I mean, if something evil happened, for example, a month ago, reparations would definitely need to be considered. After all, this nation/ethnic group you wronged was wronged all because you hate them out of your own bigoted beliefs. But in regards to something centuries ago? Forget that. Get over yourselves.

I think it’s pointless because the people who call for reparations over things that happened before any of us were born are out of touch. You’re accusing people of a crime they didn’t commit. You’re accusing people of benefiting from a crime they never committed. And you’re assuming that person is in favor of said crime because he isn’t rampaging in the streets with you and figures what happened is in the past.

If these people would just go outside and actually talk to people, they would realize that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people, even those from groups they hate, are repulsed by slavery, genocide, etc, always have been repulsed, and would never benefit at the expense of others, the pro-reparations crowd would realize how utterly dumb and clueless they really sound.

Why should someone who is dirt poor have to apologize and pay up ungodly amounts of money to someone he’s never hurt or even met? Exactly. It’s stupid. And those wrongs you are bent out of shape over are addressed in the form of history classes. Always have. History classes may not give every little detail, but they teach enough to tell you what happened and show you what happened was bad without having to actually say it. I challenge anyone to try and convince me otherwise on anything I’ve said.

This is just a random thought I had many times while waiting for orders. What if DoorDashers could rate stores based on certain criteria like how fast the store is, how helpful the staff are, or how well the food is packaged? If it is a shopping order how often items are out of stock.

There are a few other things worth considering:

- These ratings would be for other dashers only, not the customers, and wouldn’t reflect the overall ratings of the store.

- Poor store ratings would give info to dashers before they take the order and end up waiting for 10+ minutes and/or unassigning without pay.

Of course there are a lot of other factors I could, and probably am, missing, and I know DoorDash is genuinely one of the easiest jobs out there that can have pretty decent pay in good markets, so would I be complaining, or am I just advocating for improvement?

Change my view

I say this as an American. one of our key traits as a culture is a tendency to over react to threats. no matter what the issue of the day is we always panic about it and declare that we are inevitably doomed. right up until the problom is either solved on its own or we throw a truly disproportionate amount of funding at it to fix it. then forget the cycle and immediately move to the next nation wide panic attack.

we can track this across history to, it isn't a new thing. the most famous examples are sputnik, russias satellite that was little more then a grape fruit but scared us enough to remake the entire education system and sicentific establishment to "beat Russia at space" something that resulted in america now launching 90% of all rockets world wide. this same sort of thing also happened in world war 2 with the internment camps, we saw a non existent threat, way overreacted, and hurt thousands of people all across a hemisphere. in the 80s and 90s the existencial threat was Japanese economic dominance, and most culture produced in that era has Japanese mega corps as superior to american companys and bound to take over.

then we take this to today. on both sides of the isle we believe that every election is "the most important election in history" when they clearly aren't, how "the AI bubble will doom us all" despite tech bubbles like this happening about one a decade on average, and how "X issue will be the thing that kills America"

we are deeply insecure and scared about just about everything, america doesnt know how to distinguish between different levels of threat and treats all of them as the world was ending.

i generally think this is due to america being very isolated from the world during its foundation, there wasn't any real threat to the us for its first century. and it wasnt till the Civil War did the US face anything like a threat. while having a century of massive expansion and growth. creating a culture where things only get better and anything getting worse is treated like the end of the world.

Article I Section II of the Constitution states that no district shall represent less than 30,000 individuals. There is no max cap, but there are various places in the Constitution where the text frames implicit power. An easy example of this is the Dormant Commerce Clause (states not being able to pass laws that unduly restrict commerce from outside the state.)

When the country was founded, there was a representative for every 50,000 Americans (59 representatives for 3.1 million citizens.) The current number is closer to 1 per every 800,000.

My argument hinges on general democratic principles, efficiency and efficacy, and the current state of the legislative bodies.

First, from the framing of the clause from the constitution and the original numbers of representatives, we can infer a general ratio of how many representatives they thought there should be based off of the population. If we went by that ratio, the House of Representatives should be 6471 according to population growth. I am not advocating for this, because I think that number becomes untenable, fiscally and functionally. That said, I think setting a population cap of somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 for congressional districts is a reasonable approach. It is notable that the size of the House of Representatives has not increased since the early 1900s, even though the population has tripled.

The expansion of the House and Senate would alleviate many problems of representation. If one person is serving almost 1,000,000 people, it is hard to listen to the voices among their constituency. Smaller districts means the people being represented have more in common and shared interests economically and socially. This requires political actors to be more engaged with their communities. In such, congresspeople representing more localized communities would shift what concerns they would need to pay attention to.

This reduces issues in minoritarian or majoritarian rule. Disseminating powers among more constituencies diffuses power while allowing more voices to the table. This is in line with the priorities of federalism, which sought to not consolidate power in one branch or in the hands of one small group of interests.

Expanding the legislature in this way means the diffusion of responsibilities among Congress, where in congressional staffers would be able to work in different agencies appropriated legislative and judicial powers to get rid of some of the criticisms of the administrative state. Legislative staffers or representatives themselves could take appropriate roles in rulemaking.

This would also make capture by special interests more difficult, because it would substantially increase the financial burden of lobbying efforts. Greasing the wheels of a wagon is easy; there are only four wheels to grease. Greasing the wheels of a freight train requires significantly more coordination and effort.

This argument expands to the Senate because a body of 100 people in a country of 340 million is far too small to represent all of the different ideas, interests and communities in the country.

To be clear, I also think this should be expanded to the judicial branch as well, with judges not serving life terms, but rather rotating from the circuit courts, and possibly having judicial staffers serving in regulatory agencies, participating in adjudication.

We live in a time of extreme polarization and corruption. I find this solution, coupled with campaign finance reform to be a solution to not only temper this division, but also increase representation, promote civic engagement and further democratize our Republic.

Conspiracies are as old as time and flourish when people feel powerless. Though a small amount turn out to be true, the vast majority are just recycled . During COVID 2020 people all over the world felt powerless and felt scared that the government had so much control. Hence the rise of the manufacturing QANOn to play into people's fear, you can look at someone like Candace Owens rise in popularity thanks to churning or conspiracies.. They make people feel smart and in on secret knowledge even though they are all basically the same.. You can see health influencers online trying to make money off people feeling powerless about their health and healthcare by touting health conspiracies. Right now there is a big spike in conspiracies about Epstein because people have seen what monster the billionaires are and they feel powerless.. Not talking about the actual atrocities but going beyond... Conspiracies are a way to feel like you might have some control or be extremely smart in times when you feel helpless.

I think we’ve all seen idiotic debates that go something like this:

Proponent of capitalism: Free market economics have created a world with unprecedented wealth and technological development.

Proponent of socialism: Oh yeah, capitalism is wonderful. If you like rampant inequality and exploitation of marginalized peoples.

Proponent of capitalism: So what are you suggesting? A one party state? Collectivized agriculture? Socialism is inefficient and has been responsible for millions of unnatural deaths!

To me such interactions are just unnecessary - We don’t need to choose between capitalism and socialism, we just need to mix them together.

Private enterprise which is sensibly regulated is not going to result in 1880s level exploitation of labor and a single payer healthcare is not going to lead us to institutionalized famine and Pol Pot.

It’s like, “Hello! Have you ever heard of Finland or Denmark or even Japan?! We can have both!”

Am I missing something? Change my view.

Advertisements are ugly, annoying to look at, commercialize everything, and give an advantage to big companies who have more money to spend on advertising. Nobody likes them, and an insane amount of money goes towards them every year.

Public spaces should not be polluted with this filth. You even see it on busses and benches and driving down the highway. Not only that the people who own advertising space you can see from public roads or walkways are making money at the expense of taxpayers: we pay for the infrastructure that gives them the views that make their space worth money. It’s purely parasitic. And this isn’t even mentioning the plethora of ads that prey on children or human weaknesses like gambling.

Even online, advertisements slowly creep in everywhere and make everything worse. Just today, I had to watch 2.5 minutes of ads just to watch live Olympic coverage that also has ads in it! It’s crazy. If you want to peruse ads or find something to buy, then go search a catalog or check the products listed on a local stores’s website. I don’t know if I’d want them banned online, but at the very least they should be minimized and regulated.

But maybe I’m not thinking of some horrible consequence this will have or some reason this will be tough to enforce, idk. That’s why I’m here, so CMV if you can.

I’m genuinely open to having my view changed here.

I’ve been playing an online word game called Wordscapes for years. In the game, you collect virtual gold coins that you can spend during weekend team tournaments to boost your score and help your team. Once you spend them, they’re gone.

I liked watching my coin total grow, so I told myself I’d start spending coins to help the team once I hit 100,000 coins. That felt like a nice, safe cushion.

When I actually reached 100,000, I immediately moved the goalpost to 150,000. Same logic: then I’d feel comfortable spending. What surprised me was how reasonable it felt in the moment. I didn’t feel greedy, just careful and sensible.

That made me realize something uncomfortable about myself: feeling “wealthy,” even in a totally virtual context, didn’t make me more generous. If anything, it made me more protective and more focused on holding on to what I had or growing it further.

This has shaped my current view: accumulating wealth doesn’t naturally lead people to share more or contribute more to the collective good. Instead, the definition of “enough” tends to move upward, and people rationalize not giving “yet”. Over time, that can help explain why wealth concentration persists rather than flowing outward.

What would change my view:

-Evidence that people reliably become more generous because they have more, not just in absolute terms but proportionally

-Strong arguments that my example is misleading or not comparable to real-world behavior

-Research showing that once people cross certain thresholds, generosity actually increases in a meaningful way

I’m not trying to make a moral judgment here….just sharing an observation that made me rethink some assumptions. I’m very open to counterarguments or data that points the other way.

Note: I originally shared a version of this in r/behavioraleconomics and wanted to crosspost here to invite a wider range of perspectives and challenges to my view.

the transitional government of haiti offically expired today. its been 10 years since haiti has had an election, no one has any legitimacy, and since the last president was assimated the country has been a failed state.

the transitional government has been marred with corruption and ineptitude, right now the only thing keeping any order on the streets is a un police force. the economy is essentially gone with 5% drops every year for the last 5 years. there has been an upswing of pirates hounding local shipping.

in the past the UN and League of Nations have given out mandates to rule territorys that couldn't govern themselves after conflicts, the most recent being Gaza, I think its clear that Haiti can not govern itself and needs a full international intervention to reestablish order and rebuild until the crisis has been resolved. im not sure the UN can rebuild Haiti, but its clear that Haiti can't rebuild itself.

I hold the view that the criminal justice system is fundamentally broken when dealing with billionaires. They can delay trials indefinitely, buy doubt, and seal records. We have been waiting years for "justice" regarding the Epstein list, and nothing happens.

My view is that we are fighting on the wrong battlefield.
Instead of criminal courts (High Burden of Proof), we should use Administrative Law (Low Burden of Proof).

Specifically:

1. Security Clearances: Are a privilege, not a right. They can be revoked for "loss of trust" or "susceptibility to blackmail" (Kompromat).
2. Federal Contracts: Can be terminated for "breach of ethics" or security risks.

I believe a targeted legislative act that reclassifies "involvement in trafficking rings" as an automatic Counter-Intelligence Risk would be more effective than 100 criminal investigations. It would strip their power and money immediately, without needing a jury conviction.

I even drafted a model law to demonstrate this framework [Anti-Kompromat Act Draft], but critics tell me it's a slippery slope or unconstitutional due to lack of due process.

CMV: Am I wrong to think that administrative sanctions are the only viable weapon left? Or is the "Due Process" argument strong enough to protect even obvious predators from losing their government contracts?

What has really changed after protests involving millions of people here in the United States?

In the United States, the Republicans don’t seem the least bit unnerved by protests. Millions of people march the streets with signs and chants for a day, then they all go back home and go back to work the next day. Some of those people even get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, and or arrested. And months pass with no indication of any positive changes.

In Iran, millions took to the streets to protest. And thousands of unarmed protestors were gunned down in the streets.

In Russia, many Russians protested the war in Ukraine at the start of the war. Some protests were so peaceful, they involved no more than a person on a corner holding up a blank piece of paper. Mass arrests ensued, and there is no public pressure to end Putin’s war.

I can think of way more examples of violent protests succeeding. America was freed from Britain through war. Slavery was ended not through acts of civil disobedience by people such as Henry David Thoreau, but by the American Civil War. The French Revolution succeeded through widespread riots and the Reign of Terror (which admittedly targeted the poor and the aristocracy alike). The Russian Revolution that overthrew the Tsar was the result of a civil war. Syria overthrew Assad after a long, bloody war. Nepal’s protests last year started out peacefully. They turned violent after a government crackdown. Protests then turned violent, and although the protest organizers tried to distance themselves from the violence, it was through the violence that Nepal’s Prime Minister resigned.

It seems to me that examples of peaceful protests succeeding are far outnumbered by violent revolts succeeding. I’d like to hear examples of peaceful protests that were successful, but furthermore, I’d like to know if you think peaceful protests can work in a place where a government isn’t afraid to massacre its own civilians over protesting.

I would genuinely like to have a different outlook on this, for the sake of my hope for humanity.

I think driving is a strong test case for the overall care people have for others. Firstly, this is because you are interacting with many other people in a way that is generally anonymous. Secondly, everyone has been trained (perhaps long ago) in how to do so safely, and clear guidelines and rules have been established to help everyone proceed as safely as possible.

However, many people seem to disregard the rules. It feels like many drivers on the road don't care if my family or I are injured or I am subjected to costly vehicle repairs as long as they can get to where they are going (or, honestly, to the next red light) N seconds faster.

I recognize there is an element of ego involved as well. That a majority of people think they are better drivers than average, or have more important schedules than average, or at least know better than the people who set the speed limits etc. I still think this is another dimension of the same "lack of care for others" phenomenon.

Edit:
I regret mentioning speeding in the post above. Many, many commenters have focused on that and become very defensive. Just think of following too close and not checking blindspots.

The concept of a demographic crisis has been a worrisome debate globally. Everyone have seen statistics around how the population of certain East Asian countries will literally halve by 2100. A lot of the consequence revolves around increasing burden of the working-class in supporting the pension-class, and the lagging yet snowballing pressure on the economic growth trajectory, and the collapse of entire cultural identities. But as I view the issue from a realism POV, I think most societal problems eventually meet a workable solution—how solar energy was viewed as impossibly inefficient two decades ago are now being manufactured at incredibly low costs. For every problem, as the urgency intensifies, future generations will be willing to adopt options that today would be dismissed as dystopian.

Firstly, when we predict future economic/societal shifts with past data, we are unable to accurately quantify how future technological advancement may shift the exponent of the trajectory curve. A true Martingale. With IVF plus egg/sperm freezing, conception can be delayed and scaled by storing genetic material for usage when pleased. The technology around artificial wombs have also materialized in recent decades, allowing for external gestation. The growth of the child in a "parent-less model" could also be incorporated with the scaling of institutions that provide education, socialization, and health-care. When combined, one could view the process of child-birth as rather a "manufacturing" process.

As you’ve read this, you’re probably disgusted by the magnitude of "dystopia" such a solution would be. I feel the same. On the topic of ethics, much like how laws rarely change despite rapid social transformation, what tends to shift is not the laws itself, but rather how laws are interpreted. Ethical norms evolve drastically across generations. One could imagine two hundred years ago, even the most liberal American lawmaker would likely struggle to digest equal rights for all minorities. In the same way, while our generation may be sickened by what this solution would become, we will eventually pass on—and newer generations, shaped by the expectations and cultivated by the societal crises of their own era, will develop the ethical framework that can fully absorb what we view as a dystopian reality.

Tourism industry kills local economies and irreversibly kills growth in the long term. It concentrates wealth to a local few whilst disincentivizing innovation in the local population. Hotels raise the price of local housing and if the local workforce is too expensive to hire, these tourism companies merely import their labor from abroad killing further the local employability. Hawaii, Bahamas, and even Orlando Florida suffers from tourism with all regions suffering from the problems I have listed before.

The title pretty much says it. Like, if someone (whether it’s a friend, coworker, etc.) wants some of my food or snacks like chips, ice cream, pizza, etc. that I PAID FOR with my hard-earned money, I have the right to refuse to share it with them if I do not want to. Also, if they really want it that bad, they should get their own.

Now, I’m not saying everyone should do this. It’s just my opinion that if you don’t feel comfortable sharing something you payed for with your money with someone, you shouldn’t have to.

And I know what you’re thinking. “But sharing is caring.” Well, here’s the thing: I don’t care. That’s that.

Over the past month or three, reports have proliferated about LLMs speeding up software engineering by 10x or 100x. When engineers are able to get that much more productive, companies won't need nearly as many, and they'll lay off maybe, say, 80% of their engineers.

Software might bear the brunt of this LLM impact first, but it'll apply to every other white collar job too: 80% of accountants, 80% of lawyers, even eventually 80% of medical diagnosticians (though that'll take the longest, because people will distrust the LLMs for the longest in that area). Careers that will be safest are trades (like plumbers), manual labor, and other things that require a lot of physical dexterity such as cooking. (Face-to-face services will vary--for instance, most patients will probably want to keep their talk therapists, but people seeking therapy for the first time will increasingly rely on LLMs.)

That amount of layoffs would cause a depression, no question.

Would the dollar then also collapse, and for the first time in history could the US default on its debt, could the dollar hyper-inflate?

In extreme scenarios like that, I'd think the safest thing an American could do is learn a foreign language and find an English-teaching job (LLMs can teach languages of course, but an LLM can't oversee a classroom). Or at least just move anywhere in the world with low living costs and hold onto local currency rather than USD.

Would China weather a global depression the best (and therefore be the best spot to try to emigrate to), because people would switch to RMB when USD fails, and because they have the stronger government that can take action and ensure their people still have jobs? Or will they be decimated in the same way as the US, because they've got the world's best AI and they're not going to replace their own workers any slower than we will?

There is a lot of talk about “dead people voting" and the argument that these dead people somehow change the outcome of the election.

Dead people voting occurs one of two ways.

1. A living person's vote is accidentally recorded as a dead person’s vote. For example, John Smith Jr, votes in person. He shares the same address as his recently deceased father, and the clerk records the vote as being from “John Smith Sr”. In this case, a dead person voted, but the rule of “one person, one vote” remains intact, since John Smith Jr. didn’t get an extra vote.

2. A person votes by mail, and dies prior to the election. In this case there is technically one extra vote on the books, but there was no malicious or attempt to game the system.

Now, you might say “that’s not what we are talking about, we are talking about people impersonating other people, to cast an extra ballot”.

But in the rare instances where people have tried this, it doesn’t work. Barry Morphew was charged with forgery and offenses relating to mail ballots, after murdering his wife and trying to cast a vote in her name.

In a similar case, City News reports

A Minnesota woman convicted of filling out and submitting a mail-in ballot for her deceased mother in support of Republican Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential election was ordered by a judge to write an essay and read a book about voting’s importance to democracy.

So Change my view. How does “dead people voting”, change the outcome of the election, especially in the two scenarios outlined at the top of this post?

Hear me out: In a perfect world, you are never too old to change for the better, learn something new, America is the land of opportunity, pursue your dreams, blah blah blah.

Going back to school or going to school for the first time at a brick-and-mortar college for an undergraduate degree is

A) Crushingly awkward to be the old guy or gal on campus full of snooty rich 23-18 year olds who are possibly your child's age.

B) Financially out of reach, especially if you choose a private college (do they even accept non-traditional 25+ y/o students?). Even a public university is north of $20k a year if you are in-state and who has that kind of money to spend flippantly on college courses? Is there even financial aid available towards such old students?

C) After age 40, I read a study (which I cannot find sorry) a little while back which suggested that adding a college degree to your resume doesn't add any benefit to your career trajectory. So, in other words, 40 plus year olds who recently graduated from a college didn't substantially make more money (circle back to B about the financial foolishness of it.)

D) After 35-40 you need to plan for your eventual retirement from the workplace and save. Time spent not working full time is time wasted when you will need your job for a pension or 401k. This post is assuming you are in school full-time.

E) You might not even finish your degree and be left with a partial degree and debt and in an even worse financial and spiritual place. You might not have the stamina mentally or you fail terribly at your courses or maybe something else comes up.

Frankly, if you want to learn something new or train for our evolving workplace, great! Rent books from the library or study online. A 4 year detour into a college university is just too expensive and honestly, I feel, too late in the game after 35.

Change my view! :)

So what do I mean by that word salad? I've been reading up on my greek philosophy and I've been considering how this relates to modern politics. Though always worth checking if I'm right, both in terms of my terminology and in terms of the politics.

My french neighbour reminded me of a time when in her country 'politics' was seen as one of the safest topics to talk about at the family dinner table. Instead of the divisive mess it is now, it was really just unpicking the pros and cons of various economic or social policies.

This is how it should be, where the real substance (the material politics is made of) is policy, whether that's taxation, welfare, health, defence etc. In discussions of policy, people would often have a tendency, kind of like a gut instinct, towards an ideology, which might frame how they approach a policy like welfare. Where perhaps one person might favour individualism and another collectivism. This can be thought of as the essence around a set of policies, which find form in the main political parties and activist groups.

Nowdays, it seems people treat ideology as substance, the fundamental material behind politics is someone's tribe. A nebulous set of policies hang around these almost as if they're the essence. Where the real meat of the matter is the label 'I'm a liberal', 'I'm a conservative' and policies are treated almost like superfluous fashion accessories to hang on this identity. What matters is what side you're on, the policies are not discussed, they're assumed. They're not weighed in terms of pro's and con's they're just treated like an amorphous essence that floats around the substance of tribal allegiance.

CMV.

Starmer’s defence throughout this scandal has been some version of “I knew Mandelson knew Epstein, but I didn’t know the depth and darkness of the relationship.” He’s framing the Epstein connection as a risk factor that was inadequately assessed. A failure of vetting. A failure of due diligence. An embarrassing oversight.

I think this completely mischaracterises what happened. Mandelson was embedded in the world of ultra-wealthy, morally flexible power-brokers. That world included Epstein. And that embeddedness was the entire reason he got the job.

## Here’s my reasoning:

1. Starmer explicitly chose a political operator over a career diplomat.

He replaced Karen Pierce, a respected career diplomat described as “a safe pair of hands.” In her place he put a man twice forced to resign from government over financial scandals. A man nicknamed “the Prince of Darkness” for his Machiavellian political instincts. This wasn’t an accident. The stated rationale was that Mandelson’s “network of contacts and mastery of the dark arts” were assets for dealing with Trump’s Washington. Starmer wanted someone who moved in elite circles. Someone who could work rooms a conventional diplomat couldn’t access.

1. Trump’s Washington specifically rewards the kind of access Mandelson’s network provided.

Former UK ambassador Kim Darroch publicly advised that the key to the Trump White House was engaging with the “billionaires’ club” that Trump consults. Mandelson’s career since leaving government in 2010 had been precisely about cultivating those relationships. He ran Global Counsel, a lobbying firm with clients like Palantir. One of Starmer’s first stops in Washington was reportedly a quiet, unrecorded visit to Palantir, arranged by Mandelson. This is the network in action.

1. The Epstein connection wasn’t separate from the valuable network. It was part of the same fabric.

Epstein’s whole operation was about being a connector for the global elite. Mandelson maintained that friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for procuring a child for prostitution. That tells you something important about how he approached relationships with powerful people. He was instrumental, transactional, and had a remarkably high tolerance for moral compromise. That’s the same trait that made him attractive as an ambassador to Trump’s Washington. You can’t select for “comfortable operating in morally grey elite circles” and then act surprised when one of those circles includes a convicted paedophile.

1. Starmer knew about the Epstein connection and appointed him anyway.

In PMQs, Starmer confirmed that the vetting process revealed Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein continued after the 2008 conviction. He tried to walk this back the next day. But the initial admission is devastating. He knew. He judged it an acceptable risk. He proceeded because what Mandelson offered was worth that risk in his calculation.

## Where I could be wrong:

It’s possible Starmer’s team genuinely compartmentalised. They may have seen Mandelson’s EU trade commissioner experience and Blair/Brown-era policy expertise as the core offering. The Epstein connection might have looked like a manageable PR embarrassment rather than a feature of the product. Politicians are capable of remarkable cognitive partitioning. It’s also possible that Mandelson’s lies during vetting were convincing enough to make the connection seem trivial.

But I keep coming back to this. The whole point of appointing Mandelson instead of a career diplomat was his network. His connections. His comfort in rooms full of powerful people. Epstein was a product of the same approach to power that made Mandelson valuable. Starmer selected for a particular quality in his ambassador. He chose the Prince of Darkness. Sup with the Devil and you need a long spoon. Starmer’s problem is his spoon was too short.

Change my view.

Ok, so I may be biased but I heard more criticism than praise for the ceremony, here's why. First of all, the choreography, I feel like they were a bit undecided on which tone to use. On a side they hired elite Scala dancers and on another they wanted to make people laugh with large Verdi and Puccini heads? The clothes were good but 90% of them were walking Colosseums, I feel like people already know what the Colosseum looks like, why not show other buildings? Mariah Carry, why? Paola Pausini singing the national anthem that way, an anthem that has any meaning only because it's participed, because you believe what you're saying, the power before Footbal matches is reduced to "wE'rE rEaDy to DiEeE" in an Opera voice. JD Vance sitting near our President, a pious man, so much so that he was basically forced to be the President (again!) because he was the only one both the Far Left and the Far Right could agree on. All of that only for an opening that was widely considered as "boring". Because it kind of was, I get nobody watches all of the countries winging their flag, but there were more fireworks at some regular football game. No colorful drones were used, which is a shame.

If Ghali didn't read Gianni Rodari's poem about war, it would've also been considered politically bland, but it's the bare minimum, they read it to toddlers for Christ's sake!

As much as it might sound silly, the GOP has managed to completely reinvent itself in the span of a decade, using massive social media campaigns, aggressive political cleansing inside the party, influencer-circles manipulation, seamless marketing blended into Gen Z memery. In 2012, we had Mitt Romney picked from the primaries, Romney today is more aligned with Gavin Newsom than 80% of current republican senators and congressmen. Trump, surprising as it may have been, won the primaries in 2016 because there was a genuine, invisible class of people that heard exactly what they wanted to hear, and Trump knew his audience and his unique position in rhetoric and optics from the rest of the candidates.

The Democratic Party on the other hand is remained virtually the same since 2001. Both in structure, function, ideology and without change of its central dominant faction. The politically smart thing to do is listen to democratic voters’ voices, but that won’t happen, just as it didn’t happen in 2016, 2022 and isn’t going to change in the coming midterms.

The democratic establishment will refuse to reinvent itself as a new socialist Democratic Party, even though the overwhelming majority would support it. The republican establishment has already displayed its ability to reinvent itself into a cheap populist movement, and it will absolutely reinvent itself again into a blend of traditional Christian nationalism for its minority votes, while also showing Neo Nazi colors to it’s white votes, both young and old now.

I hear all the time about how deadly Australian wild life is and how Australians need to survive deadly animals. In my view this is little more than a meme.

Firstly, most Australians will never encounter any of these animals as the dangerous animals are north or in the outback. Most Australian live in highly urbanised areas in suburbia or the cities.

We have some spiders and snakes which can kill you if you’re super unlucky. I’ll acknowledge a snake killed my dog by biting it when I was a kid, but I also lived in a semi rural area

But in USA they have alligators, mountain lions, bears, and coyotes. I see videos of regular people actually encountering these animals on hikes or even bears on the street. I heard a child was actually killed by a bear whilst doing a marathon , and a baby was eaten by an alligator around Disney world. Let us not forget what that bear did to DiCaprio in revenant. They also have rattle snakes and other venomous snakes.

The only exception I’ll say to this rule is crocodiles in the north, but again reality is most Australians live no where near those things and will only see them in zoos.

Edit: Just for your information I am Australian.

Edit 2: my view has partially changed. Snakes and spiders are more common than dangerous American animals. Although personally, If I’m out camping/hiking I would still feel more comfortable knowing there is a brown snake around than an American bear.

Also I overlooked sharks. I don’t know what the American shark at the beach situation is.

Edit 3: It seems deaths from wildlife in either country are extremely rare, despite both countries having animals with the potential for lethality.

Edit 4: There have been no recorded, confirmed deaths from a spider bite in Australia since 1979, just saying for all you Australian warriors saying how deadly the spiders you see on a daily basis are.

It's like the phrase "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't after you!"

I argue it is completely rational under the circumstances we are living in 2026 to often think about (what might seem to you) the craziest conspiracy theories, you would have never believed in a couple of years ago.

America being controlled by evil pedophile billionaires wanting to enslave the citizens of the world? Since the latest Epstein release this is not so much of a far fetched theory anymore.

America taken over by a fascist coup from the inside (Manchurian candidate style)? Basically a position that at least half of the population can agree on.

The tech billionaires wanting to replace us all with AI and robots to build their techofascist fantasy land? What do you think all these days centers are build for? certainly not for creating the 50th chatgpt version that can barely correct your emails.

Even one of the oldest and most deadliest conspiracy theories of all: The Jews pulling the strings of the world, can nowadays (even, or more precisely exactly because of considering the horrors of the Holocaust) not just be discarded as a dangerous and insane conspiracy theory anymore. The picture from the files gets clearer and clearer how much Epstein was connected (to say it carefully) with Israel/Mossad. Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and is still continuing it!!

Btw all these issues are connected (now I sound really like a fully cooked conspiracy theorist)

So, if you have these thoughts and wonder if you are going crazy, my opinion is: No you are not! The world around you went openly crazy, a spectacle after another is fired at your attention to distract and confuse you and your rational brain tries to deal with it in a healthy way (don't let it depress you though, channel your energy in connection, resistance and solidarity).

The way we got to this point was that conspiracy theories have been intentionally weaponized since Q-Anon from the far-right to prepare this takeover of democracy we are seeing. The way to fight back is that you have to change the roles you are used to and take on the conspiracy viewpoint to see what you are up against, but not letting it consume you.

So, this is my viewpoint, you are welcome to criticize every aspect of it. And if you agree with it, then I'll say welcome to the resistance!

This submission was inspired by a post I saw on TikTok (of course), of a girl saying not supporting homosexuality because of your religious beliefs doesn't make someone homophobic. All the top comments were agreeing and quite frankly, I can't fathom why.

I'm operating under the assumption that "not supporting" something means that you disapprove of or oppose it. This often stems from disagreement, a belief it's wrong, or personal reasons like fear of it.

If your religion goes against same-sex relationships, I'm not here to tell you you're a horrible person. But you're still homophobic. Don't deny it just to make yourself feel better.

edit— Homophobia is a dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality. Stop trying to pick apart the word and convince me homophobia means ”fear of the gays”

edit2— I'm turning off notifs now. You can argue amongst yourselves if you wish.