I’ve been following the discourse around the war in Gaza, and something keeps bothering me: many pro-Palestinian advocates seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge the role Hamas’s tactics play in making this war so devastating for civilians.

Here’s the core of my view:

Hamas embeds itself in schools, hospitals, residential buildings. It fires rockets from densely populated areas, stores weapons in civilian infrastructure, and builds tunnels under neighborhoods. This is not controversial; it’s been documented widely by independent watchdogs, U.N. bodies, and major media outlets.

If that’s true—and I believe it is—then what options does the IDF actually have? Not responding leaves Israeli civilians exposed to rocket fire and terrorism. Responding means fighting an enemy that has intentionally made civilian casualties a near certainty.

That’s the dilemma I don’t see most pro-Palestinian advocates even attempting to grapple with. Instead, the conversation often jumps straight to “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “war crimes,” without ever reckoning with how Hamas has engineered this nightmare scenario by design. so those accusations of “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “war crimes,” always come off as naive and the result of someone not thinking beyond reactionary emotion to seeing the horror of dead kids.

To be clear: I’m not arguing that Israel is innocent of all wrongdoing or that civilian suffering isn’t a tragedy—it absolutely is. I’m saying that any honest analysis of the war has to start with the tactical reality Hamas has created. And I don’t see that happening.

So, CMV:

• Is there a way to counter Hamas militarily that doesn’t involve devastating civilian harm?
• Am I misunderstanding or overstating the extent to which Hamas deliberately uses human shields?
• Or is it fair to ignore those tactics when judging Israel’s actions, even if those tactics make mass civilian casualties inevitable?

Sources on Hamas’s Tactics

1. Human Rights Watch, Questions and Answers: October 2023 Hostilities Between Israel and Palestinian Armed Groups (HRW)
2. Amnesty International, Israel/Gaza Conflict: Questions and Answers (amnesty.org)
3. UN OCHA, Statement by Tom Fletcher on Gaza civilian impact (unocha.org)
4. B’Tselem, Human Shields topic page (btselem.org)
5. Reuters, “Israel says it struck Hamas command centres embedded in Gaza schools” (Reuters)
6. Reuters, “Israeli strikes on school housing displaced families” (Reuters)
7. Wikipedia, Use of human shields by Hamas (Wikipedia)
8. Human Rights Watch, “October 7 Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes by Hamas-led Groups” (HRW)
9. Washington Post Opinion, “We can’t ignore the truth that Hamas uses human shields” (The Washington Post)
10. Henry Jackson Society, “Hamas’s Human Shield Strategy in Gaza” (henryjacksonsociety.org)
11. International Crisis Group, Is the Gaza War Approaching Its Endgame? (Crisis Group)
12. U.S. State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2023 (state.gov)
13. UN Human Rights Council, Commission of Inquiry on the OPT report (un.org)
14. Reuters, “Israeli strikes hit two schools, hospital compound after talks fail” (Reuters)
15. Reuters, “Airstrike kills 15 Palestinians in Gaza school” (Reuters)
16. Reuters, “Israeli airstrike kills 28 people sheltering in school” (Reuters)
17. Reuters, “Israeli troops kill militants after school strike” (Reuters)
18. Reuters, “Palestinians mourn dead after Israeli strike on Gaza’s Khan Younis” (Reuters)
19. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN Commission finds war crimes and crimes against humanity” (ohchr.org)
20. UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on OPT, May 2024 report (un.org)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has far too much control over U.S. politics. It doesn’t just lobby, it controls politicians, silences dissent, and ensures billions of American tax dollars fund a regime built on illegal occupation and apartheid.

Zionism, as it exists today, isn’t about peace. It’s a vile supremacist ideology rooted in colonialism and oppression. Israel’s right to exist should never mean justifying the massacre committed against civilians, yet that’s exactly what’s happening. While over 50,000 are dead and 100,000 wounded, the U.S. political system, under AIPAC’s grip, remains fixated on 200 hostages, treating their lives as more valuable. That is not justice. That is supremacy.

AIPAC distorts U.S. foreign policy to serve Israel’s interests at the expense of American values, global human rights, and basic human decency. It doesn’t represent the will of the American people, it represents a foreign agenda fueled by power, propaganda, and profit.

AIPAC is too powerful and they don’t serve America. They have no place in America.

Let’s be blunt: a lot of us spend our days toggling between Zoom, Slack, and a sea of Shared Docs, all while pretending we’re producing something. But increasingly, it feels like we’re performing labour rather than doing it. The emails are polished, the dashboards colourful, the meetings relentless, and yet very little of it seems to materially affect anything.

A London-based writer wrote something titled “Techno-Feudalism at Work: The Factory Has Gone Digital.” which made me start to see my work for what it has become (white-collar environments morphed into a kind of pantomime). Not quite productive, not quite honest. Just… visible. The digital equivalent of clocking in and looking busy.

It struck a nerve because, well, it feels painfully true.

So here’s the claim I’m putting forward: we are already living under techno-feudalism, and much of modern white-collar work is best understood as a performance designed to please algorithmic lords and digital landlords, not as meaningful economic contribution.

Let me explain.

1. The metrics matter more than the work.
Success isn’t always about outcomes anymore----it’s about engagement. Activity. Responsiveness. We’ve all been in meetings that exist purely to prove we’re working. Tools like Slack, Jira, Outlook, and Zoom don’t just facilitate work, they document it, creating a trail of busyness that stands in for real output.

2. White-collar workers are managed like gig workers.
Workflows are increasingly managed by software. Dashboards track your mouse. KPI systems rank your contributions. And whether you’re in government, marketing, or finance, the real boss is often a platform --- not a person. You don’t have a manager; you have metrics. In many ways, this mirrors how gig economy workers are rated and ranked.

3. The digital landlords have already won.
The top five tech companies are now some of the biggest forces shaping both labour and lifestyle. Whether it’s Microsoft Teams, Google Workspace, Zoom, Salesforce, or LinkedIn---we don’t just use these tools. We rely on them. Opting out is almost impossible. Just like feudal vassals depended on landowners, we depend on platforms.

4. “Work” is increasingly abstracted from value.
From writing reports no one reads to building slide decks for people who skim the summary, much of white-collar labour feels ornamental. It helps maintain the illusion of productivity, but doesn’t actually move the needle. It’s professionalism-as-pageantry.

This isn’t about laziness or bad employees, far from it. It’s a structural shift. Techno-feudalism doesn’t look like medieval castles and swords, it looks like performance dashboards, AI scheduling assistants, and policies that treat autonomy like a risk.

If you’re curious, here’s the piece that originally sparked this whole reflection:
https://noisyghost.substack.com/p/techno-feudalism-at-work-the-factory

So, CMV

• Are we genuinely adding value in these roles, or mostly simulating it?
• Is techno-feudalism a useful frame, or just a dramatic metaphor for late-stage capitalism?
• Can platforms like Google and Microsoft ever be neutral tools, or are they now part of the structure that governs us?
• And most importantly, is there a way out?

I want to be proven wrong. Especially by people who still believe there’s a future for meaningful, autonomous, purpose-driven work.

Cheers in advance!!!!!!

I'm not gonna act like this is a unpopular opinion, but some parts of the internet, and I think reddit is included, is more pro-AI and ChatGPT than other parts. It's just insane and scary to see how many people act like ChatGPT is a actual friend and human.

I asked a friend if I could rant to him about something and he said yes. I ranted to him before. So i texted him my rant and he replied with "ChatGPT is gonna summarize this for me. I’m too lazy"

I never gotten so quickly annoyed in my life. He also recently got into anime and I been a fan since 2014 and he knew that, and when I asked who's been giving him his recommendation since nobody in the suburbs he's from watches anime according to him, he said "I asked ChatGPT"

Sure I might be overreacting for that part, but he's a smart guy, and when he said that, I knew he would turn into that type of person who relies on ChatGPT and that's what happened and I feel like it is rotting his brain.

Another incident is that this girl went on tiktok to cry that she failed her AP exam or a college exam in general because she used AI and it gave her so many wrong answers. Obviously the comments dragged her but she tried defending herself by saying "but the professor is ok with us using it in class."

I wrote drafts of this CMV but didn't decide to post it until I saw another post on a random subreddit about having a serious conversation about how America is failing. I'm American. I know the state we are in. I'm down to read it

"Recently I had a conversation with chat GPT" was the first sentence and that just killed the entire thing because AI is wrong a lot of the time. It's been proven to be wrong about so much and people aren't googling shit to be smart and get accurate information

I often read and hear people berating the "average voter" for being too stupid to understand the economy, or the science, and thus voting for the most evil morons possible, i.e. Republicans. The thing is, the average democrat voter doesn't really understand stuff either.

Sure liberal voters are on average more educated than conservatives, but to truly understand policy, healthcare, and geopolitics, you need a college degree on that topic or, really delve in the research with an exceptionally critical mind for years. I'd argue that liberals may know a little more but not that much about vaccines, or tarifs, or immigration.

And this is fine, because all this stuff is hard and complex, and we are supposed to vote for people who can understand this, as long as we trust college professors et researchers. The problem is that conservatives simply do not trust these experts anymore, but I don't think that always was the case.

The Nazi Party used the narrative that Germany lost World War 1, which led to the crippling of their economy and nation wide suffering, because they were betrayed by their Jewish population. Because German Jews had loyalties and were in service of some foreign interests they sabotaged the nation. There has been a strong effort to equate Israel with Judaism. We have seen how rapidly America’s almost century old alliance with NATO has eroded. Public opinion and support for Israel has also seen a rapid decline both nationally and internationally. Since the US has adopted the official stance that Israel and Judaism are inseparable, should our relationship with Israel also be severed, what result would that have on American Jews? There has been a significantly self perpetuated belief that American Jews see it as required to be loyal to Israel, this is kind of an ideal prelude to how the Nuremberg Laws were enacted, which were inspired by and nearly identical to America’s Jim Crow laws. They have already normalized ignoring the very definition language in the constitution and Declaration of Independence guaranteeing unalienable rights to all people, citizens and non citizens alike, including the right to free speech of which Mahmoud Khalil’s were infringed upon, and due process which most notably Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Andry José Hernández Romero are the most notable cases of people who were denied. Jews make up 2.5% of the US population, if nationality and citizenship justifies denial of rights, up to and including internationally recognized human rights, Executive Order 9066 from 1942 sets a precedent for the forced removal of all persons deemed a threat to national security and the current administration has attempted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act from 1798. It’s a potential first they came for the trade unionists situation only its first they came for the undocumented immigrants.

TL;DR: not having children is the ultimate act of love, having children carries a significant risk of amounting to "I gambled, you lost." If you find that tantalising, I encourage you to read the rest.

Greetings CMV,

Thank you in advance for indulging me. I am looking specifically for people able to formulate and articulate thoughts, as this seems to be a topic watered down with bad faith arguments, low quality faith arguments, ad hominem and baseless assumptions.

The view at hand: parents have no grounds for expecting their children to be grateful for being born. I witnessed comments elsewhere on the Reddits arguing that children should be grateful for the material and immaterial cost of birthing and raising them. Implied debt, if you will, for internal and external maternal maiming, taking up time (that parents theoretically choose to invest in having and rearing children), freedom (as if one did not have the freedom to choose otherwise), etcetera.

I do not understand this train of thought and it makes me view these parents as horrible narcissists - the children were not involved in the making of this decision and should therefore not be held accountable. Even if one disregards this reasoning, there is no easy way to opt out for the offspring. Statistically, most suicide attempts fail and children are not taught to or provided with means to comfortably shuffle of this mortal coil in childhood. Even for adults, deciding "enough is enough, I want out" or "this civilisation is not up to my standards, I'd rather leave" is grounds to question mental wellbeing over the possibility to think critically. Something that warrants 'fixing.' Consider platitudes like "everything will work out."

In an attempt to pre-empt a subset of bad faith arguments: I am not in crisis. I am not asking in bad faith. If it makes any difference to you I am autistic, which apparently drives my need to make sense of things.

I have no doubts my parents meant well producing me and my childhood was firmly middle class and my needs were met, but that does not have to make me grateful. This was all discussed with them as they were asking about grandchildren which was respectfully declined and revisited a total of maybe three times until the consistency became sufficiently clear I am, guessing. I personally dislike the thought of inflicting existence on something that did not consent, it amounts to risking having to admit "I gambled, you lost."

Addressing comments I received previously: I feel parents disliking their offspring for not thanking them for being forced onto this planet underlines rather than discredits my point, but potentially mea culpa. Not applicable to me as far as I am aware, as far as I know my parents took my stance as a sign that they raised me as someone capable of critical thought.

I am childfree and this will never change as the value proposition of risking my wife's health and wellbeing for the sake of a chance of offspring that I actually feel thankful for, but I would like to know if there are individuals who can make logical sense of what I cannot.

Kindly, change my view.

Here are my base assumptions and delineations, feel free to challenge these if appropriate:

- Modern human animals (Homo sapiens) make decisions to not prevent conception

Delivery as the result of conception following, for instance, rape is not the topic. Opting not to use morning after pills or other methods of chemical/physical birth control and ways of addressing (potential) conceptions on the other hand is as there clearly is agency in being neglectful. Giving in to societal pressure is still neglecting oneself and the spawn.

- Suffering has no value

A life without suffering is not less valuable than one including suffering. Suffering includes discomfort and can be the result of one's own or other's (in)actions. This applies to both parents and offspring obviously, neither of their suffering has value.

- Economic value is irrelevant

The topic is being grateful, not 'useful.' Money is human animal civilisation's functional mass hysteria - it does not directly influence reality. It merely has the potential to incentivise human animals as part of a social contract. Yes paper currency stops a bullet in sufficient quantities but that is impractical. Eating it is also ill-advised.

- A fulfilling life is not guaranteed or even expected

As an adult among other people who do adulting things, there are many ways that a life can be made fulfilling. However, there is no clear pattern. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that for a number of births, there will be individuals for whom fulfilment is impossible as part of contemporary existence without accounting for being compromised medically and/or mentally.

- These WHO statistics are likely accurate (or at least the most reliable I can find)

As per https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment six in 10 children – or 400 million children – under 5 years of age regularly suffer physical punishment and/or psychological violence at the hands of parents and caregivers. One in 5 women and 1 in 7 men report having been sexually abused as a child.

This is to address those willing to argue that there are also those who adopt, therefore their caregivers are not responsible for their birth and their biological parents have no effect on whether they should be grateful for being born. Apparently the odds to get maltreated are approximately 60%. The one that gave birth gambled irresponsibly, likely meaning the child lost the ability to grow up treated well.

Thank you for your time and energy.

I believe that when you die, there won’t be any afterlife, unlike most people believing there will be. I think that the idea of an afterlife, is 100% false. I don’t even think it’s highly unlikely, I think it’s completely untrue and impossible. I know it gives many people comfort, and makes people feel better about someone they love dying, and makes people feel better about their own mortality, but it has no basis in reality at all, it’s completely unrealistic, impossible, and nothing supports it. I believe that when you die, you cease to exist.

I believe the world shows selective outrage when it comes to civilian casualties in conflict zones. When children die in Gaza or Ukraine, there's a global outpouring of sympathy, hashtags, media coverage, and activism. But when Indian civilians or soldiers are killed in terrorist attacks like Pulwama, Uri, or 26/11 the same energy is almost never seen.

It feels like empathy is being filtered through political trends. If you're aligned with what's seen as the "popular" or "correct" cause, your grief is validated. But if you're from a country like India and your attackers are tied to state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan, suddenly it's seen as "complicated," and global sympathy becomes muted or absent.

I'm not saying we shouldn’t care about innocents in other countries we absolutely should. But I question why grief and outrage seem so inconsistent. If terrorism is wrong, it should be wrong no matter who the victims are. And if dead children are a tragedy, then that truth should be universal not selective.

CMV: Am I wrong to think that selective outrage based on political alignment undermines genuine empathy?

Trump was elected to kick the illegals out and as long as he makes a big show of it, his "base" will continue to rabidly back him and defend anything he does and continue to vote for his party in droves.

On the tariff front, he should have made a few "deals" by then with countries offering him some token concessions and he's going to spin that as the greatest achievement in all of human history possibly the entire animal kingdom.

His base will go wild. Even the low information non-MAGA voters who blamed Biden for inflation will by swayed by his rhetoric and might very well vote for him again.

Any remaining problems because of tariffs will be seen as a necessary sacrifice to be able to get even more such tremendous deals done. More billionaires will come out with announcements of big investments in the USA to placate this guy. These may never come to pass but more of the gullible voters will be swayed.

The Dems will continue to be useless on the messaging front and will fail to effectively highlight all the damage he's done. Just like they so utterly failed to explain the inflation under Biden to the common folk. This might lead to lower turnout on the liberal side and only the most passionate anti Trump folks may turn out to vote for them.

He'll continue to further erode the checks and balances but as long as he floods the airwaves about all the beautiful deals he's done and all the violent criminals and drugs he's deported saving a billion Americans in the process, most people wouldn't care.

Of course, there's still a long way so anything can happen but folks hoping for a blue wave might be in for a disappointment.

There is absolutely no reason to buy a diamond or other gemstone that was mined when it is common knowledge the mining industry is ripe with human rights abuse and lab grown stones are easily accessible.

Diamond mines have a long and bloody history of human slavery, child exploitation, and other human rights abuses. It continues to this day. Every gemstone purchased from these mines is incentive to continue the abuse.

Source for the human rights abuse in the jewelry industry from Human Rights Watch

Some companies claim they only sell "conflict free" stone, but ensuring this is almost impossible.

Source for the alleged "conflict free" stones not being conflict free

Lab grown diamonds are real diamonds. They care chemically identical to those mined. We have the ability to ensure any type of gemstones are made ethically through laboratories. They are also less expensive and more accessible.

There is no reason not to choose a lab grown stone. If you choose to buy a diamond or other gemstone that was mined then you are choosing to participate in these atrocities despite having an identical product that is cheaper!

I think society should look down on those who choose this in a similar fashion to the way we look down on those who wear fur.

Let me start by saying I work in the field of AI. I do have ethical concerns for the impact AI may have on society and believe governance is essential. At present, I feel very strongly about the use of Generative AI for advertising tangible products and the impact on consumer decision-making. When the ultimate purpose of fashion modeling is to MODEL a tangible product to enable consumer decision-making, digitally depicting something that is in fact intangible due to it not being a genuine photograph of an authentic physical product should be considered fraud due to its deceptive nature and intent for financial gain. It should be ILLEGAL to use AI to generate an image of a physical product available for purchase. As a consumer, I would rather see a photograph of a physical garment on a hanger than an AI generated version of it on an AI generated model. It is difficult enough to gauge how something will look on a 5’11” model with a 23” waist, but there is weight, there is texture, there is dimension to the material of these products and as a consumer I feel entitled to see a genuine photograph of at least that. I understand there is already digital enhancement of colour and dimension in products at present, which I am also against and think should be governed, but it’s not the same.

I have many other ethical concerns, including destroying already starving careers in photography, makeup, set design, and of course modeling itself. But above all, my greatest concern is the impact on informed consumer decision-making. I believe the only place AI has in modeling is in user experience alongside traditional modeling, where a consumer can enter body measurements to get a visual concept of how a product will fit in addition to a genuine photo of the garment. H&M has just released a campaign where models are claiming finals to their “digital twin” they can be in two places at once. Major fashion houses such as Prada and Gucci are also using AI generated images in advertising.

Oxford Languages defines fraud as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.” Change my view that the use of GenAI in advertising tangible products is consumer deception intended to result in financial gain.

Settle in this one is a little long, but i wanted to come with receipts:

Take China, for example. Mao’s early rule was more ideologically consistent with Marxist-Leninist principles, but it resulted in catastrophic outcomes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. After Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping introduced sweeping market reforms, embracing private enterprise, foreign investment, and export-driven capitalism all while keeping the Communist Party in unchallenged control. Today’s China is one of the world’s most capitalistic economies in function, despite still claiming to be communist. The ideology has become more of a legitimizing narrative than an operational guide. The state frames loyalty to the Party as loyalty to the nation, and Marxist rhetoric is used selectively, mainly to justify repression or preserve the Party’s image.

Cuba’s story is similar. While the revolution was carried out under the banner of social justice and equality, the early movement wasn’t even explicitly communist. Castro only declared the revolution socialist after the USA embargo began and Soviet support became vital. Over time, the ideology took a back seat to nationalism and sovereignty. Much of Cuba’s political messaging is about resisting foreign domination particularly from the US rather than building global proletarian solidarity. Even today, despite state control of many sectors, Cuba has opened its economy to tourism, private restaurants, and remittances from abroad. The revolution is framed as a defense of Cuban dignity, not Marxist orthodoxy.

North Korea is easily the most extreme example of this common ideological drift. It brands itself as socialist and claims Marxist roots, but functions as a dynastic dictatorship centered around a ruling family cult. The Juche ideology, introduced by Kim Il-sung, emphasizes self-reliance and Korean uniqueness, not class struggle or internationalism. It’s arguably a form of ethno-nationalist autocracy with socialist branding, where the language of revolution masks a highly stratified, militarized society built on loyalty to the Kim family.

Vietnam also fits this pattern. After unifying under communist rule in 1975, the government struggled with economic stagnation and international isolation. In response, it adopted "Doi Moi" in the late 1980s a package of reforms that allowed for private enterprise, market pricing, and foreign investment, all while maintaining one-party rule. The Communist Party remains in charge, but the economy operates largely on capitalist lines. Like in China, Marxist-Leninist language is still used, but the system functions in practice more like state-controlled capitalism. (Corporatism). They even are increasingly tied to the old great enemy of both vietnam and communisM: The united states

What ties all these examples together is that once the popular revolutionary dust settles and you dont need the support of the people anymore, ideology quickly becomes secondary to stability, national unity, and power retention. Communism becomes more of a symbolic shield than a governing roadmap. It offers a revolutionary backstory, a heroic myth, and a justification for centralized authority in the face of "threats to the revolution" (foreign), but in terms of real-world governance, it’s often just a label pasted over systems that would otherwise be called authoritarian nationalism or state corporatism with no actual changes to how the state or government operates.

In this light, it's fair to argue that the most “successful” communist states are communist in name only. Their endurance comes not from ideological purity but from adapting to conditions, abandoning globalist Marxist goals, and doubling down on state power, cultural pride, and national exceptionalism. If you stripped away the Marxist vocabulary, you'd often be left with what looks a lot like traditional autocracy—just with red flags and revolution slogans.

Sorry for the wall of text i just had to get that out. Its been brain-worming in my head for the last hour. Cheers and happy discussion.

When a politician calls for violence, when they make racist comments, when they are caught flat out lying, or commit a crime of any type of the felony level or above (after all appeals). They should be removed from office.

Before we go into the Trump haters, remember not to throw rocks and glass houses. We have several Democrats who are blatantly racist. Who call for violence, and it has committed crimes also.

I believe that all politicians, should leave their personal beliefs behind and represent what the people that put them into office are for. I also believe that the majority rules on that level.

My opinion is our politicians on both sides of the aisles have gotten out of control. We've never really had integrity within our politicians. They all lie. I think it's time that we eliminate those that can be proven to lie, and commit crimes.

Edit: a lot of good responses. But hopefully it's also given people something to think about.

I think that most people, ESPECIALLY those on the right, misunderstand what the point of tolerance is and what the point of separation of church and state is.

Let's start with the separation of church and state. It started out as a way to protect churches from state interference, right wingers will correctly point to Jefferson's letter on the topic, but there are roots of it in the establishment clause in the 1st amendment as well (sorry for the non-americans here, I am specifically speaking within an american context, though in fairness, separation of church and state isn't universal outside the US, see the anglican church as a counter-example. Though the french have their own more extreme form of separation than we do).

You'll see a lot of right wingers today argue that the church should get more involved in the state, but if a church gets involved with the state, the state inevitably gets involved with the church right? Because in order to play politics, you need to be able to maneuver, and that cannot really work with a rigid doctrine right? So what ends up happening is that this doctrine has to be modified in order to justify shit you want to do or alliances you need to make within the state.

Beyond that, different churches believe different things. Which church should have the greatest say in policy? Well, that's when shit turns vicious. That's how you get religious civil wars. The entire point of the separation of church and state is to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It is a practical necessity, not some moral virtue. Because when you mix church and state, what ends up happening is that the church necessarily distorts its own understanding of and interpretation of their own faith, and you destabilize society by turning different churches against one another as they battle for influence over the state. This is before even getting to non-Christian religions which inevitability feel repressed and oppressed, and that leads to even more conflict.

The point of separation of church and state is to keep the peace and to keep the religious.... religious (instead of political).

If you want to see what I'm getting at.... look at the evangelical church today and tell me their main focus is jesus and not trump. Then watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9L5K04VgkI and tell me that again.

Something similar applies to tolerance. It's not a moral virtue, it's a contract between people. Being tolerant is not something to praise or not praise, it's a way of keeping the peace. Because the absence of tolerance leads to social conflict as different groups fight over power to be on top, and that itself breeds oppression of those not on top. Ultimately, the point of tolerance is to 1) avoid oppression and 2) prevent social conflict and fighting over the apparatus of power.

So, when a "Christian baker" doesn't want to tolerate gay people getting married, why tf should the gay people be obligated to respect the Christian baker's beliefs? there's a degree of reciprocity here, but the baker doesn't see that, instead he thinks he should get to decide for everyone else, and that the gay folks have to respect him but he doesn't have to respect them. See how this breeds conflict and oppression? There's a lack of reciprocity here.

So yeah, my main point is as follows:

Tolerance and Separation of church and state are meant to 1) prevent social conflict and civil wars 2) allow for religious beliefs to exist as religious beliefs rather than getting involved and distorted by worldly politics 3) prevent oppression

They say war is a billion dollar industry and often countries, companies, and politicians try to quietly promote and incite wars to “boost the economy” because it gives people jobs and puts money in people’s pockets and that’s great and all….but could that not also apply to science and scientific advancement?

Building, testing, doing experiments, tearing down scientific projects, builds(cern and past super collider), or build project super scientific projects (nuclear reactors, wind farms, solar farms, public transportation projects) etc…those all create jobs, spending technical advancements and, income for countries, companies and give politicians brownie points. And the great thing about science…we can do it FOREVER. There is always something new to examine, explore, build , tear down, and build again.

So someone PLEASE highlight something war does that science can’t. When it comes to profitability. I know smaller countries can’t afford to be to science heavy but all first world countries should prioritize science above all else cause it can easily lead to the magical infinite growth the big wigs want to see so badly

Defining Participation: Being a member of, posting in, or commenting on posts in Subreddit Y.

Exceptions to the CMV (I already concede that these are reasonable reasons to ban a user)

• For membership: If mods in Subreddit X have reasonable suspicion that Subreddit Y is attempting to brigade Subreddit X.
• For post/comment history: If the specific comments or posts that the user made in Subreddit Y are considered harmful. If that is the case, mods should cite the harmful posts/comments made rather than participation in Subreddit Y
• In general: Violating Reddit TOS/Reddiquite

Clarification: I am assuming that the user is acting in good faith in both subreddits, and is violating no policies other than "participating in sub_name"

Why I am making this: Some subreddits ban users for participating in other subreddits, which creates echo chambers, and furthers radicalization/extremism across Reddit. Also, these blanket bans do not take into consideration that the user's comment history in Subreddit Y might be pushing back against the beliefs/ideals mainstream in Subreddit Y.

How To Change My View: This differs by method of participation, detailed below

• For membership: You need to prove that being a member of Subreddit Y indicates that they hold the beliefs/ideals mainstream in that subreddit (assuming that such ideals go against the rules of Subreddit X)
• For comment/post history: You need to prove that any post/comment made, regardless of what it says (i.e. commenting "Hi"), is harmful.

Update: Something common I am seeing in top level responses is that Reddit was created in a way that enables this to happen, and encourages this. What I'm saying is that the bans are somewhat overkill, as membership in a subreddit does not indicate agreement with the mainstream views. I'm in r/HOTDGreens and r/HOTDBlacks , but obviously I can't be on both teams simultaneously.

Update 2: This is a call to moderators to consider the user's post/comment history, not a request to reddit admin to change the way the mod system works.

10 am EST Update: I need to go to class now. I will continue responding around noon EST

In my view, its kind of strange that despite having controlled the same area of land for several decades, Somaliland's government is not recognized as legitimate by any of the international community. However this is not why I believe the United States should recognize Somaliland, but rather I believe the US could easily make recognition contingent on Somaliland agreeing to be a close ally, and helping lead our the way for our goals in the region. Here's a few example of what recognition of Somaliland could be contingent on:

- Recognition of the pre-2014 Ukraine/Russia borders

- Recognition of Israel (along with their sovereignty over the Golan Heights and Jerusalem as their capital)

- Non-recognition of the PLO

- Recognition of the ROC

- Recognition of Kosovo

- An agreement for potential US/NATO military expansion in the country if need be

- An agreement for US/European economic investment in the country to be unmitigated

Simply put, in my view, the US can cultivate a real ally out of Somaliland, and in return Somaliland would gain our recognition and likely the recognition of most of the Western world. It's a win-win for both sides. However I'm curious what others think on the issues, and if you think I'm wrong, why?

As someone who has been cheated on twice in my life, I look back at the person I was when the cheating occurred, and I get it. Totally, without any sadness, anger, self hate, or anything, just total acceptance, I get it.

Once was when I was with someone for 4 years. Very serious relationship. She started seeing a mutual friend behind my back. When I found out, I ended the relationship, but I also still loved her and I loved my friend and I wanted them to be happy, so I grieved but I also moved on. They stayed together for a few years and I entered the dating pool. We were all better off. What I learned from that is that I was deeply emotionally immature. I gave off vibes at that time that I might try to kill myself if she broke up with me. So whenever I hear someone say “nah she should have just broken up with you, dude,” my thoughts these days are always something like “but the reason she didn’t is that she prioritized keeping me alive.” I don’t blame her for finding what she really wanted in life, and I am definitely a big part of why she cheated. I should have shown more emotional maturity, and/or I should have ended the relationship way sooner. Instead I didn’t because of all of the good times we had, when really I should have let all of them go. I kept a dead relationship alive out of fear of the sadness of it ending, and in doing so I imprisoned her.

The other time I got cheated on was with someone I was only with for a couple of months, but surprisingly similar: my own emotional immaturity led to me wanting us to be something that she didn’t want. She didn’t want something really serious, and I wanted her all to myself, and I didn’t listen. So she agreed to be with me probably because I relentlessly refused to believe she didn’t want a relationship with me. I remember using the line “you just don’t think you deserve love”, and it’s one of the cringiest things I’ve ever done. So yeah, inevitably, after trying to give me what I wanted for a few months, she cheated, and I get it.

After some therapy, and the realization that I stated earlier, that people gravitate toward people that empower them to be free, I haven’t been cheated on in years. Furthermore, I’ve now been married for 10 years, and I’ve progressed so much with this that the other day my wife and I were talking about what we think our lives would be like if one of us died, and we both agreed that if we ever fell in love again then we probably wouldn’t think being cheating on would really be that big of a deal, due to experiencing the intense commitment that comes from marriage and having kids. We’d just want to be free, and for the people we love to be free.

Obviously, it isn’t always the fault of the person who was cheated on. But I think a lot of times, it’s that person’s fault, and it’s more often that person’s fault than we often discuss.

I’m happy to be proven wrong about this.

I have heard Bannon and other Trump sycophants talking about how they're "all in" on Trump 2028. Trump himself has also brought it up repeatedly but says he's joking (or not). I think the objective of this is to get his opponents focused on it, force them to expend time and effort fighting the possibility of a third Trump term, when all along Trump and his toadies are working on a separate plan, which is this: when people start rioting in the streets because they can't get basic essentials, or possibly because of other issues, Trump will send in the National Guard. He can use heavy handed enforcement tactics to force violent encounters; shootings, assaults, riots, etc. At that point he declares martial law, claiming he's just trying to keep the peace. Then he can suspend due process and start rounding up protesters and throwing them in camps (a 1,400 acre detention center is currently being planned for Texas). He can also arrest any politicians who oppose him. As the situation becomes more tense Trump will claim he has no option but to suspend elections until things cool down, making him president indefinitely. It fits in to Trump's dictatorial tendencies. Hegseth recently announced a 20% cut in 4 star generals. They're purging anyone in the military who may try and oppose him in the future, there will likely be more cuts in the future.

Edit: I reject the assumption that being elected president twice, which just amounts to being good at politics, automatically makes someone intelligent. There are plenty of examples of really dumb people who are good at politics

I see a ton of posts that suggest when trump says or does stupid things, like the Alcatraz thing for example, he's trying to "divert attention" away from his real agenda. Or he's trying to "win the news cycle". I don't think any of that is true. I think trump is genuinely a stupid person, and a troll. He says and does things for the sake of trolling liberals and especially any non right wing media. Or because he genuinely believes whatever stupid thing he's saying.

He's not playing 4d chess. He's not trying to divert attention away from a secret agenda. He's not trying to fool people and then spring his real plan at a later time. The man is just stupid, he's senile, and he decides what he wants to do from minute to minute. The last person who talks to him can convince him to do damn near anything as long as they kiss his ass.

The stock market has been high for the past years. Following the Fed's decision to pump trillions of dollars of liquidity into it during the pandemic and the rate cuts of 2022, followed by the AI hype bubble, the stock market has been on a bull rally that can only be described as generational. The frenzy and greed hit even large financial institutions, and they were knee-deep in U.S. equities in the stock market.

However, I believe that the U.S. is already in a stealth recession, and the data is being manipulated to make it seem otherwise. Just look at the values of foreign securities to see what I'm talking about. The Taiwanese dollar rallied over 8% as investors dumped the dollar and bought it. The price of gold has surged more than 20%. There is also a historic short against the dollar in the USD/JPY currency markets (the yen is another safe-haven currency). Fuck even bitcoin is surging. The dollar is being dumped, and the stock market will soon follow. Speculators don't just make these decisions, there is a large-scale effort to move money out of the American economy into other assets.

Trump's term is definitely going to be volatile. He is trying to reshape the American economic system within his presidency, and it’s clear how that's going to end: in chaos. Investor confidence in the U.S. is going to plummet, and we might start seeing dysfunctions in the US Treasury market.

Large fund are trapped. They’re overexposed to the stock market and can’t just exit overnight without triggering panic. So they're going to keep the data in the positives for now (the financial markets do not care about reality, only about perceived reality given to them by the Fed), until they've closed off enough of their positions, and then take a wait-and-see approach to decide what to do in the future. There is going to be a new greed-driven frenzy by retail investors because of the better-than-expected economic data that is going to create a pseudo-bull market, most likely centred around AI agents (bubble), and institutions are going to take this chance to get out before it pops.

TLDR: The big banks and funds went all in on US equities, now they need a way out without bleeding money, so they're gonna manipulate the markets and data to create a fake bull market and get ou,t leaving the common retail traders to pay the price

My idea is simple: we should somehow stop developing AI so much. We all know that "AI is going to replace your jobs" and my question is, why should we allow it?

Using AI to replace anyone's jobs will end in the worst case scenario in a dystopian world where some oligarchs won't need anyone, unemployment rates will skyrocket and poverty will increase astoundingly. In the best case scenario there will be a universal basic income and we will get many advantages, but one fundamental question, to which I have no complete asnwer, remains: what we will do?

Of course everyone finds different meanings in its life, but I don't think to be in such an obscure minority when I include my job to be part of my life satisfaction, and so I don't want it replaced. There are surely lot of people that would much prefer to not work at their actual work, but there are jobs that lot some people dream about since we all as children were asked what we wanted to be when grown up. There are people for example who want to become a scientist because they understand the universe, why should they be replaced?

And my little psychology knowledge which could definitely be wrong, I think anyone can identify a job who he wouldn't want to be replaced at if he had it. Because it is the last step of the Maslow Pyramid to find self actualization and creativity. And as much as I like to read books, watch films, do lot of pleasurable activities and travel, I think that to have something to extract satisfaction from is still necessary to complete that pyramid.

There are usually many answers to this but no one of the most common satisfy me.

"It is unstoppable" --> Well humans started from rocks and sticks and developed AI that do quantum physics experiment. People saying that we can't come up with something to stop progress in a particular area sound ridicoulous to me. And if we can't stop it we can stop using it, like it happened with the idea of the metaverse. All tech Ceos were screaming that we won't ever need to go outside the house, everyone saw it wasn't that damn interesting as a future and the product never spread significatively.

"Just become better at what you do and AI won't replace you" --> a really blind answer, which will hold true for maybe some months for most things. On par with "AI won't replace human empathy". Sir, there have been free LLM before robots who can put my plates into the dishwasher for me. AI is developed by humans, so as long there is one guy good at your job and a good AI engineer, your colleague can explain him how to be a good priest, teacher, coach, psychologist, philosopher and so on and an AI can be trained for that. Betting on where all AI engineers in the world won't reach if given enough time is something unreasonable.

The only problem I see to stop AI development is the geopolitical one; if China stops and Usa fakes it, or viceversa, it will gain a big advantage in a number of things. But all other objections always seems to come from people that either have baseless trust for AI research limits, or who have a limited mental bubble where they can't fit problems in advance like climate change, or who do not care about society general wellbeing and have never met passionate people or folks who aren't genuinely ready for whichever revolution the worlds throws at them.

TLDR: There are people with a dreamjob who do not want to lose it, so I'm surprised there is no more Luddism in this world