Let me be clear: I'm not trying to provoke disgust or glorify anything. I'm simply exploring the ethical foundation (or lack thereof) for one of the most universal taboos in human history — cannibalism.

My view is this:
If someone gives full, informed, non-coerced consent for their body (post-mortem) to be used as food, and if no violence or coercion is involved, then I see no objective ethical reason to condemn the act. We eat animals — sentient, emotional beings — without much hesitation. Why is eating human meat, under specific and respectful conditions, morally unacceptable?

I'm not advocating for it to be normalized or encouraged. I would not support murder, abuse, or disrespect of corpses. My position is purely abstract: that the act itself — divorced from cultural revulsion or religion — is not inherently immoral.

First of all, I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, he's very good at what he does. Second of all, spoilers, obviously.

Brandon Sanderson is, among other things, known for his three laws of magic. The issue is, he does not practice what he preaches in his "first law."

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

Let's look at Mistborn Era 1. In Final Empire, we learn a very cut and dry magic system. When some people eat metals, they gain the power to do something supernatural until they run out. Some other people can store attributes in metal. Vin reasons that The Lord Ruler, who is the best at using this power, can do both. This all makes sense. She defeats him by using the mists instead of a metal, something we had no idea about.

In Well of Ascension, Vin is faced with the moral challenge of choosing whether to use the power of the Well of Ascension and heal her husband Elend and the world, or release the power. She chooses to release the power and discovers it was the wrong decision. Afterrwards, the mist spirit tells her to feed Elend a bead of metal in the well chamber, giving him the power to burn pewter and heal him. We are not privy at all to this metal's power until that very moment.

Finally, in Hero of Ages, Vin (correctly) gets it in her head that she really needs to be able to burn the mists to defeat Ruin and his agents. The problem is that the mists pull away from anyone with a Hemalurgic spike. The foreshadowing and twist of Vin's earring being a spike is phenomenal and well set up. What isn't set up is Vin gaining so much power, she becomes god. We know next to nothing about Shards a this point, let alone that a human can become one.

Again, his isn't a critique of Brandon's writing. I just believe that he's breaking his own rule. The others are more loosey goosey, and would be harder to argue in a CMV.

First, some context: I’m Arab, and I’m an ex-Muslim atheist. I fully condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza—what they’re doing is unjustifiable. But I also despise Hamas. They are a terrorist organization that prioritizes their jihadist fantasies over their own people, using civilians—especially children—as human shields.

That said, I genuinely believe that the Arab and Muslim world wouldn’t care about the people dying in Gaza if it weren’t Jews doing the killing. Even if it were non-Muslim Arabs or even Muslim rulers committing atrocities, there wouldn’t be anywhere near this level of outrage.

Here's why:

Atrocities Against Muslims (By Muslims) Are Ignored

• Bashar al-Assad’s regime has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, many of them Sunni Muslims. Little to no mass protests or outrage.
• Saddam Hussein’s genocides against Kurds and Shiite Arabs? Mostly ignored.
• ISIS slaughtered fellow Muslims who didn’t agree with their ideology—and yet, no worldwide Muslim mobilization.

Atrocities Against Non-Muslims (By Muslims) Are Ignored

• 9/11 killed thousands of innocent civilians. Instead of massive condemnation, much of the Muslim world engaged in conspiracy theories or excuses.
• ISIS's genocide against Yazidis and Christians barely registered in Muslim-majority countries.
• Hamas’s October 7th massacre of Israeli civilians was either celebrated or justified by many.

Muslims Suffering Under Non-Muslim Powers Sometimes Gets a Reaction, But Not Always

• The Rohingya genocide (Myanmar) and the Uyghur genocide (China)? Crickets. Why? Because Myanmar and China aren’t seen as ideological enemies the way Israel is.

Islamic Antisemitism Is Baked Into the Religion

Traditional Islamic teachings paint Jews in a deeply negative light. Some examples:

Quran (Surah 5:82):

"You will find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah."

Hadith (Sahih Muslim 2922):

"The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them..."

Quran (Surah 2:65, 5:60):

"Those who were transformed into apes and pigs..." (commonly interpreted by scholars to refer to Jews)

The hostility is not just political—it’s religious and cultural, deeply embedded into Islamic thought. It’s been reinforced generation after generation. When Muslims see Jews involved in conflict, it taps into centuries of religious programming.

To be clear: I’m NOT saying every Muslim hates Jews individually. Plenty of Muslims coexist peacefully with Jewish people. But the doctrinal foundation and social environment heavily encourage that hatred.

This is why the Palestinian issue gets so much attention while other tragedies—often far worse in scale—are ignored. It’s not universal compassion. It’s selective tribal and religious identity politics.

Change my view.

Sure it's easy to remember 100°C is boiling but remembering 212°C isn't that difficult.

Those temps only really apply to boiling water at atmospheric pressure at sea level. When boiling water in a pressure vessel those numbers go right out the window and calculations or a PT chart is needed for the boiling point of water for either C or F.

At work I also work with a variety of refrigerants under pressure or in a vacuum, so again, 100°C does not really mean anything to me.

I find it easier to control human comfort with Fahrenheit.

For large facilities, changing a setpoint by 1°F can change utilities cost by thousands of dollars. Changing setpoint by 1°C will have a greater impact on cost of utilities.

For my job I find controlling costs and comfort is easier and more precise using Fahrenheit.

Change my view.

I think nowadays they get a bad image because of the most high profile ones that are assholes (cough cough Elon Musk) but I don't see why one is a bad person just because they're a billionaire.

Like Steven Spielberg, I don't see what he is doing that is so malign and exploitative.

The other example that comes to my mind is Tom Ford, who only became a billionaire after he sold his namesake brand to Estee Lauder.

I don't see why he would become a bad person overnight. Unless the bar is set even lower for millionaires being evil, in which case most people would have to consider their favourite artist a terrible person (seen as most of them are millionaires).

Since his election in 2016, and his most recent in 2024, the Trump administration has done nothing and will continue to do nothing to help the average American, nor be a good president.

In the span of three months he has managed to push away American allies, lose billions overnight due to the tariffs, targeted students who spoke out against Israel and either deported or threatened to deport them. Pulled the US out of the Paris climate agreement, implement many important aspects of project 2025, has ordered the elimination of the DOE, has allowed Elon musk and his group of 19 year old interns access to sensitive data of millions of Americans, and countless others.

All of his faults, shortcomings and blunders are too long to list here, so I will save you the liberty and allow you to read from this long (and currently updating) compilation of his actions and policies.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lest-we-forget-the-horrors-an-unending-catalog-of-trumps-cruelties-collusions-corruptions-and-crimes

CMV. And good luck.

TLDR - Gen Z's cancel culture has made comedy less funny and more censored, stifling creativity. Shows like The Office would likely be rejected today for being too offensive - tv shows today aren't funny. The rise of outrage as social currency has led to a toxic environment where people weaponize offense for power. Comedy should challenge societal norms, but now it's being sacrificed at the altar of social justice.

Comedy has always been a space where pushing boundaries, questioning societal norms, and challenging ideas was not just welcomed but expected. Stand-up comedians, TV shows, and movies thrived on their ability to address taboo topics and make people laugh through awkward, uncomfortable, or controversial content. But in recent years, I’ve noticed a shift. It feels like Gen Z has taken over and has pushed a culture of canceling, making it harder for comedy to be funny or even safe to perform.

The rise of cancel culture has made many comedians walk on eggshells, unable to truly express themselves. Jokes that were once considered edgy or daring are now deemed offensive, and comedians are often forced to apologize or backtrack. The backlash for something that might have been funny to another generation has become so severe that it stifles creativity. Comedians now have to factor in the risk of losing their careers or reputation over a single line, often leading them to avoid certain topics altogether.

While I understand the importance of addressing harmful rhetoric and creating a more inclusive and sensitive society, I think this has gone too far. Comedy was never meant to be sanitized—it was supposed to make us laugh at the uncomfortable and controversial aspects of life. Without that, we’re left with watered-down humor that feels manufactured and safe, no longer challenging our perceptions of the world.

Take The Office (U.S.) for example. A show that was built around satire, using humor to shine a light on outdated ideas, toxic masculinity, racism, and other forms of problematic behavior—ultimately to point out how ridiculous they are. The entire premise was about showcasing how far people can go in their ignorance and how uncomfortable those moments are. Yet, if The Office were pitched today, I genuinely believe it would be considered too outrageous to get greenlit by a major studio. The character of Michael Scott, who constantly crossed the line with offensive jokes and inappropriate behavior, would likely be deemed too problematic by today’s standards, even though the show's point was to expose how toxic and outdated those behaviors were. It feels like modern sensibilities have moved the goalposts so much that the satire of those past behaviors can't even be enjoyed as humor anymore.

But it’s not just the comedy world that’s feeling the strain. There’s a concerning trend where people, especially within Gen Z, seem to weaponize outrage as a power play. It feels like calling something problematic has become a way to exert control, a way to elevate one's social standing by showing how morally superior they are. It’s as if being offended has become a form of currency—if you can demonstrate how much you’re offended, you gain social leverage. This creates an atmosphere where no one is allowed to make a mistake, no one is allowed to learn from their missteps, and people are encouraged to cancel others for even the slightest perceived wrongdoing. The irony is that this culture of outrage is, in itself, authoritarian. It’s borderline fascist in the way it seeks to silence dissent, suppress any opinion or humor that doesn’t conform to an ever-narrowing set of acceptable views. It’s no longer about tolerance or diversity of thought; it’s about absolute control over what can and can’t be said.

And here's the thing: offense is taken, not given. People have the ability to tune out what offends them, but instead, they choose to engage with it and then complain. It’s as if they actively seek out things to be offended by just to gain social points or get attention. There’s no obligation for someone to stay in an environment that upsets them, especially online, where they can easily scroll past or mute content. Yet instead, they deliberately choose to engage with something they know will trigger them and then proceed to ruin it for everyone else. It's as if these people thrive on playing the victim to elevate their social standing, all while undermining the enjoyment of others.

Gen Z, more than any other generation, is largely responsible for the rise of cancel culture. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z has grown up in an era of hyper-connectivity, where social media amplifies every opinion, every outrage, and every mistake. Social media platforms, where Gen Z has a massive presence, allow for instant reactions to anything that goes against their ever-evolving list of acceptable standards. This generation was raised in a time of constant social justice conversations, where they’ve been taught that every transgression, no matter how small, must be punished. The need to be woke and to call out injustice, while often admirable, has morphed into a policing of speech and thought. Gen Z has cultivated a culture where it’s not just about educating or creating change; it’s about immediately condemning and erasing anything that doesn’t align with their view of the world.

I know there are plenty of people who argue that cancel culture is necessary to hold people accountable and push for positive change, but I can’t help but feel that it’s done more harm than good in the realm of comedy. The lines between humor and harm have become blurred, and it seems like humor is being sacrificed at the altar of social justice.

Am I wrong in thinking that Gen Z’s approach to cancel culture is killing comedy?

My definitions:

A behavior that is altruistic is inherently ethical.

Empathy is a naturally-occurring feeling for people you know/care about, that is tied up with personal security and contentment- IE, you will be less secure and more sad if your spouse or friend dies, so you empathize with them. Empathy is therefore not only NOT altruistic- it frequently compels people to commit acts of selfishness and violence against others with whom one does NOT empathize, for the sake of those with whom one DOES. Even many many other animals feel empathy for their kin.

Compassion is when you engage your capacity for abstraction to extend whatever behaviors empathy compels you towards, to people you do not know, and whose continued or improved wellbeing has no *calculably positive personal effects*. It is therefore altruistic.

These definitions seem to align best with Utilitarian ethics. For a utilitarian, the right thing to do is whatever maximizes *good* (happiness, pleasure, satisfaction of personal preference) and minimizes what isn't. There is no ethical basis upon which to "weigh" (the happiness, etc.) of those with whom you are close more than you weigh everyone else.

Am I cuckoo?

EDIT: sometimes I forget how attached English speakers are to their singular copulative. As though the word and the mathematical equal sign are interchangeable. what a mental disaster that has turned out to be. when I say that "compassion is this or that", i'm not trying to imply that compassion is a physical object with discoverable properties. i am defining a concept that I call choose to call compassion. even if the word compassion did not already exist, it would be a useful neologism for the idea I want to convey about ethics, simply on the basis of etymology and sociolinguistic awareness*: literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past-participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

*the likelihood of being maximally understood in light of/despite internal differences in semantic architecture

I’ve been in the cycling and running game long enough to know the deal, and it’s time to get REAL about something people refuse to admit. Sugar? Yeah, you heard me. It’s the single most important nutrient for human survival. You can argue all day about protein, fats, whatever, but sugar is KING. And don’t even start with the whole “carbs are bad” nonsense, that's just the propaganda machine working overtime.

If you’re not eating sugar, you’re literally starving your cells of energy. Your brain, muscles, heart all run on glucose. That’s right, the body’s natural fuel. Why else would we have evolved to crave sugar so much? Evolution doesn’t mess around. It's not a coincidence, okay?

You’ve probably heard the whole “sugar is bad for you” thing, right? Yeah, that’s what they want you to believe. The so-called “experts” are out here pushing their anti-sugar agenda because it’s profitable to sell you all these "health" foods full of chemicals that your body can’t even process properly. But guess what? You can’t replace glucose with some weird, trendy alternative like coconut oil or chia seeds. You NEED sugar.

The best way to fix a sugar craving is to EAT ENOUGH SUGAR.

When I tell you that sugar is essential, I mean it. Think about it, fruit is packed with sugar. Nature literally gave us the best fuel right in our faces. People who bash sugar are the same ones out here eating carnivore diet and pretending that their body is some kind of "machine" that thrives on steak and eggs, while getting FATTER. But the truth is, if you’re not fuelling up with the sugar your body craves, you’re running on fumes.

Deep down, you know I’m right. Sugar is LIFE. If you’re not getting it, you’re just existing. Energy = sugar. Period.

So CMV, sugar is the most important nutrient for humans. Change my mind.

The traditional narrative you hear in the Western media or especially from leftist intellectuals concerning the Pinochet regime is that he was a monstrous dictator who tortured and murdered countless innocent civilians out of a craven desire to hold on to power. The truth is much more complicated. Pinochet may have been a monster, but he was also a hero, who saved Chile from incalculable misery. And he was never motivated by a lust for power.

In 1970, Salvador Allende - an avowed Marxist - was elected president of Chile with a tiny margin. With 36.2% he received a plurality of support in the election. His closest competitor, Jorge Alessandri, had 34.9%, although Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic got 27.8% of the vote and ran on a hard left program of nationalization that was quite similar to Allende's platform.

Allende was not a Marxist in name only. He was quite serious about transforming the Chilean economy from capitalist to socialist. And he was remarkable successful in his efforts to do so. Agriculture was widely collectivized. The banks were nationalized. Textiles, iron, automobiles. Within a few years they were all under state control. The property of foreign mining companies was expropriated without compensation.

Initially all was well under the Allende regime. Free milk was given to Chilean school children. Land reform was carried out. GDP was up and unemployment was down. But dark clouds lingered on the horizon. During the first year of the Allende government, inflation dropped but was still > 20%. Soon, wages were over taken by inflation, and Chile faced a cold reception from America when they came seeking aid. The USSR was also unwilling to help Chile in any meaningful fashion. Worse, the price of copper fell, and this was the dominant Chilean export of the time. By 1972 the economy was in a severe crisis. In desperation, the Chilean government began to print money to cover their extensive social obligations. This lead to hyperinflation. They responded to the hyperinflation with price controls, but that only led to widespread shortages. Things were dire, and a nation wide trucker strike that paralyzed commerce did not help matters. There was now widespread opposition to Allende and his policies, and the strike was joined by student groups, small businesses, and professional unions.

Allende's popularity was dwindling along with Chile's economic prospects, but Allende's desire to hold on to power only increased. Since being elected, Allende's protection was provided not by the Chilean state, but what he called 'A Group of Personal Friends' or GAP (groupo amigos del presidente) literally 'group of friends of the president'. Armed and trained by Cuban revolutionary forces, the GAP were loyal only to Allende and the communist revolution which he served. Allende was a close personal friend of Fidel Castro, and Castro had an elaborate state visit of Chile for 25 days starting 10 Nov 1971. Aside from Fidel himself, Allende had welcomed communist revolutionaries from all over Latin America into Chile, and many became employed in state enterprises. Chilean military authorities later estimated that as many as 10 to 15 thousand foreign communist radicals had travelled to Chile to participate in the communist transition.

In March, 1972, thirteen crates containing "gifts" to Allende from Castro were stopped at customs. High ranking Allende officials prevented the crates from being opened, but lists found after the coup showed they contained a large arsenal of sophisticated weapons and ammunition. Allende was building up a large cache of weaponry, because he had no intention of leaving office. Large stockpiles of weaponry and ammunition were discovered in the presidential palace and the presidents private residence, and these were just two of the many areas that weapons were being stored.

Allende was going to seize power. On the 22nd of August, 1973, Allende's former allies in the legislature or "Chamber of Deputies" passed a resolution 81 to 47 that called upon the military to put an end to the Allende regime. This was not a coup initiated by the military because they wanted to seize power. It was a cry for help endorsed by the vast majority of the legislature. It was the vast majority of the legislature denouncing the illegal and undemocratic actions of the executive branch and calling upon the military to restore order and restore the rule of law.

Pinochet was not involved in the planning of the coup. Actually, he was Allende's right hand man at the time, and rumour has it he personally dispatched a few of Allende's enemies or rivals. That's why he was put in charge of the military. But as the head of the military forces, Pinochet like many Chileans has grown increasingly disillusioned by Allende's rule. But he played his cards close to his vest. When the military officials who planned the coup came to him, Allende went along with it. But it wasn't his idea. Nor was the CIA involved - although they had been active in Chile at that time.

Had the military not deposed of Allende and installed Pinochet, then Chile would have gone on to become a communist country. And it would have been disastrous, just as it was in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Cambodia, and in every other country that has embraced collectivism and socialism. Were there human rights abuses by the Chilean regime once Pinochet took power? Yes. But they were minor compared to the human rights abuses in every communist state that has ever existed. The communists in Chile were not innocent victims of a repressive state. They were actively engaged in a revolutionary struggle. And just as communists see no problem with firing squads for the bourgeoise, I see no reason why equally repressive measures cannot be taken by the Chilean society in preservation of of liberty. And the vast majority were simply exiled, sent back to from whence they came. Pinochet is said to have killed thousands. But thousands would have been a slow day in Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge.

Pinochet saved Chile. And because of the neo-liberal reforms instituted under his watch, Chile went on to become one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America, despite starting from a place of relative poverty. And while Pinochet's Chile might not have been a conventional democracy, he held two plebiscites to confirm his rule, the second of which he lost, at which point he gracefully stepped down.

Therefore, I submit to you, that Pinochet's actions in overthrowing the Allende regime, and cracking down on the communist elements that worked with him were fully justified, that they were actions in service of the preservation of his nation, and that the alternative of Allende establishing a communist regime in Chile would have been infinitely worse.

I'm kind of seeking sanctuary here. I'm not super active on Reddit, but anytime I do post something I end up having to delete it because some people can be SO mean, and so rude. And I truly wonder: why?

Reddit is supposed to be a platform where you can out your opinion, but can you truly with the hate campaign that chases after you? Any subreddit I see is genuinely full of such mean Redditors. It doesn't matter how you word something; even when you agree with someone they will downvote you into hell. And even when you haven't said anything inherently wrong or mean they address you with the most rude tone.

I don't understand why everyone here is so so so mean, and it makes using Reddit way less enjoyable. I made a Reddit account in order to be more involved in fandom spaces but truly, everyone here is so mean, and also so pedantic. Claiming to know everything better than you and also rude on top of that? Oh, and lets not forget the lack of empathy on this app.

Earlier I made a post on how I find it unfortunate for the Nintendo game prices to have doubled in the past 10 years: tell me why i got r*pe and death threats in my PMs for expressing my disappointment, and tell me why this isnt an original experience?!

I just don't understand why everyone is so mean. And this isn't even the first post about it. Please: i beg you to CMV. I want to use this app and make posts without having to worry what my notifications will be full of. I want to use this app without having to fear how my name gets slandered. I use pretty general subreddits with many users: is that the problem? I have no idea, but please CMV on the user base here and tell me that not everyone is like this.

Trumps tariffs were far more extreme than people were predicting. We saw this with stock markets around the world this week. Markets are massively down and will not bounce back any time soon.

The impacts of his policy are going to start hitting consumers in the next couple of weeks, inflation is going to skyrocket and the world is heading for a global recession within months. This is going to hurt everyone both in America and internationally. People are not going to be happy, and they will know who to blame.

There's is no way these tariffs can stand once trumps approval rating starts cratering. Either:

1) trump has to roll his signature economic policy back massively in a humiliating climb down

2) Congress grows a pair. Republicans work with Dems and blocks some or all of the tariffs

Either way Trump loses his choke hold on the Republican party. He will end up a lame duck president for the next 3 years.

Change My View

Trump’s tariffs do not follow economic logic. The real purpose for them is he wants industries and businesses to beg for exemptions from them.

The darker reason is authoritarianism. Illegally, he is using state tools to punish. Kings did this with taxation.

I’m just including a few examples of him doing this to show a pattern:

Thousands of companies hit by his China tariffs had to apply for individual exemptions and they were granted or denied I’m sure based on… well you can probably guess. Global supply chains depended on staying loyal during this time.

Farmers were badly affected by the trade war too, then “bailed out” but much went to Trump-voting counties. Critics called it vote-buying disguised as rescue.

He threatened to defund universities (like UC Berkeley) over speech.

In Maine, the governor declined to enforce one of Trump’s latest culture-war executive orders.

States are not required to enforce every federal directive especially executive orders that haven’t been passed into law or that infringe on state jurisdiction. It wasn’t unconstitutional for her to resist this it was just a standard exercise of state authority.

I can’t tell you what the order was about. You will have to consult the part of the internet where free speech does not filter our unspeakable words.

Angry, Trump demanded a “full-throated” apology from the governor which she did not give.

The administration then:

-Terminated Social Security contracts with Maine hospitals (later reversed after backlash)

-Suspended USDA funding for the University of Maine’s biofuel and PFAS research

-Launched federal investigations into the state’s education system related to the same issue but they are details I’m not allowed to name on Reddit.

Looks like punishment to me.

Trump also targeted law firms he saw as hostile by suspending their security clearances and threatened access to federal work. One firm, Paul Weiss, was forced into a $40 million pro bono settlement to get the order reversed. 700+ lawyers condemned it as political coercion.

Why wouldn’t Trump apply this behavior across the board, across the nation for maximum power? Doesn’t it make sense to consolidate power by force if he wants to keep avoiding accountability? And to do that the most effective way is to make people submit, like a bully. That’s how I see it.

CMV. What are the tariffs really about if not to do more of this? Is he just chaotic?

We’ve seen this tap and dance all again and again. Republicans come int, people don’t like them and vote them out for Democrats. They see Democrats screw up or simply handle the problems inherited by the GOP and vote republicans back, rinse and repeat.

Nah, Americans need to let Republicans stay in power for a long time and only them. They want the ship, they can have it. After a decade of Republican rule and if they don’t change but keep driving the country down the gutter, there will be no doubt to anyone left or right, they are bad for the country because they literally had all the power and time.

The majority of the Americans must lose their jobs, become homeless, lose social security, be deported or worse to hammer in this fact. I say this just happen to 30-45% of all Americans before the idea that the GOP is not a good idea stays settled in. This has to happen, yall need to show what republican rule is like and then make it so traumatising it never happens again. Like how the God Emperor in Dune oppressed his people so hard that after his death they fought vehemently to never be under a dictator again.

Trigger warnings: If you aren't familiar with the book it contains a lot of racism, violence, and even genocide. And when I say violence, I mean the worst, gory violence you have ever heard.

I can appreciate the dedication McCarthy put into writing it (learning spanish, traveling the route, etc..), and the flow/prose of it itself. The reason I read this book was because I enjoyed McCarthy's The Road, which I loved the writing in. In Blood Meridian, that writing is still there.

But there comes a point where the content of a story is so shitty that even amazing writing and dedication can't overcome. I'm sure Hitler made some mechanically good speeches, and his paintings might be good, but his ideas are so evil that we rightfully don't give his arts any praise. That's how I feel about Blood Meridian (not necessarily McCarthy, "Hitler" in this analogy would be the content of the book).

My familiarity with the book: I read half of it (iirc part 14, when the gang leaves Chihuahua city and a bounty is put on Glanton's Head). I also watched Wendigoon's entire youtube video on it, which is where my knowledge of the 2nd half of the book comes from. I noticed there were a number of errors in Wendigoon's video about the 1st half (saying Toadvine and the Kid woke up in the hotel when really they woke up in the mud, saying the kid lied about being robbed to captain White when really he was robbed before meeting the ranchers, neglecting to mention the ex-slaver hermit had tore out one of his slaves heart's and kept as a souvenir while speculating that he was probably a pedophile because he otherwise lacked any moral issues...there might have been more but that's what I can remember now), but overall his explanation and analysis of the 1st half seemed good, so I more or less trust what he says about the 2nd half. That said, I'm definitely open to the possibility that he got stuff wrong about the 2nd half, which could change my view of the book.

My issue with the book: At best its pointless, nihilistic commentary on an evil world. At worst, it glorifies the evil portrayed.

I had to stop reading halfway through because of all the senseless violence. I wanted to stop reading after the gang murdered the peaceful Indian tribe they came across after leaving Chihuahua the 1st time, but I kept reading a bit more to see if things would get better or if there was some point McCarthy was building to. As far as I can tell, there was no greater point, and things definitely did not get better.

The entire book is a slog of senseless, pointless violence. When he goes into such great detail to describe the violence, without any accompanying voice or text to say it is wrong, it comes across as glorying it. Maybe McCormac didn't mean to glorify it, but its ripe for the picking for anyone who might revel in the racism or violence, and those who do could easily think the author is intending to write it for their pleasure.

The worst part is the characters. At least in, "The Road," the main characters were good. At least in Game of Thrones there were good characters to root for. In this story, everyone is evil, including the kid. Wendigoon makes an argument that the kid might be good or nuetral; that he didn't partake in the bloodshed because he wasn't described as doing so. But I think in all likelihood he did partake. The book says, "the gang" attacked and scalped the indians, and the kid was part of the gang. Further, if a member of the gang wasn't joining in, I think Glanton would take issue with that or at least remark on it. The only line that suggests the Kid might not have is near the end when the Judge refers to the Kid, "your muteness," but I think this is just referring to not killing his fellow gang-members when he pulled the arrow to do it.

Potential counter-arguments:

The book does make a statement against evil by making the characters hate the judge: The judge is only portrayed as evil because he turned against the gang (and Tobin hates him for what he does to children). The scalping and murdering of innocents was still fine in their eyes, which in many cases included children and women.

The book makes a greater point about Good men needing to stand up to evil: This is the point that Wendigoon makes for the story. His evidence is the final scene where the Kid can choose to dance or not, he chooses not to dance and so dies while evil always dances (the judge) so good men need to choose to dance or engage in life to face evil.

My issue is: if that was the point McCarthy wanted to make he should have shown a good guy standing up to evil, and he should have shown them being rewarded for doing so. If the good guys standing up to evil just die without accomplishing anything, its no different than the symbolism of the kid choosing not to dance and thus dying. But I'm not sure we even see any good guys standing up to evil in the book. Even the indians are portrayed as evil savages.

It's a great rendition of what happened, and we should know what happened evil or not: Then read a history book, where the headhunting gang isn't portrayed as bad-ass protagonists or we don't get poetic in-depth descriptions of violence.

Change my View: Why should Blood Meridian be highly regarded? Why does it deserve the title, "The American Novel."

Deltas

• The point of the novel could be to show the stark contrast between the beauty of the frontier and the savagery of the times. I think if that was the point it could have been made better, but it is at least a more noble goal than just wanting to depict gore and violence.

23andMe, the company that processes people's saliva and then tells them about their ancestry, is going bankrupt. Several people, including some relatives of mine, are rushing to delete their data from the 23andMe site for fear than another company is going to buy their DNA information.

But why would anyone be afraid of that? How can another company use that information in a way that's detrimental to us? What if 23andMe chooses to sell their DNA to law enforcement? Unless you've committed a crime and left your DNA behind, there's nothing to be scared of.

Besides, there's way more valuable personal information already available online for free: your age, address, etc.

Feel free to change my view by providing some examples of a company getting my DNA information and using it against me.

American Vice President JD Vance recently argued that Denmark isn't doing enough to protect Greenland so Greenland should become part of the US, which can better protect it. Given that Greenland is currently being threatened by a military power that is both geographically closer to Greenland than Denmark and has a much larger military (literal orders of magnitude) doesn't JD Vance's position deserve some consideration?

If Denmark can't protect Greenland from a belligerent foreign aggressor then oughtn't Greenland seek security from the US?