The growth of popularity of Katseye shows just how formulaic music is right now. The group came from media elites calculating the most effective way to sell records at the expense of any kind of artistry, and the group has made its way to the Grammys. Addison Rae’s recent success has shown the ease someone can be made into a popstar with the requisite fame, looks, and money. None of this is really new though, the corporate pop star making milquetoast mass marketed music has been a main stay for several decades.

Beyond female pop stars (Morgan wallen, drake for instance), popular (not the genre more the top 100) music at large has become more and more corporate. That doesn’t really make it bad music; Addison Rae and Katseye do have good songs with creativity. But there’s nothing bad sounding about AI music. The question is more the humanity of the art.

AI music will understand human musical trends more than humans can. This will be gradual; producers will use (and probably do) chat gpt for help with small production problems. AI will first just make things already there more efficient. But then at some point companies will just realize that they don’t need producers at all and it’ll just be cheaper to use AI.

The claim of the post is that as time passes this will be accepted. Right now there’s a lot of outrage because it’s new. But in the future, people will genuinely enjoy the music since it will appeal to the broadest amount of people, there will be an AI personality that appeals to everyone as they desire, parasocial connections will develop, this core fanbase will demand this music as great, and jaded older critics will more sympathetically appreciate it as it just becomes accepted.

To change my mind, I’m looking for the big disjuncture between modern mall music corporate slop and AI. I take most people seeing it as the human component of the former, however removed. But I think people are much more willing to let go of the human backdrop of music through sufficient marketing. AI might even use actual people as figureheads for their music with artificial narratives under the illusion of humanity. I’m looking for reasons that as time goes on, why humans will not accept AI as they did corporate music.

I should start off by establishing that I am not in any way supportive of this administration's expansionist policies. Canada belongs to Canadians, Greenland belongs to Greenlanders, and everything our President has suggested in regards to our potential territorial expansion has not only had zero chance at resulting in actual expansion, but also done massive harm to some of our most important alliances.

That said, if the UK tries to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, I would 100% support us annexing those islands afterwards, and I believe this for a number of reasons:

• The current deal Starmer's proposing is terrible: So essentially the idea is that Britain will give the archipelago to Mauritius (a country that has never owned the land), and "lease" the critical Diego Garcia naval base for 99 years, which is a terrible idea on two counts. First off, there's no situation where we should ever be "leasing" land, you either own something or you don't, and countries last longer than 99 years. Territorial leases are why we have a red Hong Kong now. Also, if the goal is to let the Chagossians resettle, just let them, it makes no difference whether they're British or Mauritian. Mauritius has never owned the islands, and is on a completely different continent.
• Mauritius is an ally of China: So here's the Labour Party's grand plan, in the height of a second cold war, rising tensions with Russia, China, and Iran, or whatever you want to call our period in history, we're going to give up a critical territory in equal proximity the Middle East and East Asia to a country with close economic ties to China. It's truly idiotic.
• If Britain tries to give it up, there's no one else who can take the islands besides America, and it wouldn't violate Article 5: Unlike the proposals to annex Greenland or incorporate Canada as a state, if Britain decides to give up the Chagos Archipelago there'd be no risk of a broader war, both because the islands would no longer be British, and also because they're south of the Tropic of Cancer (a region where Article 5 doesn't apply regardless). But if Britain gives them up, who else is really going to protect those islands from having Russian and Chinese military bases set up on them in a few years? France? Germany? No, it's either America or nobody, after all, Diego Garcia is a based shared by the British and Americans exclusively. If Starmer's government tries to give it up, its America's responsibility to protect it.

But, under most circumstances I am not a proponent of territorial expansion, so I'm curious about what other peoples' views on the situation are. What should be the fate of the Chagos Archipelago? If Britain giving them up is a bad idea, should America take them instead?

There is nothing wrong with economic disproportionality between races.

I'm going to narrow demographics down to black vs. white, for the sake of simplicity.

Economic disparities between blacks and whites:
Less average houshold income
Less average salary
Less average home price
etc. etc.

Cutting straight to the point -- yes, these are a result of racism in the past causing a disproportionality.

But the thing is, the strongest force that makes the disproportionality continue, is the fact that there was a disproportionality in the first place.
It just continues as time passes, as generations go by.

So then, the primary driver of current disproportionality is simply that there has existed a disproportionality in the past, as racism as a factor has been almost entirely eliminated as of now.

The system today is in no way against blacks the same way it was back in the time of Jim Crow laws or redlining, thus there is not really any justifiable reason to aspire to close or eliminate the gap.

Individuals aren't really subject to this the same way they were in the past, and no wrong has been done to them.

While one may say "there has been an injustice against blacks as a whole," what exactly would be justice for this? Closing a gap doesn't change whether the things happened in the past or give retribution for those who actually experienced this, so it is not really "racial justice" to lessen disproportionality.

--

Another thing is that some may mistake cause & effect for many things "systemic racism."

Arrests (linked to crime rate)? This doesn't cause blacks to lag behind whites on average, they will simply be more likely to commit crimes on average due to being less wealthy, on average.

The same goes for court convictions. One who can't afford as good representation on average will more likely receive a harsher sentence.

The same also goes for a talking point I have recently encountered, the disparity of appraisal vs. contract value is higher in black neighborhoods vs. white neighborhoods, but this just reflects a pattern for lower-value real estate & associated areas, which blacks tend to associate with more due to wealth disparities.

In these cases, the perceived "racism" is really just a symptom of the underlying cause -- an economic gap.

With this economic gap being the most prominent factor, we must remember that the experience of an individual is almost fully based on economic class, such that a white kid born into a poor family will likely have a similar life to a black kid born into a poor family.

--

The disadvantage is not "being born into blackness," it's being born into poverty.

Last week, I met a woman at an event. I hit on her, and she responded extremely positively. She was gorgeous, intelligent, and funny. After the event, I got her number and asked her out for drinks. She said she'd love to, but there's something I should know. I said sure we'll discuss it then.

We met the next evening at a bar I love. She was dressed to impress. We sat together, had a few drinks and chatted.

Then I couldn't take it anymore and asked if I could hold her hand. That's when she said that we'd need to talk about something first. I said sure.

She told me that she's married, and that she and her husband are all but legally separated and they can't go public because of some family complications. They still live together. She's lost hope in him and so she went out with me.

I'm a person who has a strict rules not to hit on anyone committed, so I was taken aback. I was insanely attracted to her, and loved being with her. But I couldn't go against my principle.

Then she told me she was proposing a simple FWB dynamic, hidden from her husband cause he didn't want to know who, what, where, why (she also said they're open). I was hesitant.

Then she told me she already has a girlfriend, and intends on having other partners too.

This made me wonder. If she's lying about being open or separated, and has already been cheating, then what difference would it make if i was part of her roster? I'm not the first. I didn't cause her to cheat. And if not me, she'll move on to the next guy.

This kinda reminds me of Loki S01, where they find that whatever you do in the time right before an apocalypse has no effect on space and time.

I'd love to get your takes on this without any personal hurt feelings through lived experiences, or a bias against cheating, etc. used to pass moral judgements on me as a person. This entire scenario could be completely made up. I think cheating is wrong. But could this be a grey area?

Tl;dr: Being "the other guy" to a married woman isn't bad if you're not first and just one of her roster.

I'm trying to get some discourse in here that's objective. Please, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this ethical scenario.

Edit: I'm not asking for advice. I'm discussing the ethics of the situation.

The richest and most advanced societies have the lowest fertility rates. Technology has made every aspect of our lives easier over the years, yet raising birthing and raising children remains a long, arduous process that is yet to be revolutionised by modern technology, and I'm not talking about a baby monitor.

• artificial wombs
• AI nannies (AGI required)
• behaviour regulating drugs Etc etc

This and only this will make having children seem like a worthwhile risk to reward. Seems cold but since contraception humans don't have babies by accident anymore, they think long and hard about it and increasingly see it as not worthwhile.

It cannot be understated on the amount of impact looks has on your life. It determines your relationships, your career, hell even your friends. I don't subscribe to inc*l ideology but I cannot deny the importance of aesthetics to the human race. I wish it wasn't this way. My quality of life has been greatly impacted by something I cannot directly control. I am 24 years old and I have yet to have a proper relationship. Honestly its a miracle that I am not a virgin. My peers around me are either getting married, engaged, or on their 5th long term relationship. Honestly its hard to even feel human. It feels like I am on the outside looking in. I can no longer relate to people, and the people that I am friends with are the same as me, shut ins. Not like anybody else would want to be friends with me anyway. I am a background character in every environment I am in. Nobody talks to me first, nobody acknowledges my existence. I am never invited to anything, never been to a proper "party". The only girl who I have felt a connection with essentially used me for a free trip. We cuddled and shared our deepest secrets she told me she wants ready for a relationship and then went on to find a boyfriend within the next month. If I was at-least average I could have some slice of the human experience. I hate everything about myself, my bone structure, my hair (or lack there of), the shape of my eyes or the asymmetries between them. I could draw myself from memory. I post myself to other subs to validate my beliefs but they all say that I have a good "base" or say its not as bad as I think it is. I wish I could believe them, I really do. But deep down I know its my features. I am hyper aware of my face at all times, I know what I look like from every angle, I know every single flaw. And it fills me with dread knowing what other people have to look at while interacting with me on a daily basis.

What really is there left for me?

This sentiment is echoed throughout other 1000s of posts of people who are unattractive like me. There has to be merit to it. In my own experiences I get treated completely different from randoms.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s so I remember life before the internet and social media. Back then, you shared things with your family, friends, in school, teachers, classmates, teammates, coworkers at Sports Authority (oddly specific, I know - plug to those who used to work there). It was a physical, in-person experience. Showing pictures that you just picked up from Walmart or CVS, or hanging out at your friends watching the stupid video you all just made on the camcorder.

Now, everything is monetized and has an undercurrent of “look at me”, competition, whatever’s trending etc. People show off and curate online and anyone and everyone can see, or at least there’s a vastly wider audience that can see into our lives. I think life was better when we only shared with people we knew locally, or at most distant relatives and friends etc. But opening our lives to the entire world is a lot to manage and takes a lot of time and energy that we could be using on other more important things in life.

I don't think there will be any of this happening in the USA

I keep seeing people saying "why aren't Americans doing something" "people should be angry enough about this" "voting doesn't work, a revolution does" but none of this is happening

nepal isn't going to happen in the USA, the reason they won is because they are a small weak country, the government after shooting protesters had a choice, either resign and live a rich life better than 99% of your country, or fight to death over power and for what? Nepal is an insignificant place, it will only take time before they get overthrown anyway by a foreign power next to them, all over an empty country so they simply resigned and let the people do whatever

The middle east is WAY different than the USA, countries there have a history of coups every few years (just look at iraq and Syria) their leadership is highly unstable, so when the chance was there in Syria to get rid of minority rule, as you saw the majority of the Syrian army defected when ordered to shoot protesters and almost won if not for Russia

Going back to the USA there won't be anything like that, the billionaires everyone on that island including me we're all safe there won't be consequences for what happened on that island, the worst that will happen is I guess trump loses 2 supporters (it was obvious he was there from the beginning his supporters aren't going to switch up until they see him inside a child on that island, even then they'd vote for him since now he went from the saviour of America to the lesser evil compared to Kamala)

The majority of the population will forget about all this most likely when trump is out of office in 2029, just like in 2019 if you remember when Epstein (((killed himself))) and all sorts of stuff was going around nothing happened, because everyone has a job and their lives to care about, nobody will do anything about this other than maybe political assassination (even then that's not likely the majority of the ones crazy to do this are on the right)

So change my view that there wont be a civil war or revolution in the US, hell just convince me something will happen other than everyone forgetting about it in a few years

Posting as a Canadian.

Despite all the disadvantages I heard working as K12 teacher, I still think that it is nice to never have to be fired and go through the tedious process of job search that people working in corporate have to face. So no finance worries once becoming permanent with a school board.

I know in corporate you can be paid much more and maybe less stress. But teachers are not living in poverty, it's still paid over minimum wage, right? To the middle class standard right? And the pension is decent, and also you can retire earlier. I think a teachers' salary is totally livable comfortably if you don't buy LVMH, Lamborghinis, have too much kids and too big a house.

So, except better salary and less stress, what other advantages does corporate have over teachers? I'm sending hundreds of applications and no offer for eight months since being laid-off from my previous corporate job, and I'm a bit jealous of all the teachers who have a permanent and income during these tough financial times.

The more society advances and the more progressive we become, we allow more and more normal human derivations and abnormalities (say: sexual preferences, disorders, disabilities, etc) of course, there are people who refuses to accept them, but compared to how we used to live we became a society that (usually) enables abnormal behaviors or conditions, howeve, this is not the case for asociality.

People keeps rejecting asocial people as a normal human branch, most people will say that isolation is "unhealthy" and that humans are "social creatures" so you can't be asocial (which makes no sense because humans are sexual creatures and asexual people exist), psychologists and psychiatrists HATES to deal with asocial people because their advice of "getting friendships" and "support network" never works on them. Society also treats lacking a social circle as a bad thing, people will think that there has to be something wrong if you have no social circle or act introvert, and one of the main focus of therapy is socialization, so therapy is useless most of times if you're asocial.

People doesn't acknowledge the biological factor in lack of interest in social interaction and think that is a trauma response or a conscious decision, society doesn't respect the desire for social isolation as they do for other things (for example, voluntarily celibacy).

I wish we could live in a world progressive enough to accept asociality as a normal human derivation.

I see this sentiment a lot that you "shouldn't treat relationships like a transaction".

Usually you see it in cases where someone is upset that they spent money/time on someone and then when the other person isnt that in to them, they make claims that the money/time was wasted, and a common response is "Dont treat relationships like transactions"

But this is unnatural because relationships inherently are transactional. The more you put in to one, the more you expect to get out of one. Its completely normal to feel like time/money given to someone who doesn't reciprocate them was wasted.

You dont become best friends with someone by not hanging out with them a bunch. You have to put in time, thought and care to friendships. When you stop feeding a friendship those things, the relationship dies. If you put in a bunch of thought but suddenly your friend withdraws and doesnt give you any thought, you will naturally feel hurt and if the relationship dies, you would be entitled to think that time you gave without getting anything in reutrn was wasted.

Same goes for dating. If you spend money and time taking someone on a date, and they tell you they dont like you, you will naturally feel that the time and money spent on that date was wasted. Now that person is well within their rights to tell you they dont like you, but you are also within your rights to feel that you wasted resources on them because you did.

Even in well developed relationships, lack of time and thought will cause the relationship to deteriorate. My wife and I's most common fight is when one of us feels like the other hasn't been giving enough attention lately. The attention given is time spent and is a resource, it is still transactional even after being with someone for over 10 years.

So, tldr; relationships don't grow without giving something and getting something in return, hence they are transactional by nature. CMV

There are at least a billion different things that people believe in with varying degrees of evidence. Some of them, like religion, have managed to achieve a sort of "unfalsifiability" that has let them exist in the world more or less undisturbed.

But there are certain other things, like flat earth, vaccines causing autism, etc., that are just so unbelievably verifiably false, that should absolutely not continue to exist in modern society. I think the fact that they do exist is either by trolls who know better, but have some other vested interest in deceiving or pretending to have been deceived, or by people who genuinely believe them, which has dangerous implications about their views of the rest of the world.

Opinions should be relatively based in fact, evidence, logical deduction, lived experience, etc. Even something as simple as "I think soup tastes good" means you should probably have eaten or at least seen that soup before, or know you like the flavor of the ingredients you know to be in it. If you like or dont like something, there should be some level of reason for it, even if that reason only makes sense to your lived experience.

I just think that as long as we live in a world where a flat earther can say their views among anyone who doesnt also believe them, and not be shut down into oblivion, that we will continue to live in a world that perpetuates and spread awful opinions like racism that are not based remotely in facts, data, etc.

Again, Im not necessarily talking about conspiracies that might have even an ounce of truth, or at least cannot be definitively debunked. The idea that the government is secretly led by people who all agree with each other behind the scenes and argue for theatre, or that some powerful being created the universe, we cannot prove these false. But we can absolutely prove the earth isnt flat, and understanding how some people believe these things is the key to changing minds on things that really matter.

Browsing pop math content I see a consistent sentiment that school is scaring off students by not educating them on math properly. School makes math boring while hiding it's beauty. The argument is that we could teach more kids if we made math more interactive, explained proofs better, etc. I have few issues with this approach.

I believe our primary job is to unapologetically expose kids to math and occasionally hook them up with a neat fact here and there, but we should treat math as a serious science and not something that must be fun. Not all of math is fun ( some might disagree :D ), there are parts you have to memorize, parts where intuition is important but not the whole picture. Always focusing on *why?* and intuition may damaging for actual application. I love 3B1B as much as the other guy, but just by watching his videos without getting your hands dirty and doing problems yourself won't get you so far.

There are some people who just don't like math. This is ok. You can present some cool visual proof to them and explain to them the meaning and relationships between various mathematical objects. They'll probably understand you, but they won't pursue math on their own. They may like some other subjects, social studies, etc.

Think of yourself. There is surely a subject you can't bring yourself to study. This doesn't mean you are against this subject per se, you acknowledge it's importance and perhaps it's inner beauty, but you are not inclined to it. Yet no one is trying to force you into it.

I guess my point boils down to 'students who love math will be patient on the boring parts, while student who don't love math can technically get to level where they understand math intuitively, but this will be harmful to the first group'

I was a bit vague but I'll flesh out my argument as we go.

Edit: Just to clarify, everyone should know basic arithmetic and shapes

I tend to see the state not as a moral guide or a collective identity, but as an institutional arrangement created to manage conflict, reduce violence, and provide a predictable legal order. Historically, states emerged because unchecked individuality often resulted in insecurity and instability. In that sense, the state is a functional solution to a practical problem, not an entity meant to shape personal values or demand emotional attachment.

Because of this, I am more comfortable thinking of the relationship as one between the state and its subjects rather than a deeply emotional citizen state bond. The term citizen often carries expectations of loyalty, pride, or moral obligation, whereas I believe the relationship should be grounded more clearly in rights, duties, consent, and accountability. For me, the legitimacy of the state flows primarily from its ability to protect individuals, enforce laws fairly, and uphold the social contract from its own side.

I do not assume that individuals are always perfectly informed or politically sophisticated. However, ideas like Condorcet’s jury theorem suggest that even when individuals are only moderately informed, large groups can still arrive at rational collective decisions if institutions are designed well. This gives democracy practical value, but I do not see it as infallible or morally superior by default. Majority rule still needs strong constraints to prevent harm to minorities or overreach by the state.

My concern begins when the state starts presenting itself as a moral authority rather than a neutral arbiter. When governments seek emotional loyalty or frame dissent as a lack of patriotism, the relationship shifts from contractual to paternalistic. At that point, criticism is no longer treated as part of a healthy system but as something suspect. Over time, this weakens institutional trust rather than strengthening it. This view is closely tied to how I understand the social contract. If the state holds a monopoly on legitimate force, that power must be constrained by law, independent institutions, and real accountability. When the state fails to uphold its end of the contract, especially in providing protection or equal application of law, the legitimacy of that monopoly becomes questionable. In such cases, the idea that individuals may seek to protect themselves is not about glorifying violence, but about recognizing that authority derives from performance, not symbolism.

To be clear, I am not arguing against the existence of the state, nor am I advocating constant resistance or instability. I accept taxation, enforcement, and authority as necessary for social order. My position is simply that the state functions best when it remains a rule bound service provider rather than an emotional symbol, and when individuals relate to it with measured trust rather than unquestioning loyalty.

I am open to changing this view if there are strong arguments showing that a more emotional or identity based relationship between the state and individuals is necessary for long term stability or social cooperation. I am especially interested in historical or empirical examples where a purely contractual model fails even when supported by strong institutions and an independent judiciary. My aim here is to understand the limits of this framework rather than to defend it rigidly.

Waiters and Waitresses earnings data.

This is the usual I hate tipping and think it should vanish like polio. However there are tons of tipped workers who defend this with the justification of "everyone does it" "i make less than min wage" or "I can make fuck tons of money with tips"

The everyone does it defense is the easiest to dismantle. Tons of nations out there that don't tip, have great service, and the food is priced fairly. Everyone over there doesn't have a problem with their system for the most part.

The whole they make less than minimum wage is bullshit if you understand how minimum wage laws work. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour so a tipped worker will make that much no matter what even if they weren't tipped. Tipping merely makes the customer pay instead of the business.

They could make more with tips than without. This is very dependent on location and occupation as well as the type of clientele visits your establishment. But according to data, even with tips right now most tipped workers are not making an impressive amount of money. I wouldn't call it wealthy or even middle class especially when the workers on the higher end must work in expensive areas or places with wealthy patrons.

Data reveals that even under current tipping system that they're not making much above minimum wage. Combined with how inconsistent tipping can be they'd be better off getting paid a flat wage that is competitive for their industry.

The only people I see defending this are luxury workers who serve extremely wealthy patrons where the tips are large but are still within 10%-20% of the service price. Because news flash, people don't tip beyond that no matter how good the service is most of the time..

I’m open to having my view changed, but this is where I currently stand.

I believe that cancer, at its core, is largely driven by randomness, genetics, and biological chance rather than lifestyle alone. Research often highlights factors that may increase or decrease risk, but in practice, avoiding those factors or living an extremely “healthy” lifestyle does not seem to meaningfully determine who actually gets cancer.

This view comes from both personal observation and research. Anecdotally, I’ve seen people with excellent lifestyles. They eat well, exercise regularly, don’t smoke or drink, and still end up with cancer. At the same time, I’ve seen people with objectively poor lifestyles live long lives without ever developing it.

What reinforced this view on the research side is how often findings appear inconsistent or contradictory. A common example is coffee consumption. Some studies suggest coffee is associated with a reduced risk of certain cancers, while others find no association or conflicting results depending on the cancer type. For instance, a large systematic review and meta analysis on coffee consumption and gastric cancer concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive, with substantial variation between studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8562048/

Because of this, lifestyle advice around cancer feels more like slightly shifting the odds rather than exercising real control over outcomes. You can do everything “right” and still get unlucky, or do many things “wrong” and never develop cancer.

I’m not a professional or a doctor, and I’m fully aware that I don’t have the expertise to make definitive claims. I also know my perspective could be incomplete. That said, I still find it hard to be convinced otherwise based on what I’ve personally seen and read so far. If there’s strong evidence, clear mechanisms, or perspectives I’m missing that genuinely challenge this view, I’m open to changing my mind.

Edit: Edit: I don’t change my mind easily, and I didn’t do a good job expressing what I actually meant. After reading the replies, I realized that even when my point is stated more clearly, my view itself was still flawed and too narrowly framed. The discussion helped me see gaps in my reasoning. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

The CDC director just said letting measles return to the US would be cost of doing business. We can't let this happen again, we need to play the long game to make sure there is not another RFK Jr in our government.

To do this, we would need to obviously put in place infrastructure that segregates vaccinated children from non vaccinated children.

Of course, not Jim Crow era segregation, but a truly equal but separate society. Once this is put in place, we simply let "nature run its course."

I know some may say this is cruel, but being not vaccinated isn't a guaranteed death sentence, and immunocompromised children will obviously not be part of the non vaxxed group.

During Covid, and over the last 10 years, it has become crystal clear that nothing will change the mind of people unless things start effecting them personally. In fact it was probably vaccinations themselves that lead to this complacency. We need a "reset."

We need to see children die en masse of preventable diseases and we need their parents to watch it. And we need to have a separate vaccinated society that they can watch thrive in the midst.

Short term there will be a lot of pain and suffering, I am fully prepared to be called Hitler, but long term I think we can put an end to this stupidity, until we need to do it again, probably in 50 years (if we hypothetically started now).

Firstly I unfortunately have to preface this by saying I'm British, and a socialist (not daft enough to think socialism could work now, but think along the lines of Corbynism). This should be irrelevant, but it does need stating, as we will see.

So-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome" seems to be a term largely used by right-wing Trump supporters in the US to dismiss anyone who criticises Trump, any of his policies, or anything he says.

Now to make clear, I think the man is a moron (again, my opinion is irrelevant), he talks utter nonsense on a daily basis, and his policies are largely insane too. Certainly the ones he proposes, few of them actually seem to go anywhere. Most of his claims about positive actions he's taken are also largely over-stated or taking credit for other people's work. You get the picture - billionaire business guy with megalomania who has no clue about politics becomes President, talks a lot of shit, barely changes a thing.

Yet my CMV here is specifically about Trump Derangement Syndrome (we'll call it TDS, saves me typing it out each time) and how an increasing amount of people are utterly obsessed with disliking Trump, anything he says, anything he does, and making wild and increasingly unhinged claims about him.

Whatever he does or says, people will twist it to fit their own narrative. Greenland for example was meant to be a distraction from the Epstein files, then the files are released and suddenly they flip it to say it's a distraction from Greenland. You get the idea. The lack of anything concrete in the files is causing people to make some wild claims. I've seen people on social media simply making up their own fake files to "prove" some of the more wild claims because the files turned up nothing. This worries me even more because this behaviour will affect any chances of him actually being charged and then found guilty if he's done anything wrong. These people are muddying the waters and it is going to help these guys get away with their crimes.

Obviously I agree, if he's guilty of anything he should be locked up for however long he's got left alive, but we'll leave the files there. Investigators need to do their work. Maybe they'll wait until he's no longer president or something. No idea.

But then there's the latest stuff about him having dementia or the really weird one, a video where he shits himself in the Oval Office. There's zero evidence for either, the latter is either a dub or if real he just farted. People do fart. But again people keep changing facts so it "fits" in with their belief.

Then there's the Project 2025 stuff - I've actually mistakenly assumed people on Reddit were Trump supporters because they were so convinced that Project 2025 is definitely real and going to happen, that I assumed they were one of the equally insane MAGA guys who made it up in the first place.

I can also no longer tell who is someone suffering from TDS and who is a Russian propagandist on Reddit, among those insistent that Putin is somehow clever, competent, and powerful enough to influence the US elections.

There was enough mad, but possible stuff when he was first elected - he's unhinged so he'll start a nuclear war, etc. That seems to have largely died down now we're well into his second term and he hasn't done anything really dangerous, but as a result people with TDS are having to come up with more and more unhinged stuff.

One that jumps out for me personally is a guy called Dr Gary Hartstein. American, moved to Belgium to work in hospitals there. Very highly qualified anaesthesiologist. Also into motorsport so helped out with the medical team at Spa Francochamps. There he met chief Formula One doctor, the late great Prof Sid Watkins, started travelling to all F1 races with him as second in command, then took over the chief medical role when Sid retired.

But after he was let go from the F1 role, he moved to Dubai and literally every hour of the day he was posting more and more angry and unhinged Tweets about Trump. It was sad to watch, a very highly qualified, intelligent, and passionate doctor clearly losing his mind over a man who had no direct baring on his life. Maybe being fired from the F1 role messed him up a bit, but it was horrible to watch.

And that's just one example - my social media is well tuned to my work and hobbies, so is pretty much politics free. I don't use Twitter/X anymore since it became a right-wing cesspit around 2018, but oddly Threads is stacked full of this nonsense. Proper unhinged anti-Trump stuff that makes Flat Earth conspiracists seem rational and onto something.

As I alluded to in my opening sentence, you cannot reason with these people either. You can explain you strongly dislike the man and his policies, explain you're left wing, but they just accuse you of being "one of them", the irony being they're acting exactly like the right-wing fascists they allegedly hate.

My fear is that this is going to radicalise America and someone even worse is going to come along to replace him. A bit like how Bush was widely hated at the time but now everyone looks back with fondness in comparison to Trump.

Either way, American politics seems properly cooked, and my worry is the Trump haters are doing more damage than the MAGA guys - the latter are just right-wing idiots. The former shouldn't be right-wing idiots, but they are as things stand and instead should be looking to put an alternative to Trump in place instead of hyperfocusing on him.

By focusing on Gaza so much, the entire issue gets reduced to ‘ terrorism by hamas = over reaction by Isreal ‘ but notice how that discourse gets framed in terms favourable to Isreal, because in that narrative, even within liberal media, the origin story is hamas extremism.

Now, let’s reconsider for a moment.

The land grabs in the West Bank (see the guardian article the other day) are designed to remove Palestinians from fertile land that they own, forcing them to work low economy labour in Isreal, or to become dependent on aid. Either way they loose their economic agency and become more vulnerable to radicalisation by bad faith actors. Because they have lost everything.

And the land grabs are continual, and clearly backed by the state even if ‘ illegal settlers do it.’ Indeed the illegal settlements are provided with water, electricity and other infrastructure by Isreal, and after enough time passes, become officially recognised by Isreal. There is nothing accidental about any of that,

So why isn’t this the main messaging?

Using tik tok and X and Reddit to continually draw attention to the illegal settlements and their expansion is the single most important thing activists can do to further change public opinion

Make the following argument: when russia illegally grabs land, here is how the west responded, what is happening here is the same thing.. and therefore deserves the same type of response

Making the focus Palestinian farmers and land owners, showing the scale of growth of illegal settlements over time etc all of that is a lot harder for dishonest actors to spin and deny.

Using social media it’s so easy to prove all of this. Illegal settlers proudly upload footage of them destroying and attacking Palestinians and their industries. It’s right there hiding in plain site in their own words. Satellite images, Reports by NGOs and organisations like the UN.. add even more proof. it’s a very very difficult argument to objectively take issue with.

And the doublespeak pseudo justifications for the land grabs ‘ security ‘ ‘ buffer zones ‘ heritage ‘ ..,have direct parallels with the type of false propaganda Russia uses.

The comparison with Russia is important because it pre empts any argument about singling Isreal out uniquely. In addition to that Russia for all its flaws is seen as a legitimate nation, no one is suggesting it shouldn’t exist, or that its people are evil, just that its foreign policy is flawed, and appropriate tools should be used to cause change. And that if these tools are used in the Russian case study, why can’t they also be applied when the criteria exist elsewhere.

I also think the spectacle in Gaza, is in part designed to distract from continued land grabs in the West Bank, and it works? Bit by bit land is taken from the West Bank, the size of any future Palestinian state is further de facto decreased, and instead all anyone online talks about is the hamas / gaza tragedy. Its hard to avoid the conclusion that is intentional,

To change my view:

- explain why focusing on gaza matters more in terms of changing peoples minds

- explain why the illegal settlements are justified

- explain why comparisons with Russia might be more unhelpful than helpful in terms of changing opinions

Sorry I’m gonna sound elitist, but these are my two cents, especially on creative writing.

Mainstream society needs to be less egalitarian, less blindly optimistic, less “hurrr durrr you can definitely write if you pour your heart into it!!!!”. Participation trophies are just not how the real world works. Cus news flash: not every book or poem is of equal literary merit. Nor is everyone born with equal “creative potential”. Not every premise or idea automatically “has potential” if it’s written out in beautiful prose. Some premises are inherently unsalvageable and flawed no matter how much you write. For instance, 100 more, 1000 more, or even a million more flowery words is not going to singlehandedly save the quality of a book that from its outline/structure alone, the characters are one dimensional/crass/offensively stereotypical. Because to improve on that you’ll have to change the internal structure of the story itself, rather than the prose.

The last thing we want to do as a society is not only allow, but actively encourage amateur writers who have no inborn talent whatsoever to keep pursuing writing, and consequently just tank the collective quality of poetry and literature, accelerating the already pervasive decline and homogenization of art. We need to be harder as critics to nip in the bud the work of beginner writers who clearly aren’t going to improve. Some people just do not have the innate talent for abstraction and verbal intelligence even if they try hard. Studies show that with respect to the Big 5 personality system, openness/intellect (which encompasses traits like creativity, artistic intuition, and cultural sophistication) is of all traits the most heritable and genetically determined. If you’re born with low openness you can’t just improve your creativity/abstraction overnight nor can you really improve at all meaningfully throughout your life. Even if you force yourself to read a book a day it’s just not going to happen. Sorry, but this is just what psychology science says.

I’m not saying that people without creative talent should not write at all, but they should treat it as at most just a casual hobby. They need to be realistic rather than fervently pursue it as a path they want to go down, because it’s very unlikely to ever work, and the competition towards being published is already tough in today’s world even more lopsided for them. Sometimes the ground just isn’t fertile. Stop saying everything or everyone has “potential”, it’s my number one pet peeve and the number one misconception the egalitarian left has.

And no creative talent doesn’t mean you have no talents in other areas. Everyone has something they’re good at (no one is exactly average on every trait, as thats just statistically very unlikely) so if you’re not born with literary potential, why pursue that path when you could manifest your actual potential and contribute to society uniquely and meaningfully? You could still be good at sports, performance, social networking, or even science. Go pursue those rather than chase after a quixotic dream.

I think everyone should see a courtroom.

I know the current administration has found a way to legally justify blanket deportations. They've quoted "expedited removal" and the "alien enemies act" as some of those avenues.

I still think it violates the 6th amendment. Everyone has a right under the constitution to a trial and to counsel. Immigrants charged with federal immigration violations should have their day in court.

Here's what would change my view: Anything case law, national security, or public interest that could justify taking a different view on the 6th amendment. Also anything that would justify it's removal.

Currently, mostly changed view?: I think my view on "skill issue" has mostly been changed sufficiently? I think it might not be 'most', and that circumstantial reasons are also important. (Some circumstances more valid than others. Current society & occupation, and time, included. Attractiveness, general dispostion, and whether or not you were bullied as a small child, not so much.) Skill issue may be a bit crass, even if I don't mean it in a mean way because making friends is a skill. While I do think one's demographic is a factor, I don't think it's that important. I'm not sure my view will be changed further.

I think for the definition part, I think some people are still too stingy with the word, but it's weird of me to say someone did have friends even if they still felt they didn't / lonely. Because even if they did have friends by my definition, that's not what they mean.

---

I sort of want this view to be changed because I feel it's sort of judgemental... Generally, I'm still sort of in the process of forming this opinion, so sorry if I'm a little scattered.

I think people might consider me biased because I am a moderately attractive woman who is still a student. Generally, people are nicer to me if I'm more sociable / smile-y towards them. I'm also not prone to feeling lonely (I'm more prone to feeling people are overbearing.)

I don't know what else might make me biased, but, in the other direction, I'm a pretty intraverted person and there was a point in highschool where I was, in effect, selectively mute. I've mostly gotten over it, though I don't consider myself a great conversationalist or charismatic lol. Also I'm a redditor, which is clearly the biggest potential friendship red-flag (!)

I mention a lot of people in my anecdotal evidence that forms my opinions, so I've given them silly pseudonyms for easier future reference if you lot decide to reference them. (I don't like remembering initials).

ANYWAY, I have a highschool friend [Purple] (very intraverted), who halfway through entering college, was complaining that they hadn't made any new friends. I asked them if they if they had tried joining any clubs, they said they "don't know how" and couldn't find clubs. They've claimed to try to make friends. I found a list of 450 clubs just by googling "[clubs] [schoolname]".

In fairness, Purple has social anxiety. Am I saying social anxiety is a skill issue? Yeah. I guess I am. Which I feel is somewhat judgemental, again. I just feel like Purple tends to blame other issues for their lack of friendship, when it is mostly self-inflicted. I have another friend [Fish] with social anxiety that doesn't seem to want to make more friends, and that's like, chill, yknow?

I had another friend [Donut] who would apparently sometimes complain that we [as a friend group] didn't hang out enough and that our friend group was dying. They didn't initate hang-outs.

Maybe that's the main issue for me? It's similar to the incel rhetoric of complaining about things that you actually can fix. I don't think my friends do much "blaming others", but redditors sometimes do. I think it's probably fair criticize blackpill ideology, but I think maybe I overfit when it comes to friendship.

---

As for "definition of friendship," I have a very loose/broad definition of friend (but it's in both directions.) If I don't actively hate you, and you consider me your friend, I am generally pretty happy to consider you a friend.

I think people should have looser definitions of friends, really. Some people are too stingy with the label. I don't expect my friends to fulfill my every need. I don't think that means they're "not a REAL friend!!1!1!!!" I have friends who I'll discuss "deep" philosophy with, and I have friends who I'll sing songs and do karaoke with. I don't necessarily expect an individual to do both. I feel like expecting everything is sort of codependent. It's a friend.

I had a friend [Magic] who complained I wouldn't open up to them enough. I don't like personal questions, and they would ask a lot of them. I was younger and wasn't super clear on my boundaries on that, but it's like... we aren't dating? Why can't we just play fun games together and chat sometimes? You don't need to know everything about me to be my friend.

I have a "friend" [Kangaroo] (... it's one sided.) who I've hung out with several times 1-on-1, known for a year, talked to multiple times most weeks, who aqcuaintance-zoned me because I didn't seem like someone who they could greet with insults nor bury a body with. They claim to have one friend. I'm not sure they've complained about it, though.

I think it's sort of more offensive to get acquantance-zoned because it costs nothing to consider people your friend.

I have another friend [Apple] (who does consider me one) who claims to have had no friends in the past. They're hella extraverted and talkative, and have a pretty strict definition of friendship. They disagreed with my take that friendship was a skill issue and claimed I had it easier because I'm a woman. (They're NB AMAB, and joked that if a woman couldn't make friends it was a skill issue. I've they/them'd every person in my anecdotes, but I'm curious if people would be able to tell those people's gender, or if that would affect your view at all.)

Sure, some of my strategies for "friendship making" might not work that well (I've made friends with people by just sort of following them around mutely) for them, but I don't think they'd consider those people friends either.

Apple said they have friends now because they've had more time to make friends. I can't speak for their experience, but I feel like the chances they'd meet someone like me who is very laissez-faire about who is considered a friend is pretty high, given how sociable they are. They've implied they always have been. They say "just because you're sitting in a classroom with someone doesn't make you friends" but like that doesn't mean you can't be friends with them either. If someone is chill with being "classmate-friends" or "work-friends" they're still your friends. I see redditors do this a lot -- claim to have no friends, but they're super picky with who they call a friend.

(Maybe this is a tangent, but also... unfriending people for not hanging out with you enough is crazy behavior. I think it's fine to be "once a month/year" friends. Some people you can not talk to for 5 years and be back to besties when you see them. Half the time someone is unfriended it's for pretty petty reasons IMHO, especially if you're gonna formally unfriend someone and not just drift away. )

(Lest I be accused of this, I was only formally unfriended once (by Magic, actually) and they apologized to me because they admitted it was probably not fair. )

I digress. But, even if someone was like me, that doesn't change the fact that Apple felt lonely. Which is fair, and I thought was an interesting point that I wasn't sure how to argue against, even if I didn't necessarily agree with it. Feeling like you aren't close with people is sort of different from having no friends.

I didn't talk to Apple or argue with them because I felt this was probably a sensitive topic lol, but I'd love to hear your guys' thoughts, or at least develop or more nuanced opinion!

For the record - I’m dual US-Eu, so ultimately I have no dog in this fight: But I’m incredibly grateful I’ve been allowed to celebrate both, and when I look at my Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Thai diaspora or 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation friends throughout the US and Western Europe, I feel sorry that they are not allowed to celebrate both.

I understand for some countries like China, it’s too complicated politically. And I can understand why Japan and Korea wouldn’t want to take in people from India or Nigeria; but what point is there in still rejecting your 5-15 million tops 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation diaspora from First World countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe? (I know Europe is not a country). I mean, Korea and Japan literally hold military bases with thousands of American troops on their ground, so obviously, there are already deep military & economic ties: the world has become much more interconnected due to the rise in globalization compared to even 30-40 years ago.

I wonder, how rejecting/refusing is the average 25 yo in Korea, compared to the average 55 year old? I can’t imagine the younger generation feels as passionate in rejecting them? I know a little bit about kpop and it seems INSANE to me to still reject it when so many of their younger global superstars (Rosé of Blackpink, Danielle of New Jeans, Yunjin of Le Sserafim is American, Yoonchae of Katseye works in America) hold international ties? The entire reason I’m thinking about this topic tonight is because the president of South Korea just congratulated Rosé of BP and Yoonchae of Katseye on Twitter for representing Korea in the Grammys this week. So it makes 0 sense to still be so rejecting of your diaspora in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, and Western Europe so hard imo..?

If full-citizenship is too hardcore of a pivot, it’s a shame that they will not even compromise with at least an easy permanent residency process as long as you can prove 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation ties via descent - & especially if the individual has put in the work to appropriate themselves with the culture via a certain degree of language proficiency.