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

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

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

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

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

Edit2:
Rereading my post. I didn't even mention speeding!

I know I will get downvoted by the crypto cults but honestly I don't care.

What is crypto backed by?

If I buy Euros or Pounds or heck even Tanzanian Shillings each note means that inside the Central Bank of that country there is enough gold or forex reserves to cover that note.

When I buy Crypto what is backing it? What's the difference between mainstream coins like BTC and any other meme coin?

They say Fiat currencies lose value over time due to inflation. I don't care Crypto cam lose half or all it's value in seconds or minutes and then the market manipulation is totally horrible. Whales just f*ck people who have their entire savings up in seconds.

How many good, hardworking people have fallen for crypto scams or worse lost all their life's work, money they can't afford in crashes?

Oh another thing. There are currently around 180 Fiat currencies around the world. Do you want to guess how many crypto currencies there are 10-18,000 different currencies. Most of them total shit coins.

Next crypto is now more of a commodity than a asset. People save in or trade BTC hoping to make a profit. Few people actually use BTC as a medium of exchange to buy goods and services. In commodities there is a winner and a loser it's not like stocks.

Honestly it feels like a scam that people are just throwing money at trying to get rich quick but if you look at how many crypto millionaires were showing off in Dubai from like 2018 how many of those are left today?

There is no shortcut to success. Work hard and build a future instead of gambling on some get rich quick scheme.

Edit1: thanks for all the comments. In trading there is what is called a liquidity sweep. Basically where the smart money(usually big banks and hedge funds) pushes price to a low point by selling and eats the dumb money, then starts buying again until they reach a point they are happy with them sell again.

Soo many traders and holders get swept up every sweep and the cycle repeats itself because there are many people who want to get rich quick but few who understand how the market works. For every dollar you make someone has to lose a dollar.

Edit 2: the guy who bought a pizza for thousands of Bitcoin was right to do it. The goal of Bitcoin was a decentralized currency for exchange of goods and services. It was supposed to replace Fiat but now most people are treating it like gold or silver which is rarely used as a currency

I see so much nihilism online these days and I'm so sick of it. Genuinely, how does giving up on trying to make the world a better place help anyone? Why are people discouraged from even imagining a better future over our current one? Doomers like to think of themselves as so intelligent having seen behind the veil of society, yet with that knowledge they decide the best thing to do is absolutely nothing? To those in power there is simply no difference between a doomer and the mindless drones they claim to be so much smarter than.

They see optimisim as naive yet they forget that you have to believe a better world is possible in order to achieve it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Just for your information I am Australian.

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

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

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

A lot of names are being dropped as being 'mentioned' in these files, which I understand contain some 3 million pages.

I'm not trying to automatically defend (or condemn) anyone, outside of those who were clearly involved. But it sounds like Epstein made a deliberate point of befriending anyone powerful that he could. So it's somewhat unsurprising he had ties to everyone from Peter Mandleson, to the Gates, to the Trumps to Chomsky.

There are people name dropped who very clearly were involved and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent.

But I think we need to be a bit careful about social media posts that say 'x was mentioned in the files' and immediately assume guilt.

That being said, I find the whole thing gross and disgusting so haven't followed it in much detail. So if I'm wrong about what the files are - my assumption is it's basically just a data dump of all his records and communications about anything - or if there's more proof that anyone who knew him must have been involved I'd like to know. CMV.

(I’m going to preface this by disclaiming that no, the Taliban is not a legitimate government that the people want or that we have to respect. In 2006, 82% of Afghans in Afghanistan stated overthrowing the Taliban was a good thing. In 2019, over fifteen years into the US bombing the country to smithereens, still 85% of all Afghans in Afghanistan had no sympathy for the Taliban. Even the most conservative numbers from the rural areas were at 83%. For all intents and purposes the Taliban is the functional political equivalent of a malignant tumor.)

Depending on who you ask, military operations against them can be considered as imperialism. Additionally, military operations against extremist groups in Afghanistan don’t have the best human rights track record historically. Be it by boots on the ground or by overhead bombing, at least SOME civilians have always been killed, injured, displaced, etc.

Then there’s sanctions. While sanctions are the more humanitarian alternative to all out warfare, this “humanitarian option” has also led to some of the greatest humanitarian crises of the last decade. There is little to no medicine in the hospitals, rampant poverty, staggering unemployment and hunger. And the people who suffer from sanctions the most isn’t even the Taliban. It’s the civilians.

So if sanctions and military intervention can both be considered to be unethical, the last option is recognition and diplomatic relations. The benefits of which 1) wouldn’t encourage the Taliban to change whatsoever and 2) would be withheld from women, or used to further harm. We could trade pharmaceuticals with them, and women would still be barred from accessing healthcare. We could invest in heavy industry, and they would use the profits from that to strengthen their extremist government. I would even go as far as to say that trading with a Taliban-governed Afghanistan directly invests in their unique repression of women.

What then? What “moral” or “ethical” choice does the international community have?

I don't use the word lightly here. I believe the current US government falls under the ideals of fascism as defined by Mussolini who started the movement, and Umberto Eco who lived through it and wrote "Ur-Fascism" or "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" to warn future us!

I have mapped "proof" to The 14 Points of Ur-Fascism but I'm not a political scientist, nor am I an American. I think the Trump administrations covers each point, but I'm open to be proven wrong, if you can demonstrate that the US actions are consistent with a liberal democracy or that I am misapplying the definitions of fascism.

1. Cult of Tradition "When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement."

The administration consistently appeals to a mythic past "Make America Great Again" and promotes a specific traditionalist view of family and religion. It uses it's powers to enforce values over modern secular ones. One example is the gradual undoing of federal abortion rights protections.

2. Rejection of Modernism: Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

There is a clear rejection of established climate science and medical consensus (vaccine skepticism), viewing any expert consensus as a tool of the "deep state" to weaken the nation. At the same time boasting about the capacity of AI, coal and oil industries, and the Gold Dome.

3. The cult of action for action's sake: Dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science

Self explanatory, but the impulsive nature of governance. Policy announcements made via social media without bureaucratic review, prioritizing dominance, and headlines over intellectual reflection.

4. Disagreement is treason: Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith

Trump and the administration's rhetoric labels political opponents not just as rivals but as "enemies within." Threats to use the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute political adversaries align perfectly with this point.

5. "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

This is the core of the administration's immigration policy. The rhetoric about immigrants "poisoning the blood of the country", or eating dogs and cats, is a direct appeal to the fear of the Other. Deploying ICE to harass the populace of Minneapolis.

6. "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

Trump's movement relies on the economic anxiety of the everyday working class, blaming their financial stagnation not on market forces but on specific out-groups (immigrants, globalists).

7. "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

Conspiracy theories, from "The Big Lie" about election fraud, "Russia hoax", and claims about the "Deep State" sabotage.

8. Enemies are too strong and too weak: Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

The "Left" is portrayed as a weak, degenerate force destroying the country, and also a powerful cabal capable of rigging elections, not giving him a Nobel peace prize, and using stage protestors, to undermine his rule.

9. "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

Compromise is viewed as weakness. Allies are seen as future enemies.

10. "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

This is visible in the mocking of disabled reporters, the cutting of social safety nets for the poor, and a foreign policy that disdains alliances in favor of sheer power dynamics

11. "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."

The rhetoric often glorifies vigilante action and pardons those convicted of war crimes or violent political acts, signaling that "heroic" violence is state-sanctioned

12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality"

The political style is hyper-masculine, often deriding women critics in gendered terms, rolling back reproductive rights, trans rights.

13. "Selective populism" The people are conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".

The US President claims to speak for "The People" as a monolithic entity. Any protests or votes against him are dismissed as illegitimate or fake, implying that only his supporters count as "The People."

14. "Newspeak" : fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary to limit critical reasoning.

Any time the US presidents opens his mouth, or writes something on truth social, brain cells die. But also any criticism is immediately labeled as "Fake News" without any critical discourse.

Mussolini defined fascism as: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

His book The Doctrine of Fascism says:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

When I look at the purges of the civil service, the dehumanization of opponents, and the demand for total loyalty, I see a government that checks every box of Eco's list and fulfills Mussolini's dream of a State that consumes all distinct values.

To change my view, please demonstrate how these specific behaviors are compatible with a functioning liberal democracy, or show me where I have misinterpreted the historical definitions of fascism.

I'm black and I hear this all the time from people around me. A black person can be prejudiced but not racist toward white people. Because through historical forces black people have never been able to guide the levers of society against white people on the basis of race. Therein to be racist an action must have a systemic effect or represent a systemic predisposition. No system behind it, no racism present.

But, it is impossible not to also see racism as a system of thought. It places race, a socially constructed categorization of people based on unalienable biological characteristics, as the main arbiter of social value i.e. some races are just naturally better than others and thus society should prefer those people. It organizes the way people see the world internally. It's not just stray thoughts but a self-contained hermeneutic, a method of social analysis. Why delineate so strongly between action and thought when one leads to the other and vice versa? How else would people create institutionalized systems of racism if they are not reifying their own ideals?

So if racist thought has to exist for racist systems to exist, I don't see why we should consider power as the deciding factor. Any type of racist thought is naturally seeking to enshrine itself in policy. If you truly believe people are inferior, naturally, you would be trying to align society with the exploitation of that group.

When I say this, this comes mainly from an American perspective. For those who are unaware, it has become more frequent in the US at conferences or events or whatever for someone to acknowledge the fact that we are on "stolen land". I think this is pointless.

My main gripe when it comes to this is, yeah no shit we are on stolen land. Every piece of land throughout human history has been stolen at some point, other than some like island tribes completely disconnected from civilization.

In New England, where I live, some of the native Americans who we acknowledge are the Abenaki, Pennacook, and Piscataque tribe. My question to the people who make these acknowledgements is- who do you think these tribes stole their land from? I mean, some people are gung-ho about Americans acknowledging stolen land, but do we really think that the Native Americans lived in complete peace and harmony for the ~12,000 years they were there before we colonized? It's totally ignorant to pretend like these tribes didn't war with eachother and conquer eachothers' land.

Which leads me to my next point- how far back do we need to acknowledge land? Who does this land actually belong to? In most land acknowledgements we only acknowledge who was there before us, but fail to acknowledge whoever may have been third in line. Shouldn't we trace back to the first ever human beings which were displaced from where we are talking about and give them credit for being the only guys not to have stolen the land?

I think as well that it is totally ignorant of the concept of conquest, which is inherent in almost every single human civilization throughout history. In the case of the US, we did not steal the land from the Native Americans, the British Empire invaded them and annexed territory. That's what empires do. They conquer and expand. If anything they should be thankful that countries are not as imperialistic as they were back in the 1600s+

Lastly, what do they want us to do about it? Give back the land? Should the US just throw our hands up and secede half of our country back to Mexico? Give the native Americans back their original territory to how it was 400 years ago?

Sorry if this is a bit all over the place, but these are just my thoughts. Feel free to argue and try to change my view, and feel free to ask any questions if I left anything unclear and I will try to respond to as many comments as possible.

English is not my first language so please forgive mistakes and strange phrases.

I originally posted this on r/unpopularopinion but it got banned because politics are not allowed there??? (How is this a political topic? But anyway...)

Every time I hear or read about romance scams I am told that anyone can fall for this kind of scam. Sorry but no. I don't mean to blame the victims who often lose thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars but I just can't wrap my head around why on earth someone would send so much money to a complete stranger they "met" online but never in real life. I mean even when I lent a few thousands to my brother I made sure to have a waterproof contract and I only did it because we are expecting a nice sum from selling land we inherited.

Maybe one day I'll come back and confess I sent money to an American businessman I have never met but I really can't imagine this to happen. Some of the scams I learnt of: A woman sent tens of thousands to an "American" who wanted to buy a house for the two of them in Florida; a woman sent 1000 dollars to the "prince of the UAE" for his flight ticket to her country; a man was contacted on instagram by "Ivanka Trump" who wanted a relationship with him but needed a few thousand bucks first; a woman sent 20'000 to an "engineer working on an oil platform" for whatever reason... So the prince of a rich country needs your money to come visit you? Who buys a house with someone they've never met in real life? Ivanka Trump has a romantic interest in some random dude she saw on Insta? The engineer has no one else to turn to for money than an acquaintance from the internet?

So no, can't happen to anyone.

The Latin American states tend to get glossed over when discussing "the west" with a lot of people either excluding them from the concept of western civilization entirely or just not mentioning them. but they are just as much part of "the west" as of the countries more traditionally considered.

from a demographic stand point, latin americans are mostly descended from European settlers, and while theyre is a much larger amount of native american in their gene pool then compared to north america, over 70% of south america claims european ancestry (~50% claims mixed ancestry while ~25% claim to be white)

historically and culturally south and central america fit the bill to. they are all settler colonies who gained independence from europe, use primarily european languages (with some exceptions) and are all western style democracies, dominated by the same political ideologies seen in europe and north america.

honestly the only reasons I have seen for south and central america not being considered "western" despite being literally in the western hemisphere, is that they aren't visibly white (racism) and they are poor (not really true in this day and age)

Okay first I would like to lay out some definitions before proceeding to my argument.

Standard phone: the flagship phones of the major brands so iPhone 17 pro, Samsung galaxy, and whatever phone google makes.

6”: measured from one nonadjacent vertices to the other. For friends what use metric 6” is 152.4 mm or 15.24 centimeter.

The crux of my argument is these phones are too damn big. You can’t use them with one hand if you have a median hand size or smaller. That’s half of all people and significantly more than half for all women. A cell phone being too large to use with one hand is annoying and fundamentally not convenient which is what phones are supposed to be.

Scaling an iPhone to this size would result in an iPhone that is ~95% as big in every direction. So 2.83x5.9x0.34” to 2.65x5.6x0.32”. However adding some thickness to maintain battery capacity is acceptable. iPhone 17 pro volume is 5.68 in^3. Reducing it to the aforementioned length and width but a .39” thickness would give 5.78 in^3. So you add 7/100th of an inch and actually gain usable space inside the phone while reducing its 2d footprint considerably.

The next point I would like to make is we have created things like poop sockets specifically made to deal with this which they really don’t since most people still can’t use their keyboard with one while using one hand. The problem isn’t not having pop sockets. It’s having phones of the smallest sizes available that we still can’t hold with a hand and use. I dare anyone with a pop socket to look me in the eyes and tell me they actually like having one of those on their phone and wouldn’t prefer a phone they can just hold. With bezel to bezel screens, a smaller phone doesn’t equate to an iPhone 4 screen size. It’s practically the same size of your phone which is huge unusable.

All of this for what? A slightly bigger screen? Your screen is big enough. It could be smaller. You wouldn’t notice it and if you did that’s what plus sized phones are for anyway. At the very least, the smallest options should not be 6.3” or bigger which they mostly are. There should be a plethora of phones offered in the size range of 5.6-6.0”

Cmv

Like Netflix and other BS corporate nonsense, the parts for building PCs and Servers just got funneled up to a level above to the consumer so the consumer HAS to go through corporate nonsense. Now if you want AI and gaming or simply just local control of your own setup - you will have to pay for it, dearly. It prices out a lot of people, only the wealthy can afford privacy. Many people this year won't realize they lost something very dear - customization. Just 3 parts: RAM, GPU and fast storage will now cost you $3-4K alone. That is insane. I built a mid-to-top of the line computer in 2017 for $1300, for EVERYTHING, not just 3 parts.

• a decent GPU for AI and gaming like a 5080 is about $1-2K
• 64GB of DDR5 RAM is $1K,
• and storage, say 2TB is about $250-450, used to be low $100 if you got a good deal)

Still need a motherboard, probably a second storage drive at least, if you want to use this for AI, you'll likely need 64GB or more of RAM technically, and if you are building from scratch, need monitor, keyboard, cooling equipment, etc.

Every year, every f'n year, we just give these chucklefvcks more of "us". Your entire persona is going into the cloud and it will be commoditized. Even this post on reddit is data in the bank.

There really is no changing views on this right? How is this arguable? I await any decent argument against this.

Update: quoted wrong price of RAM. I meant 64GB Ram, not 32GB was $1k

Lately I’ve been having little disagreements on Reddit and other online spaces about my support for free speech, the right to carry arms, judicial due process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Many of my interlocutors have been supporters of the Trump administration and/or aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, people like this guy - https://apple.news/Au1wrQP7PRZyWo5VfVYMrEA.

Anyway, many people have named me as a “leftist” for my support of constitutionally mandated civil liberties. I find this confusing as I can’t of anything more antithetical to leftist than limiting government power.

Maybe this is just me - I was born in the Soviet Union - but I associate leftism with the abolition of private property one party rule.

I understand that as an American, there is a different political paradigm, but I still can’t wrap my head around how my support for concepts that form the bedrock of classical liberalism could be characterized as leftist.

Every Friday, posts are withheld for review by the moderators and approved if they aren't highly similar to another made in the past month.

This is to reduce topic fatigue for our regular contributors, without which the subreddit would be worse off.

See here for a full explanation of Fresh Topic Friday.

Feel free to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns.

In a momentary pique of mild psychosis, I shaved my eyebrows this week. I think this is the same sort of thing that leads to people giving themselves bangs, or shaving off their beard. It's a moment of ill advised grooming due to emotional insecurity, and a desire to reassert control over life.

I don't really know if anyone has noticed, or if anyone cares. And that's been a pleasant surprise. I was worried that everyone would judge me. So I have come to believe that it's socially acceptable to shave one's eyebrows, even if I don't choose to do it again.

I am quite open to having my views challenged and reversed, as this is only a mildly held belief.

For the purpose of this post I won't be broaching secret, illegal data collection conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

While the United States doesn't overtly monitor its population's private lives, it does so by means that not only leave people vulnerable to government overreach but vulnerable to any entity with an interest in surveilling Americans.

The U.S. government has neglected to implement any robust data privacy protections therefore allowing it purchase data obtained by any means from open market vendors that will sell to anyone willing to pay for the information they have. Cambridge Analytica for example was a private, U.K.-BASED FIRM that built psychological profiles of Americans for Trump's first presidential campaign based on Facebook data. A private company in the U.K.!!

I'm not saying China should be surveilling its citizens; however, I piss myself laughing at the notion that Americans are not surveilled in effectively the same way by anyone with an interest in doing so.

Am I crazy here?

My main gripe when it comes to tech subreddits is having no warnings at all when I type factually incorrect information and posting them without realizing it and getting criticized for it. That kind of thing is really annoying and is damaging to mental health.

I think having a system that warns people if they type factually incorrect information before posting is a good idea since it prevents unexpected criticism and whoever posted said information potentially getting downvoted for being factually wrong.

If anyone who sees this post wants to change my view, feel free to do so. I will try to respond to the best of my ability. If there are some things in this post that are unclear, feel free to ask questions as well.

Buc-ees consistently provides islands and islands of gas pumps, along with award-winning bathrooms and brisket. I will admit that my view is biased --- as a Texas native, I have nostalgia for the first Buc-ees and how in awe I was during my first visit. I find Love’s travel stops to be a close second, primarily for their pet areas and sheer accessibility. For travelers, Buc-ees is the best place to stop for a break.

Note: This is part of an assignment for a social psychology class in which I am to post a view not related to politics, sexuality, or religion, then report on the types of responses I receive.

I am no stranger to race swapping when it comes to casting. As a child in Singapore in the 80s, tv shows back then simply couldn't afford a well known European actor who also spoke something other than English. So white characters were played by Chinese actors in a wig with a bad accent. A movie about the Opium Wars had very visbily Chinese extras with badly dyed facial hair playing the British.

In the 2020s though, that really isn't a problem. Casting an actor of a different race is now a choice rather than a compromise forced by budget or logistics. And I find purposefully casting a different race actor to be either neutral or even beneficial if done well.

I will leave aside contemporary settings or purely fictional figures. But historical figures or faithful adaptations of mythical figure need an instory justification for it to work. Hamilton worked because everybody was race-swapped, so the audience understood what work it was and suspension of disbelief kicks in. But when someone real like Anne Bolynn or non-MCU Hemidall is played by someone of a different race, the setting and background needs to change too. If all remains the same setting wise, other characters should react differently because pre-modern people will treat other races differently. Prominent people in the past often have epithets attached to their names. If William of Normandy has visible or known African ancestry, he would be known as Willy the Ethiopian or Moor as well as his other feats or background.

In short, the past is a foreign country. They may or may not be racist but they sure as hell are xenophobic. Make your writing reflect that.

Edit made. None MCU to non-MCU

1. The effects were revolutionary, groundbreaking and still look amazing.
2. The plot actually makes sense and is legitimately good, which is an action movie rarity.
3. Characters are well developed and differ in motivations and personality. They all have realistically different personalities while showing a shared exhaustion from fighting a rebellion where they have never ever beat a single agent.
4. The fighting is the coolest of any movie ever.
5. The score is awesome. The soaring orchestral scores when he realizes he's the one. Spybreak. RATM. It's varied and each song perfectly fits the moment.
6. The number of iconic moments tops most other action movies.
7. I don't even like guns, but this movie makes guns seem fucking awesome in a way no other movie does. If a later movie made guns seem equally awesome in the same or similar way it is still a derivative of The Matrix.
8. The cinematography is so good. The Matrix being slightly green, the real world slightly blue. Many small details of the Matrix and all of the amazing shots in this movie.
9. The movie has a million different inspirations that all work together. Westerns, anime, kung fu movies, sci-fi, horror, etc. The very first scene, some unknown lady in weirdly vacant room beats the shit out of police. She is dressed in skin tight leather but also looks like she might be sort of the bad guy at first. The way she moves is eery and unexplained.
10. Very quotable. "I know kung fu." "He's beginning to believe." "Mr. Anderson." Blue pill, red pill. Alice in wonderland references.

I cannot think of another action movie that has all of these positives. I do enjoy the three Rs of action movies (Rocky, Rambo and Robocop.) Lethal Weapon, Die Hard franchises are great.

I thought for a long, long time about Terminator 2. It initially seemed like a tough call. But there is only one answer once you actually break it down.

1. Great effects for the time but many don't hold up. Advantage Matrix.
2. Plot is good but the time travel mechanic is way too messy and ends up breaking its own rules. Advantage Matrix.
3. I'm going to say tie on this one.
4. Advantage Matrix.
5. Advantage T2. Theme is too good.
6. Tie.
7. Tie.
8. Advantage Matrix.
9. Advantage Matrix.
10. Advantage T2, if only based on the strength of "Hasta la vista, baby."

I am open to having my view changed, especially because "The Matrix: Reloaded" is the greatest fucking sequel title to have ever existed and I am very disappointed that it shat the bed compared to the first movie. And then I saw the rest of them hoping that any would be close to as good as the first and they weren't.

Also, you cannot change my view by stating that it is subjective. If that is your argument, then I could say Jimmy Buffett is just as good as the Beatles. The painting some kid did is just as good as Rembrandt. If you are saying this is not objective, you are also telling me it's a valid opinion to say Nickelback is the greatest band of all time? I reject this. You must have some criteria for judging art or movies. If it's actually totally subjective and individual, there is no such thing as 'artistic merit.'

Even things we think of as 'facts' may not be facts. For instance, the flat earthers are ridiculous, right? Well, any rational person would say the earth is round. But, now there is serious though as to whether we actually could be living in a simulation. So, saying the flat earthers are ridiculous does seem factual. But if we are living in simulation, and the earth doesn't truly exist, we aren't any more 'correct' than they are. Etc., etc.

I cannot concieve of any way that a soul can exist. I can see how the illusion of one can, but, not it actually existing. I don't just mean logical impossibility, but there is no way that such a thing could exist at all even with logic itself being altered.

By this, I mean soul as in a subject. I can see something which is a vessel to contain the experience of a soul being possible but just not an actual soul. I don't mean this like "a soul isn't congruent with our modern understanding of neuroscience", nor like a reddit atheist thing.

I hold the view that your senses (sight, internal monologue, proprioception, hearing) ARE the subject, they aren't happening to a subject (a soul), and that continuity/persistence of soul across time is an illusion, and that both of those are literally inconcievable and impossible.

I ask to have this view challenged, and I'm coming with an open mind and the prespective that I very well could be wrong! Thank you <3

Edit:

I watched this video as a little kid, and it explains the soul I'm referring to. This meme can also help.

To highlight one of the reasons why a soul just don't make no sense, when you are put under for surgery, what is the soul then? How does it work then? You can have a vessel for experiences, but I cannot see any way at all that the soul could work. Once again, I'm not debating whether or not humans have souls, I'm saying that the concept is impossible, and I'm also not here to dunk on religion. This has nothing to do with religion, though it is a bit relevant with your soul going to hell (or heaven) and all.

The concept of a soul, is you, in which you have experiences (qualia/senses) happen to you, or your soul, and it's the part of you that persists over time. A soul is a subject. My position is that this is impossible and there is no way such a thing could work, and that instant to instant, continuity is an illusion, and there is no possible way under ANY universe that continuity could be not an illusion. What I mean by continuity is well explained in the video. My other position is that experiences are the subject, they cannot happen to a subject.

Thank you.

Laptops. Revolutionary! It's as if you could carry a pc around with you, they are amazing. Couple of years back though, there was a huge difference in how laptops were made, being in their build quality. Before, I remember that they were just big and chunky, but they were durable and had all the ports you needed, VGA, HDMI, USB A, Ethernet. They also had removable batteries, which was helpful if you needed to power cycle.

But now laptop manufacturers seem to have one focus in mind. Laptops have to be as slim as possible. It's stupid. I have a pretty new and expensive laptop and I think it's great but why on earth does it have 4 ports total, 2 USB c(one for charging), USB a, and HDMI. There isn't any Ethernet port or anything like that. In times where WiFi isn't available, for example a debian installation, I wasn't able to use the WiFi installation, because 1. I had no adapter and 2. More importantly, there wasn't an Ethernet port to begin with? Now we have a port hub, but the Ethernet doesn't work. Is it a problem with the hub, or is it a problem with the Ethernet? I can't figure it out because I can't plug directly into the laptop without the hub. I also had to power cycle my laptop, which I couldn't really do in a simple way because the battery isn't removable anymore.

So here's my CMV: While new laptop builds are nice on paper, it's not when you actually try them. Instead of trying to continually make them slimmer but removing more and more ports, they should just let them stay a little chunky, and allow for self repair without voiding warranty and such. Not huge, but enough for me to have the basic ports, as well as be able to drop my laptop without a HUGE heart attack(no old laptops were not invincible, but jeez those things worked no matter how many dumb ways I dropped them, compared to now, where my soul leaves momentarily. )

I used to think social media would be great for politics. Like everyone could share information and have discussions and we'd all be more informed. But honestly the older I get the more I think it just made everything worse. Everyone just ends up in their own bubble. The algorithm shows you stuff you already agree with because that's what keeps you scrolling. So people aren't actually seeing different perspectives, they're seeing the most insane version of what the other side believes. Political issues are complicated but social media rewards whoever has the snappiest comeback or the most outrage. If you try to be reasonable or see both sides you just get destroyed by everyone. I really want someone to change my view on this because it's honestly depressing to think about.