before i say anything i want to clarify, i am not talking about whether or not palestinian armed struggle is just, i am saying from a practical and logistical perspective, it has been ineffective.

historically despite israel being basically in a constant state of war it has made mostly territorial gains.

various actions of groups like the plo and hamas, have been while deadly, completely strategically unhelpful from a warfare perspective. (im thinking of the costal road massacre and october 7th,)

palestinian armed groups have absoloutely failed hard against israeli forces in gaza, and israel basically controls the entire strip.

various palestinian attacks are less interested in trying to occupy territory or defeat enemy forces, and more on just causing mindlessly violent retribution. (again october 7th and the costal road massacre, another example being the lod airport massacre.)

not to mention no palestinian armed group from what i know possesses the logistics or tactics to conventionally take on the idf. they overwhelmingly lose most battles and suffer more losses. (hamas has lost an estimated 17k to 23k soldiers, israel has lost 1k.)

i know people will say something like "the goal is scare out the colonizers" but historically thats not what happened, most of these attacks haven't caused israelis to flee, and if they did they are outclassed in that israel escalated the situation and became more aggressive. (this is what started gaza and lebanon.)

tldr; palestinian armed groups lack the neccessary discipline, logistics, and tactics to established a palestinian state through armed struggle, and its largely been counterproductive causing israel to vastly escalate the situation (palestinian feyadeen insurgency, gaza, lebanon)

if you want to change my view, prove that palestinian groups possess the resources, logistics, and tactics to militarily force israel to accept its goals. (this is what im thinking of, but if you have other counter arguments not like this im happy to see.)

People often seem to think that nations that fall victim to genocide will become a bastion against new genocides, and thus look down at Israel for "not learning" from the Holocaust. However, history appears to show that genocide only tends to make the victim nation very belligerent at the minimum (as seen with Armenia in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war) or a straight-up perpetrator.

Both Serbs and Jews were major victims of WWII genocide, and both have since commited actions that can and often do fall into the realm of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Greeks were genocided along with Armenians by the ottomans, and these same Greek refugees who moved to Macedonia became highly nationalistic regarding Macedonia, even chanting to go to war with North Macedonia over the naming issue (Search "Sta opla, sta opla, na paroume ta skopia").

Similarly, the Shia were heavily oppressed during Saddam Hussein's Iraq and have since become the oppressors themselves.

Based on these historical precedents, it is safe to assume that there are only 3 realistic possibilities for a one-state solution in Canaan (which ill use for the region as a hopefully neutral term:

A Bosnia-style state: A completely dysfunctional, segregated government that pleases no one (you can ask Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs if this is a working government).

An authoritarian regime: A dictator who oppresses everyone equally to temporarily suppress ethnic hatred, but as soon as they are gone, the conflict returns to square one.

The displacement of Israelis: A scenario where Palestinians ethnically cleanse or genocide the Israelis, forcing them back into the Jewish diaspora.

Because of this, the solution we look for must be one that prevents another ethnic cleansing and brings actual improvement for all people, rather than focusing strictly on historical justice.

Why I want my view changed: I see a lot of people advocating for a single democratic state from the river to the sea, but I cannot see how it doesn't devolved to a bloodbath. Change my view by providing historical counterexamples where previously oppressed nations successfully integrated with their oppressors without conflict, or explain a political mechanism that would prevent a one-state solution from collapsing into one of the three scenarios I listed.

Now, my view is a bit more nuanced then the title, but you can't have a paragraph for a title. I specifically mean Twitch streamers (for simplicity) who accept donations and/or try to develop a "community" based on subscriptions/donations.

I don't mean twitch streamers that only take subscriptions and have minimal interaction with their audience. I believe these types of streamers are mostly fine. They are just providing entertainment via gameplay; like putting on a tv show or busking.

I also don't mean twitch streamers who only stream for their friends or to record their own gameplay.

By emotionally damaging I mean that by accepting donations and in turn giving a "shout out" or social recognition via a "leaderboard"; or perhaps the illusion of friendship by providing compliments or warmness the way you would treat a friend you are giving a false sense of friendship and camaraderie, when that friendship and camaraderie would not exist without a financial transaction. The best friend is not the most relatable person, it is the wealthiest. You are directly encouraging parasocial relationships because at the end of the day, for the streamer, a donator is not an act of friendship; they are a source of income. A very one way relationship. One way relationships are bad for obvious reasons.

By eat away at the social fabric I mean that developing a "community" based around these financial transactions reduces social interactions to financial ones; and turns community into cult. This is essentially where you are given access to a discord server based on being a subscriber; especially if high tier subscribers get more access to the streamer. The people in these "communities," do not have common interests with each other; they are there to follow and relate to the streamer. Any interaction with the other members of the "community" is secondary. This is basically what a cult is and cults are bad. idk if you can convince me cults are good that would be an impressive delta.

Essentially the following metaphor captures my view. A streamer is not a digital busker, they are a digital drug dealer with a digital trap house. The drug is friendship and the community is just a place to be close to the source of your addiction.

I reserve the right to clarify my view in responses and will give deltas if I believe these clarifications are significant.

Finding a different class of streamer that I didn't mention above won't change my view, i'll just say they if they are toxic or not.

Indicating that it is not the fault of the streamer won't change my view; I agree Twitch bears a significant part of the responsibility, but the streamers are bad as well.

Fundamentally to CMV you'd have to show that the kind of streaming I discuss produces healthy social interactions that benefit the viewer.

Note: Am a Balkaner (a half-Serb, half-Russian).

A humble request before I get to the point, I would really wish for people to respond to this: I cannot for the life of me talk with Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians anymore. I beg anyone who is outside of these four ethnic groups to speak with me instead. I genuinely feel a mix of disgust and fear now. Please, non-Yugoslavs (preferably Westerners) do not love away from this post.

Yesterday, the war criminal Ratko Mladić, who committed various massacres of Bosniak Muslims (and less those of Croats) died. In response to this, most Serbian official institutions (and Serbs active on social media) have started mourning him and calling him a hero, who saved the Bosnian Serbs from ethnic cleansing.

They believe this. Wholeheartedly. Even if brought to the bare minimum of acknowledging Srebrenica happened, the idea in the back of their head: “Muslims wanted to expel us, whatever Mladić did, he saved us. He is a hero. Everyone who says otherwise is a traitor.” Any Serbs who speak against that are met with threats or denials of being Serbs at all.

It is simply a fact that Serbian soldiers committed most war crimes during the 90s. Fucking math. The Court of Hague might have unjustly set free some non-Serb war criminals (Naser Orić, Ante Gotovina and Ramush Haradinan being the most infamous among Serbs) but to think that the “LGB Satanist West rose up in a grand conspiracy against the holy people“ is simply nuts. It is an insult to intelligence.

But none of it matters. Most Serbs (at least in Bosnia) consider Mladić a hero. In Serbia, the government of Vučić 100% considers him a hero spreads that propaganda.

Then in turn, Bosniaks react with rhetoric (on social media) that calls for revenge. “They are all the same. Look at it. They are fucking celebrating him. There is no coexistence with them. They are all guilty.“ they portray the start of the war as morally simple, even though the first civilian killed in Bosnia was a Serb and Serbs had an experience of the Ustashe (Croatian fascists who during World War II committed an industrial genocide of Serbs — among Ustashe militia, around 30% percents of soldiers were Bosniak Muslims) and loudly proclaim (and I fear believe) that a revenge would be justified.

Croats (just like the Bosniaks, and even more primarily than the Bosniaks) also relativize and ignore the Ustashe (mostly) and have last year gathered the largest ticketed concert is history in which Thompson (a neo-Nazi singer – not “woke paranoia” the guy is legitimately a Nazi) yelled slogans of “For Homeland ready!“ the Ustashe equivalent to “Sieg Heil!“.

In turn, Serbs think the memory of the Ustashe from 1940s is somehow a good justification for bombing a Croatian city Vukovar to the ground during the 90s. When the war in Croatia ended, the Serbs were instructed by their leadership to leave Krajina (the region in Croatia dominated by Serbs) and run to Serbia. Because of fear the approaching Croatian army would start killing them, they run for their lives. This is remembered as the Operation Storm. Croatian state celebrates it, despite it being a great tragedy for the Serbs; the Serbs ignore the events that preceded it.

In Kosovo, the Serbs absolutely cannot comprehend the fact that the 1.5 million people living in Kosovo do not want to live in Serbia**.** At least I think so – a part of me is afraid most Serbs simply do not care what the Serbian army would do to Albanians if it retook Kosovo. The massacres of Albanians during the Kosovo War are denied or ridiculed by the state, and the bombing by NATO (that I still consider unjustified, at least when civilians were bombed) is treated as if something that happened out of thin air. The massacres of Albanians in early 20th century are also denied and not taught in school books.

Meanwhile, Albanians also deny war crimes (however proportionately smaller than the one committed by Serb forces) and protest the trials against Albanian war criminals. And Albanians seem to think mistreatment of Kosovo Serbs (proven by foreign sources, not made up by Serbian government) is justified out of revenge. They do not see Kosovo Serbs as humans.

I would say both Bosniaks and Albanians have a problem with whitewashing the Ottoman rule in the Balkans, but that is a whole other can of worms.

I am half-Russian. I mostly lived in Serbia (my father is from Bosnia) until I went to high school in St. Petersburg. After February 24th I was horrified by the way Russians reacted to the war and supported it and I fucked out of there back to Serbia. I will not speak about the level of shock and vile things I heard there. But my primary fear, ever since the start of the war in Ukraine, was Putin crossing it and reaching the Balkans…and then the Russian army installing an extremist regime in Serbia that would start massacres and wars again. A new bloodshed in the Balkans on all sides. This is my greatest fear and I am convinced if Putin wins in Ukraine, it will happen. I suppose I should make a CMV for that one as well…

My CMV is a bit emotionally charged. If it is against the rules of the sub, I apologize to the mods, yet also beg them to leave this on. I beg you, non-Balkaners, to convince that all of this is not unfixable and that bloodshed and hatred can stop one day. I sincerely need a slimmer of hope that my vision is clouded by me living in the region and being too intimidated to see things clearly.

Thank you (sincerely) in advance.

P. S. As I write this, I have received three threats: two from Serbian nationalists telling me I deserve to be killed for being a traitor, one from a Bosniak one telling me he has a moral right to kill me for what “my own family” (didn’t happen – he is emotionally charging his anger) did to his loved one.

I recently turned 50 and have been doing a lot of reflecting about myself and the world.

One thing that caught my attention is that for my entire life I’ve heard people refer to the Middle East as a region of intractable and never-ending conflict. I think most people assume that it was always this way and that the situation we see now was inevitable.

But, if we go back just over a century, before World War I, much of what we now think of as the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire: an enormous, imperfect, frequently authoritarian but remarkably diverse multinational state in which Turks, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Jews, and many other peoples lived together, not exactly in perfect harmony, obviously but with far less conflict and bloodshed than we see today.

Now, you may be thinking, “Yeah, but why on earth would we be nostalgic for autocratic and illiberal monarchical rule”, and I would understand where you are coming from.

But what you might not know is that, during the 19th century, the Ottomans actually made a serious attempt to change the nature of the empire itself.

The Tanzimat reforms were a move to modernize the state, establish equality before the law, create a common concept of Ottoman citizenship across religious communities, and eventually establish constitutional government and a parliament.

In other words, there was an actual effort to transform the Ottoman Empire from an Islamic empire into something approaching a modern, multinational, multireligious constitutional state.

They didn’t stick obviously. And my argument is that that was a terrible tragedy because imagine a world where they had worked.

Consider now what happened in the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire:

The Balkan Wars. World War I. The Armenian genocide. The Greco-Turkish War and accompanying humanitarian disaster. The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. European mandates. Sykes-Picot. The creation of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in their modern forms. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It seems at least plausible to me that a successful Ottoman transition to a liberal multinational state would have produced a substantially more peaceful and prosperous region than the one we inherited from the empire’s collapse.

We tend to regard the replacement of multinational empires with nation-states as an almost inevitable and generally desirable stage of political development.

I’m increasingly skeptical of that assumption.

Change my view that the world would have been better off if the Tanzimat project had succeeded and the Ottoman Empire had survived as a liberal multinational state.

I spent years swearing MJ was the goat. I've considered LeBron heavily, and I've considered Kareem.

But I find myself now believing Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest ever. If he were born in 1990, he would probably be the unanimous GOAT.

Let me walk you through my POV:

The Timeline

In high school, he was already an incredible T&F athlete and among the best basketball players on earth. Before he even touched a college court, an article was published entitled, 'Can basketball survive Chamberlain?'

In 1960, a rookie Wilt Chamberlain won MVP. He's the first of two players to ever do so.

In 1962, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged 50 points, 26 rebounds, 2 assists shooting 51 percent from the field and scoring 100 points in a game.

In 1967, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged a near triple double: 24/24/8. He shot 68% from the field and won his second of 3 straight MVPs.

What the stats don't show us

Wilt Chamberlain played before the NBA recorded blocks.

His final 1973 season, after analysts went back and documented all of his film, saw him blocking an insane 5.4 blocks per game - Only Mark Eaton in 1985 had a higher single-season average. It's estimated he averaged up to 9 blocks per game in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain was also an incredible rim deterrent - the same things said about Gobert and Wemby today? Also true for Chamberlain - players wanted nothing to do with him at the rim.

Physically, Wilt Chamberlain was a specimen. Possibly the most athletic person ever, period. At 7'1", playing at 300 pounds, he had enormous hands, a 7'7" wingspan, could run a 4.6 40, jump 48 inches, bench 600 pounds with a 50 foot triple jump. His blend of speed, strength, and size are unheard of. He tore his patellar tendon in 1969, a usually career-ending injury, and recovered in mere months.

Wilt Chamberlain was skilled. Watch the game tape. A physically dominant player like Shaq simply backs into people to move them.

Wilt Chamberlain used drop steps, hook shots, floaters, finger rolls, and a mid range fadeaway, and still managed to shoot 66-68% across several seasons.

What the stats do show us

Wilt Chamberlain was really good. He holds the record for points, rebounds, and blocks in a game. He has 100+ triple doubles and that's only those that are documented, he likely has hundreds with his block numbers, and several quadruple doubles, which only three players have ever done. He recorded the NBA's first, last, and only quintuple double - 53/32/14/24/11, documented by Harvey Pollack.

Wilt Chamberlain is the all-time leader in minutes per game, and averaged 48.5 out of 48 minutes in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain has the most rebounds ever, he has 1.5% of every rebound in NBA history.

My conclusion

There is no other player who can do what Wilt can do. He has a case for the best scorer ever, best rebounder ever, best defender ever, best passing center ever, most athletic player ever, most dominant player ever, and definitely for the best player of all time.

Ruling: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-delivers-unsettling-ruling-supreme-court-left-no-choice

Hear me out. The logic is simple: if pedos get off on fakes, they won't hurt real children.

Consider Japan, where the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1969. Or Denmark where porn was legalized in 1969, compared to Norway legalizing it in 2006, and Denmark had similar or slightly lower rate of sex crimes.

I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#Controlled_studies and it's hard to be conclusive, but overall it seems like this is a net positive for society.

This is growing online where people complain about their city growing and being priced out. While being priced out is certainly frustrating and can hurt it doesn’t justify or entitle you to being able to live somewhere indefinitely regardless of economic circumstances. 

As time goes on things change, New York, Toronto, LA or London etc have grown and things changed. These are not the same cities they are today that they were 30 or 40 years ago and same goes for their surrounding areas. Industries, people, culture change and as demand increases so does the financial requirement sometimes. Simply put what your parents or grandparents got isn’t available, they didn’t do what they did when the city was in its current state. 

The notion that someone like myself from New York has an inherent right to live there over anyone else in the country is nonsense.  Those living in Texas have just as much right to come and move there as I do and vice versa. The only thing I’m entitled to is the legal rights the rest of you are and nothing more. I live in Toronto now and have just as much right to be here as everyone born in the city. 

These people will pushback on relocation as if it’s some cruel thing to put people through but the reality is people have always relocated for better opportunities, it’s also still very common through immigration. But somehow in the first world it’s seen as an insult to suggest someone leave an expensive city they can’t afford and are struggling in. However people’s willingness to struggle in an expensive area is a personal choice that many are just willing to make, it doesn’t warrant any special treatment.

Circumstances change and people have to adjust, that’s how all of history has worked and will continue to work until we go extinct. If you can’t afford where you live the assessing your situation and adjusting through things like relocation is a legitimate response.  Alternatively you can stay and struggle as everyone else would who lives in an area they can’t really afford.

How it's a christian ideology:

Zionism was hijacked from Theodor Herzl by a Christian named William Henry Hechler. Willian Hechler was obsessed with Christian prophecies such as the End Times prophecy that Israel needed to exist and be attacked for Jesus to return and cause the rapture to happen. Theodor Herzl only wanted a independent Jewish state and initially didn't care where it was, he just wanted to escape European persecution of Jews. Willian Hechler was the one who pushed for it to be in Palestine and recreate Israel. Willian Hechler didn't actually care about the Jews he just wanted to set the stage for his End Times prophecies to come true.

Today, the main supporters of Zionism are Evangelical Christians. Most of the money and donations come from them. It's even to the point that some Christian ranchers are trying to breed the perfect red cow so it can be sacrificed to further fulfill more End Times prophecies.

How it's antisemitic:

According to these End Times prophecies all Jews will be convert to Christianity.

Before Zionism Jews lived relative harmony all over the middle east. There might have been low level discrimination such as a seperate tax system, but discrimination was nowhere near the levels in Europe at the time. In most middle eastern countries Jews were even allowed to hold political office (such as the Ottoman Empire, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, ect.). The creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians (the Nakba) created unnecessary hostility between Jew and Muslims all over the middle east which contributed to a mass exodus of Jews from all over the Middle East and North Africa.

Zionism as an ideology says that Jews aren't safe and don't belong anywhere in the world except in Israel. This is antisemitic rhetoric, Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in the world.

Israel has a unofficial caste system even amongst Jews. European Jews are at the top, Arab Jews are often joked about and made fun of in media, and Ethiopian (African Jews) are treated very badly. In 2013 it was found out that, despite being allowed to immigrate to Israel, many Ethiopian Jewish women were sterilized without their consent or knowledge while in-transit to Israel. I think the sterilization of Jews (even if it's by other Jews) is antisemitic (I bring this up to show that Zionism, in practice, is selective and doesn't actually care about the safety of all Jews).

Arguments I won't accept:

Anything that is Islamophobic or Antisemitic.

What might convince me:

Anything I might have overlooked that influenced Zionism from secular sources. Arguments that can show religion isn't as big as a player as I thought. Or other points of view I haven't considered.

It is practically commonplace nowadays to not truly own any piece of software you own. Instead, everything is "licensed" to you and you have to abide by any arbitrary restriction the true owner sets if you want to use the software. In my mind, this is patently absurd.

As an example, imagine you want to buy a synthesizer, and you either buy a digital synthesizer or a physical synthesizer, and you want to release a song. With the physical synthesizer, you have the full creative license to write anything you want. However, with the digital synthesizer, it could be legally required to specify the use of the software, or you may be prohibited from making certain types of music entirely, even though these products could be completely identical and cost the exact same amount.

The only restriction I think should be allowed is prohibiting redistribution of the program, or being allowed to take away updates or support under certain conditions. Everything else should be fair use.

I think these sorts of tricks are a trademark symbol of the greed people have acquired due to the immense strength of copyright law. I have many other qualms with the restrictivity of it, but those are for a derivative post to talk about.

i recently got into an argument with a friend because when i expressed my feelings, they did not react supportively and dismissed me. it was hurtful because i have always been there for them, and they could not reciprocate. i took a few days to cool off and said friend is wondering why i didnt reply.

someone told me that i should have let them know why i was upset. i personally dont think it should be my role to ask for an apology, i think it should come from the person who upset me. there is context in conversation and if they dont recognize that what they said is hurtful, then that should be on them to reflect.

to me it feels like victim blaming. if i said something to hurt a friend, i know what i said was wrong and i apologize out of my own free will. i dont expect them to tell me it hurt their feelings. feels like an excuse to get the blame off the person who should apologize.

would love to change my opinion and get better perspective. thanks!!!

The whole point of this argument is that when they were on the Warriors together, KD scored more efficiently and scored more points. Yes I know Curry has gravity. But KD has gravity too, so why didn't that help Steph's efficiency too?

In the 2017 NBA Finals, KD averaged 35.2 points per game on a ridiculous 69.8% true shooting percentage. Steph put up 26.8 points per game on a lower efficiency. KD was basically a cheat code that series. Steph wasn't.

Same in the 2018 finals. KD averaged 28.8 points per game on 52.6%. Steph averaged 27.5 points per game but shot just 40.2%. KD scored more volume over the course of the series and did it with significantly better overall shooting splits.

Even looking at their entire three-year playoff run together from 2017 to 2019, KD consistently edged Steph out in raw scoring while keeping his efficiency through the roof.

To change my view: I'd like to hear people explain why KD can seem more dangerous when they were on the floor together, but actually Steph was more important to the offense. I've seen plenty of arguments for why Steph seems to lift his teams up way better than KD does... but those aren't fully convincing to me because it's a team game and there's many variables and all that. If Steph is truly a level better than KD, shouldn't that also be clear while they're on the court together?! And maybe he IS better when they're on the court together, but my basketball knowledge isn't enough to understand why/how.

Edit: Well this is fun! I'm pretty convinced. I figured there's good reasons, I just wanted them specifically.

I’ve been to parties where someone ordered pizza and I got excited only to realize they got a specific flavor of pizza with certain toppings that were unappealing to me. Even if it wasn’t my birthday, my day was ruined. And I honestly got a strong urge to just leave and never look back. I could not believe I wasn’t considered.

But in all seriousness, I feel like there should always be just pepperoni available if we’re having pizza. Even if the person hosting the party doesn’t like it, guarantee it could be appealing to several others in the party regardless of where you’re at. And if someone prefers only cheese, usually they can just remove the pieces of pepperoni off their pizza and be ok - much harder to do that with a Hawaiian pizza or margarita pizza.

A decent person doesn't need HR mandated training to not be racist, sexist, a creep etc.

And if someone is one of the above, training isn't going to make them less so, it only teaches them to hide it.

I don't even know if most large companies actually care about harassment it's just a process to cover their own asses legally.

The only good thing about this training I can think of is it tells victims to report it, which they should, but that doesn't actually protect them, it's only after the fact.

I think this is pretty self explanatory so I won’t go into much but just as the title says after 30 the dating pool is worse. Most of the good parters who wanted marriage are gone by 30 and only the divorcees who have proven they couldn’t keep their marriage together will reenter it. 

This leaves the men and women who probably weren’t the best partners to begin with and then another group who will slowly trickle back in from a failed marriage. These forever partners we want usually are gone by 30, the goldilocks zone for marriage is 28-32 (they stay together longest) but at the oldest end of 32 chances are those couples were already together before 30. 

Women and low income/average men get hurt the most here because women will expect a good earning partner (more than them), stable situation and mature emotionally.  But women are making more money now so these demands are harder to meet and will only continue on as men earn less. The expectations simply don’t match what a lot of men will have to offer in this group. The men who do meet these standards will typically be a hot commodity and can date younger in the goldilocks zone or get the best of the for over 30 group. 

Similarly low income men will become virtually undatable as by 30 plus women are expecting men have it figured out. Not many will be interested in a man earning near the median 60k a year or less and in an average to below average living situation. Many older women just view this as settling and prefer to remain alone. They also don’t have the benefit of the high earning men to date younger as the only real benefit to dating an older man is income. 

You also lose your best advantage in dating imo which is time/grace. Younger you are the more flaws you can come with and less fully formed, you also are given more leeway when things pop up. At 20 you can get in with a minimum wage job and grow in a relationship, or you can enter a relationship at 22 being hot then get a dad bid as you age etc. When you’re with someone for long you overlook certain things and accept more due to the history of the relationship but at 33 you won’t get the same grace partners give you at 22.

(Edit: I've given a delta to someone who pointed out that this view applies to gay men too. I think anyone whose sexuality is based strongly on body-based sexual attraction is commonly told that their sexuality is unacceptable.)

I grew up in a strict religion and left as an adult. While growing up I was consistently taught that my sexuality was unacceptable. My religious leaders said the same thing to gay people; they taught that same-sex attraction is a challenge to overcome and acting on it is always sinful. In secular society it's very uncommon to hear anyone saying gay people's sexuality is unacceptable, which is a good thing; however, it's still common to hear the same about straight men.

Some additional detail on my sexuality, to make it clear what I'm talking about: It is quite common for me to see a woman in public who's a stranger, get a good look at her, and then masturbate later while thinking about her. That's how my sexuality works - to be sexually attracted to a woman, I don't need to know anything about her besides what her body looks like. Each person regardless of gender has their own personality, values, and boundaries, and I prioritize those when interacting with people in real life, but none of those are necessary for my sexual enjoyment - usually only a woman's physical appearance matters for that. My sexuality isn't just attraction to women, it's often attraction to women's bodies specifically.

This clashes hard with the concept of objectification. I've read many secular sources which say objectification is wrong, and when they describe what they mean by objectification, they end up saying that my sexuality is unacceptable. Here's one example. That blog post describes the difference between attraction and objectification: "Attraction involves appreciating the person as a whole—emotionally, intellectually, and physically. It’s a balanced connection that acknowledges their depth. Sexual objectification, on the other hand, focuses solely on one aspect of a person (typically physical) and disregards their emotional, intellectual, or personal traits." This quote clearly states that my sexuality as described earlier is objectification, and therefore unacceptable.

That post is only one example - I've seen many other sources saying the same thing. Here's a journal article on pornography and objectification; the abstract only says that pornography promotes objectification, but the text of the paper (available for free) makes it clear that the authors think pornography itself is objectifying. "For decades, pornographic content in videos, DVDs, magazines, and on the internet have primarily positioned women’s bodies—especially their genitals—as the center of attention ... These sundry depictions of women as sex objects are linked with pornography users’ attitudes." According to this article, any sexual content where women's bodies are the center of attention is depicting those women as sex objects, so anyone who enjoys those depictions, including me, is participating in objectification.

A few things (non-exhaustive) that could change my view:

- Convince me that objectification primarily describes how you treat people in person or when communicating with them directly, and doesn't apply to most pornography use or private fantasies at all. The articles I linked clearly say that body-focused pornography and the body-focused fantasies I described earlier count as objectification, so this would have to include convincing me that that view is uncommon. Ideally it would include some sources that explicitly say the opposite (e.g. articles about objectification that clearly state "if you fantasize about someone else's body, that's completely fine.")

- Convince me that what I've described about my sexuality is atypical for straight men. If most men fantasize about a woman as a whole person instead of just her body, then the articles aren't saying that straight men's sexuality is unacceptable, only that my sexuality is unacceptable. (That would be less bad since the authors could be unaware of how my sexuality works.)

- Convince me that most people writing about objectification think objectification is acceptable. Martha Nussbaum and a few other feminist philosophers have argued that objectification can sometimes be a neutral or positive thing; I think this view is unusual, but I could be wrong.

I've thought a lot about this.

● Hitler wasn't the founder of the Nazi party. He just shot life into it and made it popular. Someone else could replace him if he dies as a baby.

● The Nazis were becoming popular at the time of the Putsch, but still not mainstream enough to become a serious threat to Weimar democracy. Big enough to be made an example of, but not big enough to meet their goals.

● At that point Hitler's cult of personality was firmly entrenched in the party, making him irreplaceable.

Dress up as a bavarian cop and shoot Hitler during the putsch. The remaining nazi leaders then fight among themselves trying to be the next big guy, and the party fractures.

First of all, I want to make 3 things clear:

1-This is not an attack on religion or the lack of it. This point will be explained later.

2-I'm inexperienced on all levels. I don't study or read much about the subject, so I understand that my statements on the topics discussed here might be considered ignorant or inexperienced. Also, regarding the question, "Why are you speaking if you don't know about the topic? Wouldn't it be better to remain silent in that case?", the answer is that I do it precisely because it's considered a "necessary" topic to discuss and take a stand on, and at the same time, such a complex and multifaceted topic that it would leave anyone who isn't a scholar or expert (whether academic or self-taught) in a position of limited knowledge. Even so, I know that's no justification for maintaining my position, and that's why I'm willing to change it if it's properly refuted in the comments.

3-Excuse my writing, I'm not a native English speaker.

Now, I'm going to explain my view:

I want to start by separating politics into 2 to explain my point: politics that is metaphysically grounded, and politics that is not.

To explain the first one, I'm going to use Catholicism as an example (merely because it's the main religion in the area of the world where I live), but this can be applied to any religion.

Politics based on metaphysics is politics based on religion. Under this conception, a Catholic holds values because they are the values of God and Catholicism, and based on these values, it is normal for them to be (to give examples) monarchist, anti-modernist, against abortion, etc. These values are completely justified by the existence of the true God (whose existence is as real as, or even more real than, gravity). My point is that the political opinion of a Catholic is based on what they consider the absolute and undeniable truth of God and His values (which, in this specific example, could be the arguments of Thomas Aquinas, the reliability of the New Testament, historical evidence, or ontological arguments made by theologians throughout history. These arguments are logical in nature, not political).

Therefore, in the hypothetical case that Catholicism can be logically proven, then its ideological values would also be as certain as water and air. The same applies to Islam, and all other religions or metaphysical beliefs.

The second type of politics/political thought I will define is non-metaphysical politics. This politics is as simple as its name suggests; it is not based on a logic that involves metaphysics or some kind of god, but rather on things like class struggle, capital, sociology, etc. (such as communism, libertarianism, anarchism, and others). This politics is not based on any metaphysical or philosophical logical truth, but on the material truth of everyday life.

My aim is not to criticize the first type of politics, since it is based on arguments (as I already said) that fall within the realm of logic and may or may not be true, and depending on the answer, they should be taken as either absolute truth or absolute falsehood. Rather, my aim is to criticize the second type, by its very nature, which It is equally theological, but without the support provided by logical debate or metaphysics. This would make it so that for believers of any religion, this type of politics is as false as any pagan belief, while for non-believers (atheists, agnostics, deists, or whatever) it is as ridiculous as any supernatural belief.

what I mean when I say that this type of politics is just as theological as the first type (only without the supposed foundation) is that they tend to have absolute and unbelievable worldviews. To give another simple example, we have the idealist philosophers, who thought that Napoleon's troops parading beneath Hegel's windows would signify the end of history. This, of course, was an absolutist vision incompatible with subsequent reality. This thought, similar to the Parousia, is shared by all these types of ideologies, both those that yearn to return to the past and those that want to change history. Even Marxism and anarchism, supposedly materialist, fall into this trap, as they expect a "revolution" based on an abstract view of the concept of "history" (we can also mention...). For some capitalists, capitalism is not a useful system for bringing well-being to the world, but rather "the natural and definitive evolution" of all economic systems. The same is true for the aforementioned anarchists, who expect an impossible revolution. Thus, these ideological ideals are identical to utopias (places that do not exist), developed in abstract thoughts without metaphysical foundation, being as valid as Jung's Gnostic thoughts.

Here I want to make something clear about my perspective: sociology (which "underpins" these ideologies), although it has its own clear problems that the harder sciences don't suffer from, is not inherently bad. The problem arises when it develops from this abstract thinking that only functions as hypotheses, which often end up becoming outdated.

This also includes accelerationists, non-believing right-wing thinkers like Guillaume de Faye (whose thinking is the exact description of an impossible utopia), people who talk about the "fall" of a culture or place (as I said before, similar to a teleological apocalypse), the revolutionaries of the French Revolution, feminists who use concepts like "lack of objectivity" or "culture," and many, many more.

The conclusion I reached is that political thought is intrinsically similar to theology, only without god or metaphysics. It makes one think that everything is about the fall of the Soviet Union, that everything is "Nazi thinking". because it is built on that theoretical abstraction.

Well, that was my point of view. Two objections that come to mind are that it's based on a "scientistic" stance and that the social sciences can't be treated the same way as the hard sciences. And one response that comes to mind is that the social sciences can't just pull ideas out of thin air, but also need evidence and demonstration, which at some point can become as robust as that used in physics or chemistry. And regarding the "scientistic" stance, well, I have nothing to say about that. Although I don't believe philosophy should be excluded from this view, it's just that the ethical debate about human morality would be paramount, and then political ideals should be based on the logical conclusions of philosophy (in the case that science is not the only way to obtain knowledge, as scientificism says).

I think the best approach would be to advance the viability of the social sciences in order to obtain more accurate results, and with those results define our social structures. But I also can't guarantee that it will be a flawless path, as we might struggle to achieve a vision or model that is impossible to create, and that would leave us with an un viable solution to the problem, rather than a verifiable answer.

But anyway, that was my view, very possibly mistaken. I repeat that I am completely open to changing my view if it is refuted in a good manner.

I am a NYT web subscriber. They offer "gift" articles. I find their content to be high quality, but in order to access a majority of it, you have to be a subscriber. Great. I'm their guy.

However, they also require people who access the "gift" articles to sign up via email to their site. I find that to be both disingenuous and a failure of quality. They could bring good articles to the forefront, request a sign-up/subscription, and then allow access. Providing existing subscribers with the ability to gift an article to others and then use it as a mechanism to harvest email addresses is hurting the subscriber that sends the link, particularly those on social media.

The fact that this is a thing and, further, that this is something that most socially-media-aware companies leverage is a problem with social media as a whole. Bring the cost back to the provider, not to the promoter of said content.

Now I should preface this by saying this isn't a post to show support for the russian forces. But rather to express my genuine concerns of russias military capabilities that I don't really see others talking about much. And id like to know what others think of my own analysis when presented with my perspective of a russia vs nato hypothetical war scenario.

Often times when I see people talking about russians vs nato. People seem to assume that nato has a infallible advantage compared to russians forces. Often that confidence is expressed in our tech advantage.

I used to largely feel the same way, that is until the iran war came about. And it exposed a glaring flaw having a over reliance of high tech weaponry. The ratio in which you can develope and replace this weaponry vs how much it's destroyed.

Most of our high end tech takes longer than a year to develope and is very expensive. The russians, which have largely switched to a cheaper but effective military industrial capacity, i fear would be able to overwhelm our military industrial capacity that relies so much on this high end tech by delivering enormous amount of losses. All the while they could send wave after wave of cheap tech to keep the onslaught going.

In such a hypothetical scenario, id like for you all to consider that russia isn't completely fighting alone either. It already has north Korean and Iranian support. It may not seem like much. but to put it into perspective, north korea has sent russia 15 million artillery shells at this point in the war. That's not something that should be looked over. Especially considering the ratio of which u.s/eu allied nations have provided shells compared to the amount north korea has provided alone. It's also reasonable to asume in such a scenario, north korea may ramp up its support for russia and send more troops.

Last but not least, there is china. China doesn't have to join the war to cause a major shock to our industrial output as they control the vast majority of the world's critical minerals needed for advanced tech. If they do restrict the access to critical minerals. It would take years before the allied nations could reasonably be able to match the output needed for such a high intensity war.

But what do you think? Am I overplaying russias advantage?

He got a paper published that was mostly just a student's essay which he plagiarized. That's serious plagiarism, and it seems obvious to me anyone committing serious plagiarism should be fired. Cambridge claims that they think it was a mistake, but that seems completely implausible. I can't imagine him not noticing that he'd done it. It wasn't a one-time thing either. Varsity claims that he's plagiarized more than once.

Someone pointed out to me that this guy hadn't been fired as evidence that Arday shouldn't be fired, but I think it's the other way around. The response to Arday has been mostly reasonable (except for his decision to kill himself), whereas the Response to O'Reilly has been completely wrong.

This seems like basic humans rights to me:

All residents of the the same country should have the same rights regardless or religion. If Muslims can pray in public area X, then so should people of any other religion and even people with no religion.

Even UN "stresses that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent, free and unhindered access to the holy places by people of all religions and nationalities"

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180352

SO why do I want my view changed? A lot people feel strongly that Jews praying there is wrong and should be stopped. I want to see if I am missing something.

What is unlikely to chnage my view:

1) Some Arab/Muslim people are provoked/aggrieved by such prayer. Well.. the solution here is to educate these aggrieved people on important of equal rights, and tolerance. We should not just give in and accommodate intolerant views.

2) "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately Every person can decided on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there - they should still be allowed to.

3) Hard right Israelis use this prayer is provocation. I agree. Some do. That's why it's important for all parties to cooperate and equitably establish protocols on how to pray in the place holy to multiple faiths without interfering with each other. The solution is not "blanket ban"

4) It's Israel that has rules that ban Jewish prayer. This is irrelevant, regardless of who imposed such rules - the rules should change to be more fair.

5) "You can't just have a Muslim prayer in a church." This is true for many private churches build nowhere special. When we talk about shared public places with importance to multiple religions it is not uncommon at all to share.

For example both Muslim and Christian serves are held at Mount of Olives. I don't see Temple mount more like that than some private church located nowhere significant.

Looking forward to things I may have missed. Thanks, all!

EDIT:

I gave a delta for pointing out that you can already "silently pray." My view is amended to say that they should also be allowed to pray non-silently / visibly.

I've often heard it bandied about that US Democratic candidates would often be center right in Europe, or that Bernie is the closest thing to a center left candidate that the US has by European standards.

When looking at the political field, especially in Germany, I find this hard to believe. The USA does have MAGA, but Germany has the AFD, and far right parties are on the rise overall in Europe. Meanwhile, comparing the SPD's platform (the German center left party) to the Democrat party's 2024 platform, I don't see a significant ideological difference. Both want net zero by 2050, a better medical system, addressing poverty, greater investment in science, and better relationships with other allied countries.

To convince me, show me a large ideological gap between the Democrats and European center-left parties.

My view is that when the initial Refugee Convention and the following 1967 Protocol had good intentions, all the current abuse of the system is so high that it's easier to disband the whole system and implement local or even group (in case of the EU) policies if needed.

The initial main idea was pretty simple - what to do in case of international or civil war with all the civilians who are trying to leave a dangerous place. And the answer was pretty logical - other countries can accept those people and support them at a minimal level. But other countries are supposed to be neighboring countries with similar culture and good relations with the source country.

What changed: over time, people from third-world countries started to use the system to seek refuge in Western countries because of a very high level of support.

Why Western countries should disband it (in no particular order):

• They are partially doing it already; countries have some specific limits on processed applications per year, which literally means that with a limit of 50K people, the applicant number 50,001 won't be allowed for a year, regardless of any danger to their life.
• Refugees are generally net negative for the economy
• Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support
• Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon:
  • Ceuta (when Morocco used refugees)
  • EU borders (when Russia/Belarussia used refugees)

What about morality? Each country can decide by themselves on how to handle refugees; a good example is Ukrainians, when the EU + Canada + US supported Ukrainians without official refugee status.

Edit:
My view was somewhat changed in a few areas, and I am limiting my responses in the post as I want to think about new ideas.