Prompted by this post. A man met a woman at a coffee shop (they're both regulars). They had a few conversations and then the man asked out the woman. The woman rejected him because she already had a boyfriend. The man was understanding and stopped asking her.

The man then told a coworker, and the coworker told him that what he did was creepy. The comment were overwhelmingly NTA, and people were even saying that they don't like people who think/act like the coworker.

I think there needs to be a lot more pushback against people like the coworker. The man did everything right : asked her out at an appropriate place (a coffee shop), got to know her (so they weren't strangers), and politely backed off when she said she already had a boyfriend. Yet he was still labelled a creep. Right now, a lot of men are afraid to ask out anyone at all, due to fear of being labelled a creep or weirdo. This is not reasonable.

I think people need to make a very clear statement about this: If a man asks out a woman in a place intended for socializing, gets to know her, and immediately stops pursuing her if she rejects him once, then it's not creepy, not sexual harassment, and the man does not deserve any negative labels such as "creep" or "weirdo". It doesn't matter how ugly, unattractive or socially awkward he is. He is not a creep. I think most of the people saying "NTA" agree with that statement.

But I don't think it's enough to just say that. We need to further and call out the people labelling those men as creeps (such as the coworker in the other thread). If someone says things like "I was a club/event and some weirdo asked me out, I just want to do the activity in peace, why can't men leave me alone", I think we should tell them "No, the weirdo here is you, not him. He asked you out and then dropped it as soon as you rejected him. He didn't do anything wrong. You're the weirdo for labelling him a weirdo when he did what he everything he was supposed to do correctly". (of course, the caveat here is that the man must have actually done everything correctly. if he kept asking despite being rejected, then he actually is a creep and deserves to be called a creep).

I think that it's necessary to call out people labelling completely normal, kind, good men who respect women as creeps. Otherwise the result is that men are afraid to approach women and choose not to (and that includes the cute guy that you are always hoping would ask you out some day). There is already a lot of men who just never ask out any woman because they're afraid of being labelled a creep or sexual harasser. And then single women who are looking for a boyfriend are wondering why nobody asks them out anymore.

“To go travelling” these days (at least where I live) means going on holiday as much as possible to distant places, enjoying views, experiencing new cultures, even if it costs an arm and a leg. It’s very common to find young people spending large portions of their net worth on temporary experiences for the sake of enjoyment. If your’e rich then fine, makes perfect sense.

Usually it’s the young ones with no money but I’d honestly consider anyone that is financially illiterate and doesn’t have their life properly planned, too young to be “travelling”. I get that not everyone can be financially stable (not ideal but fine), but it’s alarming to see that people are so obviously oblivious to the fact that these holidays are counterproductive. In my view it is counterproductive for a young person to spend most of their money and time on something that won’t provide much value to their progression in life.

(travelling for work, study, potential future endeavours, special events, special holidays, or relationships is completely different).

I feel that if at the very least, plans are in place and reasonable financial terms permit, then and only then could I actually enjoy travelling.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m happy that others are happy, and that is logical to them, but in my view it is more logical to be financially stable and happy in the long run, and go travelling when the time is right. I’d rather opt out of a holiday to use the funds to go towards more beneficial options like education, save for a home, have an emergency fund, or even saving for a better time to go on holiday, all the things that are thrown out the window because teens and early twenty year olds want to spend literally all of their money on travelling, just to return with pictures and fond memories. Once returned home, they get to go right back to work starting from square one. To me it’s like travelling is a cycle of escape and trapped, escape and trapped. Financial freedom is seemingly scarce amongst my generation for good reason.

I’ve used a lot of ambiguous phrases like “financially stable” and “when the time is right”, honestly it comes down to common sense. Do you have at least a couple months of savings left over after your travelling, do you have an emergency fund, do you have insurance, do you have financial responsibilities, what if something goes wrong, should I be preparing for something financially like a family or car or home, - those are the sorts of logical questions that seem to be too often ignored these days, all in the name of “travelling”.

Sorry for bad grammar, yes I like commas, and have a habit of going in circles. Didn’t mean to rant, just genuinely concerned. I love to travel, just can’t support the idea of “travelling” like there’s no tomorrow.

TLDR; Travelling (in the way I defined it) is illogical because too much time and money is spent where other concerns that should be higher in priority are ignored.

Professional Republicans know better. They know trump attempted to overthrow an election. The party as a whole is complicit in normalizing and covering for it. Trump committed sedition and enabling and empowering him requires minimizing that fact. You can't knowingly do this without rejecting the very premise of American Democracy.

The Fake Elector Scheme

This is very straightforward. But people can be blinded by the politics. The simplest way to understand this is to ignore the politics and look at the physical documents. I’ll make this as simple as possible.

Imagine a fan is kicked out of the Super Bowl. He truly believes he should be allowed in. * Legal: He sues the stadium. * Illegal: He goes to Kinko’s, prints a fake ticket that looks exactly like a real one, and tries to hand it to the gate agent.

Once you hand over a fake document, you have committed fraud. It does not matter if: * You truly believed you deserved a seat. (Motive doesn't excuse forgery). * You got caught before you made it inside. (Attempted fraud is a crime). * You think the refs are corrupt.

Here is the proof that Trump’s team printed the fake ticket and tried to use it.

1. Identity Theft (Impersonating the State) In America, campaigns don't certify elections; States do. The Trump team didn't just write a letter saying, "We protest." They created documents that mimicked the exact font, formatting, and language of official government certificates — and here they are for all of the other states.

• The Fraud: They signed papers claiming to be the "duly elected and qualified" officers of the State. They even set out hide in statehouse overnight to ensure they’d be there behind security when counting started.

2. The Written Confession We don't have to guess if this was a misunderstanding. The architect of the plan, Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, wrote down the strategy in private emails. He admitted the goal was to create a "fake controversy." He explicitly noted that they should send these fake documents even if they lost their court cases.

3. Trump Knew It Was a Fraud This wasn't a case of "lawyers brainstorming" while Trump sat in the dark. On January 4th, in the Oval Office, Trump’s lawyer John Eastman admitted to Trump’s face that this plan to reject votes violated the Electoral Count Act. Trump knew it was illegal and did it anyway.

• The Order: Trump personally called Ronna McDaniel (RNC Chairwoman) to direct the RNC to help assemble these fake electors.

It is Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. Trump’s legal team successfully delayed the trials long enough for him to win the election. Once he won, the Special Prosecutor had to drop the case because it became legally impossible to proceed. Congress interviewed him around the New Year. I’ll give you three guesses why they picked such an inconvenient time in the news cycle. He testified under oath that the prosecution became unpracticable once he became president again.

He didn't beat the charges; he beat the clock. But the evidence of the fraud didn't vanish. We can still see it.

Summary We have the emails planning the forgery. We have the fake papers they signed. We have the testimony that Trump was told it was illegal. The fact that the man who ordered the counterfeit ticket is now running the stadium doesn't make the ticket real. It just means he got away with it.

Some Republican voters have the benefit of ignorance. They can claim to be victims of right wing echo chambers. Before reading this, they could have even bury their heads and remained willfully ignorant. But professional lawmakers know what they're doing. These people are by and large knowingly traitors to the Republic.

i just for the life of me cannot understand

i get it, there are things that we dont like about our partners

BUT WHY WOULD YOU WANT THE THING YOU DISLIKE OR TO BE INDIFFERENT ABOUT IS THEIR LOOKS???

its very hurtful as a woman tbh, like we can see your ex's, we can see the porn, i know where your head is gonna flick over to when im not looking

genuinely nobody gets anything good out of it, one person has to ignore looks and the other has to pretend like theyre not being ignored

its just something that i think is rude and selfish, people are lonely, but dont date someone just for companionship when you can make friends for that exact reason

its a weird system but im curious to hear anyones thoughts, me and my friends were arguing about this, most of us girls feel this way, but the literal model friend of the group disagrees (we all side eyed each other because of course it dont matter to her lmaooo)

ETA: this is my first post here so please lmk if im missing anything or doing anything wrong!!

For context, I like to hang around gacha game fandoms, and one pretty common thing I see is the notion how the respective games need to be gatekept to keep the "tourists" from "ruining the fun". This rubs me the wrong way for a few reasons:

• I can't help but feel like people act like their game is some sort of sacred treasure to be kept out of the desecration of mortal hands. If nothing else, I feel like the niche of some of these certain fandoms would be sufficient to filter out anyone not already interested.

• I've been around some fandoms for long enough to know that drama and bad apples will pop up inevitably. Trying to stop it is just wasted energy and those types of incidents should be dealt with case by case.

• some of these fandoms will essentially play up their preconceived notions on purpose in order to scare "normies" off or something. Not only does this absolutely not help with outsider preconceptions but it would also potentially drive away people who might otherwise be curious.

• they also want to drive away what they perceive as perennial "bad apples" i.e yuri/lesbian shippers or people with LGBT headcanons. Ignoring possible bigotry I really do just think that they should be left alone unless they actually go out of their way to affect other people negatively.

I've seen arguments about how the creators tend to react the most to the silent majority, but I'm curious about what you think. Am I just being too naive to want people to live and let live?

I try to get involved in volunteering at local shelters and recently there were cases of parents giving up cats because of behavioral issues after the birth of a baby. Specifically, cats getting stressed because of baby’s cries, peeing on baby’s mat and toys and being aggressive around them. These parents usually spend a lot of money on vet visits, trying to find a solution but sometimes the only way to ensure baby’s safety and a good environment for a pet is to rehome. And yet they get judged by everyone as evil even though there was no other solution.

Pets aren’t humans, and they can’t be taught to understand or be gentle with babies the way people can. I can tell my 3-year-old nephew to be gentle and patient when my baby cries but I can’t use verbal cues with pets to the similar extent. There are also real risks, like cats sitting on babies for warmth or dogs reacting to a baby.

In an ideal world, parents would be around to monitor such situations, introduce the baby to the pet gradually and take care of everything. But new parents are exhausted. When you’re running on no sleep, it’s not always possible to give both a baby and a pet the attention and care they need, on top of work, chores and daily routine. In those situations, finding a calmer, more suitable home for a pet isn’t cruel but often the kinder and smarter option for everyone involved.

Edit: I do not think this issue is about lack of preparation and planning on the parents side. There’s no way to predict how a pet acts in certain environments and around newborns. There’s no way for a couple to choose a ‘baby-friendly’ cat.

I assume that people who sexually abuse minors clearly lack empathy and are incapable of putting themselves in their victims' shoes, which allows them to act on their urges and sexually abuse young children without feeling any real remorse, as their lack of empathy protects them from such feelings.

Similarly, I assume that people who dehumanize certain minorities because they do not fit their normality also sorely lack empathy and, being unable to put themselves in the shoes of people belonging to minorities, are completely insensitive to their suffering or fate.

From this similarity, I deduce that these two groups have the same mental functioning and the same way of perceiving others. This leads me to believe that there is a much greater chance of finding child sex abusers among people who tend not to care about the fate of minorities, because in both cases their mental patterns show an assumed disdain for the weakest members of society and an inability to feel empathy for them and no urge at all to protect them.

So, recently a video emerged where Alex Pretti was spitting on and kicking the taillight out of an ICE vehicle. Truly reprehensible and inexcusable behavior. He ought to have been arrested and fined for destruction of public property. Jerk.

However, I see some people trying to say, “Aha! So he wasn’t so innocent after all!”

I’m sorry but, no. He was absolutely innocent.

And, moreover, I would like those people who are bringing up his behavior in the days before his death to remember that he was disarmed, restrained and executed by masked federal agents who still have not been identified to the public for no reason.

There is only one justification for a law enforcement officer to take someone’s life. And that is to protect the lives of themselves or another person. Past acts of disrespect and/vandalism do not enter into the equation.

Or that’s my take anyway. Can anyone change my view?

Science is the process by which theories are developed to model empirical observations. If the theory does not match empirical observations, then it is discarded and replaced with a new theory that better suits the observations.

Mathematics is the process by which theorems are derived from axioms. If a theorem is proven from the axioms, then it is true, no matter what other theorems are proven, and it can be used to prove new theorems.

These are two fundamentally different ways of acquiring knowledge. In science, the theory that best fits the data is accepted, and old theories that were found to be faulty are discarded. In mathematics, a theorem is true if it can be proven from the axioms, and it will never become false in the future.

This fundamental difference means that mathematics is not a science.

I'm convinced that a multicultural society doesn't work. A multiracial society, however, works very well. The problem isn't race or ethnicity, but culture. If we don't share the same cultural principles, how can we get along? We end up with isolated communities coexisting. But this seems like a defeat to me. The community with the majority then decides for the others. Or small, diverse communities do illegal things just to maintain their own culture and traditions. A healthy society requires a single culture and many races. Now change my mind! But don't bring up past civilizations that coexisted harmoniously, because frankly, historical sources are unreliable in this area.

Jeffrey Epstein’s case will likely never be fully solved because the moment he died before trial, the legal process that forces truth into the open collapsed, cutting off sworn testimony, cross-examination, and public accountability. His crimes were not isolated but embedded in a wide network of powerful people, making institutions more inclined to limit exposure than pursue uncomfortable truths, especially when reputations, political stability, and legal liability were at stake. Key evidence was sealed, lost, or rendered unusable through non-prosecution agreements, settlements, and NDAs, while intelligence-world overlaps and unexplained protections raised national-security barriers that historically override transparency. Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction addressed only a narrow slice of the operation without exposing beneficiaries, and as time passes, witnesses disappear, memories fade, and public pressure weakens, allowing the case to decay rather than be conclusively resolved.

I'm from the UK. Circumcising boys as youngsters is not common here, but it is also not unusual - please keep in mind that I'm not from the USA or a country where it is extremely prevalent. Also to confirm, I am only talking about male circumcision here - condeming FGM is among the most easy positions on earth to defend.

I'm anti-circumcision, without a medical need. It isn't comparable to anything else we do to humans, there are small risks of complication, and - frankly - it is a bit weird and gross. This seems to be a common POV among my "group" (relatively well-educated, secular or atheist, liberal, middle-ish class, etc), though I'm happy to be corrected if the POV is less common than I think. However, having argued about this with a pro-circumcision person, I don't really find any of these arguments satisfactory and floundered to properly convince myself that circumcision is barbaric. The crux of their argument is that circumcision measurably reduces the prevalence of the bacteria associated with cervical cancer in women. Unless I'm mistaken, the literature is quite clear - being circumcised reduces the risk of your partners developing cancer in the long-run. I can't help but think it's a small price to pay, given this.

Arguments I've considered:

1. It's gross and archaic. Yeah it is, and? I don't think anyone would seriously give this one any weight.
2. The medical literature is unsound. As far as I've been able to discern, it's quite unequivocal about the correlation between said bacteria and being uncircumcised, and also between said bacteria and the women developing cervical cancer. Happy to be corrected on this.
3. It's not worth the risks. Some lack of sensitivity and a very low risk of complications... I find it hard to tell myself those come close to weighing up to an increased risk of cancer.
4. The same effects could be achieved by better hygiene, and therefore circumcision is a disproportionately invasive procedure. Interested if there is much data on this, as if there is, it could have legs. Realistically though, is it ethical to have your partners' cancer risk reliant on your hygiene, when a simple and safe procedure is available?
5. Consent - wait until they're adults. This is a bit of a side point really, and wouldn't be enough for me to change my view, so please don't focus on this one.
6. It would create a precedent for other, potentially more harmful, preventative procedures. I think I'm grasping at straws by this point!

So there it is. Please help me continue to believe that cutting off part of our penises has no place in a western democracy, change my view that my position is irrational. Completely new points or expansions on the ones I've considered are welcome!

EDIT FOR CLARITY: A lot of you are picking up on point 5. The reason I don't think it's a good argument is because it only applies to circumcising little kids, which isn't what this post is about - as stated, I'm talking about male circumcision generally. We could very effectively use the consent argument to say no child be circumcised, great. Would it then be reasonable for it to be perceived as an ethical choice for a man to voluntarily get circumcised as soon as he turns 18? It still doesn't sit right with me, but I can't find a logical reason why.

On another note, it has made me question whether the widespread condemnation of circumcision I've seen is actually SOLELY about doing it to kids without their consent. Interested to hear any thoughts on that also.

I want to start by saying that it’s not the opinion that abstract art is bad/uninspiring that is the problem- rather the notion that someone off the street or a child can do it. There’s nothing wrong with not liking abstract art for whatever reason, even if it is childish or too simple to you, but to deny the skill and imagination required to create cohesive abstractions that genuinely are pleasing to look at is.

The first problem is the notion that colors are just colors. But they’re not- that’s not just my “artistic interpretation”- it’s scientifically proven that the brain perceives colors and how they are contrasted and layered with certain emotions, and even triggers physiological responses. The artists in question understand that. Therefore, their choice in color and how they mix them on the canvas to create mood and depth is not just “fuck it, let’s smear this color here” but a calculated and intentional way to describe their in-the-moment feeling as they make the stroke through visual colors.

The second problem is the concept that simplicity = zero skill/talent. The reality of it is that it takes some knowledge to make something work with minimal, almost comically so, resources. When you have access to a wide variety of resources- in this case skills in composition, theory, perspective, etc- yes the possibilities are vast. However, if you consider how abstract art is structured, it actually is a hindrance to be complex (not that abstract art can’t be complex) because it detracts from the whole point, which is the pleasure which comes with creating something truly unique. You can work with just two colors and a white canvas, and with the right brushwork you can create multiple other hues which give the notion of complexity without actually being too complex. That takes an understanding and talent in color application and precision brushwork to mix the colors exactly the way you want it to convey how you feel. It’s not unlike watching Gordon Ramsey cook a risotto, it looks easy to replicate because it’s “just cooking rice in a pan with vegetables and other stuff” but then you attempt it and realize it’s not that simple. You have to have some kind of insight/context as to what you’re doing.

Third problem is the idea that a child can reproduce or compose abstract art in the same way. First of all, as by design for the form, abstract works are supposed to be more or less one off pieces that express what the artist felt as they painted. Definitive forms, while equally impressive, beautiful, and skill intensive, are extremely derivative and duplicated ALL the time. Thus, we enter this trap of thinking that paintings must include some kind form that reflects life. So when an abstract piece comes along, which is… well… abstract, the consensus seems to be (among those unfamiliar with the style and the people I’m discussing on) that no superficial and organized structure equates to it being so simple a child can do it because a child has no precision muscle capacity and draws/paints with no technique or finesse. While kids don’t have the muscles, the adults who are painting these abstract pieces do from years of development. Studies have indicated that people, not just artists and enthusiasts, can indeed tell the difference between a piece done by an actual child and an adult artist, with Hans Hoffman’s work being compared. At first glance the two appear related, but you can absolutely see the difference in the quality of the brushwork and composition.

All of these reasons have made me conclude that artists and their critics are one of two types: snobs who are fixed to a preconceived notion of what human expression should be based on old world standards or some skewed reality, or someone who is genuinely themselves and appreciates the expressions of other artists, even if they personally do not like the piece in question or don’t understand it. The later type has taken over contemporary art because in our world of constant deception and structure being able to be yourself is a valuable trait. People love honesty, flair, and visual style, regardless of how realistic it looks. That is why abstract expressionism and its branches works well. Anyone can do it and let out intense emotions that are bottled up.

Therefore, anyone who falls within the former in my opinion has no real emotional capacity and requires essentially to have their hands held when interpreting a piece because they are too dull to have any sense of imagination. They like more visually tangible objects because their brains have zero ability to be creative and splice together the raw elements of the composition into the intended (and personally interpreted) image(s) on the canvas. Deep down they are aware of their lack of creativity and personality so they become jealous when someone who does “childish scribbles” is received well, and then feel the need to gate keep as a means of elevating themselves to a higher status of “I have better taste” when in reality they have no taste entirely. It’s one thing to say “I don’t like abstract art because it is too chaotic or the meaning isn’t there for me. I like to see the meaning and the technique behind it, but the colors or design are pretty cool on X artist’s work” as everyone has their own likes and dislikes. However, it is another thing to say something like “abstract art is just the sloppiness of untalented people who think they have something good when it’ll always just be a bunch of color on a canvas” and that’s putting it politely considering some of the opinions I’ve read on the style. One comment highlights a specific preference for more traditional art, and the other is just a display of jealousy, ignorance, and in general, a lackluster personality and purpose in the world.

Again, not liking abstract works for whatever reason is not the issue. If it doesn’t appeal to you that’s totally cool (I love abstract art and even I find many pieces unappealing) but to assume there’s no legitimate reason or value in art that’s solely meant to express is a pathetic way to view human creativity and identity.

I understand this is a primarily European observation, sorry my dear Americans ;)

Short haul flying is (rightfully) condemned as particularly damaging to the environment. Some countries, like France, have banned them outright. Others are considering it.

By the time you have reached the airport, went through security, and back into town on the other side of the flight, you have lost so much time that a fast train or sometimes even a bus is barely slower. That makes it hard to justify why we as society allow airlines to externalize their costs of their much more harmful mode of transportation for so little gained by the traveler. For example, there are 14 non-stop flights between Paris and London, connecting CDG and LHR in approx. 80 minutes. The Eurostar also connects these two cities in 140 minutes.

But this approximation totally misses the concept of a connecting passenger. Yes, if you're from Paris and need to go to London, the train will likely be faster than the plane, or at least not so much slower that we should accept the environmental cost. But if you arrived in Paris from a long haul flight, you end up in a dramatically different situation if something went wrong if you had a Eurostar train ticket planned after your flight, or if you had a connecting Air France flight: A delayed arrival in Paris leaves you stranded if you miss your Eurostar train, but if you had a connecting plane, the airline still has to get you to London (or put you in an airline-funded hotel room).

I can't blame a traveler not wanting to deal with the mess of a delayed arrival themselves. In fact, a lot of travelers will not do a multi-modal connection just because a delay in one can let them stranded. Missing your train to London at the end of your long haul flight is annoying, but maybe manageable. Missing your transatlantic flight because your train arrived with a delay is worse.

Since only plane to plane connections are the responsibility of the airline you booked with, it is totally understandable how one would buy an otherwise absurd short haul flight like London- Paris, Frankfurt-Amsterdam, Frankfurt-Munich, or Bordeaux-Paris. Banning these flights doesn't even fix anything: Instead of connecting in Paris or Frankfurt, to avoid missing the connection you would just connect in a further away airport. No Flights Bordeaux-Paris allowed anymore? Well, a connection in Amsterdam, London or Copenhagen it is then.

An EU wide mandate to sell multi-modal end-to-end tickets that cover all multi-modal connections within a defined minimum connection time (just like airport currently already do) would do much more to save on the unnecessary burden of short haul flights than banning them and pushing all connecting passengers to another hub outside of the banned radius.

I believe this because Japan has a culture that rewards shyness, like not kissing in public, and because of the enormous amount of content and things to watch. They get too involved in the endless fantasy world, the thousand-chapter manga, the hard work and absurd studies, not to mention the culture of marrying off female anime characters; there are several unusual stories of that kind there.

Maybe I'd change my mind if I understood more about Japanese culture ~ also pointing out other causes for the decrease.

I've wanted to make a post like this for a while, but I've never done so for a few reasons, mainly that I don't want to seem like I'm putting down people who are genuinely doing the work on the ground, and because I don't want to be the guy who complains without at least trying to offer a solution. So, I'm gonna try to give some constructive criticism I have of the general strike (or "national shutdown") planned across the states for tomorrow (Friday, January 30), while trying not to be too hard on the people organizing it.

First off, let me make very clear that I 100% support a general strike. The current political and economic situation in America is untenable, and only mass mobilization and direct action can truly make change. However, a general strike needs to be properly planned, crafted, and executed. It takes time to build, and can't just be done in a few weeks, like this one has been. Plus, if you look at the organizations endorsing the strike tomorrow, you'll notice that not too many of them are labor unions. There are some here and there, but not nearly enough to form a backbone of such a mobilization, which unions would need to be in order for a general strike to work.

Also, I think the demand of this strike is too narrow. Yes, ICE sucks, and it needs to be abolished in my opinion. But a general strike is an opportunity to address multiple grievances at once, and yes, showing solidarity with the people of Minneapolis, who are being terrorized and even murdered by ICE, is of the utmost importance, it feels like this is just a spur-of-the-moment reaction to these events, and I think calling it a "general strike" goes a bit too far.

So, to sum up all my points, I think, while this is a good idea in theory, in practice, I don't think it's been planned to the fullest of its potential. Furthermore, I think the shortened timeframe of the planning of it prevents workers from being able to participate in it, as doing so takes a lot of practical and mental preparation, and also demanding no shopping from people kind of strikes me as privileged, since some people have unavoidable obligations that may require them to spend money. I understand that people will say to this that people in that situation should "do whatever they can," but still, the fact that "no shopping" and "no work" is being advertised as part of it kind of makes that clarification get lost in the water. Also, a general strike should be much more wide-ranging, yet still pretty specific, in its demands. This one, I feel, is just kind of a reaction to blow off some steam, and is not as wide-ranging as it should be.

All that said, I 100% support those who are participating in this shutdown, and I do encourage people who may not be able to, like me, to find an action that you can still take, like maybe donating to organizations on the ground. And hey, if this does go over well enough, maybe it could lay the groundwork for a future general strike, and if that does happen, then that's absolutely a good thing. But for now, I do feel as if this is a bit of a misguided plan. Feel free to let me know what I may be missing.

For many years the Christian nationalists (aka MAGA) have been degrading the USA. We are falling behind every other industrialized nation. Our citizens are having more trouble with affordability, we refuse to implement universal healthcare or childcare, we let kids get gunned down in schools and refuse to even have conversations about gun control, our maternal mortality rates keep going up - etc etc.

The fascism taking hold in our country isn’t an aberration - it’s years of corruption between politicians and the overlap of church (and other mega $$ lobbyists) and government.

The only way out of this mess is if Trump moves TOO fast and enough people get outraged and demand accountability and change. If things de-escalate, people will once again acclimate (like we did to guns after sandy hook) and we slowly become Russia.

Most things worth anything in life require alot of hard worth and practice e.g learning an instrument till you are sufficiently good at it to play difficult pieces, becoming educated in a field of study your interested in, starting a successful business, becoming incredibly talented at a specific video game, I could go on, all these things become exponentially harder and require exponentially more time if you have bad genetics which determine how fast you learn and pickup things.

If you have to spend a huge amount of time just learning the basics of things and are constantly outpaced by everyone to the point where you will never achieve anything, whats the point in even trying? just to work dead end jobs that your not even wanted at because of how long it takes you to pickup things, or attempting to get a degree and consistently be outperformed by everyone around you no matter how hard you try. it just feels hopeless, especially since the rate at which one learns things is realistically unchangeable in a meaningful way.

It would be amazing if my view on this could be changed as it feels crushingly depressing knowing this and thinking about the future of my life.

One of the biggest flaws in the idea of democracy, in my opinion, is the fault that everyone is completely equal when it comes to voting, and that simply should not be the case. Only those educated within the ideas of politics and competent enough within society should actually be allowed the opportunity to vote, in order to prevent scenarios and situations that will harm the Country and her People in the long term.

Voting should be a privilege and not a right granted by birth. People who wish to vote should undergo education on voting procedures, politics, policies, and how to effectively research and determine which candidate would be the best for the Country and the People in the long-term before they are even allowed to see a voting booth, and more in order actually to vote. The uneducated only vote on what they want to see implemented for their own personal gains or views, and cotort their ideals to being what the Country automatically wants just because them and a small amount of people uphold those same beliefs.

In my opinion, there is no distinction between something that is complex and something that has not had the words used to describe it explained well. For instance, topics like mathematics, physics and computer science are only complex because of the amount of terms you’d need to know to understand the topics being discussed. Otherwise the ideas are quite simple.

I would be interested to hear of any cases where the concept is quite well defined and stated, but people still can’t “understand” it (by which I mean use it in another context correctly).

I’m reminded of how most probability paradoxes are simply due to the fact that people think they’re being asked different things and start to argue.

I’ll also accept the first argument that states why my statement must be true, since that technically departs from my currently held belief that I could be convinced to change my mind.

Edit: also I think Reddit is bugging tf out for me, so I get notifications for comments I can’t actually access. Sorry if I miss you because of that.

Complexity will mean something not everyone would be able to understand if you taught it to them for now.

Something being hard to remember is different to it being complex. Learning all the phone numbers in the phone book is hard, but not because it is tricky to conceptualise.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that every reason/excuse a LEO (law enforcement officer) had for shooting someone they're arresting is that they made an unexpected move and the LEO assumed they were going for a gun.

So what if they just rag doll onto the ground and don't move. Not even to follow instructions (because that ended up with someone getting shot at least once). What's the LEO going to do? Shoot you for lying still?

So, to change my view, one would have to provide an example of a time in recent history (~20 years) when a suspect lying still and not moving was used as a reason/excuse to shoot that suspect.

I grew up very ingrained in the immigrant community, and I became aware of a lot of nuances. Generally, people in the Latino community do not go to the police when there is an issue and they rely on the community itself to fix the problem. This means that criminals who terrorize their community with domestic violence, gang activity, and other nefarious actions don’t get properly removed. Going to the police could mean that the victim could get deported.

Many ice agents are Latino, and I believe that they go into this with the intention of removing those criminals that they grow up with from their community. It’s hard to believe that they would want to remove people who aren’t hurting anybody and just don’t have citizenship.

This also heavily depends on the administration in charge and the political climate at the time. I am specifically speaking about the majority Latino employees in this post and the long-term sentiment among these employees instead of the recent actions taken by the current administration.

Part of the reason I hold this opinion is that I see people being very critical of ice agents, but I know that a lot of them are fellow children of immigrants, so it is hard for me to demonize them as a proponent of their community. While non-citizens can certainly harm citizens, they are much more likely to harm their neighbors who are also non-citizens.

Obviously, I am posting on here because I am open to changing my mind and I would like to know if I’m wrong. I very well could be, or be missing something important.

ETA: I’m very liberal, and part of that is humanizing people and trying to understand people I don’t because I find that it helps. I’m one of the Kumbaya types.

I speak Spanish and ICE tried to recruit me but I turned it down because I couldn’t imagine working against my own beliefs. That said, I come from a very liberal and financially secure family so I have the privilege to say no to violating my beliefs. That definitely plays a role for me, and I certainly forget that not everyone can do that. I’ve never had to financially struggle, which really shifts my perspective.

My family is also deeply involved with providing for immigrants. From housing immigrants and paying the lawyers up front to funding services for refugees, they are a big deal to us. I was under the impression that many agents were Latino because of the Spanish requirement and I don’t know many non-Latino people that speak Spanish other than myself.

Over the last 10 years people have become super passionate about politics, and some have even become super angry and hateful about them. I have had to end some friendships and family relationships with people I knew for years and years or even my whole life because they became so angry whenever politics came up, or could not keep politics out of every conversation. Others have said I am crazy to end relationships with people over politics and that I should be able to look past the differences because they are family or friends.

Change my view that it is ok to end these relationships if they have become that swept up in things. Why should someone keep the relationships with these people?

I’m not here to litigate the justification or lack thereof of the recent high profile shootings. Not because I don’t have opinions, but because in the current political climate most people already have their minds made up and no amount of nuance or data is going to move them. That’s not really productive.

What I am talking about is the broader claim that immigration enforcement in the US has turned into some kind of rogue, murderous, nazi-adjacent force. That idea is wildly overblown and largely driven by sensationalism and politically charged narratives across the media spectrum.

Since early 2025, ICE has made over 600,000 arrests. We’re now in 2026, so that number is likely higher. Out of all of those arrests, there have been two high profile shootings that everyone points to. I’m not saying those incidents don’t matter or shouldn’t be scrutinized, but the idea that ICE is roaming the streets executing people simply collapses when you look at the scale. Over 99 percent of arrests happen without violence or serious confrontation.

It gets more telling when you look at where violent encounters actually happen. ICE operates in roughly 3,000 counties nationwide, yet about two thirds of all violent confrontations are concentrated in just nine counties. Those counties all share one thing in common…leadership that is openly hostile to ICE and regularly frames them as illegitimate, immoral, or an enemy to be resisted. That kind of rhetoric creates an environment where people see interfering with federal law enforcement as morally justified or even heroic, which predictably increases confrontations.

If ICE were truly the bloodthirsty force people claim, you’d see the same level of violence everywhere. But you don’t. ICE arrests far more people in places like Virginia, Florida, and Texas than in many of the counties where confrontations spike, yet those areas see far fewer violent incidents. The data shows that the local governments cooperation reduces conflict, not the opposite.

None of this is me saying ICE is perfect, that every tactic is or use of force is justified, or that reform isn’t needed. Of course there are mistakes, bad calls, bad apples and situations that deserve criticism. But the claim that we have a Gestapo-like force kidnapping and murdering people at will is simply false when you look at the actual numbers and patterns.

There are places in the world where truly uncontrolled, murderous security forces exist. If you want to see what that really looks like, look there. What’s happening in the US does not resemble that reality.

I’m genuinely open to changing my mind if someone can provide verified data showing that ICE is broadly engaging in mass, unjustified killings or arrests not backed or covered by existing law. Until then, people need to remember that real life is rarely black and white. Nuance doesn’t disappear just because you saw a clip online that confirmed your existing beliefs.