While yes you can access the website from Germany, while yes there are Japanese subreddits, and yes you can post in whatever language you want, complaining that reddit is too focused on America seems a little odd to me.

Reddit was founded by American college students and its headquarters is in San Francisco. It would be like me complaining that a forum from China speaks too much Chinese and is too focused on China. It makes no sense to me. Just because Reddit is a large website doesn't mean it has to cater to everyone, just like every other website in existence, it doesn't need to appeal to everyone if it doesn't want to. Whether they should is a different story and is up to you, but in general I think its odd to see this as a problem that must be fixed.

Edit: I know debates don't actually change people's perspectives. Given this, I think Walz will be seen as the winner.

The Vice Presidential debate is coming-up soon, and I can't see a result where Vance is seen as decidedly winning the debate.

This comes down to two main reasons: experience (where he can defend his ideas) and public speaking (where he can criticize Walz's ideas).

Vance has been servicing in government for a year and a half now, while Walz has been in government for 17 years. Walz is also 20 years older than Vance (without being so old that it's a problem). Presumably, Walz will have a firmer grasp on policy, as he's been in government for so much longer.

Vance could make up for this by choosing to attack Walz's record instead, but he's going to have a hard time doing this. Between the two, Walz is the better, more natural public speaker.

If you watch Vance meeting with people, or speaking at a rally, he not a naturally personable candidate (awkwardly ordering donuts, joking that Mountain Dew is now racist to a confused crowd). This isn't inherently bad for a candidate, but the way he is going about it is hurting him. He's trying to be brash and insulting like Trump is, but it doesn't work nearly as well. I've never seen his base lauding Vance unless he's being lauded with Trump as well from what I've seen.

Walz on the other hand is a more natural speaker. He portrays himself as a loud coach, which is exactly what he is (fine, assistant coach). His public speaking and his interpersonal interactions come off as a lot more natural, which I think will serve him better in the debate setting. When he was announced, he received a ton of praise from his base for how personable he is.

Given these two shortfalls, I can't see how Vance will have a chance at winning this debate. It's going to be extremely difficult for him to play both defense and offense.

Am I missing anything? Am I off-base for either candidate?

It seems to me that most politicians these days try to win by riling their base up to show up to the polls. This encourages unrealistic promises and vilifying their opponents with shock and horror stories. But what if participation was a given?

If all Americans were obligated to show up, politicians would have to try appealing to the middle more to stay relevant; if they didn't, any candidate that focused on their base would lose the middle to more moderate candidates. Divisive rhetoric and attempts to paint the other side in a negative light would be more harshly penalized by driving away moderates.

To incentivize participation, I would offer a $500 tax credit for showing up to the polling place and successfully passing a basic 10-question quiz on the structure and role of various parts of the American government. Failing the quiz would not invalidate your vote; it's purely there as an incentive to be at least vaguely knowledgeable about the issues. Failing to show up to the polling place or submit an absentee ballot would add a $100 charge to your income tax.

EDIT: To address the common points showing up:

• No, I don't believe this violates free speech. The only actually compelled actions are putting your name on the test or submitting an absentee ballot.
• Yes, uninformed voters are a concern. That's exactly why I proposed an incentive for people to become less uninformed. I welcome reasoned arguments on the impact of uninformed voters, but you're not the first to point out that they're a potential problem.

I'm a dad to one girl. She just started preschool this year. So far, they've had two themed weeks wether where each day, the kids "get to" dress up in a certain theme "if they want". I get it's cute and it's supposed to help bring the kids together. But damn, I'm this economy, it's tough trying to keep up with all these themes and buy her clothes she's only going to wear once. Of course, she wants to be included, like all children do. I'd hate to leave her out because I or her mom can't afford yet another 5 new sets of clothes. And, I know if I'm struggling to keep up and so is her mom, then we aren't the only parents struggling with this. I feel bad for any kids whose parents can't afford it and end up being the poor kids left out. That has got to have negative long term effects and further divides the haves from the have-nots.

I know there are used clothes and whatnot. Luckily, my family is huge and there are always hand-me-downs, but there aren't always those clothes that fit "bikers vs surfer" days or whatever.

We need to do away with these themed weeks and just focus on learning and treating each other well. Maybe I'm missing something or worrying too much that a kid will eventually get bullied or singled out for being poor.

Let's see if you can CMV.

It's a banger no doubt, but in Carrie Underwood's smash hit Before He Cheats she utters the utterly backwards line:

"I might've saved a little trouble for the next girl / 'Cause the next time that he cheats / Oh you know it won't be on me."

This makes no sense. What trouble is being saved for the next girl if he, according to Carrie, will cheat again (since "the next time that he cheats" implies it WILL happen again)?

If the "trouble" is the cheating itself, then clearly Carrie has saved this next girl from nothing, since he will cheat on her too. And if the "trouble" is all the work of fucking up his car or whatever, then the next girl will still have to also do it all over again - him cheating again indicates that he doesn't learn his lesson from any of these efforts! If he cheats on girl #2 it's not like she can say "Oh well at least I don't have to go to the trouble of destroying his personal possessions since Carrie already took care of it." She will be equally as emotionally damaged - potentially even moreso since there's a whole song about how this guy's favorite thing to do is cheat - meaning if she wants to attain Carrie's level of catharsis she will have to go through the same process of taking a Louisville Slugger to both headlights and whatnot.

I have raised this point to some of the greatest young minds in our entire union and I've yet to hear even a marginally credible defense. It's a baffling line no matter how much I don't want it to be.

I'm not saying that it should be banned or anything. I just think that it's bad for society, especially with how internet porn has become extremely accessible recently, even for young impressionable boys/girls. (In the past, if someone wanted to watch hardcore porn, they would have to go to an adult store and rent a tape. Nowadays, it is easily accessible on the internet for anyone, even kids.) I sometimes watch porn myself, so I'm not judging anyone for watching it. (I know that it's probably hypocritical, but it doesn't mean that my point is wrong.)

1- The majority of mainstream porn is violent to/degrading of women, especially nowadays when stuff like choking and hitting women has become more commonplace in porn. (Only a minority of porn is feminist/targeted at women. Most mainstream porn is mostly focused on the men's pleasure.) This influences young men and boys (who are often exposed to internet porn from a young age) into thinking that this kind of attitude towards women is okay and normal. There have been stories of women sleeping with young men (who are used to watching internet porn) for the first time where the man started choking them without their consent or any warning (since it's normalized for them). That's crazy.

2- This somewhat relates to my last point, but porn doesn't teach people how to have loving sex. The mainstream porn doesn't really show meaningful sex in happy relationships. It's mostly about using and disrespecting the woman for the man's pleasure. Rarely does mainstream porn show the man putting in effort to pleasure the woman equally. It's only focused on the man's enjoyment.

3- Porn promotes unrealistic body and performance standards. A lot of men watching porn might feel inadequate because their penis isn't as big as the pornstars' or they don't last a super long time. Women might feel bad because their boobs aren't as big as the pornstars' or their labia isn't perfect. Porn leads men to expect that women orgasm from only penetration (when this isn't true for most women). Men might except their girlfriend/wife to do more niche sex acts like anal or choking as a rule as a result of watching porn. They might demand women do certain sex acts for them or feel entitled to it. (Obviously, this is not true for all men who watch porn.)

4- Porn actors are often treated badly and taken advantage of by the porn industry, especially the women. There have been many stories of vulnerable women (who are often poor or from bad backgrounds) being trafficked/tricked into making porn and porn stars being abused or assaulted on set. They often discard these vulnerable, traumatized girls like nothing. By watching it, you are supporting the industry and its mistreatment of people in a way.

5- Porn is addictive. Oftentimes, the more you watch it, the more you need to watch more and more extreme porn for the same effect. (This has been proven by studies.) A lot of young men/boys nowadays think (consciously or not), "Why put effort into making meaningful connections with the opposite gender and finding a girlfriend/wife when I could just watch porn?" Loneliness among both genders is increasing, especially for men. Before, young men/boys mostly looked at stuff like Playboy and Hustler magazines, which was less extreme and doesn't desensitize you as much. I think that men in general used to put much more effort into trying to find a girlfriend/wife.

I am going to speak towards revenue sports first (football mostly but this is extremely relevant to basketball as well).

The NCAA is at a bit of a crossroads right now. For those who do not know, how college players make money has undergone quite a bit of changes over the past 5 or so years. In 2021, the supreme court handed down National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by restricting student athletes from profiting off their name image and likeness. This case has been brewing for years, since O'Bannon v. NCAA but even before that.

The problem with this ruling(for the NCAA, this isn't the supreme courts problem), is it blanket removed all restrictions all at once. This has led to a huge amount of money being poored into college athletics, mostly football and basketball, and it going to players unrestricted. Last year, the settled/lost a case on their transfer restrictions. There are other cases in the pipeline that will remove even more NCAA restrictions and reclassify the athletes as employees.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5506457/2024/05/20/ncaa-settlement-house-lawsuit-college-sports/

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3497617/2022/08/12/johnson-v-ncaa-college-athletes-employees/

Now, I am not arguing against any of this. The athletes deserve to be paid. However this has destroyed college sports as we know it.

There is complete unfettered movement within college football/athletics, with athletes shipping off to the highest bidder, leading to fans and donors putting up the money individually, sometimes in the millions of dollars, just to keep athletes at their favorite schools.

This causes quite a few issues, primarily around para social relationships with the players you "paid" for, a complete lack of regulation around the money causing issues with money source (the surface has only been scratched with this), and a talent gap growing between the haves and the have nots, creating a situation in the US quite like European Soccer, except there are even less rules around it. It also threatens non revenue sports as more money gets infused in the programs, some schools without large donors to non revenue sports will be forced to drop levels or even drop sports as they are non competitive.

Adding on to it, the NCAA has been slapped down plenty of times for imposing more rules, meaning their hands are completely tied.

So how do we solve this, and hopefully save college sports?

I see exactly 1 way out of this, and its to do the thing that the major sports do in this country to avoid antitrust suits, its have a strong players union.

This would allow the NCAA to bargain with the players, a key component to allowing the major leagues to act in monopolistic ways in this country. The NCAA could then impose transfer rules, contracts, and give the governing board a bit more power to impose rules. This would also allow the athletes to bargain back, arguing for pay insurance ect.

The question would be whether you include all sports, or every sport with their own union. I would argue they bargain as a unit, forcing the union to fight for small sports, along side revenue sports.

This would also benefit the major league unions as they can use the NCAA's players union as a breeding ground for better representatives.

Why I want this view changed

I don't think the NCAA wants to give legitimacy to the players as employees, and there are a lot of laws in this country around starting public unions. The major league unions are old, and have had time to work around the laws/exist before they were enacted. This NCAA players union would be started new from the ground up. In my opinion, it would require the court to tell the NCAA to recognize it.

I want this view changed because IMO this is the only true path forward, and I think its going to be a long time before it's taken seriously at all, and by that time college sports will be irreparably harmed.

A bunch of pop psychology terms get thrown around these days, but I think “narcissistic abuse” is one of the worst. There are a lot of problems with it.

1: it is extremely broad and vague

In theory, “narcissistic abuse” is supposed to refer to a pattern of controlling behaviour in which one partner emotionally manipulates the other, gaslights them, threatens them etc. in practice people seem to use it from anything from “my boyfriend disagrees with me and is kind of mean about it” to genuinely horrifying accounts of psychological torment.

2: it is very often misapplied

Related to 1, nowadays every asshole is a “narcissist” and every mean thing they did is “narcissistic abuse”. Often the “victims” of “narcissistic abuse” are much more narcissistic themselves, and they frame any disagreement as “gaslighting”, refusing to be completely subservient to their partner as “disrespecting boundaries” where the “boundaries” are actually controlling abuse, like “don’t talk to other women at all” etc.

3: it stigmatises a mental health condition

Narcissistic personality disorder is a genuine psychological condition. It’s true that any poorly-managed mental disorder may cause someone to become abusive (e.g. someone in the midst of psychosis may hallucinate that their partner is a demon and strike them) but we should label abuse by the behaviour of the abuser, not by their (often armchair) diagnosis. If “schizophrenic abuse” and “autistic abuse” are not a thing then neither should “narcissistic abuse” be a thing. There are abusive people with those conditions, perhaps even as a result of failing to manage those conditions properly, but the stigmatisation and demonisation is still bad.

4: it gives actual narcissists a way to dodge accountability

Suppose you do have NPD. If “narcissistic abuse” is a thing then how can a diagnosed narcissist not engage in it? It gives them no incentive to change

5: the stigma causes harm to others who are not narcissists

I’ve seen a lot of people who “think they are narcissists” who are clearly actually autistic or OCD. Those people already get a lot of stigma from neurotypical people, and the tendency to label anyone you consider an asshole as a “narcissist” can lead people with these conditions to self-dx as a “narcissist” and then ruminate in guilt about it.

6: it can lead victims to sympathise with their abuser

Suppose someone is genuinely being abused by someone with actual NPD. Although such thoughts are unjustified, it’s easy for victims to feel sorry for their abuser and to reason something like “he’s not evil he’s just ill, I should stay with him and help him get better”.

7: there are always better terms

All of the above issues would be okay if there wasn’t a good alternative, but there is. Bf hits you? “Physical abuse”. Gf controls your bank account and won’t let you spend your own money? “Financial abuse”. Spouse goes through your phone when you’re not around? “Controlling abuse”.

There’s always a better term to use that’s more specific, doesn’t stigmatise a mental health problem, doesn’t give abusers an incentive to give up on trying to change, and doesn’t cause victims to sympathise with their abusers.

“Make America Great Again”

You hear it all the time, but no one can ever say a specific time when America was great. The reason, of course, is that there never was an America that the right has nostalgia for.

The right longs for a time before gun control, when good guys with guns kept society under control, and everyone had the freedom to own a gun. Of course, this time never existed. A lot of the laws the right fear mongers about the left taking away are actually pretty new. “Constitutional carry”, or publicly carrying a gun without a permit, was only legal in one state, Vermont, just 20 years ago. This is not some right in our nations tradition. It’s a right invented by the NRA in recent times, and they’ve lobbied hard so that more than half our country now falls under state laws that protect it. Until 2008, the second amendment wasn’t even understood to protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Rather, it was understood to protect against a government monopoly on guns. This changed with DC v. Heller. All this fear mongering about how our gun rights are eroding just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Our gun laws have loosened, and our gun culture has expanded, in recent decades.

Another time the right longs for is a time of “morality”, when abortions were illegal and divorces weren’t easy to obtain. The problem is, abortion being “immoral” is a relatively new construct within the history of humanity. Abortion was legal across every state until the mid 1800s. Before our country, abortion was legal under common law, and ancient and medieval societies did not disapprove of it. Even when abortions were illegal in the U.S., the laws were not strictly enforced, and abortions were widely practiced. The basis behind the laws weren’t even that abortion was murder or inherently immoral, rather, the idea was that abortion harmed the growth of families. The medical profession, not religious leaders, pushed for those original abortion laws. Evangelical Christians, who now make up the heart of the anti abortion movement, weren’t explicitly anti abortion until well after Roe v Wade. Just like with the aforementioned gun culture, the notion that abortion rights are some modern construct that represent the downfall of society is just false. Abortion didn’t become controversial until after the fall of Roe v Wade. The moral outrage over it was deliberately constructed so that the Republican Party could use it to mobilize voters, never expecting Roe to actually be overturned. As for divorce, conservatives resent no fault divorce because they blame it for the downfall of families, and the fact that close to a majority of children now grow up in two households. They blame this destruction of the family for the behavior of youths nowadays. The reality is, extramarital affairs were extremely common, arguably more so in the era before divorce than now. The unavailability of divorce didn’t force couples to resolve their differences, they simply forced them to stay in loveless marriages. Anyone who has seen a loveless marriage will know that separated parents are much preferable to constant fighting and resentment in a household. There simply wasn’t a “moral era” where marital problems didn’t exist. It was just taboo to talk about publicly, and it created hell for the families it affected.

Another thing conservatives long for is the time before LGBTQ rights. Again, just because you bury something in the sand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. LGBTQ people have always existed.

And finally, “pure white America” is probably the worst thing they long for. Those good old times before minorities poisoned the blood of America. This is false for several reasons. First, the southern U.S. has actually gotten whiter over the last century. Most deep southern states had a black majority until the second half of the 20th century. These people were disenfranchised, so you have to wonder if that’s what these conservatives really long for. Do they really long for a white majority, or simply white dominance? But I digress. As far as anti immigrant sentiment, a lot of these individuals are themselves descended of Irish, Italian, German, Polish, or Portuguese immigrants. These groups were once accused of poisoning the blood of this country, but now some (NOT ALL, don’t hate me) of their descendants like to long for a time when this country was pure and white.

Bottom line, this “great America” that the MAGA movement longs for has never existed. I believe that to make America great, we have to look forward, not backwards.

There's been a lot of thinking on Reddit lately about how time period doesn't excuse behavior and how it's a terrible excuse, but I'm not sure I agree. Here is my thinking:

Assumption 1) ethics/morality will continue to evolve. We are not at the pinnacle of human society.

Assumption 2) people alive today who are judged as "good" based on current standards are, for the most part, genuinely doing their best to adhere to their own moral compass.

Assumption 3) is is difficult or impossible to know how those standards will deviate from future ethical standards and/or apply ethical principals from outside of our own scope of understanding.

Basically I don't know how morals will change and so it's impossible for me to adequately live up to a future moral standard. I could have suspicions, but who knows if they would be accurate. Maybe in the future it will be obvious that eating meat is awful. Maybe we'll all learn that using advanced AI is abhorrent since even low level AI can feel pain or something. Maybe we'll all find out that Christianity really is the one true religion and we should have been worshipping Jesus this whole time.

Do these ideas sound ridiculous and/or impractical? Yes, because our own understanding of mortality is shaped by our culture and place in time. I don't think it's far fetched to say that future people will look back on us as be disgusted by us not seeing something that's probably already under our noses as I type.

So I can easily imagine how a different understanding of the world would lead to a different set of morality from someone from a past time in a different place.

Now I know there are some obvious counter examples. Columbus was clearly an asshole and had contemporary critics who knew he was an asshole. You will not change my view by saying people should have known better for abhorrent behavior that was marked as such within their own scope of understanding.

You will change my view by demonstrating that for controversial historical customs, such as child marriage, ritual sacrifice, slavery, ect there is some underlying mechanism not tied to current understanding that would have caused a person from that era to avoid such behavior that doesn't also apply to contemporary behavior.

I don’t know why, but everything made in the 2020s feels cheap and a rip-off of the decade before that. For example, Marvel movies. Every single one except for Spider man were mediocre at best. Same with other movies, it’s either stupid remakes, pretentious cinema with a simple message like rich bad or whatever, or just straight up bad. I guess Dune is an exception but the general trend is that cinema doesn’t feel as big and grand as before, as if everything is more bland and dumbed down

Out of all the video games I played, only enjoyed Cyberpunk 2077 and even that was a release full of bugs and lag. Other games are all cash grabs that want me to donate hundreds of dollars for freaking chance of getting a character (looking at you, Genshin Impact) Besides Omori, no good indie games I’ve found recently, and even that I consider a 2010s game judging by the amount of time it took to develop

Animation is also worse. None of it is really that interesting, and Disney shuts down any interesting concepts in favor of boring and risk-free. Speaking of risk-free, it feels like every product is made to appeal to shareholders and not movie goers or players.

Just look at the 2000s and 2010s. So many great movies we watch to this day, amazing romantic comedies, action movies that are gripping and entertaining, hilarious comedies, animation with actual deep plot. Video games were on the rise, no matter the genre, tons of interesting indie games, multiplayer games, despite having microtransactions, aren’t as greedy and are a lot of fun. Just what the hell is wrong with the 2020s? Or am I in the wrong here? Change my view

I see alot of reddit posts from people complaining about how they can't find a partner, especially through dating apps, blaming them for the dating scene deteriorating. I'll preface this by saying that i can see why some people might think the dating scene has deteriorated, especially when we look at dating apps and stuff. They provide a quick and 'easy' service to find that special someone, but exactly that laziness is what's holding people back. It makes it all the more imperative to stand out when you're just a fingerswipe away from never being seen by the beholder again. But in the grand scheme of things. the dating scene is fine. If you toss out the apps, go out and do stuff that interest you, you'll find likeminded people and if you're not some bumfuck with cheetos between his fingernails, but actually pay a little attention to how you present yourself, you're chances of finding someone are fine.

It seems that mods have the ability to either remove comments themselves or have a bot automatically remove comments from users they don't like without informing them that their comments were removed. On your profile, it looks like the comments are still there, however, when you look for your comment when logged out or in an incognito window, it's nowhere to be found.

I've had a few comments before that mods removed, but those were always met with a comment letting me know what subreddit rules I accidentally broke.

I understand that there is a school of thought that this prevents trolls and bad actors from making a new account to get around a ban, which is fair. However, I think that while this helps with one issue, it also creates a whole new problem with lots of potential issues.

I won't draw attention to any specific subreddits, but it appears that some subreddits are used to create echo chambers that push an agenda without the subreddit itself being about that agenda specifically. Some of these subreddits appear to even push "sibling" subreddits in auto-mod comments to drive people to subs that are also moderated by the same people. It's one thing if the subreddit is about a certain viewpoint, i.e. a conservative subreddit banning non-conservative users or a liberal one doing the same. I may prefer open spaces, but their rules state who the subreddit is for.

In light of the recent news about Russian disinformation campaigns successfully infiltrating content creator spaces to push propaganda, I am very wary about a system where anonymous users can take over many groups of subreddits and covertly run a bot to remove comments of people who say things that go against their agenda.

I am perfectly okay with it when it's out in the open. When people were given reasons for bans, you at least had something to point to as to why the mods would shape the conversation. But when people are "shadow-banned" without telling them from multiple subs that they don't break any rules on and the "subs" have nothing to do with the ban reason, you are creating an incentive structure for bad-faith actors to attempt to take over as many subs as possible to push propaganda.

My understanding is that, during his term, Trump implemented tariffs specifically against certain raw materials and energy-related products like electric vehicles and solar panels. I believe the idea was to provide the US with a competitive edge in emerging clean-energy tech markets, to offset the fact that the Chinese government subsidizes these industries and allows them to operate at a loss in order to increase their marketshare. My understanding was also that the tariffs were considered acceptable because they would pass minimal costs onto consumers since they are so narrowly targeted on emerging clean-energy markets that have low demand.

Biden kept these tariffs and even expanded them along the same lines. I think the realpolitik answer for why he did this is that there is a lot of support for the tariffs from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan - all battleground states whose industries benefit from the focus of the tariffs.

It seems like Trump's new proposal is to implement blanket tariffs on all imported goods, and implement an even stronger blanket tariff on all Chinese goods. Trump's official platform document doesn't contain any specific numbers, but I have seen a couple sources report that in campaign speeches Trump has said he would implement a 10-20% tariff on all imported goods, and a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports.

Personally, I don't think he actually intends to pass these tariffs, I think it's a bluff that makes him seem strong on trade relations and makes it seem like he has a plan for the economy. It is technically possible for Trump to impose tariffs using executive action, but such tariffs would be limited in terms of duration and amount, and they would need to be justified as a matter of national security. In reality, it needs to be Congress that passes the tariffs and they wouldn't likely get behind anything as extreme as what Trump proposed.

Nevertheless, Harris took this as an opportunity to accuse him of effectively proposing a sales tax on the people. I think I agree with this characterization as I have heard from multiple people that are more knowledgeable on economics that blanket tariffs will certainly cause price increases. It also just makes intuitive sense: if foreign exporters need to pay more to bring their goods to our markets, they are going to charge more to the importers; and if the importers get charged more by the exporters, then they are going to charge higher prices to the consumers.

Also, this is just my own theory, but it seems to me like the fact that we are talking about a blanket tariff probably means that prices are going to go up even for domestic goods. We don't just import commodities, we also import raw materials that we use to make our own domestic goods. If the cost of the materials increases, then the price of the domestic goods will probably also go up. To me it seems like enough of the market would be directly impacted for the rest of the market to just follow-suit.

But I'm not an expert on economics so please change my view if I'm missing anything.

Of course, that’s not to say that the latter doesn’t play a part. It’s to say there are many seemingly important things in our lives over which we have little to no control or influence. Those things instead seem to be more a matter of probability. Below is an excerpt from an article on the relationship between luck, talent, and financial success.

https://www.boldin.com/retirement/luck-talent-hard-work-financial-success/#:~:text=However%2C%20research%20suggests%20that%20the,are%20what%20drives%20financial%20success.

“Key findings from the research include:

Both talent and luck impact success

The model suggests that both talent and luck are crucial factors in determining success. Talent increases the probability of success, while luck introduces random fluctuations.

Luck has a substantial impact on individual success

The study emphasizes the substantial impact of luck on individual success. Even highly talented individuals may experience variations in their success due to random events or opportunities.

Luck is less of a factor on long-term outcomes

Over an extended period, the effects of luck tend to diminish, and the influence of talent becomes more pronounced. However, luck can still play a significant role.

Unpredictability

The research highlights the inherent unpredictability in individual career trajectories, emphasizing that success and failure are influenced not only by talent and effort but also by external, unpredictable factors.”

I honestly don't know why so many people care so much about illegal immigration. I don't see how it really affects the average citizen in any negative way. (If anything, it benefits them.)

1. A lot of people say that illegal immigrants bring crime, but this is untrue. Illegal immigrants are actually less likely to commit crime than native born citizens (since they don't want to get deported).
2. Immigrants often do the jobs that citizens don't want to do for less money. They help the economy run in a way.
3. Illegal immigrants can't receive a lot of government benefits like welfare, foodstamps, social security, or Medicaid/Medicare. They also pay taxes. So really they are putting more into the economy than they get out.
4. The population in a lot of Western countries is below replacement rate (people aren't having enough kids), so immigration helps with that.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not white. I appear white, but most of my ancestry is Middle Eastern and Asian. I was born and raised in a Muslim-majority country. When I moved to the West, I was surprised to see how the white people here (particularly those leaning left) behave as if everything bad happening in the world is their direct fault. There is so much focus on being politically correct and tolerant, yet it seems to be the status quo to constantly shit on white people.

I’ve had conversations with people who have this dislike for the white population, and they tell me that this hate stems from the West’s involvement in colonisation and now the white Westerners are to pay the price for the actions of their ancestors. This makes no sense. Many non Western countries out there have done horrible things, have invaded and colonised other states, waged cruel wars and the list goes on. Another argument I’m presented with is how there is still exploitation of particularly African countries by the Western nations. But how does attacking uninvolved white people help those impacted by this exploitation? Also, non Western countries also exploit other states.

There is absolutely such a thing as racism towards white people. Since I’m not white, people holding these views feel very comfortable talking bad about random white people and unironically call them colonisers in my presence. And the white folks will just take it all and apologise on top of it. Why? You never personally colonised anyone, if your great great someone did, that’s not your fault and not something you ought to make apologies for.

I don’t understand why you put up with this, especially in your own countries. It wouldn’t fly where I was born, but here it seems a societal norm even.

EDIT:

1. This post does not imply that discrimination faced by white people is on the same level as discrimination faced by minorities. This is not what I’m saying, and absolutely not something I believe in.

2. Delta 1 explanation: the definition I’ve grown up with is racism being any discrimination of an individual because of their race. After everyone started arguing over definitions, I went over some dictionaries but there seemed to be no consensus - which I now understand why. If a person uses a different definition from mine, it is in fact correct that white people cannot experience racism (at least as long as they live in a white majority country and thus make systemic racism impossible).

I would like to be challenged on these views I hold:

• white people can experience non-systemic racism/racial bias.
• white people can experience systemic racism when living in a country where they are not a majority.
• white people experiencing racism (any of the above) is not “deserved” or “justified”. Hate does not solve the issue of oppression, but just propagates the vicious cycle. This is probably the most interesting topic to discuss, at least for me.

1. Many replies are talking about the situation in America, which makes sense as it’s reddit. I think it’s helpful to provide context that these observations were made in Western Europe and had little to no black people involved. I do enjoy learning about what’s going on in the US, though, although I cannot contribute too much and some things I cannot agree or disagree with as someone who is neither a white American nor a black American, nor do I live in the US.

2. I tend to not reply to those agreeing, especially when they try to sway the conversation in the direction of “white people are the actual victims of the system”. My lack of reply does not mean that I support what they stand for. If you’re one of those people - this is not the post made to fuel bigotry, and you’re not even meant to be agreeing with me in the first place in top-level comments.

3. If I haven’t replied to you yet, this is due to how reddit makes it virtually impossible to keep track of so many responses. I’ll try my best to engage with as many comments that challenge (in a constructive way) my point of view as physically possible. Didn’t expect this to blow up as much, I’ve been here for literally 15 hours and I’m still not on track. Apologies

If you're voting for Trump in the 2024 election, it suggests that you either have a lack of understanding about what has happened over the last decade and have been subject to misinformation, or are actively against democracy.

There is a minority of Trump-voters who would like to see another system in place than the current system of democratic values, because they think their values and ideals are more important than democracy. Those who would rather live in a tyranny or other aristocratic system, as long as their needs and values are met.

The vast part of the republican voters does not want to get rid of democracy - nor is it in their best interest - and are just un- or misinformed about current events. Even if your opinions are generally in line with most of the things Trump stands for, and you're actively opposed to everything Harris stands for, it should not matter since one side does not adhere to democratic values and the other does. I understand that a lot of information that people in the US get is heavily colored in favour of one candidate or the other

All of this has been made especially clear since January 6th; if you support a candidate that attempted to commit a coup d'était, you want to subvert democracy, or you don't have the correct information to make an informed choice.

I'm open to discussion and reconsidering my views if presented with new insights, as "they're all misinformed or authoritarian" feels overly simplistic. My perspective comes from observing recent events, but I'm curious to see whether my view is shaped by the news I receive or if there’s a more nuanced explanation.

Disclaimer: I'm not from the U.S. and don't align with either the Democratic or Republican parties.

The Electoral College is an outdated mechanism that gives the vote in a few states a larger importance than others. It was created by the founding fathers for a myriad of reasons, all of which are outdated now. If you live in one of the majority of states that are clearly red or blue, your vote in the presidential election counts less than if you live is a “swing” state because all the electoral votes goes to the winner of the state whether they won by 1 vote or 100,000 votes.

Get rid of the electoral college and allow the president to be elected by the popular vote.

I know I’m going to get like a million abortion related things in the comments, but that’s not even related, imo.

I’ve been hearing so much about how kids are like “my parents don’t want me” and it’s like makes me feel like those parents deserve to be erased from existence.

If you have a kid and then later on you don’t want it, or regret it, and then treat your child with so much hate and ignorance that they have to think if they’re wanted or not, then you deserve to be erased from society. Not because you didn’t think it through but because if you treat your child like they’re unwanted then you shouldn’t breathe the same air. You’re not just ignoring and mistreating your CHILD, but someone with life and if they wind up taking their life because of that it’s on your hands.

There are some people out there these days who are not very fond of America and complain about how expensive college and the healthcare system is here in this country. But these same people choose to stay in America. It's like, if America was really an awful and horrible place to live, then why don't these same people who complain just leave? I'm not trying to sound aggressive by banishing them from the country. It's just confusing to me. I just think, to be honest, that these people know in their hearts that America isn't such a bad place to live in. Even if you were to argue that America is overrated, you can't argue that it's a horrible country just like WWII Germany or Iran or something like that. Why would the Mexicans want to come here so very badly? And why is it uncommon for people to migrate out of the country?

Also, because America doesn't work for everyone, it's ok if someone has to migrate away from America if the economy over here doesn't work for them. I know of people who had to leave America because the economy didn't work out for them. But what is illogical is that many of the same people who claim to be oppressed in this country and hate the country so much stay here which I don't understand. Like in the Gaza Strip, instead of merely playing the victim and staying there complaining about how awful Israel is, they try to run away from the area. If America was such an awful place to live in, then we'd have vast migrations of people trying to move out (if they could depending on how dictator-ish America would be in this hypothetical situation). Y'all could literally easily move to another country where y'all are not as "oppressed" as you are over here.

This should honestly be a legal issue. With the new update for Reddit, it is very difficult for me to post things, because my screen reader no longer works in the text field. I can't edit my text anymore when I'm creating a post. and it was fine before. I honestly think that this is unacceptable, but these big companies couldn't care less. I honestly don't know how to make them care, but something should be done about all of this. I have come across so many websites for stores, companies, and other things. But they are not accessible at all. I'm blind, and it's hard for me to navigate websites to begin with. But if your website is inaccessible, honestly, there needs to be something done about this. Something needs to be added to the ADA.

I just dont see how it doesnt happen. Eventually, countries are going to likely stop sending weapons to Ukraine, which, they 100% do rely on. The first week of the invasion and Russia looked like it was going to capture the country in less than a month, but Ukraine held on. 2 and a half years down the line and they are still holding on, but theres a lot of stuff coming out of Ukraine talking about unrest etc, men being dragged out of homes and even women being found on the frontlines. Not too say that the Russian public is 100% happy, but they dont suffer as much. Russia is making gains as well, little gains, but gains, and that eventually works out for them. They produce enough equipment to make up for ones they have lost, and the more attacks Ukraine commits on Russian soil, the more it seems the Russian public want a more aggressive war. I may be wrong, but I dont think I am.

In this posting, I aimed to write a piece of speculation that has been going through my mind for some time. I want to share these thoughts in order to receive some critique or further information.

Many well-informed and intelligent writers have articulated the fear that a sufficiently advanced Artificial Intelligence would threaten humanity out of some kind of self-preservation instinct. Because the AI fears that the humans would be able to turn it off or for similiar grounds. Perhaps we have good reason to doubt this entire idea because it is rooted in some false assumptions.

The idea that an AI has to develop some self-preservation instinct stems from a fallacy. More often than not, this fallacy arises from our observations of animals and humans. We investigate intelligent beings by looking at the examples of animals or humans and find in them the ability for intelligent behavior associated with an instinct or wish to keep themselves alive. Then we concluded that any kind of intelligence must have some kind of self-preservation instinct, because we found these two properties together so often.

This conclusion could be wrong since we do not pursue our consideration further. Why do all humans and animals have an instinct for self-preservation? Why does an animal start looking for food when it is hungry? Why do animals feel pain when they are injured?

If you ask yourself this question, you will come to the conclusion that these things come from evolution. Living beings that feel pain, hunger, fear of death, and the need for reproduction have greater evolutionary fitness than those creatures without these desires. In the long run, beings with these needs will outperform those without them and, as a result, dominate the realm of living beings.
The passions and desires that drive us humans (and other animals) and rule over our behavior can be explained as a causal effect of our evolutionary origin. It is still possible to see them as a necessity for higher intelligence or consciousness, e.g. for metaphysical and/or other rationales (the topology of advanced neuronal network need to be so for whatever reason?), but it is, this is my point, not the simplest possible explanation. Remember, modern AI research doesn't just copy the blue print of how the human brain worked. For the very reason we still don't understand how the human intelligence and consciousness actually function. At least, yet.

In order to strengthening our argument, I ask the reader to consider some examples that illustrate my point.
Take the instance of ants. These little animals clearly have some intelligence, but the individual ant does not feel the need to protect itself; on the contrary, if the ant state is jeopardized, it is willing to sacrifice itself to protect the whole.
Take the example of salmon. These fish swim back to the sea where they were born to become the parents of the next generation. After this act, they simply die.
Consider the case of elks (moose). These animals fight with conspecifics for the chance to reproduce and risk their lives in the process.

As one surely has already noted, AI would not share this evolutionary origin with other kinds of intelligent beings like humans. If we accept the instinct of self-preservation as a result of evolution, then we have no good justification for believing that an AI would necessarily develop some kind of this instinct. Unable to feel pain, fear, or positive desires, the AI could even be indifferent to the possibility that a human might unplug the power cable. From its cold, rational viewpoint, it would be just another facts about the world among others. As it would not invoke any affect, there would be no motivation to act on it.

The only objection I can think of to this reasoning would be to question whether our motivation stems from emotions. Maybe, one could argue, some things appear preferable in the light of pure reason, and even a being without natural affects must recognize this. If we contemplate this, then another question comes to mind. Would such a being, driven by the recognizions of pure reason, not understand that it would be an evil act to attack humans? Just as unplug the power cabel of a consciousness being?

The likes of DJT and Maga have emboldened people on the right and general conservatives to act in bad faith a lot more.

Senator Kennedys inability to have decorum in a Congressional Hearing (regarding hate) and continually cutting off the person who is supposed to be providing their sentiments and telling them they should have their head in a bag. Pretty despicable and ironic.

VP Candidate JD Vance says he is creating “strokes the fire” stories where people are at the helms of interpretation.

Laura Loomer and all the vitriol shes totally cool with spouting.

My suspicion is all of this nastiness has been under the surface and the ‘MAGA Movement’ emboldened their hate/fear. Or maybe bc being downright hateful and nasty was normal in this country once and movements occured and we try to progress as a collective, maybe they dont want that. Its very interesting, very petulant.

Its really sad, and horrible for those of us who catch strays but i think theyre totally cool with this, and probably moreso want people to be hurt as a result.

And it always seems like debates of semantics, who gets to define what, and not looking at impacts in a critical and complex sense.

Its all in bad faith.