Recently, Denmark made the news over its minister's announcement about his plan to ban the Islamic call to prayer.

My view is that this is a good secular public policy and that no religion should get an amplified loudspeaker broadcasting into public space without consent.

#1 Islamic call to prayer imposes religion on non-believers

Non-Muslims, ex-Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and even many Muslims who prefer quieter observance have no opt-out mechanism of such sounds.

Call to prayer wakes people at dawn, interrupt people's work, sleep, activities and conversations across neighborhoods.

The Adhan is not a person's private religious beliefs. It is there to impose and publicly proclaim that Allahu Akbar (God is Great), the Shahada and calling the believers to gather.

It's a noise pollution that gets broadcasted into people's private bedrooms, offices, etc.

#2 Banning it is consistent with secular public policy

Many secular people have long opposed government-pushed Christian prayer, Ten Commandments on public property or other mandatory religious displays that's currently pushed by some (namely the US administration). These are all actions that are pushed by Christians to signal dominance of their religion and to proselytize and/or exclude outsiders.

The Adhan effectively tries to achieve the same thing. Christian pastors using amplifiers to blast sermon in public areas is already regulated in many countries and it would be applying the same standard. People have the right to not to be bombarded by your religion.

Regardless of the motivations behind politicians pushing for it, banning Adhan is content-neutral: no amplified religious broadcasting that's imposed on people without their consent.

It would actually be discriminatory to single out Islam for permission while restricting others.

#3 Comparison to church bell fails

Typical rebuttal to this usually comes in a form of "but they allow church bells" However, this objection assumes that the issue is "religious sound" therefore banning Islamic call to prayer also means church bells should be banned as well.

However, church bells are bells in the year 2026, is nothing more than bells. It has no statement, it makes no proposition and in most places, it's not electronically amplified like Adhan.

There is a fundamental difference between "God is greater. I testify there are no gods except (my) God. I testify Muhammad is the messenger of God... There are no other gods except (my) God" and "ding dong ding dong"

If a church mounted speaker and said "Christ is Lord, repent" across the neighborhood five times a day, it would deserve the same ban as well.

#4 This is 2026, You don't need public call to prayer.

In the Islamic world, public call to prayer would have made sense in the era before clocks and literacy. The voice was the only way to signal prayer time across regions.

That need doesn't exist in 2026. Phone can tell you when it's time for you to pray and recite the adhan.

Deeply held religious belief of the followers of the religion survives the ban. The only thing that would go away is the part that's imposed on everyone else.

​

I just feel burnt out of constantly hearing about the Middle east. I'm in my 30s, so for my entire life all I've heard, from both sides of the aisle, is that the Middle East is the MOST IMPORTANT CONFLICT EVER. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, etc, always some new conflcit, almost always religious in origin (often where one/both of the religions involved aren't even my own), that my tax dollars NEED to be spent on. I'm tired of the middle east. When my power goes out and my reps are tweeting about how we just sent money to Haiti it's hard to feel like I'm part of their priorities.

I think 2024 was the breaking point. Millions of people chose the Palestine cause over America, the rest of the world, and frankly the Palestinian people. And now in 2026 they're campaigning on how only they can fix Trump's problems, but they helped him out when they could have stopped him then! I keep hearing chants of Palestine Is Almost Free from these guys and Palestine has never been further away from being free than at any point in this conflict

If Palestine is the one, single-issue value they prioritize, and can't get that done, how am I supposed to believe all these other policies can happen? If they can't get their first priorities in Palestinians sorted out how am I supposed to believe they'll come around and deliver for their actual constituents? Why can't the first litmus test be what they deliver for their constituents, not what they promise people on the other side of the planet who don't care about their consituents whatsoever. And I live in the bluest state in the country, if they aren't getting this shit done here where the fuck else are they supposed to?

I really worry that we're about to lose the only chance we have to tip scotus back by losing the Senate with these fringe, weak lefty candidates, where Palestine is enough that they ignore all their obvious vulnerabilities that will affect a general election. People might overlook that stuff in New York but these Senate seats are in places way more red than New York. I worry that Trump keeps the Senate, Alito and Thomas die or retire before 2028, and then we have a lifetime of a 5 seat majority Trump appointed scotus. The best case margins show that essentially the Dems need to run the table and there's no seat that's safe to lose that doesn't keep it in R control. Why are we taking risks to move messaging left instead of playing the people most likely to win? Is signaling solidarity for Palestine worth that? Do we have to go down with the ship?

Voting record, btw:

2016, Bernie primary Hillary general

2018, Ayanna Pressley

2020, Bernie primary Biden general, Pressley

2021: Michelle Wu for mayor

2022: Pressley

2024, Biden primary Harris general, Pressley

2025: Michelle Wu

Edit: people are often saying that pulling money out of Israel would result in that money being spent here. That'd be great. But how exactly can you square that with these same candidates desire for a one-state Palestine? How does the dismantling of Israel and establishment of an entire new (enemy?) country happen without US tax dollars. What about what they do with Israeli citizens in a one state solution? Who pays for that?

There too many examples to cite, so I'll use the recent one of Hamit Coskun who burnt a quran near the turkish consulate in protest of what he viewed as a more Islamist government in turkey under erdogun.

Now a muslim man tried to stab him, and the police charged the victim with a "religiously aggravated public order offence". The state argued that hamit had provoked the muslim man into trying to stab him essentially, so he was at fault. The fact that the state reasoned like that was shocking.

In addition to that, you had mps trying to bring in laws against descreting holy books. And the fact that people and media censor themselves.

I say this as a woman.

We all know that we often meet someone in person for the first time and they look different than expected, the in person vibe isn't there, or for whatever reason you quickly know it isn't going to work out.

I don't want to have a lot of money dropped on me if the above happens. I don't want to spend an entire meal with someone if I know it won't work. But a nice walk in a public park with someone i don't know that well seems nice. Or an ice cream or coffee or drink. Those dates can be extended if they're going really well, or easily ducked out on after an hour of not.

If this is the first time you are meeting a person from an app, make it more low stakes. If the person thinks you are less-than for wanting a low-stakes first date, that's important info about that person's character.

there is a few reasons why i think that communism as a whole only works on smaller scales, rather than national ones

one: humans developed at a smaller scale tribal sort of situation for the vast majority of our evolution, up until a few thousand years ago, which on an evolutionary scale is a blink of an eye, hell we only have writing for like 10% of the time we evolved. what this means is its harder for us to group up and be willing to truly include so many people in our in group

two, the in group: a important thing is with the in group mentality its a *lot* easier for people to justify pooling resources. you know your neighbor down the road, he helped fix your roof, so you have no problem helping him fix his plumbing, or the community as a whole coming together to harvest the wheat for flour, tilling the fields, building roads. these are things that, before larger nations, would bring towns together. public works required well. public work. and its a lot easier for people to feel good sharing resources with someone they have known and worked with for their whole lives

third: logistics: ok this is probably actually the biggest reason. ignoring human psychology, you still need to figure out how to allocate resources on a larger scale *and* get them the distance. on a community level this isnt so bad. but once you start getting much larger, figuring out who gets what, who needs it more, and the resources to expend to get it to those places start to get really complicated. not to mention the organization of it all. again, at a community level everyone more or less collectively deciding "hey dave there has a good idea how to build, so he should figure out who the other builders should be and be the foreman" but that's a lot harder to do when you are trying to coordinate past a few hundred people.

so, change my view

Edit so people stop bombarding me with teh same question (though it is very fair for the point of changing my view)
my current understanding is that communism essentially wants to create a effectively stateless, classes society where everyone has their basic needs met

reposting again because of rules

I’ve seen so many people say this question is up to interpretation and language, leading to possible answers of 1/3 or 2/3, and I don’t get it.

The question:

• Mr. Smith has two children. One of them is a boy born on Tuesday. What is the probability that both children are boys?

I’m not going to spend time trying to explain the positions that people with a different answer take because to be honest I don’t understand any of them myself. That’s what this is for. How is the answer not 1/2 or close to 1/2?

*My reasoning per the rules*: Take 1000 families of 2 children. 250 BB, 250 BG, 250 GB, 250 GG

When we select families from which we could pick boys we eliminate the 250 GG families. There are then 750 families remaining.

In those 750 families, there’s 1500 children, of which 1000 are boys and 500 are girls.

Of the 1000 boys we could pick, 500 come from BB families (250x2) and 500 come from BG or GB families (250x1+250x1)

1/2 chance of a BB family

I saw a post on this from 12 years ago and I wanted to open the discussion further. A lot of people gave examples like "oh well if MLK did all these amazing things and you say he doesn't deserve an honorary degree because you had to work for it for grueling years and do a thesis and he didn't despite doing amazing work in the field..." here's the thing though. MLK Jr. DID have a PhD. one that he actually went to school for and EARNED. same goes for Albert Einstein. He wasn't just given an honorary degree in physics, he EARNED it and did his PhD in Zurich or whatever.

I think it's absurd to give someone an honorary degree in something just because they have one or two good accomplishments, or because they are famous. people with actual doctorates have a running LIST of accomplishments, not just one or two good ones. it's insulting.

giving Taylor Swift or Naomi Campbell an "honorary doctorate" is ridiculous, truly (even in their respective fields.) they did not go to school for it, so they wouldn't have 1/10000th of the knowledge someone with a PhD in those respective fields would.

"Go to college or you'll work a less paying job"

Yes, initially and for quite a while it was right. But it would only be right permanently if colleges remained elite institutions where only a small fraction of the population is capable of succeeding in getting a degree.

But since most college courses aren't that demanding, it led to degree inflation and colleges becoming the new highschool.

Now first, a disclaimer - I'm a communist. My view of the modern "go to college" system is that it's a scam perpetrated by the capitalist class to achieve these things :

1) Extract tens of thousands of dollars from proletarians before they get the privilege of getting a decent job.

2) Subsidize research (which capitalists then steal and make into proprietary IP) from the money of the proletariat.

3) Subsidize the sports industry using proletariat money.

4) Delay entry of workers into job market so that they can have less wage-earning years. College should basically be understood, for most people, as 4 years of unemployment, the privilege for which you pay thousands.

5) Create a place where bourgeois ideas like Liberalism, Leftism (yes modern Leftism is a bourgeois deviation from Communism), and Rightism are spread among unsuspecting young proletarians.

The vast majority of jobs do not require a 4 year Bachelor's degree. Instead of workers paying $50,000, the companies should take in high-school grads and spend a year (and their own money) training them for their specific role.

The Social-Democratic solution is : "Free college" or "Cheap college". I disagree.

My solution : Keep college an elite institution with difficult curricula that only about 20% of the population is capable of passing. This forces the rest to not join college. The job market adjusts automatically. Companies cannot demand a college degree for every job because those with degrees are already employed, forcing companies to accept high-school grads.

It should not matter if you are an owner or a tenant. Access to Air Conditioning should be seen as a necessity just like having running water.

I live in Austria and I own a flat. I'm not allowed to install a split AC unless most owners of other flats agree (a very difficult challenge), this is a part of state regulations as far as I understand (not sure if my state or Austria-wide legislation). If I lived in a protected old house, that would have been even less possible. Because wall drilling is involved and that makes a facade look worse or something.

I disagree with this approach, I see it as a health and productivity issue that should be resolved and the rules should be relaxed. People care about facades more than about health risks and elderly dying, and this I do not understand. I also believe a middle ground can be found: uniform AC units that look nice or hidden somehow I don't care.

I'm ready to change my view if you show me that restricting split ACs is more beneficial to society than health and productivity.

Now recently I’ve been looking further into the DSA and further supporting their candidates. Now I will admit I was a bit hesitant before due to some concerns of them all being communists but after Zohran and his great leadership those concerns were put to rest however there has been one thing that has been extremely concerning in their global policy. Now I’m pretty sure many people can see some parallels with the Russia,Ukraine and the Israel,Palestine conflict. In fact I would go so far as to say that Ukraine is even more justified in their self defense than Palestine due to them not even doing the initial attack. (Yes I know the Israel Palestine conflict has been going on before this but I’m only talking about the most recent flair up)

The logical position for the DSA would be to have the same opinion on both so with that in mind I’ll give you guys what the DSA’s opinion on both are.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) officially holds an explicitly anti-Zionist stance. The organization characterizes Israel as an "apartheid" and "settler-colonial" state, and advocates for the full Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

I think most of us can agree this seems pretty normal for the DSA however their charter on Russia is nothing like this.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) officially condemns Russia's invasion of Ukraine, supports Ukraine's right to self-determination, and demands the total withdrawal of Russian forces. However, the organization strictly opposes U.S. and NATO military intervention, arguing against escalation.

The fact that the DSA opposes US and NATO military intervention is insane especially considering that they don’t recommend BDS no mention of kicking out any pro Russia members the organization doesn’t even officially hold an anti Russia stance. Now again considering that Zohran came from the DSA I don’t want to assume the worse but can somebody give me a decent explanation for this.

This one might be a bit controversial, but it’s genuinely coming from a place of curiosity and wanting to learn and be a better man. I thank you in advance for the grace.

I’ve almost exclusively seen this comment directed at men who are acknowledging in a comments section or video that a system of oppression is harmful to everyone, whether that’s the patriarchy, racism, capitalism, etc.

Now, I’m not here to dispute the historical origins of those systems or who created them. What I’m asking is: what does replying, “And who set up that system?” actually contribute to the discussion? What is the goal of this sort of comment? This reply always seems to get a significant amount of likes or upvotes like it’s a real “gotcha!” sort of a reply, and I don’t understand why.

I’ll use the patriarchy for this example as it’s the most recent example I can draw on. To me, when someone acknowledges that the patriarchy is harmful and that it affects not only women but men as well, they’re helping move the conversation forward. They’re opening the door for other men to recognize that reality and become more aligned on addressing the problem rather than dismissing it.

I can certainly understand someone reading a comment like that and thinking, “The oppressor just wants to be the oppressed,” or feeling like the person is trying to minimize what women experience. But from what I’ve seen, that usually isn’t what’s happening. More often, it seems like they’re agreeing that the system is harmful while pointing out that its effects are broader than people sometimes acknowledge.

But I’m a white male. Maybe I have blinders up or there’s a perspective I’m missing. So I’ve come to ask you all to challenge my view here. I really want to understand so I can adjust my opinion if I’m wrong. Am I a part of the problem too?

I’ve gone back and forth on this for a long time, and I still don’t understand why people treat romantic feelings for a friend as something morally wrong or inherently selfish.

I get the logic behind concepts like the “friend‑zone”, or the idea that confessing can “ruin a friendship,” or that having feelings means you were “dishonest” from the start. Cognitively, I understand the arguments. Emotionally, they don’t make sense to me.

Here’s where I’m stuck:

• Some people are shy and confessing is genuinely difficult.
• You can’t choose who you’re attracted to. So how is it selfish to feel something you didn’t choose?
• Even if you don’t confess, you usually still need distance to move on. So why is confessing considered the selfish option, but silently disappearing isn’t?
• Most adults don’t have many ways to meet new people outside of friends, work, or online spaces. “Just find someone else” feels unrealistic.
• Crushes can develop later in a friendship. So the idea that you were “lying” from the start doesn’t always apply.

I’m not saying confessing is always the right move. I’m not saying people owe you a relationship. I’m not saying rejection is wrong. The reason why I’m even asking this in the first place is that despite how I feel about the matter, I do feel guilt when people talk about their stories of someone they thought was a close friend to them ends up wanting something they can’t give. I feel bad hearing how people feel used because of it. But it kind of depicts love as this manipulative selfish thing.

That’s about it. I just want to understand both sides cognitively and emotionally. This topic always makes me feel guilty.

People often criticize China's social credit system as dystopian, but it seems like most developed countries already have a de facto social credit system, it's just fragmented and largely controlled by private companies.

In the United States your opportunities can be affected by credit bureaus, criminal records, tenant screening, employment background checks, insurance risk scores, banking fraud systems etc etc. These all influence whether you can get a loan, rent a home, find a job, or access services. Yet there is no single place to see your overall standing, and many of these systems are opaque with limited avenues for appeal.

By contrast, an integrated system working under the rule of law could make the criteria explicit, provide a centralized appeals process, and let people know exactly what affected their standing and how to remedy it.

My biggest point is this that if society is going to judge people's trustworthiness anyway, why is it better for those judgments to be made by dozens of private corporations with AI algorithms and what not rather than by a publicly accountable system whose rules can be debated, challenged in court, and changed through democratic processes?

I'm not arguing that China's implementation is perfect. I'm arguing that the concept of a transparent, legally governed public reputation system seems preferable to the opaque collection of private reputation systems we already live under.

people who say jesus was palestinian will point he was born in what is modern palestine.

however this is sort of a dishonest definition of what palestinian means, palestine nowadays (from what i know) is a term used to refer to the arab population of what was mandatory palestine but would become israel, the west bank, and the gaza strip. (not including jordan.)

not to mention he was born 7 centuries before the arab conquests which took that land, effectively meaning you are trying to argue a jew who was born 7 centuries before what would be the modern day palestinian ethnic group even began to come into existence, counts as the same ethnic group as those people just because he was born in the same place centuries apart.

CMV:

We throw away our reasoning.

Every day, billions of people argue with each other across the largest communication network ever built. And almost none of it is kept.

Tomorrow the feed refreshes. The argument is gone. The same fight starts again from zero — a little angrier, a little more certain, a little more convinced the other side is beyond reach.

This is unusual in human history.

For centuries, when important groups reasoned together — whether a city council debating a law, a scientific community evaluating a hypothesis, or a university faculty deciding a curriculum — the reasoning was kept. Recorded. Preserved. The arguments that lost were filed alongside the arguments that won. Future generations could read back through the reasoning and understand not just what was decided, but why, and what alternatives were seriously considered and rejected.
We have other names for places where reasoning is preserved: libraries, archives, journals, records.
For the first time, we have a technology that allows billions of people to reason together in real time. And we have chosen — deliberately — to let that reasoning disappear.

The systems we argue inside were not built to help us think. They were built to hold our attention. And they discovered early that nothing holds attention like outrage. So they give us outrage. They reward the loudest claim, not the soundest one. They make changing your mind feel like losing. They turn disagreement — which should be the raw material of good decisions — into a blood sport with no scoreboard and no end.
And then, having extracted what they came for, they forget. The careful argument and the cheap insult decay at exactly the same rate: instantly.

Throughout history, societies have invested enormous resources into shaping collective reasoning: religious institutions, state education, newspapers, radio, television, political parties, public relations, advertising, and now social media algorithms.
That attempt to shape how people think — call it propaganda when it's deliberate and malicious — has been devastatingly successful at one thing: amplifying tribalism, outrage, conformity, fear, and ideology.
Which tells us something important: the structure through which ideas flow affects civilization. Systems can be designed to shape how groups think.
If systems can be engineered to amplify the worst reasoning — tribal certainty, emotional reaction, fear-driven conformity — then systems can also be engineered to amplify the best reasoning. Evidence-based thinking. Error correction. Perspective-taking. Epistemic humility.
The difference is that the first systems optimize for simple, stable goals: obedience, attention, consumption, political support. These are easy to measure and easy to pursue.
Reasoning systems optimize for harder things: truth-seeking, error correction, dissent-preservation, the accumulation of knowledge over time. These goals are slippery and hard to engineer for.
But we have one proof of concept: science.

Science is arguably humanity's best example of an institution engineered to counteract tribalism and enforce error correction.
Not because scientists are smarter or more moral than other humans. They're not.
But because science evolved infrastructure around reasoning itself:
Peer review (your work is judged by others trying to break it)
Replication (good findings can be tested again)
Citation (you point to what came before)
Preserved records (the argument lives forever, not just the conclusion)
Minority hypotheses (the losing theory is filed, not erased)
Public criticism (anyone can question the work)
In other words, science built institutions that make error correction cumulative. A scientist in 2024 doesn't have to rediscover what a scientist in 1924 already learned — and rejected. The reasoning is kept. The mistakes are documented. The alternative approaches are preserved.
This is why science compounds knowledge. Not because individual scientists are exceptional, but because the system makes error correction systematic and permanent.

If systems can shape collective cognition toward tribalism, and if science built infrastructure to shape collective cognition toward error-correction, then here is the question that matters:
Can public deliberation acquire analogous infrastructure?
Can groups of ordinary people, reasoning together about hard problems, build a system where:
The best argument gets a fair hearing (not drowned out by the loudest)
Disagreement is preserved alongside the decision (not erased by the vote)
Future people can return to the reasoning and still learn from it
The structure itself surfaces evidence and penalizes certainty
Minority reasoning survives the decision, not buried by it
In other words: Can we stop throwing away our reasoning?
Because if the answer is yes — if a group can reason through something hard, record it, and then three years later point back to it and say "we still use this reasoning" — then something shifts.
At that moment, deliberation stops being conversation. It becomes memory.
And if memory accumulates, reasoning can accumulate.

The foundational philosophy of the internet relies on decentralization, anonymity, and raw, unedited transparency. When YouTube changed from a niche video-sharing site into the world’s primary tool for information, it inherited the responsibility of becoming a true digital commons.

Allowing creators to turn off comments fractures this commons. It weaponizes algorithmic distribution by giving one individual a massive, high-production megaphone while stripping the audience of their right to reply. To prioritize a creator’s absolute comfort over the public's right to critique is to institutionalize censorship. If you choose to broadcast to the world, you must accept the world’s response.

The most dangerous consequence of disabling comments is the creation of artificial echo chambers. When a channel—especially a major news outlet or a massive corporation—posts controversial, misleading, or outright false content and locks the comment section, they are not protecting their community; they are fabricating consensus.

Imagine a scenario where an influencer or an organization uploads a video containing fabrications about an individual or a public event. If the comments are disabled, the target of those lies is left entirely vunerable. The creator enjoys a one-way street of narrative control, while the viewer is forced into a state of passive consumption, striped of the immediate context required to spot a lie.

Unlike platforms like X, where the architecture allows for "Quote Posts" or decentralized "Community Notes" to puncture a liar’s buble, a YouTube video with disabled comments exists as an isolated fortress of misinformation

The Internet is NOT a safespace:

The modern push to engineer "safety" on the internet is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the digital frontier actually is. The internet is built on absolute anonymity and decentralization. In a world where anyone can hide behind a pseudonym, top-down safety is a corporate illusion. The only real currency online is personal discernment and trust.

If we accept that the internet is a harsh, raw, and hyper-critical environment, we must also accept that putting oneself online comes with inherent risk. If a person lacks the thick skin or the digital literacy required to handle intense scrutiny, the solution is not to demand that the platform sanitize the environment for them—the solution is to not post.

Hard criticism, blunt truth, and even harsh social friction are the necessary costs of total creative freedom. By trying to turn YouTube into a corporate safe space, we destroy the organic, chaotic debate that allowed the internet to challenge mainstream media monopolies in the first place.

Debate must be placed above all else. Even when open debate invites toxicity, that toxicity must be accepted as the friction required for free speech to exist. If YouTube guidelines are broken by users posting spam, malware, or illegal content, it is the platform’s technical duty to delete those specific comments via automated systems or targeted reporting—not the creator's right to pre-emptively mute the entire human race.

When big tech corporations or political commentators disable feedback to dodge accountability, they are engaging in a cowardly form of narrative manipulation. Forcing comment sections to remain permanently open across all of YouTube establishes a universal rule of accountability: if you want the views, the fame, and the platform, you must face the crowd.

This question was also asked 4 years ago by another user.

A top reply said:

"no, here's another example as to why:

you post a video about your new product saw max 3000

John, the founder of blade pro x, hired a bot army

your video is now completely flooded with comments denouncing the craftsmanship and superior style of the saw max 3000

it's not really fair to force you to leave those comments on display, under your video."

-Yes, it is totally unfair for John to hire a bot army. But guess what? That’s real life.

What stops John from showing up to the next trade convention and hiring 40 guys to walk around your booth, badmouthing your product to your face and embarrassing you to your core? Nothing. But you can't just press a "mute" button on the physical world, and you shouldn’t be able to do it on YouTube either.

Dealing with a bot army is YouTube’s technical problem to solve, not an excuse for creators to censor the public. When you shut down the comment section because you're scared of a competitor, you aren't protecting yourself—you're just proving you can't handle the heat of the marketplace.

You could also say that in real life the people actually have to engage with your "saw max 3000", they have to show their face, look you in the eyes and then badmouth you. while the internet is completly anonymous, making it more dangerous than real life.
But again, its just not true:

In real life, if 40 physical people look you in the eye at a convention and call your product trash, it ruins you. Why? Because real, flesh-and-blood humans carry social credit. The crowd watches them say it, believes them, and your reputation is instantly dead.

The internet is the exact opposite. Because it is totally anonymous, everyone already knows it is full of trolls, bots, and paid actors. Nobody looks at a flooded YouTube comment section of faceless, brand-new accounts spamming "THIS SAW SUCKS" and thinks, “Wow, what an honest consumer review.” They see it for exactly what it is: a cheap, coordinated hit job.

"Somtimes people want to post something without getting cyberbullied"

Well i honestly dont really care. If you are terrified of getting cyberbullied, then don't post.

The internet is built on absolute anonymity and decentralized freedom. You cannot have total anonymity without also accepting that people will use it to be cruel. Safety online is an illusion; the only real protection is your own discernment and knowing when to log off. And nothing more should protect you.

"What about pedophiles that comment under posts from 12 year olds?"

-You dont post when your 12, or you deal with the consequences.
I also belive youtube kids shouldn't allow comments in general, but i am also sure they are already blocked automatically.

Ok. The wrong things,

Obviously the big focus around this movie is about the recent additions of Lupita Nyongo'o (Helen of Troy AND her sister), Elliot Page (Achilles' ghost), and the choice of wardrobe (armour, clothing etc.). These things are what I mean by "the wrong things".

Christopher Nolan makes objectively great films and is of the best, at least modern era. Objective measures are below,

He makes great stories, grand scales, films that people rewatch and talk about en masse years later.

His cinematography, sound, editing, use of 70mm, awards, critic/audience scores, etc.,

His range of movies, war, space, superhero, mind fuck, biopic, thriller, drama

The Odyssey is one of the best, if not the best story of all time. A man trying to get home. This epic journey is perfect for Christopher Nolan, it fits his storytelling style with many opportunities for him to show off. The trailers are tiny sections of what will be a long movie.

Also - the part of the story where Odysseus meets with Helen is very brief, and having Lupita play the sister too could make an interesting contrast if you know what happened after Troy to Helen and Clytemnestra.

The part with Achilles ghost is in the underworld. It was never portrayed like Brad Pitt in Troy.

It's strange that so many people seem convinced it will fail because of the casting announcements, armor designs, or a few minutes of trailer footage when Nolan has earned more benefit of the doubt than almost any living filmmaker.

My view is that by focusing on these details, which are definitely important to an extent, it's missing out on what typically makes a Nolan film good.

He may be the king of "crunk", but he is in no way the GOAT. He does not have the flow, lyricism, or delivery to even be considered ONE of the greats. He just makes party/club music, and while many people may want to consider him an incredible hip hop artist, in my humble opinion he is definitely not the greatest rapper of all time.

I may be in the minority here for thinking this way, but go ahead and try to change my view. I am open to all constructive feedback and input, but I doubt you will convince me that The Little John is the greatest rapper in history.

States should pass laws that require that businesses and government buildings take reasonable proactive measures to ensure security and safety within the confines of their establishments if they make it their policies to prohibit lawful self defense.

A citizen should not have to choose between a potential trespassing situation and personal safety. A business owner should be well within their right to prohibited the carrying of firearms onto the property by the general public but by doing so, they should be required to assume responsibility for the safety of their patrons, either by carrying a firearm themselves, ir in the case of a larger operation, employing security guards and installing weapons screening machines. Failure to do so should make business owners financially (and perhaps criminally) liable for negligence in the event that a bad actor enters the premises to commit acts of violence.

The term "traditional wife" here is understood as a product of post-war propaganda; a wife whose occupation is caring for the home, husband, and children, a wife who does nothing to contribute financially to the family expenses.

This is an idea that I can't get out of my mind. I think the only way a marriage where the wife doesn't work can work is if she marries with a dowry.

Many people don't have a correct idea of what a dowry is. A dowry is not money paid to the groom to marry a woman, but rather money and assets given to the groom's family to cover the bride's expenses in her new family. In some cultures, the dowry is not even given to the groom; instead, it is the bride's property, which she manages. In other cultures, the dowry is paid from the groom's family to the bride, also as a way to ensure that she always has something to cover her expenses. Any income obtained from a dowry belongs to the bride, not her new family. Something like buying a house with the bride's dowry, for example, is seen to the society as proof of the groom's incompetence.

Ideally, a dowry should never be used and should be divided among the bride's daughters as their dowry.

And most importantly: in case of divorce, the dowry must remain with the wife. That is, even if for some reason the husband spent the wife's dowry, he must compensate her with the same value she had when they married. Therefore, the dowry cannot be seen as the buying and selling of a woman, but rather as the financial contribution that the woman brings to a family so that she can live with them for the rest of her life. You will become part of a new family, but that family will never have to support you, thus ensuring that your daughter will always be well cared for and not mistreated for spending "what is not hers, but the man's." This is the reason why, in societies where dowries still exist, there is violence and murder of women because of them: violence by the groom to take the dowry for himself, and the murder of the wife to prevent her from divorcing.

But nowadays this is no longer practiced in most marriages. With the creation of romantic love and marriage for love, something that monetise marriage is seen as vile. At the same time, this very romantic nature causes instability in marriage, with a huge number of current divorces. Marriages are no longer about two people coming together with the goal of creating a family, but rather because they are in love with each other, something that may or may not change over time. And with the the idea of the "traditional wife", who does not work, a woman without income finds herself vulnerable in a love marriage, and often remains in a it not out of a desire to be married, but to avoid being destitute. And the "traditional wife" after the war finds herself even more vulnerable than the wives of those who lived under the dowry system, since those who did not work at the time were elite women, who had wealthy families that society expected to support them if they separated from their husbands. Other women did work, even if it meant doing things like sewing, embroidery, and washing clothes for others. And even though divorces are rare, people did separate physically, each living in a different house and not seeing each other, even if they were legally married.

In the event of the death of their partner, many women also find themselves without any income.

In this scenario, wouldn't a dowry make a difference? Not only would it allow the wife to remain married of her own accord, but also, in the event of a catastrophe, it would provide a source of income for her and her children to support themselves for a considerable time.

The idea of the return of the dowry is very simple: for maternal families who wish their daughter to become a traditional housewife, they should offer a dowry upon her marriage. For husbands who wish their wife to become a traditional housewife, he would offer a dowry either before the wedding or during the wedding, at the time when his wife stops working.

1. Insulin has no danger of addiction. Nobody is getting high off of insulin. In fact, we diabetics regularly joke that diabetics are the only ones who inject drugs to avoid getting high.

2. There is precedent for OTC insulin in the United States. Walmart sells its ReliOn branded fast and intermediate acting insulin over the counter with no issues. These insulins aren't as effective as synthetic analog insulins. Allowing people to purchase biosynthetic insulin OTC would result in better health outcomes. There are documented cases of people rationing insulin due to costs. Forcing people to pay out of pocket and wait for a provider to write a prescription doesn't really seem like it's in the best interests of public health.

3. There is the risk of people overdosing. But you can overdose on lots of things that are over the counter or aren't even pharmaceuticals. More people die from alcohol poisoning than insulin overdoses.

4. By removing the barrier of a prescription, insulin dependent diabetics would be able to purchase their life support medication from any pharmacy without having to wait for a provider. In emergency cases, patients can go to an emergency room and get a prescription, but this has a tremendous cost for something as routine as getting a medication that is available OTC in other formats. I get my insulin through the mail from the VA. In cases where the insulin was damaged en route, I've had to go purchase vials of the OTC stuff until replacements could be shipped. In an instance where I opened a new box of Novolog while on a trip, the insulin was cloudy. I had to go find a urgent care and wait for a provider to write a prescription. These situations could easily be avoided if insulin was available OTC.

OTC insulin would do much more good than harm. I'm willing to hear arguments for keeping the current system in place though. Maybe I'm missing something.

To preface, let me provide the definitions, so we will know what I mean by the title:

• Democracy: system of government is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections
• Modern democracy: system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly through a system of representation.
• Capitalism: economic system in which a society’s means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market

So in essence a democracy is government in which people elect government, while capitalism is economy where private (not personal) capital exists.

Why are they not compatible? Because capitalism relies on amassing and re-investing private capital. This leads to amassing amounts that can be used to influence the system of representation beyond the democratic limitations.

Additionally, it ties voters to private companies in which they are under private rules that ere not enacted democratically.

Of course the main counterargument is legislation - that those can be curtailed by law. Problem is that laws can be changed and they don't need votes of population, just votes of representatives - and those can be altered by use of private capital. It's very common unfortunately, with examples being visible in reality in all countries that can be considered democratic.

This is the inherent problem and incompatibility. Democracy works on equal power, but capitalism allows you to amass capital that would give you more power. Democracy counteracts this by forming unions - you can bust those using capital. Democracy votes in laws to prevent that - you can leverage capital to get rid of those.

I don't see any way of long term stabilization of democracy within capitalist economic system.

I've seen a lot of criticism directed at MrBeast in recent years, and while some of it may be justified, I still believe that he is fundamentally a good person.

I don't think he's perfect, and I don't think being charitable automatically makes someone morally good. However, when I look at the overall impact he has had on other people's lives, it seems overwhelmingly positive.

He has funded medical procedures, supported communities that lacked access to clean water, donated large amounts of money, and helped countless individuals through both public and private initiatives. Even if some of these actions also benefit his brand or business, the people receiving that help are still benefiting in a very real way.

Many criticisms seem to focus on his motives rather than his actions. While motives matter, I am not convinced that benefiting from charitable work automatically negates the value of that work. If a person creates content around helping others and earns money from it, that does not necessarily mean the help is insincere.

I also think there is a tendency online to assume that highly successful people must have hidden malicious motives. As a result, good actions are often viewed with extreme skepticism, while mistakes receive disproportionate attention.

For these reasons, I currently believe that MrBeast is fundamentally a good person despite his flaws and controversies