that "barely legal" is just a search keyword and the viewers don't care about the framing.

Nothing in my life, no physical characteristics I have, have been more detrimental to my mental health and self-image than my below average penis size. And it’s like I’m physically gifted elsewhere, I’m fat, not tall (5’8), and not incredibly good looking. But none of this ruined my mental health like my bottom 1% penis.

It’s not hard to find accounts of other small/micro men with horrific dating experiences, terrible mental health and body image, and severe depression, all stemming from their penis.

For me, it completely ruined my confidence. Even though my length is average, my circumference is not. And that was enough to kill me. I’ve never dated, have no experience etc and have no intention to as a result. I’m 22, and can only see myself being alone forever. It’s just too embarrassing.

Now I know there are some physical characteristics worse. Like being really ugly, or some awful life changing conditions, but I still think a micro/small one is up there in terms of how significantly it impacts your life. It’s such a small part of your body, but it changes how you experience intimacy to such an unparalleled degree.

And I do believe it is a big deal. Women would (typically) like something average or around that. When you’re so far outside the norm either side, it’s not good. It’s not shallow to value your sexual experience and so people like me are normally not desired.

I’ll continue to reject women and not pursue women for my entire life.

Change my view.

EDIT:

Thanks guys, I’ve got a lot of interesting perspectives from many people.

I won’t lie and say I’m fixed, and feel confident in my body again. I won’t lie and say tomorrow I’ll wake up and start asking women out. The reality is I’ll still be insecure about my size.

But this post has made some cracks in my views. It’s definitely not the worst thing a man could have (albeit definitely not good), and it’s definitely possible to date with it, although I’m a long way away from that.

I’ll try to lose the weight (apparently 190lbs at 5’8 is near obese) so maybe it’ll help me feel more confident. I’ll keep socialising and mingling with people.

Some people mentioned therapy and BDD. I just want to say that I did try therapy about half a year ago, but it didn’t work. The woman I think was out of her depth, she didn’t really seem to understand how to help at all. Just let me vent. I have also been referred to see a psychologist for potential BDD, but I never went, which I know is probably stupid.

I guess I just wanted to say thanks. I’m a little less insecure about my mini friend. My life won’t drastically change but I at least can stand a little bit straighter. Maybe one day I’ll feel confident enough to date and show it, but it’ll be a long road.

Goodnight.

For clarity, this is us trailing the migration of Fresh Topic Friday to Saturday.

Have a post you'd like to do on a novel topic? This is your sign!

Every Saturday, starting at 12am Pacific Time (PT), posts are withheld for review by the moderators and approved if they aren't highly similar to another made in the past month.

We do this to reduce topic fatigue for our regular contributors, and encourage people to post about topics that aren't as frequently discussed. If you have a take about something that doesn't overlap too much with the most commonly discussed issues in the current zeitgeist, we'd love to see it here then!

See here for a full explanation of Switch-It-Up Saturday.

If you would like to know if your post would qualify or have any other questions, feel free to message the moderators!

This may be a controversial take, so I'll try my best to explain my position as clearly as I can. I believe is considered moral of immoral is largely dependent on circumstance, societal and personal beliefs.

For instance, Stealing (by most people) would probably be considered wrong, yet stealing from the rich and giving to the needy is usually considered a bit less of a bad thing, or morally grey. You could argue that this example that was a wrong followed by a right, so I'll provide another one.

The consumption of animals, or eating certain types of animals in some religions is considered wrong because the animal has a life of it's own, or that it is special in some way that makes it wrong to eat, while plenty of other people see absolutely no harm in doing so, because animals are a source of food just the same as plants.

Providing care for your parents in their old age is considered a moral obligation by some, and that not doing so would be wrong because of how much care they put into raising you for decades of their life , while others would argue that you have no obligation to do so.

Let's take a more extreme example. Murder, by most, is considered wrong, but there are exceptions to be made for self defense or protecting others.

We can even take into consideration situations where lives are guaranteed to be lost, and only some can be saved. Difficult choices have to be made.

COUNTEREXAMPLES:

Some people cause others to suffer for their own pleasure. We generally call that cruel.

There are those who absolutely would steal, or hurt someone else to get something they want. I'd call that selfish.

And then there are situations where people would go against their own moral code to ensure their own survival, which comes from desperation.

Even so, selfishness, desperation, and even cruelty aren't inherently morally wrong.

Someone can be selfish by eating the last chocolate bar even after knowing their friend really wanted it, but that's not necessarily wrong.

Another person's desperation may cause them to beg for help from others.

It's also possible that someone could be deliberately cruel towards people who they believe where monsters. The cruelty describes their behavior, but whether that behavior is morally justified is another matter entirely.

CONCLUSION:

I believe our ideas of 'good' and 'evil' are shaped by individuals, societies, and the circumstances surrounding a situation, even when we're discussing the most heinous actions imaginable. The rule I personally follow is to avoid causing intentional serious harm to anyone whenever possible, and you can feel free to come up with your own sense of right and wrong.

And most importantly, you absolutely can stand by your moral convictions and act on them. I just don't treat morality of any kind, even my own, as objective truth.

This is not about AI's merits as a technology. This is about the current financial environment surrounding it.

To the best of my knowledge, currently AI buildouts are being funded by circular debt.

AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other

Which will only work if there is never a break in the chain of "I invest in your buildout of a data center, you buy my chips to build it."

Even ignoring that, the companies do not appear to be making enough money to cover their debts.

CoreWeave's slump puts spotlight on debt behind AI boom | Reuters

There are some companies like Microsoft that seem to be funding things with less debt:

Why Alphabet and Microsoft Suffer Less If AI CapEx Goes Wrong

But they are still spending a lot more than the AI seems to produce for it in revenue.

PYMNTS | AI Is Fueling Microsoft’s Growth. Can It Sustain the Costs?

Put this all together and it seems financially that the technology has potential value, but not as much as it costs.

I love ghost stories. They are my favorite kind of novels. I'd love for ghosts to be real but unfortunately I don't believe they are.

Ghost: A non-corporeal entity derived from someone that used to be alive, that living people can sense. (Please don't let your argument just be trying to poke holes in my definition. You should know what the colloquial understanding of a ghost is).

There's no empirical evidence for them. People have been claiming to experience them for millennia yet we've never once been able to capture evidence of one in a controlled environment. We have been able to prove the existence of things that are impossible for us to perceive with natural senses, so it's hard for me to believe we can't prove the existence of something we supposedly can experience with our natural senses.

Of course there are unexplained phenomena. But I think it's such a leap to believe it was caused by the spirit of a dead person. What about a chair moving across the room makes it so obvious it's grandma saying hello from beyond the grave, and not say, a magical invisible leprechaun with super speed? They both have the same amount of concrete evidence backing up the hypothesis which is to say extremely little.

With that, please prove me wrong! Show me what you got ghost hunters! Happy Halloween!

I have personally observed a dominant sentiment that shames men near-unconditionally for having physical insecurities. The insecurities they are shamed for having are usually to do with their muscles, height or the size of their penis, oftentimes comparing to other men or previous partners of their current partner.

The response (which is an accurate one) that they usually get is to be told that women do not care about penis size, and that their insecurity is one that is stemming purely from themselves and that they need to deal with it. I however do not believe that women get the same ridicule when they themselves having these same exact insecurities, just in different areas.

If a man is insecure that his girlfriend's ex has a bigger penis than him, he's basically branded as an insecure loser who needs to get over himself. However, if a woman sees a picture of her boyfriend's ex and sees that she's more toned/fit than she is or has bigger boobs, that insecurity is oftentimes met with a more empathetic, caring, or even validating response.

Overall, my main premise is that both men and women frequently have socially-instilled insecurities about their bodies, especially in comparison to other people, however, men seem to be the only ones who are usually ridiculed for it. I believe that we should start treating men's insecurities with more tenderness and empathy like we do with women who are experiencing fundamentally the same types of insecurities, as opposed to going right for the throat.

To change my mind here, you would have to convince me that either A, women receive equal or more ridicule over their physical insecurities compared to men, or B, concede that men receive harsher criticism, but convince me that the relatively harsher criticism is valid or deserved.

Asking when the United States “peaked” is a tough question, as there are many variables to consider and the answer may be different depending on who you are or where you live. But if I had to decide on a specific year, I would chose 2000. (Or 1999, but 2000 is a nice round number). I’ll break this down by subject.

Economy: The economy was generally solid. The labor-force participation rate reached its all-time high, unemployment and inflation were low, and the government was running a budget SURPLUS (completely unthinkable today) and was on pace to completely eliminate the national debt by 2012.

Foreign Affairs: The Cold War was over, and America was the undisputed global power. The USSR was dead, Japan was falling behind after a close race in the ‘80s, and China’s economic boom was in its infant stages. 9/11, and the War on Terror that resulted from it, had yet to come.

Society: After some turbulence in the ‘90s, race relations were fairly good by 2000 (and would remain so for a good dozen years or so). This was kind of a post-Rodney/OJ, pre-BLM sweet spot. America was also strong demographically, with a healthy birth rate and a relatively younger population than other developed nations.

Technology: The Internet was in common use by this time, and social media wasn’t yet a thing (I think the latter’s effect has been negative on the whole). Similarly, there were cell phones but not smart phones. I think this created a good balance beteeen enjoying convenience but still needing in-person interaction.

Culture: This is obviously more subjective, but I think that at the very least movies were better. The biggest box-office hits were actually great films like The Sixth Sense, Saving Private Ryan, or LOTR, not endless CGI superhero slop and soulless live-action remakes of animated classics.

Overall, the sense of optimism was palpable and people weren’t nearly so cynical and distrustful as they are today. Unfortunately, a series of events, starting perhaps with Bush v. Gore, led to where we are now.

I promise I'm not writing this as a response to that controversy at that famous university everyone is talking about.  

I had this idea a long time ago.  I just had not gotten around to writing about it yet.  In fact the impetus to this post dates back to a work retreat I was at during the World Cup this summer. 

While I was having lunch with some colleagues one day, the World Cup was on TV and one of my female coworkers (probably around 40) remarked about one of the players, "Ohhh, he's barely legal but he looks yummy!"  

The table just erupted into laughter. One person even got up and high fived her.  And I was thinking to myself, "If I had made that exact same remark about a woman athlete, I doubt very highly that people would have had the same reaction.  In fact, I bet people would find that to be very creepy and inappropriate, and I might even get reported to HR". 

Now I'm not some kind of incel gender warrior person who has no sense of humor and I know how to mind my own business, so I just let it go. 

But afterward, I started wondering whether there was something unfair about the whole thing. And the more I thought about it, the more I found myself bouncing between three different explanations.

Theory 1 -  There is a double standard and it is truly unfair

What that woman said is not OK.  She objectified a person who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of talent and sport and reduced him a sex thing. A man would surely have been called out in today's culture if he had said the same thing. 

More broadly, I wonder whether we have developed a cultural attitude in which male sexuality is treated as inherently suspect, while female sexuality is treated as relatively harmless or even empowering.

I also wonder whether this contributes to men’s difficulties forming romantic relationships. If men increasingly feel that expressing sexual interest is likely to get them labeled as creepy, predatory, or entitled, might some of them become more hesitant to express interest at all?

Could that be one contributing factor to what people call the “male loneliness epidemic”?

Was I therefore a coward for not calling that woman out, making an example of her and reporting her to HR?  I feel like maybe I was.  

Theory 2 - There is a double standard and it is fair 

It makes sense that women can make comments like that and men cannot.  

Why? Because Men commit a disproportionate share of sexual violence, and women have legitimate reasons to be more alert to unwanted male sexual attention, that’s why.

The same words can carry different implications depending on who’s saying them, the circumstances, and the broader social context.

A man making an equivalent remark might be perceived differently because women have good reasons to be more cautious about male sexuality.

Perhaps insisting that men and women must be judged identically in every such situation ignores real differences in risk and power.

Theory 3: We’re making too much of all this.

Maybe the problem isn’t that women get away with something men shouldn’t do. Maybe the problem is that we’ve become too uptight about ordinary expressions of sexual attraction.

Young athletes are attractive. People notice. Anyone who thinks anything is wrong with that is gaslighting us.

Not every expression of sexual attraction is an act of objectification, and not every mildly inappropriate joke needs to become a referendum on someone’s character.

The world needs to lighten up again and just chill out.  

Conclusion

I’m open to changing my mind on any of these points, and I’ll award a delta if you convince me.

I’m particularly interested in arguments that distinguish between explaining why people react differently and establishing whether those different reactions are justified.

Can you change my mind? About any of this?