As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.
Please feel free to share any **constructive** feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).
People love to talk about teaching kids practical life skills in school. I agree that kids should learn things like budgeting, first aid/CPR and maybe some cooking or something. However, whenever someone raises this, they inevitably mention “learn to do your taxes.” This is a dumb thing to teach kids. First, the tax code changes, so the knowledge will be stale before it’s relevant to the kids. Their filing status also changes. In addition, almost everyone uses software to prepare it, so unless they are learning how to use every type of tax prep software, they aren’t benefiting. Finally, it supposes that we will always have a complicated system of tax preparation. We shouldn’t encourage that by baking that assumption into our education system.
(Note: this is obviously US centric. I have no idea about other lands.)
There's a large group of people that say that white people run the world. That they have created a system that keeps other races down and only uplifts themselves and this is evidenced by their disproportionate representation in positions of power. How is this any different than the belief that Jewish people run the world though? That Jewish people are disproportionately put in places of power and privilege where they only uplift themselves and try to keep non-Jewish people down?
If one is racist shouldn't the other be racist too?
Employment prospects should be the first priority. Interests should be secondary to that. I’m a college graduate and I know tons of people with arts and humanities degrees who can’t find employment in their field. For example, I know a girl with a degree in film who is working as a barista and a dude with a degree in theatre who is working at H&M. These are just two examples out of many. What jobs can you even get with a film degree? Their chances of becoming a Hollywood film producer is 0.001%. The dude with a theatre degree has dreams of performing on broadway but what are the odds he will be selected? If I were to guess, they were told to only focus what they were interested in without paying close attention to job prospects and now they’re in hot water.
I’m not here to argue about whether the President can forgive loans or not but I am saying that the lawsuits brought have no standing. The first one being two students who didn’t qualify for the $20,000 forgiveness. Any government program has requirements one must meet in order to receive benefits, in this case it’s that they didn’t receive Pell Grants. So there is no standing here, they don’t meet the requirements. The next one is that six states claim they will lose revenue. This specifically relate to Missouri since MOHELA headquarters are there. However, MOHELA has already said that they would not be affected by this program as they do not make profits. So as the courts sided with Missouri specifically this has no standing either. Both of these cases should be overturned and any effort in stoping it should be because they don’t think it’s constitutional. Judges don’t have to agree with forgiveness but these lawsuits are laughable. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to look an see if it’s constitutional which is what should have happened to begin with. Those rulings were irresponsible.
This came up in the news today after some comments made by a Buckingham Palace aide. I know that this is generally considered as a very racist thing to ask but I just can't see it. This is why:
The question is clearly intended to ask about someone's heritage. This is something that many people are proud of, to the extent that they will describe themselves as a hyphenated nationality - Italian-American and so on. Someone my age, in my country (the UK) who is an ethnic minority is demographically likely to be a first or second generation immigrant. I don't understand why effectively asking where someone's parents are from is racist. People ask me where I grew up all the time and I don't regard that as offensive. I enjoy telling people about my background. How could it be offensive?
I lived overseas for a number of years and was asked twenty times a day where I was from. I never once felt that was a racist act. It was a curious act.
I can understand that some people will ask the question with a racist intent - as in, "well, fuck off back there then". But I think that's rare. In most cases, as with the Buckingham Palace incident, its just someone trying to make conversation with someone they don't know. That can be tough to do and so you pick on easy topics. What do you do for a living? How was your journey here? Isn't the weather terrible? Where are you from?
I know that the obvious counterpoint is that it singles people out on their ethnicity and implies they're less British. But...isn't that true? Someone whose family came here thirty years ago is quite literally less British than someone whose family has lived here for hundreds of years. If I moved to Australia, I'd be less Australian than someone whose family came over on the First Fleet. I just don't understand why that's offensive. The only way I can see it being offensive is if the person takes that to mean they're somehow inferior for being less British. Which makes no sense to me at all. Being British or Ghanaian or Mongolian or whatever doesn't make you any better or worse than any other nationality. National heritage and your culture are part of who you are. Why is it racist to ask about that?
I genuinely don't get it.
I say that the only conditions that it could be remotely necessary are for legal/civil or medical purposes.
I feel like people are being very divisive, yet oblivious to reality.
These are things you just don’t really need to ask people, especially if it’s not relevant of anything at hand.
Even, in workplace settings, if you are asking someone about these things, like where they are from or their racial/ethnic background and they don’t answer your questions or don’t want to, but you keep pressing them. It’s pretty much turning into harassment the further a person takes. Which lends itself to perhaps individual might be prejudice… that might give people the idea that they could be racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, etc.
People cling to the argument that they are not any of these things or believe in any kind of bigotry. No one says they individually are, but they are setting a precedence that a person must always answer such a question in good faith. While, in reality, alot of people do not ask such questions in “good-faith” and often manifests different types of prejudiced behavior. One or several honest or well meaning individuals do not negate the fact that someone’s privacy can be negotiated.
Hypothetically, if someone were to ask me about my race, gender/sex, class, or marital status in public. In most free countries, I have the right “to not answer that question or give them any answer” as I please. I could tell them “I’m from another galaxy and not of any Earth species and have multiple genders. I’m married to seven different people.”
A person could laugh at my answer and move along, everything is fine. Same, if they don’t respond or react to it.
But, what about the people don’t?
The people who may ask “Where are you actually from? What is your actual race or ethnicity? What is your actual sex … you can only be born a man or woman? What is your actual citizenship status, everyone knows you can’t be from out of space, but even if you are which country were you naturalized in? Who do you owe your allegiance to?”
Are already violating a social contract norm in some societies or committing social faux pas. Because, you are right at policing someone you don’t know to answer questions for your own benefits, concerns, or curiosities when it’s not necessary or appropriate.
If you would like a humorous explanation of my view, here is a Sam Kinison joke. Now, more seriously : I know that there are famines around the world that are happening because of natural disasters (like floods for example) or because of war, or because it was deliberately forced upon a population. But there is a kind of famine that we have been seeing in every international charity ads and school geography books for 50 years. Yes, I am talking about that decimated African kid with flies all over the face, and his 11 brothers and sisters. From all the documentaries and pictures on the subject, we can clearly see that nothing can grow where they live. The soil is dry and have been so for the last 500 years. Why do they keep living in deserts? In western civilisation, you can find inhabited deserts like Las Vegas, but those places were created knowing it was possible to bring food and water there. If, for some political reason, Las Vegas became a place where you can neither grow food/get water, nor have it brought there, I am certain the inhabitants would go live somewhere else.
Edit: I'd like to add the example of the homeless in western countries, who live in cities and not in deserts
Edit2: I know it's complicated to relocate people even within their own country, but the way I see it is that it's either that or western countries have to send tons of food forever because the situation will obviously never get better, especially considering climate change
The more space you have on a cutting board to work, the better. That's primarily look for in a cutting board, surface area that fits in my counter top. Plastic is fine, wood is better, but surface area is what's most important.
On a standard cutting board, a juice groove doesn't make a lot of sense. On a carving board for meat, sure. For standard prep it's nearly useless.
But handles are another thing. Why is there a hole in the middle of my cutting surface? I don't need a designated place to hold a cutting board by. Hands are adaptable tools, plus cutting boards are not typically held during use.
This is an issue much larger than just changing the NMLDA, and it's an issue that deserves much more attention than it gets.
In the United States, drunk drivers kill over 11,000 people each year, with roughly 17% of those accidents being caused by teens, and the majority coming from middle-aged men. The only other two countries in the world with this many alcohol-related traffic deaths are South Africa (drinking age is 21+) and Canada.
The country I would focus more on is Canada- where the government allows individual provinces to set their own drinking laws. Before the passage of National Minimum Legal Drinking Age in the United States in 1984, this is one of the major issues that lead to the formation of organizations like MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) that lobbied so heavily for the passage of NMLDA. Mismatched ages across state lines lead to "booze runs," where teens would drive (often already intoxicated) to neighboring states with lower drinking ages. (e.g. The State of Arkansas has had a drinking age of 21 since the end of prohibition, but from 1971-1984, every single border state (MO, TX, LA, TN, MS, OK) had a minimum age of 18-19. You can see where this is going.
Drinking policy needs to be uniform across the country, and it needs to be lowered. The problem is not just that 18-20 year olds are incapable of making decisions, the problem is that we as a society have failed to teach them how to drink in a mature and responsible manner.
I'll give the example of Germany, a country where a 16 year old can drink weak alcoholic beverages and an 18 year old can drink harder beverages. Germany has a prolific drinking culture and understands the importance of teaching younger adults how to drink responsibly.
A study was done where a group of teens from both countries were asked two questions: had they consumed alcohol in the 30 days prior, and had they consumed enough alcohol to intoxication in the same time. In the United States, around 19% of teens admitted to drinking in the time frame, while 11% admitted to drinking to intoxication. In Germany, nearly 67% admitted to drinking in time period, while only 8% admitted to drinking to intoxication.
Another comparative statistic is the drunk driving accidents. Remember that 11,000 deaths from earlier? That's about 31% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. In Germany, alcohol-related traffic deaths account for about 9%. (I will concede, Germany has a much better public transport system than the United States)
This brings up the point I am wanting to make: The solutions we have to prevent alcohol related deaths do little to solve the actual problem. We have a problem of culture, not a problem of ignorance. As a country, we need to do better with introducing and educating teens and young adults to alcohol and teaching them how to use it responsibly.
Anyone who has ever attended an American High School or University knows that underage students who want to drink are not going to be stopped by their age. Fake ID's, older friends, and lax (or unknowing) parents continue to supply minors with alcohol who with little to no experience with how to handle themselves. An introduction to alcohol at a younger age also means teens feel more comfortable talking about with adults about responsibility and proper care of friends and themselves.
This also does not account for the blatant National Security risk Fake ID's have in the United States. The more teens who order false identification (which often come from China), the more experience foreign countries have in producing authentic-looking US ID's.
According to the NIH, about 4% of all alcohol consumed in the United States is consumed by underage youth, with about 90% of all alcohol consumed by youth being "binge drank." I understand the risks that come along with granting kids access to a substance they have little experience with, but nearly every risk factor used to back the claim the age should be 21 is backed by the statistic of binge drinkers. Why can't we as a society allow youth to drink at a younger age in more controlled environments and education our kids on more responsible use like the majority of the western world? It seems strange that in the land of free, we allow 18 year olds to vote, pay taxes, serve in the military, and own a gun, but in order to have a drink they have to commit a felony. My view is that we should have a tiered system, like Russia or Germany instead of a flat age, and that the MLDA needs to be uniform throughout the country to prevent the booze runs of the 1980's.
A point I forgot add in the original post is that there are people far more intelligent than I that can far better sum up this issue: I introduce to you the Amethyst Initiative.
The Initiative has 136 signatories from University Presidents, Chancellors, etc who are calling on Congress to reevaluate the drinking age in the United States.
These are people leading some of the most prominent, largest, and prestigious schools in the country. From Duke to the University of Maryland, Ohio State to Dartmouth, these institutions agree something needs to be done. A full list of signatories is below:
Look at all the affluent black communities during segregation that were thriving with little government support on their own and then compare that to modern day living where blacks are dependent on state assistance without any real escape route. I’m personally for isolated pocket communities of black and brown people of color where we can start to rebuild things like Tulsa and the Black Wall Street.
Frankly doesn’t make any sense to me when black people say they want variant of socialism. The black people that went over to Russia were treated horribly and the illusion of equal wealth was a lie. Instead the black community should advocate for lifting ourselves up through the current system (capitalism) and take advantage of the opportunity to build generational wealth.
DISCLAIMER: I am writing this mainly from a Protestant perspective since that's how I grew up and that's what I'm used to. Although I've never lived in China, I'm a Christian, and I have relatives who do live in China (including some official Christians), whom I've visited many times. In general, China's a lot less dystopian than often thought to be, and indeed, much of the drivel against China is politically driven. Anyways, this conversation is not about Chinese politics, so please keep it civil. Thanks!
A common misconception about religion in China is that it is completely illegal. However, this is far from the truth. In China, all religious groups must register for government approval in order to be able to legally practice; the officially recognized branch of Protestant/Christian churches in China is the Three-Self Church, or the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (三自爱国运动, or Sanzi Aiguo Yundong in Chinese). But many religious groups, known as "unofficial", "house", or "underground" churches for Christianity, don't go through this process. These are illegal, these are forced to carry out their operations in secret, and many of these end up getting forcefully shut down by the government (and their leaders imprisoned).
There's much debate over whether China's system is acceptable or not, and this isn't what this post is for. However, if I were from China and wanted to convert to Christianity, I'd much rather join the officially recognized church rather than join a shadier, more clandestine organization which might not even last a year and could potentially put me in very hot water with the authorities. Not only is the official church more acceptable, there is also nothing theologically unsound about the official church's doctrine. People seem to have this misconception that pastors in the official church always have pistols held up to their heads 24/7 like a scene out of an Orwell novel. In reality, however, the situation is significantly less dystopian in practice. If you read the Three-Self Church's creed, there's not much difference between that and what you would find elsewhere. Members of the official church respect Mao as a historical savior, and Christ as a religious savior. They honor Xi as the political leader, and God as the religious leader. The official church is not compromising Christian doctrine by replacing Jesus with Xi Jinping and making worshippers worship him and whatnot. Nobody who tells you that has actually gone to one of their congregations. If you've actually been to an official church in China, they're actually pretty standard. Any creepiness factor you might be feeling is probably just you.
Yes, there are many things churches and other houses of worship can do in many countries other than China that they can't do in China. But the list of things is, like... spreading health misinformation, encouraging violence, using religion as a soapbox/facade for fringe political movements, disrespecting authority, and forcibly converting people by going door-to-door. Look at such movements as the Westboro Baptist Church or Scientology in the U.S, etc. It is important to understand that the whole point of China's restrictions on religious activity is to prevent problematic groups like these from gaining traction, and posing a threat to the structural stability of society.
In order to formulate a proper opinion on these issues, we must look at them through a Chinese lens rather than a Western or American lens. American culture places a great deal of emphasis on individual liberties, which makes sense in light of its history, and this would include such first amendment rights like freedom of religion. Conversely, Chinese culture deems societal stability and cohesiveness some of the most important important values, and the Chinese are not afraid to relinquish individual freedoms when necessary if it means maintaining stability, or preventing instability.
Now, what if we take a look at what Scripture says? Well, we'll find that Paul advised his followers to "be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established", and that "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves... therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." (Romans 13) Context-wise, it is very important to note that the Christian community in Rome in Paul's time was facing similar circumstances to the Christian community in China today. Furthermore, Peter, advising Christians on how to maintain their face in pagan or secular societies, is adamant in cautioning them to "submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right... Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2)
Another tactic these Sinophobic commentators like to pull is taking isolated events from, like, one city in China, and then generalizing them as the state of affairs nationwide. Again, it's exceedingly rare that any of these soothsayers have actually been to China, definitely so for those who only started after 2020.
And yes, it is true that the music to many hymns in China (used by both the official and unofficial churches) do resemble Chinese patriotic music. But that's more of a cultural than a political thing, and to an extent you can find that among Christian communities around the world. If Christianity is brought to different parts of the world, it's only natural that the Christian community will undergo influence from the local cultures. The term China uses for this principle is "Christianity with Chinese Characteristics", and for some reason many anti-China commentators keep insinuating that this is supposed to be scarier and more dystopian than it actually is.
So, yeah. What's not Christian about officially recognized Christian worship in China? If it looks like Christianity, acts like Christianity, and believes in Christian doctrine, then it probably is Christianity. (And frankly, in many ways, I wish the church in America were more like the official church in China!) God loves all the nations, even ones you don't.
P.S: Here's a great article debunking many of the myths and politicized narratives surrounding Christianity in China: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/october-web-only/chinese-christians-persecuted-narrative-church-xi-jinping.html. The other pages on this website are also worth checking out.
The lyrics to "Song of the Three-Self Church"
The Chinese Church rises up to self-government, to shine in holiness and remove imperfections, and to obey the Lord's will in accordance with all the sacraments, as our Lord's temple is as solid as a rock.
The Chinese Church is blessed with self-sufficiency, following the glorious example of the saints, and willing to dedicate all to the Lord, as the abundance of the Lord's grace is far beyond imagination.
The Chinese Church strives to self-proselytize, to be fully equipped with the Gospel, to witness to the Holy Spirit, and to love the whole world.
The Church establishes itself by the Lord's leadership, living together in harmony and obeying the Lord's command, united as one in Christ, and praising the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I can't help but get anxious over the view that big pharma companies don't want to make the best drugs available for people, because they are just enterprises like anything else and their purpose is to "make money".
Why would you want to stop a steady cashflow from diseases like diabetes, or why would you want a cure for cancer when that's one of the big moneymakers too? I can't find a single reason why would a company or the industry as a whole want a cure for ANY disease which require continuous medication regimen? Please change my view.
I read a thread on what should men do if they happen to walk behind a woman on a deserted street, so she feels comfortable.
Some people in that thread pointed out that treating all men as potential criminals is the same as treating all black people as potential criminals, all Muslims as potential terrorists etc. That it's wrong and extremely hurtful, given that most men are actually good people.
Some women answered (paraphrasing) that while they regret how it makes men feel, their own safety is more important to them than potentially treating that individual man unfairly.
I understand and agree with both sides here. Now, here's the IMHO tricky part.
If society keeps treating men as a group as potential murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc., which can be expressed indirectly through a woman e.g. crossing the street to not have to walk past a man or directly with various ads, PSAs etc. that are supposed to tell/remind/teach men as a group that sexual assault is bad, that they should teach the same to their mates etc., this leads to a net negative safety of said society because:
No criminal sees that ad and goes "OMG, theft/rape/murder is wrong? I better stop then!" Thus, there is no (or very little) net decrease in crime.
There are men who would never commit such a crime, but eventually get fed up of having to listen to what's essentially demonization based on an immutable characteristic. Some of these men might have been willing to help out a victim of such a crime in progress prior, but now they would just shrug and ignore it.
Thus, the number of criminals remained static or decreased by a negligible amount and the number of potential "protectors" decreased by a significantly larger amount, which leads to a net increase in danger for all women.
To CMV, you would have to logically or with data show that the ratio of criminals vs "protectors" remains the same or improves if society accepts the treatment of men as a group as potential violent criminals. There may be other things I missed, but this is the key one.
By "treatment of men as a group as potential violent criminals" I mean everything from the above-mentioned philosophy that a blanket assumption of ill-intent based on being male as a matter of self-preservation is ok and all the way to various slogans like "teach boys not to rape", "in dating, men worry about rejection, women worry about being murdered" etc.
What will not CMV is pointing out that these statements are true. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing their net effects on society.
As for data, if you'll present data about increase/decrease of crime in a certain time period, please make sure it includes data for comparison from a country at a similar HDI where men weren't exposed to the same kind of messaging, since decreasing crime rates seem to be a general trend and thus not necessarily caused by the messaging. Also valid would be to show that male-on-female violent crime dropped uncharacteristically faster than other violent crime in the same time period in a single country.
I want to start out saying that ideally, all major animated motion pictures should have a cast comprising of almost entirely voice actors. I think the practice of hiring “movie stars” or people known for on camera work for the principal cast of animated movies is bad and a harmful practice to the industry. That is not my argument here.
With The Super Mario Bros. Movie being one of the many examples that go against the ideal listed above, the choice of Chris Pratt for Mario is not a bad choice. Chris has had 3 animated movies prior to this, as well as a few smaller bits of voice work here and there for various shows and video games so this isn’t his first time in that role. Even on camera, Chris is a very animated person, the kind of energy needed for voice work.
Lastly, there is a certain charm that comes with hearing an actor you know voicing a character. I really enjoyed the second trailer for The Super Mario Bros. Movie hearing Jack Black’s and Charlie Day’s voices coming out of Bowser and Luigi respectively. What I have heard from Peach is fine. It feels like they purposefully reduced the speaking time for Mario in the trailer because of the public backlash, but out of what I heard, it was decent. Not the same kind of ear tickle that Black and Day are bringing to their characters, but definitely not bad in any sort of sense. I wish we could hear more than what we have from Pratt/Mario.
Anyway, maybe as an avid lover of movies, animated works, and Mario games, I could be wrong about the casting choice. It’s probably not the best, but the public focus on it like it’s the worst is very undeserved.
There has been held many conventions for Wetlands as a separate ecosystem altogether, for example Ramsar convention. Though, marshes, swamps are a kind of transition boundary from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystem, yet they do not contain any species which cannot survive in land or water bodies. Lakes, according to conventions, fall under wetlands, why not in ocean/water-bodies conservation?
It seems more political, to get more international highlighting, because India and China are announcing new wetlands of international importance almost every quarter of a year.
Change My View.
There is nothing wrong with helping a friend, or even a stranger from time to time. But people being supported constantly is borderline paternalistic, and in the case of nations it can be considered a form of NEO-colonialism\* "Whites who thought they were better than Africans were there to ‘help’ during the official colonization of Africa, and that very same dynamic is still manifesting itself today."
Now, I am not saying we should stop doing humanitarian aid. In fact I think that someone who cannot work (illness, condition, etc) should be able to live; that others should provide for them through the State. I am for a universal welfare, education, etc. What I am saying is merely an observation of the relation those who constantly provide have with those who are constantly being provided.
Here, the word « constantly » is important: if you just get ill or old and get State aid, we can argue that people aren’t that much providing for you since you have provided for others yourself by the past (at least where I live, France, through taxes). For example, I don’t think that Europe’s relation with Ukraine is paternalistic: Ukraine provides and has provided Europe with food and energy. Somehow, that’s how friendships work too: they are mutual.
So I am talking about paternalism because in a parent-child relationship, the child isn’t expected to give anything. This non-mutual aspect is in fact one of the most important aspect to characterize a parent-child relationship.
As for the neo-colonialism statement, well I think it’s fair to say that if a nation is paternalistic to another nation that it has colonized by the past, it is a form of neo-colonialism.
- * my bad I ment neo-colonialism. Now I understand why many didn't understand...
Edit for some examples, since the issue of "reparing what colonizers have broken" comes a lot in the thread:
- Sexual diseases protection missions in Africa: I doubt AIDS was given to Africans by colonizers, and yet these former colonizers try to take care of the situation
- Aid following natural disasters: some natural disasters have nothing to do with climate change and yet the former colonizers always send help (tropical and equatorial earthquakes, tropical and equatorial volcanos...)
There's alot of propaganda, manipulation and radicalization going on the internet. There's alot of groups radicalizing people into hateful ideologies. Could it be that alot of the information out there is also influenced by propaganda?
I often feel very confused where to stand with certain political issues because every side tends to be so strongly opinionated and have their own studies and statistics that they use to support their views. Take the trans debate for example. (Note that I'm fully pro-trans) The pro-trans side have their own strong points, opinions and studies that validate their side and prove that the other side is the wrong and bigoted one, the side that I belong to. The anti-trans side also have their own points, opinions and studies that validate their side and say that the other side is the wrong and mentally ill one, the side that I strongly believe is wrong.
Although, I'm all for trans people but recently, after "What is a woman?" and the amount of support it got really made me think. How do I know which side is spreading an agenda and which side isn't? How do I know which side is cherry picking scientific studies, using flawed data etcetera to pust an agenda and which side isn't. I feel the same way about abortion (I'm pro choice), race/gender issues or any political debate for that matter. How do I know which side is more right which side isn't? I don't know if that's even possible.
Of course I’m speaking about abortions. If women are allowed at any time pre-childbirth to decide they no longer wish to be a mother, a man should have the freedom to decide if they no longer wish to be a father.
Leaving the future of mother, father, and child, solely up to a woman’s right to bodily autonomy seems odd. I am not debating whether or not women should have physiological sovereignty in the act of having abortions, I simply question why they should have that authority over a man’s future.
Currently, if a couple has sex and the woman is impregnated but decides to keep it against the man’s wishes, that is entirely within her right. She can enforce child support payments, and change the trajectory of three lives with one decision. But it is also entirely in her right to get rid of it. In both cases however, it is frowned upon for the man to have input in this decisive process. Considering it is “her body, her choice”, that is quite alright.
However, if a woman can decide whether or not she wants to be a mother without the council of her partner. The man should also be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a father, at any point before childbirth, regardless of his partner’s feelings on the matter.
EDIT: I wrote conception instead of childbirth before, which led to a bit of confusion. My apologies
EDIT: Check the delta I awarded. Very thorough and well thought out comment, that shifted the majority of my view on this topic. Though I still have some reserves regarding the reach of a woman’s decision to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. Mostly concerned with the following hypothetical -
I’d like to clarify that consensual sex, does not imply consensual parenthood. Agreeing to have sex, does not mean you agree to parent a child, as some of you have suggested. Let’s say two people consent to having sex. They both agree beforehand that in the event of a pregnancy the woman will get an abortions. But upon conception, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep it. This decision is hers to make, and hers alone. However I question the reach that decision should have. As it currently stands, the woman can then force the man to pay child support for 18 years, at a rate between 17-60% of disposable income (Depending on state. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/faq/there-limit-amount-money-can-be-taken-my-paycheck-child-support). At that point, it feels that a woman’s bodily autonomy infringes on a man’s personal and financial sovereignty. Which is why I believe a man should be able to avoid such entrapment.
A lot of you have the solution of abstinence, please refrain from this argument. It’s akin to saying “The best way to avoid being in a plane crash is to never fly.” It won’t change my mind any further, because I’m not disagreeing with you. Of course abstinence is the best contraception.
If you're not familiar with Christianity in China and the government's stance thereof, there are basically two kinds of churches.
The first kind consists of "official churches" where the government regulates all activity and controls who gets to serve as staff (as is the case for all religions in China). The officially sanctioned Chinese body for Protestantism is known as the Three-Self Church, or the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (三自爱国运动). The officially sanctioned Chinese body for Catholicism is known as the Catholic Patriotic Association (中国天主教爱国会). When you or people on the internet you follow are traveling through China and see a church building at a busy street corner, it's usually either one of these or a non-operational former church building.
The second kind of church, "house churches" or "basement churches," take place secretly in people's apartments, etc. They are considered illegal in China, and over the years (but especially from around 2017 onwards), many of the larger ones have been shut down by the government, and many of their leaders have faced arrest.
Now, this system has seen extensive criticism and scrutiny over the years. I've heard many commenters address and question the state's right to control religion, and they seem to maintain this notion that the official church has somehow been "brainwashed" by communist doctrine, that they worship Mao and Xi instead of the Lord, and so on. Indeed, much of the aforementioned criticism seems to be of political rather than religious or theological in nature. I wonder how many of them have even been to China even once. If you actually go to one of the official Chinese churches, the experience is pretty much the same as just about any other church in the world: they play worship music, they give sermons, they join in prayer. And if we look at what the Bible says, I don't think there's any biblical basis to rejecting the official church. If you observe them rather than just hearing about them, it's pretty clear that they're worshipping the same God as churches in other countries do. One more thing, Denmark and Iceland also maintain government control of the church (and Norway did until fairly recently), yet I see far fewer people complain about those.
For reference, although I've never lived in China, I'm a Christian, and I have relatives who do live in China (including some official Christians), whom I've visited many times. Now, if I traveled to Hong Kong/Macau or a different country and learned about Christianity there, and if I wanted to join a church when I returned and knew about both the "registered" and "unregistered" options... I'd rather choose the registered option than risk putting my life, my career, and everything I own on the line for an offbrand church with only 20 people which might not even last a year. (Potentially helpful analogy: would you rather rent/buy/buy tickets to see a movie the legal way, or pirate that movie off of some shady ad-strewn illegal website that probably contains viruses and will just get DMCA'ed before long?)
(Please note that this post is about the official churches, not the Chinese government in general.)
ETA: Here's a great article debunking many of the myths and politicized narratives surrounding Christianity in China: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/october-web-only/chinese-christians-persecuted-narrative-church-xi-jinping.html
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Mainstream environmentalism' refusal to acknowledge the utility of nuclear energy in fighting climate change is not a product of ignorance but rather an attempt to gain support for a cause that only makes sense to those who believe the environment should be protected outside of our own benefit.
Nuclear energy has one big upside, and that is, it reduces the consumption of fossil fuels which cause many environmental ills. The most relevant one being their contribution to climate change, which is harmful for humanity and planet alike.
However, it does have several downsides, namely:
- The potential of an environmentally destructive disaster.
- The production of hard to store nuclear waste (which may leak and pollute the environment under extreme neglect).
- The pollution caused by the extraction and processing of uranium.
From a purely human standpoint, I believe these downsides are not really that impactful:
- Modern nuclear security makes even large scale incidents like Fukushima take a very small toil in human terms, but not necessarily so for nature.
- Nuclear waste can be stored very cheaply given that its volume is minuscule. Even if nuclear plants had to pay for centuries of storage in advance, they'd still the profitable. However that waste may be handled centuries down the line.
- The contribution to climate change from the extraction and processing of uranium is minimal relative to using any fossil fuel as an alternative, this cannot be said of other forms of environmental impact caused by it.
It is very sensible to me that, should we argue purely on human terms, nuclear energy would be a very tempting tool to help resolve climate change with nearly no downsides for us. However, when accounting for the environment in itself, nuclear energy may be less than ideal when cleaner forms of energy exist. Even at the cost of making the fight against climate change harder, harming humanity for the benefit of the environment.
The vast majority of the public see the environment as shared property to handle responsibly at best, and as a resource to exploit to its fullest at worst. Mainstream environmentalists would likely be inclined to disagree, seeing the planet and all within it as worth defending even at our own expense.
I believe this fundamental disagreement has led to these activists to completely avoid the topic of nuclear energy or to frame it in an unfairly negative light. Manipulating the public as to get them to support a cause that largely only benefits the environment when a fully informed public would've taken a more pragmatic, human-serving and environment-neglecting pro-nuclear approach.
Most environmentalists, as happens with every political cause, tend to defer to the consensus rather than educate themselves fully. I believe this to be natural, acceptable and even relatable. It follows that most of them do buy into anti-nuclear half-truths and their take on the matter is likely one founded or at least informed by ignorance. This, however, cannot be said for those who are educated enough to know better, yet choose to perpetuate an intentionally distorted narrative for the political benefit of their movement.
I am extremely appalled by the cynicism in this behavior, and its willingness to mislead the public to support something they do not believe in. This has led me to develop a fanatical disdain for the environmentalist movement, which until very recently I thought was caused by my perception of their anti-nuclear gaslighting as a product of ignorance. It instead being a product of cynical political manipulation makes me even angrier. My thoughts will change if I'm proven wrong, but I can't guarantee my feelings will. CMV.
Warning: Breaking Bad and The Wire spoilers.
I just finished watching Breaking Bad for the first time (I know, late to the party). And I have to say that I was unpleasantly surprised. It didn't live up to the hype, and I feel like I must be missing something. Here are my basic problems with the show:
- Walt and Jesse both have incredibly thick and obvious plot armor, reducing the stakes of the show. Time and time again, they escape from scenarios where they obviously should have been killed through implausible dumb luck. Setting aside the last few episodes, the only major character killed on the show is Gus Fring. Contrast this to, say, The Wire where every character is in peril and many are killed off.
- The show is meant to be all about Walt's change/descent into evil. But there's not really that much change -- by the end of the third episode, Walt is already a murderous drug lord. Other than Walt, the other characters are all pretty static and uninteresting.
- Everyone describes the show as featuring a lot of moral ambiguity. This isn't true. Walt is an evil character from the very start. His journey is predictable, and his motives (greed and ego) are not very interesting. Compare this to the much richer moral world of The Wire where you witness the much more sophisticated and compelling moral evolution of characters like Frank Sobotka, Tommy Carcetti, or Michael Lee. The murder of Wallace is ten times more emotionally gripping than anything in Breaking Bad.
- The writing on Breaking Bad is incredibly sloppy and the writers rely constantly on implausible coincidences from the beginning to the end. For example (and I could give dozens more).
- Walt goes on a ride along to bust a meth lab coincidentally run by his former student, who coincidentally is out of the lab at the moment of the bus, and coincidentally is seen running only by Walt. The last one is especially bad and fits into a theme where the DEA on the show is unreasonably incompetent. No one is watching the outside?
- The fallout from Combo's murder is a huge part of Jesse's story, but it's also totally coincidental. It's just random luck that Andrea's brother killed Combo (and also that Jesse meets Andrea when he does and so on).
- Hank's story is largely defined by shooting Tuco, which again is a random coincidence. Jesse just happens to have lojack on his car -- which never comes up before or after -- leading Hank to Tuco's where he arrives at exactly the right moment. And then the writers just ignore the LoJack forever after. Hank was investigating Jesse. Why doesn't he ever get a warrant for Jesse's LoJack location history?
- Hank ends up discovering that Walt is Heisenberg because he coincidentally grabs a Walt Whitman book while on the toilet. Walt is super careful, so why would he randomly leave something like that tying him to Gale around? It makes no sense.
- The DEA is shockingly incompetent and for no good reason (at least on The Wire, incompetence always has a cause). Perhaps the most egregious is in Season 2, when the DEA thinks they're about to take down Heisbenberg (but are actually arresting Jimmy, the fall guy paid by Saul). Even though they're about to take down a major suspect, they only bring a single car and watch from a single spot, leading them to miss Jesse and Walt's intervention. No one is that sloppy.
- Different activities swing from very easy to very hard depending on nothing. In Season 1, Walt and Jesse with zero experience as burglars are able to easily steal a barrel of methylamine without getting got. By the end of the show, stealing methylamine is borderline impossible and requires Ocean's 11 level sophistication. Similarly, Jesse (who has no relevant skills) is easily able to make meth as well as Walt does just from watching him. But on one else (other than the skilled Gale) who watches Walt/Jesse can learn the trick. It makes no sense.
Bottom line: The show is sloppily written and utterly unrealistic. But people love it, so what am I missing? CMV.
You hear all these countries like japan and others talking about people not having kids and their being upcoming population crises
Like motherfucker you caused this to happen
Tell me if you’ve heard this before, you’re a kid in school and about the time you hit puberty maybe a little earlier and they mention sex Ed, they school tells you don’t have kids, focus on work and school or you’ll be a loser or burden on society.
You hit puberty or you like a girl or boy. You talk to your parents about it, they tell you basically the same thing, focus on work and school, relationships will get in the way and if you have kids pre maturely you’ll be a burden on society and a loser.
Then those kids become 30 years old and then the parents complain like “where are my grandchildren, when are you gonna give me grandchildren”
The government is like “why aren’t there enough kids, we are about to have a population crisis why are there no kids.”
Do they not see what caused this in the first place, they chose short term economic growth over long term economic stability.
I bet if you added having kids and the necessity of it to public education, the population would be stable, basically teach having 2 kids from late elementary early middle school age.
If you don’t think it’s youth education, look at those orthodox Jewish neighborhoods where the average age is like 8 years old, or Mormons. These people aren’t uneducated yet they still choose to have kids aren’t taught that it’s bad.
The problem is telling someone that doing something humans are instinctually supposed to do to propagate the species is bad.
For the sake of fairness, I'll admit I don't have a lot of social media. I use reddit, Twitter, discord, Pinterest and YouTube regularly. I used to have TikTok but deleted it. Even though I don't have that much, I still use them a good bit. (Phone screentime is anywhere from 6-9hrs daily)
Use twitter as an example, I genuinely do not get the hate around it, for me it's an amazing tool to keep up with YouTubers I like, politicians, news, or just funny accounts. There's that bad experience every now and then but that's just the internet.
Social Media has never gave me depression, or made me wanna commit suicide or anything. 90% of the time, Social media has just been a fun thing that i really genuinely enjoy.
I wanna say none of this applies to TikTok, TikTok is the only social media I actively dislike. It shortens your attention span and is straight up Chinese malware, but that's not what this post is about.
Delta: I'm just lucky, my experiences don't correlate to everyones. Just because I don't have any bad experiences doesn't mean everyone does, and it can be seriously bad for the people who do have bad experiences.
Edit: my point is to challenge the people who cry about how everyone hates men now, how you can't be a man anymore etc. Few are actually saying this.
My view isn't to agree with them but to understand the logic. The logic makes no sense.
I want to make it clear, I also don't care if we do or don't use toxic masculinity. You can say its a flimsy phrase and useless. Sure. I can agree to that. Or I don't. I don't care. That distracts from the topic at hand.
I've criticized trad wives plenty of times. Many people have criticized trad wives plenty of times and how these people need to stop being obsessed with their uterus or thinking that birth is the only thing that makes people feminine. This has been often said as toxic femininity. To tradwives, that is what they perceive as to be feminine. And its negative. So, toxic femininity. Yet no one claims this is a hate on all women. Yes there will always be sexists who go see women do this bad thing therefore I hare women. But you cannot conclude they hate women just from their criticism of tradwives.
Similarly, when people talk about a lot of bad things men do in the name of what they think it means to be masculine, you can't draw conclusions on whether the person hates all men or not. we can even remove the word if people are so hung up on it but the part remains the same. Doing x because you think that's how men should behave is toxic.
For example, let me show you an extremist. "As I man, I am allowed to fuck my wife whenever I want. Marital tape is a stupid thing". Again whether you agree or disagree with the point is irrelevant. I criticized his attitude that is almost exclusive to men. How does that make me hate all men? If I criticize womens behaviour exclusive to women. How does that make me hate women? That makes no sense. Does that mean all my criticisms means I hate everyone?
For many others, the issue is that they say for all the claims of toxic masculinity there are no examples of positive masculinity. But, I see just as many positive ones. For example, Men admitting they were wrong. Men being doting father's. Just see all those wholesome YouTube videos titled usually under "funny baby videos with dad". Men going to the gym. Men being a loving husband. All these are examples of positive masculinity.
If you are saying all you see is complaints of toxic masculinity and thats why you believe society hates men that's on you. I think these people wanna see the world like that to justify their hate for women. as mentioned I see plenty of cute and funny videos that is about mens "role models"
when people finally complain about long attitudes about bad behaviours, that's not saying they hate all.
If I said I didn't like one scene in a movie that doesn't mean I hated the movie. I could say overall, the movie is good, but the sex scene was awkward.
My point is, the part does not make the whole.
What the title says. I tip wherever I go because I’m aware employees that make tips make less than minimum wage depending on location, but I believe consumers should not have to make up for the lack of pay workers get from their employers, big or small business.
I believe if you are willing to hire someone under your business, you should also be willing to compensate them accordingly for the services they provide and not leave it up to the consumer. I hear the argument “if you don’t have enough to tip, you shouldn’t be eating out in the first place” a fair amount.
Imagine if every service you required demanded tipping to compensate employees. Gas station workers, fast food workers, let’s get even more specific and say trade workers and essential service workers. It would be considered much more of a nuisance and a much bigger outrage would come from such a thing. To some around the world, dining out is a luxury rarely afforded and tipping the underpaid worker makes it that much harder for a family to enjoy a once in a quarter meal to enjoy because a company is being greedy with their money.
Perhaps I am missing the basic structure of the tipping economy or I have gotten the wrong memo, but I believe you should have enough finance to fully support your workers, small or big business.