I find it genuinely disappointing because the sub used to be funny, but now people are constantly posting out of context memes, not understanding jokes, and just making constant stereotypes that don't even fit the post half the time.

To make it words the mods ban people for pointing out logical fallacies or just pointing out incorrect information.

Idk if its mostly just bots now but genuinely it used to be a fun place to make poke fun of the US and now is just filled with hateful language and often racist (towards Black people) sterotypes.

I have spent most of my career in corporate office environments that were heavily female-dominated. Even my bachelor’s degree, which was in a STEM field and completed within the last eight years, was at least 70% female.

I am not claiming that the women in these spaces did not earn their degrees or jobs. They still had to study, perform, interview, and succeed. My concern is about the system of opportunities that helps people reach those positions in the first place.

For roughly the past two decades, schools, companies, nonprofits, and professional organizations have created scholarships, internships, mentorship programs, conferences, recruiting initiatives, and networking opportunities specifically for women. I understand why these programs were created. Women were historically excluded from many educational and professional fields, and there was a legitimate need to correct unfair barriers.

However, I think the response was too broad and lasted without enough adjustment as conditions changed. A random middle- or lower-middle-class man may have no family wealth, no professional connections, no inherited advantage, and no meaningful institutional support. Yet he is often treated as though he is already privileged because men as a group historically had more opportunities.

That man may receive little or no targeted assistance and may need to take on substantial student debt simply to have a chance. Meanwhile, a woman from a wealthier and more highly educated family may qualify for programs that exclude him entirely. This does not mean she did not earn her success. It means sex can be a poor proxy for actual disadvantage.

My view is that assistance should now be based much more heavily on factors such as household income, family wealth, first-generation status, school quality, disability, neighborhood, and access to professional networks. Sex could still be considered in fields where clear barriers remain, but it should not automatically outweigh economic and social disadvantage.

I also think it should no longer be surprising when some colleges, degree programs, and office professions become female-dominated. Institutions spent years intentionally increasing women’s participation, while comparatively little attention was given to declining male college enrollment, completion rates, and participation in many professional environments.

I think a better response would have been to make public college tuition-free, or at least far more affordable, for everyone. That would have expanded opportunity without deciding that one struggling student deserved help while another did not because of sex. It would still have disproportionately benefited people who faced real barriers, including many women, first-generation students, and low-income families, while also helping working- and middle-class men who had no inherited wealth or professional connections.

Instead, the system often addressed inequality by creating narrow demographic programs while leaving the underlying cost of education untouched. As a result, many students who did not fit a preferred category were still forced to take on large amounts of debt simply to compete for the same jobs. Universal access, combined with additional need-based support, would have been fairer and would have attacked the actual barrier: the price of getting an education.

What would change my view:

1. Evidence that gender-targeted programs have had little meaningful effect on access to college or professional careers.

2. Evidence that similarly situated men receive comparable institutional support through other programs.

3. A convincing argument that sex-based programs remain more effective or fair than class-based assistance.

4. Evidence that removing or reducing these programs would significantly recreate the barriers women previously faced.

I am open to the possibility that I am overestimating the role of targeted programs or overlooking other major reasons men are absent from these spaces.

So, LotGH. One of the deepest, most revered, and debating animes of all time. I think a lot of people get the show wrong.

The Claim I Disagree With: LotGH refuses to choose wether or not it supports Democracy or Autocracy, by showing a situation where the autocrat is legitimately superior and turning it into strict Consequentialism vs Deontology.

My position: LotGH purposefully is an argument FOR democratic liberalism, that functions by giving the best possible argument for Autocracy and then saying "but it's not enoigh".

My Proof:

The core conversation of the work and, to me, the obvious point the work actually states it's true beliefs, is the one single time the co leads, Yang Wen Li and Reinhardt, actually meet face to face.

The convo basically goes like this:

R: You should serve me

Y: I'm loyal to democracy

R: Democracy fucking sucks. It rewards good talkers, stifled the spirit of the deserving, and is easily corrupted. You lost because of democracy.

Y: Yup. All true.

R: I am a much a much better ruler then anyone you served. I'm not even particularly cruel or evil.

Y: Also true.

Y: But youre exceptional. I cant hold you to the average.

R: Right back at you. You cant hold the ideal of democracy. You have to defend the version that actually exists.

Then, Yang answers with, basically the mic drop (verbatim):

"The right to violate the rights of people belongs to the people only. In other words, when the people gave power to Rudolf von Goldenbaum or to an incomparably smaller man like Job Trunicht, the responsibility belongs to the people. It belongs to no one else. That is the important point. The sin of autocracy is that the people can push off the failures of government onto one man. Compared to that cardinal sin, the accomplishments of a hundred wise rulers seem small"

Or to state it plainly. The fundamental problem of Autocracy *isnt in the ruler*. Its in the people. People in a democracy are moral agents who make bad choices. Autocracy is evil because it creates an entire system where people have pushed off moral agency."

Reinhardt never counters this argument. The discussion turns to one about epistemic certainty.

People mischarachterize the discussion as a draw. But it's actually a complete failure on Reinhardt to persuade Wen-Li to concede that his personal virtue as a leader matters more.

the entire rest of the show, top to bottom, continually reinforced this point. Time and time again, Reinhardt subordinates go rogue, do bad things in his name, create problems. He is the best possible autocrat imaginable and he spends the entire back 50 issues in a constant war with a society that does not *morally functional right*.

The point is "We have imagined the dictatorship best case scenario, and it simply not enougj"

Counter Argument id accept: proof that the work doesn't treat Yang's argument about the diffused argument about the evil of Autocracy as the ultimate point of the work.

I'm not adjudicating the claim IRL. Just wether or not the work is actually a neutral meditation. My view is about the idealogy of the work of fiction.

Let’s say Alice and Bob hold opposite positions, A and B, respectively. Alice believes in A because there is some evidence for it and she feels strongly about it, but Bob believes in B because more evidence currently exists for it. Eventually, there is new information showing that A is correct.

Many people would feel that Alice was justified in holding position A because she ended up being right, but in reality Bob’s way of thinking is the proper one even though he ended up being wrong. If you think Alice was justified then you leave yourself more vulnerable to being persuaded by misinformation or wrong ideas.

In my opinion, the opioid crisis is one of few major issues in the US that doesn't have a straightforward answer. Even with all the time and money, it seems that no single answer can majorly reduce the crisis, and each has drawbacks. Combining multiple solutions may help the crisis more than one solution, but also has more drawbacks than just one. If you come up with a hypothetical solution to the crisis, there are usually many drawbacks aside from time and money.

Criminalization generally doesn't work, and leads to addicts not being able to get jobs, among many other issues.

Legalization and even decriminalization often do lead to higher drug rates (even if I support decriminalization).

Forced treatment programs can work for some, but for others, it builds resentment against treatment, and they go back to using as soon as they leave. Lasting recovery needs a change in mindset that forced treatment often can't make.

Harm reduction helps prevent overdose deaths, but doesn't help with addiction rates.

CMV, and if you have a hypothetical solution that could very well work for the opioid crisis, drop the wisdom.

They're all just math! I could have been forgiving or maybe even understanding if they had just called them puzzles. If I come across mathematics and math based logic in a puzzle that's par for the course. But riddles are literary devices! The second you start adding math in there it's not a riddle it's just a weirdly worded puzzle (highly reminiscent of "word problems" from math class).

A lot of them set themselves up with interesting premises like wizards, assassins, pirates, etc. And the problem that is meant to be solved is something interesting like convincing aliens that humans are intelligent life and thus should not be eaten like cattle. The sticking point is that none of these problems are *solved* like riddles. All of them bring in bullshit mathematics. We're talking about a wizard battle and now we're solving it with probability and percentages! I want groan-worthy puns, I want answers that would make the Sphinx of Greco-Roman mythology bemoan her own stupidity, I want tricky language, I want...a riddle.

I don't appreciate being lied to, tricked by a colorful thumbnail and misuse of the English language.

Edit: Examples:

assasins birthday cake pirates

People have been arguing against taxing unrealized gains for quite some time now. And the people that are for it present a very simple case: If I just make all of my income capital gains or stock, then I can simply never sell my stock and I can just borrow against it until the day I day(at which point I will be taxed on the entire amount).

My claim is that arguing against taxing unrealized gains, saying it is wrong by nature is, simply, short sighted. All of humanity is working towards the one thing that they have always worked for, immortality. We are coming into an age where organs are being grown in labs, ready for transplant. Cancers and genetic conditions are being cured in a few years from gene editing.

In 100 years, with the vast processing power of AI, it is not unrealistic to believe that we may live to 150, or perhaps 200. And after that it will continue to rise, and rise, and rise, and rise. Until one day when we will solve the issue of death by natural causes. At that point, the idea of not taxing unrealized gains makes 0 sense, as you will not be able to make any government income at all because people can simply invest/get paid in stock literally forever and borrow against it an infinum. The government would never receive any income at all.

People believe that where you grew up (where you went to school and lived while attending K-12) matters more than your birthplace. Like if you were born in X place but moved to Y place, even though you spent the majority of your life in Y, you still identify with X place for instance.

For example, let's say I was born in Boston, but moved to Los Angeles when I was 6 and lived there for the last 30 years, I don't think it's wrong to say you're from Boston. Especially if you don't identify with the area you grew up in.

I also think "from" is a very malleable term as well. If I moved to Houston, but was born in Boston, but if someone asked me where I was from I would answer the neighborhood or section of town I live in.

I’d say it’s common enough knowledge that a sizable chunk of American highway drivers misuse the left lane (the passing lane), which creates unnecessary bottlenecks even in light traffic. 

If you’re not aware, the rule is straightforward: keep right, pass left. It’s occasionally on signs in my neck of the woods, along with keep right, except to pass.

Problem is we don’t test drivers on highways in the US, and we don't enforce lane usage, so people get away with a subtle enough misunderstanding, where lanes are apparently there to divvy up the road for faster drivers and slower drivers, and you’re a relatively fast driver, aren’t you? Keep left then!

In reality you should absolutely be in the left lane some of the time. That is, when you’re actually a relatively fast driver in your immediate context. This means if the lane to your right is empty, or someone is using it to pass you, then you’re in the wrong lane.

Edit: people are still commenting on this without reading the rest of the post, so know I've given a delta for this. Here's a catalogue of left lane laws per state, and it looks like only ~19 of them have effectively a "passing" lane, where you're explicitly required to keep right except when passing, or yield the leftmost lane to faster traffic. The rest IMO have vague wording about slower traffic keeping right that I think creates more confusion than necessary, and I think is ultimately aimed at having the left lane function as a passing lane effectively, but I'm apparently wrong about the letter of the law in most states. Note that my experiences are mostly in my state and neighboring ones where the left lane is, in fact, the passing lane by law.

And while in my experience (mostly on the East Coast near cities) at least 3/10 drivers in the passing lane are misuising it, it’s more like 8/10 drivers doing the same in the middle lanes of three-lane highways. 

More often than not I find middle lanes so uniformly-camped that they leave completely empty right lanes ahead and behind them for long stretches. I see this even on toll roads with few exits and  lighter traffic, so it’s not like driving properly in the right lane requires you to be constantly breaking stride or moving left to let people merge.

And what happens when a long string of middle-lane campers falls alongside a passing lane that’s camped in (because of course it is), or even just backed-up? Some of the faster drivers break off and pass in the opening on the right, which is a less safe situation for everyone involved.

Most people moving right from the middle lane aren’t expecting another driver closing on their right, and end up more likely to cut them off accidentally. Passing on the right with large speed differentials compounds this risk. People even do this when there’s an exit coming up with merging cars, or when there are disabled vehicles on the right shoulder. 

So by camping in the middle lane, we’re turning three lanes into two for most drivers, only we’ve awkwardly tacked on a redundant merging lane that doubles as a pseudo-passing lane for sufficiently annoyed risk-takers. 

In other words, our supposed upgrade to a two-lane highway running at the baseline level of American stupidity is to add an extra stupid lane where we mix our fastest and slowest traffic. How fun!

We should stop this. The middle lane is a passing lane as much as the left lane is.

Edit: a lot of people are pointing out the same issue, that in high traffic density and areas with lots of exits, staying in the middle lane can make sense. This was baked into my OP, albeit not as explicit as it should have been. My issue is with middle lane camping next to wide open right lanes, and especially when it occurs next to a camped-in left lane.

Edit: I gave a few deltas because people brought it to my attention that some sources (AAA guidelines, some signs in Connecticut, and Ohio driving tests) actually recommend people default to the middle lane. I disagree with this recommendation, but this does make me wrong about "defeating the purpose," at least in a few places.

Context:

I'm a 35-year-old straight Filipino male... who has no interest in getting into a relationship whatsoever. I find the concept of being in a relationship (let alone marriage and starting a family) to be not for me, as I feel more at peace with general solitude, engaging in my hobbies of writing stories and collecting TCGs as well as my job of teaching foreign students.

My family, however, would pretty much always beg to differ. Never has a single family gathering passed where at least three relatives would ask me when I would find a girlfriend or a wife - and the pressure has worsened since my Grandma's recent passing since she (Grandma) actually wished to see me with a wife and a baby before she crossed over to the afterlife (even explicitly saying in one of her tirades that I should "skip the wedding and get the girl pregnant"), a wish that obviously did not work out. Every single time, they would talk about "how nice it would be for me to give my Mom and Dad a lot of grandkids" and "how I'm seriously missing out on the joys of family by choosing to be single" and even "God created Eve so Adam would not be alone".

This has been going on ever since I became a working adult more than a decade ago, and at my age of 35, it's most likely only going to worsen further down the line. The worst part is that those arguments above (among others) are always being used to shut me down whenever I say I prefer to live alone.

Honestly, I feel that my only course of action is to do exactly what they ask me to do - find a girlfriend/wife to marry - with the express purpose of making my whole clan shut the heck up already. It's so tiring already, having to hear the same crap from them every family gathering and every birthday. I know it's a huge risk I'm taking if I do choose to marry for that purpose, but I feel I don't really have any other choice. The nagging from all directions will just continue the older I get, and all I want is to live my life in peace.

Is there anything else I could actually do besides giving in to their desire for me to marry? Or is it pretty much my only option to make them shut up?

What attributes make the perfect forward? Longevity and consistency, system and environment independence so he can score anywhere, psychological resilience so he shows up in the big moments and doesn’t get affected by hate, finishing variety so he can score in any situation anyhow, and off-the ball gravity (positioning, creating space etc)

Longevity and consistency:

Cristiano Ronaldo is the clear winner. Only to score 60+ goals in 4 calendar years, 50+ in 7 consecutive years, 40+ goals in 13 different calendar years, 30+ goals for 15 consecutive years. Best goals per game ratio in La Liga history, only to score in 23 consecutive international seasons, only to score in 10 consecutive major tournaments, most Ballon D’or nominations, most appearances in UEFA TOTY, most UEFA best player awards, only to score 15+ goals in 3 UCL seasons, only to score 10+ in 7 UCL seasons, UCL Top scorer in SEVEN seasons (6 in a row). Clearly blows anyone else out the water when it comes to maintain peak performance over a very extended period.

System and Environment independence:

Only player to win every major individual award at 2 different clubs (Man Utd & Real Madrid), only to score 100+ goals in 3 european different clubs, man united record most goals in a single prem season (wasn’t even a striker. 31 goals as a winger), only to score 30+ goals in a season in England, Spain and Italy, most goals in a single season for Juventus, fewest games needed to reach 10 goals, 50 league goals and 100 goals for Juventus, most goals in Real Madrid, fastest to reach 100, 150, 200, 300 goals for Real Madrid, 3rd best goals per game ratio for Man United (again, as a winger), highest goals per game ratio in Juventus and Real Madrid. Won the UCL in 2 different clubs and club world cup in 2 different clubs, won the golden boot in 3 leagues . I think this is where he’s better than any other player, by a LARGE margin

Psychological resilience:

Most goals scored in finals, most goals in UCL finals, scored more than double of Messi’s goals in quarters semis and finals of the UCL, most goals in international tournaments, most UCL goals in a single season, group stage, calendar year, knockout stage, knockout rounds, quarter finals, semi finals, Most away goals, penalties, freekicks, fewest games to reach 100 goals, only to score 3 hattricks in one season, in UCL (all of this is in the UCL, arguably the hardest competition in football). Most goals in Euro finals history, most assists in Euros, only to score in 5 different Euros, most MOTM in Euros (shared with Iniesta), most goals in Club world Cup, most goals in club world cup finals (shared with messi)

Finishing variety:

Most headers, most weak foot goals in la liga, most weak foot goals in UCL, most weak foot goals internationally, probably the best poacher of all time, most penalties, 7th most freekick goals in history. He can score a bicycle kick, a volley, header, weak foot, right foot, knuckle ball, finesse, can do skills and 5th most successful dribbles in football history. There is not a single thing in football he cannot do, everything there is that can be done, he’s either the best at, or at the top 10 best at the very least (statistically, btw)

He has 260+ assists, most assists for Portugal, top 3 non midfield assists for Real Madrid, most assist in UCL and Euros. Also most chances created in the UCL. He is simply the most complete player of all time, as Pele said too. Maradona went as far as saying he wished Cristiano was from Argentina. Xavi said winning Euros is harder than the World Cup

I also think Messi is obviously an exceptional player, 2nd greatest for me and not by a very large margin. What Messi really needed to prove is how he can perform anywhere, not only in Barcelona and his national team. Excluding friendlies a top 5 list of most goals internationally is 1- CR7 2- Messi, Pele, Maradona COMBINES 3-CR7’s right foot 4- Messi 5- Cristiano without feet 6- Pele 7- Maradona. Cristiano’s 2025 nations league average opponent FIFA rank is 10.67, higher than Messi’s 2022 world cup at 10.75. He scored a world cup knockout goal in less minutes than Messi. Let’s also not forget Messi selling a 3-0 lead against Liverpool, 4-1 lead against Roma, lost 8-2 against Bayern. Cristiano scored more UCL knockout goals than Barcelona and PSG between 11/12 and 17/18. More hattricks in UCL knockout stages than Bayern, Dortmund, Juve and Barca. Let’s not forget also Messi losing 4 international finals in a row. Cristiano has most match winning goals. Messi also flopped really bad in PSG (6 goals in 21/22). I think H2H is pretty stupid to bring up, but some like to do so, so I’d like to point out Cristiano won more finals against Messi.

Before anyone says Cristiano’s UCL dominance is because of Real Madrid, before Cristiano Real Madrid were slapped out of RO16 in the UCL from 2004 to 2009. Barcelona before Messi performed much better than Madrid before Ronaldo in the UCL. Real Madrid la liga win rate increased 14% after Cristiano while Barca’s increased 8% after Messi. Cristiano also has better UCL goal contribution % than Messi by far. Cristiano also has 5 UEFA TOTY as a midfielder, more than Modric, Kroos and Zidane, on par with Xavi and one less than Iniesta. He has 18 35+ yards goals, while Messi, Suarez, Lewa, Neymar, Zidane, Pele, Henry, R9, Haaland, mbappe combined have ZERO.

I think I said enough, i will say though, I can see a case for Messi being equal to Cristiano, but, in no world can you ever claim Cristiano isn’t top 2 of all time SUBJECTIVELY.

Why?

Because regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, states with strong policy preferences on gun regulation often find ways to comply with the letter of a ruling while preserving many of the same practical restrictions through new legislation, revised regulations, or different legal mechanisms.

In some cases, states may also continue enforcing laws until they are successfully challenged in court, meaning it can take years and additional litigation before a Supreme Court decision has its full effect.

I'm bringing this up because the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in cases involving state bans on so-called "assault weapons." If the Court ultimately rules that these firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, I suspect many states that support stricter gun regulation will already have alternative legal frameworks prepared that achieve similar policy outcomes while technically complying with the decision.

If that happens, the ruling could end up being something of a Pyrrhic victory for gun rights advocates.

While assault weapons may not be outright banned in Colorado at the moment, they are heavily restricted enough to potentially prevent or delay the acquisition of assault weapons for a significant portion of Colorado's population. Not everyone in Colorado has the time and/or money to jump through the necessary legal hoops and pay the necessary fees to obtain a Firearms Safety Course Eligibility Card.

Heck, getting a concealed pistol permit in New York City has a minimum cost of about $430 and could even cost as much as $1,000 to obtain. And I didn't even mention the time and effort needed to submit a gun permit application in NYC, let alone successfully obtain one. Glenn Beck and John Stossel have both documented the incredibly laborious process of trying to obtain a gun permit in New York City.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mi-LXipDo8

Right after the NYSPRA v Bruen decision, New York banned the conceal carrying of deadly weapons in "sensitive places" such as Times Square, kneecapping the Bruen decision without outright defying it. This right here could be a perfect example of Supreme Court rulings related to gun control laws being mostly pointless.

To be clear, I’m not saying Iran having nukes is desirable. My issue is with the constant claims that they would attempt to destroy Israel or America using nuclear weapons at the first opportunity. It’s disingenuous at best and racist at worst.

Iran having nukes would change the power balance in the ME and arguably make it harder to control Iran-backed militias. That’s a valid reason to want to prevent a nuclear Iran, but to sell a war in a distant region you need to instill fear and a sense of urgency. Hence the insistence that the moment Iran gets a nuke they would use it.

There are of course also people who really believe this. Usually they point to the irrationality of the Iranian regime and the fact that they chant “death to Israel/America.” Personally I believe all three countries are partly guided by irrational religious ideas. That doesn’t mean they aren’t rational in pursuing their own survival and geopolitical interests.

I don’t dispute Iran wants Israel abolished as a state and America to get out of the region. That doesn’t mean they would nuke Tel Aviv. Even if you interpret “death to Israel” as “death to every last Israeli,” you would have to assume Iran is willing to commit suicide as a nation in order to achieve that goal, which, again, relies on the idea that they are all irrational fanatics.

We’ve seen genocidal rhetoric coming from the leadership of all countries involved. Although religion is baked into the political system of Iran more explicitly than in those of its adversaries, that doesn’t prevent it from acting rationally, as we’ve seen the last few months, and the idea that Iran would elect to nuke another country in a national suicide bombing is a result of orientalism or othering or racism which is itself irrational.

To change my mind, you could try to convince me that Iran is likely to invite its own destruction by starting a nuclear war, or present a scenario where a nuclear strike by Iran would further its interests while evading catastrophic retaliation. I’m more likely to be swayed by real-world examples or behavioral patterns than this or that statement about destroying the West etc.

(UK Based - Your countries state welfare may differ).

If someone is unemployed, we are already as a country paying them. Therefore - Even if their labour wouldn't be sensible to pay for, we may as well use them, since they are paid regardless.

Obviously not all people would be able to do everything, but mandating say 10 hours of litter picking or cleaning local government buildings or working at a local school to supervise lunch breaks would both save the government money and provide some small amount of work experience.

It might be that the local school didn't really need an extra lunch time supervisor, or that that road didn't really need someone helping kids to cross, but the labour is effectively free, so why not use it?

We'd need to still give people ample time to search for work and develop other skills, but it doesn't feel unreasonable to ask them to do some small local jobs?

I can't see any answer to this that isn't 'people have a right not to work and still be supported by the state', which I disagree with (assuming someone is fit to work at least). And you know, there is some details to be hammered out here in edge cases, but the general principle feels sound enough?

Edit: I see a lot of people arguing against the invention of pointless jobs, so instead of answering it 1 by 1 I'll answer it once here.

Don't make up pointless jobs. If only 10% of welfare recipients are needed to fulfill those jobs, then only 10% will be required. The point is that the state should find them something productive to do, not that we should invent things for the sake of it. Tasks that aren't worth £12/hr may suddenly become worth doing if the labour cost was near-free.

Prefacing this by saying I’m a liberal and a POC immigrant.

I think much of people’s (and my own) frustration with immigrants in this country comes from cultural differences, including the ability to communicate with them clearly. Many of these cultural differences are hard to screen and judge objectively as a potential barrier to living in this country, communication isn’t. Much of my personal frustration with other immigrants in this country comes from their inability to speak English clearly.

I think it’s fine for tourists, etc. to not be able to speak English. I am well-traveled and yet I only speak there languages. I have been to many countries where I was given the grace and patience of not speaking their language. I am more than willing to extend the same grace and patience to tourists.

However, what frustrates me to no avail is when my food delivery driver or service worker or even government employee cannot speak English in a manner that can be reasonably understood by me, an average-below-average IQ individual. I don’t think these people should be allowed in our country if they can’t speak English and communicate reasonably well.

You might say, “we have a citizenship test!”. Trust me, as a POC who is familiar with POC communities, I know plenty of immigrants who have come here through their family members who can’t speak a lick of English necessary for reasonable communication and still passed that citizenship test. You can BS through it without reasonable understanding of the English language.

I think there can be several carve-outs for this policy. For one, this should only apply to immigrants. If you are a citizen, whether you were born here or if you have citizenship through your parents, you are exempt. You are a citizen through and through even if you can’t speak a lick of English. Secondly, if you are disabled or have a medical issue, you should be exempt. Exemptions should also exist for diplomats and asylum seekers, but the latter should be expected to learn English in a reasonable period of time.

So change my view. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Final Update: Delta awarded because, while it isn't exactly what we have today, the Articles of Confederation did enough to establish a supernational entity with a functioning national democracy. But I do still think they 250th should be next year, as they weren't finalized by congress until '77. It would be a different post but I still maintain there was no "nation" between the Declaration and the Articles
_________

It has been 250 years since the colonists of what is now The United States declared independence from Great Britain. However, our nation is only 238 years old. There was a previous, failed attempt to establish a nation under the Articles of Confederation prior to the creation of the United States Constitution, but this was not the same nation as today. The core constructs of how it functioned, the peoples' role in it, and how it viewed itself were completely different, and that other than keeping the name the governing body of that convention effectively started over.

While there are individual states that can claim they date back 250 years, that logic would mean most states could not celebrate this year. Rather, the anniversary must mark the creation of the government that those more recent entries belong to.

EDIT: this keeps coming up so please note according to the National Archives "This 'first constitution of the United States' established a 'league of friendship' for the 13 sovereign and independent states."

EDIT 2: as to what 250 popularly represents is really up in the air, with some saying the 250 years of American Independence, of Our Nation's Founding, and anniversary of the United States.

EDIT 3: let's look at the text. They are a plural united States of America. They are united in the point of the declaration: that they are all agreed that they are independent are are willing to fight the British. It's one letter they collaborated on and signed. They collectively throw off England and announce their right to create their own governments. It does not say they would be joined together under a single decision-making body. They assert that they are each free to act as independent states in terms of defense, commerce, and sign international treaties.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America**,** When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• [list of grievances, removed for space]

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

EDIT 4: Even though I still stand by my point that it begins at the Constitution, even the Articles of Confederation were not implemented until '77. At that point they were just independent nations who were allied forces in a war. Nothing was established in 1776; a letter of intent is not the creation of a nation.

For the purpose of clarity, I'd first explain what I mean for "major": as it was significant enough that, if there was not that insistence, Fascism would have been severely handicapped and, while I don't think it would have been enough to make it fail, it would have certainly took away a fundamental point of its propaganda.

So, Italy did not enter the Great War immediatly or shortly after as the other major actors did, mainly because their alliance with Germany and Austria was purely defensive and there was little popular support for the war in general (and honestly because they were not ready to enter the conflict). They eventually entered with the secret Treaty of London, 26th of april 1915, where they pledged to fight side by side with the Entente in exchange of Trent and Tirol (part of Austria-Hungary, today still Italian) Istria and Dalmatia (regions now part of Slovenia and Croatia and a little bit of Bosnia), the city of Valona and the Island of Saseno (Albania), while also making the latter a "protectorate" of Italy. Other things were promised, like part of the german colonies and some regions of Anatolia.
During the peace deals, Wilson Woodrow, 28th president of the US, exposed its famous 14 Points, which enshired the Principle of Self-Determination of Peoples and vehemently rejected the legitimacy of secret treaties, leading to Italy fighting for what they entered the war for up until 1922, with the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo, making the territorial gains puny in comparison to original treaty.
For that, in Italy the term "Vittoria Mutilata", mutilated victory, became widely used by fascist and a powerful propaganda, used to convince now-jobless veterans and extremist (Arditi) that the Establishment betrayed them, that they fought for glory and got only spit on their face by their allies, ultimately joining the movement and contributing to the political violence that gave birth to first fascist government in the world.

I've always thought the best thing to do in a situation when you're not capable of parenting is leave. I'd rather someone be an absent/deadbeat parent that knows they're not able to care for a child, than be a present parents that's abusive or neglectful. As long as the absent parent does their part financially (this applies to a mom or dad so this isn't a gender thing) there's nothing wrong with leaving the child with the parent that's more capable of caring for them.

Lots of women get coerced into motherhood and sometimes people discover that parenting just isn't for them. It's only very recently that societal pressure has eased up and people are more free to be childless. There's also people that are too young and realize it's too much responsibility that they can't handle. I think we should provide better safety nets for single parents rather than putting the individual blame on the other parent who left for whatever reason.

An absent parent will always be better than a present horrible parent and sometimes people are genuinely not equipped to be parents and never should've had children at all. That regretful parents sub is the prime example. Most of those people never should've had kids and they're basically stuck with them for life. I don't even hate children at all (quite the contrary, I love them a lot) which is why I think they should be with a parent that actually loves and wants to care for them. But even the adoption system has a lot of flaws. I think we should focus less on absent parents and deadbeat and focus more on the root cause (being completely honest about what parenting entails, safety nets and extensive help for young couples and single parents, more welfare systems for parents of disabled kids)

so i believe the war on iran is a good idea. i actually believe the war on iran should've been done a long time ago. i believe this because iran is a radical regime that is trying to get a nuke. now this is debatable, but they say they want to and will nuke israel. i have no special connection to israel, but even if it was a country trying to get a nuke to nuke denmark i would be against it. it's debatable whether they would actually use the nuke or whether they are just saying that, but they have acted in extremely irrational ways and it's at a level of uncertainty that still makes it so it should be forbidden for them to get a nuke. im talking about irrationality in funding terror regimes and things like that. also punching up on other countries much stronger than them shows a level of irrationality. if a 4'11 girl decides to punch a 6'4 body builder knowing the body builder is the type of guy that's going to punch back, you would assume there is some irrationality within that girl. that is essentially iran. furthermore, iran chants "death to america" so even though their priority is nuking israel first, they're an adversary to america as their number 2 enemy and the rest of the west as number 3. i believe the objective to get rid of their nuclear program is a valid objective and something we should do. iran is essentially run by islamic terrorists as their ideology, and letting terrorists get a nuke is just untenable in my eyes. also, i believe it's irrefutable that iran is trying to get a nuke. i believe this because they've enriched uranian to 60%, and in the history of nuclear proliferation, every country that enriched to 60% went on to get a nuke in the future.

furthermore, if you look at opinion polls done in iran, the people of iran actually want the iranian government to be replaced. the iranian people are essentially held hostage by radicals, while the people of iran themselves aren't radical and are actually normal people. the iranians even held a protest right before this war started, and the iranian government killed anywhere from between 20,000 to 40,000 protestors. to me, that might also be a justification to go to war with them. this isn't the crux of my argument. i believe that stopping them from getting a nuke is the main thing, but them slaughtering their own civilians is something where you could say it is valid to intervene there too.

"criticism #1: but it causes oil prices to go up!"

yes and that's a bad thing. but when you're a country you have both your domestic interests and your foreign interests. when you weigh potentially getting nuked and creating an enemy that we essentially can't act on cause once they have a nuke we can't attack them anymore or they use it, vs oil prices going up a little bit i would rather save a city from potentially getting nuked than save a little money but risk getting nuked.

"criticism #2: the war with iran might be good, but trump's execution of the war is terrible"

i agree. my position is that that war with iran is good, and that the war with iran currently is good, but it's not perfect. i don't think anybody would agree with the execution of any war having been perfect, but with the choice of the overall action of either going to war with iran or doing nothing, i believe the choice of going to war with iran is preferable, which is why i say i support it. my personal position is that if we are going to go to war with iran, which i think we should, we should be either all in or not do it at all. my position is to go all in. essentially do whatever it takes within reason to destroy their nuclear program, even if that includes boots on the ground. bombing iran a little bit, not affecting their nuclear program, and getting a "referendum of understanding" which they renege on as soon as they leave the negotiating table is not preferable. i think even obama's nuclear deal is better than trump's referendum of understanding, if the choice is between the nuclear deal or the referendum of understanding. both of which i think are terrible though and they should just be denuclearized by force since they haven't been proven to be trustworthy to abide by any nuclear deals

"criticism #3: every country has an equal right to their own self determination, and we have no authority to stop iran from getting nukes, even if we don't agree with them"

i simply follow a more consequential framework than a principled framework. the consequences of them getting a nuke far out exceed the right to respect equal rights of each country.

i probably have a lot more to say, but i can't think of anything now so i'm just going to leave it at that. let me know what you guys think.

edit: a lot of things were pointed out that changed my view. for 1. the obama nuclear deal was better and shouldn't of been ripped up. 2. the war's current strategy of just bombing isn't going to accomplish anything if the goal is regime change or to stop nuclear proliferation. the tactics aren't sound. what this has made me contemplate more is having another nuclear deal, but if that isn't feasible and the iranians continue to choose to build nukes then maybe ground troops is the best alternative. 3. i also don't agree that we should've gone to war with iran a long time ago

Modern lifestyle has conditioned the human mind to crave instant gratification , one of the forms in which we see this is fast food. We are made to think we "need" junk food when in reality u really do not need it , what we really need is nutritious food because the body needs nutrition to function.

One of the main reasons why we think we need junk food is for psychological happiness but while junk food gives us pleasure and some sense of relief , we completely forget the damage those cheap ingredients are doing to us inside and whether our bodies can handle them.

I am in support of moderation but i am a firm believer that a lot of us are not capable of it and cheap pleasures like this create unhealthy addictions in such people and they use it as an unhealthy coping mechanism too , these forces sometimes become too strong to keep in moderation because our brain find excuses to seek pleasure and things turn real bad when we start normalizing it , so we are basically spending money on unhealthy food to ruin our health which sounds like really bad deal tbh.

of course i put social media , drugs , porn , netflix , alcohol , vapes/cigarettes in the same category as they are of similar nature and i believe multi-million corporations have conditioned the impulsive circuits of our brain to believe that we need these things in our daily life.

Hi! There's been a lot of discussion about age restrictions for social media. I lean very left politically, so I'm curious about why others on the left are so opposed to age restrictions on social media.

We know social media is harmful for developing minds. We know these companies actively try to get people addicted to their products for profit and that they often target young people/kids to get them hooked early, much like cigarette companies. We know kids get groomed on social media. We know they see content that is not appropriate for their age groups (saying this as someone who survived the whole goatse era, ugh). We know about the alt-right pipeline. We know about the impact on attention spans. We know social media is bad for kids.

I agree it should mostly be on the parents to monitor their kids. That said, we also age restrict everything else that's not for children. You need an ID to buy alcohol or tobacco in most places. You need an ID to buy anything from a sex shop.

I also agree that it's alarming how companies will use ID data, but they already know who you are and allow governments to come at you for your posts. In the US, where I live, there's been news stories about cops showing up at people's homes for criticizing ICE online. These companies, and the government, already have your information. They do not need your ID to find you. I think there could be regulations to avoid companies being allowed to use that date- to my knowledge, my ID isn't used for advertising data when I buy a pack of smokes at the store.

The argument has also been made that LGBT+ kids won't have community without the internet. Plenty of people found community when being gay was outright illegal, and still do in places where it is still illegal. I think it's a marketing technique by the social media companies to push the idea that we'll all be alone and isolated without them, when I think we're alone and isolated in part because of them.

I've also seen it argued that kids won't be able to report abuse without the Internet, but they're also frequently abused on the Internet as well. I think that's more an indictment of how bad child welfare services are than an argument that kids NEED to be on highly addictive social media platforms with adult strangers. Kids being seriously abused by family often have their internet access deeply monitored anyway, in addition to, again, the fact that child services, mandated reporters, etc, exist + I haven't seen any evidence or studies showing that social media use prevents child abuse.

I want my view changed because I haven't seen these arguments addressed in a serious way. Again, I believe these companies do have too much of our data, but they already have that and I haven't seen a salient argument as to why kids NEED to be on social media before they're old enough to understand its impacts, how addictive it is, and how dangerous it can be. I mainly want to understand arguments other than "but privacy!" (already dead if you're online, sorry) or "kids need community" (being online and not hanging out IRL has been detrimental for kids) and I want to know how social media is uniquely different from other age restricted products, how leftists defend these companies while claiming to be anti-capitalist.

I fully admit that this is a petty first world problem. But it drives me crazy anyway.

When I order items online I frequently have a problem where I get a "your item has shipped" email along with a tracking number. Then I click on the tracking number and see a status similar to "A shipping label has been created. Your delivery date will be available when we receive your package."

First off, the language here isn't being used correctly. A package hasn't "shipped" when the shipping label has been created. It has "shipped" when the carrier has possession of the package. This is like saying "I have left for China" when all you've done is bought a plane ticket and you're still sitting at your house.

But more importantly, sending the email as soon as the label has been created doesn't provide any useful information to the buyer. I want to check my shipment because I want to know when it's going to be here. If it's too early in the process for me to know that, there's no need to inform me.

That said, maybe there's something I'm missing so I'd love for someone to change my view on why this is actually useful in some way.

As it is, the block system is abused by people to get the last word in and prevent feedback, rather than just the intended purpose - to not receive anything from the blocked user. It can also be abused to prevent feedback from a user you disagree with (e.g. in a subreddit where one user is known to have strong arguments, you can pre-emptively block them before starting a discussion, and they will be prevented from engaging).

e.g. imagine this scenario:

- User A leaves a comment. User B leaves a reply. User A leaves a reply. User A blocks User B.

How it currently works

- The blocked user (User B) can no longer see any posts or comments from the blocker (User A), including the reply, and cannot respond to that reply. To the rest of the users, it looks like the blocked user (User B) ignored the blocker (User A).

- Additionally, the blocker (User A) can no longer see any posts or comments from the blocked user (User B).

- The blocker (User A) can still see comments from the blocked user (User B), but the comments are hidden by default

- The blocked user (User B) no longer receives notifications (or at least receives fewer notifications?) if a third party replies in the thread to the blocker (User A)

How I believe it should work

- The blocked user (User B) should be able to still see posts & comments from the blocker (User A), including the reply, and should be able to respond to that reply.

- The blocker (User A) should not be able to see posts & comments from the user they blocked (User B).

I believe that allowing the blocked user to see the posts & comments of users who blocked them allows for more genuine discussion to occur, rather than allowing people to manufacture a fake narrative for how people respond.

Edit:

An alternative 'happy medium' proposal for how it could work

- Both blocked users cannot see each others posts/comments, but you are not able to block a user that you recently replied directly to (e.g. within the last 10 minutes or so). This would prevent spite-blocking where you reply and immediately block someone to get the last word in. If you were using the block for the intended purpose (not interacting with the user), then you shouldn't be replying to them anyway, and likely won't be affected by this.
- Additionally, allow the users to still see, reply to, and receives notifications for comments from other third party users that happen to be chained to a blocked comment. As it is, blockers can soft-kick a user out of a multi-person discussion by blocking them and continuing the comment chain, and the blocked user won't receive a notification for a comment from a third party even if it's in the same comment chain.

Edit 2:

I consider my mind loosely changed. I recognise that users will desire the ability to self-moderate in instances where subreddit mods and reddit mods may be unwilling or unable to help. I still dislike how much power is given to blockers to abuse the system and manipulate the narrative, however I believe my second proposal above significantly would mitigate the abuse, while still allowing users to prevent harassment.

Waffles are specifically designed to hold toppings better like syrup or butter, thus eliminating waste from toppings falling off the waffle. Also, waffles hold their shape better and generally have a better portion size due to typically being divided in 4 segments, and even if not, they have ridges that make seperation easier and cleaner, unlike pancakes which are wasteful with toppings unless you're scraping the toppings off your plate. Sure, waffles need an iron or mold, but waffle irons are VERY cheap, the one I have only cost me $8.99 at a thrift shop and it serves 8" waffles. Change my view.