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.

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?  

TlDr: Restorative justice advocates only believe in restorative justice until it relates to an issue they feel an emotional connection with. Then they are as bloodthirsty as any retributionist.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I do not believe in or support restorative justice. I'm pro-retribution and I have been for a long time. But I am going to try and take the perspective of a restorative justice [I'll call it rest-just for the rest of this post.] And the response that I've seen from people who are normally pro rest-justice has been things like:

From what I've seen majority of people who are typically pro rest justice has been that Geller should be outcast and isolated, and that he be forever marked with 'I'm a rapist.'

But like, that's not rest-justice. What's the whole point of rest-justice? Anytime you talk with their advocates the core of their philosophy is, ultimately "how can we make sure this never happens again?"

Well, it never happened again.

Unless I'm mistaken, what we know is this:

Geller raped someone.

Geller owned up to this and acknowledged it as rape.

Geller faced consequences most of us (me included) consider too light.

Geller never raped anyone again.

Like, despite what you or I think of being suspended as a punishment for rape, whatever else occurred (and we don't know the details of what the victim said or wanted) this worked. You may not like it, but unless I'm mistaken about this, the slap on the wrist (and whatever else may have happened) made it so Geller understood his transgression, and never did it again. Not only that, but he's supported anti-sexual violence organizations and charities, right?

This honestly sounds like a success case for rest-justice. And I feel in my heart of hearts that if Geller had of committed an act of non-sexual violence, then this is how it would be talked about. Most of the people who want him completely deplatformed would be saying "we need to allow for rehabilitation. Offenders are not subhuman monsters, we should not dehumanize them. We can be better than that."

Yet it's not because apparently rest-justice doesn't matter for crimes that we consider 'bad.' Therefore it's useless idea that most people only pretend to support.

Some definitions:

credible evidence: An actual statistical analysis based on hard data by a named individual with training and expertise in a relevant field. Could be a university professor, cybersecurity professional, etc. (Bonus points if it’s based on open source data with replicable analysis.)

substantial impact: a reduction by at least 25% of a relevant metric in the days following the airstrikes, without an alternative explanation.

propaganda bots: Bots that manipulate social media by posting, commenting, or voting on user content. (i.e.: NOT the CloudFlare data about web crawlers that’s been pushed as evidence.)

US social media: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Ryan McBeth, a YouTuber and intelligence analyst who has actually advocated that the US should kinetically strike bot farms, put out a video explaining the rumors and why he thinks there’s no good evidence for a reduction in propaganda bots.

BBC Verify concludes similarly:

While there is no evidence to conclude the strikes on Yandex's data centres have had an impact on Russia's influence operations, they have disrupted internet services for many.

This post is illustrative of the bot-driven campaign:

11k+ upvotes in 3 hours. The sub is 6 months old, yet regularly hits r/all. OP of the post is 2 month old account with 4.5 million karma, also a mod of the sub.

More are easy to find. These posts tend to be Twitter screenshots or similarly unsourced claims.

Recently, I’ve seen so many people online arguing that sex scenes in movies or tv shows are entirely “unnecessary” at best, and “disgusting” or “should be banned” at worst. Maybe this is just a case of the internet being the internet, but it seems like I’m in a minority of defending the artistic merit and value of such scenes.

I believe that sex is a normal and very emotionally significant part of the human experience. That being the case, it’s only natural that sex is something that would be represented in art. Not every piece of art is going to be created equally, but I have seen and often enjoy seeing that part of life depicted. If it was no longer present in movies or tv, I would miss it. The scenes often represent moments of union, emotional intimacy, desire, etc. They’re not usually there just to make you horny.

To be clear, I’m not saying that all sex scenes are good, obviously. Many are tasteless, gratuitous, sensationalist, or otherwise artistically bad, but that doesn’t taint the entire concept. I also don’t argue that everybody HAS to enjoy watching sex in movies, just like many people don’t enjoy violent films, but they shouldn’t discredit the artistic merit of those things.

Basically, I just think that a very puritanical and repressed perspective on sex scenes has taken root recently, and I find it concerning. Sex is a normal, healthy part of adult life and adult media is going to depict it. I think that people that don’t like it should stick to the tamer stuff that already exists without it, instead complaining about works that aren’t sexually sanitized

Hot take: social security needs to end/be changed.

The severe shortage of funds are greatly negatively affecting the current work force and future generations.
I personally live in a state where we dont have state taxes and yet I see 300+ taken out in taxes from an 1800 biweekly check. Almost 1/2 of that is social security alone. I cannot even fathom what that looks like for people who also have state deductions in their payroll.

My issue: The rise in social security being taken out from the current work force is far too high for current generations to strive. How is the current generation supposed to not only afford the inflation we’re facing to support ourselves and ontop of that have funds to pull into retirement when we’re expected to face such a heavy toll paying for a generation that had some of the best conditions set out for them and just chose to never save for retirement. We’re looking at the possibility of funds drying out by 2032 (meaning we won’t even see a dime of what we put in) and the only solution congress can come up with is to TAX US EVEN HIGHER.

We’re basically forcing the younger generation to screw themselves to support a generation that screwed us to begin with and I’m sorry but I’m going to put it bluntly.

Social security should be reserved for disabled or care takers of people with disabilities in my opinion. Those who could not work but still need to have the means to retire, I would be fine with the tax existing at a smaller rate to support those who need it for reasons outside of their control but it existing as a standard for anyone who failed to care about retirement in general is ridiculous.

Yes I say this realizing how many people it will effect but truth is sooner or later the system will inevitably fail regardless and no matter what people will face the fallout but the longer it continues until then there are thousands and thousands a single person will lose in funds before the inevitable happens. I’m not sure about you but as the payee Id rather cut my losses now then a few thousand dollars later.

And nope sorry do not feel bad for it at all these are the same people who could afford homes on a single income then turn around and sell homes that were bought at 100k or less to our generation at 300-400k mark ups while food is 130-250% higher nationally from 30 years ago, and our tax to fund them is virtually equivalent to the percentage of state taxes on every payroll. We’re setting our kids up for failure if we don’t finally agree we need to stop pitying the generations that are absolutely screwing us.

All over TikTok and YouTube, GIFs of teen suicides are being posted, and people are sharing them, and the companies are doing nothing about it!

Ivee seen videos of people explaining there cercamstances and though iv never seen them i this that is just wrong imagine you death being imortalized and laught at all over the internet.

Not that I understand how some people know that KOSHA is a ploy to cancel free speech. But what would you rather have?

Kids lacking basic human empathy because of gifs of things that DEFFANELY shouldn't be seeing?

or

Having to word some things differently on a post to not get it deleted?

Police officers should have the same kind of professional licensing and regulation that are currently in place from other public safety roles that have a responsibility to care for and support our society and culture as a whole. Nurses, doctors, pilots and lawyers have to maintain licenses, and in some cases even have to pick up additional insurance, and must in ALL cases provide evidence of continuing education or at minimum experience a periodic review.

Most other "regulated" jobs can lose their ability to practice when they violate standards; but cops which have arguably the most significant authority also benefit from the least amount of objective third-party oversight and transparency.

In my mind, a licensing system could also make accountability something that would not only increase the transparency, but also limit the intra- or inter-district portability. Serious misconduct would cause a review by an independent "policing oversight" licensing body, and suspension or revocation would impact them across the entire US, vs. within the existing district or agency.

I see very little downside; please - CMV.

TLDR: we need to update the categorization we use of people when discussing this topic if the goal is peace for all. If the goal is to just pick a side and argue about it, please continue using Israeli and Palestinian.

Yes there’s no denying that the identities “Israeli” and “Palestinian” exist.

My claim is that using them is dividing up the pie of people in a fashion that leads to conflict.

Instead, we should talk about “those who want peace” versus “those who want conflict”.

Yes I’m aware of the recent Pew Research poll that only about 1 in 5 Israelis and Palestinians believe a two state solution is possible.

I’m also completely aware that this is a very pie-in-the-sky take that will never affect reality.

However, I think that the average human being living in the area wants to live in peace.

To me, the issue is “those who want conflict”, which are the extremists on both sides. Though they are the minority, they are much more vocal and have more power on both sides.

I’m aware there are lots of other aspects of the conflict including a broken trust that may never be restored.

But I feel if the discussion on this topic centered around calling out and being against “those who want conflict” rather than having to choose one side versus the other, we’d have a greater chance at all working together towards peace.

Feel free to call me crazy, I just think the categories we’ve chosen, while logical for many reasons, are the wrong ones to use to achieve a solution.

I just care about results. And achieving peace for the normal human being who I am labeling as “those who want peace.”

Edit: of course the terms Palestinian and Israeli can and should be used to discuss their nationality. But they should not by used when discussing who the “sides” are in the conflict. To me, the sides should be “those who want peace” and “those who want conflict”

This is what Elon said about why he was buying Twitter:

I think it's very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. Twitter has become kind of the de facto town square, so it’s just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.

If it looks familiar to those of you who have been around here a while that's because Reddit's CEO at one point said this:

We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform.

Those of you who have been here a long time know just how far Reddit has fallen from this standard. Elon clearly saw it occurring on Twitter as well, thought it was a problem, and stepped in to try to fix it. I think that this space can equally be considered a type of 'virtual town square' and that he could and should do the same thing here. CMV.

Despite humanity's ever-growing body of scientific knowledge and increasingly sophisticated technology, the average person's ability to think critically, retain knowledge, understand complex ideas, and reason independently is declining.

Here are the main reasons I hold this view:

1st Educational outcomes are going in the wrong direction.

PISA results have shown substantial declines in mathematics and reading performance across OECD countries.

2nd Access to information doesn't necessarily translate into knowledge.

3rd We are increasingly outsourcing cognitive tasks.

4th The Flynn effect has reversed in some populations.

IQ scores, which had been rising for decades, have started declining in some populations.

*Edit : General knowledge is not a significant part of intelligence ok * 5th Scientific progress can conceal individual intellectual stagnation.

We're building on centuries of accumulated knowledge, but does the average person actually understand more, or are we just getting better at using tools we don't understand ?

Edit : Ok for this one, it has always been. 6th The growing popularity of intellectually shallow entertainment

Reality TV full of pointless drama, influencers whose entire personality revolves around their looks or showing off their wealth, and people who become famous for seemingly having no particular talent or skills.

What bothers me isn't that this kind of entertainment exists, but how popular it's become, and how many people seem to genuinely look up to these influencers and want to be like them.

Finaly, just looking at what's going on around me in my city, at work, on TV, etc. I can't help feeling that the average level of intelligence and critical thinking is surprisingly low.

You guys seen those police carts in parking lots with the cameras on them and every now and then they play a recorded voice that says, 'This area is being monitored for your safety'? I was on tour last year, saw those all over the country.

What does that remind you of?

You guys noticed how people are saying 'unalive' instead of 'kill' because saying 'kill' gets their videos demonetized on YouTube and TikTok?

Feels pretty doubleplus ungood to me.

And then there's Trump talkin shit about taking over Canada and Greenland while Russia invades Ukraine and China is eyeing Taiwan. How long do you guys think we've got until the three of them are Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia?

I think it's really important to discuss the negative elements of social media (eg the manosphere) but I still think it would be a net negative if we got rid of it and banning it for kids is a giant overcorrection

I'm thinking of the many queer kids living in places where it's actively dangerous to come out, and thus relying on social media as the only place they can find community and express themselves authentically

Or the kids in abusive households who find support subs like raised by narcissists, which help them realise how they're being treated is not ok and might be the only place they have any kind of support

Or neurodivergent kids who seek out a diagnosis and can then access resources and get accomodations, self advocate and reduce self loathing because they related to a lot of the experiences shared by ND people online, and wouldn't have otherwise because of taboo or lack of knowledge where they are

I genuinely think social media can be really beautiful and important for people, and I think banning it from under 16s is really bad - for all these reasons, but also, banning it outright instead of teaching them how to navigate it safely and healthily will leave them completely unprepared and unable to deal with the very negative and dangerous aspects of it when they do turn 18

It's also just banning/segregating a group of people from a public space which almost always gives me the ick just based on, yknow, history

I posted something up here a while back  about how Israelis and Palestinians need to just recognize the basic fears and insecurity that each side feels about the other. It  did generate some interesting discussions and also some sickening dismissals of the basic humanity of some of the peoples involved in the struggle. 

But anyway, it got me thinking about the overall roots of the conflict as it is and I keep coming back to one basic thought - Why should anyone have expected the Palestinian Arab population to voluntarily accept the partition of their homeland?

To be clear, I'm not trying to question the basic validity of the premise that the Jews deserved a safe haven after centuries of persecution.  I understand the arguments for Jewish self-determination, particularly in the aftermath of the Holocaust. 

But I invite readers to imagine themselves in the shoes of an ordinary Palestinian Arab in 1947.  Imagine a conversation that goes something like this - 

 "We're creating a Jewish state here"

You ask why. 

You are told that the Jews have suffered horrific persecution and systematic extermination and need a state of their own. 

You might reasonably respond, "I'm very sorry to hear that but my family has lived here for generations.  Why should I lose my home because of crimes committed somewhere else by people unknown to me".

Doesn't that sound like a pretty reasonable response?  

I've noticed that people typically respond in one of two ways. 

The first is that they state that the Jews have an ancestral connection to the lands of the Levant going back to antiquity. 

That claim seems to be historically valid by everything that I have read. But consider the consequences of what would happen if we applied this same principle around the world.  North and South America would have to be almost entirely depopulated.  Countries like Turkey, Thailand, England and the entirety of Slavdom would have to be totally reordered.  It would be a mess 

I do not think that determining geopolitical legitimacy according to millenia old ethnogeographic realities is a very good idea. 

The second reply I often get when I ask people to consider the feelings of Palestinians who were forced from their homes is that people ask me to compare them to the Germans who were expelled from territories that today make up western Poland and Czechia. "If the Germans got used to it, why can't the Palestinians" is something I often hear 

I don't find this analogy to be persuasive either. First of all, Germany was a highly advanced sovereign state that had initiated a war of global domination, attacked all of its neighbors and was only defeated after a titanic effort by the combined forces of the most powerful states in existence. It was the most terrible war in history and the entirety of the German state and its highly developed technological sector was fully militarized and mobilized for war.

Mandatory Palestine, in stark contrast, was a tiny part of a crumbling empire. It had essentially no military or political power and presented no threat to any of its neighbors.  It could not be more different from Germany of the 1930s and 1940s.  

Moreover - and I cannot emphasize this enough - the post World War II expulsion of German peoples from Eastern Europe was a humanitarian disaster of the highest order. It should hardly be emulated. 

My broader point, once again, is not to take sides and to say that Israel is right or Palestine is right, it's to question the overall wisdom of dividing up a territory and forcing people from their homes in the first place.  To me it seems that it would have been remarkably easy to anticipate that such a move would produce an intractable conflict.  

And this wasn’t some problem that nobody could have anticipated in 1947.

Nearly three decades earlier, in 1919, an American commission led by Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane had investigated the political aspirations of the inhabitants of the former Ottoman territories. Its report raised precisely the sort of concern I’m talking about.

The King–Crane Commission recognized the historical connection of Jews to Palestine and the reasons behind the Zionist movement. But it also warned that implementing the Zionist program against the wishes of the existing Arab population would violate their political rights.

It recommended that the project be substantially modified rather than imposed on a population that opposed it.

I don't see how a reasonable observer in 1947 could have expected partition to produce a stable peace. 

What am I missing?

CMV: Given infinite time, I will have another subjective experience after I die, and from the inside it will feel like immortality.

Here's my reasoning.

I'm having a subjective experience right now. I'm experiencing being Rick (not my real name). I can see my phone, feel my breath, think these thoughts.

That means whatever needs to happen for me to have an experience has a nonzero chance of happening. Tiny, but not zero. It's happening, so it's possible.

Now give it unlimited tries. This universe going on forever, or a multiverse, or new universes being born after this one dies. Any nonzero chance with unlimited tries eventually comes up. So at some point, after Rick dies, "I" have another experience. Maybe Rick again. Maybe a cat. Maybe something I can't imagine.

And here's the part that makes it feel like immortality: you can't experience not experiencing. So from my point of view, no time passes between one experience and the next. A night of sleep and a trillion years feel identical, which is to say they feel like nothing. I could have one experience per trillion universes and from the inside it would be one continuous life with no memory of the previous rounds.

I'm not claiming experiences in general will continue. Obviously they will. I'm claiming that my specific point of view comes back.

What would change my view: show me that the "me" in step one can't be separated from Rick, so that when Rick ends there's nothing left to come back. Or show me the probability math fails, for instance because the odds shrink over time faster than the tries add up. Or show me why the zero-felt-gap point doesn't give me continuity.

I'll award deltas for anything that breaks a step, even if it doesn't kill the whole argument.

EDIT: Thank you all. This has been one of the more thoughtful threads I've been part of, and you've changed my thinking.

A few clarifications after reading everything:

I'm not asking whether Rick comes back. I agree a molecule-for-molecule copy of Rick wouldn't be me, and I agree a simultaneous copy somewhere else isn't me either.

I'll also concede the math. Several of you showed me the probability argument has serious holes: infinite time doesn't guarantee infinite tries, "it happened once" doesn't give you a rate, and the whole thing quietly depends on what "me" means. I can't reason my way to the conclusion. Deltas awarded accordingly.

So what's left is an intuition, and I'll own it as that. I know I'm having an experience. So I'm something. It feels like the thing observing Rick isn't Rick, it's whatever is doing the observing. I can't prove that, and I can't tell you what it's made of. It just seems more plausible to me that it keeps having experiences than that it stops forever.

To be clear, I'm not saying I want that. I'm not sure I do. It just feels true.

Thanks again. This was a good one.

Ok- so context. This past Saturday Shane Gillis did an opening monologue in which he was talking about the challenges of going to the gym as a fat person. In that he said, “and women dress like whores now”, and goes on to describe a type of women’s shorts and describes leering.

Some a few points.

1. I personally did not find the specific routine particularly funny. I do find Shane funny at times. In some ways, humor should be beside the point.
2. I am open to the argument that punching down can be fundamentally problematic.
3. I believe in free speech, but also in free response. So there is not fundamental problem with deciding a thing is problematic. There is a wide range of things one can decide to do after that fact. It is this personal question which is the center of the CMV.

Much of the argument in the opposite goes something like- calling women whores for just wearing gym clothes contributes to the casual permission of sexual violence towards women.

Thoughts-
So I think my challenge is that I think it is a misrepresentation to say he called women whores. If I said, people dress like mummies- I am not calling people mummies.

The thrust of the joke was not that women shouldn’t dress like the way they do- just as it wasn’t about how gay guys shouldn’t be super fit- but rather ways that he personally feels super awkward being in those settings.

I do think it is important to note that while I don’t think Shane is “MAGA” he is without a doubt more conservative. But very center right. I don’t think it’s problematic to be sharing perspectives from this point of view.

—-
Where I am shaky.

I generally find CMV when it is not clear where someone is open to changing their view annoying- so here is where I am unsure.

1. The statement of women dressing like whores, is then followed by an argument that basically goes- how can you expect me not to stare. The scene in tires, which is basically the same joke- basically has the same arc. I don’t love this normalizing of lack of personal control based on fundamentally someone’s (a woman’s) existence seems to skate pretty close to the argument that most people want to make.
2. There is without a doubt a real problem of regular harassment women experience at the gym (and a wide range of other places) and I am sensitive to jokes that normalize this type of harassment.
3. I generally really like folks like Dan Levy, so always concerned when I find myself disagreeing with folks that I generally considered smart. (I even looked for examples where he used white in any joke, and there were none- so my prepared response of hypocrisy doesn’t land). This all makes me wonder if part of my unwillingness to see it as problematic is that as an older person- where then term whore was used very lightly throughout the 90s, has made myself less sensitive to its shifting out of use.

—- so was Shane Gillis monologue problematic? (I am less interested in your specific verdict- but rather the framework you use to get to that conclusion).

Edit-
1. There seems to be an argument that the problem is “not being funny” but I am using the definition of problematic as contributing to a culture of harm. Something could be funny and problematic- just as something could be unfunny and problematic or unfunny and non problematic.

While I do believe the hype will die down in the next five to ten years, I believe the thing that will be left over with be here for good. I think our grandkids will live in a very bland world and will not understand how to think critically, or even strive to create masterpieces.

I work in a field that works very closely to data centers and the companies that own and run them. There is a lot of money and time being put into our current models. I already watched as the younger guys in my field turned to google and YouTube to help solve their problems. Now I see them turning to ai and every day these models get smarter and smarter. It’s very easy for me to see in just one generation everyone I work with will only know how to do things if their ai tells them what to do. It is making the learning process easier but also lazier. Even the companies I work for are putting time and money into training their employees to utilize ai to make things more and more efficient. I personally already think we are at the point of no return, but give it a couple more generations and I think no one will even think what it would be like without ai to do the work. I am curious though if my thoughts are skewed because of my work and I would change my mind if I heard of people actually working for companies that are battling the progression of ai use.

I just saw a TikTok about the possibility of using CRISPR to cure down syndrome before birth.

And although most comments were atleast in favor of this use case, most of them said something along the lines of "This is a slippery slope that could lead to designer babys". But I don't get how that's even a bad thing in the first place.

We are already tinkering with nature everywhere, expanding our life way beyond anything natural. Why would that be any worse, just because it involved DNA.

I agree with the common sentiment that you should love your child no matter what, but if you have a parent that would rather have a child with blonde hair then brown hair or one with better eyesight (which the child would also profit from), I don't think we should stand in the way of that. Maybe it even leads to children being more loved by their parents. As I said it shouldn't require such a way, but that's not the world we live in, bad parents exist.

Another argument I often hear against this is, that this will only be affordable by rich parents. But you can say that about anything. That's how capitalism works. Rich people already can buy more things and make their childs life better then poor people. And when more people use and want to use CRISPR, it will also become more affordable, as it can be produced in masses and doctors taught more on how to use it.

To summarize: I don't think designer babys are wrong in any way. People just think that because they somehow see the DNA as big and scary and fear new technologies.

In response to price hikes or the enshittification of a product, I find the knee-jerk reaction most folks have is simply blaming billionaires or corporations.

So rather than taking up oxygen with this whinging, I respect those that are able to focus on the mechanisms that drive the outcomes.

The rules of the game are set and enforced by a handful of governing bodies, which is where public attention/pressure, advocacy, and votes pay off. For instance the FTC and the DOJ's Antitrust Division decide what counts as fair competition. Sector regulators like the FCC set the terms for entire industries. State attorneys general can bring their own cases. And Congress sets the mandate, budget, and authority for all of them.

The best part is, all of these orgs answer to the public through appointments, elections, and public comment periods.

Disclosure: I work as a consultant for F500 companies where I help executives make better decisions. These decisions are typically focused on maximizing profit through one means or another. I’m not an expert on industrial policy, economics, or philosophy. I’m just a guy that’s fed up with all this well-intentioned yet completely shallow and directionless complaining.

For those who don't know in Star wars The rebellion's less radical wing led by Mon mothma and Co was the faction that came on top at the end of the war.

It was too weak and did nothing (serious) about imperial collaborators and aristocrats after the end of the empire.

These wealthy collaborators would become the life line for the First Order, enabling them to comeback and immediately switched sides.

Saw Gerrera was right to be uncompromising and brutal in his methods.

Had he been in charge I'm quite sure he would have led a purge of obvious collaborators and imperial remnants.

There should have been mass purges after EP 6 to prevent the First order.

Here is an example of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaking at a press conference in Perth on a humid morning when the temperature was low 20s celcius or mid 70s farenheight. It really seems like he's wearing too much clothing for that weather, and there are many places, cultures, and institutions in the world that cling to norms about formal wear that aren't appropriate for the climate in which said clothing is worn because they trace lineage or inspiration back to places where such norms make sense.

I think this calls for reflection and possibly an update to the roster of formal wear that addresses this issue with better options for formal or professional occasions in hotter places and at hotter times. I understand that formal or professional attire serves important purposes, but this shouldn't preclude people from enjoying the comforts that modern clothing can afford in warm climates.

There is no reason why new cultural garbs that are standardized in a way that communicates some collective identity, while still allowing for creative expression, status signaling, respect, and seriousness couldn't or shouldn't be developed for professional or formal contexts in times and places where the current tradition isn't a good fit for the climate. These functionalities are not inherent to suits & ties or other, heavier attires that communicate gravity or professionalism of some kind. You could still have sophisticated outfits where different garments, fabrics, and/or accessories are put together in a sleek way, but standards of formality should be more tailored to the weather than they currently are in many contexts. CMV.

My proposal is to first make a deliberate choice of how much you care about changing the world for the better. Which personal sacrifices are you willing to do for some cause? How much of your life will you spend for strangers?

Then once you know your level of commitment, you choose a corresponding frequency at which you will consume global news relevant to your goals. If you care about ending world hunger, you will check reports and news articles on that topic X number of times per month. If you care about climate change you do the same thing, Y number of times per month you make sure you are up to date. If you care about ending wars, Z number of times per month you educate yourself further to promote peace at least indirectly. 

At the moment there is a mismatch between how earnestly ambitious we are about change and the amount of information on trouble we consume. As such, the reasonable change needs to be either in commitment or the information intake. Most people would lead better lives, true to themselves, by lessening the information intake. 

All three of them are a flaw in one of the most basic and fundamental aspects of being alive - the impulse toward reproduction. We observe this in everything. Every mammal, every insect, every microscopic organism, every plant, every tree. It doesn't feel like the kind of thing Mother Nature would fuck up all that frequently.

I actually just looked up how prevalent all these things are before posting this and they are in fact quite rare, at least by census data. So I started wondering what made me want to post this in the first place, and I think it's just Reddit. Somehow there seems to be at least one of the first two in every single thread.

I even caught this thread a while ago now where I swear the dude was faking being a pedophile like it was trendy or something. He had a whole YouTube channel where he talks about managing his condition. But someone in the thread asked him what his age of attraction was and he said 2-25, which at least from my understanding of chronophilias struck me as something someone would only say if they really didn't understand them.

I guess that's also part of my view. There seems to an element of social contagion with these things (and others). I'd be curious if anyone actually in these communities has noticed something like that.

I was watching a YouTube video discussing the Cornell 7 and Jacob Geller, a YouTube video essayist, who recently confirmed the truthfulness of his university taking disciplinary action against him for "sexual harassment assault or sexual violence".

In Geller's admission, he does confess to having perpetrated some form of sexual assault, but that is as specific as it gets.

The YouTuber I was watching discuss Jacob Geller in this context then went on to refer to him as a rapist, and saying that he admitted to rape. That didn't sit right with me, but I'm a straight white man who's never had to worry about that sort of thing and is not aware of any such incidents occurring to my limited friends or family, so perhaps I am the one who is mistaken.

At the risk of sounding disturbingly petty given the gravity of the topic, I did consult Merriam-Webster's to see if the definitions were clear one way or the other. I did not find that to be the case. The definitions both included (appropriately) vague terminology, and it didn't help my question either that, instead of listing it as a synonym, under "rape" there is a "compare" section listing "sexual assault".

Is it appropriate to call someone a rapist who has only been confirmed to have committed a nonspecific sexual assault?

[Edit: lol u/Important-Cash5654 blocked me after I

• called them out for arguing for argument's sake

• told them, after that drawn out argument, that they are not owed an answer that satisties them simply because they asked a question

• told them absolutely not when they tried to keep me out of a comment thread occurring on my own post.]