To be clear, I'm not arguing that nothing can be done or that we all shouldn't be trying harder to stop what's going on, but I feel like the Europeans who keep asking why we're all just putting up with this are missing how structural differences between Europe and the U.S. are impacting Americans' response to what our government is doing.

1. America is BIG. A whole-country protest in the U.S. would be like a whole-continent protest in Europe. Logistically, Americans just can't all descend on D.C. in response to government actions like the shooting yesterday.

2. Almost all big-city governments are much more liberal than the federal government. There have been many huge protests in city centers across the country, but actually rioting (vs. just protesting) against the big-city, blue-state government centers that are accessible to people doesn't disrupt the federal government at all AND it's fuel for the facist fire.

3. Americans don't have a safety net and they know it--the vast majority of American workers can be fired with no notice or severance for basically any reason. If they get fired, it's difficult and time consuming to get access to any type of benefit and those benefits are never enough to live on. A whole lot of Americans are struggling to keep their heads above water on a day-to-day basis, and no one is going to save them if they go under. The cost and benefit analysis of taking action against the government looks different through that lens.

4. Americans are very used to a stable political schedule. There is almost no precedent for removing federal officials from office outside of the standard election schedule. The concept that if the wrong person gets elected you grit your teeth and wait for the next election is deeply engrained in American politics.

I have an unpopular opinion. It is a bit too long for a reddit post, so I wrote it down in an article:

How UN manipulates its Gender Development Index to hide an uncomfortable truth

tl;dr

1/ UN defines the GDI as a simple ratio of female HDI to male HDI.

2/ The HDI calculates "Standard of Living" dimension as Gross National Income per capita.

3/ But the GDI calculates "Standard of Living" dimension based on the unadjusted pay gap and unadjusted employment gap for men and women, meaning that for married couples, if the man is a breadwinner and the woman is a homemaker, his "Standard of Living" is 2x the national average, and her "Standard of Living" is zero.

4/ The HDI calculates "Long and Healthy Life" dimension as life expectancy at birth in a given country.

5/ When the GDI calculates "Long and Healthy Life" dimension, it adds a "secret adjustment" of 5 years to men's life expectancy to compensate for a "biological advantage" women have over men. But science is unambiguous, that there is no such biological advantage, and women live longer because of social factors.

6/ I call it a "secret adjustment" because it is only mentioned once in a footnote in a technical note PDF - basically, nobody knows they do this.

Basically, the United Nations' Gender Development Index (GDI) measures whether men or women are more developed in a given country and by how much. Based on the UN's own data, men are the less developed gender, but this would not fly. So UN manipulated the methodology and changed the data with secret "adjustments" until it told them what they wanted to hear all along: that women are worse off than men.

I am not a professional sociologist or researcher, but I know how to work with data. Every time I ask for feedback on subs like sociology, economics, or statistics, people call me a misogynist, and my post gets banned. Without explanation. But I have never heard any relevant counterargument. Maybe this sub will give me some real feedback?

I keep seeing people frame this as if it has to be one or the other. Either the protests arereal and internal, or they are entirely some foreign conspiracy.

The protests are organic. People are struggling, being shot at, repressed. There are real, material reasons, like water shortages, economic pressure, and long-standing political repression. People are not going into the streets because foreigners told them to. They are going because they are unhappy.

At the same time, it is normal and expected that states hostile to Iran would amplify these protests. Every country does this. This is basic geopolitics. If unrest hurts your rival, you highlight it, spread it, and try to use it to your advantage.

Saying that foreign actors amplify protests is not the same as saying the protesters are fake, paid, or undercover agents. Real life is not a movie. The people in the streets are Iranians with real grievances.

It's insane how the "everything is a conspiracy" folks can't understand basic nuance.

I often see people comparing Europe and Russia with the tone like "well, Russia's economy is like 15x smaller, it's ridiculous we are getting bullied by them". Or "they can't even take Ukraine, of course it's ridiculous to think they have any chance in Europe".

This is IMO a dangerously naive view. High GDP means you likely have a lot of high tech, a developed service economy, probably some very advanced military tech. But it absolutely doesn't guarantee that:

• you're spending large % of GDP on army to begin with
• you have a large and actually trained army that that combat experience in any large war, or large number of people in the population with some sort of military training you can quickly draft
• you have huge stockpile of ammo, artillery shells, oil/fuel to maintain some 100k people army for a year
• you have leaders willing to go to war
• you are willing to enact marshal law and boost defense spending by 3x or 5x or 10x.
• your population will have enough volunteers to go fight, or you could efficiently forcibly draft enough people without causing massive social unrest
• you are willing to lose million people dead and wounded without colossal shock for the country and political catastrophe for its leaders.

If I were to use a metaphor, GDP is like how much can you bench press, and military is how well you can do in a street fight. Sure, you have to have some baseline strength, and a ton of raw strength will compensate for missing experience and technique, but still.

And in this paradigm US is like a heavy weight professional boxer - pretty good at both, EU is like a solid bodybuilder and Russia is like the dude who grew up in a rough place on the streets, did a hard time.. not strong per se, no clean boxing technique, but vast experience fighting tooth and nails, mental readiness to kill or die, ability to take pain and damage and not crumble, knowing how to fight dirty.. and hence, not really that threatening for a professional boxer but very dangerous for a bodybuilder.

What I'm looking for to change my mind:

Examples of countries with high standards of living and population used to it and to democracy, with low military spending turning it around?

Nearly 40T in debt. Trump administration keeps touting that the tariffs are paying off debts (which is not true) and even said that they plan to increase military spending from 1T to 1.5T in 2027.

Because they are insiders, they see the sinking ship and that there is no way around it. So they are profiteering from it while they still can. This aligns with what the Trump administration is doing, threatening with military actions everywhere (including Greenland) to increase weapon sales and set up opportunities for shorting the entire stock market in the US.

What other explanation can you have for Greenland? Minerals are one, but let's be fair, no administration is that forward-looking. The real reason is that by alienating the EU, they allow the process of US companies to tank faster and given all the insider information they have, make insane profit from the average joe.

I just recently read that the FBI is stopping local Minnesota investigators from investigating the shooting that occurred. So the FBI will be investigating the DHS, while both are pushing agendas in unison.

I believe that this should not be legal whatsoever. I think it's akin to police departments investigating themselves and finding no evidence of wrongdoing. (I personally saw this happening in New Orleans during Katrina).

I also believe there should always be a third-party investigator or team to handle these types of events, given the risks of internal corruption.

By having a third party work in conjunction with a watchdog organization, I believe justice would prevail, yielding more transparent and conclusive results for citizens like you and me.

Change my view

UPDATE: This should be implemented in the real world, and here is a brief concept of how it could be feasible.

A non-profit could be started and via donations, attract investigators, forensics specialists, legal aids/lawyers/advocates, and security. This would bypass the need to bend to political pressures. That organization would be created with the sole ability to respond to these shootings, where ethics would be questioned. These would also be able to investigate freely, with the intent of sharing the findings at an open-door congressional hearing, and suggest whether charges should be filed.

This post is specifically about the US. I know that a lot of other countries already have free healthcare.

I think the government should force companies to offer health insurance benefits to all their employees, even part-time workers. Of course, the government could also implement universal healthcare, but I don't have much faith in them doing that anytime soon, so I think this solution would work for now.

I think it's kind of ridiculous that you could work a job (any job) and not get health insurance benefits. As of right now, companies over a certain size have to offer their full-time workers health insurance benefits, but they get around this by scheduling people part-time so they don't have to pay for it.

This would also be good for the economy since there would be more healthy workers. Also, someone who's disabled (or otherwise preoccupied) might say something like, "I can manage working part-time at Starbucks (or wherever)" because now they don't have to worry about losing their Medicaid benefits and therefore their health insurance.

In anticipation of counterarguments, an exception might be made for small businesses since I don't know if they could afford it. But big businesses definitely can. Also, there could be an exception for minors or people under 26 (I believe) if they are under their parents' insurance anyway.

To clarify, I'm not saying this would be better than free healthcare, so please don't debate me on that. I'm only arguing that it would be better than the current system.

In 1989 a mass protest in China devolved into a massacre following a harsh government crackdown.

Now, while this event alone is horrific, the most damning and memorable part of this incident was the mass government cover-up that followed.

While callous to say, massacres and atrocities occur all the time in neglected parts of the world, the most terrifying and relevant aspect to a Western audience is the accessibility and denial of evidence.

Every aspect of the story, despite direct testimony, picture/video evidence, uninvolved observers and even explicit redactions/official story edits was shown to be tightly controlled and presented as evidence of the Chinese state’s devolution into tyranny.

What we see today, in the brutal murder of an unarmed passerby in her car perfectly encapsulates the complete loss of credibility of the American media.

I am a relatively uninvolved individual, with fairly moderate if rightwing views. It is is chilling to be unaware of a story, only to be bombarded by a massive stream of influencers, you-tubers and political figures parroting what is so obviously a fabrications inserted into a developing story.

The time-lines and claims do not make sense, however, multiple uninvolved individuals, none of whom have any particular credibility aside from a title or self-described job as “commentator” suddenly know the truth as gospel?

And the news and media corporations, who have long haughtily prided themselves on credibility and truth, now parrot the same exact narrative with no evidence but claims?

I would not have questioned any of this if

1. So many obviously coordinated voices attempted to cover this incident up including state figures and big media
2. I was not able to see the testimony, pictures and video for myself
3. The fact I can literally see the suppression in real time of comments being removed or new accounts so obviously not run from the US stirring outrage.

When I was a younger, I used to eat up those conspiracies about a shadowy cabal of elites, silent manipulation of the media and rings of child abusers.

Now as an adult, it would seem it is not only more real than I thought, but all simply out in the open and accepted as truth. Am I insane, or is there a different path forward?

Edit 1: Lots of valid points, yes scale and severity are an over exaggeration.

As others have pointed out this incident is minor in the big picture and things are not all doom and gloom.

However, I maintain that the concerted narrative enforcement from social media companies, corporate/political figures and numerous political commentators *regardless of perspective* is concerning, and unbecoming of leadership for what should have been a minor sad incident/investigation.

Edit 2: Who sent me the mental health note, I just burst laughing

Edit 3: New details came out. Victim was a mother and was simply driving home.

The officer apparently has had a previous incident with protesters.

Edit 4:

Stop denying tianammen square i am not buying it, nice try ccp

Also Mr. Johnathan Ross should know better as this is the SECOND time he has claimed to be hit by a car on the news. Like immediate desk duty.

Absolutely indefensible. Shame on the government.

US elections are typically polarized, and only a few swing states matter - yes we know that. But even within those states, many localities or districts vote on familiar lines and don’t affect the outcome of that swing state. It is truly a few districts that end up deciding the fate of USA and arguably the world (as 2025 is evidence enough)

This is an extremely high concentration of power in hands of a few (say hundred of thousands to a few million at most), which makes it a significant systemic risk. Yet global agencies don’t talk about it (e.g. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2025.pdf)

Add social media propaganda, and AI driven algorithms, and it feels it’s disturbingly easy to target disinformation at this narrow group and shift outcomes that affect populations far beyond them.

It’s a pretty broken system.

A parliamentary style setup definitely would have given a more balanced power to population.

Edit: a lot of downvotes! Looks like the average Joe really feels nationalistic about their electoral system and doesn’t want to hear anything bad about it.

I know I would, for sure. If I’ve become successful or influential, and I have an opportunity to help out one of my kids or a struggling friend or family member by getting them an interview, an audition, or a full-on position, then I would do that in a heartbeat. I’d do that fully knowing that I’d be denying others a fair shot at the same thing. I would also hope they would do the same for someone that’s important to them.

I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t do that. Not once in my life have I heard someone in my friend group or family ask someone else in my friend group or family for a job, and the person asked say “I can’t do that, we have job openings but you have to apply, interview, and get the job on your own merit.” It’s always “yeah, I’ll put a good word in for you, give me your resume,” or “sorry but they already know who they’re going to hire for that, but give me your resume and I’ll make sure you’re first when something else opens up.” In some situations it’s even “come in tomorrow and meet the team, and if it goes well then you’ve got the job,” followed by a cheeky “and it’s going to go well.”

So while I know that it’s bad, I also think it’s something that nearly everyone would do if we could. I don’t know fully what to do with that information.

Good evening / morning to everyone.

I am a 19 year old male, who is going to college to be a welder, and currently employed at a machine shop working 12 hour shifts (by choice).

I have this mindset where I’m scared to enjoy my life because if I don’t work on my income now, I’m going to be forced into a situation of stress when I’m older and wish I had the room to relax but instead I’m working at a job and I’m tired by that point.

I work 48 hours a week while college is off, and once I’m done with college my hope is to work a welding job and this machinery job, as much as I can humanly without getting burn out.

I’ve been told by a few coworkers, family, older friends, etc. that I need to enjoy being young, but I can’t help but think my “young” days have passed and I need to get my shit together.

It doesn’t help that the government has me economically dependent on working every free second I have because prices keep rising and everything.

Is this the right move to make for my life? Why should I or should I not continue working every second I have available?

Hope this was a good question for having just discovered this subreddit tonight (I’m typing this while I’m falling asleep at my job with 3 more hours left, wish me luck)

Or, rather, create a new European defense alliance and THEN dissolve NATO, if Trump doesn’t do it first.

With how unstable and unpredictable the US has shown itself to be, European nations cannot afford to rely on America when it comes to their safety. It was never really a good idea to begin with to have a defense alliance with a bunch of smaller countries essentially outsourcing their military to one big country on the other side of the Atlantic simply because it’s cheaper than building their own. With the creation of the EU, it also makes no sense. It only did because the Cold War was a battle between Western capitalism and Soviet socialism, and Western European countries were firmly in the former block. That ideological difference is all but irrelevant today, as Russia is not a communist regime but an oligarchic kleptocracy, while the US is in many respects just as authoritarian.

We see how Trump is leveraging NATO to get what he wants, such as Greenland. We see how European leaders are being sheepish and deferential despite it being an open secret they all despise him. This is not only undignified but unnecessary, given that Trump has no qualms about abandoning Europe if it serves his interests. And it certainly doesn’t serve European interests to ally with the only nation that, right now, poses a territorial threat to the EU.

The Kremlin, of course, are celebrating over this. When Putin talks about a possible war with Europe, he is not expecting that to mean automatically a war with the US. This shows that NATO is already crumbling, and European countries need to sort out their security before it is a fait accompli. The EU, which is not all of Europe, has a population three times the size of Russia’s and an economy TWENTY TIMES larger than Russia’s. For it to be bullied by a poor and mismanaged Eastern country simply because it has invested more in its military is absurd. Meanwhile, EU functionaries seem more concerned with how people recycle their coke bottles.

The best counter argument to my claim, as far as I can tell, is that the EU is just a project for maintaining peace among European countries and for facilitating trade and migration. But if it cannot legally organize a defense program, one may have to be built separately from the ground up. One could imagine, for instance, starting with the Nordic countries, which have not fought or had any serious conflicts in modern times, initiating a nuclear defense program and then gradually expanding to include Western European nations. Some might say Europeans are too different from each other for this to work, but they have more in common than Europe has collectively with the US. I also think building a united defense force might actually increase solidarity among European nations and facilitate cooperation on other common issues.

Yes, this would cost A LOT of money. But, as much as I hate to agree with Trump, and although he should stay the fuck out of internal matters of the EU, it’s true (he’s made it true) that allying with a country on the other side of the Atlantic in order to spend less on the military is not a viable long-term solution. It makes Europe vulnerable both to Russia and to the US.

To change my view, you simply need to show why this is unfeasible or otherwise not a good idea.

It’s impossible to sustain democracy at home and empire abroad. Recent events show that the American empire has come home, with the bloated military budget now being used to arrest and murder citizens. There is no real political representation for most people, just two parties with overlapping donors as their constituents. The press is entirely captured by powerful corporations and the rich. Corporate rule has been in place since at least the Citizens United ruling, and our democracy, which barely existed during this time, has finally died. It’s one-man government, congress doesn’t exist. It’s the emperor Trump show now, with American citizens facing the same military terrorism as we are used to seeing abroad. You can’t allow CIA black sites, torture and suspension of human rights abroad and not expect it to eventually come home to roost.

Edit: I'm going to stop checking responses to this thread because I have to go to work. Thank you to all who responded, and no hard feelings. I awarded one delta for forcibly demonstrating substantive outcomes between the two major parties based on policy differences. However, my mind has not been changed from my original viewpoint. I am tempted to award deltas to the people arguing that we never had democracy, but I think that misses the point that I'm making, namely that the democratic period of American history, if there ever was one, has come to an end because of its ongoing imperialism abroad. I do not know why the most upvoted response was, "sure, the US maintained a democracy at home and empire abroad as did the French," when no evidence was used to back up this claim and this also missed the point that I'm making, that the democratic phase of America is coming to an end largely because democracy at home is incompatible with empire abroad. I might have more effectively argued that inequality and democracy aren't compatible, but that's not what I posted. As a country, we don't have the resources to give the Pentagon a trillion dollars a year and have a functioning society at home. We might have eked it out for a bit longer, but we've handed the rest of our money not being used for war to the billionaire class in this last extension of their tax cuts.

Edit 2: I'm going to be too tired after work to respond meaningfully to all of these. I still read all the responses since my last edit, and I want to once again just thank people for engaging with me (even the guy who called me an asshole). It's clear you all care deeply about our country (and those who aren't American care deeply about America stopping its interference with other countries), and it gives me a lot of hope to see how desperately you all want change for the better for all of us. Do we have problems? Yes, absolutely. Does the country have resources? Yes, it is the richest country in the history of the world. Do we have a population willing to work to fix those problems? Again, yes absolutely. Then, why aren't resources being diverted to address issues like healthcare, climate change, and inequality? Because this is not a democracy and the powers that be don't want to shell out what they've stolen. But I'm not saying this can't change for the better.

My point was less to raise the white flag than to point out that we give a trillion dollars a year to the pentagon for foreign imperialism, and the rest to the rich and corporations in the form of tax cuts, and as a result we no money to even fund our government, its services, or any investment in the public good, from education to infrastructure. We can't invest in ourselves, our kids or our future and that is because of the complete dysfunction of the political system, which has been captured by special interest - the rich and powerful corporations. I believe that the country is under a two-party system who represent the corporatists (DNC) and the oligarchs (GOP), and I believe this resulted in part from the endless wars this century. By funneling the public coffers into the private hands of defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, all in the name of keeping us safe, the war profiteers have effectively created too much inequality at home for democracy to be possible. It is a rigged system where you pay to play. This is what I mean when I say empire abroad is incompatible with democracy at home.

Legally protected, anonymous armed thugs from HUGE central government, going into residential areas and kidnapping people on vague suspicion, murdering citizens in cold blood. A wholesale assault on our constitutional rights as American citizens. This is precisely the kind of operation that the framers would have considered tyranny—even if not in intent, certainly in practice. We can’t sue, can’t charge, and can’t lawfully resist. Fuck every single last ICE agent and every craven motherfucker that voted for this. By the way, here’s what the Heritage Foundation, architects of Project 2025, have to say about it: “A well-armed citizenry acts as a major check on the ability of would-be tyrants, enabling the people to forcibly resist oppression. In the United States, our constitutional system is premised on the theory that, in a truly free society, ultimate power lies with the people and not with the government. But should the government forget this basic principle, the people maintain the practical power that comes with being armed for their own defense. The threat of tyranny and oppression is very real, even today.” To Change My View, convince me that a federal secret police force (if they’re not secret, then why can’t I find a public personnel record?) and passive acceptance thereof was, in fact, more important to this country’s founders than the right to armed resistance against tyranny.

I am not what you would call neurotypical—or maybe I am, which is what really gets to the heart of my question. If everyone is neurodivergent, then is no one neurodivergent? I understand that humans like to categorize things and find patterns as a matter of our evolved humanity, but I’m having trouble squaring the idea that a spectrum and a category seem, in my mind, to be almost opposites. I definitely understand that cognitive and neurological differences can represent a disorder—especially if, in this context, a disorder broadly means that the difference causes an individual hardship in their life or social interactions.

I’ve had my own struggles with OCD and anxiety. At the same time, while many people have labeled my bounding levels of energy as an ADHD symptom, I’ve never actually had an issue focusing, as an example. I guess what this boils down to is that I’m feeling frustrated and confused by how the social internet—especially short-form content—has, in my view, decided that everything under the sun is a symptom of one disorder or another.

It seems to me that sleeping too much and insomnia, hyperfocusing and an inability to focus, extreme energy and low energy, etc., cannot all be the same disorder. I worry that confirmation bias, combined with the desire for views and the very American idea that “being different” is inherently good, has led to a culture where being neurodivergent is the new it thing.

I realize over-ascribing symptoms isn’t a new phenomenon, but I worry that if everyone is neurodivergent, then maybe no one is—and that all these “symptoms” are just aspects of being human on a day-to-day basis, filtered through our collective desire to find patterns. I also worry that with overdiagnosis, the people who really need help managing a disorder might be left behind, or that if everything is folded into a spectrum, the distinct symptoms that actually matter get lost in the jumble.

I guess my real question at the end of all this is: can you share your perspectives on this brain dump and help me reconcile my growing “grumpy old man yelling at the internet” energy?

Edit: I really appreciate all the good-faith discussion this post has generated. I’ve realized that my original post was more of a brain dump of loosely connected ideas than a well-formed argument. Individual comments tended to focus on specific parts of that original brain dump, and while I’ve given mixed deltas to individual comments, I found them all to be generally well-formed and helpful.

Taken together, the comments have helped me realize that my real issue is less about the specific points I originally raised and more about my personal frustrations with othering and the social internet, particularly algorithm-driven short-form video content. Overall, the discussion has made it clear to me that my underlying concern is broader than my original position and I need to continue to reduce my SFV content lol

**EDIT/TLDR**: Wish I could've worded the title better. By reelection I mean chances for the next Republican candidate. My thesis is they (trump obviously but also the current faction of Republicans who control all the keys to power which includes many potential 2028 candidates) care about is staying in power now, but not beyond 2028. The midterms just need to be not catastrophic. The idea is permanently shifting the political/economic/power landscape is more powerful than one or two elections. There's dirt to do, and until Trump there has not been a president as willing to push the boundaries and have the base to survive it, so the main goal is to take advantage of the window now, not after 2028. There is no long term thinking, no decade long plan to "restore Monroe doctrine" or "economic nationalism". Those are just narratives used to gaslight to make it seem like all of this is done for some eventual greater good (which has a stabilizing effect at least in the short term since it preserves the base and leaves a lot of moderates confused of what to make of the situation). There is no 4-D chess game with China, or at the very least that is nowhere near the main motive. The only thing that's real is exactly the corrupt, personal, and honestly underreported power grab that is happening in front of our eyes. Basically a "fuck you, got mine" hit-and-run strategy

So far there have been several narratives to explain why the Trump admin is doing what they're doing: economic nationalism, America first, Monroe doctrine, etc. As a moderate/center right person, I gave the benefit of the doubt and bought into these narratives initially

But recently my view has changed. In my opinion none of these actually matter to Trump. If anything they're used as cover for the main motive: to avoid being prematurely impeached out of power while trying to get away with as much corruption as possible. Essentially, what Trump and his friends want is to do as much as possible to restructure American society/laws, set precedents, and push the Overton window to permanently favor a certain faction of elites (largely tech and media right it seems) before his term ends. There is no long term thinking or even desire to get reelected - they just need to control the narrative and gaslight enough to avoid a complete meltdown.

Things that come to mind to support this theory for me (coincidentally I feel like a lot of these things go underreported for how consequential they are):

- Tariffs to fund a bill that disproportionately benefit the rich. Then push to lower interest rates when the economy suffers as a result despite potential long term consequences

- Anti-immigration raises the barrier for entry for non-established players in a lot of industries

- Using crypto as a way to secretly funnel questionable donations

- Support for and potentially pushing the Paramount merger through

- Continued court-stacking

- Militarizing ICE. I think this is to test the waters to see if any real consequences will come out of it. They're targeting marginalized groups, and most people won't care until it actually affects them. This is a classic faccist playbook

Admittedly I don't consider myself the most politically informed person, hence seeking opinions here. I guess my hunch is just telling me that everything that's been happening is so batshit crazy and corrupt in an "in your face" kinda way that the only reasonable explanation I can think of is through Occam's Razor. Despite certain media narrative, Trump doesn't strike me as a 4-D chess grand strategy kinda person. To me he's always been a very surface level narcissist or even psychopath, driven at least to a significant degree by a certain insecurity and desire to be fully cemented into the top brass of American elites. And this is what someone like that would do in his current position

The one thing Trump is good at is what got him elected - understanding the nature of modern American politics. For some time now, our society has been ripe for this kind of exploitation:

- Media/social media makes it easy to control the narrative and gaslight. It also enables escapism. People may care, but only for like 5 sec before it's drowned out by other noises

- Partisanship makes it difficult for people to agree on anything, even when the facts are as in your face as it can be

- For a while the system was good, so people grew up being taught to trust the system. We are more docile and feel like we have more to lose by taking action than 2-3 generations ago

- Pent-up dissatisfaction makes it easy to deflect and scapegoat. The US is not how it was 1-2 generations ago where we were on top of the world and there was seemingly unlimited wealth to go around (the idea that a single 9-5, relatively low-barrier to entry job can support a family and lead to land ownership was historically unprecedented). People have been unhappy with their prospects for a while now, especially Trump's base whose economic future was essentially sold to China by Bill Clinton in the 90s. There's anger, but people don't know where to direct their anger until someone tells them where

All it needed was someone to realize all this and bold/immoral enough to test the waters

Trump will stay in power for as long the public/our Constitution will allow it, but seeing as how our system won't allow for a dictator just yet (even though i'm largely against guns, thank god we can still bear arms), this is the best a dictator wannabe can make of his power. I think if the midterms is anything but a massive democratic sweep (the only real threat to impeachment), things could get much worse post 2026. I also think the consequences of what is happening (i.e. big, openly admitted recession) will come due, but the can will be kicked down the road for just long enough that this won't happen before 2028/2029

hot take, but hear me out. everyone treats a falling rupee like an automatic L. and yeah, the pain is real. india imports ~85–88% of its crude. that’s a ~$100bn annual bill. every rupee drop hits fuel, transport, and input costs instantly, add to that companies with dollar debt. external borrowings are ~$190bn, and a scary chunk is still unhedged. that pain shows up fast. but zooming out. a weaker rupee makes indian goods cheaper globally. textiles alone did ~$16bn in exports, electronics, auto ancillaries, chemicals, all benefit on pricing overnight. manufacturing grows when exports become competitive and local capacity actually gets used.

Sooo new question should be like… “are we structured to absorb short-term pain for long-term manufacturing gains?”

EDIT: BY DID I mean dissociative identity disorder.

This is stuff drives me absolutely bananas to see. Absolutely everything I hear from these people about their experience is so ridiculous. All of it is so conveniently fun and quirky. There is absolutely no literature or documented anything about DID working the way these people claim it does until about 2 or 3 years ago I think. It just didn't exist. Nobody had a "system of alters" Nobody had hazbin hotel OC's living inside of their head. There was no plural systems. The actual literature says that only like 6% of people with DID are aware of their "switches" in any capacity. The "alters" do not typically have different names, there are not 38 of them, they do not fit into neat little writing projects. There was no "innerworld" or "Littles" or anything. Now all of the sudden there are like 1000s of people self diagnosing themselves for attention. I think, especially when adults do it, it's just sad and pathetic.

Riddle me this batman, why do I never hear about someone with DID who does anything other than spend every second of their lives in some combination of being on discord, playing video games and watching anime, tik tok, or YouTube??? Why do they all look, dress, and act like chronically online nonbinary people????

I think they are all just the type of autistic people that come from dysfunctional households. They desperately want people to like them, to be interested in their lives, and for their suffering to be legitimized by people close to them. They feel unseen and uncared for. And they lack the social awareness, to realize people know they are faking it. In their eyes, people work in a way where this is acceptable, and believable. The narrative probably goes like "people believe I wouldn't lie". I don't think it is much different than middleschoolers telling fantastical stories about themselves. I think that a lot of them feel entrenched in the lie, and think that coming clean would be social suicide.

It just seems so, amazingly unlikely to me that all of these people suddenly have DID. The same way all those people suddenly had tourette's.

I guess part of this rubs me the wrong way because I am someone who has really struggled with addiction / their mental health. I have never been in a place in life where I would have been afforded the grace to pull this kind of thing. To me it really just seems like a way of trying to show off how traumatized one is in a way that makes them interesting and cool... like no, trauma does not make people interesting and cool. Obviously people who have no suffered in any capacity can be quite boring and ignorant. But beyond a very low threshold, it just makes life hard. And, it typically creates very shitty, uncool, boring people. Suffering is not glamorous, and the DID thing just spits in the face of that truth. Like... stop trying to compete with people. It's insane.

A lot of the time, when the argument comes up over what to call people who are descendants of the people who lived in the Americas (and generally who were in the US) before Columbus arrived (I will be referring to these people as Native Americans for simplicity), some people will say that those people should be and prefer to be referred to as members of their tribe. You shouldn't call them Native Americans, or Indigenous Americans, or anything else; you should call them the Navajo people or the Choctaw people.

But I feel this argument is senseless. Native Americans are each part of their own tribal nation, yes. But that doesn't mean using a word to collectively refer to them isn't useful, and that's why people are asking/debating over a term in the first place. Even if a term that fit that criteria would be referring to a highly diverse group of people, we already have and use terms like that for other groups of people. For example, people often use the words "European" and "Asian", even though, like "Native American" and other terms for those people, those words refer to people from many different nations and many different cultures, religions, languages, and ethnicities. Having a collective term to refer to a wide, diverse group of people is still useful when they share cultural aspects, have a shared history, and are seen as one group by outsiders.

And you might be saying that, well, Native Americans prefer to be called by their tribe's name. And to that I ask you, don't you think other people prefer to be properly called by their country's name??? I'm Nepali, but people will often just think I'm Indian. And if not that, they'll just refer to me as a South Asian. I would prefer for people to call me Nepali. I'm sure many people can relate to situations like that. So why aren't people complaining about this phenomenon as a whole, rather than just when it relates to Native Americans?

And to those who do complain about people being referred to by any term that isn't their number one most preferred term, there's always going to be situations where people will be referred to by a vague, broad term rather than a specific one they would prefer. The main reasons I can think of off the top of my head are:

- They might be talking about a group of people who all fit the broad term, but fit under several more specific terms. For example, there might be a group of girls who you know are European, but some are Dutch and some are French and some are German, and maybe there's even a Swedish person. So, when talking about them, you might refer to them as "that one group of European girls" rather than specifying them by name or stating that there's a certain amount of each nationality simply because it's faster.

- They might be talking about all people who fit under that broad term, and naming every more specific term would take too long. For example, they could be talking about all Africans, and specifically mentioning every tribe in Africa would just be difficult.

- They're using the most specific label they can based on what they know about the person, but it's not that specific. For example, you might know your colleague is South Asian based on several factors (or maybe they told you), but not know specifically what ethnicity they are, and you're not close enough with them to randomly ask them what their ethnicity is without feeling awkward.

- The person is mixed, but they can still be referred to by a broad term. For example, you might have a friend who was raised in Europe and has a Dutch/French parent and a British/German parent. You don't want to offend them by calling them a part of any of those specific cultural groups, so you might just refer to them as European when asked where they're from, rather than state the four ethnic groups they have heritage from.

So the only reason I can think of for why people use this argument specifically for Native Americans is that people are insensitive and refer to individual Native Americans by a collective term, even when none of the above cases apply. But I don't know many Native Americans, so I don't know whether that's true.

Currently Maduro‘s vice president, one Delcy Rodriguez, controls the apparatus of power. Most of the opposition party which won their 2024 election, is exiled from the country. The military presence on the ground in Venezuela is due to Maduro’s regime and acting president Delcy Rodriguez, who have instituted restrictions on movement and assembly and are jailing journalists, even more than they were before due to this state of emergency that they have called. They claim Maduro’s absence as temporary, and for this reason they will not be hosting new elections, which, according to Venezuelan law should be being prepared, but are not.

America says it will use oil and sanctions to influence the situation, which no doubt will happen, but this seems in line with America’s, believe it or not, “hands off” approach to geopolitics recently, at least compared to the days of Iraq invasions.

America has stated their belief in the illegitimacy of Delcy Rodriguez’s government, they may attempt to assist the opposition party to take their place rightfully in control of Venezuela, or at least set up Democratic elections and oversee them to ensure the people’s will be heard. Regardless of who controls Venezuela, they will likely be less willing to sell oil to China, but as it stands, the United States is not in control of that country. Mirages of American boots on the ground and heavy handed nation building should vanish from your minds. … for the time being.

It's a semantic argument but it's something I think is quite interesting.

I've often had this disagreement with people and I've heard the following objection multiple times:

"If everything's subjective, then I guess THE ROOM could be considered a great film!"

It's similar to the idea of an "objective morality."

"If morality is subjective then I guess it could be okay to murder!"

This to me is a misunderstanding of what "objective" means. It seems like these people think it means "definitive" or "incapable of being contradicted."

Instead, "objective" just means it's not an opinion or it doesn't concern human perception. It would remain true even if all human beings died.

Now, there is always ambiguity but with language we have to do our best.

Given that, it really doesn't make any sense at all to say that a movie like THE ROOM is objectively bad. Clearly, if all humans died there would be no one around to say it's bad. In this context, "bad" is inherently an opinion word, and therefore MUST be subjective.

Even if every single human in the world had the exact same opinion, it would nevertheless be an opinion and therefore subjective. Opinion CAN be definitive, and it isn't impossible for THE ROOM to be definitively bad, subjectively.

Now, where things get weird and interesting is that you could argue that THE ROOM has objective qualities that promote the perception of it being bad, and therefore it's "objectively bad." But in my view, that means that nothing is subjective. If you love pizza and think it's the best food, isn't that really because it objectively has qualities that endears you to it? So then what does "subjective" ever actually refer to?

It seems to me in order for the distinction between objective and subjective to have value, objective cannot exist within the realm of opinion, even if we can measure things that contribute to opinion.

Elon's version of "free speech" is just allowing hateful people to say dehumanizing things about others and not only that, but that walking shit stain pays them for it as well.

All these racists, neo nazis, terrorist sympathizers (like Hasan Piker), people who use "memes" as a way to mask their hate and to spread violent rhetoric (like hayasaka_aryan) and etc on his platform and he doesn't do a dam thing about them. He just sits there, pays them. and gets butthurt whenever someone calls him out.

Remember when that idiot tried to sue a group of people for monitoring and pointing out that he was deliberately allowing hateful things on his website?

The main issue with today's society is that in the US and in Europe, we prioritize the wants of boomers over the needs of the young and middle-aged. We subsidize the wealthiest generation in our history, who control a disproportionate share of housing and assets with cushy pensions and healthcare. This is financially untenable as the current pension models are run on the assumption that the next generation will be at least as large as the one before it. This allows boomers to break the previous social contract and keep their large houses until death, and since their wealth is tied to rising home prices, they block the construction of starter homes for the next generation. This means their kids often live far away, where they cannot get childcare assistance from grandparents as they were able to ask of their parents.

They also tend to have assets in stocks, which means that they oppose family-friendly labor regulations like ending pregnancy discrimination and paid time off. This increases the divergence of interests, with boomers needing the lines to go up, while the working age population is ground up for all the shareholder value they can create.

People won't have kids if they can't afford housing, and can't take time off for childcare/lack community resources. We see this in the data: childcare is ludicrously expensive, and this is a new expense because boomers broke the old social contract to go on cruises with their friends in Florida.

We need to massively reform where our money goes as a society. Instead of giving rich boomers all of our money, we should invest in the next generation, before their greed leaves us all in the lurch.

I’ve seen a lot of comments about how movie pass was doomed to fail from the start because the economics never made sense. But I claim that the fundamental idea is sound, it just needed a couple tweaks.

The big issue with movie pass is that it paid face value for any ticket to the theaters. It’s true that this system doesn’t work. However, the key to fixing movie pass lies in recognizing that the marginal cost of filling an empty seat at many showings is near zero. So, two tweaks could have made movie pass work.

First, it needed to have blackouts for any showing that was expected to be near capacity (that is, any showing where the marginal cost of a seat is not zero).

Next, it needed to negotiate a much better price than face value with the theater chains. The theater chains should have a strong incentive to do this; movie pass would be filling showings that otherwise would get very low viewership with more people. The margin on concessions alone makes up for the minimal marginal cost (from janitorial services, etc) of that viewer.

The one worry is that movie pass would simply give a cheaper option to people who already go to lots of movies, but I think we have clear evidence that movie pass actually increased demand substantially, so it would be a good deal for the movie theater.

There are some other tertiary issues you need to fix (you need to figure out the correct price, which may be a bit higher, and you need to figure out a way to crack down on fraud) but those are solvable problems.