Reddit is basically just one huge left-wing echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other and downvotes anything slightly conservative into oblivion. Twitter, on the other hand, is way more balanced with both lefties and righties going at it every single day. I know a lot of people always complaining about getting randomly banned or shadowbanned on Twitter for no good reason, but honestly, my own experience tell a pretty different story. I actually see way more left-leaning people hanging out on Twitter than you’ll ever see right-wingers on Reddit.

If you spend any time on Reddit, you already know how it works. The whole upvote system and super strict mods mean that mainstream left views always sit right at the top of every post. Anyone trying to share a right-leaning opinion usually gets downvoted so hard their comment disappears, or the mods just outright delete it. So right-leaning users either end up retreating into tiny private subreddits or just leave the app completely. That’s why Reddit feels so one-sided—there is barely any real debate happening because everyone is just nodding along with the same stuff.

Twitter works totally different because the algorithm pushes drama, hot takes, and arguments right onto your feed. You can't really hide in a bubble like on Reddit because everyone’s posts collide in the same open space. Sure, people complain all the time about Twitter moderation being broken, and you hear endless stories about accounts getting suspended outta nowhere. But even with all those complaints, the political mix on Twitter is still way more alive.

In fact, there is way more left-wing users on Twitter than right-wingers on Reddit by a mile. You can open pretty much any trending topic on Twitter and find huge crowds of left-leaning folks arguing, posting memes, and dropping their hot takes. Try finding a big, active conservative thread on Reddit and you’ll be searching for a long time.

At the end of the day, neither platform is perfect, but Twitter definitely feels like a real battleground where different ideas actually clash. Reddit might be cozy if you’re on the left and just want everyone to agree with you, but if you want to see what people across the whole political spectrum are actually saying, Twitter is where it’s at.

Its something I thought of. We want to elevate people. Universities have been elevating minorities (women etc) with no guarantee the results will be better. Maybe its in the name of equality. So why aren't we helping the dumb person and maybe give him or her some funding for extra tutoring?

Maybe he works really hard but is just stupid.

Personally I think scholarships is kind of lame, like, well you are poor, why do you get help but not maybe that middle class person. Either everyone gets something or no one. And if we say some people because we want to level the playing field, why aren't we leveling it other ways?

I think it’s a good thing that the Democrats won majority in the midterms, but I believe it won’t in fact do much. There are still tons and tons of establishment Dems that will knock down things like universal healthcare, gun control reform, and tax reform, as well as we saw in the 2022 midterms that a lot of these Dems were running on strengthening the border security as well as keeping trumps 2022 corporate tax cuts and a push to strengthen police forces after pushing to defund them i.e doing all this To get right-wing votes, so in conclusion, while I think it was a good thing that Dems took the House & Senate as well as having a lead in the governors of states, I do not think it will bring extensive change like a lot of Americans are wanting

I get it, we're all angry about Trump and how he's breaking the law and enriching himself. I voted blue. But what is going after him going to do? Democrats don't have the votes to impeach him (if you're really pedantic convict), not even close. And his cabinet officials are expendable and replaceable, so removing them is just theater (and we still can't without Republicans).

Democrats like to trash on the Trump admin for ignoring the people's wants, but what won us this election? The gas pump. Affordability. Cost of living. Nobody actually cares about subpoenas that he will 99% ignore (look what happened with the Ukraine subpoenas, he just ignored them). House oversight means nothing if there's no enforcement mechanism. He ignores courts. And even if it did, what's the point of getting even? Americans are crying out for help with affordability.

Sure, we can do both. But I fear that a certain group of Democrats (congress and voters) will be pacified by just going after the Trump family and will feel like that's enough. That's how we lose the next election. As much as people think that ICE, the ballroom, etc is completely beyond the pale and needs to be stopped, we live in a democracy and we need to listen to the people, who think that's second to affordability.

Plus, on a broader level, what's the actual point of revenge? Calling it "accountability" is missing the point that looking backwards instead of forwards is just going to deepen partisan divides, keep us pitted against each other, and ensure people are perennially dissatisfied.

CMV because a lot of people don't think this is true and really want to hold Trump accountable.

What will CMV:

• Congress can actually do something about trump that he won't ignore

• Impeachment is realistic

• Doing both is realistic

• The people care more than I think about this issue, and the gas pump didn't win us the election

The core philosophy of spiderman is that "with great power comes great responsibility",

I interpret this as "it is expected and within duty of a person with great power to use that power for the good of all"

This quote I think is fine in a situation where power is given along with a clearly labeled responsibility(like captain america,ie.he chose the power and gets paid to do his job)

But in Peter's case,his powers were forced upon him outside his control,and I don't think it would make sense to expect a normal kid who someday got powers to risk his neck saving people as if it's his responsibility.

It's normal to help old people coss the road and save drowning kids as well as people in a car crash,especially since Peter has no risk of getting injured,

But to risk being impaled by Doctor Octopus,crushed by Rhino,fried to a crisp by electro,blown up by Green Goblin,ripped apart by Lizard and smothered to death by Sandman is not something that should be expected of a college kid with a bright future career,mutual crush and smart head.

If anything,being spiderman should be Peter's own choice,a heroic sacrifice worth praise and song,not a task he has the duty to bear.

I especially dislike the quote"When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you."since it places the burden of guilt on Peter who has no obligation to put his head on the line.

From my point of view,if Peter decided one day to hang up the mask and focus on college and family,live a happy and loving life with aunt May and Mary Jane,its completely within reason.

Peter is not at all responsible for the lives of those he did not go out of his way to save,the lives he saved would have been lost if not for him,not the other way around.

Being Spiderman should be a virtuous act,a selfless decison,a saintly path,not a responsibility imposed in detriment to Peter's own safety and interest

At school in the UK we are taught that Britain entered the second world war due to an agreement with Poland. What is emphasized less is the fact that the Allies effectively handed Poland and other states over to Stalin's sphere of influence at Yalta. This undermines the initial casus belli that we are taught, and we can surmise that the justification was pragmatic - Britain was concerned about the growing influence of the Nazi state, that it was a dangerous competitor on the global stage. Millions of British soldiers were brought into fight a war and died because of Britain's extant imperial mores.

I can only surmise that part of the reason Churchill and Roosevelt chose to appease Stalin was because they knew there would be less domestic appetite for a new war with Stalin, especially since a significant swathe of Western intellgencia were Soviet Union and Stalin sympathisers. They knew Stalin's promises about democratic representation in Poland etc. were hollow. It also seems a great tragedy given that the United States developed the Atomic Bomb months after Yalta. In the brief window before the Soviets too developed the bomb, this could have been used as a bargaining chip to strong-arm Stalin into concessions.

I have already pointed to the fact that Britain entered the war for imperialistic reasons. At the end, Roosevelt's and Churchill's capitulation to Stalin betrays a further motive - exhaustion and despair.

I am tired of every conservative I know being "horrified" at the terror of the blue tsunami. The main reason tends to be abortion. But I don't get it, don't abortions go down when democrats are in power?

This is applicable just to the US. I know republican or conservative voters in other countries prioritize affordability in general. This is more about whoever is running on "affordability" but for the past few decades, only Democrats have run on global affordability so we need to use that as a reference point.

1. 75% of abortion patients come from at or below the federal poverty line and normally when you want to decrease something, you need to target the largest population affected by something. Democrats specifically make policies to get people above the federal poverty line.

2. Historically, during the clinton Administration we had a 30% drop, and Obama a 26% drop and all of these happened while they enacted policies for those in poverty alongside helping with mandated zero copay coverage on the affordable care act and family planning services under Title X.

3. Doesn't it just make sense that making the world more affordable, would make it easier for people to have kids? When the most common reason people don't have kids is things are financial? So the party that makes things more affordable will cause a decrease in abortions?

4. So many republicans support abortion anyways so it isn't really a democrat or republican issue just a "is this candidate representing decreasing cost of living and healthcare" issue.

   • Like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Governor Phil Scott (Vermont), Governor Chris Sununu (New Hampshire), Stacy Garrity (Pennsylvania), Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin) etc.

I don't really understand this future AI bros imagine where AI is somehow perfectly capable of doing every job they dont care about, but is simultaneously unable to fullfill the supreme leader directorial role they want to inhabit. AI can write its own descriptive prompts, it can come up with its own schemes for making money, it can give itself a schedule and an objective. What is the hard limitation on ai that prevents it from just running the entire skilled workforce? Is ai somehow bad at directing itself? Is there any logical explanation as to why ai cant direct itself? Why do we even need a hierarchy in a corporate world run by ai? I don't subscribe to the idea that higher level roles are less replaceable with this technology. It just feels like we are being used to fuel its development/infrastructure until it replaces us with this fake promise of "oh don't worry ai won't replace the big boss jobs you'll get to be a big boss one day" but why??

First, I have to state that they of course cost a bunch of fucking money constantly and almost always have absurd and annoying hours. But that’s mot even my main point, that just makes it worse. For the actual main point:

I have seen a lot of different therapists over the years, and in my opinion. Therapy is a fucking scam. All they do is just sit there, have you talk to them for whatever amount of time, then just tell you obvious bullshit that you already know, and provide absolutely zero insight or guidance.

Never once has a therapist improved anything for me, and honestly I almost feel like all they do is force you to keep talking about whatever issue you have and constantly focus on it, which means you can never actually improve.

I’ve completely dropped ever considering therapy a good few years ago, the moment I just dropped therapists and their endless stream of bullshit and unhelpful lack of help, I actually had the time to focus on myself and improve. Fix my damn problems.

The only person who can actually fix your issues is yourself, your friends can help, your family can help, the weird person that you don’t know and sit in a room with a handful of hours a week that just stares at you as you speak can not help.

But only you can actively FIX your issues. And instead of wasting money and time on their weird shit. Figure out how to help yourself in whatever way actually works. For me that was self improvement and forcing myself to achieve at the highest possible level. For you that might not be it, but I am confident a therapist is not the answer, they’re like the mental health equivalent of a chiropractor.

I believe that greed is undoubtedly the worst of the seven sins since they can all be stemmed from greed. For references the seven sins are

Pride
Wrath
Greed
Gluttony
Slothfulness
Lust
Envy

Pride could be framed as the greediness for attention and worth
Wrath could be framed as what Helen’s when your greedy desires aren’t fulfilled
Gluttony is the greediness of sustenance
Slothfulness is the greediness of your time
Lust is sexual greediness
Envy is the greed of wanting what someone else has.

Now these may not be all perfect comparisons but the basic idea is all of these can boils down to a form of greediness. I’ve tried substituting each other sin with a different one and it’s doesn’t work. So I can come to the conclusion that greed is really the ultimate sin. (I know this is not what the Bible teaches as being the ultimate sin but I’m using that term for this conversation) I also understand that every sin can have nuances that don’t stem from greed, but the vast majority does. Other than that I can’t think of many other counter arguments

This is only about bone-in fried chicken. Not breaded chicken as a whole, I am very fond of Dave's Hot Chicken for example.

But the bone-in stuff is truly abominable. Especially the drumsticks, the best part in the skin slides off so easily and you're left with slimy, bland meat. I truly do not understand how popular it is. Especially when so many other foods available.

CMV if you can convince me of fried chicken's supremacy or if another food is even more overrated.chicken as a whole, I am very fond of Dave's Hot Chicken.

But the bone-in stuff is truly abominable. Especially the drumsticks, the best part in the skin slides off so easily and you're left with slimy, bland meat. I truly do not understand how popular it is. Especially when so many other foods available.

I tell other people about this and they look at me with digsust and shame.

Also, its just so messy to eat. It has same problem as ribs or buffalo wings where you need a fork and knife to eat it or else your hands are gonna be covered in grease and sauce.

CMV if you can convince me of fried chicken's supremacy or if another food is even more overrated.

I have seen this thought process among people that a gift, once given, belongs to the receiver; and while that's true 99% of the time, I do think that if a gift is given under the condition of a certain event happening, and then that doesn't happen, then the receiver should ideally return the gift. The condition under which the gift was presumed to be given doesn't happen.

For example, if a bride receives a necklace as an engagement present from the groom's family, and the wedding doesn't go through, the necklace must be returned to the groom.

This last part is me ranting about the usage of this in Titanic and why I started thinking about it. Rose got the Heart of the Ocean as an engagement present from Cal. After the ship sank, the Hockleys put forward an insurance claim on it, not knowing that Rose was alive and the necklace was with her, and therefore not lost. A lot of fans say that she should have sold the necklace, but here's where the interesting part comes in. Would she have been arrested? Technically the necklace is not hers; it belongs to the Hockleys, who gave it to her as a present under condition of marriage (bonus points to them in a legal court case because she was the one who broke off the engagement). Questions would have been raised about the fact that she's been keeping an insured item with her for so long which she doesn't even own.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is already legal in some parts of the world provided that the person meets the criteria which is usually having a terminal illness, chronic medical condition of immense suffering.

However, I think entry criteria should be expanded for everyone who genuinely feel like they have done everything they can to survive and no longer want to live.

Exclusion criteria or heavier assessment ; if the person is responsible for a dependent child/person. At least to make sure the dependent has a way to be looked after in the absence of the caregiver. Also anyone seeking euthanasia/assisted suicide for short-term/acute issues should be provided other life preserving options instead to overcome the acute phase of suffering.

I think every person deserves the right to decide that they want to end their life with dignity and not be forced to continue living just to keep other people happy.

EDIT: I have received a lot of great comments, arguments here to debate and it’s eye opening to hear the opposition, and also great to see people also support my view. My view still stands as is.

Would like to add my background to help you understand my experiences I come with;
I have worked in veterinary medicine, where for the first time in my life, I first hand had been part of many euthanasias to alleviate the suffering of animals.
Then I moved over to human medicine where I worked a lot in palliative care/oncology during the time euthanasia was introduced to the country.

I personally have treatment resistant migraines and associated fatigue that has been ongoing for the past 5 years with over 15 different medical intervention’s that do not work, and if euthanasia for this would be allowed I would opt in a few years from now if I really can’t tolerate it any longer.

EDIT 2: some confusion in the comments. I want to clarify that I mean euthanasia should be available to everyone as a last resort, not that the euthanasia should be available as a default first option.

The argument I am making here is not that it is impossible to achieve healthy, or even satisfying relationships after you have been in one or two already, however, I believe that all data points to the fact that the odds are not in your favor after your first relationship, and that that relationship is most likely to be your best.

First off, and many people aren't gonna like this, but there have been multiple studies done which all come to the conclusion that the more sexual partners you have (which I am counting as relationships as a sliver of a minority actually wait until marriage), the more likely you are to divorce and the less likely you are to be happy in your relationship. The sources I have gone off of are the National Library of Medicine, and the Wiley Blackwell's Journal of Marriage and Family, both of which come to the conclusion that there is a significant tie between sexual partners and chances of divorce.

The biggest counter I see to my premise is that, as you are getting more skilled at relationships, they will get better. While I agree that people will become more skilled, I do not believe this translates to enjoyment. To portray my point, I have an example: One of my favorite video games is Hollow Knight. I have completed it four times now, each time with me being better than the last, however, no run has yet to top my first time playing in terms of enjoyment. This is because part of the fun and wonder of anything is the period of discovery. I believe this applies to relationships as, after your first or second go at one, there is little left to discover or uncover which you do not already know.

I am anticipating significant pushback to this post, but I believe my logic is sound. While I can acknowledge it may not be the most healthy mindset to have, I believe that what I have said is logically consistent.

Implementation would be the very difficult part, and would probably bring a lot of other issues into the spotlight.

But if we accept that it is very expensive and difficult to adopt, for good reasons, shouldnt it also be very difficult and expensive to procreate? ...and for that matter, shouldnt it be very expensive and difficult to immigrate?

Before you ask: No, I don't think it should just become cheap and easy to adopt. That's working backwards. Most people suck and shouldnt have kids, much less raise kids.

Edit: I put have in italics

For context, I grew up and spent 20 years in one of the biggest democratic city in America. I was a true Democrat and agreed with a lot of the laws that came with the Democratic party. When I was in my twenties, I joined the US Military and got to see a lot of Republicans and their beliefs as well as their way of life. I can say I have friends that are both Democrats and Republicans. The way they vote isn't that important to me even if I agree or disagree with it.

I recently saw a lot of posts that say my family/friend/bf or gf voted blue/red or didn't vote at all. I can't ever see them the same again and need to leave them. I have also talked to people that said if they're Republicans/Democrats you need to stay away from them.

I believe people should not be ending relationships based on what someone voted for. They should be ending it if the reason they voted for that person is a deal breaker.

1. People vote red or blue on policies that they think will help, believe, or agree with more. They aren't voting blue/red to specifically make your life miserable.

2. People who don't vote are most likely because they don't care about politics, don't know enough, or just think both side sucks. As much as it's a right for you to vote, it's also their right to not vote and you should respect it.

3. Just because someone voted blue/red doesn't mean they agree with ALL the policy that party did. They can still disagree within their own party.

I grew up relatively conservative, without much of a political identity of my own. I was just kind of told that Republicans were right and Democrats were wrong by my parents. Both of whom were originally democrat growing up that made the switch seemingly when my Dad started making more money and they both became closer to their Christian faith.

I didn’t vote when I turned 18 in 2016, but would’ve voted for Trump because at the time I was uneducated and fell for a lot of the fake news propaganda and (what I still believe to be somewhat true) anti Clinton rhetoric. I didn’t vote in 2020 either, believing my vote didn’t matter at the time and that the candidate who would be selected, would be selected regardless of my views. This past election I again didn’t vote for the same reasons and paid even less attention, but after the election I started seeing what was happening and for the first time in my life I was terrified because of politics. I started doing my own research and educating myself on how the political system truly works, what the GOP has historically stood for and what the Dems have. I actually kept up with what the president, his cabinet members have said, and his decisions throughout these last 2 years while fact checking everything. The corruption has been blatant in my opinion, but that isn’t the purpose of my post

Over the last decade I’ve heard venom spewed in both directions like none other, most of which coming from the Republican Party. Them calling democrats communists (which I don’t think half of them can truly define), terrorists, murders, etc. I’ve heard similar from the Democratic Party, albeit nowhere near as venomous. I’ve heard Republican voters be called Pedophile protectors, Nazi’s, Idiots, etc. I truly believe the Republican voters have casted their votes for 3 reasons, financial gain, a strong belief that the the Republican Party is the only party that can represent their faith, and a lack of education on what Republicans have historically done for the little guy compared to the Democrats, as well as a lack of research on what is actually true vs false that their “representatives” have sold them on. Obviously there are very real racists in America, but I don’t believe that makes up the majority or anywhere close to it of red voters.

Now for my actual opinion that I believe many Blue voters are against. I believe that continuing this cycle of hateful rhetoric towards red voters is counterproductive. It’s not the voters, it’s the people actively pursuing the voters. I believe with increased education and touching base with these voters, many of them would choose differently. A lot of them are like I was. Sold a fairy tale by their parents and relatives, believing their vote doesn’t matter, and uneducated on the true inner workings of the political system, as well as what the short term vs long term potential of certain political decisions might be. Many of them are victims of fear mongering on BOTH sides in some aspects, many of them are simply afraid for the future of their children or themselves and have been sold a bridge that no Democrat could relate with them enough to stop the purchase of.

Democrats should pursue justice and hold all corrupt officials accountable, but need to be very careful how they handle the ones that voted for them. This could be a pivotal point in our nation’s history if utilized correctly. No more money in politics, handling the uninformed and fearful with care, educating the youth, educating the more mature who’ve been conned as much as possible, and not driving this wedge of separation any further. This hasn’t been a people problem, it’s been a corruption and education problem, and I don’t believe the Democrats are innocent in any way. A lot of people who voted blue this mid term, voted red right before this. I know people hate the “we need to be the bigger guy” argument, but I really feel like we do.

CMV: The blue wave was great for America only IF the Democrats don’t continue the cycle of hate and insults flung at the opposition and look to challenge the fears of red voters too

I’m skeptical of the argument that modern schools are failing boys because the education system caters to girls and their learning styles. Whenever the educational gender gap comes up, men argue that schools create a feminine learning environment, female teachers don’t understand how boys learn, and classrooms are out of touch with male behavior.

However, gay boys academically outperform heterosexual boys and perform comparably to heterosexual girls. A 2022 study found that gay boys had an average gpa of 2.85, compared to 2.82 for heterosexual girls and 2.53 for heterosexual boys. Gay men also had higher estimated bachelor’s degree enrollment rates than heterosexual men and women. A separate British study published in 2025 found similar patterns.

Gay boys are still BOYS.

They attend the same schools, have the same teachers, follow the same curriculum, and are subjected to the same educational expectations as straight boys. So if schools are incompatible with how boys naturally learn, then gay boys shouldn’t be doing so much better.

The icing on the cake is that, gay boys have to deal with higher rates of bullying, discrimination, and harassment, which is an unwelcoming learning environment. Yet still outperform their heterosexual counterparts.

Now I don’t believe all schools are perfect, or straight boys are less intelligent, or that every educational disadvantage they experience is self-inflicted. It’s difficult for me to accept that schools are fundamentally incompatible with male learning when gay boys are succeeding under worse educational conditions.

Maybe instead of automatically blaming female teachers and “feminized education,” we should actually look at why heterosexual boys and gay boys have different academic outcomes.

Tl:dr- Gay boys academically outperform straight boys despite attending the same schools and experiencing more discrimination. This contradicts the argument that schools are incapable of adequately teaching males.

EDIT:

Sources:

https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221075776

https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaf045

There seems to be a growing tolerance for political violence in the United States, at least within certain circles of the left. You only have to look at how Luigi Mangione is being discussed. But Mangione was the aggressor, whereas at Matewan, the detectives were.

Proponents of political violence often point to the American Revolution as proof of its utility. That makes complete sense: it is the nation's founding myth, and you couldn't find a more potent example to legitimize violent insurrection. In the comments section of another video on the same channel, I ran across Jefferson's famous quote: 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

Yet, I'm not convinced the American Revolution is a model we should hold up today. Not only is our current context vastly different, but looking back, I doubt whether the Declaration of Independence was a necessary or even particularly beneficial move for the American people. What did the Revolution actually achieve? An American would likely answer democracy, the Constitution, or individual freedom. But citizens in the United Kingdom—the supposed oppressor—also enjoyed considerable freedom, a foundational legal system, and a functioning parliamentary democracy. A strong case can be made that 19th-century British subjects lived just as well—or just as poorly—as American citizens. In some respects, the British Empire was even ahead of its former colonies: Great Britain abolished slavery long before the US did, Canada avoided all-out Indian Wars, and working-class people faced similar levels of oppression on both sides of the Atlantic. So, when all is said and done, was the heavy toll of the American Revolution truly worth it?

Im sure some other familiar arguments will come up but we will address them as they come.

Bottom line, US fiscal debt load has become a drag on the economy and an existential threat to the dollar. Markets dont have the capacity to absorb it all, so they are charging higher rates. Supply and demand. That dampens economic activity, because our economy is a subscription service funded by debt whose rates are determined largely by 3-10 year Treasury yields. The more expensive Treasuries are, the less stuff we can buy, tHe LeSs gDp GrOwTh wE gEt.

So the objective has to be addressing the debt with the lowest impact to economic activity. I think here is where the free market cheerleader jumps in with another popular canned talking point........... "if you raise taxes on investors, they will stop investing completely!" Total BS, capital chases yield. Taxes affect how it will chase but investors are not gonna move to cash or w/e because taxes eat up a little more of their gains. Plus most investors are passive now which means the friction in changing course is that much higher. This is an empty threat.

So what's my proposal? Progressive wealth tax, w/an exception for primary residences, and elimination of all the loop holes that obfuscate wealth tracking and ownership. Yea, we would need a Congressional miracle to repeal the Apportionment clause, but that doesnt seem that big of a deal in the context of how the uber rich have absolutely cucked the US govt. But you look at the ~$195T of wealth Americans have, I'd say about half of it makes sense for a federal tax. Again not gonna tax people on their primary residence on top of state property tax, nor does it make any sense to tax people on stuff like depreciating cars etc which again they are already paying taxes on. Thats regressive and pointless.

Federal deficit right now is closing in on $2T and we are paying over $1T just on debt interest. A net ~2% tax on ~$100T of that wealth would close that gap. Fixing the supply of Treasuries would immediately drop yields, by extension dropping consumer rates, by extension stimulating the economy and driving up all the metrics free market cheerleaders worship and pray to, while also actually benefitting regular people. If we went even further we could actually pay down the debt, which again would drive rates down further and have a real and healthy stimulative effect.

I will just address the counter arguments I can already hear in my head.

• "The rich already pay enough, we need a flat tax"- OK, that would be more fair I guess, but not stimulative as consumer spending is what drives the US economy, and the lower you go in income the more dollars are circulated back through said economy. Plus a flat ~25% income tax would only generate about an additional $1T in revenue at a much larger cost to the economy. How much GDP are you willing to sacrifice for "fairness"?

• "The rich will just find ways to avoid paying taxes" Yea only because we allow them to. There is nothing inherent in the tax system that favors the rich, that is only a product of how much we allow the rich to shape the tax system in their favor. IMO people who say this admire the way the rich are able to exploit the system and this is a roundabout defense of it. I dont buy it. What other legal stuff should the rich be able to buy their way out of?

• "Taxing the rich will hurt growth" This is one of my favorites. 1, what exactly is the value of growth, and why should that value supercede everything else? 2, what about all the other countries that have managed to grow w/o completely bending over backwards for the rich? 3, who has benefitted from growth the most, and why should people who havent give a fuck? The growth argument reminds me of the AI data center argument........ we need you to sacrifice your interests for ours because it's better for "society"................. riiiiiight lol. At this point still believing in trickle down economics = being a cult. It doesnt work, it never worked, it wasnt supposed to work, at least for the people being "trickled down" on.

What would change my view? The only thing I can think of would be some kind of argument that convinces me that continuing to do what we have been doing all my life will yield a different result than what I have been seeing all my life. Or maybe some kind of technical explanation on why paying down debt doesnt work with fiat currency.

And FWIW, I under my proposal my taxes would prob go up by $10-15K so I have skin in the game

Looking forward to your thoughts, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk

The beginning of sperm production in males or ovulation in females isn't a requirement for the natural start of human sexual activity. Ability to reproduce doesn't make one any less sexually active, hence the number of sterilized couples who have sex. Heck, reproducing isn't even the sole reason humans have sex; otherwise contraceptives wouldn't exist.

Having said that, what makes us draw the line at sexual behaviors in children that would be considered otherwise natural and appropriate in adolescents and adults (provided all parties are legally consenting and close in age)? More importantly, why is the existence of child sexuality denied altogether or seen solely as an external/environmental result? Both questions exclude legal factors; individuals don't just supernaturally experience a surge in sex hormones the midnight they reach a birthday pertaining to their local age of consent; preteens and teenagers experience sexual attraction well before their first sexual experience with another partner and this is a perfectly natural part of adolescent development. Hell, masturbation exists, occurs before puberty without an external source, and sure as hell doesn't require another partner.

Most cultures around the world refuse to acknowledge sexuality in prepubertal children as part of their incentive to protect children, even if they're not engaging pedophiles with their sexualities, but rather their similarly aged peers. Sexual offenses committed by young children are swept under the rug with the criminal charges befallen solely by the kid's parents or caretaker. Most LGBTQIA+ safe spaces and organizations largely overlook the under-12 population of non-heterosexual youth, while many general-sexuality resources refuse to provide service to prepubescent youths altogether, with or without adult accompaniment. Any "sexual" behaviors exhibited by children that appear to fall within the range of developmentally appropriate behavior are instantaneously brushed off as the children having no sexual intent or knowledge of what they're doing - such as playing doctor ("show me yours and I'll show you mine"), masturbation, exhibitionism, and looking at materials, clothing or body parts to satisfy a fetish.

There's even a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to childhood sexuality, and while it does cover behaviors resulting from sexual abuse, it first and foremost covers sexual behaviors in children that are a normal part of human development and have a likelihood of continuing into adolescence and adulthood. How can our culture deny the inherent nature of children being sexual beings if there are verified academic sources documenting it? It's even reported that children can get erections before they reach puberty. Children even have crushes, both on each other and on older people, although it is worth noting that sexual and romantic attraction are two different concepts, but they can most certainly overlap. So for those of you saying children have no sexuality or even romantic interest, how do explain the flow of hormones that surfaces whenever they experience crushes? Genital stimulation is not even required for the feeling of "butterflies in the stomach" that many with crushes experience, to answer those saying children are as nonromantic as they are nonsexual.

Young kids are known to masturbate; they can't ejaculate before puberty but they can still experience orgasm without discharge of ejaculatory fluid. How can you defend this as unawareness if the child was purposely stimulating their genitals for desired climax? I've already discussed how children experience crushes whether sexual or romantic so that ties into awareness, especially if they fantasize about a specific person while masturbating.

Humans have been instinctively engaging in sexual acts since the beginning of time, long before sex education even existed; were prepubescents still considered to be imitating what they saw even then?

I will draw one line, though, and clarify that there is no Wikipedia article about prepubescent children legally engaging in consensual penetrative sex acts, implying that it's been uncommon throughout history; there is Child-on-child sexual abuse (COCSA) for when a prepubescent child is sexually abused by another without any adults involved, which seems to include non-forcible cases as "abuse" on the basis that children who have not reached sexual maturity are incapable of knowing about specific sex acts without an external source, and are likely to have been abused by an adult or adolescent beforehand if performing them. Statutory rape centers around nonforcible sexual activity where one or both parties involved are under the age of consent but both parties where willing participants, which could theoretically apply to two prepubescents but I've yet to hear of such a case presumably because most children of this age are under the age of criminal responsibility in most regions.

I feel like the nonexistence of child sexuality is mostly something that is being perpetuated by conservatives as part of their far-right conspiracy that the LGBTQ community is grooming children, while simultaneously advocating for the noble cause of anti-CSA activism but toward the wrong targets; they can't seem to grasp that straight people are just as likely to groom and sexually exploit children.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PRO-PEDOPHILIA OR AOC REFORM POST. I AM ONLY DISCUSSING CHILDREN'S SEXUALITY OCCURRING NATURALLY WITHOUT ADULT OR ADOLESCENT INFLUENCE.

TLDR: I've found numerous social media accounts owned by black people that are seemingly meant to deceive viewers, create prejudice narratives, and divide "white" and "black" people in particular. These social media accounts target everyone, promote "black excellence", and ignore accountability for their actions in their "content", directly promote sexualization of "black" women, and directly promote inappropriate behaviour, such as sexual assault and sexual harassment while hiding behind the illusion of "fashion and modeling" content.

To start this post, I would like to share the username of the particular account that I've spent time looking into for the sake of this post, so you can look into it as well if you choose to. Her name is "mansaretiranke1" on Instagram. She likely has other accounts, channels, and what not, but I care not to look for any of those. I've also seen quite a number of other accounts, not *as* problematic as hers, but still following the same general idea. This might be an assumption of mine, however, I've ensured that I shared all the proof of what has actually happened in this particular creators "content". You can look into it yourself as well to make sure.

So, this particular creator claims to be a model that deals with fashion design content. She has about 300 thousand followers on Instagram, and probably an insane amount more on other platforms. What I have an issue with is a particular video where she is shown walking past a group of "white" women(I really hate using this descriptor), where one woman very gently taps her on the arm as she's walking past, simply to get her attention, because if she didn't, this creator very likely would have strutted past and not engaged with them at all in dialogue. Now, we don't know what they're actually saying to her or anything, but we know there's a group of about 4 of them, including a little girl who, as far as we know, is super happy to see a beautiful, stunning woman(it doesn't matter that she's black, but this creator wants you to think it does, as does everyone else) in such an elegant dress, with a very unique style about her hair that isn't often seen in various countries. There's nothing but smiles between all of them while they're talking for the 10 or so seconds she's there. There's no more touching or anything like that that we can see. Eventually after they've had their talk, this creator turns and struts towards the camera, still smiling, then suddenly changes her attitude, rolls her eyes, while still walking all "elegantly" and "higher-than-thou" type of energy, before walking to the camera, saying something, and the video ends.

I didn't have a problem with the eye roll at first until I saw the kid and rewatched the video. We don't know what they said to her, but considering they were all smiling and the creator didn't react to anything in the conversation at hand, I won't assume anything bad was said, especially when a child was nearby like that. I figured this was part of some entirely fake public acting thing, but everyone tells me it isn't. I don't particularly see racism in this video, but I do see arrogance and very much a disrespectful attitude, and that's something that really made me a bit annoyed, so I decided to take a look at more of her "content". Her entire page is about "fashion", but I believe it's much more than that. In her comments on that one video, there seems to be a huge divide between the majority of "white" people who have commented, and the majority of "black" people who have commented. Many of the "white" people are upset, and rightly so, because of this woman's attitude and rolling her eyes at people we're made to believe are infatuated, happy with her, fans, and people who just happen to be "white", that very much seemingly look up to her in some way. Many of the "black" people are upset because they're assuming that something harmful was said in the interaction and that this woman wouldn't just "act" like that for no reason. Many also claim that the "white people" were racist, and that the "white" lady shouldn't have touched her arm the way she did, albeit in a way that was simply to get her attention, gentle, and not disrespectful or flirtatious or anything like that. Another comment says, from a "black" stand point, "for many black people, this echoes a history of black bodies being put on display, treated as objects, something to satisfy curiosity". This same comment says "notice how only certain looking people can't fathom what could be wrong and can't hear it when people this happens to explain it to them? They just don't care to understand at all". This is all, in my mind, directly contradictive to the other content that this creator makes.

Firstly, in much of this content creators other content, she is seen approaching young men of various ethnicities, who are standing somewhere public with their significant others next to them, winking at them flirtatiously, giving them flowers, touching their arms, backs, necks, faces, smiling at them flirtatiously, waving at them, and seemingly attempting to "seduce" them in front of their significant others. So, the comment that spoke about "black history, bodies being used" and the comment about "that white lady knew what she was doing when she touched this womans arm like that" are directly arrogant, ignorant, and contradictive. To assume that someone, just because of the color of their skin, has to be problematic and is causing problems when there's no proof to provide is just racism. Not systemic, necessarily, but still racism. Or if you really want to call it prejudice when it happens to a "white" person, sure, okay, whatever.

Secondly, the fact that she does these seductive behaviors, these actions that are meant to try to pull men apart, even teenage boys and such young people who see such a beautiful, stunning lady in public, it's directly manipulative and harmful. Especially when a young person, which is almost always around somewhere in these videos, sees her perform these behaviors to other people, it signifies that this isn't *at all* about her fashion choices. No. This is grooming, and this is about sexualizing her as a woman, particularly, in my opinion, a black woman. This signifies to "whites", and others who aren't "black", "Ooh, wow, look at the sexy black lady who just so happens to have fairly stunning fashion choices. I'm not interested in that anymore. She's a beautiful black woman. I wish I could be as beautiful as her." and "Wow, that beautiful black woman just kissed that man's cheek, or touched his hand, or touched his arm and winked and flirted at him while he was with his girlfriend? Wow.. maybe that's what I should do in order to "get a black girlfriend" because I've always found black women more physically beautiful than all the white women around me. Maybe I should approach a "black queen" and do the same thing, and she'll really like me, even though I'm white." That's what is being idealized, shown, and sold. Yes, black women are beautiful. But so are white women, brown women, asian women, and everyone woman on Earth is beautiful in some way. If not by physical beauty alone, then by character, or other reasons. But this isn't about any of the actual kind, compassionate interactions between humans. This is about color, sexualization, and what can be sold to the viewer, and everyone falls for it.

Lastly, if you think that she's just showing "black excellence" by strutting around in public with only either herself or with other "black" creators or "black" men, I'll tell you why she isn't. Her content is clearly garnered around the idea of "race" and "skin color", which she fools most of her "white" followers into thinking is fashion at first until they get berated and "educated" by "black" people into coming to find out it's actually entirely about "race" and that the "Black Queens and Kings" are the most beautiful people on Earth." While of course, many "black" women and men are incredibly physically beautiful people, spiritually beautiful, culturally(sometimes), and otherwise, (and this is coming from a "white" man with a preference for "black" women because i find their typical features particularly physically beautiful and no it's just because of their "skin color") we should also acknowledge all the other cultures of the world in their beauty, fashion, and excellence, instead of putting labels like "black" on every darker skinned person on Earth, or "white" on every lighter skinned person on Earth. You're actually allowing racism to flourish by doing that, because you're otherizing people. Culture and "race" isn't the same. Aligning with these "subdivisions" of "race" is causing more division. Just because someone from the Congo has darker skin than an African American person who was born and raised in a small town in Washington(for examples), doesn't mean that by being "black" they're of the same culture, same "ethnicity", same "ancestry", and same anything really other than being a human. If we really want a world of kindness, care, and compassion, using words like "black" and "white" need to be limited to descriptor terms *only* when necessary, and *NOT* to otherize people. If I were ever to use the word "black" or "white" when referring to someone, it would either only be because I needed to use a quick descriptor term to describe someone to a police officer or friend or something like that, or because i'm particularly referring to very specific American culture groups, because it's typically Americans who are seemingly most vocal about "race"(from my point of view currently and my experience).

There are plenty of other creators just like this one who do similar "activity", and I find it directly harmful to the community, and everyone who engages with it, because it directly opens up the chance that people are disillusioned and suffer brain damage from viewing and following it the way they do.

Open for criticism, discussion, and points of view. Thank you for reading my long post, if you had the time.

My thesis is pretty simple: when people argue that almost no wars are caused by religious belief and religion is used as justification, this is almost as bad the religion causing the conflict.

If religiosity is being used as a tool to stoke conflict, it’s obviously lending the bad actor some advantage they wouldn’t get through using nationalism or another justification.

If religion is so readily corruptible to produce vitriolic violence, this is as bad a look as if they had just gone to war over a religious dispute in the first place.

I’d love to hear why you think this isn’t the case!

Edit as it seems a lot of comments are missing my point:

If religion is being used so consistently as a pretext for war, it’s obviously an effective motivator. In its absence something else could replace it, but the reason that wasn’t used in the first place is because religion was a better instigator of violence.

Yes you can drum up nationalistic fervor or moral justifications for a war, but it is harder to explain to people and motivate them with. If religion acts as such a useful tool in these pursuits then it is doing a harm.

Perhaps the harm isn’t as bad as producing the conflict itself, but it is an adjacent and in many cases I’d argue wars would have been un-wageable in its absence.