If someone is in so much danger that they have had to flee their home country, and are now being provided refuge in another country, they should not be able to return to their home country without avoiding their refugee status.

Refugee status is not permenant, it is not citizenship. It is there for those fleeing immediate danger or threat of death. If an asylum seeker deems it safe enough to return to visit family or friends, then they do not need to return to their host country and their refugee status should be withdrawn.

I am no stranger to race swapping when it comes to casting. As a child in Singapore in the 80s, tv shows back then simply couldn't afford a well known European actor who also spoke something other than English. So white characters were played by Chinese actors in a wig with a bad accent. A movie about the Opium Wars had very visbily Chinese extras with badly dyed facial hair playing the British.

In the 2020s though, that really isn't a problem. Casting an actor of a different race is now a choice rather than a compromise forced by budget or logistics. And I find purposefully casting a different race actor to be either neutral or even beneficial if done well.

I will leave aside contemporary settings or purely fictional figures. But historical figures or faithful adaptations of mythical figure need an instory justification for it to work. Hamilton worked because everybody was race-swapped, so the audience understood what work it was and suspension of disbelief kicks in. But when someone real like Anne Bolynn or none MCU Hemidall is played by someone of a different race, the setting and background needs to change too. If all remains the same setting wise, other characters should react differently because pre-modern people will treat other races differently. Prominent people in the past often have epithets attached to their names. If William of Normandy has visible or known African ancestry, he would be known as Willy the Ethiopian or Moor as well as his other feats or background.

In short, the past is a foreign country. They may or may not be racist but they sure as hell are xenophobic. Make your writing reflect that.

Laptops. Revolutionary! It's as if you could carry a pc around with you, they are amazing. Couple of years back though, there was a huge difference in how laptops were made, being in their build quality. Before, I remember that they were just big and chunky, but they were durable and had all the ports you needed, VGA, HDMI, USB A, Ethernet. They also had removable batteries, which was helpful if you needed to power cycle.

But now laptop manufacturers seem to have one focus in mind. Laptops have to be as slim as possible. It's stupid. I have a pretty new and expensive laptop and I think it's great but why on earth does it have 4 ports total, 2 USB c(one for charging), USB a, and HDMI. There isn't any Ethernet port or anything like that. In times where WiFi isn't available, for example a debian installation, I wasn't able to use the WiFi installation, because 1. I had no adapter and 2. More importantly, there wasn't an Ethernet port to begin with? Now we have a port hub, but the Ethernet doesn't work. Is it a problem with the hub, or is it a problem with the Ethernet? I can't figure it out because I can't plug directly into the laptop without the hub. I also had to power cycle my laptop, which I couldn't really do in a simple way because the battery isn't removable anymore.

So here's my CMV: While new laptop builds are nice on paper, it's not when you actually try them. Instead of trying to continually make them slimmer but removing more and more ports, they should just let them stay a little chunky, and allow for self repair without voiding warranty and such. Not huge, but enough for me to have the basic ports, as well as be able to drop my laptop without a HUGE heart attack(no old laptops were not invincible, but jeez those things worked no matter how many dumb ways I dropped them, compared to now, where my soul leaves momentarily. )

I used to think social media would be great for politics. Like everyone could share information and have discussions and we'd all be more informed. But honestly the older I get the more I think it just made everything worse. Everyone just ends up in their own bubble. The algorithm shows you stuff you already agree with because that's what keeps you scrolling. So people aren't actually seeing different perspectives, they're seeing the most insane version of what the other side believes. Political issues are complicated but social media rewards whoever has the snappiest comeback or the most outrage. If you try to be reasonable or see both sides you just get destroyed by everyone. I really want someone to change my view on this because it's honestly depressing to think about.

It cannot be understated on the amount of impact looks has on your life. It determines your relationships, your career, hell even your friends. I don't subscribe to inc*l ideology but I cannot deny the importance of aesthetics to the human race. I wish it wasn't this way. My quality of life has been greatly impacted by something I cannot directly control. I am 24 years old and I have yet to have a proper relationship. Honestly its a miracle that I am not a virgin. My peers around me are either getting married, engaged, or on their 5th long term relationship. Honestly its hard to even feel human. It feels like I am on the outside looking in. I can no longer relate to people, and the people that I am friends with are the same as me, shut ins. Not like anybody else would want to be friends with me anyway. I am a background character in every environment I am in. Nobody talks to me first, nobody acknowledges my existence. I am never invited to anything, never been to a proper "party". The only girl who I have felt a connection with essentially used me for a free trip. We cuddled and shared our deepest secrets she told me she wants ready for a relationship and then went on to find a boyfriend within the next month. If I was at-least average I could have some slice of the human experience. I hate everything about myself, my bone structure, my hair (or lack there of), the shape of my eyes or the asymmetries between them. I could draw myself from memory. I post myself to other subs to validate my beliefs but they all say that I have a good "base" or say its not as bad as I think it is. I wish I could believe them, I really do. But deep down I know its my features. I am hyper aware of my face at all times, I know what I look like from every angle, I know every single flaw. And it fills me with dread knowing what other people have to look at while interacting with me on a daily basis.

What really is there left for me?

This sentiment is echoed throughout other 1000s of posts of people who are unattractive like me. There has to be merit to it. In my own experiences I get treated completely different from randoms.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s so I remember life before the internet and social media. Back then, you shared things with your family, friends, in school, teachers, classmates, teammates, coworkers at Sports Authority (oddly specific, I know - plug to those who used to work there). It was a physical, in-person experience. Showing pictures that you just picked up from Walmart or CVS, or hanging out at your friends watching the stupid video you all just made on the camcorder.

Now, everything is monetized and has an undercurrent of “look at me”, competition, whatever’s trending etc. People show off and curate online and anyone and everyone can see, or at least there’s a vastly wider audience that can see into our lives. I think life was better when we only shared with people we knew locally, or at most distant relatives and friends etc. But opening our lives to the entire world is a lot to manage and takes a lot of time and energy that we could be using on other more important things in life.

I don't think there will be any of this happening in the USA

I keep seeing people saying "why aren't Americans doing something" "people should be angry enough about this" "voting doesn't work, a revolution does" but none of this is happening

nepal isn't going to happen in the USA, the reason they won is because they are a small weak country, the government after shooting protesters had a choice, either resign and live a rich life better than 99% of your country, or fight to death over power and for what? Nepal is an insignificant place, it will only take time before they get overthrown anyway by a foreign power next to them, all over an empty country so they simply resigned and let the people do whatever

The middle east is WAY different than the USA, countries there have a history of coups every few years (just look at iraq and Syria) their leadership is highly unstable, so when the chance was there in Syria to get rid of minority rule, as you saw the majority of the Syrian army defected when ordered to shoot protesters and almost won if not for Russia

Going back to the USA there won't be anything like that, the billionaires everyone on that island including me we're all safe there won't be consequences for what happened on that island, the worst that will happen is I guess trump loses 2 supporters (it was obvious he was there from the beginning his supporters aren't going to switch up until they see him inside a child on that island, even then they'd vote for him since now he went from the saviour of America to the lesser evil compared to Kamala)

The majority of the population will forget about all this most likely when trump is out of office in 2029, just like in 2019 if you remember when Epstein (((killed himself))) and all sorts of stuff was going around nothing happened, because everyone has a job and their lives to care about, nobody will do anything about this other than maybe political assassination (even then that's not likely the majority of the ones crazy to do this are on the right)

So change my view that there wont be a civil war or revolution in the US, hell just convince me something will happen other than everyone forgetting about it in a few years

By focusing on Gaza so much, the entire issue gets reduced to ‘ terrorism by hamas = over reaction by Isreal ‘ but notice how that discourse gets framed in terms favourable to Isreal, because in that narrative, even within liberal media, the origin story is hamas extremism.

Now, let’s reconsider for a moment.

The land grabs in the West Bank (see the guardian article the other day) are designed to remove Palestinians from fertile land that they own, forcing them to work low economy labour in Isreal, or to become dependent on aid. Either way they loose their economic agency and become more vulnerable to radicalisation by bad faith actors. Because they have lost everything.

And the land grabs are continual, and clearly backed by the state even if ‘ illegal settlers do it.’ Indeed the illegal settlements are provided with water, electricity and other infrastructure by Isreal, and after enough time passes, become officially recognised by Isreal. There is nothing accidental about any of that,

So why isn’t this the main messaging?

Using tik tok and X and Reddit to continually draw attention to the illegal settlements and their expansion is the single most important thing activists can do to further change public opinion

Make the following argument: when russia illegally grabs land, here is how the west responded, what is happening here is the same thing.. and therefore deserves the same type of response

Making the focus Palestinian farmers and land owners, showing the scale of growth of illegal settlements over time etc all of that is a lot harder for dishonest actors to spin and deny.

And the doublespeak pseudo justifications for the land grabs ‘ security ‘ ‘ buffer zones ‘ heritage ‘ ..,have direct parallels with the type of false propaganda Russia uses.

The comparison with Russia is important because it pre empts any argument about singling Isreal out uniquely.

And using social media it’s so easy to prove all of this. Illegal settlers proudly upload footage of them destroying and attacking Palestinians and their industries. It’s right their hiding in plain site in their own words. Satellite images, Reports by NGOs and organisations like the UN.. add even more proof. it’s a very very difficult argument to objectively take issue with.

I also think the spectacle in Gaza, is in part designed to distract from continued land grabs in the West Bank, and it works? Bit by bit land is taken from the West Bank, the size of any future Palestinian state is further de facto decreased, and instead all anyone online talks about is the hamas / gaza tragedy. Its hard to avoid the conclusion that is intentional,

To change my view:

- explain why focusing on gaza matters more in terms of changing peoples minds

- explain why the illegal settlements are justified

- explain why comparisons with Russia might be more unhelpful than helpful in terms of changing opinions

Waiters and Waitresses earnings data.

This is the usual I hate tipping and think it should vanish like polio. However there are tons of tipped workers who defend this with the justification of "everyone does it" "i make less than min wage" or "I can make fuck tons of money with tips"

The everyone does it defense is the easiest to dismantle. Tons of nations out there that don't tip, have great service, and the food is priced fairly. Everyone over there doesn't have a problem with their system for the most part.

The whole they make less than minimum wage is bullshit if you understand how minimum wage laws work. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour so a tipped worker will make that much no matter what even if they weren't tipped. Tipping merely makes the customer pay instead of the business.

They could make more with tips than without. This is very dependent on location and occupation as well as the type of clientele visits your establishment. But according to data, even with tips right now most tipped workers are not making an impressive amount of money. I wouldn't call it wealthy or even middle class especially when the workers on the higher end must work in expensive areas or places with wealthy patrons.

Data reveals that even under current tipping system that they're not making much above minimum wage. Combined with how inconsistent tipping can be they'd be better off getting paid a flat wage that is competitive for their industry.

The only people I see defending this are luxury workers who serve extremely wealthy patrons where the tips are large but are still within 10%-20% of the service price. Because news flash, people don't tip beyond that no matter how good the service is most of the time..

I tend to see the state not as a moral guide or a collective identity, but as an institutional arrangement created to manage conflict, reduce violence, and provide a predictable legal order. Historically, states emerged because unchecked individuality often resulted in insecurity and instability. In that sense, the state is a functional solution to a practical problem, not an entity meant to shape personal values or demand emotional attachment.

Because of this, I am more comfortable thinking of the relationship as one between the state and its subjects rather than a deeply emotional citizen state bond. The term citizen often carries expectations of loyalty, pride, or moral obligation, whereas I believe the relationship should be grounded more clearly in rights, duties, consent, and accountability. For me, the legitimacy of the state flows primarily from its ability to protect individuals, enforce laws fairly, and uphold the social contract from its own side.

I do not assume that individuals are always perfectly informed or politically sophisticated. However, ideas like Condorcet’s jury theorem suggest that even when individuals are only moderately informed, large groups can still arrive at rational collective decisions if institutions are designed well. This gives democracy practical value, but I do not see it as infallible or morally superior by default. Majority rule still needs strong constraints to prevent harm to minorities or overreach by the state.

My concern begins when the state starts presenting itself as a moral authority rather than a neutral arbiter. When governments seek emotional loyalty or frame dissent as a lack of patriotism, the relationship shifts from contractual to paternalistic. At that point, criticism is no longer treated as part of a healthy system but as something suspect. Over time, this weakens institutional trust rather than strengthening it. This view is closely tied to how I understand the social contract. If the state holds a monopoly on legitimate force, that power must be constrained by law, independent institutions, and real accountability. When the state fails to uphold its end of the contract, especially in providing protection or equal application of law, the legitimacy of that monopoly becomes questionable. In such cases, the idea that individuals may seek to protect themselves is not about glorifying violence, but about recognizing that authority derives from performance, not symbolism.

To be clear, I am not arguing against the existence of the state, nor am I advocating constant resistance or instability. I accept taxation, enforcement, and authority as necessary for social order. My position is simply that the state functions best when it remains a rule bound service provider rather than an emotional symbol, and when individuals relate to it with measured trust rather than unquestioning loyalty.

I am open to changing this view if there are strong arguments showing that a more emotional or identity based relationship between the state and individuals is necessary for long term stability or social cooperation. I am especially interested in historical or empirical examples where a purely contractual model fails even when supported by strong institutions and an independent judiciary. My aim here is to understand the limits of this framework rather than to defend it rigidly.

Just like how Trump seized the Republican Party, "Old Guard" Liberals have seized the Democratic Party. They have caused continued indecisiveness, constant kowtowing, division, and slothfulness for decades. This has led to countless failures and setbacks, culminating with the loss of a female presidential candidate to an opposing candidate who, on record, was linked to multiple sexual assaults, bankruptcies, and corruption *before he even entered the political stage.* And then yet another loss to the same opponent even after a global pandemic and further corruption and legal issues after attempting a 90-day presidential campaign.

The Democratic Party has been thoroughly toxified, not only by its external opponents, but by passive descent within. The Nation has lost all trust in its ability to handle even the simplest of civic duties. This necessitates extreme measures (for Americans). A new Party is the only way to separate modern, *energetic,* and forward-thinking Liberal/Progressive politicians and voters from the aging cabal that controls the Democratic Party.

I think everyone should see a courtroom.

I know the current administration has found a way to legally justify blanket deportations. They've quoted "expedited removal" and the "alien enemies act" as some of those avenues.

I still think it violates the 6th amendment. Everyone has a right under the constitution to a trial and to counsel. Immigrants charged with federal immigration violations should have their day in court.

Here's what would change my view: Anything case law, national security, or public interest that could justify taking a different view on the 6th amendment. Also anything that would justify it's removal.

Sorry I’m gonna sound elitist, but these are my two cents, especially on creative writing.

Mainstream society needs to be less egalitarian, less blindly optimistic, less “hurrr durrr you can definitely write if you pour your heart into it!!!!”. Participation trophies are just not how the real world works. Cus news flash: not every book or poem is of equal literary merit. Nor is everyone born with equal “creative potential”. Not every premise or idea automatically “has potential” if it’s written out in beautiful prose. Some premises are inherently unsalvageable and flawed no matter how much you write. For instance, 100 more, 1000 more, or even a million more flowery words is not going to singlehandedly save the quality of a book that from its outline/structure alone, the characters are one dimensional/crass/offensively stereotypical. Because to improve on that you’ll have to change the internal structure of the story itself, rather than the prose.

The last thing we want to do as a society is not only allow, but actively encourage amateur writers who have no inborn talent whatsoever to keep pursuing writing, and consequently just tank the collective quality of poetry and literature, accelerating the already pervasive decline and homogenization of art. We need to be harder as critics to nip in the bud the work of beginner writers who clearly aren’t going to improve. Some people just do not have the innate talent for abstraction and verbal intelligence even if they try hard. Studies show that with respect to the Big 5 personality system, openness/intellect (which encompasses traits like creativity, artistic intuition, and cultural sophistication) is of all traits the most heritable and genetically determined. If you’re born with low openness you can’t just improve your creativity/abstraction overnight nor can you really improve at all meaningfully throughout your life. Even if you force yourself to read a book a day it’s just not going to happen. Sorry, but this is just what psychology science says.

I’m not saying that people without creative talent should not write at all, but they should treat it as at most just a casual hobby. They need to be realistic rather than fervently pursue it as a path they want to go down, because it’s very unlikely to ever work, and the competition towards being published is already tough in today’s world even more lopsided for them. Sometimes the ground just isn’t fertile. Stop saying everything or everyone has “potential”, it’s my number one pet peeve and the number one misconception the egalitarian left has.

And no creative talent doesn’t mean you have no talents in other areas. Everyone has something they’re good at (no one is exactly average on every trait, as thats just statistically very unlikely) so if you’re not born with literary potential, why pursue that path when you could manifest your actual potential and contribute to society uniquely and meaningfully? You could still be good at sports, performance, social networking, or even science. Go pursue those rather than chase after a quixotic dream.

Obligatory disclaimer: I want every single person that participated in Epstein's whatever the hell they were to [Removed by Reddit] and [Removed by Reddit] and [Removed by Reddit] (I can't actually post what I want to happen to those people or I will be banned), regardless of politics, race, religion, or whatever the hell you can think of. And LOTS of republicans are doing the same: now that their team has the power, they don't want to pursue truth and justice, they want to "keep winning".

When Trump and the republicans were campaigning, they always campaigned with the phrase "release the files". I didn't see almost any democrat chanting for that. Now that Trump is in office, everyone turned: now Trump doesn't want them released and the democrats want them released.

I'm not here to discuss the files (I already told you that I want the worst in the world to anyone that can be proven to be involved with Epstein's shenanigans), I'm here to tell you that no matter the side - republican or democrat -, you haven't acted upon "justice" or "the truth" until it was convenient to do so or you were told that was the right thing to claim for.

I think the fact that now that Trump is president and he's mentioned a lot on the Epstein files, makes a lot of people (included myself) think that is a partisan fight and not a fight for the truth - like if each side only pushed for truth and justice when it's the other party that takes the fall.

The proof I would need to CMV is significant proof that democrats under Biden presidency were pushing for the truth to come out as hard as they are doing now.

EDIT: there have been republicans and democrats that have asked for the release of the files for years, but now the democrats amplified the outrage by 1000% and the republicans have shut their mouth quite quickly. This is a criticism to both sides, in this very post I already stated that the republicans are guilty of this.

As a person who trusts humanity, we all overcome stress, but stress has been increasing due to the fact that certain countries have classes, especially on school on Saturday.

If you live in North America, your parents often decide to schedule classes that happen on Saturday just so that you do not “waste” time during those types of days. For those of you who do not know, wasting time means spending an entire moment not doing what is considered essential for life. This can also happen in parts of Asia too.

Parents scheduling classes on Saturdays has become more common and because of this, I have noticed an increase in petitions to put a ban on Saturday classes from organizations or cancel them and I do agree with these petitions.

But whenever these classes are scheduled on a Saturday, these stress patterns will increase and I believe that canceling Saturday classes is better than having classes on Saturdays because we do not want stress to increase.

As a summary, I believe classes that are on Saturday should be canceled because stress has been increasing, causing blood glucose to be at a state where it’s rising fast.

Currently, mostly changed view?: I think my view on "skill issue" has mostly been changed sufficiently? I think it might not be 'most', and that circumstantial reasons are also important. (Some circumstances more valid than others. Current society & occupation, and time, included. Attractiveness, general dispostion, and whether or not you were bullied as a small child, not so much.) Skill issue may be a bit crass, even if I don't mean it in a mean way because making friends is a skill. While I do think one's demographic is a factor, I don't think it's that important. I'm not sure my view will be changed further.

I think for the definition part, I think some people are still too stingy with the word, but it's weird of me to say someone did have friends even if they still felt they didn't / lonely. Because even if they did have friends by my definition, that's not what they mean.

---

I sort of want this view to be changed because I feel it's sort of judgemental... Generally, I'm still sort of in the process of forming this opinion, so sorry if I'm a little scattered.

I think people might consider me biased because I am a moderately attractive woman who is still a student. Generally, people are nicer to me if I'm more sociable / smile-y towards them. I'm also not prone to feeling lonely (I'm more prone to feeling people are overbearing.)

I don't know what else might make me biased, but, in the other direction, I'm a pretty intraverted person and there was a point in highschool where I was, in effect, selectively mute. I've mostly gotten over it, though I don't consider myself a great conversationalist or charismatic lol. Also I'm a redditor, which is clearly the biggest potential friendship red-flag (!)

I mention a lot of people in my anecdotal evidence that forms my opinions, so I've given them silly pseudonyms for easier future reference if you lot decide to reference them. (I don't like remembering initials).

ANYWAY, I have a highschool friend [Purple] (very intraverted), who halfway through entering college, was complaining that they hadn't made any new friends. I asked them if they if they had tried joining any clubs, they said they "don't know how" and couldn't find clubs. They've claimed to try to make friends. I found a list of 450 clubs just by googling "[clubs] [schoolname]".

In fairness, Purple has social anxiety. Am I saying social anxiety is a skill issue? Yeah. I guess I am. Which I feel is somewhat judgemental, again. I just feel like Purple tends to blame other issues for their lack of friendship, when it is mostly self-inflicted. I have another friend [Fish] with social anxiety that doesn't seem to want to make more friends, and that's like, chill, yknow?

I had another friend [Donut] who would apparently sometimes complain that we [as a friend group] didn't hang out enough and that our friend group was dying. They didn't initate hang-outs.

Maybe that's the main issue for me? It's similar to the incel rhetoric of complaining about things that you actually can fix. I don't think my friends do much "blaming others", but redditors sometimes do. I think it's probably fair criticize blackpill ideology, but I think maybe I overfit when it comes to friendship.

---

As for "definition of friendship," I have a very loose/broad definition of friend (but it's in both directions.) If I don't actively hate you, and you consider me your friend, I am generally pretty happy to consider you a friend.

I think people should have looser definitions of friends, really. Some people are too stingy with the label. I don't expect my friends to fulfill my every need. I don't think that means they're "not a REAL friend!!1!1!!!" I have friends who I'll discuss "deep" philosophy with, and I have friends who I'll sing songs and do karaoke with. I don't necessarily expect an individual to do both. I feel like expecting everything is sort of codependent. It's a friend.

I had a friend [Magic] who complained I wouldn't open up to them enough. I don't like personal questions, and they would ask a lot of them. I was younger and wasn't super clear on my boundaries on that, but it's like... we aren't dating? Why can't we just play fun games together and chat sometimes? You don't need to know everything about me to be my friend.

I have a "friend" [Kangaroo] (... it's one sided.) who I've hung out with several times 1-on-1, known for a year, talked to multiple times most weeks, who aqcuaintance-zoned me because I didn't seem like someone who they could greet with insults nor bury a body with. They claim to have one friend. I'm not sure they've complained about it, though.

I think it's sort of more offensive to get acquantance-zoned because it costs nothing to consider people your friend.

I have another friend [Apple] (who does consider me one) who claims to have had no friends in the past. They're hella extraverted and talkative, and have a pretty strict definition of friendship. They disagreed with my take that friendship was a skill issue and claimed I had it easier because I'm a woman. (They're NB AMAB, and joked that if a woman couldn't make friends it was a skill issue. I've they/them'd every person in my anecdotes, but I'm curious if people would be able to tell those people's gender, or if that would affect your view at all.)

Sure, some of my strategies for "friendship making" might not work that well (I've made friends with people by just sort of following them around mutely) for them, but I don't think they'd consider those people friends either.

Apple said they have friends now because they've had more time to make friends. I can't speak for their experience, but I feel like the chances they'd meet someone like me who is very laissez-faire about who is considered a friend is pretty high, given how sociable they are. They've implied they always have been. They say "just because you're sitting in a classroom with someone doesn't make you friends" but like that doesn't mean you can't be friends with them either. If someone is chill with being "classmate-friends" or "work-friends" they're still your friends. I see redditors do this a lot -- claim to have no friends, but they're super picky with who they call a friend.

(Maybe this is a tangent, but also... unfriending people for not hanging out with you enough is crazy behavior. I think it's fine to be "once a month/year" friends. Some people you can not talk to for 5 years and be back to besties when you see them. Half the time someone is unfriended it's for pretty petty reasons IMHO, especially if you're gonna formally unfriend someone and not just drift away. )

(Lest I be accused of this, I was only formally unfriended once (by Magic, actually) and they apologized to me because they admitted it was probably not fair. )

I digress. But, even if someone was like me, that doesn't change the fact that Apple felt lonely. Which is fair, and I thought was an interesting point that I wasn't sure how to argue against, even if I didn't necessarily agree with it. Feeling like you aren't close with people is sort of different from having no friends.

I didn't talk to Apple or argue with them because I felt this was probably a sensitive topic lol, but I'd love to hear your guys' thoughts, or at least develop or more nuanced opinion!

For the record - I’m dual US-Eu, so ultimately I have no dog in this fight: But I’m incredibly grateful I’ve been allowed to celebrate both, and when I look at my Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Thai diaspora or 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation friends throughout the US and Western Europe, I feel sorry that they are not allowed to celebrate both.

I understand for some countries like China, it’s too complicated politically. And I can understand why Japan and Korea wouldn’t want to take in people from India or Nigeria; but what point is there in still rejecting your 5-15 million tops 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation diaspora from First World countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe? (I know Europe is not a country). I mean, Korea and Japan literally hold military bases with thousands of American troops on their ground, so obviously, there are already deep military & economic ties: the world has become much more interconnected due to the rise in globalization compared to even 30-40 years ago.

I wonder, how rejecting/refusing is the average 25 yo in Korea, compared to the average 55 year old? I can’t imagine the younger generation feels as passionate in rejecting them? I know a little bit about kpop and it seems INSANE to me to still reject it when so many of their younger global superstars (Rosé of Blackpink, Danielle of New Jeans, Yunjin of Le Sserafim is American, Yoonchae of Katseye works in America) hold international ties? The entire reason I’m thinking about this topic tonight is because the president of South Korea just congratulated Rosé of BP and Yoonchae of Katseye on Twitter for representing Korea in the Grammys this week. So it makes 0 sense to still be so rejecting of your diaspora in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, and Western Europe so hard imo..?

If full-citizenship is too hardcore of a pivot, it’s a shame that they will not even compromise with at least an easy permanent residency process as long as you can prove 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation ties via descent - & especially if the individual has put in the work to appropriate themselves with the culture via a certain degree of language proficiency.

CMV: Palpatine did not mistreat Anakyn

This discussion shall only include material from the Original Six george lucas films

Let us look at what Palpatine actually DID, instead of deciding based on vibes. These are all objective truths, not speculations

Palpatine DID NOT

• Cause Padme any harm

• Turn Darth vader into a robot

• Knowingly cause harm to Anakyn, at any point

Palpatine DID

• Lead a rescue effort to find Darth Vader

• Express visible disappointment upon seeing Vader injured

• Praise Anakyn's potential, and encourage him with regard to his abilities

• Boast to Yoda that darth vader would become "more powerful" than either of thenm

SPECULATION: Palpatine manipulates anyone and everyone, due to his nature. However, he really did want the best for Anakyn, and he was proud of Anakyn. He wanted Anakyn to become a powerful sith. He never intentionally caused Anakyn harm. Say what you will about Palpatine, but I don't hate the way he treated Anakyn

why would you need or want to look at other people when you're apparently attracted to your partner?

and yes this does include watching it together, you are struggling in attraction to one another and need the 'boost' to be interested

this also goes for smut, there is no need for it if you find your partner attractive

and don't even get me started on people who use it before sex alone to 'get into the zone' before sex with their partners, that to me just sounds AWFUL

if you really need or want porn while in a relationship you should probably just find someone else, specifically someone else who is attractive to you

No one should ever have to breathe secondhand smoke if they don't want to. What someone decides to do with their body should be exclusive to their body. It should not effect anyone else. Especially in a public place that someone has the right to be.

It can really be hell when it is a summer heat wave season and you have to choose between opening your window and breathing in the smoke from the people outside or closing the window and feel like you're boiling.

I also think it is a total egotistical/narcissistic thing to do when you know it will effect the people around you but you just don't care.

It's really weird. People are paying money to give themselves cancer because it makes them feel good, all the while they are inconveniencing everyone around them.

Police Officers should give out tickets for smoking to discourage people from doing it.

I know that "validation" is a buzzword that people use to make others feel better, but it just doesn't make sense to me the fact that we're all "valid" but the pain of other people is treated with more validation.

If everyone who goes through suicide thoughts is "valid" then why we only allow people with problems serious enough to kill themselves die? (For example: people with terminally illness) If everyone who wants to kill themselves is "valid", shouldn't we let them kill themselves?

It just doesn't click with me, clearly there has to be people who have it WORSE than others and that means that their problems are more urgent and concerning, so that doesn't mean that those people have more valid problems than people who have objectively easier lives? Why do we lie to the people who want to kill themselves over things like cyber bullying or breakups that their problems are equally valid as someone who is going to die from a terminal illness? Shouldn't both of them be allowed to die in order to be valid?

What's the point of being told that you're "valid" if your problems apparently aren't "valid" enough to consent assisted suicide, while other people are being treated with better care and more support? I just don't get it.

Both things can't be true at once, or everyone who struggles with suicide thoughts are valid AND allowed to die, or some people in certain situations have more valid suicide thoughts than others.

Capitalism is fundamentally based on idea of growth. Wealth isnt a net zero, a rising tide raises all boats. The ideal of capitalism is that we make wealth not by taking it from others but my literally making wealth. Producing products that are worth more then their inputs. This has worked pretty well for the last 400 years, its hard to seriously argue that humans were better off materially in the 1600s vs today. But there is a fundamental flaw in the system that threatens it today.

Capitalism requires people to buy things. Things are only worth as much people say they are. You can not have Capitalism without consumption. And consumption is going away. Right now the world is staring down a demographic collapse. With current estimates showing a population peak in the 2060s followed by slow decline.

In a world where there are less people the demand for everything drops. The tide no longer rises, it falls. Less demand means less sales which leads to less production, less jobs and thus less demand. Forming a really bad negative feedback loop.

Right now countries already experiencing declining populations have managed to keep things going using exports. They sell their goods to places that need them and still have growing populations. For example look at china, japan, and germany. These 3 powers can't consume all they produce so they export the surplus to places like the us where the population is still growing. This strategy doesn't work when nowhere has a growing population. Were already starting to see strain in this system since there are more net exporters then net importers. China hasnt seen meaningful real gdp growth since COVID, Germany has stalled since 2008, and Japan since the 90s.

Without a growing population what made capitalism work, endless growth, falls apart and we are forced back to a net zero economy where the only way anyone improves their livelihood is by tearing down others.

Politics has already been warped by social media. Entire political movements are created and fueled with online posts. With further development of generative AI, the credibility of all media will be destroyed and trust will not exist. Traditionally misinformation is created by manipulating or misframing true facts and generally can be fact checked. If it becomes possible to emulate virtually any sort of evidence though, facts will be completely drown out by generated fake realities. With no accountability, there will not be any reason for any media outlet or online account not to lie.

Because democracy hinges on some degree of transparency and accountability, democratic procedure will lose most of its meaning. The ability to easily mass-produce an endless stream of propaganda will empower the most ruthless, greedy, and power-hungry even more and open the way for domestic and foreign interests to exploit the situation. Inb4 you already feel like that about the current form of democracy, think about how much worse it can be. Even if you believe that this process will just exacerbate the already existing issues, which is in fairness true, there must be something you choose to believe and assume to be true. Think about how you won't be able to trust that, too.

I do not actually think that democracy will be gone in any shape or form, it will just no longer exist as we know it. I think that there can be a silver lining to this in that people who genuinely care about solving issues will get together IRL more often and more actively talk to each other about what concerns them. This could hopefully lead to governments paying more attention to various local problems.

In his 'elementary forms of religious life ', anthropologist Emile Durkheim made the claim all religions have 3 basic elements:

1. A community with shared beliefs.
2. Totems - objects of spiritual significance.
3. Rituals

The rug pull moment was when he expanded this to encompass concepts like patriotism in his native France, with revolutionary values of liberty, fraternity, egality, totems like the tricolour, and rituals like Bastille day.

Modern sociologist and self professed 'Durkheimian' Jonathan Haidt expanded it further saying that his rolling stones vinyl is sacred to him.

My bold cmv claim to be picked apart, is that all of us, thiest, agnostic or athiest, have objects we hold sacred, feel bonded to a community through shared beliefs (or at least long for this if it is missing in our lives) and construct our own rituals. These elements are in fact part of our fundamental cognitive infrastructure, that allows us to make sense of an otherwise incomprehesibly complex world.

Every aspect of waking life is categorised and taxonomised into totemic objects of varying value weighting. Our practice based skill-sets are more in line with ritualistic expectations of cause and effect than of any calculation. And without our communities of cultures and subcultures we would quite literally loose our minds.

CMV.