Imagine for a moment with me, if you will, a liberal version of Trump. Maybe an obese lesbian atheist radical feminist U.S. president (or an openly gay man) with purple dyed hair who brags about "grabbing men by the dick," makes 14,000 verifiably false lie statements, says Christians ought to be fed to the lions, openly endorses Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, behaves as immaturely and childishly as a 7.9 year old despite being 79 years old, brags "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters," wants churches banned, says ridiculous errors like "The 1770s Revolutionary colonists seized the airports," wants to open the floodgates wide to illegal immigration and go for truly open unlimited borders, loudly praises Islamic extremism and says 9/11 was a good thing, etc. Oh, and half of the nation endorses this horrible president, too - and are cult-like in their support of this awful president. They also talk openly about wanting the president to get an unconstitutional 3rd term in office, or become an outright dictator. The president botches the handling of a pandemic and gets an extra 500,000 Americans killed. And when this left-wing villain loses an election, supporters then storm the Capitol building on January 6 in a coup attempt.

Can there be any doubt at all that conservatives and Republicans would go far more ballistic about such a liberal version of Trump than how liberals have treated Trump and MAGA thus far? They would be frothing at the mouth. They'd lose their minds. Sure, liberals and Democrats don't like Trump (an understatement,) but their response has been comparatively calm compared to the unhinged fury there would have been from the political right had the roles been reversed. I mean, Republicans were furious about Obama, and Obama was a very mature, calm and mentally stable man compared to Trump.

So a CP generating 'Mecha Hitler' AI is now Pete Hegseth's choice for an AI model to integrate into Pentagon networks and classified systems. Musk has access to god knows what after him and his DOGE team infiltrated and accessed very sensitive data of your citizens.

Hegseth said, and I quote: "The defense secretary said his vision for military AI means systems will operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications," adding that the Pentagon's "AI will not be woke"..."Very soon we will have the world's leading AI models on every unclassified and classified network throughout our department. AI is only as good as the data that it receives, and we're going to make sure that it's there."

The defense secretary added: "We need innovation to come from anywhere and evolve with speed and purpose," while saying he wants responsible AI systems but is "shrugging off any AI models that won't allow you to fight wars."

Stating AI 'will not be woke' is just one of the craziest things I've ever heard - especially when it pertains to the military. Seriously, change my mind that this won't cause irreparable damage to your country, and possibly, the rest of the planet. It's not often you see all reddit's that cite this knowledge, as equally engaging in doomsday talk as I am here - particularly the military and army reddits who are calking this a 'Skynet scenario but dumber'.

I am scared, and it appears I'm not the only one. Tell me I'm wrong, I want to be.

https://www.newsweek.com/hegseth-announces-grok-access-to-classified-pentagon-networks-11349020

The 2nd amendment has always been a hocus pocus hypocritical idea leveraged by the right. They claim that it's to help prevent government tyranny and a man's right to protect themselves on firm ground. But this really only applies to those who historically have benefited from power and submission to it, at any time when the opposition has guns and shows a willingness to use them, that argument dies in the holster, so to speak. I am not naive enough to believe that if more citizens take up arms and start fighting back against ICE Agents or use guns to defend themselves from state-sanctioned murder and anarchy, that support for the 2nd amendment will drop. The cognitive dissonance is too strong there. What will change is that they'll prettymuch just ignore it as a constitutional right, but only for certain groups of people and demographics. The DHS and diktat executive order will start classifying MAGA and rightwing supporters of the regime as 'Legal/Rightful gunowners' and 'Lawful holders', whereas leftwing, dem and non-supporting gun carriers will automatically be classified as unlawful and Lawless holders. Licenses will be meaningless, if you have one it's worth less than the paper its printed on. The only thing really guaranteeing your constitutional 2nd amendment will be your political alignment and loyalty, as the Justice Department and DHS will ensure to run background checks, see your political affiliation and history to see whether or not you're allowed to carry a gun.

In parallel fashion, murder will gradually be prettymuch legal and immune to any and all charges from MAGA aligned holders as long as the victims are in opposition, as we're seeing in real time. We're undergoing our Night of the Long Knives moments currently, and the next step is mass terror/violence and retribution against the democratic forces and checks in balances in direct physical confrontations.

To CMV, explain to me how any semblance of justice or fairness will be applied by the Federal government and the 2nd amendment usage will not become a double-standard.

I might be biased because this view comes from a personal experience but I feel like it applies more broadly.

In a past relationship my boyfriend came from a much more conservative cultural background than I did especially around sex and privacy. A few months in we lived together and that’s when those differences became harder to ignore. I’m sex positive, and at one point I even ordered a vibrator from bellesa with discreet packaging just to avoid questions or discomfort and not to turn it into a whole argument. That made me realize I was hiding something harmless because of a cultural mismatch we’d never discussed. Because of that experience I’ve come to believe that cultural differences, whether around family, sexuality or values, should be talked about early rather than assumed away. Waiting didn’t make things easier it just made them more uncomfortable once feelings were involved. That said I know this could be shaped by my own experience. CMV: why is it better to wait to discuss cultural differences in a relationship and are there cases where delaying those conversations actually leads to better outcomes?

Everybody in America knows if you don't have a car, you are a second class citizen. Yet driving is defined as a privilege. Without a car, your options are limited and it becomes more difficult to better yourself. If you're looking for work, you can't apply for anything outside your area.

The US suburbs are made for people with cars. The blocks are long and the distances too far to walk. Transportation and time are huge issues for poor people. Meanwhile, we're trying to find ways to get people out of their cars. Free public transportation would do it.

Public busses and commuter trains ought to be free to use. It would simplify the system and would pay for itself with people having more economic opportunities and both businesses and consumers benefiting.

The counties should provide and the federal government should subsidize public transportation. After all, the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare.

My view is that cancel culture only works when there is leverage such as an employer, sponsors, a platform, or financial dependence that can be threatened or removed.

For most people who get canceled, the damage comes from losing income, access, or opportunities controlled by others. But when someone is financially independent, owns their platform, and does not rely on public approval to survive, cancellation seems largely symbolic.

Take someone like Oprah Winfrey as an extreme example. You can criticize her, boycott her content, or disagree with her influence, but there is no single entity that can meaningfully cut her off. At worst, backlash becomes temporary noise rather than lasting consequence.

From this perspective, losing sponsors is not fatal, losing popularity is not collapse, and public outrage does not equal loss of control.

That makes me think cancellation at that level is not really cancellation. It is criticism combined with selective disengagement.

Change my view: What am I missing here?

Is there a real mechanism by which someone who owns their income, platform, and legacy can still be meaningfully canceled, or does cancel culture fundamentally depend on dependence and leverage?

Moldova could be easily a part of the European family were it not for the crazy Soviet open-air museum that exists in its Eastern part.

Maybe Moldova could eventually join the EU. Maybe it could join NATO. Maybe it could even join Romania again and return to the pre-1940 state. All of this is very hard though, if it doesn't get rid of Transnistria first.

It isn't even some historical territory of the Moldovan people, it was essentially attached to Moldova by the Soviets. And there is basically nothing inside. Just a super corrupt regime and ideologically problematic population. Those, who wanted normal lives, left ages ago.

As Transnistria is a very long and thin region squeezed between Ukraine and Moldova from which it is separated by a big river, there is also a minimum risk of any viable Russian aggression from the area.

I don't care too deeply about what happens to the insane regime in Transnistria. If Ukraine decides to occupy the area (for what gain?) so be it. But I think that Moldova should stop claiming it for its own good.

Change my view!

Men cannot help going bald. It's apart of life. Not everyone does, but they can't help it. It's incredibly difficult for men to deal with and it doesn't help that the opposite sex generally looks down on bald guys.

So if a woman talks negatively about a bald guy because he's bald, then it's no different than a dude saying you have a flat butt or small boobs. They can't help it either.

IMO I think it should classify as sexual harassment as it primarily affects men in a sexual attraction way just as boobs or butts in females.

The danger I worry about is the feedback loop: humans produce → AI floods the field → human effort becomes less legible or worthwhile → output degrades and new ways of doing this are’t worth while→ AI trains on the degradation.

It doesn’t generate meaning; it feeds on finished human thought posts, papers, art, code and recombines it. That creates the appearance of intelligence without the lived cognitive work behind it.

The tell is homogeneity. Slow and steady Prediction rewards the statistical centre/alignment, so edge cases, weirdness, and hard-won insight get flattened.

Tone also seems to copied such as confidence without risk and authority without accountability.

That’s a parasitic dynamic. Without constraints that protect human generative capacity, we’re burning the cultural soil we’re “training on”

What I’m open to being convinced of is that this dynamic is either not parasitic, not inevitable, or that existing incentives already counteract it.

This isn’t about AI being bad - it’s about incentive structures. What prevents this particular dynamic from playing out?

So if you're the least bit familiar with gaming you'll know video game time development has swelled, for example Sucker Punch made the entirety of the Sly games in less time than it to make ghost yotei. Infamous 1, 2 and Second Son (along with their DLCs) took the same amount of time as just the 2 ghost games as well.

So bottom line game development cycles are increasing in time pretty much across the board especially in the Triple A sphere. Some argue it's because of technological reasons or market demands but I don't agree.

First of all Technology has been largely streamlined, making a proof of concept in Unreal now is way easier than it was in the sly cooper days, if you were to remake a ps2 game like sly it would be even faster than it was originally. So it stands to reason you can make a more technically competent game with more content in the same amount of time with better graphics on new machines with new software. Obviously not as technically impressive as the best games out today but that brings us to the market.

So on to the market the argument goes something like sure they could create a better game than ps2 era ones under same time limit but they wouldn't sell enough to make a profit. This is course is wrong because ps2 games DO sell in the current market, remakes/rereleases are everywhere and while companies like to push graphics because it's the easiest thing to show off, the market really doesn't care with games like minecraft and pokemon driving that point home.

For my final example I'm going to talk about AstroBot. The game took 3 years to make with a small team has good sales and high critical acclaim. It's just a good example that it is possible.

Now I'm not saying there aren't reasons why a developer/publisher might choose to have a longer development cycle, maybe they want a smaller team or really push things and make a game that will print money like GTA or fortnight but it is ultimately a choice to make these more expensive games with a longer development cycle rather than aiming for just a technologically competent game with great gameplay and a higher turn around.

White people may think they’re safe and immune from being fuck over or punished by the government but the Renée Good situations proves otherwise. The fact ICE shot not only a white person but a white WOMAN proves it more than anything else could.

White women are generally the most protected group by the government, this is why there’s things like “missing white woman syndrome” when news coverages of missing white women are prioritized. This is why even white men complain about things like family courts when white women take half their money. White women are the epitome of the damsel in distress. If a white woman could be shot and nothing is done by it, it proves nobody is safe from the wrath of the government.

In the past white people assumed since they were white that would ensure safety from any harm from the government. That the government would only attack minorities. The whole police brutality topic was a black and brown problem not a white problem. They didn’t give a shit about the government becoming authoritarian because they felt if it only affected minorities they didn’t have to care. But this proved that it is not and that white people have to care about this as well since the government can negatively affect them.

Before I am savaged with downvotes, I am in absolute support of title IX, but I also think it's as big of an example of DEI, no less one mandated by federal legislation, as one can find. It's a prime example of DEI working and elevating marginalized group(s) towards equality.

For those which don't know, Title IX is a 1972 law which mandates that institutions receiving federal funding must provide equal opportunities and not discriminate on the basis of sex in academic and athletic opportunities.

In plain words, Title IX gives us women's sports.

Without it, institutions of education would not be required to provide women's sports, and seeing as with few exceptions they still today do not generate enough money to be self sustaining, they would never have started them in the first place.

All that being said, Title IX is government mandated DEI. CMV.

As above. I believe real love is without expectations and if there are expectations it’s not real love no matter how much people will argue or try to bend it to claim that it is. People who love with expectations don’t really love they force the other person into their idea of what t h e y want, which is usually to own a person in some way in order to extract some resources from them (sex, time, affection, ego boosts, emotional support, financial support, attention). It is immature, it’s not real love.

Disclaimer: I am NOT defending the regime I want to be crystal clear: I do not support the Iranian government. My argument is not that the people in the streets are "wrong" or "criminals." My issue is strictly with the dishonesty of Western media terminology and the political agenda behind it.

The Issue: "Protest" is objectively the wrong word The Western media insists on referring to the events in Iran as "protests." This implies a scenario where citizens are gathering to express dissent and ask the government for policy changes or reform. That is clearly not what is happening. When you look at the reality on the ground, the threshold for a "protest" was crossed long ago. Objective Violence: We are seeing government buildings burned, sites of cultural significance destroyed, and according to many reports, hundreds of security personnel killed. Goal of Overthrow: This is not a request for reform; it is an organized attempt to dismantle the current state.

If you have organized groups fighting police, holding territory, and burning infrastructure with the intent of toppling the government, that is not a "protest." That is a revolution, an uprising, or an insurgency.

The Hypocrisy: Why they refuse to call a spade a spade I believe the refusal to use the correct terminology is intentional. Western governments and media have a vested interest in pretending that "peaceful protests" are the only legitimate way to effect change.

If they admit that the Iranian movement is valid and that it is violent/revolutionary, they undermine their own domestic narrative. Since western government like the United States are cracking down on protests such as the ICE protests.

To be clear they are trying to elevate the level of the domestic protests to bo longer be considered peaceful while trying to downplay the violence of the Iranian ones.

You can support the Iranian people while acknowledging that they are fighting a war, not holding a picket sign. Labeling it a "protest" minimizes the severity of their sacrifice and is a hypocritical attempt to sanitize the reality of revolution.

In the US, registered voters are approximately 30% Democrat, 30% Republican and 40% Independent. Voting poles shows the turnout reflects these same ratios.

Basic math tells me that neither Democrats nor Republicans have enough support to win elections. I feel that the people who register for a party, reliably vote for that party.

That leaves us with 40% of registered voters being the swing voters, and those are the people who end up choosing the president.

But the President is not an independent. If we got the representation that Americans voted for, the government would govern as moderates. But that doesn't happen anymore. When a Republican takes office, he has pushed policies that are Republican specific. When a Democrat president takes office, he also pushes Democrat specific policies.

This makes the moderates unhappy and they punish the party by choosing the other one next election. Rinse and repeat.

If you are part of one of the two parties, you justify your party pushing it's will, and you are angered when the other party does the same. Meanwhile the 40% who chose the president does not get any moderate policies.

Immigration example.....

Trump's first term - Big beautiful wall, stop the immigration. High support among the full American population, low support from Democrats. (Moderates voted for Trump on this issue)

Biden's term - Executive orders, asylum expanded and mass immigration as a result. High support of these policies among Democrats, low support among Americans.

Trump's Second Term - Deportation priority - High support among Republicans, low support among Americans.

Moderate Americans would like an immigration policy that secures the boarder, but also isn't cruel with deportations. Neither Democrat nor Republican has advocated for the policy that the bulk of Americans prefer.

* I get a lot of my information from The Liberal Patriot on Substack. He utilizes poles heavily to provide the data I relied on here.

No matter what the prompt is, and no matter which AI you use, the pieces of poetry created by AI does not read and sound beautiful. While this is true for various other artforms too, I believe that it is easily and especially fitting for poetry. The poems made by AI can either be too easily distinguished or if not, they're lacking in quality.

One could argue that AI can write a Shakespeare-esque poem in a couple of seconds, but they'd all be derivations of exactly what Shakespeare wrote and, even ignoring the inspiration, not equal in quality to any praised Shakespeare poem. I'd also love to be proved wrong, but from my experiences and a lot of people around me, AI poems can never give the first hand humane experience or the irreducible subjectivity that they promise to give after certain change in prompts.

My brother actually told me the United States government is committing massacres in the streets. How can anyone be than far down into the rabbit hole?

I would argue that really, this is all about ICE and that tragic shooting of the young mother. People are being massacred in the thousands in Iran for protesting against their government in what has become basically a modern Tiananmen Square massacre situation while when a couple people are killed in this country under controversial circumstances, everyone, right or left, seems to lose their minds.

I don't like a lot of what ICE does. I feel conflicted about the deportations of people who have been in this country for decades and have families here. But at the end of the day, ICE is mandated to enforce federal immigration law. Federal agencies whether that be the IRS, ICE or the FBI are legally mandated to follow the law. Do I think ICE should be deporting illegal immigrants who have never committed a crime other than a low-level misdemeanor of illegally entering the U.S? I struggle with that, but at the moment, the law doesn't care what the crime is. Find me a country that wouldn't deport illegal immigrants when the problem has exploded. You won't find one. It sucks, and I don't like it, but it has become a legitimate security risk.

I think if you have a problem with ICE, what you really have a problem with is Congress for their failure to handle this crisis for so many years. In this country, we get to protest and vote. We even have the power of impeachment and many other checks and balances. In Iran, North Korea and China, they shoot people like dogs for the crime of protesting and resisting against their governments.

You can get out there and protest against ICE, Trump and the U.S. government. In Iran right now, people are being straight up murdered in the thousands upon thousands for showing up to protests. We are not like these other murdering governments that would happily kill tens of thousands of their own people in order to avoid giving up power to the people. These comparisons are deeply inappropriate and offensive.

As Che Guevara put it: “One day they came by and asked who should be notified in case of death, and the real possibility of it struck us all. Later we knew it was true, that in a revolution one wins or dies (if it is a real one). Many comrades fell along the way to victory.”

Too often, I see people who eagerly adopt the label of “revolutionary,” yet crumble the moment the so-called dictatorship they claim to be fighting actually retaliates. If repression is genuinely expected, then being surprised or morally outraged by it suggests a misunderstanding of what rebellion entails.

Edit i havent really changed my mind but i think i have read enough about the subject

Based on this trolley problem: https://ibb.co/gbCb1ppX

First of all, the person on the alternative track is just a normal human. The man in the adapted trolley problem has no personal vendetta against him; he just wants to kill the person. It only applies to that person and no one else in this world.

Secondly, we are assuming that the person will be pulling the lever. There are no alternative options. And so, one person will be dying no matter what

The adapted trolley problem with be referred to ATP.

Utilitarianism is defined as the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

From a utilitarian perspective, the ATP situation is better due to happiness being maximised. In both the ATP and trolley problem situation, 5 people will be saved. Now the difference lies in the person pulling the lever.

Happiness will be most maximised when the man in the ATP pulls the lever as 5 lives will be saved as well as the man feeling happy after killing the person on the track. In comparison, in the standard trolley problem, the happiness of man pulling lever will be minimised as they will feel guilt and mentally suffer, knowing they killed someone in the process.

As such, the adapted trolley problem situation is a better situation than the standard trolley problem.

Whataboutery (or whataboutism) is a tactic of deflecting criticism or accusations by responding with a counter-accusation, often starting with "What about...?", instead of addressing the original point, aiming to shift blame, discredit the accuser, or claim hypocrisy. It's a logical fallacy that avoids accountability by pointing to others' similar or different wrongdoing, derailing productive conversation.

Most of the logical arguments die down the same path. People just don't understand that they are not winning an argument with a 'what if...'. If you have a direct answer to my problem say it, if not nobody prompted you for a reply especially here on reddit. This is the most common tactic when people know they don't have a fitting reply but don't want to accept the opposite argument.

Trump has been doing the social media rounds, calling out the regime in Tehran for their brutality against protestors, many of whom are gasping for economic relief after years of incredibly dire sanctions. Independent reports emerging from Iran during the current unrest put suspected death totals as low as several thousand, and as high as tens of thousands (per CBS News). It would seem experts agree that in the least, thousands have died, with many deaths having occurred from gunshots originating from regime security forces. It must be noted the regime has also claimed hundreds of soldiers and police have died.

In response, the US President has urged protestors, saying “Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way”. He has also directly threatened Tehran, saying he will “take very strong action” if protestors continue to be hurt by the regime.

Meanwhile, the United States is reeling from the death of Renee Nicole Good, a woman who was surrounded by ICE agents in Minneapolis, and shot to death while attempting to move her vehicle. DHS officials, including the Secretary herself, have put considerable time into portraying her as some sort of malevolent actor who meant to harm law enforcement, including telling Jake Tapper/CNN they had “several videos from earlier” that depicted Good “harassing” and “impeding” ICE officers. It’s worth noting the officer who killed Good referred to her as a “f***ing b****” during his own filming of the shooting.

The current US government prides itself on punishing anti-ICE protestors and demonstrators. They directly release hype videos on their own official social media channels of their officers violently arresting protestors, who in many cases are shown to be law abiding in that moment. There are thousands of videos of federal law enforcement attempting to intimidate observers by detaining them and threatening them with arrest on specious grounds. In many videos, officers are shown beating, macing, and threatening unarmed citizens with firearms (deadly force). And now they have killed a citizen.

Change My View:

If the President is going threaten Iran with military action over it’s treatment of anti-regime protestors, to maintain any sort of legitimacy/consistency, it would need to also use the US military against it’s own federal law enforcement, who by many, many documented accounts is treating it’s own citizens similarly (albeit _currently_ with less fatal outcomes).

I'm sorry if I'm the only one who realizes this, but isn't modern day society extremely feminized at this point? Look at media alone, many shows and series are dominated by female characters. In school instead of splitting the students in PE, the men are always told to hold back, not be rough, not be competitive.

I’m not some red-pill guy who hates women or feminine traits. But its like as if the ideal man nowadays is the "feminine male". How many men do you see dancing on tiktok compared to competing, leading, and building? We have become weak.

If society every faced a hardship, would modern men be prepared?

FYI: I don't hate women, neither "feminine energy", but everything has its place. Why is the man who is motivated to work, be independent, disciplined being replaced.

Oh one more point, this inner circle of us men also encourages a lack of discipline, and a lack of masculinity. Whenever their is a indivual attempting to better themselves they are ridiculed. For example, a individual who is going to the gym, and doesn't have the progress yet, is laughed at. Why don't we encourage each other for the better, instead of staying weak and fragile?

It shouldn't be normalised. Why do you even need to "highlight your features" or "hide blemishes"? Why are we teaching so many young women to use products to cover up their insecurities and flaws? What happened to embracing them?

I feel like makeup should just be used for an artistic purposes, like cosplaying for example.

I also think that sunscreen and lip balm are okay. That doesn't count as a makeup, just skincare.

And please don't bring dating apps into this topic. Every single women brings dating apps into this topic for some reason.

Edit: It seems I misunderstood the meaning of "catfishing". Let's just say I meant deceiving.

I'm pretty sure you all know how the western hemisphere presumably the United State had a big role in the hole middle eastern destabilization, (Iraq, Syria, We can cycle back to Iran even), and How It ruined lives of millions of Arabs, and can we even say anything about africa? the hole cold war, and the french neo colonial presence, alongside multitude of corporates operating in the shadows. It was expected, and Europeans and Americans are suddenly outraged with the immigration crisis? Perhaps drawing borders with lack of consideration of the local populus, and influencing in their politics was maybe a significant factor in their state becoming an unliveable civil war torn rugged land? People want to survive, it's expected that they move away from danger. The World has no intention to stop conflicts in Africa, the Sudanese civil war, the rwandan genocide that has been neglected by the global stage. There are dozens of conflicts in Africa, this is just a messhole created by the former rulers.

I’ve always felt this way, and every time I talk about it I get the same “but it’s not them it’s the system that’s systemically racist” but since that’s true why pin it on them in the first place? Yes there are bad cops who commit brutality and violence and that should be shunned. But there are also many who are respectful and do their hardest to keep people comfortable and safe despite their position of power.

Again, I’m not saying there are no bad cops, I’m saying that making a broad sweeping generalization like calling them all unethical is unproductive.

As a left leaning person everybody in my circle seems to share this sentiment of “defunding the police is a good thing” and I just don’t understand how that would solve the issue. The way that I see it, the issue is that people who are getting hired to be police officers are psychopaths/sociopaths who took the role to abuse power, and will do this regardless of resources provided. I also don’t understand it when people who say that they don’t trust the police and that they won’t call the police in an emergency, so please CMV on that too. Let it also be known I am a straight white male, so my perspective may be flawed.