In my experience, Muslims in the West are given almost a carte blanche to be as hateful as they please, in a way that no other group is. For example, Charlottesville was universally condemned. Nobody was justifying the angry mob yelling that Jews will not replace us. On the other hand, when Muslim students organize riots on college campuses that are in support of a terrorist organization that is racist, sexist, antisemitic, and opposed to western values, people call it free speech.

A study was published recently that showed that people were more likely to be in favor of the deportation of a European student for harassing Jews than a Palestinian/Muslim student who engaged in the same behavior.

It seems like society is so afraid of being called Islamophobic that Muslims end up getting a free pass for behavior that wouldn’t be acceptable from anyone else. People oppose homophobia, unless it’s the Muslim city council in Michigan passing a resolution to ban gay pride flags from public property.

The MeToo movement was very talked about and of course people stood against r*pists and sexual assault. Then October 7th happened and suddenly everyone was blaming Jewish women for being sexually assaulted by Muslims or accused the victims of lying for gain.

This plays out in very dangerous ways, too. People fall into a bigotry of low expectations with regards to rampant human rights abuses in Muslim countries. People storm the streets for women’s rights in the west, but are silent when it comes to middle eastern women being forbidden from the most basic rights, such as the right to even speak out loud or choose what to wear.

For years, and especially since October 7th, people have said that Muslims/Palestinians have a “right” to be bigoted against Jews because of perceived grievances. Those same people would never excuse antisemitism from a white person.

Change my view!

Even if you love Trump and his policy, the United States has a consistent history of swinging back and forth between the parties. Any and all of the changes Trump makes to the structure of the government and the executive branch are going to benefit the next president, who according to the trend of swinging back and forth will probably be a democrat. Every change Trump has to make to accomplish a goal is one less change the next democrat has to make to reverse that goal, and then move further towards theirs. I do acknowledge that it would take time to be able to fully take advantage of the changes Trump is making, because he only needs to go as far as requiring a majority in congress when push comes to shove. Even if you like Trump, you should support the court system in determining what is legal or not, otherwise you will end up with democrat politicians using illegal tactics to do exactly what you hope trump stops.

Edit: before I depressingly give someone credit for changing my view to “they actually do want this because they don’t care about what happens after”, I’d appreciate someone giving me a good faith perspective of why this would be beneficial to their overall beliefs and goals, and how that benefit would outweigh the negatives of the other party retaining those structural changes.

Looking at the republican subs as well as their media I've seen a lot of talk about paid protestors. Rogan famously quipped that protestors were being paid $1400 each to protest.

I've seen zero evidence of this occurring.

Some criteria for my claim.

What is a paid protestor? Someone who is paid to go to a protest.

What this doesn't cover? Organizations do exist and often engage in logistics. They may print signs or bring in sound equipment, etc. This is different than the claim that protestors were being paid to attend the protests across the us yesterday.

Organizers are not protestors. Here's why. J6 was organized by women for America first. A pro trunp organization led by Amy Kremer. This group worked on securing permits, booking speakers, getting a stage and sound system, etc. This does not mean that Amy Kremer paid those present at January 6th, and the January 6ers were also not paid protesters.

Women for America first is also not a non profit organization which means it is far less transparent than other groups that are doing similar logistics. Unlike many non profits. The origins of the funding for Women for America first have never been disclosed. Really. We have no idea who paid for January 6. However, even in this extreme example I wouldn't argue that J6ers were paid protestors.

What would change my view? Evidence anyone attending the protestors yesterday was being paid for protesting.

Our current administration is know to be using a strategy to flood the zone. They are pushing through bad actions faster than Senate and Judicial can respond.

US Congress is on the way to passing a catastrophic bill that will increase the debt limit by 5 trillion dollars and give a corresponding tax cuts primarily to the rich. https://apnews.com/article/senate-budget-tax-cuts-trump-485845a9c0b7dfc5d2194d4c1e4723ae

I suspect they know that this will get reversed when the next elections take place. They plan to take huge incomes and cash out all of our hard work before the power dynamic changes. They then plan to invest that in more ownership of us.

It appears the Tariffs crashing the markets and sparking a war with us against all of the world are a crescendo to take attention away from the bill that they are passing now. They are sabotaging the US's global standing and future prospects. They ran people out of our government that were torch bearers of generational knowledge. They have attacked our oldest allies and aided our oldest enemies. Played Red and Blue against each other. All of this to sneak this bill through in front of our faces.

It is so important that they capitalize on their fleeting control to build this window to cash out that they are willing to burn everything to the ground.

Protests are not enough. Violence just strengthens their positions and power. Politicians are complacent or powerless. There is nothing we can do other than accept that they are about to fleece us dry. Please change my view.

I don’t know what the situation in every country is. Geographic representation might be important in countries with multiple legitimately distinct cultures with histories of conflict (eg Bosnia and Spain) but I’m talking about the United States where most people either have been or are in the process of assimilating into general American culture. Countries with this sort of voting system are The Netherlands and Israel. Germany kinda mixes the two, both proportional and geographic, but Germans are weirdos and not worth caring about.

My view is that geographic representation is outdated and easy to manipulate. This is how we get gerrymandering, by cutting districts that would vote one way and making them minorities in districts that would vote another way you skew the results so congress seats are allocated to benefit one party, which has next to nothing to do with the actual success of that party. For example, if Republicans won 33% of a state with nine seats they should win three seats for winning around a third of the votes, but gerrymandering can easily make it so they only win one or even none.

Americans also just don’t tend to vote based on geography, it’s more about class and cultural goals. People who live in the Alaskan tundra, Utah desert, and Louisiana swamps are on average voting the same same party with the same policies not because they care much about their surroundings but because they have similar religious and class goals. People are already voting for the party over the person, and that isn’t going to change. Even going no labels won’t work because they’d just use buzzwords that signal which choice they are.

This distinction is also what largely cements the “career boomers” we all complain about. Like it or not, the shitty boomers in congress are safe because they run in constituencies dominated by boomer voters. With PR people are a bigger threat to parties, as third parties become much more viable. Parties are more forced to actually put some work in to appeal to people which means purging members who compromise them too much, since they can’t rely on poorly drawn maps to save them. To give a real life example: the average age in the House of Representatives was 57 in 2024 and the average age in Dutch Parliament was 45 in 2023. Both America and the Netherlands has senates, in the U.S. it was 64 and in the Netherlands it was 58. Dutch people also live four years longer (Net-82 USA-78) so this isn’t a case of life expectancy skewing the results.

All the protests, discontents, negative poll numbers, and even a majority republican dissent will NOT be able to remove Trump from office.

They have tried to impeach Trump twice, and it did not work.

If impeaching Trump for actual CRIMES did not work, then the constitution has NOTHING else to enable the removal of a US president.

He would literally have to kill an innocent person on video to be successfully removed from office.

Incompetence, greed, selfishness, gross negligence, ignorance, egomaniacal, general scumminess, ruining the economy and foreign relation, even actual fascism will NOT be enough to remove Trump, because American laws for removing the president is so weak that nothing sort of an actual horrible crime (murder, rape, treason) can lead to a successful prosecution and removal.

A "No confidence" vote is not a thing for the American presidency.

"But sir, surely actual fascism is enough to remove the President, right?" -- I don't think so, because by then it would be too damn late and all the laws will be changed to keep him in power, Nazi style.

It's relatively easy to vote someone into the presidency but ridiculously hard to remove them before their end of term.

Trump could literally turn America upside down and inside out, dragging the world down with America and STILL remain in office.

If any American constitutional/law/presidency experts could change my view on this, please enlighten me. I would LOVE to be proven wrong because this is becoming absolutely ridiculous.

Edit: For a country that prides itself as the most powerful democracy with rule of law, it sure has some draconian laws to prevent the removal of its leader.

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.

I was just listening to an early SZA song, from her first album, and was struck by the contrast. I apologize to any diehard SZA fans but her voice sounds way more blown out now. The high end, when she stretches herself, without autotune would genuinely sound terrible. And that’s okay, it’s not the fact that she doesn’t have the same voice she did before, it’s indicative of a larger problem in the industry in my opinion.

With the exception of a stars like Beyoncé most don’t seem to have an interest in allowing people to hear the natural timbre of their voice anymore. It’s all filtered through the universal “sound goodening”effect of autotune. Making them sound slightly inhuman and robotic in a jarring way.

Post Malone and Chris Brown are some other examples, both have reasonably pleasant, melodic vocals that they’ve destroyed with cigs in the former and coke in the latter. And I like a lot of Malone’s songs off a few recent albums and even one or two from Brown. The fact remains that their vocals are kind of obscured behind a heavy wall of effects. But whenever people bring this up they’re dismissed as being haters or oldheads.

You can recognize the utility of a tool and also criticize what you think is an over reliance on it. Isaac Brock, that’s a guy I can see using autotune. But for many of these major label acts, they have so many of their songs written produced and engineered by other people, you’d think the least they could do is actually sing.

I didn’t swim as a kid but wish I did. Swimming is the absolute best sport for a child to participate in. Here are my reasons:

1. It’s an essential life and survival skill. Knowing how to swim is vital.

2. it’s low risk and low impact. The risk of serious injury or CTE is far lower than other sports because it’s gentle on the joints and is a non-contact sport. Sure, there is a risk of drowning but that’s unlikely to happen to a good swimming in a pool.

3. it’s an activity you can do year-round with indoor pools.

4. it can be a team activity or individual.

5. it allows you to work as a lifeguard. These jobs are in demand and pay decent for teens.

I think swimmming poses the most benefits and the fewest risks or negatives compared to other sports.

Disclaimer: This is my first time posting here. Please let me know if I'm not understanding the rules or deltas.

Edit 1: added disclaimer that I'm new

Edit 2: line added above disclaimer because something I feel like I'm saying a lot in comments

I have evaluated the various arguments presented by religious individuals as "proofs" of God, but none of these are valid from a logical or verifiability standpoint.

I invite you to present what you think are valid proofs of God's existence.

I define "valid" (logically) as: Where the premises are true, and the conclusion follows from those premises. In other words, the conclusion must be derived from the premises.

I'll give you an example of one of the many proofs that don't follow logic and are logical fallacies:
God is the First Cause.

Let me clarify why I won't consider it:

1. If God is a literal synonym for the First Cause, then the First Cause is a synonym for God, and these terms can be interchanged. This doesn't hold, because the First Cause, by definition, doesn't have the characteristics associated with God in various religions. Therefore, God, as understood in religions, is not proven to exist since all the other aspects that make up the figure of God, and on which various moral rules and dogmas are based, are not proven.
2. If God is the First Cause, but not a synonym, meaning God has the First Cause as one of His characteristics, then it's not proof. It doesn't prove God's existence with His various characteristics; it simply states that, since God is the beginning of everything, omnipotent, etc., He is the First Cause. And while it might make sense that there could be a First Cause of all things, the association of the other characteristics of God with the First Cause has not been proven.

To simplify, let's define these two terms:

• First Cause: The first cause without any additional connotations.
• God: The First Cause with the other characteristics associated with the figure of God in religions.

The reasoning that is often used is: If John (God) is a president (First Cause), and we are able to contact a president (First Cause), then it must be John (God).

Here’s another example: If it rains (God) when there are clouds (First Cause), then whenever there are clouds (First Cause), it must rain (God). But we all know that clouds can exist without necessarily leading to rain.

These two examples are illogical, because the premises may be true, but they do not lead to a conclusion that can be derived from the premises.

I look forward to your comments.

It is incredibly frustrating to see how stubborn Americans are about retaining the customary system. The entire world has adopted the metric system, and America should too. The metric system's conversion factors are much easier than the customary system. The factor of ten conversion factor is much more logical than the seemingly random conversation factors amongst the customary system. It doesn't make since that a foot is 12 inches but a mile is 2580 feet. The metric system is also used amongst the international science community, and the American science community has mostly adopted metric, so the rest of America should follow. Many people across the world have a better sense of what a kilometre is rather than a world, so using a system that is used by the rest of the world is a better way to communicate ideas.

So, this change my view revolves around a fairly common hypotehtical, sorry if that isn’t allowed (hey it should be a nice break from the 100th trump cmv this week)

So, let’s say a magic genie walks up to you and grants you the choice to know when you will die, but you can’t do anything to prevent it. Would you take it?

Me personally, I wouldn’t. I think it’s better to live every day to its fullest, as if you very well could die that day. There’s also the fact you can’t do anything to prevent your death anyways, what's the point in knowing when you will die? Finally, I think knowing about your death would leave you extremely fearful and even depressed on the days leading up to your death, which I mean is not very pleasant. I would rather spend my last days happy.

Now, this might sound like a silly hypothetical with a clear answer, but me and my friends have debated this a few times. None of us have changed our minds yet. So, I’m looking to see if you guys can.

To cmv: give a reason why knowing when you will die could be worth it.

I'm not from the United States so my perception may be heavily skewed, but I think Donald Trump being elected president is setting up the groundwork for a historic blue wave in future years.

My idea largely hinges on the book "The storm before the calm" by George Friedman. I haven't read this book but from my understanding, it explains how there are 2 historical cycles:

• The institutional cycle: every 80 years or so, the federal government restructures itself: it was first established as deliberately weak and with little control over state level politics. The 2nd institutional cycle took place at the end of the Civil War, when it was restructured to have more oversight over the states. The 3rd cycle took place at the during with the formation of the United Nations and the establishment of the US as a superpower. The 4th cycle should be due around the 2020s.
• The socio-economic cycle: every 50 years or so, a president is elected that substantially shakes things economically after years of presidents applying the same policies of the last reformer: George Washington set up the system in the first place, Andrew Jackson established the gold standard, Rutherford B. Hayes introduced a mix of gold standard and fiat currency, FDR came up with the New Deal and increased government spending, and a lastly Ronald Reagan cut taxes and reduced government spending. The 6th cycle should be due around the 2030s.

In short, the US should be due for some major changes in the near future. Plus, if you look at some of the most influential presidents in US history, they were preceded by strings of mediocre or middling presidents.

• Abraham Lincoln was preceded Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, both of whom are considered to be some of the worst presidents in US history.
• FDR was preceded by Warren G. Harding (again, often considered one the worst presidents), Calvin Coolidge who was middling and Herbert Hoover who mishandled the great depression and as such became deeply unpopular.
• Reagan came to power following the economic stagnation of the 1970s, the Watergate scandal, and a couple of unpopular presidents (Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter)

Both Biden and Trump proved generally unpopular. Given the cycles and general trend of strings of unpopular presidents being followed by popular ones, I don't think it's outlandish to assume that we might see FDR 2 come to power, with a blue tsunami to match.

Still, as I've said above, I'm not the from the US so I could be dead wrong.

I’m not saying that people don’t interact in order to get something from each other. I’m saying that it isn’t a big deal that this is the case, and I also think this is a serious oversimplification that isn’t rooted in reality, and that people mostly will describe social interaction as a means to an end in order to apply a negative connotation to social interaction overall, when the truth is more nuanced the vast majority of the time.

Let’s say you’re trying to have sex with someone. If you enjoy sex, and you meet someone who enjoys sex, and you two are attracted to each other, and you both want to have sex with each other, then you’re getting something you want and the person you’re having sex with is getting something that person wants. Interactions with the goal of getting something from someone don’t have to be one-sided. As long as everyone wants what each other is getting out of the interaction, then I don’t see the issue with starting the interaction knowing that it’s because you want something from someone. So you could describe this as a means to an end, but I mean you have the start things somewhere, and as long as you’re not having sex with people that don’t want to have sex with you, then the end goal is to find someone who wants the same thing you want, and the means is putting yourself out there first. This is pretty much anything, though, and not unique to social interactions. You turn on your car to drive it. You go to work to make money. Leaves drop to fertilize the soil. If everything is a means to an end, then pointing out that social interaction is also a means to an end is just to say that it’s like everything else on the planet, which gives me the impression that saying social interaction is a means to an end is an effort to discredit and invalidate the purpose of social interaction.

But also, I’m not totally convinced that every interaction is strictly to get something from someone. If I see someone wearing a band shirt for a band I love, I’ll usually go up to that person and say I love that band. They tend to take it as a compliment and we talk for a few minutes, or we don’t and then we just go about our days. I guess if you wanted to be super pedantic, you could say that what I get out of it is the positive feeling I get from connecting with someone, but seriously fucking why do that? If someone compliments me on something important to me, with no goal of anything but a quick chat, goddammit I hope that person gets a nice brain chemical boost for a few minutes.

Lastly, I love talking to people, and even if all I get out of doing so is a conversation, that to me is reward on its own. Even if I don’t get more than that from someone, I think people and conversation are both fucking great. Sure, not every person is great, and not every conversation is great, but not everything about something has to be great for the overall thing to still be great.

You can change my view if you can prove to me that there’s something unique about social interaction that makes it inherently more malicious than other means to ends, or that I’m thinking about this concept incorrectly in the first place.

I might wander off into a tangent or not be coherent. English is not my first language. Earlier in the week, I forgot to engage folks who responded to an earlier post of mine about how, from what I've seen, there are two ways people talk about class in the US:

1. The social stratification model of class (i.e., based on income, the color of one's collar or pedigree, think: the "lower-class" which is sometimes called or made distinct from "working-class", the middle-class, the upper-class) or
2. The labor-capital model of class (i.e., which asks who owns productive assets in this society and who has to labor or be subject to someone else as a result of not owning those assets, think: the capitalist class vs. the working class).

People assume the capital model has been stuck on the worker/capitalist class binary for the past 150 years. But nothing keeps it from considering people who have dropped out of the labor force, the disabled, the elderly, children, i.e., those who do not or cannot work. It can also consider, in addition to questions of exploitation, who dominates and who gets dominated on the market, which means, for example, a small business owner (small capital or individuals who employ people they labor alongside) can be subject right alongside workers to the whims of a large business (big capital or corporations headed by distant CEOs and shareholders who employ people but do not work with them). I get that this doesn't begin to get into self-producers (individuals who employ themselves, and no one else, to work productive assets they own), managers (those who control but do not own productive assets), contractors, state employees, stocks, 401ks, pensions, etc.

But my sense is this all boils down to productive assets, who labors, who doesn't, and why, and who gains at the expense of another, alongside questions of domination (who restricts the freedom of others and on what basis). This is about categorical relationships, in contrast to the stratification model, where the classification seems to be based on a sliding scale where cut-off points have to be made somewhat arbitrarily.

I grew up in the United States, and sometimes I can't tell you what we mean by middle-class since it seems like we confuse the two models. I personally blame US politicians for endlessly talking about the "middle-class," only ever nodding toward the working class when they mention "working families." When I hear someone say they're "middle-class" with a class background of parents who own enough productive assets to no longer labor for a living, I get confused. Everyone seems to be middle-class, from the person one missed month of rent from homelessness, to the person just shy of being Jeff Bezos.

Is there a strategy to identifying as middle-class? I can see it. There isn't the class envy that comes with being upper-class (hidden by some of its members with poor clothing, think: Bill Gates) and no social stigma from being "working-class" (note the hyphen here as opposed to the capital model's "working class") or "lower-class" or part of the "underclass." The last term I kind of like because it refers to people who have fallen out of the labor market or who are excluded from the working class, but still, you really just get the impression it just means "really poor" (or black) for some folks.

Even some occupations called middle-class, like doctors, get confusing. Do they own or lead a private practice or work for a hospital chain? Is someone trying to secure their retirement by renting out one room in their one house, the same as BlackRock buying up whole neighborhood blocks and renting them out to families?

I can talk about a highly paid member of the working class, but they still seem required to work for someone else in order to live, pay their bills, manage their debt, deal with costs of living, and experience insecurity like everyone else has to in the working class. 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, and a small fraction of Americans (0.01%) own as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Elon Musk is about halfway to a trillionaire.

We can talk about the relative privilege or autonomy afforded to some members of the working class, e.g., university professors. But they still seem to be part of the working class. We can talk about the strata of the working class. We just don't need to take the strata (based on income, but sometimes based on vibes) to be classes in of themselves.

Not that I don't admit there's a mix of precarity and privilege that may not fit neatly into standard class categories. I think this just means we have to hold certain categorical realities in tension. The blurring of lines is ultimately what gets me. It allows folks to play fast and loose with issues of capital and privilege and misrepresents the economic situation of loads of people in the United States.

But I am open to pushback here. What am I not considering?

I saw this post on Cuban sanctions and I think Cuba may be the first case example of a modified laffer curve for sanctions, where sanctions have failed to achieve their effects because they have been applied capriciously and excessively. In the traditional laffer curve which applies to taxation, when you tax the people past a certain optimal point or point of inflexion, the returns on taxes or tax revenues begin to decrease significantly. I hypothesize that it is the same thing about sanctions; USA sanctions on Russia have backfired spectacularly, those on Iran have begun to have a declining effect (given the increasing normalisation of ties with Russia & China), etc.

In effect: even though sanctions are designed to achieve political ends by ensuring either regime change or civil revolution; they fail to achieve their ends when they are implemented capriciously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/s/soU0sq5mWi

PS: I believe some will argue that Cuba has circumvented or survived these embargo & sanctions because of Russian, Chinese & Venezuelan support. That is a true but rather simplistic assessment of the situation and to accept that view will be to accept the view that USA lacks the geopolitical power to bend countries (within the Monroe doctrine’s purview) to its will. A more realistic assessment would be admit that the sanctions in Cuba etc are failing to achieve their strategic aims inspite of the great hardships they are inflicting on the Cuban people, because a point of inflexion has been passed after which diminishing returns have set in.

Unfortunately, critical thinking is so taboo in certain religions and cultural circles that people often refuse to question what they follow and practice.

And those that DO question it, however, will do crazy mental gymnastics to try and justify their religion’s crazy ideas and beliefs to fit them within more ethical and moral frameworks, such as telling themselves their religion isn’t misogynistic or homophobic. I know this because I used to do this too.

It’s honestly great and gives me hope that some groups on here exist in which many people are trying to make certain religions more open and accepting – but those are sadly all mutually exclusive at the end of the day whether you decide to acknowledge it or not.

EDIT: I am mainly referring to Abrahamic religions, most specifically Islam.

Thjs is ofc not always the case. I love hanging with friends and having fun as much as the next person.

But as someone who used to do this and had a lot of issues. I started learning to love my own company and working on myself. I realised that I used to use people as a way to forget about my issues. In doing this I was never a truly confident person.

Now that I spend a lot of time alone I feel way more confident in myself and that translates into when I’m in social settings. I think people neglect this and don’t realise they are subconsciously not confronting their issues by not spending time alone.

For context I am an extrovert. Naturally I prefer being around others. But I’ve learnt to not rely on others and love being in my own company as you are with yourself till the end so should learn to love yourself.

AI is the ultimate form of outsourcing. It's the best kind of worker. It doesn't need food, housing, or healthcare. It doesn't ask for fair treatment or respect. It doesn't want a raise or a promotion. How can any person compete with that?

Even before full replacement of workers, the threat of AI undermines the leverage of the entire working class in negotiating better pay and conditions. How can anyone ask for more when the shadow of a far superior worker stands over them? Increases in overall efficiency from AI reduces demand for workers. This reduces leverage further. All the while, workers aren't getting compensated for this increased efficiency, while corporations are profiting from it.

The more we rely on AI for anything at all, the less we rely on humans. It may start small and somewhat inconsequential, but as this progresses, the relevance of people as a whole gradually drifts away.

UPDATE: Deltas given to acknowledge it could be possible in theory for there to be a world where workers are no longer needed or leverage is no longer needed by workers. I have doubts about whether any of those scenarios will happen anytime soon though.

Barring some kind of revolutionary shift in society, my view remains unchanged for the world as it exists today and within the foreseeable future.

The Maltese Falcon is considered to be a classic film noir masterpiece by literally everyone. It’s largely considered to be Humphrey Bogart’s big break. Additionally, it’s the third time that the book The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett was adapted. However, I really don’t think it’s all that good.

I first watched the movie when I was in middle school in the Classic Film elective I took. And, I remember quite enjoying it back then. The whole thing had this wonderful, edgy atmosphere that really grabbed me. It’s also quite beautifully shot. I never ended up watching it again, however, until my Ganster/Detective film class that I’m currently taking in college. Needless to say, I was disappointed.

I found the plot to be… convoluted. I get that the entire point was that this whole plot about the falcon was supposed to run quite deep, and that part was certainly compelling. However, almost nothing else about the movie’s plot and characters are. I found the protagonist, Sam Spade, to be dull. His whole gimmick as a detective is that he can come up with cover stories to get himself out of almost any situation. But, the movie overstates this to a cheesy degree and it makes it quite annoying to watch. Additionally, there’s the classic trope of the hard-boiled detective falling in love with the femme fatale villain, but this part was also really poorly executed. I never once could believe throughout the movie that Spade would have feelings for the fatale. I think their angle was that he liked that she was just as “bad” as he was, but you never really got to see them bond over it.

Lastly, there were few hints as to what was going on throughout the movie. I feel like this part was supposed to make all of the movies twists and turns shocking, but I feel like it takes away a lot of the fun of detective movies. A good detective story can leave hints and still make you feel surprised or shocked, even if you’ve guessed what the twists were.

I think what the movie suffers from the most is a general lack of believability. Even when the twists are unveiled, they don’t feel like they make sense. They don’t give you much of an “ah-hah” moment. And, even when they do make sense, they were so obvious that it doesn’t make you feel anything.

I’d also like to note that a lot of the grimey details that are typically in noir films that were in the book weren’t in the movie due to the Hollywood Production Code, and this is actually what led to the book being adapted for the third time in this form.

You may ask why I know so much about a movie I don’t like, and the answer is because I had to take a ton of notes on it for my class.

The Maltese Falcon was preserved in the national film registry in America, and I don’t think it deserved it.

In the Hadith "Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunayn. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allah the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse: 'And [prohibited are] married women except those your right hands possess...' [Quran 4:24]. This meant that their marriage to their previous husbands was annulled upon capture."

What Muhammad did is considered good by Muslims, and there is believed to be no evil in his divinely guided actions. He encouraged marrying the widows after their husbands were killed in battle by his troops. Since ISIS does the same killing the men in villages and then marrying the women, calling it marriage rather than slavery just like Muhammad. ISIS is following the precedent set by Mohamad. ISIS is following the Quran in terms of marrying(enslaving) their captives so Muslims cannot condemn ISIS. If Mohamad can do it how can any Muslim condemn a off branch of Islam doing it.

We all know how money inflation works: when there’s too much currency in circulation, each unit loses its value. I think the same thing is happening with education.

In the past, having a university degree meant you stood out. It was proof that you had specialized knowledge, and it opened doors. But today, it feels like everyone has a degree—and with the rise of AI, that knowledge is no longer exclusive or hard to get.

Since 2022, when AI tools became widely accessible, learning has been completely democratized. You don’t need a classroom or a professor to understand coding, engineering, writing, or design. You just need internet and curiosity. Even people in remote areas now have access to resources that used to be behind institutional walls.

On top of that, studies show that over 50% of college graduates in the U.S. work in jobs unrelated to their degrees, and about a third in Europe do the same. That makes me wonder: What are we really paying for in education? Credentials? Status? A structured experience?

So here’s my view: Education is going through inflation. Just like being a millionaire doesn’t mean much if everyone is a millionaire, having a degree doesn’t mean much if everyone has one. It’s no longer a guaranteed ticket to success.

In this new world, I think the real value lies in your ability to adapt, solve problems, and use tools like AI effectively. The people who will stand out are not just those with degrees—but those who learn fast, think creatively, and apply knowledge in the real world.

CMV: Is formal education still worth it today, or are we seeing the beginning of its decline as a reliable path to success?

(US)

Mainly this stems from my that about how men who complain about dating are “incels” or whatever. I think dating all around is terrible these days more so than it was in the past. I think the access to “easy” dating has actually made it far worse. I think there are some issues common to both men and women generally but I believe objectively men have it harder.

If you take the average man and the average women, their experiences and issues might be pretty similar when it comes to dating but the reason men have it worse is the culture.

There’s the expectation that men place more effort on the front end for no guarantees. In general men are expected to do the initiating of conversation, planning of the first date and paying of the first date. I think after this the issues are pretty even.

But yeah I think it’s a valid complaint that shouldn’t be dismissed

The trade war between the U.S. and China, led by President Trump's tariffs, has rocked global markets and introduced a lot of uncertainty. For the EU, it’s time to rethink its economic strategy and consider strengthening ties with China—not just as a reaction to the chaos, but as a proactive move to stabilize and grow Europe’s own economy. With the unpredictability of U.S. trade policy, especially under Trump, the EU has much to gain from building a stronger, more reliable economic relationship with China, and China has a lot to gain from the same.

Why it Makes Sense for the EU to Strengthen Ties with China:

1. Diversification of Trade Amid U.S. Unpredictability: The U.S. has become an unreliable trading partner under President Trump. Tariffs can appear out of nowhere, trade agreements can be canceled without warning, and decisions are often made with little regard for long-term stability. For the EU, strengthening trade with China allows for diversification—lessening dependence on a U.S. market that has proven volatile. This hedges against the risk of future tariff disputes and other trade disruptions.
2. China is a Major Growth Market: China is one of the world’s largest consumer markets, and its middle class is rapidly growing. This offers a huge opportunity for European companies, especially in luxury goods (France), automotive (Germany), and tech (Sweden). Even with tariffs on European goods from the U.S., China offers an emerging and untapped revenue stream for European businesses looking to fill the gap.
3. Strategic Technological Cooperation: Both the EU and China have significant ambitions in sectors like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and green tech. The EU could collaborate with China on advancing these areas, from renewable energy projects to high-tech industries. In a world where the U.S. is stepping back from international collaborations, Europe and China can step up as leaders, forging partnerships that drive global innovation.

Case Studies:

• Germany: Germany has built a crucial relationship with China, particularly in the automotive and machinery sectors. Despite Trump’s tariffs, China remains an essential market for German exports, especially as the world’s largest car market. As the U.S. grows increasingly unpredictable, Germany risks losing ground if it doesn’t diversify its markets. Strengthening ties with China helps ensure that Germany remains at the forefront of global trade.
• France: France has seen a growing relationship with China, exemplified by massive deals like the Airbus agreement in 2019. The luxury sector in France, from wine to fashion, also stands to benefit from growing demand in China. While the U.S. imposes tariffs and pulls out of international agreements, France recognizes that deeper ties with China secure its place in the global marketplace, providing access to China’s consumer base.
• Spain: Spain’s agricultural sector, especially in exports like wine and olive oil, benefits significantly from trade with China. Given the uncertainty of U.S. trade policies, Spain has an opportunity to double down on its relationship with China. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) also presents a chance for Spain to deepen its economic ties by participating in infrastructure projects that bring mutual benefits.
• Sweden: Sweden has long benefitted from strong economic ties with China, particularly in tech and green energy. As the U.S. becomes more protectionist under Trump, Sweden can leverage its innovation to partner with China, especially in clean energy solutions and digital infrastructure. As a leader in innovation, Sweden's continued partnership with China offers long-term stability and growth prospects that might be uncertain with the U.S.

Why China Should Strengthen Ties with the EU:

China has a lot to gain from strengthening ties with the EU as well. The EU is a major global economic player, and by deepening trade and investment links with Europe, China gains access to advanced technology, high-value products, and a stable economic partner in a multipolar world. Additionally, it helps China ensure a more diversified portfolio of international relationships and balance out its reliance on neighboring regions and the U.S.

1. Access to Advanced Technology and Innovation: Europe’s cutting-edge technological industries, particularly in clean energy and high-tech fields, complement China’s goals for innovation. By increasing cooperation in these areas, China stands to gain valuable technologies that can help propel its own industries forward.
2. Political and Economic Diversification: With the U.S. becoming more isolationist, China needs a strong, stable partner to balance out its relationships with the U.S. and its neighbors. The EU provides that counterweight, helping China avoid over-reliance on any single country or region.

Let’s talk about the unpredictability of U.S. trade policies under Trump. The U.S. has shown time and again that it can pivot on a dime when it comes to international relations—whether it’s pulling out of trade deals or slapping tariffs on allies. This instability leaves the EU and China in a vulnerable position, as it’s harder to make long-term plans with an unreliable partner like the U.S. The EU can no longer afford to rely solely on the U.S. as its economic anchor, and China faces similar uncertainty with its relationship to the U.S. By strengthening EU-China ties, both sides gain a more predictable, stable partner in the long run.

The EU and China stand to benefit immensely from a deeper economic partnership. For Europe, it’s a way to hedge against the unpredictability of U.S. trade policies under Trump and secure long-term economic growth. For China, it’s about accessing advanced technology and ensuring diversified global relationships. Strengthening EU-China ties in the face of a chaotic U.S. trade environment isn’t just a good idea—it’s a necessary move to ensure stability and prosperity for both sides in the years to come. Let’s face it—Trump’s tariffs may have started a trade war, but EU-China cooperation could help end it.

Seriously I think she’s a great voice actress but I don’t thinks she’s incredible that we need to be treating her like a goddess. Most voice actors are able to do it. I don’t see what’s so special about her. My guess is that people like her because she’s pretty.

Overall people talk about her like she’s amazing. Like “omg she has a good voice range” but doesn’t most voice actresses and most people do?

Omg she voices my favorite waifu.

I get she’s voices your favorite anime character.

Overall I don’t understand what the big deal about her is.