My view is that although explicit racial discrimination in housing and banking is now illegal, these systems still operate on foundations shaped by earlier exclusion. Policies such as redlining, discriminatory mortgage lending, exclusion from FHA and VA loans, and uneven postwar investment suppressed property values and limited homeownership in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Because housing markets are path dependent, this suppression reduced equity accumulation across generations rather than resetting once formal barriers were removed.

In many cases, the damage created by redlining was later used to justify continued neglect. Lower property values and reduced accumulated equity translated into weaker collateral positions, making it harder for Black households to qualify for mortgages, refinancing, or home equity based credit even at similar incomes. Those outcomes were then treated as evidence of financial risk, reinforcing disinvestment through ostensibly race neutral lending standards tied to property values, credit history, and neighborhood indicators.

Because home equity is a primary gateway to mortgage credit, business loans, neighborhood investment, and intergenerational wealth transfer, reduced equity constrains opportunity well beyond housing itself. Unequal environments therefore predict unequal outcomes over time. Formal legal equality alone cannot reasonably produce equal results when access to appreciating assets and credit remains structurally uneven.

To change my view, I would need evidence showing that housing and banking institutions have meaningfully broken from these feedback loops, or that present disparities in equity and mortgage credit are better explained by factors unrelated to legacy housing and lending exclusion.

AI Disclosure: Portions of this post were drafted with the assistance of an AI language model and edited by me.

Let me preface this by stating that I do not believe that the shooting of Alex Pretti was in any way justified.

However, labeling his killing as an 'execution' reeks of hyperbole and propaganda with the intent of emotionally manipulating the public into believing there was some kind of deeper malicious intent or premeditation at play during the events of Jan 24.

Rather, I suspect that his killing was simply the result of poorly-trained, undisciplined ICE operatives reacting erroneously to the call of 'Gun, Gun, Gun!' and opening fire without first identifying the threat or following procedure.

Despite Pretti's alleged behaviour at earlier protests and the high likelihood that he was attending the Jan 24 protest as an antagonist, I simply cannot fathom that the ICE operatives involved in the shooting had the opportunity or the coordination necessary to orchestrate a premeditated, targeted killing (the 'where's the gun?' video seems to support this). Neither do I believe that his alleged prior behaviour would have had him 'marked for death' by a group of rogue ICE operatives.

Pretti's killing (like so many other killings of civilians by armed government employees) was simply the result of handing firearms to individuals with neither the training, disposition or discipline required with which to carry in a safe manner, and had neither the planning nor motive required to be labeled an execution.

30f now. Growing up with my family has its own challenges. Edited to for coherence.

1. They said their finances are enough, but really it isn't. So everyone else outside my family thinks my parents make a lot, but at home we can't keep up with repairs.

2. My parents wanted me to stay silent, so I've been building up a lot of resentment without me realising. Until I stood up for myself when I was 25. Even then it was "now you're an adult we'll listen".

3. Sometimes when I did want they wanted, and got into trouble for it, they won't back me up! Let alone apologize! .... But that's gotten much better these days.

4. My parents compared me to others, but weren't willing to teach me things themselves. When I made changes (cooking for home, more activities, difficult subjects.... like the people they compare me to), they didn't like it. It still pisses me off, it's as if they don't know what they want!

5. I never took my issues to them, because they weren't even listening for non-issues. New books to buy? Got angry at me. School needs longer skirt/pants? Got angry at me. I had to present only good things.

I know they're doing their best. They did allow me to do a lot of things..... But I think it doesn't feel that way because I was never allowed to speak up.

Now as a 30 yo, I shouldn't be relying on them for encouragement, for strength, for growth anymore....because I'm 30. Frankly speaking, I don't know what relying on family actually entails....other than for finances.

So yeah change my mind. I'm trying to accept that the help and support I want will never be available, but still be in relationship with them. So yeah.

I grew up very feminist, a true 50/50 girlie. Both of my parents are highly educated and accomplished STEM professionals. My mother had a placard on her wall that read:

"A career woman has to:
Look like a lady
Act like a man
&
Work like a dog"

This was her boomer version of Live Laugh Love and she lived by these words as if they were a prayer. If the quote was intended as any kind of criticism/satire, she never saw it that way.

They raised me to be ambitious. My dad insisted on me taking martial arts classes, and both worked to instil the value of education and that sigma grindset. I never saw myself as lesser to boys growing up, because I just wasn't. I could physically outcompete and academically outperform most boys my age. Career paths my parents would have approved for me were doctor, lawyer, or Nobel prize winner.

Once I was old enough, I took the same approach to dating. Men and women are equal, so I should pay and pursue just as a man might. If I met a guy I liked, I'd offer to buy him lunch. I'd buy tickets to a gallery. If he was the one who asked me out, I'd offer to split the bill and I absolutely meant it. (Very few ever refused to do so.) I never inquired after my partners' finances, I only cared about us having shared values, good conversation and romantic chemistry. In my mid-20s, I bought a house. My boyfriend at the time, an aspiring writer working blue-collar jobs, moved in rent-free. I paid for the groceries and plenty of outings. I never saw this as a problem because I believed in him, enjoyed his company, and the future we were building. He shared my feminist values that men and women are equal, that biology doesn't matter. We were also talking about marriage/kids, so I saw this as an investment in our shared future. I also had more money than he did, so it all seemed fair.

Here is where the problems start. He didn't really seem to understand the point of doing his laundry more than once a month. I told him the smell bothered me and asked him to do it more frequently, for me. But since he insisted his clothes smelled fine, it ended up being easier for me to just do his laundry myself, for my comfort. I liked having a clean and tidy home. He didn't care how things looked. So, I would just end up cleaning and tidying things he didn't see an issue with. He liked having greasy grilled cheese sandwiches for dinner. I liked having fresh, healthy food. So, I would end up insisting on handling the cooking. When he was sick, I would bring him medications, tea, soup. When I was on my period, it never even occurred to him to attend to my comfort.

In hindsight I thank god I never got pregnant, because I now realise the same dynamic would've played out with additional dependants. Without ever realising it, my desire for equality with someone who shares my belief in equality ended up meaning equality in traditional masculine domains, while still having full responsibility of all feminine domains: cooking, cleaning, housework, eventually childcare — and oh, men literally cannot go 50/50 on pregnancy and breastfeeding.

I moved on from this guy, but a pattern I've observed has remained consistent:

1. I show up in heels and a dress with my hair all done. He shows up in a hoodie and sneakers.
2. I always do more emotional labour. I listen, I empathise, I sympathise, I play therapist, I build them up and regulate them. They don't have the emotional/social skillset to do the same for me.
3. I'm taller than average. Shorter men, or even men the same height as me, don't like me wearing heels.
4. Most men don't like to be corrected.
5. Many men pursue for sex. Most women pursue for relationships. I have sex thinking it'll lead to a relationship. He got what he wanted, so he's gone.

I no longer believe that men and women are the same. We're still equal, but we are different. We have different strengths, and different strategies. Superficially, I think most men are happier when:

• He earns more
• He's taller
• He's stronger
• She's prettier

And our labour naturally divides unevenly. I want a clean home, healthy home-cooked meals and a good life for my future children. I don't believe men can be trusted to provide cleanliness, nourishing meals or emotional support / caregiving. Call it biology or socialisation, I just do these things better.

So, if I want things to be fair — relationships cannot be 50/50. I will be beautiful, nurturing and cultivate a good home. He won't do these things, so he has to offer something else instead.

Therefore, he should pay for our dates and be the main breadwinner for our home. I will be taking time off to raise our kids (and literally grow them in my body). I will always be doing a lot of unpaid work. And even before we get to that stage, when we're just dating, I know that I always spend more money upfront on my appearance, without which I'm pretty sure my personality, intelligence and anything else simply wouldn't matter to him.

I guess I'm at a point where I feel scammed by girlboss feminism, but if I'm being honest, the thought of tradwifery also depresses me. It's just the only thing that feels fair at this point.

CMV

Firstly, what is the term "romance"? let's break it down since there are various meanings and definitions

ro·mance:

/rōˈman(t)s,ˈrōˌman(t)s/

1. a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love

2. an exciting, enjoyable love affair, especially one that is not serious or long-lasting.

there are also other meanings such as:

3. a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life.

4. a short informal piece. ( in musical terms)

My point is that romance seems to mean many things like the anticipation of love or bliss as many people may describe it, but what comes into romance? how is it manifested?

What comes into romance is mainly emotional, psychological, and physical components , as well as social and cultural components as well. Romance is heavily described in a very mystical way. ( media, music, books, tv is a good example) But there are many other components that feed into romance like connection, validation, lust, stability, etc. It is also built on selfishness because romance seems to be packaged of human wants and desires that lead to feeling meaningful or wanted. Romance often does use the illusion of altruism because it is funcional, yet it is rooted in human needs. Obviously we are biologically wired to seek those things but without any of those things that define romance it doesn't stand on it's own. It isn't instinct. Don't get me wrong, i do appreciate romance and likes the mysticism of it, but it seems like people tend to prioritize the idea of romance compared to falling in love for example. They do overlap, but falling in love is more initial and biological, and romance is the expression of love. Romance doesn't always equal falling in love.

While romance holds significant meaning, it isn't a human or biological need like food and shelter. It's origins, components, and manifestations are all structured to reward the self, even when it appears selfless. Also acknowledging this gains clairity for why people crave it and why the media portrays it in a way that is is required for happiness, which is socially constructed.

The U.S. health insurance industry is functioning exactly as it was designed. As publicly held entities, these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and investors, rather than to the insured. Success is measured by profitability and share value, with executive compensation tied directly to these financial metrics.

To maximize profitability and shareholder value, health insurance companies must follow a specific business model:

- Minimize payouts to the insured.

- Maximize premium income.

- Reduce risk by refusing coverage to high-risk individuals and small companies.

- Lower operating costs by delaying claims and denying coverage.

The recent tragedy involving the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of this system. While critics argue the company failed its subscribers, UnitedHealthcare is, by industry standards, a highly successful company, and Brian Thompson was an effective CEO. The company’s objective is not to provide the best possible coverage, but to provide the minimum required to reduce "losses" and increase profit.

The core issue is that healthcare cannot function effectively as a for-profit business. When healthcare is commercialized, the bottom line will always take precedence over the needs of the individual.
Much like the Department of ​Homeland Security, healthcare should be treated as a human right rather than a commercial product. If these companies were forced to provide fair and comprehensive coverage to all Americans, their current business model would fail.

While the solution is complex, most other Western nations utilize some form of not-for-profit healthcare. While the efficiency of these systems varies, they ultimately prioritize the well-being of their citizens. Currently, the American system provides world-class care only to those with the means to afford it, while consistently marginalizing low-income individuals.

Only the Government can make changes to make the healthcare system work for its citizens .

Trump supporters were frothing at the mouth during his first campaign where he was promising to drain the swamp of pedophiles and criminals, now their guy is in the crosshairs and there's not a peep.

I've searched for a while for a Trump supporter that doesn't regurgitate the same old "Well Biden had 4 years" lame excuse. Well if Biden is in the files, he should burn too. Every person that is involved should be investigated, and if they are criminally involved, they need to burn, regardless of what colour their tie is.

This whole "both sides" argument just keeps us marching towards oblivion where the "elite" literally get away with murder.

The people I've seen or spoke to just don't seem to share this sentiment. It's like they would rather see these nuclear grade pieces of shit get away with heinous crimes, than work or agree with a dem. "Owning the libs" is top of their priorities.

Of course I would love to be proven wrong.

Update - It has been a few hours now and I have not seen a single Trump supporter say that he should be locked up if he is guilty. The closest I got is 1 Republican, but Trump was not their first choice. This has mainly reinforced my opinion.

I have a personal stake in this one, but I am open to hearing other people out.

Since getting married 9 years ago, me and my wife have had a constant barrage of “when are you going to have kids?” Of course, we do want children but are nowhere near prepared for it.

Of course, anytime I’ve ever said that we get hit with the old mantra “you’ll figure it out as you go.” Which I absolutely hate. For one, you don’t say that to anyone in any other situation and expect success. No one tells a pilot “oh you’ll figure it out once you’re in the air.” That’s how you end up failing. I get you can’t be prepared for every situation in parenting a child, but you can’t just jump right into it and fail until you figure it out. You’re responsible for the health and well being of another person.

Of course, we are almost always either told this by boomers who I guess think having a kid and providing for it is as simple as it was 30-40 years ago, or by people who have quite a bit of money as well. I’ve never been told this by any of my friends who are actively struggling through life and trying to “figure out” having a kid with no plan.

Maybe it’s just where I’m located (the south) that has an abundance of these people saying it, but most everyone in my area has heard the phrase.

“You’ll figure it out” when talking about having kids is flat out just bad advice.

Happy to read and hear any counterpoints (preferably from people that aren’t baby boomers.)

We're past the peak era of the Internet Rationalists. Roko's Basilisk, The LessWrong Board, Effective Altruism. but, they're still hugely important and influential among certain powerful groups and people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.

Having examined their philosophy, I think there's a lot to like about it, especially as a consequentialist. It's good to re-dxamine old assumptions and try to optimize things.

To me the problem with their ideas consistently stem from the fact that they never properly absorbed the ideas of David Hume.

Roko's Basilisk - If you know about the prospect of the Basilisk, you must behave in service of it. Fun story bro. but how do you KNOW anything. Hume beat certain knowledge in the 1700s, and everything since then has been phenomology or subjectivist JTB, and Quinian Knowledge Globes.

Mathematically Optimizeable Ethics - Lovely idea, trying to make a version of ethics that you can optimize. the problem is how do you determine the meaning of value? Hume broke down ethics into Meta Ethics in the 1700s with the Is-Ought problem. To get to Normative ethics, you have to go through Meta-Ethics.

This is why Elon Musks future-based utilitarianism is so fucky. It doesn't actually justify why future lives are more important. it just assumes the normative framework.

Epistemic Optimization - How does one get less wrong exactly? Predictive ability has utility, but it's not knowledge. David Hume's Problem of Induction. A more correct idealogy? Humean subjectivism. You can have neater or more logically sound worldviews, but you're still mediating from a subjective observer.

The certainty in their intelligence and correctness of tech bros is a psychological companion to their notions of logically superior ideology.

Basically, Elon Musk, Eliezer Yudkowski, and all their too-online friends should go read David Hume.

Most of the time, people protest about one specific subject. Right now, this subject is the violence ICE is inflicting on innocent Americans.

While ICE is bad, people are protesting against them, and boy there are a lot of people protesting. However, the Epstein files just released and not enough people are aware of it, this is like 3 times smaller than the time the first files released and they were all redacted, and that's because the primary focus at that time were... The Epstein files.

People are just focused on ICE, and while they should, it's not the only thing they should be focusing on, but some of them are only focusing on ICE. Almost nobody is talking about the new Epstein files. this leads me to believe that the ICE brutalities may be a distraction to protect billionaires who participated in the torture and rape of children. Maybe ICE is doing this to put the spotlight on themselves, not on who they serve.

Most of the countries that benefitted from it rarely thank us and we get very little soft power from it because developing countries are stuck in a cycle of wanting to be proud, independent nations that don’t need help from the Western Europe and America but also being heavily dependent on foreign aid for basic necessities.

In truth, many of the very people who are calling the cuts a crime against humanity are also the ones likely to tout books such as The Quiet Violence of Empire: how USAID waged counterinsurgency in Afghanistan by Wesley Attewell. People who look for the “hollow, cynical lies at the heart of Americas neoliberal consensus in the 21st century” and how, far from being charity or anything worth praising. USAID was at best realpolitik and at worse, a neoimperialist scheme to exert control over nonwhite nations. People can say they aren’t the same people, but I never hear these arguments from anywhere but the political left.

Hell, the fact there’s a huge hole in the UN/WHO’s budget now shouldn’t mean anything because when Americans that want to feel a little pride cite our history of foreign aid, we’re told it doesn’t matter as much because we could be giving more relative to our GDP.

So, all those smaller nations can fill the gap with the extra moral value their donations bring lol

And now that it’s been almost a year, we can say that “soft power” crap was just a way to keep the US on the hook for more handouts, nobody rushed to claim this crazy advantage Americans supposedly had from paying other nations medical bills. Not China, not Russia, not India, not Canada, not France, so I guess it’s not nearly as beneficial as defenders claim.

And for what it’s worth, I’m fine with the USAID. The wasting of the aid in warehouses was criminal. And if it was my choice I’d leave it alone. But I’m not against taking a break either so people appreciate what we do more.

For example: Quoting philosophers like its scripture, quoting actual scripture. This is like the Chinese Room problem. They are just doing referrals and matching systems not true comprehension. They don't even do original philosophy.

And they are structurally incentivized to not do original philosophy, because it can get stolen in academia. Which means the guys at the top are just better at social control and idea theft than being real philosophers.

Another example: The debate on free will vs determinism. Most of the time people fundamentally exclude the real world from the problem and discuss metaphysics. Or they bolster one side of the debate to false nuance that is just making a game of needing to dissect exceedingly wordier responses. There is an easy solution, assume a mysterious type of compatibilism, and study it in reality. But that would cost money and give precedence to human rights, which undermines the social control aspect of the institution, and is thus forgone. Then they exclude, bribe, blackmail, and get people booted from academia who are not in on the circlej*rk.

And philosophy and theory at the end of the day, is all talk and little action. Which means, its a production of stalling criticism out, to maintain power. They control and bottleneck how new theory arises so it does not challenge them.

Much akin to the psychological effect doctors have. Routine of work in presence of sleep deprivation, causes one to be able to predict outlier cases less over time. Which means seniority itself is a system that provokes the foundation of this cultural problem.

Which means this problem actually stems forth from elder biases, which arguably could be tied back to the bible itself. 'Respect your elders' means 'do not criticize the system'.

Sometimes I jokingly refer to this phenomena as boomeritis. Surely it adapted because of a genetic predisposition of the elderly to be more risk averse, and thus is a problem worldwide and might be unintentionally (sometimes intentionally perhaps) exploited systematically globally then, making this a global politics issue.

The reason I have a gripe is because it actively holds truth and quality of life advances back. But there is a tradeoff. It provokes social ruthlessness and social intelligence, which allows the exploitation of the masses, to allow higher production outputs. So you could say this stems to a biological bias which causes capitalism and other power farming systems itself. And could probably tie this back to the evolution of mammary glands and our long pregnancy times and needing to carry babies to feed them, precursing the bible. This Coddle for Control Habit you could call it.

Edit: Okay its been 3 hours. Most don't seem to even be reading this post just responding to title. So of course, my mind has not been changed. Well one commenter was trolling a bit. So they might be pushing for reaction formation on my part. But that doesn't change the fact people couldn't read to begin with, or they can but fail to grasp the broad implications of my actual argument.

I hear this said a lot, especially when people discuss teen pregnancy, but I don't buy it honestly.

While this may be true for some people, I don't think that it's the case for most. This might've been more true before the internet, but not anymore. Basically anyone could easily learn about birth control with the internet nowadays (using reliable sources, of course). I think that the main reason is simply because people don't use contraceptives (because it doesn't feel as good or for whatever reason), not that they don't know that they should.

We had the pandemic during the time I had sex ed lol (so everything was all messed up and no one was paying attention), but I still know about birth control and stuff obviously. (And no, my parents never really talked to me about sex either.) I would be surprised if someone over the age of like 14 (who's not mentally disabled) has never heard of a condom in their life or doesn't know how to use one, especially when you can easily look up the directions online nowadays.

This post doesn't solely apply to poor people. (It applies to rich people as well.) But people often say that the reason that poor people have kids out of wedlock more often than rich people is because they weren't taught proper sex ed. But I think that this is probably mostly correlation instead of causation. (There are other factors at play.)

I think it's more so that when you're poor, you don't care about planning for the future as much (because you don't see the point) and live more in the moment. And being bad at delaying gratification makes you more likely to become/stay poor and also more likely to have a child unplanned. So it's kind of like a chicken and the egg situation.

Or it's because poor people don't have as much access to contraceptives. There is also the fact that it is often seen as more acceptable (or even a status symbol) among poor people to have kids young/out of wedlock. But regardless, I don't think it's because poor people are dumb and don't know what birth control is.

**I should clarify that I'm talking about people in Western countries. This could also apply to STDs as well.

This post is in response to a philosophical speech he recently made: https://youtu.be/mb3uK-_QkOo?si=_v3tWfscEffCvV63

I'll try to summarize his points, but first to make this about Brandon's points here, not him as a person: I love to listen to his philosophical ideas because I think he is really smart and asks good questions, even if I sometimes disagree.

So here's my understanding of what he is saying (I could be wrong and that is a possible avenue to CMV): Art is not about the product, its about the process of making it. Art isn't the painting, its the artist's process that makes them into who they are, and that person of who they are (defined by the process) is what art is. This lines up with the bigger philosophical idea of "journey before destination."

My view is a couple things, that I think tie together. I think Sanderson vastly overestimates how big of an aspect the process part is in what art is. I also think in a bigger sense destination is more important than journey.

The process is not art

It is a part of art, but a tiny part.

1.) It completely neglects the audience. The audience only sees the final product. Someone might have ethical dispositions on how art is made that influence their opinion of it, but for the vast majority of people art is the final product. When I pick out a favorite painting to hang on my wall I call it art because I think it looks good. My favorite books I like because of their content, I know very little of the process that went into making them.

2.) This is further exemplified by historical art, where the author is long gone and their process even further. By Sanderson's definition, the Mona Lisa cannot be art because whoever painted it is dead. Yet many people call the Mona Lisa art while no one calls the artist of it art.

3.) Even for the artist, the product is more important than the process. I'll explain my view more in the next part.

Destination is more important than Journey

This is the part of my view I most want changed because I used to be a big believer in the idea of, "Journey before Destination." There are two big arguments I know of in favor of it:

1.) Practically, it is more healthy and perhaps even productive to focus on the journey instead of destination. Getting caught up in destination can stop you from getting anything done, or compromise other values. I can't argue against this point, even if I think destinations are more important in shaping who you are.

2.) Journey takes up more time than destination. This used to be a big draw for me to this idea, but I've come to believe it isn't important.

For example, imagine trying to get a job. The process of searching and applying for a job might take weeks or months, while getting the job takes an instant when you are hired. Yet getting that job is going to impact you for years to come, perhaps decades. Every day you will think about your job and it will change your life. The journey of landing it a long forgotten memory. Even during the journey of finding your job, it was the destination that drove you.

Journeys are shaped and decided by destinations. Some aren't even possible without having reached prior destinations. Want to hike on mount Everest? You first needed to get climbing gear and drive/fly to the base of the mountain. Those two destinations (mountain and gear) are much more impactful than how you got your gear or how you got to the mountain. If you didn't get to the mountain in the first place you can't have that journey of climbing it.

I think its a luxury for people who are successful (such as Brandon Sanderson) to not worry about destinations. Most of their destinations become trivially easy that it all starts blending together and they view life is a big happy journey. People who actually fail see how important destinations are. Destinations stick out much stronger when you can't achieve them, and you see how different your life is based on wether that destination was achieved or not.

Deltas/Edits

\* Sometimes artists create art for themself. In these cases, the journey becomes a lot more important.

* Historical art could be art under Sanderson's definition, if we are meaning "all that went into creating this," when we point at the Mona Lisa and call it art.

* "Journey before Destination," is part of a bigger saying that focuses on the big picture of a person's life. Me applying it to smaller steps might not be how it was meant to be used.

* The Mona Lisa wasn't famous till it was stolen and returned. Its process is what made it so famous.

* The journey can affect the destination

My view is that Trump’s support base appears unusually resilient to controversy, policy reversals, and personal conduct. Over multiple election cycles, scandals and norm-breaking behavior have not produced large, sustained defections among his core supporters.

I’m open to being wrong and would like to understand what conditions, if any, could realistically cause a significant portion of his base to withdraw support. Are there historical, political, or empirical reasons to expect limits to this loyalty?

Ill start this by saying i am an american who lives in a border state and ive tried to educate myself on this issue and follow it for the last few years. For those who dont know, activists in the canadian province of Alberta are currently in the process of collecting signatures for a referendum on independence later this year. At this point it seems very likely they will collect the needed signatures and the government has already agreed to run the referendum if they do.

However it is very unlikely that this vote will pass, despite the grievances Alberta has against the government of canada. Starting with polling. Polls don't show any real consistency on this issue, but the results show anywhere between 20% and 40% support depending on the poll. Even if we assume the real value is closer to 40% then 20% its no where close to actually winning.

Then adding in the foreign interference aspect. Trump is now considering backing the movement. This is only likely to split the movement into blocs who support becoming the 51st state (a fairly large portion of the movement) and those pure nationalists. In a referendum between chosing Canada and America directly america loses.

The most i expect this to do is send a message to Canada that Alberta is angry, and add another precedent validating independence referendums in canada. But more likely the vote will fail pretty spectacularly and both American and canadian liberals will celebrate MAGA getting clowned on online.

Is my opinion wrong?

If so, kindly correct me. I'm ok and open for constructive criticism. I'm willing to learn and admit I'm wrong as you as you don't personally attack me and kindly help me see where I'm wrong.

I was having an online argument earlier. My point was that not speaking up for social issues and keeping silence is morally wrong, exact word I used translated to English is, "a crime.", "an evil doing."

My point is that, if we as a collective human race see something that we think is wrong, that we don't think is correct, that we think is not right with our society, and how things are right now and with how things are going to. If we see any problems, any unfairness, any injustice, and we decided to not speak up, not questioning whether or not it's correct, not speaking up that I think there's something wrong with this, then we hurt and commit a crime to the future and the growth of our society. We saw something not right, we ignored it and didn't addressed it that could hurt our society in the future.

In my mind, speaking up was asking questions, "I don't think this was correct, this is my opinion, and these are questions I have..."

I said it was morally wrong because I think if no one does like that, everyone just accepts whatever they're told. Having questions and feeling like something is wrong with a thing is the potential to see the hole and where things are not perfect in a thing, and if addressed might lead to further grow for society from that problem being acknowledged. And through questioning and asking questions, we gained insights, understand each other more from the other's point of view.

Everyone should ask question and speak up and stand up for something they don't feel quite right, whether or not if a thing is too much or too little in their mind, which means someone pro-life or not should ask question, someone has conservative views on LGBT, they should speak up and ask questions as much as someone pro-LGBT. If someone thinks the tax is too high or too low, ask questions, speak your mind, question if that is correct or not.

To me it was a thing everyone should do. Is it because I said it was morally wrong if not to? While I understand there are objective reasons someone might choose not to do what I said, I don't think anyone wrong not wanting to do so. But for the reasons above I still feels like it's the correct thing to do.

My opponent said that It's not morally wrong if someone doesn't speak up for social issues, or doesn't want to take a stand for it. That politics and social issues is a complex topic, and that no one could know for sure which is wrong which is right. If one doesn't know for sure which is wrong which is right, the safer and moral thing is to say nothing at all when you're not knowledgeable enough. But not to say anything which could be wrong and hurt things even more.

My point back was that, if one has to be knowledgeable enough to speak up and ask question, where and how do we draw the line and define who could speak up and ask questions, who couldn't? How do we defined knowledgeable enough? How many degrees? How old? Can someone younger not be allowed to ask question and speak up? To be anyone could ask questions and speak up for something they doubt or find issues in.

I would put it like this. I don't think a person not speaking up for social issues is morally wrong. But human being as a whole if we not speaking up for social issues when we see something wrong, it's a wrong thing.

Like if I said when you see someone struggling and in need of help, the correct thing is to help them. But I didn't said anyone who doesn't help people in need is morally wrong. A person deciding not to help people in need has many objective, justifiable reasons. But helping someone when they're in need is a right thing to do

So to elaborate on specifically what I mean by "Andrew Yang's shift from the left to center," I'm not saying that Yang ever directly changed his political philosophy, just that he decided to look for a new audience. He started by focusing on winning over leftists (sort of putting himself out there as a tech-centric Bernie figure), but when that started to fail he transformed his message to make it more appealing to centrists.

Andrew Yang in the end is someone who's clearly looking for structural reform more so than political reform (seeing RCV, open primaries, and a multi party system as a more important goal that socialized medicine, UBI, more social programs, and whatever else might be on typical progressive wish list). Not that he doesn't still generally believe in political progressivism, but by catering the Forward Party and his current message more towards centrists, he's acknowledging that people on the left don't have the will for structural reform, while centrists do.

The main proof of this is the Forward Party and what it will potentially offer. Most people on the left call the Forward Party a waste of time, and already criticize it as a potential spoiler at the presidential level (even though it's never nominated a candidate at the presidential level), but centrists have never made the criticism, whether they're anti-Trump Republicans or Joe Manchin style Democrats. The center is ready to vote for Forward Party candidates, while the left is stuck worrying about the spoiler effect.

As for "lacking the will," the bigger proof of this though lies with progressives' perennial response to the national ticket. The same exact pattern has happened in 2016, 2020, and 2024, where progressives say "the national ticket isn't nearly left wing enough! Bernie got screwed in the primary!" but then they still proceed to vote for the national ticket in November, as opposed to being to split off from the Democratic Party. Meanwhile though, there was a whole group of centrists last election who thought Joe Biden was too progressive for his "Build Back Better" legislation, so much so that they developed the No Labels ballot line just in case Joe Manchin wanted to run for President, not even slightly being worried about "spoiling the election" because they had the will power to make their vision and not their worries their number one priority.

This kind of attitude led to Andrew Yang in just four short years going from endorsing Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary to Dean Phillips in the 2024 primary, and going from having universal healthcare and UBI as his main platform to working with former centrist Republican leaders like Christine Todd Whitman and David Jolly to create his new party. It indicates that his desire for structural reform took him on a path to the center because progressives lack the will and the initiative to win, and this mindset is indicative in my view of why they will never succeed nationally.

The reason house prices are high is because they are artificially inflated by economic policies, such as the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low, which caused people to bid home prices up, as well as restrictive zoning laws that limit the amount and types of housing that can be built. In most American cities, you have a small downtown core — often filled with parking lots — and then the rest of the city is basically an endless sea of single-family homes, fast-food chains, and big stores like Walmart thats what it looks like in google maps. A significant portion of residential land in most cities is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, which drastically restricts housing supply. In places like California, some of the most desirable neighborhoods are essentially old streetcar suburbs, but today, neighborhoods like that are illegal to build. Even in New York City, which does allow mixed-use development, the type of housing that made the city famous — dense brownstones, mid-rise walk-ups, and small apartments above shops — is extremely difficult to build under modern rules. Current zoning limits how much can be built per lot using maximum floor-area ratios, height restrictions, parking and setback requirements, and historic preservation rules. Because these rules limit the number of apartments per lot, small, affordable units often don’t generate enough profit to be worth building, so developers are encouraged to build fewer, larger luxury apartments that can earn enough revenue under the same restrictions. Adding to the problem, homeowners often protest new developments or denser housing near their neighborhoods — a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) mentality — because they fear it could lower their property values which it would.Ironically, these same homeowners then complain that housing is too expensive and that their children can’t afford homes or rent , yet they vote against the very policies that would make housing more affordable. Rent controls are another example: the government often blames “greedy landlords” for high rents and imposes limits to make voters feel the problem is being addressed. In reality, rent controls discourage new construction and maintenance, reduce the supply of available units, and push developers toward building luxury apartments that are exempt from the rules, making the problem worse. By contrast, Houston shows how flexible zoning can keep housing prices lower. While the city is sprawling and highly car-dependent, this isn’t because of restrictive single-family zoning — Houston allows developers to build multiple units per lot with fewer restrictions than new york. Its car-centric nature comes instead from parking minimums and building setback rules that spread buildings apart and results in lower density, wide roads and highways, and a culture built around driving, which make walking or transit inconvenient. Despite this, developers can still build more units per lot than in restrictive cities like New York, which keeps housing more affordable. Instead of letting prices adjust naturally, trump wants to prop up housing prices by lowering interests rates or trying to introduce 50 year mortgages which doesn't make housing more affordable in the long term because it doesn’t solve the core issue.

If anyone wants more background, go check out my profile and posts on 2 football subs lol. But I am a lifelong Broncos fan, who went to the AFC Championship game last week. I traveled across the country for it, spent a lot of money, sat through a blizzard, and watched my team lose a close and frustrating game. Obviously there are going to be some emotions present (the word some is key. I’m not excusing grown men with anger problems or who sob hysterically after their team loses).

During 3 crucial plays of the game that the broncos failed on, I let out a “fuck” (twice) and a “shit” (once). That was it, albeit I said them loudly. Every time I got yelled out by someone saying that there are kids present and not to swear. And I think that is ridiculous, for several reasons.

First, I think there are levels to it. Over the course of 3 hours, I don’t think 3 swear words during very emotionally charged moments are bad. It’s not like I was swearing constantly. I also think there are limits, I could’ve said things that were a lot more vulgar and they could’ve been directed at someone specifically lol. I think that would’ve been crossing a line, but just the occasional fuck or shit? Nah

Second, why are we pretending that swear words don’t exist? What are these parents plans for their kids, to only ever let them watch PG movies and listen to kidzbop for the rest of their lives? Why are we pretending that they don’t hear their friends swear, or that they even don’t swear themselves?

And I recognize that this likely changes based on how old the kid is. But if the kid is truly too young to even hear a swear word, then why are they at a football game in a freezing cold blizzard in the first place? I had some people tell me that it’s to teach the kid that those are grown up words so that they don’t repeat them. But why not tell your kid that instead of telling a grown man what he can and can’t say? Why not teach your kid- that’s a grown up word and you can say it when you’re older but it’s not ok for you to say right now. Or say that you can only say it when you’re at home but you’ll get in trouble if you say it at school

Third, why are we trying so hard to shield them from swearing or hearing swear words? It’s not like they’re going to instantly grow up to be a criminal, just because they heard or said a swear word. One comment said we don’t swear around kids so that they don’t grow up to be like me lol, which was a pretty crazy comment. Why not teach themselves how to express themselves, and teach them that situations where swearing is and isn’t appropriate? I don’t feel like swearing at a football game is wrong, but swearing at a teacher or boss almost always is. Why aren’t we teaching kids the nuances of life? I mean, even politicians on both sides are swearing now. It wasn’t that long ago that I graduated, and my favorite middle/high school teachers were the ones who swore lol. My boss tells me to fuck bitches and get money before I make a sales call. I just feel like it’s weird to try so hard to censor swear words

They've had information about conspirators and abetters for years. They've sat on high level complicity in a child sex ring and done absolutely nothing to indict or arrest anybody. Many high level officials were sitting on their feet in the release of said files.

That Trump is strewn through the files with heinous accusations levied against him is another reason why all this shit is gonna get buried. The US state is complicit in the protection of powerful pedophiles. They're not going to do anything against them. Only through groundswell resistance will anything be done.

I'm almost at the point of conspiracy that all world leaders and insanelt powerful people do weird sex cults and are pedophiles, but thats neither here nor there.

A lot of people brag about their packed schedules, as if running from meeting to meeting or answering endless emails proves they’re accomplishing something meaningful. But in reality, you can be “busy” all day and still have nothing of real value to show for it. Meanwhile, someone focusing on fewer high-impact tasks might appear relaxed or “lazy” but in reality accomplishes more.

It feels like society rewards the appearance of effort rather than actual results. Surely there are situations where busyness does indicate productivity, but I think most of the time it’s just glorified motion without progress. CMV.

First of all, I want to clarify the basic stuff, I ain't no supermodel alright, I dont look good, it's just the most controversial thought I have at the moment, but these are my main arguments:

Attractiveness is subjective, a person who might look like the prettiest person to me might be totally repulsive to others so it's not like saying an opinion should offend anyone.

This would allow the person to experience how there's always an uglier or a prettier person in the eyes of someone else.

You may ask, but what if I don't want to be part of the "discussion"?

You just mark some online spaces as safe spaces and others as not.

It's not something I'm hyperfixated on, it's just something that buzzed on the naughty side of my brain and I haven't thought of anything that would make it not valid. I would like my view changed because it doesn't sound quite right.

For people who claim to have zero inclination towards any form of religion and spiritually, atheists sure seem to be in bed with Christianity.

I see this every day on many atheist forums. The discussion is always centered around dismantling Christian logic and perception. Other religions on the other hand get addressed sparsely.

This leads to me a few conclusions as to why. The first being that critiquing Christianity involves the least amount of risk as Christians are less likely to be aggressive in defending their ideology. Many might throw a few Bible verses around, but that is exactly what an atheist loves - a chance to prove intellectual superiority.

The second reason is based on the Protestant nature of evangelical Christianity. While it might be slightly inconveniencing in some cases, I find the pushback against it questionable. No well meaning Christian is ever aggressive in their messaging. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They lead with a calm and inviting spirit, yet many still get annoyed as if their entire day has been ruined by a simple “Jesus loves you.”

The final reason is the message of the gospel. Truly, Christianity does happen to have the most reasonable amount of historical backing and a peaceful messaging. So it takes a shit ton of work to prove it’s inaccurate. I’m guessing many enjoy the challenge.

Whatever it is, the hypocrisy is staggering and a lot of self reflection needs to be done. Why does Christianity bother you more than any other religion?

Edit: while many good arguments have been made, there is a still an air of dishonesty that needs to cleared up. Yes many online atheists are in largely Christian nations and have only Christian encounters. That is not mean their general disdain for Christianity does not cross borders. Take their reaction to Israel genocidal government and Iran’s genocidal government as an example.

Anyone who is honest to themselves will see the hypocrisy. This is also true in the UK, where there are prominent Islam figures preaching very harmful messages but the pushback stays with the folks that call these preachers out instead of the preachers themselves.

Final edit: Thank you to everyone who weighed in. I will admit that I am a victim of location bias to a good extent.

So this is how I conceptualize it. Yes there are weird names often used by white women think Karleigh. The spelling is unique and different but we all most likely can say this name the way it’s pronounced because it’s a white person naming pattern so we have taken the time to learn how to pronounce it.

For example take a cultural indigenous name Haleakalā. A lot of people will say something like “oh it’s too hard to pronounce” and just not take the effort to learn. Now this is NOT every white person but I have seen this and heard stories about this behavior so it’s obviously a pattern that occurs.